I created a new simulation project called 'fp-024a - Sidepod / Radiator':
Simulation Control Data forked from fp-023d
More of my public projects can be found here.
1 Like
fp024a - Sidepod / Radiator Study
- SimScale Project Page of “fp-024a - Sidepod / Radiator”
This study is based on simulations as below.
- fp-023d - Rear Bodywork Study
- fp-023c - Front Aero Device Study
- fp-023b - Front Aero Devices
Contents
- Simulations
- Model with Updates
- Radiator Models
- Sidepod C / Radiator Duct C
- Sidepod Radiator Outlet Louvers
- Radiator Duct D
- Radiator Duct Turning Vanes
- Summary
2 Likes
Simulations
Model with Updates
I rebuilt a CFD model with mechanical design updates.
The bodyworks are basically the same with the former model in fp-023d simulation.
Major changes are as follows.
- Opening holes for suspension arms on the rear bodywork
- Opening one upper hole on the rear bodywork end
- Applying designs of mechanical parts inside the bodywork
- Modifying suspension geometries and arm designs
Coefficients of Forces on Body and Wheels
| Coef. | Control | Model with Updates | Difference | Difference % | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0518 | 0.0352 | -0.0166 | -32.1 | |
| Cd | 0.5649 | 0.5637 | -0.0013 | -0.2 | |
| Cl | -0.2135 | -0.1795 | 0.0340 | -15.9 | |
| Clf | -0.0550 | -0.0546 | 0.0004 | -0.7 | |
| Clr | -0.1586 | -0.1249 | 0.0336 | -21.2 | |
| CoP | 0.7425 | 0.6959 | -0.0466 | -4.7 | |
| L/D | -0.3780 | -0.3185 | 0.0595 | -15.7 |
Coefficients of Forces on Body Only (without Wheels)
| Coef. | Control | Model with Updates | Difference | Difference % | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0282 | 0.0099 | -0.0184 | -65.1 | |
| Cd | 0.4531 | 0.4545 | 0.0014 | 0.3 | |
| Cl | -0.2557 | -0.2176 | 0.0381 | -14.9 | |
| Clf | -0.0996 | -0.0989 | 0.0007 | -0.7 | |
| Clr | -0.1561 | -0.1186 | 0.0374 | -24.0 | |
| CoP | 0.6104 | 0.5453 | -0.0651 | -6.5 | |
| L/D | -0.5643 | -0.4786 | 0.0856 | -15.2 |
- Control : Re-calc. fp024d / Side Mirror - 30mm Higher & 20mm Outer
The drags and the front downforces are almost the same, but the rear downforce decreased significantly at the model with updates.
Some low pressure areas are decreasing on the bottom side of the stepped floor and the rear bumper.
Although the rear downforce is decreasing, since it is a model which the car designs are more applied to, simulations will be based on this model afterwards.
1 Like
Radiator Models
I tried to set porous media as a radiator simulation model, but I failed to make ‘cellZone’ for porous media in my project. So I made simple radiator models with many square holes.
- Radiator Model : 20mm x 20mm Square Holes
- 14 x 9 = 126 Holes / 30mm Pitch / Depth 35mm
- Duct Area = 120523.294 (+/- 0.00023) mm2
- Not Hole Area = 70123.2943 (+/- 0.00023) mm2
- Opening 41.8% : (120523.294-70123.2943)/120523.294 = 0.41817642073
- Radiator Model : 10mm x 10mm Square Holes
- 28 x 18 = 504 Holes / 15mm Pitch / Depth 35mm
- Duct Area = 120523.294 (+/- 0.00023) mm2
- Not Hole Area = 70123.2943 (+/- 0.00023) mm2
- Opening 41.8% : (120523.294-70123.2943)/120523.294 = 0.41817642073
Radiator Model - None : Control
Radiator Model - 20mm x 20mm Holes
Radiator Model - 10mm x 10mm Holes
Coefficients of Forces on Body and Wheels
| Coef. | Control | Difference | 20mm x 20mm | Difference | 10mm x 10mm | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0352 | 0.0001 | 0.0353 | 0.0003 | 0.0356 | |
| Cd | 0.5637 | 0.0001 | 0.5637 | 0.0000 | 0.5638 | |
| Cl | -0.1795 | -0.0014 | -0.1810 | 0.0004 | -0.1806 | |
| Clf | -0.0546 | -0.0006 | -0.0552 | 0.0005 | -0.0547 | |
| Clr | -0.1249 | -0.0008 | -0.1258 | -0.0002 | -0.1259 | |
| CoP | 0.6959 | -0.0009 | 0.6950 | 0.0022 | 0.6973 | |
| L/D | -0.3185 | -0.0025 | -0.3210 | 0.0007 | -0.3203 | |
| RF | 0.2057 | -0.0298 | 0.1760 | -0.0403 | 0.1357 | Radiator Flow m3/s |
| RF | 1.0000 | -0.1447 | 0.8553 | -0.1957 | 0.6596 | RF / Control |
Coefficients of Forces on Body Only (without Wheels)
| Coef. | Control | Difference | 20mm x 20mm | Difference | 10mm x 10mm | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0099 | 0.0002 | 0.0101 | 0.0003 | 0.0104 | |
| Cd | 0.4545 | 0.0002 | 0.4548 | 0.0000 | 0.4548 | |
| Cl | -0.2176 | -0.0014 | -0.2190 | 0.0002 | -0.2188 | |
| Clf | -0.0989 | -0.0005 | -0.0994 | 0.0004 | -0.0990 | |
| Clr | -0.1186 | -0.0009 | -0.1196 | -0.0002 | -0.1198 | |
| CoP | 0.5453 | 0.0008 | 0.5461 | 0.0016 | 0.5476 | |
| L/D | -0.4786 | -0.0029 | -0.4815 | 0.0005 | -0.4811 |
- Control : Model with Updates (No Radiator Model)
- As the size of holes decreases, the radiator flow decreases.
- The drags are almost the same in these cases
- The difference of downforces between “20mm x 20mm” and “10mm x 10mm” is
slightly smaller than that between “Control” and “20mm x 20mm”
Much smaller size of square holes like 5mm x 5mm needs meshes to be smaller by one step more.
Therefore, at the present stage, I test aerodynamic devices about the sidepod and radiator
with the radiator model of 10mm size square holes.
Raditator Flow - U Magnitude
Sidepod Origin - No Radiator
Sidepod Origin - Radiator 20mm x 20mm Holes
Sidepod Origin - Radiator 10mm x 10mm Holes
2 Likes
Sidepod C / Radiator Duct C
The designs of the sidepod and the radiator duct were modified for some reasons as followings.
- Exterior Design Modification
- Larger Radiators
- Larger Outlet
Differences of Sidepod C & Radiator Duct C from the origin
- Sidepod C / Radiator Duct C
- 27.5mm Higher at the Rear End
- 40% Larger Rear End Outlet
- Origin : 3939.8728 mm2
- Sidepod C : 5529.3174 mm2
- 9.4% Smaller Radiator Duct Intake
- 10% Larger Radiator Duct C Size
- 450mm x 330mm x 40mm (Origin : 450mm x 300mm x 40mm)
- Radiator Duct C Model for CFD : 10mm x 10mm Square Holes
- 28 x 20 = 504 Holes / 15mm Pitch / Depth 35mm (11% Larger than Origin)
- Duct Area = 133471.58 mm2
- Not Hole Area = 77471.5805 mm2
- Opening 42.0% : (133471.58-77471.5805)/133471.58 = 0.41956497031
Coefficients of Forces on Body and Wheels
| Coef. | Control | Sidepod C | Difference | Difference % | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0356 | 0.0334 | -0.0022 | -6.2 | |
| Cd | 0.5638 | 0.5632 | -0.0006 | -0.1 | |
| Cl | -0.1806 | -0.1770 | 0.0036 | -2.0 | |
| Clf | -0.0547 | -0.0551 | -0.0004 | 0.8 | |
| Clr | -0.1259 | -0.1219 | 0.0040 | -3.2 | |
| CoP | 0.6973 | 0.6888 | -0.0085 | -0.8 | |
| L/D | -0.3203 | -0.3143 | 0.0060 | -1.9 | |
| RF | 0.1357 | 0.1551 | 0.0194 | 14.3 | Radiator Flow m3/s |
Coefficients of Forces on Body Only (without Wheels)
| Coef. | Control | Sidepod C | Difference | Difference % | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0104 | 0.0080 | -0.0024 | -22.8 | |
| Cd | 0.4548 | 0.4537 | -0.0011 | -0.2 | |
| Cl | -0.2188 | -0.2151 | 0.0036 | -1.7 | |
| Clf | -0.0990 | -0.0995 | -0.0006 | 0.6 | |
| Clr | -0.1198 | -0.1156 | 0.0042 | -3.5 | |
| CoP | 0.5476 | 0.5374 | -0.0103 | -1.0 | |
| L/D | -0.4811 | -0.4742 | 0.0069 | -1.4 |
- Control : Radiator Holes 10mm x 10mm
- Rear downforce decreases about 3.5%
- Front downforce is almost the same or slightly increases
- Drag is almost the same or slightly decreases
- Radiator Flow increases around 14.3%
- This is a larger increase than the increase of the radiator hole areas.
Radiator Flow - U Magnitude
Sidepod Origin - Radiator 10mm x 10mm Holes
Sidepod C
2 Likes
Sidepod Radiator Outlet Louvers
In order to increase the radiator flow, I tried several outlets on Sidepod C.
Some low pressure areas are found on the side wall of Sidepod C aft of the radiator as below.
Sidepod C - Pressure / Left View
5 outlet louvers on the side wall were designed as followings.
- Louver Lower
- Louver Lower / Top Half
- Louver Lower Backward
- Louver Lower Backward / Top Half
- Louver Upper
Sidepod C - Louver Lower
Sidepod C - Louver Lower / Top Half
Sidepod C - Louver Lower Backward
Sidepod C - Louver Lower Backward / Top Half
Sidepod C - Louver Upper
Coefficients of Forces on Body and Wheels
| Coef. | Sidepod C | Louver Lwr | Louver Lwr / Top Half | Louver Lwr Bwd | Louver Lwr Bwd / Top Half | Louver Upr | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0334 | 0.0322 | 0.0329 | 0.0312 | 0.0321 | 0.0311 | |
| Cd | 0.5632 | 0.5636 | 0.5631 | 0.5628 | 0.5628 | 0.5637 | |
| Cl | -0.1770 | -0.1702 | -0.1745 | -0.1673 | -0.1727 | -0.1696 | |
| Clf | -0.0551 | -0.0529 | -0.0544 | -0.0524 | -0.0542 | -0.0537 | |
| Clr | -0.1219 | -0.1173 | -0.1201 | -0.1149 | -0.1185 | -0.1159 | |
| CoP | 0.6888 | 0.6891 | 0.6883 | 0.6867 | 0.6860 | 0.6835 | |
| L/D | -0.3143 | -0.3019 | -0.3098 | -0.2972 | -0.3069 | -0.3008 | |
| RF | 0.1551 | 0.2319 | 0.1939 | 0.2056 | 0.1857 | 0.2133 | Radiator Flow m3/s |
| RF | 1.0000 | 1.4955 | 1.2505 | 1.3259 | 1.1979 | 1.3756 | RF / Control |
Coefficients of Forces on Body Only (without Wheels)
| Coef. | Sidepod C | Louver Lwr | Louver Lwr / Top Half | Louver Lwr Bwd | Louver Lwr Bwd / Top Half | Louver Upr | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0080 | 0.0069 | 0.0075 | 0.0060 | 0.0069 | 0.0059 | |
| Cd | 0.4537 | 0.4557 | 0.4542 | 0.4550 | 0.4541 | 0.4555 | |
| Cl | -0.2151 | -0.2083 | -0.2126 | -0.2053 | -0.2109 | -0.2077 | |
| Clf | -0.0995 | -0.0973 | -0.0988 | -0.0967 | -0.0986 | -0.0980 | |
| Clr | -0.1156 | -0.1110 | -0.1138 | -0.1086 | -0.1123 | -0.1097 | |
| CoP | 0.5374 | 0.5330 | 0.5354 | 0.5291 | 0.5326 | 0.5282 | |
| L/D | -0.4742 | -0.4570 | -0.4681 | -0.4512 | -0.4644 | -0.4559 |
- Drags are almost the same in these cases
- “Louver Lwr” is the best for Radiator Flow increase
- “Louver Lwr / Top Half” is the least decrease of Clf, Clr and Cl
- “Louver Lwr” and “Louver Lwr / Top Half” are efficient
Sidepod C - Louvers / Pressure - Left View
Sidepod C - Louvers / Pressure - Sectional Top View
Sidepod C - Louvers / U Magnitude at Z=220mm
Radiator Flow - U Magnitude
Sidepod C
Sidepod C - Louver Lwr
Sidepod C - Louver Lwr / Top Half
Sidepod C - Louver Lwr Bwd
Sidepod C - Louver Lwr Bwd / Top Half
Sidepod C - Louver Upr
2 Likes
Radiator Duct D
Radiator Duct D was tested for improving the distribution of the radiator flow.
A shape of radiator duct outer wall is modified to a curving shape in “Radiator Duct D” as shown below.
Radiator Duct C
Radiator Duct D
Coefficients of Forces on Body and Wheels
| Coef. | Duct C | Duct D | Difference | Difference % | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0334 | 0.0334 | 0.0000 | -0.1 | |
| Cd | 0.5632 | 0.5634 | 0.0002 | 0.0 | |
| Cl | -0.1770 | -0.1770 | 0.0001 | 0.0 | |
| Clf | -0.0551 | -0.0551 | 0.0000 | 0.0 | |
| Clr | -0.1219 | -0.1219 | 0.0001 | -0.1 | |
| CoP | 0.6888 | 0.6886 | -0.0002 | 0.0 | |
| L/D | -0.3143 | -0.3141 | 0.0002 | -0.1 | |
| RF | 0.1551 | 0.1572 | 0.0021 | 1.4 | Radiator Flow m3/s |
Coefficients of Forces on Body Only (without Wheels)
| Coef. | Duct C | Duct D | Difference | Difference % | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0080 | 0.0080 | -0.0001 | -1.0 | |
| Cd | 0.4537 | 0.4539 | 0.0002 | 0.0 | |
| Cl | -0.2151 | -0.2149 | 0.0002 | -0.1 | |
| Clf | -0.0995 | -0.0995 | 0.0000 | 0.0 | |
| Clr | -0.1156 | -0.1154 | 0.0002 | -0.2 | |
| CoP | 0.5374 | 0.5371 | -0.0003 | 0.0 | |
| L/D | -0.4742 | -0.4735 | 0.0007 | -0.1 |
- Downforces and Drag are the same
- Radiator Flow increases around 1.4%
- Less effective than the improvements by Outlet Louvers
- Radiator Flow Distribution seems to be improving slightly as shown below
Radiator Flow - U Magnitude
Sidepod C - Radiatro Duct C
Sidepod C - Radiator Duct D
2 Likes
Radiator Duct Turning Vanes
Radiator Duct Turning Vanes were tested for improving the distribution of Radiator Flow.
Vertical Fillet
Turning Vane - Vertical
Turning Vane - Vertical 2 pcs
Turning Vane - Horizontal
Turning Vane - Horizontal B
Coefficients of Forces on Body and Wheels
| Coef. | Control | V Fillet | V 1pc | V 2pcs | H | H-B | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0334 | 0.0333 | 0.0332 | 0.0333 | 0.0332 | 0.0330 | |
| Cd | 0.5634 | 0.5624 | 0.5633 | 0.5631 | 0.5630 | 0.5625 | |
| Cl | -0.1770 | -0.1771 | -0.1767 | -0.1768 | -0.1762 | -0.1756 | |
| Clf | -0.0551 | -0.0552 | -0.0551 | -0.0552 | -0.0549 | -0.0548 | |
| Clr | -0.1219 | -0.1218 | -0.1216 | -0.1217 | -0.1213 | -0.1208 | |
| CoP | 0.6886 | 0.6880 | 0.6879 | 0.6881 | 0.6886 | 0.6878 | |
| L/D | -0.3141 | -0.3148 | -0.3137 | -0.3140 | -0.3129 | -0.3122 | |
| RF | 0.1572 | 0.1566 | 0.1589 | 0.1591 | 0.1602 | 0.1616 | Radiator Flow m3/s |
| RF | 1.0000 | 0.9967 | 1.0111 | 1.0120 | 1.0192 | 1.0285 | RF / Control |
Coefficients of Forces on Body Only (without Wheels)
| Coef. | Control | V Fillet | V 1pc | V 2pcs | H | H-B | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cm | 0.0080 | 0.0079 | 0.0077 | 0.0078 | 0.0078 | 0.0075 | |
| Cd | 0.4539 | 0.4529 | 0.4538 | 0.4536 | 0.4534 | 0.4530 | |
| Cl | -0.2149 | -0.2150 | -0.2145 | -0.2147 | -0.2142 | -0.2135 | |
| Clf | -0.0995 | -0.0996 | -0.0995 | -0.0995 | -0.0993 | -0.0992 | |
| Clr | -0.1154 | -0.1154 | -0.1150 | -0.1152 | -0.1149 | -0.1143 | |
| CoP | 0.5371 | 0.5366 | 0.5360 | 0.5364 | 0.5363 | 0.5352 | |
| L/D | -0.4735 | -0.4748 | -0.4728 | -0.4734 | -0.4725 | -0.4713 |
- Control : Radiator Duct D
- Drags and Downforces of Vertical Fillet and Vertical Turning Vanes are the same with Control
- Rear Downforce decreases slightly in the case of Horizontal Turning Vanes
- Radiator Flow increases 2.9% at most in “Truning Vane - Horizontal B”
- Less effective than the improvements by Outlet Louvers
- Radiator Flow Distribution improves in the all case of Turning Vanes as shown below
Radiator Flow - U Magnitude
Sidepod C - Radiator Duct D
Sidepod C - Radiator Duct D / Vertical Turning Fillet
Sidepod C - Radiator Duct D / Turning Vane - Vertical
Sidepod C - Radiator Duct D / Turning Vane - Vertical 2pcs
Sidepod C - Radiator Duct D / Turning Vane - Horizontal
Sidepod C - Radiator Duct D / Turning Vane - Horizontal B
2 Likes
Summary
- Model with Updates
- The rear suspension openings decreased the rear downforce significantly
- Sidepod Outlets
- The radiator flow increased around 50% at the maximum
- The sidepod outlets decreased the downforces at the maximum around 6%
- “Louver Lwr” and “Louver Lwr / Top Half” are efficient
- It is necessary to adopt efficient outlets according to the required cooling capacity
- The radiator flow increased around 50% at the maximum
- Radiator Duct Modifications
- The modifications of the radiator ducts increased the radiator flow around 3% at the maximum, but they are much smaller than the increases by the sidepod outlets
- For increasing the radiator flow, it is more effective to install aerodynamically efficient outlets
- The modifications of the radiator ducts improved the radiator flow distributions.
- There is a possibility that the cooling capacity can be improved more with some radiator duct modifications according to the flow path of the radiator coolant
- The modifications of the radiator ducts increased the radiator flow around 3% at the maximum, but they are much smaller than the increases by the sidepod outlets
2 Likes