Steady Aeroelastic Response Prediction and Validation For Automobile Hoods

Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars: Mechanical Systems

Steady Aeroelastic Response Prediction and Validation for Automobile Hoods
--Manuscript Draft--
Manuscript Number: JPCM-2018-0004
Full Title: Steady Aeroelastic Response Prediction and Validation for Automobile Hoods
Short Title: Steady Aeroelastic Response Prediction and Validation for Automobile Hoods
Article Type: Original Article
Section/Category: JPCM101 Aerodynamics
Keywords: hood, aeroelasticity, fluid-structure interaction, computational fluid dynamics, wind

tunnel testing
Manuscript Classifications: Hoods; CAD, CAM, and CAE; Computational fluid dynamics; Computer simulation;
Wind tunnel tests; Aerodynamics
Corresponding Author: Jack McNamara

Ohio State University
UNITED STATES
Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:
Corresponding Author's Institution: Ohio State University
Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:
First Author: Justin Pesich
First Author Secondary Information:
Order of Authors: Justin Pesich
Jack McNamara
Austin Kimbrell
Peter Kang
Author Accepted Manuscript

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
06-11-04-0021
Steady Aeroelastic Response Prediction and Validation for Automobile Hoods
Abstract downforce during cornering maneuvers. Consequently, the vehicle

top speed was projected to improve by 1 kilometer per hour (kph).
Another study investigated the increase in drag due to a deformed
The pursuit of improved fuel economy through weight reduction,
chin spoiler [2]. STAR-CCM+ was used to carry out the coupled
reduced manufacturing costs, and improved crash safety can result in
analysis for both domains. The chin spoiler deflection was predicted
increased compliance in automobile structures. However, with
to increase the drag coefficient by 0.004, corresponding to a 0.15
compliance comes an increased susceptibility to aerodynamic and
mile per gallon decrease at 80 kph. The simulation results showed
vibratory loads. The hood in particular withstands considerable
reasonable agreement with test data. Gupta et al. [3] and Gaylard et
aerodynamic force at highway speeds, creating the potential for
al. [4] used an uncoupled approach to assess hood vibrations due to
significant aeroelastic response that may adversely impact customer
wake shedding of an upstream vehicle. Time-dependent pressure
satisfaction and perception of vehicle quality. This work seeks an
distributions on the trailing vehicle hood were predicted using the
improved understanding in computational and experimental study of
CFD software PowerFLOW. Subsequently, these pressure
fluid-structure interactions between automobile hoods and the
distributions were prescribed on an FEM model constructed with
surrounding internal and external flow. Computational analysis was
MSC Nastran. In some cases the wake shedding produced pressure
carried out using coupled CFD-FEM solvers with detailed models of
fluctuations with frequency spectra near the free vibration modes of
the automobile topology and structural components. The
the hood structure, naturally leading to relatively large vibratory
experimental work consisted of wind tunnel tests using a full-scale
response. No validation effort was conducted in either study. In [5],
production vehicle. Comparisons between numerical and
the steady aeroelastic response of a Jaguar XK8 convertible car roof
experimental results yielded important insights into required
was predicted by coupling of the CFD software STAR-CD to a third-
modeling fidelity, coupling, and challenges in validation for the
party FEM solver. The coupled results were within 20% of the
aeroelastic response of automobile hoods.
uncoupled response. No comparison to test data was given. Ramsay
et al. [6] predicted the static deflection of an automobile hood in an
Introduction uncoupled manner using unspecified CFD and FEM solvers. The
model did not include internal flow; however, pressure inlet/outlet
Automobile hood design is complicated by many weight reduction boundary conditions were used on the front fascia openings to model
efforts and often competing factors such as: pedestrian/crash safety, the resistance provided by the engine compartment. Results indicated
weight, durability, styling, aerodynamics, manufacturability, and less than a 10% difference between the prediction and experimental
cost. One important design feature is hood compliance, which must results for displacement measured at two locations. Also, it was
be appropriately balanced to meet the above objectives. However, the discovered that the externally mounted displacement measurement
impact of hood compliance is not easily handled in the early stages of devices exhibited flow induced vibrations, leading to noisy data.
design due to: 1) the potential for aeroelastic interactions; 2) tight
margins on allowable hood deflection, 3) the high cost of prototyping This study is motivated by the need for a better understanding on
and experimentation, and 4) the fact that sub-discipline modeling aeroelastic interactions of automobiles, and specifically aeroelastic
errors tend to aggregate in coupled systems. The second and fourth simulation of the hood. The goal is to assess the degree of aeroelastic
issues indicate that a high level of model detail may be needed, while coupling in a typical automotive hood, the importance of engine
the third issue indicates that computational capabilities are critical. compartment flow, and also model validation. This is carried out
Thus, the development and assessment of aeroelastic prediction tools, through systematic development of coupled CFD-FEM for simulation
and considerations for their application and validation, are important of the aeroelastic response of an automobile hood, and validated by
areas of study. comparison with experimental data for hood surface pressures and
deflections. Successful understanding of the steady-state solution will
Previous studies published on the general problem of automobile also enable confidence in pursuing unsteady aeroelastic predictions of
aeroelasticity are limited. One study focused on aeroelastic tailoring automobile hoods.
of an Indy car rear spoiler to reduce drag at high speeds and
maximize downforce at low speeds [1]. The analysis was carried out Experimental Setup
by coupling the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software
ANSYS Fluent and Finite Element Method (FEM) software MSC
Experimental results for this study were obtained in a single return
Nastran to solve the static structural response. The optimized spoiler
closed test section wind tunnel with a maximum wind speed of 320
obtained a 3% reduction in wing drag while maintaining the same

Page 1 of 10
kph. The dimensions of the test section are given in Table 1. The
tunnel is equipped with floor blowing, a feature where a slot in the
floor at the inlet of the test section inserts air at the equivalent
dynamic pressure of the mean flow to eliminate the boundary layer.
Floor blowing simulates an on-road aerodynamic environment and
was used in the experiment.
Table 1. Dimensions of Wind Tunnel Test Section.
Dimension Value (m)

Height 4.95
Width 7.09
Length 13.1
Transverse hood displacement and surface pressure measurements

were recorded on a full-scale vehicle at 100, 160, and 200 kph.
Displacement was recorded at three locations specified in Figure 1.
Externally mounted lasers were used to measure the hood
displacement, with an accuracy to within 5 microns. The lasers at Figure 3. Laser Fixture on Trailing Edge Midline (Point 3).
Points 1 and 2 were placed in an airfoil-type enclosure to mitigate
disturbances in the flow, and mounted on the fenders of the vehicle as Surface pressure was measured on five strips of probes as shown in
shown in Figure 2. The laser at Point 3 was suctioned to the Figure 4. Strips 2 – 5 consisted of 20 probes, while strip 1 consisted
windshield and held by a rigid fixture as shown in Figure 3. of 18. In addition, a pitot-static tube was affixed to the right mirror to
record a reference pressure in the flow, as shown in Figure 5. The
displacement and pressure data were taken separately so that the
presence of the lasers would not affect the surface pressure
measurements.
Figure 1. Displacement Measurement Locations.
Figure 4. Surface Pressure Probe Locations.
Figure 2. Laser Fixture on Driver’s Side Fender (Point 1).
Figure 5. Pitot-Static Tube for Reference Pressure.

Page 2 of 10
Modeling Description
Fluid Model
Vehicle Configurations
Three separate configurations of a production vehicle were

considered for the present study. The first configuration resembled
an initial design model or “styling” model. This configuration,
shown in Figure 6, neglected the internal flow through the front
fascia and had a simplified underbody and wheels. This vehicle
geometry is denoted as V1. The second configuration was a
“complete” vehicle model, which included all under-hood and
underbody components shown in Figure 7. The radiator and
condenser were modeled as porous media. This vehicle geometry is
denoted as V2. Because of an inability to obtain a coupled CFD-
FEM solution using the V2 model, a third configuration was
considered using a simplified engine compartment and underbody as Figure 8. V3 Model Geometry.
shown in Figure 8. As highlighted in Figure 9, the only under-hood
components retained were the radiator, condenser, front bumper
support, chin spoiler and under-hood structure. Furthermore, the
powertrain and exhaust systems were completely removed from the
underbody exposing the vehicle floor. This vehicle geometry is
denoted as V3.
As indicated, aeroelastic computations were not achievable with V2.

This was due to relatively poor grid quality around the complex
internal geometries that yielded negative volumes during grid
morphing. However, V2 provided the most accurate internal flow
modeling for estimating under-hood pressure. To properly account
for the effects of under-hood flow in the simplified models, the V2
model was used to provide a distributed pressure loading condition
during aeroelastic simulations of V1 and V3.
Figure 9. Isometric View of Remaining Under-Hood Boundaries in V3.
Fluid Domain and Boundary Conditions
The fluid domain was modeled by solving the Reynolds Averaged

Navier-Stokes Equations using STAR-CCM+. The realizable two-
layer k-epsilon turbulence model was used assuming incompressible
flow conditions. The boundary conditions and dimensions of the
domain are shown in Figures 10 and 11. The inlet and outlet
Figure 6. V1 Model Geometry. boundaries were specified as a velocity inlet and mass flow outlet,
respectively. A mass flow outlet specifies the percentage of mass
that flows through the boundary face, which for this setup was 100
percent. Using this boundary condition over the more traditional
pressure outlet allowed the specification of a reference gauge
pressure at a single (x,y,z) location to anchor the solution. This was
set to the average pressure measured by the probe positioned off the
passenger mirror in the experimental study shown in Figure 5. Note
that this value need not be freestream pressure. The top, bottom, and
side walls were specified as a slip wall boundary condition, while the
vehicle surface boundaries were set to no-slip walls. The cross
section of the fluid domain was set to match the size of the wind
tunnel facility so that the blockage ratios were identical. The inlet
and outlet were extended four and eight vehicle lengths from the
vehicle, respectively, so that the presence of these boundaries did not
affect the flow solution.
Figure 7. V2 Model Geometry.

Page 3 of 10
Figure 13. Side View of Volume Mesh on Planar Slice of Fluid Domain.
Figure 10. Fluid Domain Boundary Conditions and Dimensions, Front View.
Figure 14. Under-Hood Volume Mesh of Each Vehicle Configuration.
Table 2. Cell Count for Each Vehicle Configuration.

Figure 11. Fluid Domain Boundary Conditions and Dimensions (not to scale),
Side View. Vehicle Configuration Cell Count
V1 35 million
Mesh Generation
V2 86 million
A grid of the outer domain was created for each vehicle configuration V3 59 million
(V1, V2, V3) by surface wrapping to create a watertight geometry.
Body cutlines were modeled for configurations V2 and V3 and
ignored for V1. This implies that V2 and V3 consist of several Mesh convergence was analyzed at a freestream velocity of 200 kph.
watertight geometries where V1 is a single watertight geometry. This V2 was used to confirm mesh convergence since it contained the
was then followed by surface and volume meshing. Each boundary most complexity. The integrated lift force of the hood was used to
on the vehicle had a surface size ranging from 2.5 – 10 millimeters determine convergence where percent error was measured against the
(mm) depending on the geometric complexity and location of the finest grid. Results of the study are summarized in Table 3. The
part. The volume mesh was composed of two types of cells: prism medium grid is considered converged with a percent error of 1.26%
layers and trimmed cells. Prism layers are the first cells off the wall and was selected as the best balance between accuracy and modeling
used to capture the boundary layer. The first cell height was resources.
calculated so that the wall y+ values fell within the log-law range (30
< y+ < 300). Three rectangular zones were created to locally refine Table 3. Summary of Grid Convergence Study.
the mesh around the vehicle. The cell sizes of the zones, as shown in
Figure 12, were 10, 20 and 40 mm. A nearfield top view of the floor
Hood Lift
and a planar slice (y = 0) in the streamwise direction are provided in Grid Cell Count % Error
(Newtons)
Figures 12 and 13, respectively. Planar slices of the computational
domain through the engine compartment for each vehicle Coarse 60M 248.3 4.87
configuration are shown in Figure 14. The under-hood region was Medium 86M 257.7 1.26
captured within the 10 mm refinement zone, and the grid size was Fine 105M 261 -
reduced closer to the vehicle surface to capture the boundary layer.
The total cell count for each configuration is presented in Table 2.
Structural Model
The structural model was solved using the commercial FEM software
Abaqus Standard. The model consists of an assembly of several
structural components and accounted for geomteric nonlinearity.
Each component, material, mesh size and element type is listed in
Table 4. The mesh size for each component was 4 mm. All materials
were linear and modeled using shell elements. The structural
assembly is shown in Figure 15. The frame is the load-bearing
component of the hood structure and is attached to the skin by a
mastic material; the latch and hinges are bolted to the frame and
attach to the surrounding vehicle structure. In the structural model,
the mastic interaction with the skin and the frame was solved as a
contact problem using the penalty method. A depiction of the
Figure 12. Top View of Volume Mesh on Floor of Fluid Domain.
boundary conditions for the latch and hinges is shown in Fig. 16;

Page 4 of 10
both were constrained in translation, but were free to rotate about any
axis.
Table 4. Hood Structural Components.
Component Material Mesh Size Element Type

Skin Aluminum 4 mm Shell
Frame Aluminum 4 mm Shell
Hinge Steel 4 mm Shell
Latch Steel 4 mm Shell
Figure 17. FSI Simulation Workflow.
As noted earlier, one of the challenging aspects of aeroelastic

simulation is morphing the CFD grid to accommodate structural
deformation. This is a challenge for complex topologies with
associated poor cell quality, as well as two structures in close
proximity to each other, both of which are susceptible to the
appearance of negative volumes during mesh deformation. For this
work, the engine compartment mesh for configuration V2
experienced negative volumes during aeroelastic simulation.
Figure 15. Hood Structural Assembly.
Furthermore, the hood skin and frame were close in proximity, and
morphing these boundaries simultaneously lead to the appearance of
negative volumes. The mesh resolution required to morph both
components simultaneously was impractical for simulation within the
confines of the study duration; as a result, the coupling procedure
described herein was only applied to configurations V1 and V3 with
the hood skin as the lone boundary deformed.
Results
Comparison Between Numerical and Experimental

Figure 16. Structural Model Boundary Conditions. Results
Coupling Procedure Experimental and numerical results were obtained for operating
speeds of 100, 160, and 200 kph. Fluid properties in the simulation
were specified to be consistent with that of the experiment.
STAR-CCM+ and Abaqus use a native co-simulation engine (CSE) Configuration V3 was used to compute the FSI baseline prediction.
to couple the domains. The CSE uses a loosely coupled partitioned The steady-state internal pressure distribution of V2 was mapped to
approach where the fluid and structure are solved on separate solvers the underside of the hood skin, and the top and bottom of the hood
and coupled through an exchange of boundary conditions at the frame. The static pressure contours are shown in Figure 18, and
interface of the domains. The partitioned fluid-structure interaction indicate that the skin bottom and frame top essentially have constant,
(FSI) workflow is depicted in Figure 17. The fluid equations are low-magnitude negative pressure distributions. The frame bottom is
initially solved to determine the static pressure. The resulting fluid predominately negative, excluding positive pressure regions near the
load is then mapped onto the FEM mesh. The structural equations cowl top and engine cooling aperture (flow stagnation zones).
are solved, and the resulting displacement field is mapped to the CFD
mesh. The CFD mesh is morphed according to the computed
displacement field, and the process is repeated. In this study, the
process was iterated until the steady aeroelastic response was
achieved, where convergence was defined by a change of less than
0.001 mm between successive time steps of the displacement at the
measurement locations. Despite the fact that the problem considered
is steady-state in nature, the CSE is implemented by STAR-CCM+ in
time-accurate mode. Thus the steady-state aeroelastic response was
computed using a time step of 0.1 seconds. Convergence to the
steady-state solution was accelerated by implementing critical
Figure 18. Steady-State Internal Pressure Distribution of V2.
Rayleigh damping. The steady-state flow solution of the rigid vehicle
was used as the initial condition to the coupled simulation.

Page 5 of 10
Comparisons of the hood surface pressure are shown in Figures 19 –

24. Pressure data along strips 1 and 4 are shown in each figure for 150
the experimental values, FSI predicted values, and rigid hood Experiment
prediction, at each speed. The CFD derived pressures from the FSI 100 FSI Prediction
prediction and rigid hood cases are nearly identical, indicating that Rigid CFD
Static Pressure [Pa]

the pressure at the measured locations is not strongly sensitive to 50
fluid-structural coupling. The simulation captures the overall trend of
the experimental data, but consistently overshoots the pressure on the 0
trailing edge. L1 (mean absolute error) and L∞ norms for each
velocity are provided in Table 5 using the data from all probe -50
locations. The agreement between predictions and experiment
decreases with increasing wind speed. Overall, the results indicate -100
reasonable agreement between the experiment and prediction.
-150
A potential source of error in the static pressure prediction is the
shape of the fluid domain. The fluid model neglects the wind tunnel
-200
contraction and diffusion in which the effect on the hood pressures is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
unknown. Since the simulation successfully captures the overall Probe
trend, it appears the contraction and diffusion of the tunnel is
insignificant. Another potential source of discrepancy is the pressure Figure 19. Discrete Pressure Comparison along Strip 1, 100 kph. Simulated
sensor strips, which are not modeled in the CAD representation. The values have reasonable agreement to experiment.
sensors may cause turbulence particularly on the aft side of the hood
where the turbulence model is unable to fully capture adverse
gradient effects. The sensors were not modeled due to grid 200
refinement requirements that would exceed available resources for Experiment
the simulation. Another potential issue is the presence of flow FSI Prediction
separation and recirculation between the hood and windshield, which 100 Rigid CFD

is not adequately captured with the current turbulence model with
wall functions.
0
The hood deflection results of Points 1, 2, and 3 are provided in
Figures 25 – 27. Post-analysis of the experimental results indicated
-100
deflection of the laser measurement devices at Points 1 and 2 due to
aerodynamic force. Subsequently, bench testing of the laser assembly
was used to correlate the aerodynamic loading at each tested wind -200
speed to the laser deflection. The uncertainty bars on the
experimental values, shown in Figures 25 – 27, account for the
induced deflection of the laser assemblies. This was not observed to -300
be an issue at Point 3, thus no error bars are included since the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920
measurement uncertainty of the laser itself is smaller than the Probe
symbols in each figure. In general, the predicted displacements are
reasonably close to within experimental uncertainty of the measured Figure 20. Discrete Pressure Comparison along Strip 4, 100 kph. Simulated
displacements. Furthermore, the maximum displacements are values have reasonable agreement to experiment.
O(1mm) or less, which is consistent with the pressure comparisons,
suggesting that the chosen hood structure does not exhibit strong
steady aeroelastic coupling. 300
Experiment
200 FSI Prediction
Rigid CFD
100
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Probe
Figure 21. Discrete Pressure Comparison along Strip 1, 160 kph. Simulated
values have reasonable agreement to experiment.

Page 6 of 10
400 500
Experiment Experiment
200 FSI Prediction FSI Prediction
Rigid CFD Rigid CFD
0

0
-200 -500
-400
-1000
-600
-800 -1500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920
Probe
Probe
400
Experiment
Table 5. L2 and L∞ Error Norms of Hood Surface Pressure Data using FSI
200 FSI Prediction Prediction Pressures.
Rigid CFD
0 Velocity (kph) L∞ (Pa) L1 (Pa)

100 30.8 9.97
-200 160 70.9 23.70
200 123.9 36.13
-400
-600
Exp 100kph
-800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 0.4 FSI 100kph
Hood Deflection (mm)
Probe
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Figure 25. Displacement Comparison of FSI Baseline Prediction to

Experiment, 100kph. Predicted values lie approximately within the range of
uncertainty for experimental values.

Page 7 of 10
Exp 160kph
0.8 FSI 160kph
0.6
0.4
Figure 28. CFD Modeling of Laser Instrumentation.
0.2
-0.2
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Figure 29. Pressure Distribution of V3 With and Without Lasers.
Table 6. Coupled Displacement Results of V3 With and Without Lasers.
1.5 Transverse Displacement

Exp 200kph (mm)
FSI 200kph With Baseline %
Location
Lasers Prediction Difference
1 Point 1 0.46 0.47 2.2
Point 2 0.44 0.44 0.0
Point 3 -0.025 -0.012 52.0
0.5
The degree of fluid-structural coupling was further assessed by
comparing the uncoupled and coupled structural response at 160 kph.
V3 was used for the uncoupled analysis, and compared to the
0 baseline coupled prediction discussed in Figures 19 – 27. The results
of the comparison are shown in Figure 30 and Table 7. Consistent
with the previous examination of hood pressure values, the difference
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 between the coupled and uncoupled predictions is relatively small.
This is indicative of a relatively stiff hood construction for the chosen
vehicle. Furthermore, these results indicate an uncoupled analysis is
adequate when predicted hood deflections are 1mm or less.
A potential cause of discrepancy between the predictions and

experimental measurements is the alteration of the local surface
pressure due to the presence of the laser devices. This effect was
examined by adding the laser devices to the CFD domain, as shown
in Figure 28, and repeating the coupled analysis using V3 at 160 kph.
As indicated in Figure 29, there are significant local changes in
surface pressure near the measurement locations. However, as
indicated by the results listed in Table 6, these local pressure changes
have a negligible effect on the predicted displacement at Points 1 and
2, and a modest improvement on the predicted displacement at Point Figure 30. Uncoupled vs. Coupled Structural Response.
3. This is likely due to the relative stiffness of the considered hood.
Aeroelastic analysis of more flexible configurations may exhibit
stronger sensitivity to these local pressure variations, making this an
important consideration for future study.

Page 8 of 10
Table 7. Comparison of Uncoupled and Coupled Response.
Transverse Displacement
(mm)
Location Uncoupled Baseline % Difference
Point 1 0.45 0.47 4.26
Point 2 0.43 0.44 2.27
Point 3 -0.0098 -0.012 18.3
Figure 33. Steady Aeroelastic Structural Response of V1 (closed fascia) and

V3 (open fascia) models.
Sensitivity to Internal Flow
The sensitivity of the aeroelastic response to the flow through the

Table 8. Coupled Displacement Results of V1 and V3.
front fascia, as well as the resulting under-hood pressure, was
examined numerically through the comparison of the V1, V2, and V3
simulations. The impact of flow through the front fascia on the Transverse Displacement (mm)
aeroelastic prediction was assessed at 160 kph by comparing the V1 Location V1 V3 % Difference
prediction, which had a closed front fascia, to that of the V3 model.
Point 1 0.45 0.47 4.26
In both cases, the internal engine compartment pressure computed
using V2 was applied onto the FEM model as a distributed load. The Point 2 0.43 0.44 2.27
effect of closing the front fascia on the exterior hood skin pressure is Point 3 -0.054 -0.012 350
shown in Figure 31. The largest differences in pressure occur at
regions near the front and trailing edges of the hood. A larger suction
(higher magnitude negative pressure) is observed on the central front The impact of neglecting under-hood pressure on the aeroelastic
and fender regions of the hood in the V1 model. This is due to the predictions was assessed using the V1 model by eliminating the
closed apertures on the front fascia accelerating the flow over the mapped V2 engine compartment pressure within the FEM model.
hood. Conversely, the positive static pressure on the trailing edge of The resulting comparison is considered in Figure 34 and listed in
the V1 hood exceeds that seen in the V3 model. This is due to the Table 9. For the analyzed hood, removing the effect of under-hood
presence of flow through the more detailed cowl region in the V3 pressure tends to increase the displacement overall. This is due to the
model compared to the simplified representation used in the V1 suction force induced by the negative engine compartment pressure,
model. These modeling differences are highlighted in Figure 32. The which tends to resist positive hood displacement. Compared to the
impact on the structural response is provided in Figure 33 and Table minor effects of front fascia openings and instrumentation flow
8. There is a small difference at Points 1 and 2, while the disturbances, the inclusion of under-hood pressure has a significantly
displacement for Point 3 of V1 is nearly five times that of V3. larger impact on hood displacement at the measured points,
However, the magnitude of displacement at Point 3 remains relatively suggesting its importance in obtaining accurate predictions of hood
small compared to the other locations. deflection.
Figure 31. Steady Aeroelastic Pressure Distribution of V1 (closed fascia) and Figure 34. Steady Aeroelastic Structural Response of V1 With and Without
V3 (open fascia), highlighting the effect of fascia modeling on hood pressure. Under-hood Pressure Loading, highlighting lift sensitivity to the internal
engine compartment pressure.
Figure 32. Cowl Top Geometry of V1 and V3 models. V1 simplification

increases rear edge static pressure magnitude.

Page 9 of 10
Table 9. Coupled Displacement Results of V1 With and Without Internal 4. Gaylard, A., Beckett, M., Gargoloff, J., et al., “CFD-based
Pressure Loading. Modelling of Flow Conditions Capable of Inducing Hood
Flutter,” SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-1011, 2010.
Transverse Displacement (mm)
5. Knight, J., Lucey, A. Shaw, C., “Fluid-structure interaction of
With Internal Without Internal %
Location the Jaguar XK8 convertible car roof,” 18th World IMACS /
Pressure Pressure Difference
MODSIM Congress, 2009.
Point 1 0.45 0.51 11.8
Point 2 0.43 0.52 17.3 6. Ramsay, T., Fredelake, A., Stevens, K., “Correlation of a CAE
Point 3 -0.054 -0.16 66.3 Hood Deflection Prediction Method,” SAE Technical Paper
2008-01-0098, 2008.
Conclusions Contact Information
Aeroelastic simulation in automobile development and design is an Jack McNamara, The Ohio State University, mcnamara.190@osu.edu
important consideration as manufacturers vary component
compliance to meet increasingly challenging, and sometimes Acknowledgements
conflicting, objectives. Critical to this challenge are the development
of computational tools, as well as validation of these tools. This The authors gratefully acknowledge support for this work by Honda
paper examines this task in the context of the aeroelastic response of R&D Americas, Inc.
a representative automobile hood using both a coupled CFD-FEM
fluid-structure interaction framework and experimental measurement.
Overall agreement between the experiment and aeroelastic
predictions is reasonable. Furthermore, compliance and flow
modification from the displacement measurement devices are
observed to complicate the validation process. Results also indicate
that hood displacements predicted at or below 1 mm from an
uncoupled analysis do not exhibit strong aeroelastic interactions.
Finally, sensitivity studies indicate that internal flow through forward
and rear boundaries, as well as engine compartment pressure, can
have a modest impact on hood deflections. For the configuration
studied, the neglect of under-hood pressure was observed to be more
significant than neglect of flow through the forward and rear
boundaries. These findings provide important insight towards the use
of aeroelastic prediction tools in the design of automotive
components.
In this study, comparison to experimental data has only been done

with one vehicle. Further validation on other vehicle models should
be considered to gain insight to the fidelity of the FSI framework. In
addition, this work should be carried out on a vehicle with more
substantial hood compliance to further assess the importance of
aeroelastic interactions on hood deflection. Last, current
understanding of the steady-state aeroelastic problem enables
confidence in progressing to unsteady aeroelastic study of automobile
hoods.
References
1. Massegur, D., Quaranta, G., Cavagna, L., “An Indy car rear
wing is designed for aeroelastic response using multidisciplinary
optimization,” ANSYS Advantage, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2007.
2. Patil, S., Lietz, R., Woodiga, S., et al., “Fluid Structure

Interaction Simulations Applied to Automotive Aerodynamics,”
SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1544, 2015.
3. Gupta, A., Gargoloff, J., Duncan, B., “Response of a Prototype

Truck Hood to Transient Aerodynamic Loading,” SAE
Technical Paper 2009-01-1156, 2009.

Page 10 of 10

Steady Aeroelastic Response Prediction and Validation For Automobile Hoods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steady Aeroelastic Response Prediction and Validation For Automobile Hoods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from SAE International by SAE MOBILUS Open Platform, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars: Mechanical Systems

Manuscript Number: JPCM-2018-0004

Article Type: Original Article

Section/Category: JPCM101 Aerodynamics

Keywords: hood, aeroelasticity, fluid-structure interaction, computational fluid dynamics, wind

Corresponding Author: Jack McNamara

Corresponding Author Secondary

Corresponding Author's Institution: Ohio State University

Corresponding Author's Secondary

First Author: Justin Pesich

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Justin Pesich

Author Accepted Manuscript