2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2019.104055
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inclusion of the physical wind tunnel in vehicle CFD simulations for improved prediction quality

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous research on the aerodynamic characteristics of car with the attitude change has primarily utilized quasi-static, 9 steady-state, or wind tunnel 10 test methods. The advantage of the experiment is that it can better reflect the reality, but it is difficult to achieve because of its great limitations and high cost.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous research on the aerodynamic characteristics of car with the attitude change has primarily utilized quasi-static, 9 steady-state, or wind tunnel 10 test methods. The advantage of the experiment is that it can better reflect the reality, but it is difficult to achieve because of its great limitations and high cost.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerical studies of ground vehicles are often performed in an open-road setting to simulate more realistic vehicle operation. While there is good agreement between wind tunnel experiments and numerical simulations for the drag coefficient, there are still disparities for the lift coefficient despite correction factors that account for blockage, ground effects, and wall effects [44]. A wide-range of lift coefficient values for other configurations of the notchback DrivAer model are seen in the experimental literature.…”
Section: Lift Coefficientmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…To ensure that reliable accuracy is achieved, it is investigated and compared against wind tunnel measurements for both the notchback and fastback DrivAer configurations for yaw angles up to 7 • . This to see if the SBES k − ω SST DSM model is an improvement compared to both DDES k − ω SST and IDDES k − ω SST, as these models have shown good correlation to measurements [93,94,95,96,97,98] and is stated as best practice for some commercial software's for automotive aerodynamic simulations.…”
Section: Reliable Accuracy: Hybrid Rans-les Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%