264 vues

Transféré par Vyssion

Aerodynamic Drag of Engine-cooling Airflow With External Interference

- Are Anime Titties Aerodynamic
- 13A01408 Mechanics of Fluids
- Heat Transfer, External Forced Convection by DR. Mamun Lecture 2
- Aerodynamics of a Rocket
- Aerodynamics CFD Project
- rocket lab drag and resistance
- Moving Vehicle
- sucionbjbjkkj
- 20.IJMPERDAPR201720
- farnetticristofer-cfdlab4-report
- RGD25 Paper N763 Riabov
- Drag in Fore Body Wake
- Aerodynamic Drag
- Cavity Drag and Flow Oscillations
- Effect of Rear End Taper on Drag For
- The Effects of Lane Position in a Swimming Race (Cont)
- ADP LAB
- Race Car Unit 2
- Vehicle Aerodynamics P3
- Aero Nicolai

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

external interference

Jack Williams

Ford Motor Company

ABSTRACT

This report examines the aerodynamic drag and external interference of engine

cooling airflow. Much of the report is on inlet interference, a subject that has not been

discussed in automotive technical literature. It is called inlet spillage drag, a term

used in the aircraft industry for the change in inlet drag with engine airflow. The

analysis shows that reduction in inlet spillage drag from the closed front-end

reference condition, is one of the primary reasons why cooling drag measurements

are lower than expected from free stream momentum considerations. In general, free

stream momentum (or ram drag) is the upper limit and will generally overstate the

penalty. The proposed analytical expression for cooling drag helps the understanding

of experimental measurements, particularly the inlet and exit interferences.

1

INTRODUCTION

drag of the engine-cooling airflow. Cooling drag is defined as the increase in vehicle

drag from a closed front-end reference condition. It consists of two parts -- the

internal drag of the cooling airflow and the external interference to vehicle pressure

distribution, both at the inlet and at the exit. It is easy to measure cooling drag, but

experimental results from production vehicles are much lower (normally) than would

be expected from free stream momentum considerations. This suggests that

interferences to the external flow field and exit thrust recovery may be significant.

The integration of a cooling system into a vehicle interferes with the exterior pressure

distribution at both the inlet and the exit. They are unavoidable and are an integral

part of what is called cooling drag in the automotive industry. The drag is proportional

to free stream momentum of the radiator airflow -- sometimes called ram drag and

for a given airflow, the relationship depends on many factors.

The recent work by Barnard [1,2] provided the motivation for the analysis presented

in this report. He conducted several special experimental investigations into cooling

drag using a modified Ahmed model with internal ducting. The model had a low drag

forebody with little (if any) exterior separation, and exit locations underneath and in

the base region. As expected, recovering axial thrust in the base region reduced the

cooling drag penalty. However, the baseline configuration -- with a bottom-exit and no

momentum recovery -- had high cooling drag. This was a bit surprising and Barnard

mentioned it in his report. He noted that it was higher than reported by other authors

for typical automotive vehicles.

About the same time, this author was trying to understand some low cooling drag

measurements from a generic sedan with several inlet configurations. Since thrust

recovery from the exit flow underneath the engine compartment was considered

unlikely, the explanation was unknown. These measurements, along with Barnards

and Probe IV data from Santer and Gleason [3], are shown in Figure 1. The cooling

drag coefficient (based on radiator area) is plotted against cooling system resistance.

The disparity in drag for the same system resistance is likely due to external

interferences and exit thrust recovery.

0.70

upper limit

Modified Ahmed model

0.60

Generic sedan

Probe IV

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

modified Ahmed model, and Probe IV; unpowered fan

Many investigators have examined the issue of cooling drag and have offered

several theoretical and practical considerations. But, inlet interference has not been

explicitly mentioned and discussed. This report attempts to explain why production

vehicle cooling drag measurements are lower (normally) than the freestream

momentum drag of the radiator airflow. As will be shown, the interference to exterior

drag at the inlet is the principal answer to these questions.

PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS

systems. Renn and Gilhaus [4], Carr [5], Hoerner [6], Wiedemann [7], Soja [8],

Kuchermann & Weber [9], Hucho [10], and Ohshima [11] are some good references

on the subject. In general, lower cooling drag correlates with lower front lift and

yawing moment; this provides a positive benefit to vehicle stability, handling,

crosswind sensitivity and fuel economy. Carrs report is a very good discussion of

these influences.

Ohshima [11] and his associates conducted an excellent experimental analysis of the

influence of engine-bay panels and exit flow area on vehicle drag and cooling airflow.

They noted that higher velocities associated with smaller outlets tended to increase

underbody drag. This observation was derived from CFD total-pressure predictions of

the exit flow patterns. It is clear from their report that the exit flow process is very

diffusive and there is an interaction/interference with downstream underbody flow.

This can lead to an increase in drag by effectively canceling any exit thrust. The

authors did not answer the question of possible thrust recovery and underbody

interaction explicitly, but only indicated that there is some opportunity to reduce

vehicle drag with a properly designed panel and exit configuration.

3

It is easy to measure cooling drag, but it is very difficult to separate the internal and

external drag components. What follows here is an overview of an analytical

expression with empirical coefficients that helps the understanding of experimental

measurements. More details on the derivation are contained in the Appendix.

Cooling drag is defined as the increase in vehicle drag from a closed front-end

reference condition and it consists of two parts

o the x-momentum change of the internal airflow and

o the interference to exterior vehicle pressure distribution, both at the inlet

and at the exit.

From the x-momentum control volume in Figure 2, the cooling drag, normalized by

free stream dynamic pressure and radiator area (not vehicle frontal area), is

expressed in equation (1)1.

Dcooling

q0 Ar

+

q0 Ar

q0 Ar

q0 Ar

(1)

where is the exit inclination angle of the exhaust flow from horizontal. The first term

in (1) is the free stream momentum of the inlet airflow, called ram drag. The second

term is the interference to the exterior pressure distribution around the inlet; it is the

change in inlet spillage drag from the closed front-end reference condition. The third

term is the exit momentum recovery of the cooling airflow reduced by the increase in

downstream underbody drag.

For the control volume shown in Figure 2, where the flow exits underneath the engine

bay, the change in the (p6-p0)A6 force term is absent because the x-projected area is

zero. For the case where the flow exits to the base region, the x-projected area is not

zero and technically this term should be included. In this report however, we assume

the change in this pressure force is part of the exit momentum; then, the flow velocity

can be thought of as an effective velocity that represents the exit momentum flux.

free stream

inlet

exit

streamlines for a generic sedan

Incorporating equations (5 and 7)2 into (1), the analytical expression for cooling drag

with empirical coefficients becomes

Dcooling

q0 Ar

V

V

A

= (2ct ,inlet (1 + xm )) r + 2ct ,exit r cos r

A6

V0

V0

(2)

cooling system resistance and external interference. Note that the coefficient of the

non-linear term is negative, so cooling drag depends on how much exit thrust is

recovered. From equation (2), cooling drag is a function of the following parameters:

Cooling system resistance

Inlet thrust-recovery coefficient

Inlet flow leakage fraction

Exit thrust-recovery coefficient

Exit or "nozzle" area ratio

Inclination angle of the exit flow

Vr/V0

ct,inlet

xm

ct,exit

A6/Ar

Note, that for no leakage of the inlet flow (xm = 0), inviscid exterior flow around the

inlet (ct,inlet = 1) and no thrust recovery at the exit (ct,exit = 0), equation (2) becomes

2

Dcooling

q0 Ar

=2

Vr

V0

(3)

This is the ram drag of the cooling airflow and, since there is no leakage of the inlet

flow, it is the maximum value or upper limit for cooling drag.

term commonly used in the aircraft industry for the change in inlet drag with engine

airflow. It is a function of the momentum change in the streamtube approaching the

inlet, from free stream to the inlet entrance. The usual assumption by other

investigators, when developing analytical expressions for cooling drag, is to neglect

this momentum change -- which represents a theoretical pre-entry thrust force

(Kuchemann and Weber [9]; Seddon and Goldsmith [12]) -- and implicitly assume the

thrust force is generated in the external forebody pressure distribution. For inviscid

flow, this would be correct. Inlet spillage drag would be zero and there would be no

interference to cooling drag.

In reality however, external flow patterns around the front-end of automotive vehicles

are viscous and do have some separation, particularly on the underbody and tires.

Therefore, the pre-entry thrust force is not fully recovered and inlet spillage drag is

not zero. When the inlet is opened, the reduction in spillage drag is a favorable

interference that leads to lower cooling drag values.

To account for this in the cooling drag equation we define an empirical parameter

(ct,inlet) to represent the fraction of pre-entry momentum change that's actually

recovered as an exterior forebody thrust, and introduce a term called inlet spillage

drag.

Dinlet

V0

(4)

This equation describes the drag caused by the spillage or diversion of excess

approach flow, in a capture streamtube of area A1, which does not enter the inlet.

Equation (4) -- normalized by inlet area and free stream dynamic pressure -- is

plotted against inlet velocity ratio for various thrust-recovery fractions in Figure 2.

When the inlet is closed, the velocity ratio is 0 and spillage drag is a maximum. This

is the closed front-end reference condition for measuring cooling drag. When the inlet

is opened, the flow diverted around the inlet and the spillage drag are both reduced.

From (4), the change in inlet spillage drag is

Dinlet Dinlet ,

2

Dinlet

A V

closed

= (1 ct ,inlet ) 1 1 1 1

(5)

q0 Ar

q0 Ar

Ar V0

1.0

ct, inlet = 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

ct, inlet = 1

D inlet / (q 0A1)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

This is an expression for inlet interference to exterior drag when inlet velocity ratios

are less than 1.0. This is typically the case at higher road speeds where aerodynamic

drag is important to vehicle fuel economy. For forebody thrust coefficients less than 1

(i.e., viscous flows; cooling system installations characterized by some external

separation), note that equation (5) has a negative value and that this leads to a

reduction in cooling drag.

In inviscid flow, the momentum change in the approaching inlet airflow is observed as

an increase in exterior thrust on the forebody. Here, ct,inlet is 1 and the change in inlet

spillage drag (i.e., inlet interference) is 0.0. This would also be true (approximately)

for low-drag forebodies without exterior flow separation, like projectiles3 or low-drag

engine nacelles in commercial aircraft. These shapes also have ct,inlet values near 1

and will therefore have higher cooling drags. Barnard's measurements, to be

discussed later, illustrate this.

This is not the case for automotive vehicles, however. Exterior flow separation -frequently present on the bumper, hood, fenders, valance panel, underbody, air dam,

and tires -- inhibits development of the forebody thrust force. Under-bumper cooling

air dams, for example, have sharp corners that cause the flow to separate. Some of

the cooling drag is seen on the tires (Wiedemann [7]) due to changes in incidence

angle and flow separation from the tires. So, in general, the value of the forebody

thrust coefficient will be less than 1 and lower vehicle cooling drags will be measured.

The generic sedan measurements, to be discussed later, illustrate this.

See Hoerner [6], page 3-12, Figure 20, for forebody drag estimates of several cylindrical bodies. The

forebody drag of these shapes is near zero; some have thrust.

For the case where inlet interference dominates the relationship between cooling

drag and airflow, and there is no net recovery of exit momentum (ct,exit =0), equation

(2) becomes

Dcooling

q0 Ar

5

V

= 2ct ,inlet (1 + xm ) r

V0

(6)

leaving the engine bay is difficult. Flow visualization studies conducted some years

ago on the generic sedan by Williams, et al. [13] showed complicated and nonuniform underhood flow patterns. As illustrated in Figure 3, the cooling airflow leaving

the fan impacted the front face of the transverse engine and split into three paths.

Some airflow went over and around the engine and exited behind, just ahead of the

dash panel; the momentum of this flow was dissipated underhood. A fraction of the

fan airflow washed the lower half of the engine. A two-dimensional nozzle formed by

the engine oil pan and lower cross member vectored it aft; the fluid velocities were

judged high. The physical nozzle area here was estimated to be about 30% of the

radiator area and the flow angle was about 30 degrees from horizontal. The actual

momentum of this flow and the magnitude of the interaction with downstream

underbody drag were not measured.

In general, though, it is possible to theoretically approximate the exit momentum

shown in the third term of equation (1). As mentioned, we assume that the change to

the pressure-area term is absent because the x-projected area is zero. The exit

momentum term in (1) can be expressed as

q0 Ar

t ,exit

V

Ar

cos r

A6

V0

(7)

where ct,exit is the exit thrust coefficient. It includes the fraction of radiator airflow that

actually gets to the "nozzle" (A6) and the fraction of nozzle momentum that is not

cancelled by an increase in underbody drag. For example, if all the exit momentum is

cancelled by an increase in underbody drag, then ct,exit =0 and the net thrust from (7)

would be zero.

6

6.1

interference and several alternatives for exit thrust recovery.

Barnard investigated cooling drag using a modified Ahmed model with internal

ducting. The aircraft engine nacelle-like body had a low drag forebody, with little (if

any) exterior separation, and exit locations underneath and in the base region

(Figures 5 and 6). As expected, recovering some axial momentum underneath or in

the base region reduced the cooling drag penalty. However, for the baseline

configuration -- with a bottom-exit and no momentum recovery he measured a

relatively high cooling drag.

Figure 5 Ahmed model with revised underside outlet geometry giving a rearward

component of velocity (reprinted from Barnard; with permission)

arrangements and bottom exit (reprinted from Barnard; with permission)

Barnards data for the baseline (bottom exit and no momentum recovery), the bottom

exit with partial thrust recovery (Figure 5), and the rear exit to the base are listed in

Table I and plotted in Figure 7. The lines are from equation (2) using an effective exit

area ratio of 0.4 and inclination angles of 90, 45, and 0 degrees. The exterior flow

around the inlet is assumed to be fully attached: ct,inlet =1. Notice that when the exit

angle is at 90 degrees cooling drag is at the upper limit.

The half-blanking plate, which covered a portion of the bottom exit, increased system

resistance and reduced the cooling flow of his model. However, when the plate was

positioned at the front of the exit and the internal duct shape was revised, the

effective exit flow angle was reduced. The increased thrust reduced the drag. When

the rear outlet was used, not only did flow rate increase (due to the lower

backpressure), but drag was reduced (because of the increased thrust). This is an

example of increased cooling flow but lower cooling drag.

The likely explanation for the higher cooling drag of the baseline configuration is that

there is no interference at the inlet. Because the exterior flow is fully attached around

the forebody, the reduction in inlet spillage drag is zero and higher cooling drag

values should be expected.

Table I

Summary of Barnards Experimental Measurements (with permission)

Configuration Description

A6/Ar

Vr/Vo

Cooling

Drag

Coefficient

Baseline

Half blanking plate covering rear of exit

Half blanking plate covering front of exit

Exit to the base of the model

0.937

0.937

0.471

0.471

0.455

0.000

0.299

0.262

0.258

0.309

0.000

0.620

0.557

0.253

0.118

0.70

90 deg.

45 deg.

alpha = 0 deg.

Barnard data

0.60

Dcooling/(q0Ar)

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15 0.20

Vr/V0

0.25

0.30

0.35

Figure 7 Cooling drag for modified Ahmed Model and calculations from equation (2).

6.2

The Probe IV aerodynamic concept car is a cooling system installation with very low

cooling drag (Santer and Gleason). It is a good example of favorable interference at

the inlet and significant exit thrust recovery. As shown in Figure 8 the cooling

systems were installed in the rear quarter panels behind flush inlets and the flow

exited directly to the base region. The measured cooling drags are shown in Figure 9

for both powered and unpowered fan operation. The lines are from equation (2)4.

Although the exit thrust is the major benefit of this installation, the favorable

interference at the inlet also contributes to the low drag. Because the external flow

downstream of the inlet is completely separated, there is a reduction in inlet spillage

drag from the closed condition that leads to lower cooling drag: ct,inlet = 0.65. An

estimate for fully attached exterior flow is shown for reference: ct,inlet = 1.0. Notice that

powered fan operation increases the flow rate and lowers the cooling drag, slightly

negative in this case.

Exit area ratio is 0.4, the inclination angle is 0 degrees and the exit thrust coefficient is 1.0.

0.60

0.50

Dcooling /(q0Ar)

0.40

limit

ct, inlet = 1.0

ct, inlet = 0.65

0.30

Probe IV data

0.20

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

-0.10

Vr/V0

and calculations from equation (2)

6.3

with favorable interference at the inlet and a little thrust recovery. Background

information and some test details can be found in Williams [15]. The various tested

inlet configurations are illustrated in Figure 10.

The low cooling drag measurements from the generic sedan were a surprise. For

unpowered fan operation, they were much lower than the free stream momentum of

the cooling flow (see Figure 1). There was no leakage of the inlet flow; and, flow

momentum was allowed to dissipate in the underhood compartment and exit the

engine bay in the normal way. Figure 3, shown earlier, illustrates the underhood flow

pattern and the fact that some of the flow was vectored rearward. If this momentum

was not canceled by an increase in underbody drag, some thrust recovery should be

expected.

An examination of the test data from one inlet configuration helps answer the

question. Experimental drag and airflow measurements were made over a range of

wind speeds with powered and unpowered fan operation. A plot of cooling drag

versus system resistance (Vr/V0) for one configuration is shown in Figure 11.

A regression line through the data is also shown. Note that the curve has a convex

shape because the coefficient of the non-linear term is negative. This indicates that

there is some exit thrust present. By comparing the regression coefficients to

equation (2) the average inlet and exit thrust coefficients can be estimated:

o ct,inlet = 0.6

o ct,exit = 0.1

Although there is some small exit thrust recovery, there is a much greater influence at

the inlet. If it were absent, the cooling drag would have been much higher, as

indicated by the ct,inlet = 1 line in Figure 11. Inlet interference is the primary

explanation for the low cooling drag of the generic sedan.

0.80

0.70

0.60

upper limit

Configuration 220

ct, inlet = 1

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

2

y = -0.58x + 1.18x

2

R = 0.99

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

Vr/V0

Figure 11 Cooling drag for the generic sedan (inlet configuration 220)

and calculations from equation (2) 5

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis in this report shows that reduction in inlet spillage drag from the closed

front-end reference condition (i.e., the inlet interference to exterior drag), is one of the

primary reasons why cooling drag on the generic sedan was lower than expected

from free stream momentum considerations. Although not anticipated, a little thrust

was also recovered from the exit flow.

Vehicles with higher drag front-ends will have lower cooling drag values (for the same

airflow). The exterior flow structure around the vehicle forebody is partially separated,

and this will prevent full thrust recovery of the pre-entry momentum change. The

reduction in inlet spillage drag as the inlet is opened leads to a reduction in cooling

drag.

In general, ram drag (free stream momentum of the cooling airflow) as an estimate of

vehicle cooling drag is the upper limit and will generally overstate the penalty.

The analytical expression for cooling drag in this report is a good model that helps

the understanding of experimental measurements, particularly interference to

external drag at the inlet and exit. The empirical coefficients are a practical

representation of the interference effects.

Aerodynamic engineers should focus their vehicle product development efforts on the

open inlet shape, reducing vehicle drag and increasing ram airflow simultaneously.

Using radiator area, instead of vehicle frontal area, as the reference area for the

cooling drag coefficient makes cross-vehicle comparisons easier.

8

A

ct,inlet

ct,exit

D

Dinlet

Dub

m

p

q0

r

V

xm

=

=

alpha

TERMINOLOGY

area

pre-entry thrust-recovery fraction on forebody exterior

exit thrust coefficient

drag force

inlet spillage drag

underbody drag

mass flow rate

pressure

free stream dynamic pressure

correlation coefficient

flow velocity

inlet leakage flow normalized by radiator flow rate

total-momentum, mV + ( p p0 )A

exit-flow inclination angle

exit-flow inclination angle

Subscripts

I

net

r

0

1

6

9

internal

net; the internal momentum loss referenced to free stream

radiator

free stream

inlet entrance

engine-bay exit

CONTACT

Jack Williams

Ford Motor Company

Advanced Engineering Center

2400 Village Road, MD 68

Dearborn, MI 48121

Phone: (313) 322-3382

e-mail: jwillia3@ford.com

10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The author would like to acknowledge Dick Barnard for freely sharing his many

experimental investigations and technical analyses of the cooling drag problem. As

mentioned in this report, they helped prompt this work. Special thanks also to Pete

Kanefsky for his probing questions and insights on this subject over the years.

11

REFERENCES

drag due to automotive cooling systems, Proc Institute of Mechanical Engineers

Vol. 214 Part D. IMechE 2000

2 Barnard, R. H. and N. Ledakis, Physical modelling and optimization of radiator

cooling flow systems, Proc. 2nd MIRA Conference on Vehicle Aerodynamics,

October 1998.

3 Santer, Robert M. and Mark E. Gleason, "The Aerodynamic Development of the

Probe IV Advanced Concept Vehicle", SAE report 83100, June 1983

4 Renn, V. and A. Gilhaus, Aerodynamics of vehicle cooling systems, Proc. 6th

Colloquium on Industrial Aerodynamics and Road Vehicle Aerodynamics,

Fachhochschule, Aachen, 1985, pp. 303-311.

5 Carr, G. W., "The Influence of Engine-Cooling Airflow on Car performances and

Stability", IMechE Report C496/079, 1995

6 Hoerner S. F., Fluid Dynamic Drag, Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, P.O. Box 342,

Brick Town N. J. 08723, 1965, pp. 9-1 and 9-2.

7 Wiedemannn, Jochen, "The Influence of Ground Simulation and Wheel Rotation

on Aerodynamic Drag Optimization Potential for Reducing Fuel Consumption",

SAE report 960672, February 1996.

flow on road vehicles", Ingenieurs d'Automobile, September 1987, pp. 101-105.

9 Kuchemann, D. and J. Weber, Aerodynamics of Propulsion, McGraw-Hill

Company, 1953, pp. 59-65.

10 Hucho W-H., Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles, 4th ed., SAE International, 1998,

pp. 197-201.

11 Ohshima, T., K. Hamatani, M. Ninoyu, and K. Nakagawa, "Influence of the

cooling airflow outlet on the aerodynamic characteristics", JSAE Review 19

(1998) 137-142.

12 Seddon, J. and E. L. Goldsmith, Intake Aerodynamics, AIAA Education Series,

1985, pp. 217-220.

13 Williams, J. E., J. E. Hackett, J. W. Oler, and L. Hammer, "Water Flow

Simulation of Automotive Underhood Airflow Phenomena", SAE 910307,

February 1991.

14 Williams, Jack, Walt Oler, and Dinakara Karanth, "Cooling Inlet Aerodynamic

Performance and System Resistance", SAE report 2002-01-0256, March 2002.

15 Williams, Jack and Guru Vemaganti, "CFD Quality A Calibration Study for

Front-End Cooling Airflow", SAE 980039, February 1998.

12

from the entrance plane of the inlet to the exit underneath the engine bay (Figure 2).

For this control volume, which does not include any external interference, the internal

drag of the cooling airflow is equal to the loss in x-direction total-momentum of the

internal flow. This can be described by the following equation.

Dcooling = DI (1 6 cos )

(8)

where is the exit angle of the exhaust flow and

mV + ( p p0 )A is the total-momentum.

Because there are many possible inlet designs and configurations, it's difficult to

determine total-momentum at the inlet entrance. So industry practice is to use free

stream conditions as the reference. Here, the flow conditions are well known. This

representation is called net momentum loss of the cooling airflow and is defined as

the internal loss minus the momentum change in the pre-entry control volume, from

free stream to the inlet.

Dnet D I ( 1 0 ) = ( 0 6 cos )

(9)

The change in total-momentum in the pre-entry control volume represents a

theoretical thrust force, which is normally observed in the exterior pressure

distribution on the forebody of the vehicle. To account for this effect we define an

empirical parameter (ct,inlet) to represent the fraction of pre-entry momentum change

that's actually recovered as a forebody thrust and introduce a term called inlet

spillage drag.

Dinlet 1 ct ,inlet ( 1 0 )

(10)

As with the inlet, there is also interference to external drag downstream of the

engine-bay exit. To reflect this change in underbody drag, an extra term is added to

(8). The momentum control volume now extends from free stream to well behind the

vehicle. Using (9) and (10), equation (8) becomes

(11)

BY industry convention, cooling drag is measured as the change in vehicle drag from

a closed-inlet (or closed front-end) reference condition. From (11) the cooling drag is

Dcooling

q0 Ar

+

q0 Ar

q0 Ar

q0 Ar

(12)

The first term in the cooling drag equation (12) is the free stream momentum of the

cooling airflow, called ram drag. The second term is the interference to the exterior

pressure distribution around the inlet, the change in inlet spillage drag. The third term

is the exit momentum recovery of the cooling airflow reduced by the increase in

downstream underbody drag.

In many situations some of the inlet flow bypasses the radiator, i.e., there is leakage.

In this case the free stream momentum in the first term is expressed as

mV0

V

= 2(1 + xm ) r

(13)

q0 Ar

V0

m1

m1

and xm

where (1 + xm )

mr

mr , the leakage flow normalized by radiator flow rate.

From equation (5) the change in inlet spillage drag is

Dinlet Dinlet ,

2

A1 V1

Dinlet

closed

= (1 t ,inlet )

1 1

Ar V0

q0 Ar

q0 Ar

(14)

( 6 cos Dub ) = 2c

q0 Ar

t , exit

V

Ar

cos r

A6

V0

(15)

Dcooling

q0 Ar

V

A

V0

A6

V0

V0

ax2 (cooling drag coefficient versus cooling system resistance), the coefficient of the

linear term b in (16) can be determined from the slope of the curve at (0,0).

dy

= (2ax + b)x =0 = b

dx x =0

Vr V1 A1 1

x

=0

=

=

Since

V0 V0 Ar (1 + xm )

V1

= 0 and equation (16) becomes

this means that for all values of A1/Ar,

V0

Dcooling

q0 Ar

V

V

A

= (2ct ,inlet (1 + xm )) r + 2ct ,exit r cos r

A6

V0

V0

(17)

This is a dimensionless expression with empirical coefficients for the cooling drag

coefficient as a function of cooling system resistance. Note that the coefficient of the

non-linear term is negative so cooling drag depends on how much exit thrust is

recovered. Also, the effect of leakage of the inlet flow shows up as an increase in the

linear term.

- Are Anime Titties AerodynamicTransféré parDimitris F
- 13A01408 Mechanics of FluidsTransféré pararun
- Heat Transfer, External Forced Convection by DR. Mamun Lecture 2Transféré parKhaled Mosharraf Mukut
- Aerodynamics of a RocketTransféré parMaMLoOoOo7
- Aerodynamics CFD ProjectTransféré parBrehnden
- rocket lab drag and resistanceTransféré parapi-287342583
- Moving VehicleTransféré parKall Dill
- sucionbjbjkkjTransféré parkarthipriya
- 20.IJMPERDAPR201720Transféré parTJPRC Publications
- farnetticristofer-cfdlab4-reportTransféré parapi-273690515
- RGD25 Paper N763 RiabovTransféré parfaisalabidin
- Drag in Fore Body WakeTransféré parrstilzscribd
- Aerodynamic DragTransféré parKanishk Mehta
- Cavity Drag and Flow OscillationsTransféré parChris Han
- Effect of Rear End Taper on Drag ForTransféré parTharanga Devinda Jayathunga
- The Effects of Lane Position in a Swimming Race (Cont)Transféré parleonardocascallar
- ADP LABTransféré parrkgcr7
- Race Car Unit 2Transféré parmeetbalakumar
- Vehicle Aerodynamics P3Transféré parAghil Buddy
- Aero NicolaiTransféré parKevin Carvalho
- BHARTransféré parJagadesh Kumar
- Resistance & Propulsion (4) REVISI FIXTransféré parsibulet official
- NACA TN 3169 RoshkoTransféré pardickysilitonga
- Calm Water Performance of Hard-Chine Vessels inSemi-Planing and Planing RegimesTransféré parLuis Fernando Concha Figueroa
- Report 10Transféré parbalamurali s
- 7. Mech - IJMPERD -Numerical Study on Effect of - Tukaramappa_HadadiTransféré parTJPRC Publications
- Bartol Et Al 2009 Pulsed Jet Dynamics of Squid Hatchlings at Intermediate Reynolds NumbersTransféré parJonas Correa
- TE7103 AEFM SyllabusTransféré parSuseel Jai Krishnan
- 5Transféré parHarish Mathiazhahan
- The Motion of a Rigid Body Impelled by Sea-wave ImpactTransféré parastornauta

- Airfoils at Low SpeedsTransféré parTiago Crepaldi
- An Investigation on the Aerodynamics of a Symmetrical Airfoil in Ground EffectTransféré parVyssion
- B.C Kuo Solutions 1Transféré parsimply_tom
- Endurance Motor RacingTransféré parBasara Mladen
- A structure in the early Universe at z ∼ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmologyTransféré parVyssion
- Expermental Study of Open-Wheel Car Front WingsTransféré parVyssion
- Analysis of the Effects of Different Underbody Exhaust Geometries in the Car AerodynamicsTransféré parVyssion
- Diffuser Design for PACE Global Formula One RacerTransféré parVyssion
- An Angle of Attack Correction Scheme for the Design of Low Aspect Ratio Wings With EndplatesTransféré parVyssion
- A Comparison of RANS-Based Turbulence Modeling for Flow Over a Wall-Mounted Square CylinderTransféré parVyssion
- Effects of Rear Spoilers on Ground Vehicle Aerodynamic DragTransféré parVyssion
- Racing Simulation Tuning GuideTransféré parVyssion
- Effect of Oscillations on Airfoils in Close Proximity to the GroundTransféré parVyssion
- An Investigation Into Wing in Ground Effect Aerofoil GeometryTransféré parVyssion
- Essays on AerodynamicsTransféré parVyssion
- 散热器-Fluent_分析Transféré parJishinchina
- Calibration and Use of Internal Strain- Gage Balances With Application to Wind Tunnel TestingTransféré parVyssion
- Cranfield Team f1 - The Front WingTransféré parpremselva
- Design and Analysis of Vortex Generator for a HEV ModelTransféré parVyssion
- Comparison Study of Drag Prediction by Structured and Unstructured Mesh MethodTransféré parVyssion
- Can an F1 Car Drive Upside DownTransféré parVyssion
- Comparison of Ground-Plane Pressure Signatures for the Model and Full-Scale MIRA Reference CarTransféré parVyssion
- Computational Analysis of a Inverted Double-Element Airfoil in Ground EffectTransféré parVyssion
- Computational Investigation of a Race Car Wing With Vortex Generators in Ground EffectTransféré parVyssion
- Computational Analysis of Pressure and Wake Characteristics of an Aerofoil in Ground EffectTransféré parVyssion
- Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis on Race Car Scale Model Compared With Wind Tunnel TestsTransféré parVyssion
- Brake and Engine Cooling Flows Influences and InteractionsTransféré parVyssion
- CFX Optimization (Airfoil) ANSYSTransféré parVyssion
- Computational Fluid-dynamics Investigations of Vortex Generators for Flow-separation ControlTransféré parVyssion
- External AerodynamicsTransféré parBharath Dv

- Grade 7 BUDGET OF WORK IN ScienceTransféré parRaniel Alemania Lacuarin
- vibration presentation .pdfTransféré parZikireya79
- Statics FormulaTransféré parNurul'Ain Haniyun Mohamad Fodzi
- UAS PropellerTransféré parRusty_Iron_Works
- Physics.....Transféré parEvangeline Sison
- Chapter 01 - Basic Radio TheoryTransféré parRezwan Ahmed Khan
- saet5Transféré parnaefmubarak
- Em SpectrumTransféré parTatjana Zafiroska
- Report Magnus UrquhartTransféré parAnonymous RcmKrtnl
- Pedlosky_12.800_Ch7'06_9349Transféré parKedar Pai
- Gravitation Theory Part I1Transféré parAshok Pradhan
- IB Physics SL DefinitionsTransféré parVaggelis Ktns
- KinematicsTransféré pareamcetmaterials
- Preventing Pulsation ProblemTransféré parfathim1356
- satellite based tsunami and earthquake alert systemTransféré parSiva Krishna Reddy Nallamilli
- PHY 303K Test 4 SolutionsTransféré parbrunosipod
- Chapter_6_04.pdfTransféré parShoshAlmazroeui
- Chapter 3 Momentum EquationTransféré parFattihiEkhmal
- 2 Rigidity ModulusTransféré parM R Tarun Rameshkumar
- NewtonTransféré parImran Lukman
- Emil Falkner- Some Applications of the Lumineferous Ether TheoryTransféré parOppekee
- Final Mechanics Quiz Ppt 21 1 .11.09Transféré parAbhilash Daya
- maneuvering.pdfTransféré parmanoman14366451
- article.pdfTransféré parben sam
- Ad 2 - Unit Wise Question Paper and Model Question PaperTransféré parShoeb Ahmed Syed
- Baffled ChuteTransféré parabhishek5810
- Gravity gradient torque.pdfTransféré parHimanshuPrabhat
- I. G. Mariyenko, J. Strohaber and C. J. G. J. Uitenvaal- Creation of optical vortices in femtosecond pulsesTransféré parKonnasder
- AQA A2 Physics A chapter 4 textbook answersTransféré parcathylister
- Trajectory of a particle under a force; a computer demonstrationTransféré parAbhijit Kar Gupta