Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

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


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


dependency of solutions, to clarify effectiveness of LES fs 1  exp (7)
25
for unsteady vehicle underbody and wake flow fields.
where y+ is non-dimensional distance from the wall.
A CFD approach using LES with the standard Sma-
The governing equations are discretized based on the
gorinsky model is proposed for analysis of complex flow
unstructured vertex-based finite volume method. Sec-
fields, such as underbody and wake flows of the vehicle.
ond order accuracy central differencing is applied to the
The procedures proposed are inspections of solutions
spatial discretization except for convection terms, in
with coarse and fine grids, reconfirmation of energy
which 5% of the first order upwind scheme is blended for
spectrum, references to the similar experiments, expla-
computational stability. Second order Adams-Bashforth
nations of results obtained via CFD simulation.
scheme is adopted for time marching. Effects of the
upwind scheme in the computation are regarded small,
The procedures proposed are applied to the underbody as solutions do not change largely when mesh sizes are
flows with a semi-complex underbody configuration. changed.
Volvo V50 is used as exterior vehicle body, which has a
more complex configuration than the ASMO vehicle
Regarding boundary conditions, fixed velocity is im-
body. Effects of underbody configurations on interac-
posed on inlet boundary (with zero turbulence intensity)
tions of underbody and wake flows are shown.
and zero-gradient flow condition is imposed on outlet
boundary. Free-slip condition is imposed on the side
COMPUTATIONAL METHOD and ceiling of a rectangular parallelepiped computational
domain and also on upstream section of the ground floor
Governing equations adopted for LES computation in from vehicle front end in the case of ASMO vehicle body.
this study are spatially-filtered continuity and Navier- Solid wall condition is imposed on vehicle surface,
Stokes equations as shown below: ground floor in the vicinity of the vehicle, and down-
stream section of the ground floor (in the case of ASMO
wu i vehicle body) or entire ground floor (in the case of V50
0 (1)
wx i vehicle body).

wu i For the wall condition, viscous shear stress on the vehi-


w wP w
 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   (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.
where u i , p , Q and U are spatially-filtered velocity,
pressure, kinetic viscosity and density, respectively. The Note that computations for the standard k-epsilon model
last term on the right of Navier-Stokes equation (Eq. (2)) in the basic investigation in this paper are based on the
is the subgrid-scale (SGS) stress term to be modeled. description by Launder and Spalding [7]. Mesh system
The SGS eddy viscosity Q SGS is modeled based on the and boundary conditions are the same with those of LES.
TVD third order upwind scheme is applied to convection
Smagorinskys eddy viscosity model [5]: 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 (6) posed on inlet boundary. Dissipation rate, which is cal-
culated from the condition of turbulence Reynolds num-
where the model coefficient in Eq. (5) is given as ber Rt=500, is imposed on inlet boundary.
Cs=0.15 in this study, which is typically used for flows
around a rectangular cylinder. Eq. (6) shows spatial fil- The CFD code FrontFlow/red (FFr) ver. 2.7, which was
ter width, expressing one third power of the volume of developed at Inst. of Industrial Science, University of
vertex-based generic numerical element. The following Tokyo under the project of Revolutionary Simulation
Van-Driest type damping function is also adopted for the Software for Industrial Science, was used in this study.
solid wall treatment: 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 Figs. 5 (a) and (b) show pressure distribution on the
of SR11000 (scalar machine) at University of Tokyo and base surface of vehicle body on its center line cross sec-
Hokkaido University and on the Earth Simulator (vector tion (at y/B=0), respectively in the cases of LES and the
machine) of Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and standard k-epsilon model (KEM).
Technology (JAMSTEC).
Experimental data are also shown in Fig. 5 [3-4]. The
Parallel computations were performed using 16 CPUs experiment was performed using the 1/5 scale model
on SR11000 system and 256 CPUs on the Earth Simu- wind tunnel at Volvo Car [3]. Inlet velocity is 50 m/s and
lator. The former was used for computations of ASMO Reynolds number (based on vehicle width) is 9.56x105.
with smaller mesh size and those of V50, and the latter Effect of a difference in Reynolds number between com-
for those of ASMO with larger mesh size. Computer putation and experiment was checked to be small in
memories required were ca. 0.5 KB per element on the terms of pressure distribution in the case of grid M.
SR11000 system and ca. 6.2 KB per element on the
Earth Simulator. From Fig. 5, effects of mesh size on the solutions are
relatively small in the range of mesh size of 5.50-24.30
BASIC INVESTIGATION millions for both turbulence models. In the case of LES
even with mesh size of 1.3 million, center part of the
In the normal CFD practice, how to select a turbulence base pressure is similar to that with mesh size of 5.50-
model, how many mesh sizes should be used and how 24.30 millions. This means LES can reproduce center
to construct mesh system, especially near the wall, are part of the base pressure even with relatively small
practically very important processes. A good mesh gen- mesh size.
eration is time-consuming process, which needs a lot of
experiences. In this section, focusing on LES and the Sharp numerical values in the LES solutions are seen on
standard k-epsilon model, solutions are checked in the corner of vehicle body, e.g., at the end of roof. This
terms of grid dependency [8-9]. The former is gradually is due to lack of mesh density. They disappear by in-
getting attention as an unsteady turbulence model even creasing local mesh density or using prism mesh [10].
for flows with complex geometrical configuration in in-
dustrial applications and the latter is still dominant turbu- Note that pressure distribution on upper and lower sur-
lence model in the present vehicle aerodynamics. 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-
Vehicle model tested is 1/5 scale model of the European lions. Pressure distribution on the base surface is more
research vehicle model called ASMO (Aerodynamisches influenced by mesh size, needing finer mesh system
Studien Modell) with flat underbody configuration (see than upper and lower body surfaces.
Fig. 1). Mesh systems employed in this section are 3
types, i.e., grids S, M and L (see Fig. 2). They are re- Fig. 6 shows the relationship between pressure drag and
spectively 1.3 millions elements (0.23 millions vertices), mesh size in the cases of LES and the standard k-
5.5 millions (0.95 millions) and 24.3 millions (4.11 mil- epsilon model (KEM). The former is obtained by inte-
lions). Mesh systems are composed only by tetrahedral grating pressure distribution on the vehicle body surface.
elements. From the figure, although LES and KEM solutions show
still some grid dependency in the range of 5.50-24.30
Fig. 3 shows the rectangular parallelepiped computa- millions meshes, they are converging to a certain value
tional domain of (stream-wise) 15L x (side-wise) 7.5B x around mesh size of 24.30 millions, respectively. This
(vertical-wise) 4H, where L = vehicle length (0.81m), B = tendency is remarkable especially in the case of KEM.
vehicle width (0.29m), H = vehicle height (0.27m). For LES, another several 10 millions and more of mesh
Blockage ratio, i.e., ratio of side-wise cross-section of might be needed to be a grid-independent solution.
vehicle body and wind tunnel, is ca. 2.6%. Inlet velocity
is 50m/s and Reynolds number (based on vehicle width) It is a remarkable finding from Figs. 5 (a) and (b) that
is 7.97x105. Moving ground and rotating wheels LES of 24.30 millions mesh size reproduces the base
(MVG&RW) are not considered. pressure distribution, whereas KEM cannot realize it
even by increasing mesh size to 24.30 millions. LES
Non-dimensional distance from the wall of the grid point also well reproduces the pressure distribution in the dif-
adjacent to the wall (y+) was, e.g., 115.2 with the most fuser area of vehicle underbody than KEM (see Fig. 7).
dense mesh system (grid L). CPU times required were These findings are reconfirmed also by Fig. 8, where
20, 120 and 71.2 hours, respectively for mesh systems pressure distribution on the base surface away from
of grids S and M (on SR11000 system) and grid L (on center-line cross section (at y/B=0.345) is shown in the
the Earth Simulator). case of mesh size of 24.30 millions. The figure implies
that the pressure distribution even away from center-line
Approximately 90% of computational steps were used to cross section corresponds well to the experiment in LES
get time-averaged values of variables. Fig. 4 shows a than KEM.
typical time history of calculated aerodynamic drag coef-
ficient CD, e.g., in the case of mesh size of grid M. 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 LES APPROACH
boundary layer, except cases with separation in the
boundary layer, e.g., separation before the end of roof. For years, several evaluation methods or checking steps
Therefore, the fact above, i.e., pressure on the body sur- have been discussed regarding CFD simulation [13-14].
face is well reproduced by LES, means that outer flow Those are such as qualification in terms of physical
field around the vehicle is well reproduced, including the model employed (i.e., turbulence model for CFD), verifi-
wake behind the vehicle. In LES, large eddies are com- cation of computer code used (inc. numerical scheme)
puted by direct computation on grid-scale basis, by and validation of CFD results in terms of reality (i.e.,
which unsteady large eddies in the wake are captured. comparing with experimental data).
As a result, time-averaged pressure distribution on the
base surface is well reproduced. Thus, unsteady com- In the cases in which there are no experiments or in the
putation is found to be important to see the flow field cases in which high grid-density LES or DNS are not
around the vehicle. available, some practical CFD approaches or methods
are needed to evaluate CFD results obtained. Actually
Reproduction of the base pressure of vehicle body has in the early aerodynamic design stage of the vehicle
been regarded difficult for years [11]. The result via LES body, there are no corresponding experimental data. In
here implies that capturing unsteady flow field is essen- the course of digital design of vehicles, aerodynamicists
tial to reproduce the base pressure. Steady turbulence have to naturally evaluate aerodynamic performances of
model, such as the standard k-epsilon model, cannot a proposed vehicle model and to rate various vehicle
reproduce unsteady characteristics of the wake. Con- models without experiments. In this section, a LES ap-
sequently time-averaged pressure distribution on the proach with the standard Smagorinsky model is pro-
base surface is not realized. The computation here is posed in terms of how to evaluate such solutions for
limited to a simplified vehicle body with flat underbody, flows with complex geometrical configurations.
however, technological and industrial significance that
the base pressure is reproduced with LES using mesh A LES approach proposed here consists of two quantita-
size of 24.30 millions should be noted. Thus, usefulness tive and two qualitative stages, i.e.,
of LES was shown for evaluations of vehicle aerody-
namic performances. These findings might be qualita-  Stage 1: inspection of solutions with coarse and fine
tively valid even for other vehicle bodies, but more stud- meshes
ies might be needed for other cases, especially for the  Stage 2: checking energy spectrum of solutions
case with separation in the boundary layer (e.g., separa-
 Stage 3: references to previous experiences or the
tion before the end of roof, etc.).
similar vehicle body configurations
 Stage 4: explanations of results obtained via CFD
Figs. 9 (a) and (b) show velocity distribution in the wake
simulation
(at y/B=0), respectively in the cases of LES and the
standard k-epsilon model (KEM). Velocity is normalized
Stage 1: inspection of solutions with coarse and fine
by inlet velocity U0. In the figure, plotted are normalized
meshes - Theoretically a LES solution tends to approach
velocities at x/L=1.00 (position of 0 in the figure), 1.123
to exact solution (i.e., DNS solution) with increased
(position of 1), 1.247 (position of 2) and 1.370 (position
mesh sizes. Several solutions are compared with differ-
of 3), where x/L of 1.00 denotes the end of vehicle.
ent mesh sizes. Grid dependency of solutions is
From the figures, there is only a small difference be-
checked if solutions are to be converged toward a cer-
tween three meshes in the case of LES, except the vi-
tain value. An error of the solution in terms of mesh size
cinity of the wall, whereas there is a rather large differ-
can be estimated by comparing several results.
ence between 24.30 million and 1.30-5.50 millions in the
case of KEM, showing grid dependency.
Stage 2: checking energy spectrum of solutions - LES
with the standard Smagorinsky model is based on the
Fig. 10 shows velocity distribution in the wake in the
assumption that solutions are resolved at least with
cases of LES and KEM with mesh size of 24.30 millions.
scale of the inertial sub-range or with smaller scale,
There is a large difference between two models. The
where energy spectrum of the solutions is expressed by
reason for it stems from the fact whether unsteady char-
the Kolmogorovs 5/3 power law. Energy spectrum of
acteristics are captured or not, as in the case of the base
the solutions is checked if a LES solution is appropriate
pressure. In the case of backward facing step flow,
in terms of the Smagorinsky model based LES modeling,
there is almost no difference in time-averaged velocity
i.e., in terms of proper mesh size.
distribution between LES and KEM [12]. The results
here show that a large difference can exist even in time-
averaged characteristics, when unsteady characteristics Stage 3: references to previous experiences or the simi-
are dominant in the flow field. The experimental valida- lar vehicle body configurations - This is not so-called a
tions should be needed for this discussion. 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- is 30m/s and Reynolds number (based on vehicle width)
ment for a certain vehicle configuration, is applied to a is 3.6x106. CPU times required for semi-complex un-
non-validated vehicle configuration. Such process is derbody with fine mesh were ca. 500 hours on SR11000
also one of the referring processes described here. system.

Stage 4: explanations of results obtained via CFD simu- Inspection of solutions with coarse and fine meshes -
lations - There are several flow fields in the vehicle aero- Two LES solutions for the semi-complex underbody con-
dynamics, which have been understood qualitatively figuration were checked using coarse and fine mesh
from experiences for years, but their quantitative flow sizes in the case without moving ground & rotating
mechanisms are still not known due to difficulties of ex- wheel (MVG&RW) condition.
periments. Underbody flow or wake of the vehicle is one
of such examples. For such cases, if a CFD simulation Fig. 14 shows velocity distribution in the wake behind
can show the phenomena of interest not only qualita- the vehicle (at x/L=1.025), where x/L=1.0 denotes vehi-
tively but also quantitatively, such CFD result is judged cle end. Fig. 15 shows pressure distribution on the un-
as a useful information for the flow field design. derbody of the vehicle. From these figures, there are
almost no differences between coarse and fine meshes,
With considerations on these stages, new findings or showing a converging state of the solution with fine
new phenomena, which could not be noticed for years mesh.
due to difficulties of experiments, might be obtained via
CFD simulations. These are one of the targets at which Computation showed aerodynamic drag coefficient CD of
CFD simulations really aim. Hopefully, such new find- 0.330 for fine mesh and CD of 0.334 for coarse mesh
ings are to be validated later with detailed experiments, (see Table 1). A difference in CD between two meshes
high grid-density LES or DNS. is 0.004, which might be regarded as an error of the so-
lution when employing coarse mesh.
APPLICATION
Table 1 CD
The semi-complex underbody configuration [15] - In the CD mesh density
early stage of aerodynamic developments of vehicles, it 0.330 fine/non-MVG&RW
is necessary to evaluate and rank various exterior de- 0.334 coarse/non-MVG&RW
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- Checking energy spectrum of solutions - Fig. 16 shows
essary to develop a method that is reasonably fast and turbulence fluctuation energy of the grid-scale level in
robust, giving good results with enough accuracy. 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
According to experiences at Volvo Car, flat underbody
bumper, on underbody and after roof end, are shown.
configuration for such early analysis works quite ac-
From the figure, the -5/3 power law is relatively well re-
ceptably for sedan type of vehicles. However, when ap-
produced on these points. The -5/3 power law is also
plying it to station wagons or SUVs, it has been ob-
reproduced at other points, i.e., those behind rear tire
served that wrong conclusions might be obtained. A
and in the wake. These imply that the LES analysis in
simplified but reasonably complex underbody configura-
this computation is performed using a spatial mesh size
tion, corresponding to simple exterior vehicle body at
which can reproduce the similarity law of energy spec-
such early stage, should be pursed.
trum in the inertial sub-range. LES computation here
can be judged as an appropriate one as the standard
Vehicle model tested in this section is full-scale Volvo
Smagorinsky model based LES.
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 References to previous experiences or the similar vehi-
are imitated in this semi-complex underbody configura- cle body configurations - Table 2 shows CD for flat and
tion. Mesh sizes employed are 3 types, i.e., coarse and semi-complex underbody configurations in the case of
fine meshes for semi-complex underbody and fine mesh non-MVG&RW condition. From the table, CD for flat un-
for flat underbody. They are respectively 7.2 millions derbody is 0.294 and that for semi-complex underbody
elements (1.27 millions vertices), 23.3 millions (4.01 mil- 0.330 under non-MVG&RW condition.
lions) and 21.9 millions (3.77 millions). Mesh systems
are composed only by tetrahedral elements (see Fig. 12). Table 2 CD
CD underbody configuration
Fig. 13 shows the rectangular parallelepiped computa- 0.294 flat underbody/non-MVG&RW
tional domain of (stream-wise) 11L x (side-wise) 6H x 0.330 semi-complex under./non-MVG&RW
(vertical-wise) 7H, where L = vehicle length (4.6m), B =
vehicle width (1.8m), H = vehicle height (1.425m). There is a difference of 0.036 in CD between two con-
Blockage ratio, i.e., ratio of side-wise cross-section of figurations (i.e. between flat and semi-complex configu-
vehicle body and wind tunnel, is ca. 2.6%. Inlet velocity 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- quantitative aspects of the phenomena are not fully
figuration, for a certain sedan vehicle body [16]. That known due to difficulties of experiments. It is found that
vehicle body was, of course, a different from one used in quantitative descriptions of the flow field via LES are one
this section. However, considering that underbody is of the informative results of LES computation. Useful-
normally composed of the similar underbody elements, ness of LES for the flow fields with complex geometrical
CD-flr of 0.036 obtained for this configuration can be a configuration can be emphasized from these examples.
possible one as an underbody configuration, where
CD-flr is a difference in CD between flat and complex/ New findings from LES computations - Besides above
semi-complex underbody configurations. quantitative findings of the phenomena, new findings
can be shown for vehicle underbody flows. Those are
Table 3 CD-flr effects of underbody configuration and MVG&RW condi-
tion on the wake flows behind the vehicle.
CD-flr underbody configuration
0.045 experiment from Buchheim et al. Fig. 19 shows effects of underbody configuration on the
0.036 V50/semi-complex underbody base pressure distribution of vehicle body under non-
MVG&RW condition, where dotted line is that for flat un-
From Volvos experiences based on the experiments at derbody and solid line for semi-complex configuration
its wind tunnels and Pininfarinas wind tunnel, CD was (which is denoted by combination in the figure). The
estimated to be 0.299 for V50 with the fully detailed un- base pressure distribution is fully influenced by the un-
derbody configuration under MVG&RW condition, derbody configuration over the entire region. Pressure
whereas it was 0.327 for the semi-complex configuration distribution on the roof of the vehicle is almost not influ-
in this computation (see Table 4) [17]. Regarding effects enced by the underbody configuration, except areas
of MVG&RW condition, CD-mvg was estimated as near the roof end. Fig. 20 shows velocity distribution in
0.002, whereas it was 0.003 for the semi-complex con- the wake (at x/L=1.025). The velocity distribution is
figuration in this computation (see Table 5) [17]. largely influenced by the underbody configuration, corre-
sponding to the base pressure distribution changes.
CD-mvg is a difference in CD between MVG&RW and
non-MVG&RW conditions.
Fig. 21 shows effects of MVG&RW condition on velocity
distribution in the wake (at x/L=1.025). The velocity dis-
Table 4 CD
tribution is influenced by MVG&RW condition only in the
CD computation & estimation
vicinity of the ground floor. The base pressure distribu-
0.327 semi-complex under./MVG&RW tion is not influenced so much by MVG&RW condition.
0.299 Volvos estimation/MVG&RW
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-
Table 5 CD-mvg
ity in the main stream direction (shown by contour) in the
CD-mvg computation & estimation
case of semi-complex underbody without MVG&RW
0.003 semi-complex under./MVG&RW condition. Two large recirculation flows are seen and a
0.002 Volvos estimation/MVG&RW strong downwash exists between them. The down wash
in the vicinity of the ground floor is not weakened than
From these considerations, computational results in this the case of flat underbody, due to the decelerated flows
section are regarded acceptable, i.e., they exist in a rea- in the underbody.
sonable range of experiences and estimations. Thus, it
is shown that this semi-complex underbody configuration From these, it was made clear that base pressure of the
might be used effectively in early aerodynamic design vehicle body and wake flows behind it are largely influ-
stage. enced by underbody configuration, but they are not in-
fluenced so much by MVG&RW condition. Effects of
Explanations of results obtained via CFD simulation - Fig. MVG&RW condition are limited to the vicinity of the
17 shows velocity distribution in the underbody region in ground floor. Previously these interactions of underbody
the cases of flat and semi-complex (which is denoted by configurations and wake flows are not well discussed,
combination in the figure) underbodies. In the case of especially in terms of quantitative aspects. Hopefully,
semi-complex underbody, flow is decelerated in the un- these new findings will be validated with detailed ex-
derbody region due to flow resistances stemmed from periments, high grid-density LES or DNS in the future.
the underbody configuration.
CONCLUSION
Fig. 18 shows velocity distribution in the underbody re-
gion with and without MVG&RW conditions. In the case In this paper, a LES approach to the flow field with com-
of MVG&RW condition, flow is accelerated due to the plex geometrical configuration, to which detailed experi-
effects of moving ground and rotating wheels. Due to ments, high mesh-density LES or DNS cannot be appli-
the accelerated flow, pressure on the underbody is de- cable, was proposed.
creased. Although these phenomena have been ac-
knowledged among vehicle aerodynamicists for years,
Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Sunday, November 26, 2017

Firstly, basic investigations were performed focusing on valuable comments and supports on this study. Special
a simplified vehicle body ASMO. Comparisons were thanks should go to Tim Walker at Volvo Car, who pro-
made between LES and the standard k-epsilon model in vided the vehicle body configuration data and the related
terms of grid dependency of solutions. It was found that: experimental data, and also to Shouta Chatani formerly
at Hokkaido University, who made intensive computa-
1) LES with mesh size of 24.30 millions well repro- tional works. The comments and constructive criticism
duces pressure distribution on the vehicle body, of the reviewers improved the paper greatly.
whereas the standard k-epsilon model cannot real-
ize it even when increasing mesh size to a mesh REFERENCES
size level of 24.30 millions.
1. Kitoh, K., Kuthada, T., Oshima, N., Sebben, S. and
2) Capturing unsteady flow characteristics, especially Yamamoto, M., Aerodynamic design of the vehicle
that of the wake, is essential to understand the flow underbody: Reviews and several new computations,
field around the vehicle. LES can be an influential FISITA Paper F2006M046, 2006
tool to evaluate vehicle aerodynamics. 2. Elofsson, P. and Banister, M., Drag reduction
mechanism due to moving ground and wheel rota-
Secondly, a LES approach with the standard Smago- tion in passenger cars, SAE Paper 2002-01-0531,
risky model was proposed with the following procedures 2002
for analysis of flows with complex geometrical configura-
3. Aronson, D., Brahim, S.B. and Perzon, S., On the
tions. Those are:
underbody flow of a simplified estate, SAE Paper
2000-01-0485, 2000
 Stage 1: inspection of solutions with coarse and fine
4. Perzon, S. and Davidson, L., On transient modeling
meshes
of the flow around vehicles using the Reynolds
 Stage 2: checking energy spectrum of solutions
equation, ACFD 2000 Beijing, pp.720-729, 2000
 Stage 3: references to previous experiences or the 5. Smagorinsky, J., General circulation experiments
similar vehicle body configurations
with the primitive equations: Part 1 The basic ex-
 Stage 4: explanations of results obtained via CFD
periment, Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 91, No. 3,
simulation
pp.99-164, 1963
6. Inst. of Industrial Science, Univ. of Tokyo, Revolu-
These combined stages can check reliability of solutions
tionary simulation software FrontFlow/red, http://
obtained, especially without experiments. Through
www.rss21.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/
these stages, new findings or new phenomena, which
could not be noticed for years due to difficulties of ex- 7. Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B., The numerical
periments, might be obtained via these CFD simulations. computation of turbulent flow, Computer Methods in
They will also stimulate further investigations of the flow Ap-plied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 3, pp.
fields of interest via detailed experiments, DNS, etc. 260-289, 1974
These are one of the ultimate targets at which CFD 8. Kitoh, K., Tsubokura, M., Nakashima, T., Oshima, N.,
simulations really aim. Yamamoto, Zhang, H., M., Onishi, K. and Kobayashi,
T., Large-scale LES on the flow around a vehicle
Finally, the procedures above were applied to under- body Evaluation on grid dependency-, Trans. of
body flows with the semi-complex underbody configura- JSAE, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 297-303, 2007 (in Japa-
tion, using Volvo V50 as exterior vehicle body. This un- nese)
derbody was designed to be used in early design stage, 9. Tsubokura, M., Kitoh, K., Oshima, N., Zhang, H.,
imitating underbody elements such as exhaust pipe, fuel Onishi, K., Tominaga, T. and Kobayashi, T., High
tank, rear axle and spare tire storage. All stages of the performance LES on Earth Simulator: A challenge
LES approach proposed here were discussed and appli- for vehicle aerodynamics, FISITA 2006 Trans., Pa-
cability of the approach was shown for the semi-complex per F2006M111T, 2007
underbody configuration. Several new findings were 10. Tsubokura, M., Nakashima, Oshima, N., Kitoh, K.,
revealed as below: Zhang, H., Hori, K. and Kobayashi, T., Unstructured
large eddy simulation of flows around automobiles
3) Base pressure of the vehicle body and wake flow using high performance computing technique: A shift
behind it are largely influenced by underbody from steady to unsteady aerodynamics, ETMM-7,
configuration, but they are not influenced so much Paper N185, 2008
by MVG&RW condition. Effects of MVG&RW 11. Ramnefors, M., Bensryd, R., Holmberg, E. and Per-
condition are limited to the vicinity of the ground floor.
zon, S., Accuracy of drag prediction on cars using
CFD Effect of grid refinement and turbulence mod-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS els, SAE Paper 96081, 1996
12. Morinishi, Y. and Kobayashi, T., Large eddy simula-
The authors should express their sincere thanks to Prof. tion of backward facing step flow, Engineering Tur-
Makoto Tsubokura at Hokkaido University and Dr. Takuji
bulence Modeling and Experiments, 1990
Nakashima at Hiroshima University, who made a lot of
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)