P. 1
M12Mae Report - Hypermesh

M12Mae Report - Hypermesh

|Views: 26|Likes:
Published by Uday Shankar

More info:

Published by: Uday Shankar on Feb 23, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/03/2013

pdf

text

original

COURSE TITLE

M12MAE - Vehicle Structures and Aerodynamics

MOUDLE LEADERS
Mr. Christophe Bastien Mr. Essam Abo Serie

ASSIGNMENT SUBMITTED BY
AMER E S E TH ALAJMI AHMAD M R N AL RASHIDI KISHORE PADMANABHAN RAJESH RICHARDSON DAVID BHASKARAN UDAYSHANKAR ARUNACHALAM LAKSHMANAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................3 32................................................................................................3 TASK 1.........................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................4
Forces .....................................................................................................................4 Constraints.............................................................................................................. 4 Assumptions............................................................................................................ 4 STEPS INVOLVED IN ANALYSIS.................................................................................4 Trial 1...................................................................................................................... 6 Trial 2...................................................................................................................... 7 Trial 3...................................................................................................................... 9 Trial 4.................................................................................................................... 10 Trial 5.................................................................................................................... 12

3D CAD MODELLING....................................................................14 TASK 2.......................................................................................15 STYLING AND AERODYNAMICS.....................................................15
STEPS INVOLVED IN PERFORMING A WIND TUNNEL TESTING................................16 TEST WITH YAW ANGLE AS 0 DEGREE...................................................................17 TEST WITH YAW ANGLE AS 30 DEGREES...............................................................20 TEST WITH YAW ANGLE AS 15 DEGREES...............................................................24

COMPARISON AND DISCUSSIONS.................................................27 SOURCES OF ERROR IN A WIND TUNNEL.......................................28 CONCLUSION..............................................................................29

2

Few modifications were done to the front chassis to meet the design requirements. as these play an important role in the design of the chassis structure. The final structure was converted into a 3D CAD model using CATIA having the aerodynamic properties in mind. Many trials were carried out to meet the design targets. It is assumed that the load is transmitted directly to the suspension pickup points and the flex of the suspension is ignored. In the final trial the torsional stiffness of the chassis was found to be 1074 N. The normal mode frequency was 106.3 kg. 15. As far as the rear chassis structure is concerned. A wind tunnel test was performed for the designed Formula Car with different yaw angles like 0.5 Hz. It was found that the drag coefficient decreases as the yaw angle increased. The results were compared using the drag and lift plots.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The rear of the Formula student car was designed in Hypermesh given certain constraints and design criterion. This is mainly due to the front crosssectional area. It is also assumed that the boundary conditions at the pickup points will constraint all the translations. 32 3 . The chassis was designed bearing these constrictions in mind. The Formula Student team was contacted to know about the locations of the suspension pickup points. The entire analysis was performed to meet certain design targets such as the torsional stiffness. mass and normal mode frequency. and 30 degrees to analyze the flow pattern and pressure distribution around the vehicle.m/deg and the mass was 21. the engine and transmission package was of main importance. This was the best trial over all the other trials throughout the analysis.

3) at the rear end of the chassis and a single constraint on the front end having one Degree of Freedom (3). – One constraint is created at the front end of the structure having single degree of freedom (3). – The boundary conditions at the pickup points will constraint all the translations. The main aim of the analysis is to keep the displacement as minimum as possible to attain a torsional stiffness of more than 1000 N.2mm. STEPS INVOLVED IN ANALYSIS – The structure of the chassis is assigned with the material as steel and the Cross section type is a tube with an outer diameter of 25mm and thickness as 1. Forces – Two forces (tensile and compressive) each3000N acting on the front side of the chassis along the Z axis. – Three load collectors are created namely Boundary Conditions. and 3). 2. – – Assumptions – It is assumed that the load is transmitted directly to the suspensions pickup points and the flex of the suspension is ignored.2mm. The structure must respect the suspension pickup points. 4 . Forces and Frequency. Constraints – Two constraints having three Degrees of Freedom (1.TASK 1 INTRODUCTION The given front chassis was taken into CATIA and the initial structure of the rear chassis was designed having the engine and transmission package in mind and also the suspension pickup points. The structure must respect the engine and transmission package. Optistruct application was used to do the analysis. – Two constraints are created at the rear end of the structure having three degrees of freedom (1. This file was then taken into Hypermesh to perform the analysis on displacement and frequency. 2. The material used is steel tube with an outer diameter of 25mm and thickness of 1.m/deg and to keep the mass below 20 kg.

For the remaining tubes.m/deg First normal mode frequency > 70 Hz 5 . – While meshing each and every tube. Illustration showing the meshed structure with the created forces and constraints More than 100 trials were carried out to meet the design targets mentioned below: – – – Chassis weight < 20 kg Torsional stiffness > 1000 N.– Two forces (tensile and compressive) each of magnitude 3000N are created on the front end of the structure and these forces act on the Z direction. While configuring the elements. – A line mesh of the structure was created. – Two loadsteps are created namely bend and frequency to analyse the displacement and the frequency of the structure due to the forces. vector elements along the x-axis are chosen to mesh the tubes which are perpendicular to x-axis. auto element configuration is chosen. the property is assigned as steel tube.

The Torsional stiffness of the structure was calculated using this displacement and the applied force.01N. 6 .The decisive trials which brought about some important changes in the structure’s stiffness.3Hz which was above the required target. It was found to be 788.m/deg.41mm. Trial 1 The boundary conditions and the forces were given to the designed chassis structure and the Optistruct application was run. The output was analysed in Hyperview. mass and frequency are discussed below.7kg and the displacement along the dz direction was 2. The mass of the designed structure was found to be 22. The frequency of the first normal mode was 94. The torsional stiffness and the mass targets were not achieved during this trial which led to the other consecutive trials.

85Hz.m/deg.Trial 2 The mass and the stiffness of the structure attained in the previous trials were not meeting the design targets and the results of this trial were better than the previous attempts.65kg and the torsional stiffness was 876. The rear structure was modified so that the stiffness could improve. This trial showed some good improvements yet the design targets were not met. The frequency of the first normal mode was 93.76N. This was done by analysing the load path of the structure and the main aim was to transfer the load to the rear end of the chassis. The structure was designed in such a way that it does not affect the engine and transmission packages and also the suspension pickup points. Modifying the rear end showed some good improvement in the overall stiffness of the structure. After modifying the structure in Hypermesh. Optistruct was run to analyse the displacement. 7 . The mass was found to be 22.

8 .

m/deg. the main focus was to reduce the mass of the structure.15N. 9 . The displacement seemed to get distributed to the rear end of the chassis but not enough to meet the design targets. Yet. The mass of the structure after the modifications was 21.88 kg and the stiffness was 871.Trial 3 In this trial. the design target was not met. The frequency continued to meet the design targets. The cross members that were introduced in the front end of the chassis were modified and its effect on the displacement was analysed.

44N. The load path was analysed intensely and the structure was modified. the displacement was analysed. the stiffness of the structure was below the design target. After the design changes.Trial 4 In all the previous trials. 10 . However. The torsional stiffness of the structure was found to be 1024.52kg and was not meeting the targets which led to the other trials. Few frames which were not effective in contributing to the stiffness of the structure were removed and few frames were added in places where it could contribute to the stiffness.m/deg and met the design target and so as the normal mode frequency. the mass of the structure was 22.

11 .

12 . The frequency of the first normal mode was 106. In few trials the mass was reduced drastically but the stiffness started reducing and went below the design targets.m/deg.35 kg and the stiffness of the structure was 1076. This trial gave us the good combination of the mass and the stiffness of the structure and also the engine and transmission packaging constraints were met. trials were made to reduce the mass of the structure. At a certain point were the stiffness met the design target and also where the mass was as less as possible. The structure did not affect the suspension pick up points either. maintaining the stiffness of the same. The stiffness was found to be 21. the iterations were stopped.58N.Trial 5 After reaching the design targets for the torsional stiffness of the structure. It was understood from this trial.57HZ. that cross members are more effective and contribute more to the displacement than straight members.

13 .

The sketches represent the design of the car. It demands the body as a single entity. 2. The following options were used while modelling the Formula Student car: 1. 3. Part design under the Mechanical Design application.3D CAD MODELLING A 3D CAD modelling was designed for the Formula Student Chassis using CATIA. Sketches were drawn from different planes and were extruded. 14 . The Part design option was chosen for the surface modelling because of the demand from the CFD application. It was drawn in such a way that the car is aerodynamically good so as to get better results in Star CCM. Rib command was used to convert the lines into tubes of specified dimensions.

2m Width – 2.5m Height – 1. Aerodynamic improvements in wings are directed at generating downforce on the race car with a minimum of drag. The dimensions of the Formula car were: Length – 2. durable. Teams that plan on staying competitive use track testing and wind tunnels to develop the most efficient aerodynamic design.23mm Width (wheel to wheel) – 1. The efficient design of a chassis is based on a downforce/drag compromise.TASK 2 STYLING AND AERODYNAMICS Aerodynamic efficiency is the goal of all race car designers.02m Height – 1.07m The dimensions of the wind tunnel were: Length – 11. The ongoing challenge is to fine tune the airflow around these areas. The relationship between drag and downforce is especially important.3m 15 . • • • Front wing assembly Chassis Rear wing assembly The designed 3D CAD model was imported into Star Design to form a wind tunnel. Generating the necessary downforce is concentrated in three specific areas of the car. Downforce is necessary for maintaining speed through the corners. The focus of their efforts is on the aerodynamic forces of negative lift or downforce and drag. Unwanted drag which accompanies downforce will slow the car. A wind tunnel was formed based on the dimensions of the CAD model of the Formula Student car. It is the most important element in developing a competitive race car. Their main aim is to design and develop a race car that is safe. and competitive in different racing conditions. In addition the specific race circuit will place a different demand on the aerodynamic setup of the car. The total aerodynamic package of the race car is emphasized now more than ever before.

All the other faces of the wind tunnel are combined and assigned as a wall.The file was then imported into Star CCM to perform a wind tunnel test and therefore to analyse the flow pattern and the pressure distribution around the vehicle.  A new mesh model was created having the surface mesh type as surface remesher. equation of state as constant density.  A new physics model was created giving the space as three dimensional. reference velocity is 40m/s.0 kg/m3.  Two force co-efficient are created namely drag and lift.2m to obtain a refined mesh.  The method for analysing the turbulence specification is assumed as K + Epsilon and the method for analysing the velocity specification is assumed as components. flow as segregated flow. material as gas.  The reference density is 1. STEPS INVOLVED IN PERFORMING A WIND TUNNEL TESTING  The wind tunnel block was created in Star Design and was then imported to Star CCM to perform a new simulation with the boundary mode as one boundary per face and the region mode as one region for all bodies. The opposite face is assigned as the pressure outlet.  The simulation is run and the results are analysed. time as steady. viscous regime as turbulent and the Reynolds-Averaged Turbulence as K-Epsilon Turbulence.  It is assumed that the static pressure and the turbulence intensity are constant inside the wind tunnel and the velocity is assumed as 40m/s for the formula student car.  Drag and lift plots are then created to monitor the co-efficient of the Formula car.  The base size of the element was given as 0. volume mesh type as polyhedral mesher and the meshing model as prism layer mesher.  All the faces of the car were combined.  Volume mesh is done for the wind tunnel and the car. motion as stationary. 16 . reference area is the frontal cross sectional area of the car. The face of the wind tunnel to which the car is facing is assigned as the velocity inlet.

a.48m2. TEST WITH YAW ANGLE AS 0 DEGREE The wind tunnel was designed with the yaw angle as 0 in Star Design and was then imported into Star CCM.  The procedure is performed for different flow speeds and yaw angles like 0. Screenshot showing the meshed model 17 . The simulation steps were done and the flow pattern and pressure distribution around the vehicle was analysed. 15 and 30. Vector and scalar scenes are created to analyse different phenomenon of the car like absolute pressure distribution. velocity magnitude etc. The cross-sectional area of the front section was 0.

b. Drag Plot 18 . Residual plot c.

Vector Scene 19 . Scalar Scene e.d.

20 . The frontal cross-sectional area was 0.8 m2. Lift Plot TEST WITH YAW ANGLE AS 30 DEGREES The yaw angle was made as 30 degrees in Star Design. There was a change in the drag and lift coefficient of the formula car after the yaw angle was changed and so as the lift. This was made using the manipulate option in Star Design.f. This model was then taken into Star CCM and further simulation was performed.

Screenshot showing the meshed model b. Drag Plot 21 .a.

c. Residual Plot 22 . Lift Plot d.

Vector Plot 23 .e. Scalar Scene f.

66m2. The flow speed was maintained as 40m/s and the model was simulated. The frontal cross-sectional area was 0. The drag co-efficient was less when compared to the model that had the yaw angle as 0 degrees and more than that of the one which had the yaw angle as 30 degrees. The scalar and vector scenes were generated and the pressure distribution and air flow was analysed for all the models. Drag and lift plots were created and the results were analysed. Screenshot showing the meshed model b.TEST WITH YAW ANGLE AS 15 DEGREES The yaw angle was again changed into 15 degrees in Star Design and then taken into Star CCM. a. Residual Plot 24 .

Drag Plot d. Lift Plot 25 .c.

Vector Plot f.e. Scalar Plot 26 .

Any change made to the front of the car will affect the airflow moving toward the rear of the car. This in effect forces disturbed air away from the underbody tunnels.20 to 0.68 0.COMPARISON AND DISCUSSIONS It was found from the 3 different simulations of yaw angles that the drag co-efficient seemed to decrease as the yaw angle increased from 0 to 30 degrees. small adjustments are made to the front of the car. 27 .61 to 0.72 to 0. Small vertical wing sections mounted on the front wing assembly are used only on the street and road setups. The lowest drag can be achieved with elliptically shaped wing.23 The pressure distribution throughout the vehicle can be seen from the screenshots.25 to 0. The team engineer must consider how any change to the front of the car will impact the overall aerodynamic efficiency of the car. Turning vanes are used to deflect the turbulent flow wake away from the inside of the front wheels and front wing. Yaw angle (degrees) 0 15 30 Drag coefficient 0. engineers must consider what happens to the airflow as it travels toward the back of the car.74 Lift Coefficient 0.98 0.76 0.28 0. In setting up the front wing assembly.91 to 0. In an effort to clean up the disturbed airflow.70 to 0.

 The model was not a full-size tractor-trailer and so experimental results can.  The Reynolds number of the conditions in the wind tunnel may not have been high enough to completely reproduce normal conditions. the flow across the entire model was not as uniform as would have been ideal.  The method of measuring force relied on human interpretation and use.  The presence of the force measurer lever arm in the wind tunnel disrupted the flow and likely affected the resultant measurements of drag flow. As a result. This likely created excess drag that a full-size tractor trailer would not experience.  The model. any misjudgments directly affect the measured results.  The percentage of the wind tunnels cross sectional area that was occupied by the model was too high. In order to reach equivalent conditions as are found with full-size vehicles in normal conditions. the wind velocities used in model testing need to be incredible. This error is discussed in the results for the trailer height experiment. The conditions in the wind tunnel were proven to be acceptable for making comparisons and taking general measurements but were probably not sufficient for the results to be scalable and exactly applicable to vehicles in normal conditions. although scaled in size. at best. be considered to be directly related to the forces a full-size tractortrailer would experience but not precisely scalable. flat block but this likely did not fully deal with the issue. featured accessories that were oversized. The use of a scale model also adds a degree of inaccuracy overall as some aspects of the flow likely change slightly at the smaller scale. One would expect a more significant undercarriage air flow with a vehicle moving over a road rather than being placed in a wind tunnel. Consequently. The movement of the lever arm was probably affected and the flow of air over the model was probably also altered. 28 .SOURCES OF ERROR IN A WIND TUNNEL The sources of errors in wind tunnel measurements are:  The lack of a rolling road surface was partially addressed by placing the tractor-trailer model on an elevated. particularly when the trailer height was extended.

The flow pattern and the pressure distribution around the vehicle were also analyzed.3kg. The best design was obtained after a number of trials and the torsional stiffness of the designed chassis structure was 1076. 15. Star Design was used to design the wind tunnel and the wind tunnel test was performed in Star CCM with different yaw angles like 0. 29 .m/deg and the mass was 21. and 30 degrees. It was understood that the drag and the lift co-efficient seemed to decrease as the yaw angle increased.CONCLUSION A Formula car rear chassis was designed using CATIA and Hypermesh to meet certain design targets.m/deg and the first normal mode frequency to be more than 70Hz having the mass less than 20kg.5Hz. A 3D CAD modeling of the designed structure was done in CATIA having the aerodynamic factors in mind and the demand of Star CCM. The design targets demanded the torsional stiffness to be more than 1000 N.58 N. Having few design constraints like the engine and transmission packages and the suspension pickup points the structure was designed. The normal mode frequency was 106.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->