Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Thursday, September 13, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2003-01-0993

Automated Aerodynamic Design Optimization

Process for Automotive Vehicle
Rajneesh Singh
General Motors Corporation

Reprinted From: Vehicle Aerodynamics 2003

(SP-1786)

2003 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 3-6, 2003

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Thursday, September 13, 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-772-4891
Tel: 724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2003 SAE International

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Thursday, September 13, 2018
Automated Aerodynamic Design Optimization Process for
Automotive Vehicle
Copyright © 2003 SAE International
ABSTRACT
An automatic optimization process for the aerodynamic
design of automotive vehicle shapes is presented. The
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) mesh generation
and the analysis software packages are coupled for
transfer of data and information between the two
packages. This communication enables an automated
process in which designs are created and analyzed for
the aerodynamic drag. New designs are created by
morphing the CFD model for the baseline design. The
automated process is applied to perform a parametric
study on a generic automobile sedan shape. The results
show that the process can be used for aerodynamic
optimization of any automotive vehicle shape. The
turnaround for the automated process is at least an
order of magnitude less than the conventional analysis
process.
INTRODUCTION
Aerodynamic drag of an automotive vehicle is an
important performance attribute. It has a direct impact on
the fuel economy of the vehicle and therefore the
aerodynamic design of the vehicle needs significant
attention. The aerodynamic design is an iterative
process. It involves interaction between the designer
who proposes a shape for the vehicle and the
aerodynamics engineer who evaluates the shape for the
aerodynamic performance and provides enablers for the
drag minimization to the designer. The designer then
incorporates these recommendations within the
constraints of the design theme. The process continues
until the vehicle drag target is achieved or no time is left
for further modifications.
There are two approaches to evaluate the vehicle design
for aerodynamic drag. These are the wind tunnel tests
and the CFD analyses. In the wind tunnel tests, a clay
model of the vehicle shape is milled and the
aerodynamic drag is measured at controlled conditions
in the wind tunnel. The design changes are investigated
by
* Project Engineer, Altair Engineering Inc.
on site at General Motors
2003-01-0993
Rajneesh Singh*
General Motors Corporation
modifying the clay model and re-running the wind tunnel.
The modifications in the clay model are made using
simple sculpting tools. The design changes tend to be
small and are limited by the need to make quick
changes to the model mounted in the wind tunnel.
In the CFD analysis process, wind-tunnel test procedure
is simulated to numerically compute the aerodynamic
drag. The CFD analysis process consists of two steps.
In the first step, a mesh is created for the math model of
the experimental setup. In the second step, fluid
dynamical equations are then solved on the mesh to
compute the aerodynamic flow and the forces on the
vehicle. Further designs are evaluated by modifying the
CAD surfaces to create a new design. The process is
then repeated by going through the two steps to
compute the aerodynamic drag. In general, the step of
creating mesh is the most time consuming step and it
can be an order of magnitude larger than the time
required for fluid dynamic simulations. The total time
required to analyze the baseline design and evaluate
few alternative designs can be so large that the analysis
results may not be of much use to the designers.
The large turn-around time for the CFD analysis is a
major obstacle in making CFD analysis play a more
proactive role in the aerodynamic design of the vehicle.
However, a new technological progress has occurred
recently. A new class of software packages is emerging.
These are the mesh morphing packages. Mesh morpher
enables a direct modification of the mesh models
instead of manipulating the CAD surfaces and re-
meshing of the CAD surfaces. Thus a major time
consuming step in the CFD analysis is eliminated. With
the use of the morpher, the analyst can modify the
vehicle design just like the engineer does in the wind
tunnel with a clay model in a very short time.
Some of the capabilities required in a morphing software
for the aerodynamic analysis application are the ability to
handle a large model size that can currently range from
3 million elements to a 8 million element model and the
software execution using the text commands in a batch-
processing mode without invoking the graphics interface.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Thursday, September 13, 2018
A further reduction in the turn-around time for the CFD
analysis can be achieved by automating the process of
selecting the magnitudes for the geometric parameters
of the vehicle. A batch process can be setup to
automatically change the mesh for a given set of
geometric parameters and compute the drag for the
resulting design. Optimization software is needed to
control this batch process. This software can also be
used to conduct Design of Experiments (DOE) studies
by efficiently sampling the design space to reduce the
number of CFD analyses required for a parametric
study.
The accuracy of the numerical predictions depends on
the software used for the simulation. The CFD analysis
software is required to perform the aerodynamic
simulation and compute the drag for a given design. It
also needs to be executed using the text commands for
the automated analysis processes.
In this paper, DEP’s Meshworks[1] morpher is used for
mesh morphing, iSIGHT[2] is used for controlling the
design optimization process and the CFD simulations
are performed by Fluent[3] .
The main objective of this paper is to develop a process
for the aerodynamic shape optimization of automotive
vehicles. The process with a very quick turn-around time
for analysis is expected to contribute to the vehicle
design in two ways. It can be used to develop the
enablers for the efficient design. The process can also
be used to complement the wind tunnel testing. The
design space can be explored to identify the
aerodynamically critical regions of the vehicle. The wind-
tunnel testing engineer can use this information to
reduce the number of wind-tunnel tests. The secondary
objective of the paper is to apply the analysis is to
perform a parametric study on a generic car shape.
METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology of the
automated process. In a top-level view, Meshworks
morpher and Fluent are coupled via iSIGHT for an
automatic exchange of information and data. iSIGHT
then guides the design optimization by selecting the
design variable magnitude, executing Morpher to create
the mesh and providing this mesh to Fluent for the CFD
computations. The process can be setup to conduct
traditional design optimization or design of experiment
study. Each aerodynamic simulation requires large
computer resources so the DOE study is often a better
alternative to the conventional optimization process.
Figure 1 shows flow-chart of the process used for DOE
study. The process starts with creating the CFD model
for the baseline vehicle. Since morpher only displaces
the nodes in the mesh as opposed to re-meshing, it is
necessary to keep mesh element size small in the
regions that may be stretched by the morpher. The
design variables are defined for the DOE study. The
baseline mesh is read in the visual Meshworks morpher
to create control blocks for morphing. Each design
variable is associated to a control block such that a
design variable change results in the change in the
shape of these control blocks to morph the mesh for the
entire model. Meshworks morpher provides a utility to
generate the control blocks for a selected value of the
design variables. A lower and upper bound of all the
design variables is fixed by inspecting the model in the
visual Meshworks itself.
Figure 1: Flow-chart of the automatic analysis process.
iSIGHT is setup to conduct a DOE study for the selected
design variables at prescribed levels. The algorithm for
sampling the design space is also selected. The drag
coefficient from the CFD analysis is used as the
objective function. iSIGHT executes the control block
generator utility to generate the control blocks for the
design variables. The Morpher then modifies the
baseline mesh to create a new mesh. This mesh is
passed on to Fluent.
Fluent performs the aerodynamic simulation by
executing a sequence of commands listed in the journal
file. The process is setup to run the Fluent on a remote
high performance-computing machine in a batch
process mode. The computation for a new design is
started from the converged solution for the previous
design to reduce the computation time. After the
convergence is reached, iSIGHT extracts the drag
coefficient from the output of the CFD simulation. The
drag coefficient and the design variables are stored for
post-processing. The process is repeated for the next
set of design variables until all the designs are analyzed.
Since the CFD computations are performed using the
journal file, it is also possible to produce a set of images
to visualize the flow for each design. These pictures can
be used to investigate the characteristics of the flow for
a design.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Thursday, September 13, 2018
APPLICATION
The automated analysis process described in the
previous section is applied to perform a DOE study on a
generic automobile shape. Figure 2 shows two views of
the baseline design. The main objective of this study is
to demonstrate the process therefore a simple shape is
considered. The process can be as easily applied for
optimization of vehicle with detailed underhood and
underbody components.
(a)
RZ
DZ
RX
DX
(b)
Figure 2: Design variables used in the parametric study.
The shape of the rear end of a car has a significant
influence on the aerodynamic flow and thus on the
drag[4]. Deck height and length are two critical geometric
parameters defining the shape of the rear end of a car.
Similarly, rear roof edge location has a significant
influence on the wake flow. A parametric study is
performed to modify this region using the 4 design
variables as shown in the figure 2b. These variables are
the displacements magnitudes from the baseline
locations for the deck feature line and the rear roof edge
line in X and Z coordinates directions. Each of these
design variables is studied at two levels.
Table 1 shows the design variables and magnitude of
levels used in the present study. The levels for the
design variables have been chosen arbitrarily in this
study. A full factorial DOE analysis results in 16 unique
designs. In this study all 16 possible design are
analyzed. It should be noted that for large number of
designs and number of levels the total number of
experiments could be too many to be evaluated with in a
reasonable amount of time. More advanced algorithms
like Latin-Hypercubes or the Orthogonal array algorithms
can be used to reduce the number of experiments.
Level Level #1 Level #2
Design Variable
Deck Length (DX) -100 mm 200 mm
Roof Edge length (RX) -50 mm 100 mm
Roof Edge Height (RZ) -50 mm 50 mm
Deck Height (DZ) -50 mm 50 mm
Table 1: Design variables magnitude used in the DOE study.
COMPUTATIONAL PARAMETERS
The model for the analysis consisted of the car in a
rectangular tunnel. The inlet of the tunnel was at 2 car
lengths in front of the vehicle while the wind tunnel exit
was at a distance of 5 car lengths. The sidewalls and the
ceiling were located at about 5 car widths. The CFD
mesh for the baseline model consisted of 1.3 million
elements. Prism layers were created on all the car
surfaces for an accurate resolution of the boundary
layer. Figure 3 shows the mesh in the symmetry plane of
the model. A fine mesh in the wake region of the vehicle
can be seen in the picture.
Figure 3: Section of the mesh through the symmetry plane for the
baseline model.
A no-slip boundary condition is used on vehicle
surfaces. The symmetry boundary conditions are
imposed on the tunnel surfaces. Analysis is performed at
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Thursday, September 13, 2018

80 kph vehicle speed condition. The second order Similarly, four groups can be formed using unique
discretization schemes are used for improved accuracy. combinations of the RX and RZ magnitudes.
The Realizable k-e turbulence model with non-
equilibrium near wall function is used. Since the mesh
morpher preserves the mesh connectivity therefore
solution for a design is started from the converged
solution for the previous design. The mesh adaptation
has not been attempted in this study. The CFD
computations are performed on 8-processor Silicon
Graphics workstations.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, results of the DOE study are presented.

The aerodynamic drag coefficient is computed using the
projected area of the vehicle in x-direction and the wind
tunnel inlet velocity.

Table 2 shows a summary of the study. The Design

matrix of the DOE experiments and the corresponding
aerodynamic drag coefficient are shown. It can be noted
from the table that the base line design (Run # 0) has a
drag coefficient of 0.189. The drag coefficients for other
designs range from 0.157 (Run # 3) to 0.237 (Run # 10).

Run # DX (mm) DZ (mm) RX (mm) RZ (mm) Cd

0 0 0 0 0 0.189
1 -100 -50 -50 -50 0.159
2 -100 50 -50 -50 0.210
3 -100 -50 -50 50 0.157
4 -100 50 -50 50 0.198
5 -100 -50 100 -50 0.158
6 -100 50 100 -50 0.207
7 -100 -50 100 50 0.158
8 -100 50 100 50 0.194
9 200 -50 -50 -50 0.180
10 200 50 -50 -50 0.237
11 200 -50 -50 50 0.177
12 200 50 -50 50 0.226
13 200 -50 100 -50 0.179
14 200 50 100 -50 0.234
15 200 -50 100 50 0.176
16 200 50 100 50 0.220

Table 2: Design matrix of the DOE experiment and the corresponding

aerodynamic drag coefficient.

Figure 4 shows the picture of rear half of the vehicle

shape and the drag coefficient for various designs. The
16 designs analyzed in the DOE study can be grouped
in four categories based on the magnitudes of length
and height of the vehicle deck. For example, it can be
seen from the Table 2 that Run # 1,3,5 and 7 are for the
Figure 4: Rear part of the vehicle for various designs (run number and
deck length deviation (DX) of –100 mm and deck height the aerodynamic drag are shown below the images).
deviation (DZ) of –50 mm from the baseline design.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Thursday, September 13, 2018
0.26
RX= -50, RZ= -50
RX= -50, RZ= 50
RX= 100, RZ= -50
0.24 RX= 100, RZ= 50
0.22
Cd
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
DX= -100, DX= 200, DX= -100,
DZ= -50 DZ= -50 DZ= 50
Figure 5: Plot of drag coefficient for various designs.
Figure 5 shows a plot of drag coefficient magnitudes for
the 4 groups of deck parameters. X-axis shows the 4
groups for deck parameters. The four curves correspond
to the 4 sets of rear roof edge parameters. Several
interesting observations can be made from the figure. It
can be readily seen from the plots that all designs
corresponding to the DZ = -50mm exhibits drag lower
than the baseline design. Similarly, for all designs with
deck higher than the baseline model, the drag coefficient
is larger than the baseline design.
It can also be seen from the plot that the effect of roof
edge parameters on the drag coefficient is relatively
small than the effect of the deck length parameters. For
example, for DX=-100 mm and DZ=-50 mm, all four
designs for the set lies with in a range of 0.002 (0.157-
0.159). Similarly, the designs corresponding to DX =
200mm and DZ = -50mm shows drag coefficient in a
range of 0.004 (0.176-0.180).
Pareto plot can be used to estimate the relative
importance of various parameters on the aerodynamic
drag. Figure 6 shows the pareto plot of total effect on the
drag coefficient. It can be seen that the deck parameters
and their interaction constitute more than 85% effect on
the drag. On the other hand, the roof edge length has a
negligibly small effect on the drag coefficient.
As mentioned previously, the main objective of
developing the process was to reduce the turnaround
time for the CFD analysis for aerodynamic drag
predictions. In addition to a day of work for setting up the
model, it took less than 2 days of time to create and
evaluate the 16 designs shown in the study. In fact the
computational resources limit the turn-around time. With
more computational resources, it is possible to evaluate
a large number of designs and conduct an exhaustive
DOE study to find the true optimal design. The
conventional analysis process may require at least an
order of magnitude more time to perform the same
study.
DX= 200,
DZ= 50
Figure 6: Pareto plot of total effect on drag coefficient of various
parameters.
CONCLUSION
An automatic analysis process is developed for the
aerodynamic design of an automotive vehicle shape.
The process couples Meshworks morpher and Fluent in
a generic software shell iSIGHT to automate the grid
generations and the CFD analysis. The process is used
to perform a parametric study for drag on a generic
vehicle shape. It is shown that the turn around time for
CFD analysis in the process is limited only by the
computational resources. The automated process
enables, for the first time, a CFD based aerodynamic
shape optimization in the vehicle development process.
REFERENCES
1. Meshworks/Morpher Training Manual, Detroit
Engineering Products, www.depusa.com.
2. iSIGHT Basic Training Guide, Engineous
Software, Inc, www.engineous.com.
3. Fluent 6.1, CFD Analysis Code, Fluent
Incorporated, www.fluent.com .
4. Hucho, W., ‘’Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles’’,
SAE International, 1998.