You are on page 1of 24

# Aerodynamic Study of Go-kart Nose Cones

ME450 Introduction to Computer Aided Engineering Becker, Joe Professor H. U. Akay May 1, 2000

Example of Enduro Type Go-kart
  

Driver lays on his\her back Race on road courses such as Mid-Ohio Speeds are in excess of 80 mph (35.76 m/s)

Project Objective  Use Finite Element Code (ANSYS: CFD component FLOTRAN) for the following – Comparison of two nose cone shapes to determine which is more aerodynamic – Comparison of two meshing techniques » Mapped Mesh (Structured Mesh) » Free Mesh .

76 m/s Reynolds Number 5.205 kg/m3 Dynamic Viscosity 1.Theory: Assumptions       Steady State Newtonian Fluid No-slip at Fluid\Solid Interface Turbulent Incompressible Isothermal Property Value Units Density 1.81E-05 Ns/m2 Characteristic Length 2.44 m Free Stream Velocity 35.80E+06 .

Model Setup: Basic Geometry Figure 1: Shape 1 in Flow Field Figure 2: Shape 2 in Flow Field .

05 m) Differences Upper surface of kart between leading edge and 32" (0.43 m) Inlet Length 10' (3.813 m) from leading edge Upper surface of flow field between leading Min.861 m) from leading edge . Flow Height 9' (2.74 m) edge and 12.7' (3.Basic Geometry Comparison Similarities Kart Length 8' (2.05 m) Outlet Length 10' (3.

ANSYS Procedure Define Keypoints and Create Lines  Make Areas from Line Loops  Mesh Areas  Set Boundary Conditions  Set Solver Parameters  Solve FLOTRAN  .

Shape 1: Areas .

Shape 2: Areas .

Mapped Meshes Shape 1 Mapped Mesh Shape 2 Mapped Mesh .

Free Meshes Shape 1 Free Mesh Shape 2 Free Mesh .

76 m/s in x-direction applied to the upper free stream surface  Relative Pressure of 0 Pa applied to “outlet”  .Boundary Conditions All Boundary Conditions were applied to lines  Velocity of 0 m/s applied to ground and all surfaces of kart  Velocity of 35.

FLOTRAN Parameters Steady-state with turbulent solver  Fluid properties set to air in standard SI  Solver set to perform 250 iterations  .

Results .

Shape 1 Velocity (m/s) .

Shape 2 Velocity (m/s) .

Shape 1 Pressure (Pa) .

Shape 2 Pressure (Pa) .

Shape 1 Turbulent KE (J) .

Shape 2 Turbulent KE (J) .

Shape 1 Free Mesh Results Shape 1 Velocity (m/s) Shape 1 Pressure (Pa) Shape 1 Turbulent KE (J) .

Shape 2 Free Mesh Results Shape 2 Velocity (m/s) Shape 2 Pressure (Pa) Shape 2 Turbulent KE (J) .

Conclusion Shape 1 is better than Shape 2  A mapped mesh is slightly better than a free mesh  Results are only as good as the mesh that they arise from  .

I AM DONE! .