Hopefully your wind tunnel is better calibrated than the one Ferrari have been using on the F150th Italia.Originally Posted by lmpdesigner
Cheers,
Rennie
Hopefully your wind tunnel is better calibrated than the one Ferrari have been using on the F150th Italia.
Cheers,
Rennie
What is your company called or who do you work for, mate?
Easy?
Mr. Gocarts:
Like they say, if it were easy, everybody would do it! I think that applies to both CFD and experiments. Knowledge and care is needed to do either one successfully. As a mechanical engineering fluid dynamics experimentalist who has dabbled in CFD, my feeling is that there are more pitfalls for the novice in CFD. One has to be sure of grid independence and boundary condition sensitivity, and somehow validate for computations of an unknown flow. One has to choose an appropriate turbulence model and probably an appropriate wall function. It is well known that simple turbulence models like k-epsilon have some problems with accuracy doing separated flows, which are common on our cars. I don't think one can just say that reduced accuracy is acceptable for showing trends, for the reduced accuracy in predicting things like transition and separated flow behavior can disguise or reverse trends. This is not even considering the complexities of rotating wheels and motion relative to the ground with very small clearances.
I don't believe that LES is the solution many thought it would be ten years ago, as it has been found to have problems with wall boundary conditions. A hybrid approach, Discrete Eddy Simulation, combining zones with LES to near wall zones using RANS models now seems to be the trend.
What percentage improvements are you looking for? Are these within the uncertainty of the method you are applying? This applies to both wind tunnel testing and CFD. I think amateur wind tunnel testing with small models is particularly problematic for lots of the reasons you mention and more. The F1 engineers are looking for very small improvements. It is amazing they do as well as they do given the complexity of the flows. I always wonder about how well the various vanes work when the cars are in the wake of another car.
- Frank C
Live a Little
Absolutely, but to get to that point you have to learn - which means trying it, making mistakes and then learning some more.
CFD isn't perfect, but that doesn't make it useless. There are all manner of reduced accuracy (less than perfect) methods that engineers, such as yourself, have used throughout time to build structures, cars, airplanes, etc. It's the engineer's job to decide which is the appropriate tool and how to use it. Just because a model isn't perfect under certain circumstances doesn't mean it's useless. The better engineers will make better decisions, succeed, and win races.
Rotating wheels and moving ground planes are a basic feature supported by most CFD software. RANS CFD can adequately model both. Just because the setup looks complicated doesn't mean CFD can't model it.
Predicting transition isn't a strength of RANS CFD, yet in trend analysis it isn't that important. Sure it's important if you want to nail the drag coefficient, but in racing drag is usually secondary to downforce anyway.
More efficient in terms of run time and memory usage maybe, but with the right resources (i.e., massive) LES works fine, just ask the folks at TotalSim http://totalsim.us/
As it was observed here first !!!!
Rennie you are right !!!!!!!!!Hopefully your wind tunnel is better calibrated than the one Ferrari have been using on the F150th Italia.
Cheers,
Rennie
Stefano Domenicali said today that the Ferrari Wind Tunnel has structural problems and he wants to test at the Toyota Tunnel in Germany....
My smart, experienced and certified opinion is that there is more than just aero problems to a racecar that it is sloooowww....
Actually it is aero.
Unless you have a duff engine-then most issues with a slow car in F1 or prototype are aerodynamic related. The influence on aero to performance is so critical nowadays that a less than optimal aero package means car is pretty well uncompetitive. You have to mess up real big in other areas to make a difference.
On another note: 10 million cell size for an open wheel half/model? A bit sparse-I typically am up around 40 million cell size for a prototype car half model. And that is with coarse refinement in too many areas. And that takes a Linux cluster of 40 computers a day to run.
And I am waay behind the F1 boys....
I managed a CFD wind tunnel correlation study about 6 years ago. It took 2 years to complete and about 10 man years of work. Once we understood what it took to get decent correlation the CFD work became much more usefull and "generally" provided directionally correct results.
Learned a lot but still don't know enough.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
10million is a minimum, and by full car I mean a full vehicle simulation, but a symmetric half model. This is a minimum to capture trends (not absolute values) - and it assumes you understand very well the level of geometry details required and your meshing methods are very well developed/extremely efficient.
Le Mans cars or F1 cars, etc. are of course bigger cases as there are much more complex features to capture.
Last edited by aerogt3; 05.11.12 at 5:02 AM.
Interesting,
A 10 million cell model of what we are doing would just give us bad results. We know as we have tried. But then we have full rad models, squished tires, exhaust energy, etc. I understand the appeal and value of smaller models to give trends but one must be very, very careful with interpreting the results. We have seen a small change in model complexity give a (correct and accurate) 5-6% change in balance but overall L/D stays the same. (Close enough). My issue is that people like to see CFD as a wonder tool that the local, regional race guy/mfg can use to solve all of his aero issues.
Improper CFD (which is a lot) is worse than no CFD. And how many people (Like Jay Novak) go thru the process of correlation with tunnel or real world. And yes I know the pitfalls of tunnel testing and real life testing quite well. But it is because I know the pitfalls that I can have confidence in what I get from those tests. With CFD there are still so many unknowns.
This is not a knock on CFD-we use it a lot and use it well-but we realize that it is not a simple tool for the "average" guy, team or mfg to use. It is a lot harder and a lot trickier than advertised. And the hardware costs in CPU is pretty darn high, if you want reasonable analysis times.
Check out what Totalsim in Ohio have-they are probably the best equipped guys in US to do contract CFD. Their model size runs around 50m cells and have a cluster that takes about 12 hours a run. You can do less-but you will not get anywhere as accurate a set of results. Just the way it is.
%..%%.
Last edited by aerogt3; 05.11.12 at 5:04 AM.
This is one of the coolest threads I've read in awhile. But, I think for my old tractor powered Formula Ford I'll just tape a bunch of wool tufts on it take pictures.
Man will race anything. It's in his blood. His Soul. He must.
Kurtis C. Shirley MacLane FV (sold), Lola T644 (sold), Murray FK1 FST (sold), Vector MG-95FF (sold), PRS 82F (sold), Lola T340... AKA PRS82F
Love hearing about other peoples CFD experiences! We run sims with simplified bluff bodies (half cut sims) at ~8-10m cells for a tiny FSAE car, which we later validate with wind tunnel and real-life testing/data aq. the best thing I can say is a simple simulation can point you in the right direction to getting the car set up... if you have nowhere to start from, well, how awful would that be?
Ive wanted to try open foam and caedium and see how they correlate to other packages, it certainly would be interesting.
Well, poorly executed simulation can point you in the WRONG direction!! This risk is small when you're talking about setting up a car, because really you're just wasting the few laps it takes to see it in the laptimes. But on a design, this can be very expensive! Generally, the bigger the changes you make, the less likely it is to misguide you (or alternatively, the smaller the changes you want to see, the more particular you have to be about your methods.)
And in upper level motorsports even very good simulation and testing can (and do) point you in the wrong direction! I work on the racing programmes of an OEM where at least 30-40% of what CFD says will work just doesn't when it hits the track, and the resources involved are quite good. Granted these are really small changes - even the wind tunnel misses it. I do CFD for a living so I'm very pro-CFD; just want to warn that it's not always right of course.
Except my simulations
-Robert
Right there with you! If you cannot verify your simulations in real life (a from scratch design process or something), I surely see that being a problem. Luckily, we had something to validate initially, and tweak our sims from there. We have some tricks with airfoil design, but those I cant share.Well, poorly executed simulation can point you in the WRONG direction!! This risk is small when you're talking about setting up a car, because really you're just wasting the few laps it takes to see it in the laptimes. But on a design, this can be very expensive! Generally, the bigger the changes you make, the less likely it is to misguide you (or alternatively, the smaller the changes you want to see, the more particular you have to be about your methods.)
And in upper level motorsports even very good simulation and testing can (and do) point you in the wrong direction! I work on the racing programmes of an OEM where at least 30-40% of what CFD says will work just doesn't when it hits the track, and the resources involved are quite good. Granted these are really small changes - even the wind tunnel misses it. I do CFD for a living so I'm very pro-CFD; just want to warn that it's not always right of course.
Except my simulations
Been trolling the forum for a while now but signed up only recently. Hey everyone.
This is an excellent discussion, many thanks to the many of you who have weighed in with your experiences.
Raneff, can you elaborate on why you can't share? I'd be interested in hearing just how far FSAE has come since my college days.
Although I'm by no means a CFD expert (I did 2D and 3D simulations on wings with a roofline, on a GT type car). I think CFD should only really be used by real experts like you (seem to be) to get accruate results, or at least point in the right direction.
People tend to think CFD is a miracle tool, and to be honest I think it's just like any other FEA program, like ANSYS for example. You can run a crappy simulation with a bad mesh in 30 minutes. And when you put colours on top it all looks nice with blues and reds and whatnot, but in reality if you don't know the equations and principles that make it work (or HOW the program code is written) then you can't really draw conclusions from it...
It really only should be used with extreme care, more than any other tool, I think.
open foam
We used open foam in the design of the JDR F1000. It difinately takes someone with serious skill to use it and even then takes time to learn it's capabilities. Once you've done that, the results can be very good. So far, on track results seem to correspond well with our cfd results. Of course this was a new design.
It does take a lot of computing power....and even then several hours per run. The finer the detail, the larger the mesh count needs to be.....and the longer the run time. 10m is an absolute min for reliable results.
Don Conner (the D in JDR) has become very good at this. If anyone needs some cfd work done, contact him. Contact info is on the JDR website.
Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
jdrmotorsport.com
The cell count depends on the mesher you use. Snappyhexmesh is quite efficient and with it, 10M cells is enough to do a small Formula car without detailed brakes, wheel spokes, etc. A comparable mesh from other meshers could require double that.
I did the Radon Rn.10 aero design entirely in snappy/OpenFOAM, and details on both the aero and process were published in racetech magazine here.
For external aero, OpenFOAM is arguably better than the commercial tools in the hands of an advanced user.
-Robert
I tried modeling an FE front wing in OpenFOAM, and couldn't get the results to converge. Do you have any models/simulations of something simple and not proprietary that you'd be willing to share with a hobbyist? It'd be much appreciated to have a known good set of parameters that I could start playing with.
There is clearly a market for a user-friendly OpenFOAM GUI that allows non-specialists to use it. Is such a thing possible? Is there one available now?
ELEMENTS claims to be that. Any opinions or experience that you can share?
ICON and Engys both have GUI type front ends for openfoam, and they will set up an openfoam process for you and teach you how to use it - but they are not cheap. I think they're out of reach of most small or even medium sized businesses.
You can basically copy openFoam's tutorials, change the names to match yours, and get a case going pretty easily. Getting a result is already quite simple. Getting a good result requires expertise.
The difficulty in OpenFOAM is the settings - the mesh settings needed to get a good mesh on tricky geometry, which wall functions to set for which turbulence models, which discretization schemes, GAMG vs PBiCG solvers, etc. This stuff isn't shared without paying a hefty price to a consultancy that spent a lot of effort/money figuring them out (like ICON).
I think usable by non-specialists, good results, and affordable as far as CFD goes is much like fast, cheap, reliable for cars. Pick two ;-)
Last edited by rperry; 12.18.13 at 4:02 PM.
-Robert
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
