Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017

2009-01-0332

A CFD Approach via Large Eddy Simulation to the Flow Field

with Complex Geometrical Configurations:
A Study Case of Vehicle Underbody Flows

Kozo Kitoh
Kozo Kitoh Technology, Inc.

Nobuyuki Oshima
Hokkaido University

Makoto Yamamoto
Tokyo University of Science

Simone Sebben
Volvo Car Corporation

Copyright 2009 SAE International

ABSTRACT Analyzing underbody flows with complex geometrical

CFD is becoming an inevitable modern engineering tool
in the vehicle aerodynamics. A LES based CFD ap-
proach is proposed for analysis for flows with complex
geometrical configurations to which detailed experiments,
high grid-density LES or DNS cannot be applicable.
How CFD results should be evaluated for cases in which
the related experiments are not available. The proce-
dure proposed consists of four stages, i.e., inspections
of solutions with coarse and fine meshes, reconfirmation
of energy spectrum, references to the similar experi-
ments, explanations of results obtained. The proce-
dures are applied to the underbody flows with a semi-
complex underbody configuration.
INTRODUCTION
Aerodynamic drag reduction of vehicles is intensively
required in the vehicle design. To achieve it, beside
exterior body optimization, underbody flows are focused
and effects of wheel rotation on wake flows are being
investigated [1-2]. To know effects of underbody flows
on aerodynamic drag formation, it is naturally necessary
to investigate underbody and wake flow fields in depth.
configurations is not so simple even via present experi-
mental methods. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is
becoming an inevitable modern engineering tool in the
vehicle aerodynamic development process, however,
high grid-density large eddy simulation (LES) or direct
numerical simulation (DNS), which can resolve the
boundary layer near the wall, are presently still not
available. Some practical CFD methods or procedures
should be developed for flows with complex geometrical
configurations to which detailed experiments, high grid-
density LES or DNS cannot be applicable.
If these methods or procedures are developed, they can
be also useful, when estimating aerodynamic drag coef-
ficient (CD) of a newly proposed vehicle body and rating
several vehicle models in terms of CD in early aerody-
namic design stage of the vehicle body, because there
are no corresponding experimental data available at that
design stage.
In this paper, to begin with, basic CFD investigations are
carried out focusing on a simplified vehicle body, i.e.,
ASMO (Aerodynamisches Studien Modell) [3-4]. Com-
parisons are made between LES and the standard k-

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAEs peer review process under the supervision of the
session organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, me-
chanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE.
ISSN 0148-7191
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of
the paper.
SAE Customer Service: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org *9-2009-01-0332*
Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017
epsilon model, in terms of turbulence model and grid
dependency of solutions, to clarify effectiveness of LES
for unsteady vehicle underbody and wake flow fields.
A CFD approach using LES with the standard Sma-
gorinsky model is proposed for analysis of complex flow
fields, such as underbody and wake flows of the vehicle.
The procedures proposed are inspections of solutions
with coarse and fine grids, reconfirmation of energy
spectrum, references to the similar experiments, expla-
nations of results obtained via CFD simulation.
The procedures proposed are applied to the underbody
flows with a semi-complex underbody configuration.
Volvo V50 is used as exterior vehicle body, which has a
more complex configuration than the ASMO vehicle
body. Effects of underbody configurations on interac-
tions of underbody and wake flows are shown.
COMPUTATIONAL METHOD
Governing equations adopted for LES computation in
this study are spatially-filtered continuity and Navier-
Stokes equations as shown below:
wu i
0 (1)
wx i
wu i
w wP w
 y
fs 1  exp (7)
25
where y+ is non-dimensional distance from the wall.
The governing equations are discretized based on the
unstructured vertex-based finite volume method. Sec-
ond order accuracy central differencing is applied to the
spatial discretization except for convection terms, in
which 5% of the first order upwind scheme is blended for
computational stability. Second order Adams-Bashforth
scheme is adopted for time marching. Effects of the
upwind scheme in the computation are regarded small,
as solutions do not change largely when mesh sizes are
changed.
Regarding boundary conditions, fixed velocity is im-
posed on inlet boundary (with zero turbulence intensity)
and zero-gradient flow condition is imposed on outlet
boundary. Free-slip condition is imposed on the side
and ceiling of a rectangular parallelepiped computational
domain and also on upstream section of the ground floor
from vehicle front end in the case of ASMO vehicle body.
Solid wall condition is imposed on vehicle surface,
ground floor in the vicinity of the vehicle, and down-
stream section of the ground floor (in the case of ASMO
vehicle body) or entire ground floor (in the case of V50
vehicle body).
For the wall condition, viscous shear stress on the vehi-
 u iu j  2 Q  Q SGS S ij (2) cle body surface is estimated from the velocity at the
wt wx j wx i wx j nearest grid point from the wall by assuming the log-law
mean velocity profile, and is explicitly imposed on the
1 wu j wu i wall as the boundary condition. For the condition of
S ij  (3) moving ground and rotating wheels (MVG&RW), inlet
2 wx wx j
i flow velocity is imposed on the ground floor and also on
the surface of the wheel. Time increment is set to be
P 
p U  uiui  u i u i  3  
where u i , p , Q and U are spatially-filtered velocity,
pressure, kinetic viscosity and density, respectively. The
last term on the right of Navier-Stokes equation (Eq. (2))
is the subgrid-scale (SGS) stress term to be modeled.
The SGS eddy viscosity Q SGS is modeled based on the
Smagorinskys eddy viscosity model [5]:
(4) 2.0x10-6 and 2.0x10-5 for ASMO and V50, respectively.
Computational steps were 100,000 and 25,000-43,500
for ASMO and V50, respectively.
Note that computations for the standard k-epsilon model
in the basic investigation in this paper are based on the
description by Launder and Spalding [7]. Mesh system
and boundary conditions are the same with those of LES.
TVD third order upwind scheme is applied to convection
terms of momentum equation and central differencing for
other terms. First order Euler implicit method is used for
Q SGS C s f s ' 2 2 S ij S ij (5) time integration. Time increment is set to be 10-4. Con-
vergence condition for variables is 10-3. Turbulence,
which corresponds to 0.1% of the main stream, is im-
' ' x1' x 2 ' x3 1 3
where the model coefficient in Eq. (5) is given as
Cs=0.15 in this study, which is typically used for flows
around a rectangular cylinder. Eq. (6) shows spatial fil-
ter width, expressing one third power of the volume of
vertex-based generic numerical element. The following
Van-Driest type damping function is also adopted for the
solid wall treatment:
(6) posed on inlet boundary. Dissipation rate, which is cal-
culated from the condition of turbulence Reynolds num-
ber Rt=500, is imposed on inlet boundary.
The CFD code FrontFlow/red (FFr) ver. 2.7, which was
developed at Inst. of Industrial Science, University of
Tokyo under the project of Revolutionary Simulation
Software for Industrial Science, was used in this study.
The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT) supported the devel-
opment project [6].
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017
Computations were carried out on the computer systems
of SR11000 (scalar machine) at University of Tokyo and
Hokkaido University and on the Earth Simulator (vector
machine) of Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and
Technology (JAMSTEC).
Parallel computations were performed using 16 CPUs
on SR11000 system and 256 CPUs on the Earth Simu-
lator. The former was used for computations of ASMO
with smaller mesh size and those of V50, and the latter
for those of ASMO with larger mesh size. Computer
memories required were ca. 0.5 KB per element on the
SR11000 system and ca. 6.2 KB per element on the
Earth Simulator.
BASIC INVESTIGATION
In the normal CFD practice, how to select a turbulence
model, how many mesh sizes should be used and how
to construct mesh system, especially near the wall, are
practically very important processes. A good mesh gen-
eration is time-consuming process, which needs a lot of
experiences. In this section, focusing on LES and the
standard k-epsilon model, solutions are checked in
terms of grid dependency [8-9]. The former is gradually
getting attention as an unsteady turbulence model even
for flows with complex geometrical configuration in in-
dustrial applications and the latter is still dominant turbu-
lence model in the present vehicle aerodynamics.
Vehicle model tested is 1/5 scale model of the European
research vehicle model called ASMO (Aerodynamisches
Studien Modell) with flat underbody configuration (see
Fig. 1). Mesh systems employed in this section are 3
types, i.e., grids S, M and L (see Fig. 2). They are re-
spectively 1.3 millions elements (0.23 millions vertices),
5.5 millions (0.95 millions) and 24.3 millions (4.11 mil-
lions). Mesh systems are composed only by tetrahedral
elements.
Fig. 3 shows the rectangular parallelepiped computa-
tional domain of (stream-wise) 15L x (side-wise) 7.5B x
(vertical-wise) 4H, where L = vehicle length (0.81m), B =
vehicle width (0.29m), H = vehicle height (0.27m).
Blockage ratio, i.e., ratio of side-wise cross-section of
vehicle body and wind tunnel, is ca. 2.6%. Inlet velocity
is 50m/s and Reynolds number (based on vehicle width)
is 7.97x105. Moving ground and rotating wheels
(MVG&RW) are not considered.
Non-dimensional distance from the wall of the grid point
adjacent to the wall (y+) was, e.g., 115.2 with the most
dense mesh system (grid L). CPU times required were
20, 120 and 71.2 hours, respectively for mesh systems
of grids S and M (on SR11000 system) and grid L (on
the Earth Simulator).
Approximately 90% of computational steps were used to
get time-averaged values of variables. Fig. 4 shows a
typical time history of calculated aerodynamic drag coef-
ficient CD, e.g., in the case of mesh size of grid M.
Figs. 5 (a) and (b) show pressure distribution on the
base surface of vehicle body on its center line cross sec-
tion (at y/B=0), respectively in the cases of LES and the
standard k-epsilon model (KEM).
Experimental data are also shown in Fig. 5 [3-4]. The
experiment was performed using the 1/5 scale model
wind tunnel at Volvo Car [3]. Inlet velocity is 50 m/s and
Reynolds number (based on vehicle width) is 9.56x105.
Effect of a difference in Reynolds number between com-
putation and experiment was checked to be small in
terms of pressure distribution in the case of grid M.
From Fig. 5, effects of mesh size on the solutions are
relatively small in the range of mesh size of 5.50-24.30
millions for both turbulence models. In the case of LES
even with mesh size of 1.3 million, center part of the
base pressure is similar to that with mesh size of 5.50-
24.30 millions. This means LES can reproduce center
part of the base pressure even with relatively small
mesh size.
Sharp numerical values in the LES solutions are seen on
the corner of vehicle body, e.g., at the end of roof. This
is due to lack of mesh density. They disappear by in-
creasing local mesh density or using prism mesh [10].
Note that pressure distribution on upper and lower sur-
faces of the vehicle body is not so much influenced by
mesh size in the range of mesh size of 5.50-24.30 mil-
lions. Pressure distribution on the base surface is more
influenced by mesh size, needing finer mesh system
than upper and lower body surfaces.
Fig. 6 shows the relationship between pressure drag and
mesh size in the cases of LES and the standard k-
epsilon model (KEM). The former is obtained by inte-
grating pressure distribution on the vehicle body surface.
From the figure, although LES and KEM solutions show
still some grid dependency in the range of 5.50-24.30
millions meshes, they are converging to a certain value
around mesh size of 24.30 millions, respectively. This
tendency is remarkable especially in the case of KEM.
For LES, another several 10 millions and more of mesh
might be needed to be a grid-independent solution.
It is a remarkable finding from Figs. 5 (a) and (b) that
LES of 24.30 millions mesh size reproduces the base
pressure distribution, whereas KEM cannot realize it
even by increasing mesh size to 24.30 millions. LES
also well reproduces the pressure distribution in the dif-
fuser area of vehicle underbody than KEM (see Fig. 7).
These findings are reconfirmed also by Fig. 8, where
pressure distribution on the base surface away from
center-line cross section (at y/B=0.345) is shown in the
case of mesh size of 24.30 millions. The figure implies
that the pressure distribution even away from center-line
cross section corresponds well to the experiment in LES
than KEM.
Pressure is almost constant vertically to the wall in the
boundary layer. Pressure on the vehicle body surface
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017
depends on the state of outer flow field beyond the
boundary layer, except cases with separation in the
boundary layer, e.g., separation before the end of roof.
Therefore, the fact above, i.e., pressure on the body sur-
face is well reproduced by LES, means that outer flow
field around the vehicle is well reproduced, including the
wake behind the vehicle. In LES, large eddies are com-
puted by direct computation on grid-scale basis, by
which unsteady large eddies in the wake are captured.
As a result, time-averaged pressure distribution on the
base surface is well reproduced. Thus, unsteady com-
putation is found to be important to see the flow field
around the vehicle.
Reproduction of the base pressure of vehicle body has
been regarded difficult for years [11]. The result via LES
here implies that capturing unsteady flow field is essen-
tial to reproduce the base pressure. Steady turbulence
model, such as the standard k-epsilon model, cannot
reproduce unsteady characteristics of the wake. Con-
sequently time-averaged pressure distribution on the
base surface is not realized. The computation here is
limited to a simplified vehicle body with flat underbody,
however, technological and industrial significance that
the base pressure is reproduced with LES using mesh
size of 24.30 millions should be noted. Thus, usefulness
of LES was shown for evaluations of vehicle aerody-
namic performances. These findings might be qualita-
tively valid even for other vehicle bodies, but more stud-
ies might be needed for other cases, especially for the
case with separation in the boundary layer (e.g., separa-
tion before the end of roof, etc.).
Figs. 9 (a) and (b) show velocity distribution in the wake
(at y/B=0), respectively in the cases of LES and the
standard k-epsilon model (KEM). Velocity is normalized
by inlet velocity U0. In the figure, plotted are normalized
velocities at x/L=1.00 (position of 0 in the figure), 1.123
(position of 1), 1.247 (position of 2) and 1.370 (position
of 3), where x/L of 1.00 denotes the end of vehicle.
From the figures, there is only a small difference be-
tween three meshes in the case of LES, except the vi-
cinity of the wall, whereas there is a rather large differ-
ence between 24.30 million and 1.30-5.50 millions in the
case of KEM, showing grid dependency.
Fig. 10 shows velocity distribution in the wake in the
cases of LES and KEM with mesh size of 24.30 millions.
There is a large difference between two models. The
reason for it stems from the fact whether unsteady char-
acteristics are captured or not, as in the case of the base
pressure. In the case of backward facing step flow,
there is almost no difference in time-averaged velocity
distribution between LES and KEM [12]. The results
here show that a large difference can exist even in time-
averaged characteristics, when unsteady characteristics
are dominant in the flow field. The experimental valida-
tions should be needed for this discussion.
LES APPROACH
For years, several evaluation methods or checking steps
have been discussed regarding CFD simulation [13-14].
Those are such as qualification in terms of physical
model employed (i.e., turbulence model for CFD), verifi-
cation of computer code used (inc. numerical scheme)
and validation of CFD results in terms of reality (i.e.,
comparing with experimental data).
In the cases in which there are no experiments or in the
cases in which high grid-density LES or DNS are not
available, some practical CFD approaches or methods
are needed to evaluate CFD results obtained. Actually
in the early aerodynamic design stage of the vehicle
body, there are no corresponding experimental data. In
the course of digital design of vehicles, aerodynamicists
have to naturally evaluate aerodynamic performances of
a proposed vehicle model and to rate various vehicle
models without experiments. In this section, a LES ap-
proach with the standard Smagorinsky model is pro-
posed in terms of how to evaluate such solutions for
flows with complex geometrical configurations.
A LES approach proposed here consists of two quantita-
tive and two qualitative stages, i.e.,
 Stage 1: inspection of solutions with coarse and fine
meshes
 Stage 2: checking energy spectrum of solutions
 Stage 3: references to previous experiences or the
similar vehicle body configurations
 Stage 4: explanations of results obtained via CFD
simulation
Stage 1: inspection of solutions with coarse and fine
meshes - Theoretically a LES solution tends to approach
to exact solution (i.e., DNS solution) with increased
mesh sizes. Several solutions are compared with differ-
ent mesh sizes. Grid dependency of solutions is
checked if solutions are to be converged toward a cer-
tain value. An error of the solution in terms of mesh size
can be estimated by comparing several results.
Stage 2: checking energy spectrum of solutions - LES
with the standard Smagorinsky model is based on the
assumption that solutions are resolved at least with
scale of the inertial sub-range or with smaller scale,
where energy spectrum of the solutions is expressed by
the Kolmogorovs 5/3 power law. Energy spectrum of
the solutions is checked if a LES solution is appropriate
in terms of the Smagorinsky model based LES modeling,
i.e., in terms of proper mesh size.
Stage 3: references to previous experiences or the simi-
lar vehicle body configurations - This is not so-called a
validation process of CFD simulations, however, refer-
ring to the similar experiments yields good hints if CFD
results obtained exit in a proper range of estimation or
they are approaching in the right direction toward exact
solution. In the early vehicle design process, a CFD
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017
code, which shows a good agreement with the experi-
ment for a certain vehicle configuration, is applied to a
non-validated vehicle configuration. Such process is
also one of the referring processes described here.
Stage 4: explanations of results obtained via CFD simu-
lations - There are several flow fields in the vehicle aero-
dynamics, which have been understood qualitatively
from experiences for years, but their quantitative flow
mechanisms are still not known due to difficulties of ex-
periments. Underbody flow or wake of the vehicle is one
of such examples. For such cases, if a CFD simulation
can show the phenomena of interest not only qualita-
tively but also quantitatively, such CFD result is judged
as a useful information for the flow field design.
With considerations on these stages, new findings or
new phenomena, which could not be noticed for years
due to difficulties of experiments, might be obtained via
CFD simulations. These are one of the targets at which
CFD simulations really aim. Hopefully, such new find-
ings are to be validated later with detailed experiments,
high grid-density LES or DNS.
APPLICATION
The semi-complex underbody configuration [15] - In the
early stage of aerodynamic developments of vehicles, it
is necessary to evaluate and rank various exterior de-
sign proposals based on the aerodynamic performances.
In order to support stylists and give appropriate recom-
mendations for them based on CFD analyses, it is nec-
essary to develop a method that is reasonably fast and
robust, giving good results with enough accuracy.
According to experiences at Volvo Car, flat underbody
configuration for such early analysis works quite ac-
ceptably for sedan type of vehicles. However, when ap-
plying it to station wagons or SUVs, it has been ob-
served that wrong conclusions might be obtained. A
simplified but reasonably complex underbody configura-
tion, corresponding to simple exterior vehicle body at
such early stage, should be pursed.
Vehicle model tested in this section is full-scale Volvo
V50. The semi-complex configuration used as under-
body is shown in Fig. 11. Underbody elements such as
exhaust pipe, fuel tank, rear axle and spare tire storage
are imitated in this semi-complex underbody configura-
tion. Mesh sizes employed are 3 types, i.e., coarse and
fine meshes for semi-complex underbody and fine mesh
for flat underbody. They are respectively 7.2 millions
elements (1.27 millions vertices), 23.3 millions (4.01 mil-
lions) and 21.9 millions (3.77 millions). Mesh systems
are composed only by tetrahedral elements (see Fig. 12).
Fig. 13 shows the rectangular parallelepiped computa-
tional domain of (stream-wise) 11L x (side-wise) 6H x
(vertical-wise) 7H, where L = vehicle length (4.6m), B =
vehicle width (1.8m), H = vehicle height (1.425m).
Blockage ratio, i.e., ratio of side-wise cross-section of
vehicle body and wind tunnel, is ca. 2.6%. Inlet velocity
is 30m/s and Reynolds number (based on vehicle width)
is 3.6x106. CPU times required for semi-complex un-
derbody with fine mesh were ca. 500 hours on SR11000
system.
Inspection of solutions with coarse and fine meshes -
Two LES solutions for the semi-complex underbody con-
figuration were checked using coarse and fine mesh
sizes in the case without moving ground & rotating
wheel (MVG&RW) condition.
Fig. 14 shows velocity distribution in the wake behind
the vehicle (at x/L=1.025), where x/L=1.0 denotes vehi-
cle end. Fig. 15 shows pressure distribution on the un-
derbody of the vehicle. From these figures, there are
almost no differences between coarse and fine meshes,
showing a converging state of the solution with fine
mesh.
Computation showed aerodynamic drag coefficient CD of
0.330 for fine mesh and CD of 0.334 for coarse mesh
(see Table 1). A difference in CD between two meshes
is 0.004, which might be regarded as an error of the so-
lution when employing coarse mesh.
Table 1 CD
CD mesh density
0.330 fine/non-MVG&RW
0.334 coarse/non-MVG&RW
Checking energy spectrum of solutions - Fig. 16 shows
turbulence fluctuation energy of the grid-scale level in
the flow direction in the case without moving ground &
rotating wheel (MVG&RW) condition. Turbulence fluc-
tuations at several selected points, i.e., those behind
bumper, on underbody and after roof end, are shown.
From the figure, the -5/3 power law is relatively well re-
produced on these points. The -5/3 power law is also
reproduced at other points, i.e., those behind rear tire
and in the wake. These imply that the LES analysis in
this computation is performed using a spatial mesh size
which can reproduce the similarity law of energy spec-
trum in the inertial sub-range. LES computation here
can be judged as an appropriate one as the standard
Smagorinsky model based LES.
References to previous experiences or the similar vehi-
cle body configurations - Table 2 shows CD for flat and
semi-complex underbody configurations in the case of
non-MVG&RW condition. From the table, CD for flat un-
derbody is 0.294 and that for semi-complex underbody
0.330 under non-MVG&RW condition.
Table 2 CD
CD underbody configuration
0.294 flat underbody/non-MVG&RW
0.330 semi-complex under./non-MVG&RW
There is a difference of 0.036 in CD between two con-
figurations (i.e. between flat and semi-complex configu-
rations) (see Table 3). Buchheim et al. reported CD re-
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017
duction by 0.045, when using entire flat underbody con-
figuration, for a certain sedan vehicle body [16]. That
vehicle body was, of course, a different from one used in
this section. However, considering that underbody is
normally composed of the similar underbody elements,
CD-flr of 0.036 obtained for this configuration can be a
possible one as an underbody configuration, where
CD-flr is a difference in CD between flat and complex/
semi-complex underbody configurations.
Table 3 CD-flr
CD-flr underbody configuration
0.045 experiment from Buchheim et al.
0.036 V50/semi-complex underbody
From Volvos experiences based on the experiments at
its wind tunnels and Pininfarinas wind tunnel, CD was
estimated to be 0.299 for V50 with the fully detailed un-
derbody configuration under MVG&RW condition,
whereas it was 0.327 for the semi-complex configuration
in this computation (see Table 4) [17]. Regarding effects
of MVG&RW condition, CD-mvg was estimated as
0.002, whereas it was 0.003 for the semi-complex con-
figuration in this computation (see Table 5) [17].
CD-mvg is a difference in CD between MVG&RW and
non-MVG&RW conditions.
Table 4 CD
CD computation & estimation
0.327 semi-complex under./MVG&RW
0.299 Volvos estimation/MVG&RW
Table 5 CD-mvg
CD-mvg computation & estimation
0.003 semi-complex under./MVG&RW
0.002 Volvos estimation/MVG&RW
From these considerations, computational results in this
section are regarded acceptable, i.e., they exist in a rea-
sonable range of experiences and estimations. Thus, it
is shown that this semi-complex underbody configuration
might be used effectively in early aerodynamic design
stage.
Explanations of results obtained via CFD simulation - Fig.
17 shows velocity distribution in the underbody region in
the cases of flat and semi-complex (which is denoted by
combination in the figure) underbodies. In the case of
semi-complex underbody, flow is decelerated in the un-
derbody region due to flow resistances stemmed from
the underbody configuration.
Fig. 18 shows velocity distribution in the underbody re-
gion with and without MVG&RW conditions. In the case
of MVG&RW condition, flow is accelerated due to the
effects of moving ground and rotating wheels. Due to
the accelerated flow, pressure on the underbody is de-
creased. Although these phenomena have been ac-
knowledged among vehicle aerodynamicists for years,
quantitative aspects of the phenomena are not fully
known due to difficulties of experiments. It is found that
quantitative descriptions of the flow field via LES are one
of the informative results of LES computation. Useful-
ness of LES for the flow fields with complex geometrical
configuration can be emphasized from these examples.
New findings from LES computations - Besides above
quantitative findings of the phenomena, new findings
can be shown for vehicle underbody flows. Those are
effects of underbody configuration and MVG&RW condi-
tion on the wake flows behind the vehicle.
Fig. 19 shows effects of underbody configuration on the
base pressure distribution of vehicle body under non-
MVG&RW condition, where dotted line is that for flat un-
derbody and solid line for semi-complex configuration
(which is denoted by combination in the figure). The
base pressure distribution is fully influenced by the un-
derbody configuration over the entire region. Pressure
distribution on the roof of the vehicle is almost not influ-
enced by the underbody configuration, except areas
near the roof end. Fig. 20 shows velocity distribution in
the wake (at x/L=1.025). The velocity distribution is
largely influenced by the underbody configuration, corre-
sponding to the base pressure distribution changes.
Fig. 21 shows effects of MVG&RW condition on velocity
distribution in the wake (at x/L=1.025). The velocity dis-
tribution is influenced by MVG&RW condition only in the
vicinity of the ground floor. The base pressure distribu-
tion is not influenced so much by MVG&RW condition.
Fig. 22 shows the state of the wake flow drawn by veloc-
ity vector on the cross section (at x/L=1.025) and veloc-
ity in the main stream direction (shown by contour) in the
case of semi-complex underbody without MVG&RW
condition. Two large recirculation flows are seen and a
strong downwash exists between them. The down wash
in the vicinity of the ground floor is not weakened than
the case of flat underbody, due to the decelerated flows
in the underbody.
From these, it was made clear that base pressure of the
vehicle body and wake flows behind it are largely influ-
enced by underbody configuration, but they are not in-
fluenced so much by MVG&RW condition. Effects of
MVG&RW condition are limited to the vicinity of the
ground floor. Previously these interactions of underbody
configurations and wake flows are not well discussed,
especially in terms of quantitative aspects. Hopefully,
these new findings will be validated with detailed ex-
periments, high grid-density LES or DNS in the future.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, a LES approach to the flow field with com-
plex geometrical configuration, to which detailed experi-
ments, high mesh-density LES or DNS cannot be appli-
cable, was proposed.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017
Firstly, basic investigations were performed focusing on
a simplified vehicle body ASMO. Comparisons were
made between LES and the standard k-epsilon model in
terms of grid dependency of solutions. It was found that:
1) LES with mesh size of 24.30 millions well repro-
duces pressure distribution on the vehicle body,
whereas the standard k-epsilon model cannot real-
ize it even when increasing mesh size to a mesh
size level of 24.30 millions.
2) Capturing unsteady flow characteristics, especially
that of the wake, is essential to understand the flow
field around the vehicle. LES can be an influential
tool to evaluate vehicle aerodynamics.
Secondly, a LES approach with the standard Smago-
risky model was proposed with the following procedures
for analysis of flows with complex geometrical configura-
tions. Those are:
 Stage 1: inspection of solutions with coarse and fine
meshes
 Stage 2: checking energy spectrum of solutions
 Stage 3: references to previous experiences or the
similar vehicle body configurations
 Stage 4: explanations of results obtained via CFD
simulation
These combined stages can check reliability of solutions
obtained, especially without experiments. Through
these stages, new findings or new phenomena, which
could not be noticed for years due to difficulties of ex-
periments, might be obtained via these CFD simulations.
They will also stimulate further investigations of the flow
fields of interest via detailed experiments, DNS, etc.
These are one of the ultimate targets at which CFD
simulations really aim.
Finally, the procedures above were applied to under-
body flows with the semi-complex underbody configura-
tion, using Volvo V50 as exterior vehicle body. This un-
derbody was designed to be used in early design stage,
imitating underbody elements such as exhaust pipe, fuel
tank, rear axle and spare tire storage. All stages of the
LES approach proposed here were discussed and appli-
cability of the approach was shown for the semi-complex
underbody configuration. Several new findings were
revealed as below:
3) Base pressure of the vehicle body and wake flow
behind it are largely influenced by underbody
configuration, but they are not influenced so much
by MVG&RW condition. Effects of MVG&RW
condition are limited to the vicinity of the ground floor.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors should express their sincere thanks to Prof.
Makoto Tsubokura at Hokkaido University and Dr. Takuji
Nakashima at Hiroshima University, who made a lot of
valuable comments and supports on this study. Special
thanks should go to Tim Walker at Volvo Car, who pro-
vided the vehicle body configuration data and the related
experimental data, and also to Shouta Chatani formerly
at Hokkaido University, who made intensive computa-
tional works. The comments and constructive criticism
of the reviewers improved the paper greatly.
REFERENCES
1. Kitoh, K., Kuthada, T., Oshima, N., Sebben, S. and
Yamamoto, M., Aerodynamic design of the vehicle
underbody: Reviews and several new computations,
FISITA Paper F2006M046, 2006
2. Elofsson, P. and Banister, M., Drag reduction
mechanism due to moving ground and wheel rota-
tion in passenger cars, SAE Paper 2002-01-0531,
2002
3. Aronson, D., Brahim, S.B. and Perzon, S., On the
underbody flow of a simplified estate, SAE Paper
2000-01-0485, 2000
4. Perzon, S. and Davidson, L., On transient modeling
of the flow around vehicles using the Reynolds
equation, ACFD 2000 Beijing, pp.720-729, 2000
5. Smagorinsky, J., General circulation experiments
with the primitive equations: Part 1 The basic ex-
periment, Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 91, No. 3,
pp.99-164, 1963
6. Inst. of Industrial Science, Univ. of Tokyo, Revolu-
tionary simulation software FrontFlow/red, http://
www.rss21.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/
7. Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B., The numerical
computation of turbulent flow, Computer Methods in
Ap-plied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 3, pp.
260-289, 1974
8. Kitoh, K., Tsubokura, M., Nakashima, T., Oshima, N.,
Yamamoto, Zhang, H., M., Onishi, K. and Kobayashi,
T., Large-scale LES on the flow around a vehicle
body Evaluation on grid dependency-, Trans. of
JSAE, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 297-303, 2007 (in Japa-
nese)
9. Tsubokura, M., Kitoh, K., Oshima, N., Zhang, H.,
Onishi, K., Tominaga, T. and Kobayashi, T., High
performance LES on Earth Simulator: A challenge
for vehicle aerodynamics, FISITA 2006 Trans., Pa-
per F2006M111T, 2007
10. Tsubokura, M., Nakashima, Oshima, N., Kitoh, K.,
Zhang, H., Hori, K. and Kobayashi, T., Unstructured
large eddy simulation of flows around automobiles
using high performance computing technique: A shift
from steady to unsteady aerodynamics, ETMM-7,
Paper N185, 2008
11. Ramnefors, M., Bensryd, R., Holmberg, E. and Per-
zon, S., Accuracy of drag prediction on cars using
CFD Effect of grid refinement and turbulence mod-
els, SAE Paper 96081, 1996
12. Morinishi, Y. and Kobayashi, T., Large eddy simula-
tion of backward facing step flow, Engineering Tur-
bulence Modeling and Experiments, 1990
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017

13. AIAA, Guide for the verification and validation of

computational fluid dynamics simulations, AIAA G-
077-1998, 1998
14. Stern, F., Wilson, R.V., Coleman, H.W. and Pater-
son, E.G., Comprehensive approach to verification
and vali-dation of CFD simulations Part 1: Method-
ology and procedures, ASME J. Fluids Engineering,
Vo. 123, pp. 793-802, 2001
15. Kitoh, K., Chatani, S., Oshima, N., Nakashima, T.
and Sebben, S., Large eddy simulation on the un- FIG. 1 ASMO
derbody flows of the vehicle with semi-complex un-
derbody configuration, SAE Paper 2007-01-0103,
2007
16. Buchheim, R., Leie, B. and Lueckoff, H.-J., Der neue
Audi 100 Ein Beispiel fuer konsequente aerodyna-
mische Personenwagen-Entwicklung-, ATZ, Vol. 85,
pp. 419-425, 1983
17. Walker, T., private communication, 2006

CONTACT

Kozo Kitoh kozo-kitoh@cam.hi-ho.ne.jp

Nobuyuki Oshima oshima@eng.hokudai.ac.jp
Makoto Yamamoto yamamoto@rs.kagu.tus.ac.jp
Simone Sebben ssebben@volvocars.com

Fig. 2 Mesh systems (ASMO)

Fig. 3 Computational domain (ASMO)

Fig. 4 A typical time history of CD (ASMO, LES, grid M)

 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017

(a) LES Fig. 7 Effects of turbulence model

on pressure distribution (underbody, y/B=0)

(b) KEM

Fig. 5 Effects of mesh density on pressure distribution

(base surface, y/B=0)

(a) LES

Fig. 6 Relationship
between pressure drag and mesh size

(b) KEM

Fig. 9 Effects of mesh density on velocity distribution

(wake, y/B=0)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017

Fig. 8 Effects of turbulence model Fig. 12 Mesh systems (V50)

on pressure distribution (base surface, y/B=0.345)

Fig. 13 Computational domain (V50)

Fig. 10 Effects of turbulence model

on velocity distribution (wake, y/B=0)

Fig. 11 The semi-complex underbody configuration Fig. 14 Effects of mesh density on velocity distribution
(wake, x/L=1.025, y/B=0, non-MVG&RW)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017

Fig. 15 Effects of mesh density on pressure distribution Fig. 17 Effects of underbody configuration
(underbody, y/B=0, non-MVG&RW) on velocity distribution
(underbody, x/L=0.5, z/H=0.0432, non-MVG&RW)

Fig. 18 Effects of MVG&RW condition

on velocity distribution (underbody, x/L=0.5, z/H=0.0432)

Fig. 16 Spectrum analysis

Fig. 19 Effects of underbody configuration

on pressure distribution (base, y/B=0, non-MVG&RW)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017

Fig. 20 Effects of underbody configuration

on velocity distribution
(wake, x/L=1.025, y/B=0, non-MVG&RW)

Fig. 21 Effects of MVG&RW condition

on velocity distribution (wake, x/L=1.025, y/B=0)

Fig. 22 Velocity profile (U/U0 and v-w velocity vector;

wake, x/L=1.025, non-MRG&RW)