Development and Initial Testing of a Full-Scale DrivAer Generic Realistic Wind Tunnel Correlation and Calibration Model

James, Taryn; Krueger, Lothar; Lentzen, Manfred; Woodiga, Sudesh; Chalupa, Karel; Hupertz, Burkhard; Lewington, Neil

doi:10.4271/2018-01-0731

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since its creation in 2012 [7,8], the DrivAer model has become a popular test case for studies where a realistic vehicle is preferred to a simplified geometry, as commonly used for studies of the underlying aerodynamic fundamentals. The DrivAer has therefore found applications in CFD particularly for the validation of commercial code, and increasingly by Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM's) for more generic experimental work [7,8,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. However, because the model has a large number of variations, with three main rear end geometries, three cooling flow options, three under-body, two tyre and two wheel configurations, it is difficult to find two studies that use the same geometry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Data for the Validation of Numerical Methods: DrivAer Model

Varney

Passmore

Wittmeier

et al. 2020

Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the automotive industry strives to increase the amount of digital engineering in the product development process, cut costs and improve time to market, the need for high quality validation data has become a pressing requirement. While there is a substantial body of experimental work published in the literature, it is rarely accompanied by access to the data and a sufficient description of the test conditions for a high quality validation study. This paper addresses this by reporting on a comprehensive series of measurements for a 25% scale model of the DrivAer automotive test case. The paper reports on the measurement of the forces and moments, pressures and off body PIV measurements for three rear end body configurations, and summarises and compares the results. A detailed description of the test conditions and wind tunnel set up are included along with access to the full data set.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Data for the Validation of Numerical Methods: DrivAer Model

Varney

Passmore

Wittmeier

et al. 2020

Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although they investigated the notchback DrivAer model with a smooth underbody and ground simulation, they included the mirrors, which, according to the results of [4], can add more than 10 counts of drag to the overall vehicle drag coefficient. Additional detailed experimental results for full-scale models of the DrivAer body tested in several different wind tunnel facilities are provided by James et al [43]. However, the results presented by [43] for smooth-underbody configurations were obtained using static ground and not a moving belt system.…”

Section: Drag Coefficientmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additional detailed experimental results for full-scale models of the DrivAer body tested in several different wind tunnel facilities are provided by James et al [43]. However, the results presented by [43] for smooth-underbody configurations were obtained using static ground and not a moving belt system. Therefore, the aerodynamic drag simulated by the three meshes in the present study was compared to [4] for a notchback DrivAer model with moving wheels, a simplified underbody, and no side mirrors.…”

Section: Drag Coefficientmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collin et al [37] present inconsistent lift coefficient results for the notchback DrivAer model with mirrors, smooth underbody, and moving wheels for two wind tunnel facilities: TUM (Munich, Germany) (C L = -0.028) and Audi (Ingolstadt, Germany) (C L = 0.004). James et al [43] experimentally determined a lift coefficient of 0.031 for a notchback DrivAer model without mirrors, smooth underbody, and static ground.…”

Section: Lift Coefficientmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this equation, p is the pressure and p ∞ is the freestream pressure. Figure 7(a) shows the upperbody pressure coefficient compared to experimental data from [4] and [43]. James et al [43] conducted wind tunnel tests to determine surface pressure data for only a detailed underbody at three different locations: Monash University (Clayton, Australia), Tongji University (Shanghai, China), and PVT (Gothenburg, Sweden).…”

Section: Pressure Coefficientmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessment of conventional and air-jet wheel deflectors for drag reduction of the DrivAer model

Nabutola

Boetcher

2021

Adv. Aerodyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aerodynamic drag is a large resistance force to vehicle motion, particularly at highway speeds. Conventional wheel deflectors were designed to reduce the wheel drag and, consequently, the overall vehicle drag; however, they may actually be detrimental to vehicle aerodynamics in modern designs. In the present study, computational fluid dynamics simulations were conducted on the notchback DrivAer model—a simplified, yet realistic, open-source vehicle model that incorporates features of a modern passenger vehicle. Conventional and air-jet wheel deflectors upstream of the front wheels were introduced to assess the effect of underbody-flow deflection on the vehicle drag. Conventional wheel-deflector designs with varying heights were observed and compared to 45∘ and 90∘ air-jet wheel deflectors. The conventional wheel deflectors reduced wheel drag but resulted in an overall drag increase of up to 10%. For the cases studied, the 90∘ air jet did not reduce the overall drag compared to the baseline case; the 45∘ air jet presented drag benefits of up to 1.5% at 35 m/s and above. Compared to conventional wheel deflectors, air-jet wheel deflectors have the potential to reduce vehicle drag to a greater extent and present the benefit of being turned off at lower speeds when flow deflection is undesirable, thus improving efficiency and reducing emissions.

show abstract