By Kang Qin, Pung

Project Supervisor: Eastwick, Carol

Outline
1. Introduction
2. Development
2.1 Pre-processing
2.2 Solving
2.3 Post-processing
3. Result
4. Recommendation and Conclusion
1. Introduction
Primary concern:
Increasing of fuel price
Reduce resistant forces exerted on vehicle.
1.1 Aerodynamic Resistant
Mainly contributed by pressure drag



C
d
is very depending on shape of body.

=
1
2

2

U
1.4 Objectives
To create a baseline model LGV by CAD
Meshing and simulation.
Reduce drag force.
Modifications add on.
Cab roof
Rear-end Flap
10 degrees of inward angle
20 degrees of inward angle
30 degrees of inward angle

30 Inward
Angle
Cab Roof
Design 1
Cab Roof
Design 2
20 Inward
Angle
10 Inward
Angle
2. Development
Pre-processing
CAD model.
Define boundaries.
Meshing.
Solving
Setting and start simulation.
Post-processing
Analysis of quantitative results.
2.1 Pre-Processing CAD Model (1)
Tractor
2.350m long
2.000m wide
1.933m height
Trailer
4.200m long
2.000m wide
2.650m height
Projected Area
5.2m
2

2.1 Pre-Processing CAD Model (2)
All dimensions shown in mm
10~20H
5H
5~10H
Testing Domain
2.1 Pre-Processing - Meshing

Z1

Z2

Z3

Z4

Z5

Z6

Z7
Z8
Z9
Zone Mesh Size, mm
Z1 60
Z2 69
Z3 83
Z4 104
Z5 135
Z6 182
Z7 254
Z8 369
Z9 553
Growth rate: increase by 0.05 @ each
layer.
More precise and accurate result to be
captured in critical zones (Z1 Z4).
Reduce number of cells in far stream.
2.2 Solving (1)
Pressure-based
Solver
2D steady state case.
2D transient case.
k turbulence model
RNG model
Standard wall function
Assume no heat transfer
2.2 Solving (2)
Constant inlet speed at 60km/h (16.67m/s)
Zer0 pressure gauge at outlet
Solution method
Coupled Solver
First order scheme*
Second order scheme*
Convergence Criterion
Continuity ~ 1e-6
*PS: results from both schemes will be compared
2.3 Post-Processing First Order
Scheme (1)
Pressure Contour
-1.21e2 ~ -1.48e2 Pa
2.3 Post-Processing First Order
Scheme (2)
Velocity Vector
2.3 Post-Processing First Order
Scheme (3)
Backflow
2.3 Post-Processing First Order
Scheme (4)
1. Underbody 0.00 5.30
2. Engine Shield 35.79 0.07
3. Front End Tractor 115.46 0.27
4. Front End Trailer 77.19 0.00
5. Windshield 117.91 0.41
6. Rear Trailer 351.41 0.00
7. Top Tractor 0.00 -0.03
8. Top Traciler 0.00 -0.04
Total Force 697.77 5.98
Pressure
Force, N
Viscous
Force, N
Part
Viscous force contributes very little in total, thus, it can
be eliminated.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2.3 Post-Processing Second Order
Scheme
400.00
450.00
500.00
550.00
600.00
650.00
700.00
750.00
0 50 100 150 200 250
F
o
r
c
e
,

N
Element Size in Core Region, mm
Total Force vs Mesh Size
First Order
Scheme
Second Order
Scheme
3. Result
First round simulation:
Single modification add on baseline model.
Second round simulation:
Combine best two individual result.
3.1 Result of First Cab Roof Design (1)
Pressure contour
CAD model
-5.94e1 ~ -9.59e1 Pa
3.1 Result of First Cab Roof Design (2)
Backflow
Velocity
3.2 Result Comparison
Baseline 697.77 -
Cab Roof 1 231.42 66.83
Cab Roof 2 227.31 67.42
30 Inward Flap 704.64 -0.98
20 Inward Flap 704.81 -1.01
10 Inward Flap 698.72 -0.14
Pressure
Force, N
Reduction, %
Feature A
Feature B
3.3 Optimal Result (1)
CAD model
Pressure
contour
-5.78e1 ~
-9.32e1 Pa
3.3 Optimal Result (2)
Velocity
Backflow
3.7 Optimal Result (3)
1. Underbody 36.52
2. Engine Shield 21.97
3. Front Tractor 85.61
4. Windshield 90.58
5. Rear Trailer 157.19
6. Cab Roof -233.04
7. Top Trailer 14.47
Total Force 173.29
Pressure
Force, N
Part
3.4 Transient Solver
Flow is unsteady with time.
Dynamic simulation where integrating in
time.
More reality than steady case (time averaged)
Step size = 0.0001s
Number of time steps = 60,000
Simulate until t = 6s.

3.4 Transient Solver Baseline Model (1)
Time: 2
nd
second to 6
th
second
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
1600.00
1800.00
2000.00
0
.
0
0
1
0
s
0
.
0
0
2
0
s
0
.
0
0
3
0
s
0
.
0
0
4
0
s
0
.
0
0
5
0
s
0
.
1
1
1
0
s
0
.
2
1
1
0
s
0
.
3
1
1
0
s
0
.
4
1
1
0
s
0
.
5
1
1
0
s
0
.
6
1
0
0
s
0
.
7
1
0
0
s
0
.
8
1
0
0
s
0
.
9
1
0
0
s
1
.
0
0
0
0
s
1
.
2
0
0
0
s
1
.
4
0
0
0
s
1
.
6
0
0
0
s
1
.
8
0
0
0
s
2
.
0
0
0
0
s
2
.
2
0
0
0
s
2
.
4
0
0
0
s
2
.
6
0
0
0
s
2
.
8
0
0
0
s
3
.
0
0
0
0
s
3
.
2
0
0
0
s
3
.
4
0
0
0
s
3
.
6
0
0
0
s
3
.
8
0
0
0
s
4
.
0
0
0
0
s
4
.
5
0
0
0
s
5
.
0
0
0
0
s
5
.
5
0
0
0
s
6
.
0
0
0
0
s
Total Force, N
Total Force, N
Average Force
685.12N
3.4 Transient Solver Result of Baseline
Model (2)
3.4 Transient Solver - Comparison
Underbody 0.00 0.00
Engine Shield 35.79 29.69
Front Tractor 115.46 125.55
Front Trailer 77.19 73.17
Windshield 117.91 104.21
Rear Trailer 351.42 352.17
Top Tractor 0.00 0.00
Top Trailer 0.00 0.00
Total Force 697.77 684.79
Transient Case,
N
Part
Steady in Time
Case, N
Discrepancy, % 1.90
3.4 Transient Solver Optimal Model (1)
Time: beginning to 6
th
second
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
0
.
1
0
0
0
s
0
.
2
0
0
0
s
0
.
3
0
0
0
s
0
.
4
0
0
0
s
0
.
5
0
0
0
s
0
.
6
0
0
0
s
0
.
7
0
0
0
s
0
.
8
0
0
0
s
0
.
9
0
0
0
s
1
.
0
0
0
0
s
1
.
2
0
0
0
s
1
.
4
0
0
0
s
1
.
6
0
0
0
s
1
.
8
0
0
0
s
2
.
0
0
0
0
s
2
.
2
0
0
0
s
2
.
4
0
0
0
s
2
.
6
0
0
0
s
2
.
8
0
0
0
s
3
.
0
0
0
0
s
3
.
2
0
0
0
s
3
.
4
0
0
0
s
3
.
6
0
0
0
s
3
.
8
0
0
0
s
4
.
0
0
0
0
s
4
.
2
0
0
0
s
4
.
4
0
0
0
s
4
.
6
0
0
0
s
4
.
8
0
0
0
s
5
.
0
0
0
0
s
5
.
2
0
0
0
s
5
.
4
0
0
0
s
5
.
6
0
0
0
s
5
.
8
0
0
0
s
6
.
0
0
0
0
s
Total Force, N
Total Force, N
Average Force
249.89N
3.4 Transient Solver Optimal Model (2)
Require more number of time steps to achieve steady state
result
3.4 Transient Solver - Comparison
Underbody 36.52 12.52
Engine Shield 21.97 21.42
Front Tractor 85.61 93.92
Windshield 90.58 100.88
Rear Trailer 157.19 195.87
Cab Roof -233.04 -189.10
Top Trailer 14.47 13.85
Total Force, N 173.29 249.34
Steady in Time
Case, N
Transient Case,
N Part
Discrepancy, % 30.50
4. Recommendation and Conclusion
Educational package only allows cell elements
below 512k for 3D simulation.
Second order scheme provide more precise
result.
Transient simulation describes the nature of flow
behaviour in reality rather than time averaged.
Cab roof feature reduces significant drag force.
Flaps increase drag. When combination features
is considered it reduces further.
Reduce fuel consumption significantly.
THANK
YOU
Q & A
for your attention!
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
X
-
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

m
/
s
Ratio of Rear Region
Wake Region Analysis
Baseline Model
Cab Roof Design 1
Cab Roof Design 2
30 degrees Inward Flap
20 degrees Inward Flap
10 degree Inward Flap
Optimal Model
Reduced
~49%
Steady State Result
Velocity field 1.7m above the ground.