Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T15:07:43.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation of PANS and effects of ground and wheel motion on the aerodynamic behaviours of a square-back van

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2023

Jiabin Wang Open the ORCID record for Jiabin Wang [Opens in a new window] ,
Guglielmo Minelli Open the ORCID record for Guglielmo Minelli [Opens in a new window] ,
Gioacchino Cafiero ,
Gaetano Iuso ,
Kan He Open the ORCID record for Kan He [Opens in a new window] ,
Branislav Basara ,
Guangjun Gao  and
Sinisa Krajnović Open the ORCID record for Sinisa Krajnović [Opens in a new window]
Jiabin Wang
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Traffic Safety on Track of Ministry of Education, School of Traffic & Transportation Engineering, Central South University, 410075 Changsha, PR China
Guglielmo Minelli
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg SE-41296, Sweden
Gioacchino Cafiero
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Aerospaziale, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Turin, Italy
Gaetano Iuso
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Aerospaziale, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Turin, Italy
Kan He
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg SE-41296, Sweden
Branislav Basara
Affiliation:
Advanced Simulation Technologies, AVL List GmbH, Hans-List-Platz, 8020 Graz, Austria
Guangjun Gao*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Traffic Safety on Track of Ministry of Education, School of Traffic & Transportation Engineering, Central South University, 410075 Changsha, PR China
Sinisa Krajnović
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg SE-41296, Sweden
*
†Email address for correspondence: gjgao@csu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a numerical investigation of the effects of the moving ground and rotating wheels on the turbulent flow around a 1/10 scaled square-back van model. A comprehensive comparison among the partially averaged Navier–Stokes (PANS), large eddy simulation (LES) and particle image velocimetry (PIV) involving the aerodynamic drag, the wake topology, the velocity and the Reynolds stress profiles in the wake region is conducted. The proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) and fast Fourier transform (FFT) are applied to the shear layers shedding from the trailing edges to comment on the coherent structures and their frequency content. The Reynolds number for both simulations and experiments is set to Re = 2.5 × 105 based on the inlet velocity ${U_{inf}} = 9\;\textrm{m}\;{\textrm{s}^{ - 1}}$ and the width of the model W = 0.17 m. The results show that PANS accurately predicts the flow field measured in experiments and predicted by a resolved LES, even with a low-resolution grid. The superiority of the PANS approach could provide good guidance for industrial research in predicting the turbulent flow around the square-back van model with affordable computational grids. The ground and wheel motion mechanism on the aerodynamic forces has been revealed by analysing the surface pressure distribution, the wheels’ surrounding flow, the underbody flow characteristics and the turbulent wake structures. The effects of the ground and wheel motion on the frequency, evolution and development characteristics of the wake shear layers are analysed, thus providing relevant insights for future experimental investigations of square-back van models.

JFM classification

Wakes/Jets: Wakes Turbulent Flows: Turbulence modelling
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 958 , 10 March 2023 , A47
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amico, E., Cafiero, G. & Iuso, G. 2022 a Deep reinforcement learning for active control of a three-dimensional bluff body wake. Phys. Fluids 34 (10), 105126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amico, E., Di Bari, D., Cafiero, G. & Iuso, G. 2022 b Genetic algorithm-based control of the wake of a bluff body. J. Phys: Conf. Ser. 2293 (1), 012016.Google Scholar
Astarita, T. 2006 Analysis of interpolation schemes for image deformation methods in PIV: effect of noise on the accuracy and spatial resolution. Exp. Fluids 40, 977–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astarita, T. 2007 Analysis of weighting windows for image deformation methods in PIV. Exp. Fluids 43, 859–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astarita, T. 2008 Analysis of velocity interpolation schemes for image deformation methods in PIV. Exp. Fluids 45, 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AVL 2014 Fire Manual V2014.Google Scholar
Barros, D., Borée, J., Noack, B.R. & Spohn, A. 2016 a Resonances in the forced turbulent wake past a 3D blunt body. Phys. Fluids 28 (6), 065104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barros, D., Borée, J., Noack, B.R., Spohn, A. & Ruiz, T. 2016 b Bluff body drag manipulation using pulsed jets and Coanda effect. J. Fluid Mech. 805, 422–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basara, B., Krajnović, S. & Girimaji, S. 2010 PANS methodology applied to elliptic relaxation based eddy viscosity transport model. In Turbulence and Interactions: Proceedings the TI 2009 Conference, pp. 63–69. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basara, B., Krajnović, S., Girimaji, S. & Pavlovic, Z. 2011 Near-wall formulation of the partially averaged Navier Stokes turbulence model. AIAA J. 49, 2627–2636.Google Scholar
Bearman, P.W., De Beer, D., Hamidy, E. & Harvey, J.K. 1988 The effect of a moving floor on wind-tunnel simulation of road vehicles. SAE Trans. 97, 200–214.Google Scholar
Bello-Millan, F.J., Mäkelä, T., Parras, L., Del Pino, C. & Ferrera, C. 2016 Experimental study on Ahmed's body drag coefficient for different yaw angles. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 157, 140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunton, S.L. & Noack, B.R. 2015 Closed-loop turbulence control: progress and challenges. App. Mech. Rev. 67 (5), 050801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgin, K., Adey, P.C. & Beatham, J.P. 1986 Wind tunnel tests on road vehicle models using a moving belt simulation of ground effect. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 22 (2-3), 227–236.Google Scholar
Castelain, T., Michard, M., Szmigiel, M., Chacaton, D. & Juvé, D. 2018 Identification of flow classes in the wake of a simplified truck model depending on the underbody velocity. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 175, 352–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerutti, J.J., Cafiero, G. & Iuso, G. 2021 Aerodynamic drag reduction by means of platooning configurations of light commercial vehicles: a flow field analysis. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 90, 108823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerutti, J.J., Sardu, C., Cafiero, G. & Iuso, G. 2020 Active flow control on a square-back road vehicle. Fluids 5 (2), 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, H., Lee, J. & Park, H. 2014 Aerodynamics of heavy vehicles. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 46, 441–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conan, B., Anthoine, J. & Planquart, P. 2011 Experimental aerodynamic study of a car-type bluff body. Exp. Fluids 50 (5), 1273–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EU 2020 Reducing CO2 Emissions from Passenger Cars - Before 2020. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en.Google Scholar
Germano, M. 1992 Turbulence: the filtering approach. J. Fluid Mech. 238, 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girimaji, S.S. 2006 Partially-averaged Navier-Stokes model for turbulence: a Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes to direct numerical simulation bridging method. J. Appl. Mech. 73, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girimaji, S. & Abdol-Hamid, K. 2005 Partially averaged Navier Stokes model for turbulence: implementation and validation. AIAA Paper.Google Scholar
Girimaji, S.S., Jeong, E. & Srinivasan, R. 2006 Partially averaged Navier-Stokes method for turbulence: fixed point analysis and comparison with unsteady partially averaged Navier-Stokes. J. Appl. Mech. 73, 422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harten, A. 1997 High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. J. Comput. Phys. 135 (2), 260–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobeika, T., Sebben, S. & Landstrom, C. 2013 Investigation of the influence of tyre geometry on the aerodynamics of passenger cars. SAE Intl J. Passeng. Cars Mech. Syst. 6 (1), 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, P., Amandolese, X. & Aider, J.L. 2012 Drag reduction on the 25 slant angle Ahmed reference body using pulsed jets. Exp. Fluids 52 (5), 1169–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, P., Amandolese, X., Edouard, C. & Aider, J.L. 2013 Flow control using MEMS pulsed micro-jets on the Ahmed body. Exp. Fluids 54 (1), 1442.Google Scholar
Kim, D., Do, H. & Choi, H. 2020 Drag reduction on a three-dimensional model vehicle using a wire-to-plate DBD plasma actuator. Exp. Fluids 61 (6), 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krajnović, S. 2009 Large eddy simulation of flows around ground vehicles and other bluff bodies. Phil. Trans. Ser. A. Math. Phys. Engng Sci. 367, 2917–2930.Google ScholarPubMed
Krajnović, S. & Davidson, L. 2005 Influence of floor motions in wind tunnels on the aerodynamics of road vehicles. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (9), 677–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krajnovic, S., Minelli, G. & Basara, B. 2016 Partially-averaged Navier-Stokes simulations of flows around generic vehicle at yaw. Paper 2016-01-1586. SAE.Google Scholar
Krajnović, S., Ringqvist, P. & Basara, B. 2012 Comparison of partially averaged Navier–Stokes and large-eddy simulations of the flow around a cuboid influenced by crosswind. J. Fluids Engng 134 (10), 101202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lajos, T., Preszler, L. & Finta, L. 1986 Effect of moving ground simulation on the flow past bus models. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 22 (2–3), 271–277.Google Scholar
Li, R., Barros, D., Borée, J., Cadot, O., Noack, B.R. & Cordier, L. 2016 Feedback control of bimodal wake dynamics. Exp. Fluids 57 (10), 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlewood, R.P. & Passmore, M.A. 2012 Aerodynamic drag reduction of a simplified squareback vehicle using steady blowing. Exp. Fluids 53 (2), 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, J.M., Peng, S.H., Davidson, L. & Wang, F.J. 2011 A low Reynolds number variant of partially-averaged Navier-Stokes model for turbulence. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow. 32, 652–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minelli, G., Dong, T., Noack, B.R. & Krajnović, S. 2020 Upstream actuation for bluff-body wake control driven by a genetically inspired optimization. J. Fluid Mech. 893, A1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minelli, G., Hartono, E.A., Chernoray, V., Hjelm, L., Basara, B. & Krajnović, S. 2017 Validation of PANS and active flow control for a generic truck cabin. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 171, 148–160.Google Scholar
Minelli, G., Krajnović, S. & Basara, B. 2018 A flow control study of a simplified, oscillating truck cabin using PANS. J. Fluids Engng 140 (12), 121101.Google Scholar
Minelli, G., Krajnović, S., Basara, B. & Noack, B.R. 2016 Numerical investigation of active flow control around a generic truck a-pillar. Flow Turbul. Combust. 97, 1235–1254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minelli, G., Tokarev, M., Zhang, J., Liu, T., Chernoray, V., Basara, B. & Krajnović, S. 2019 Active aerodynamic control of a separated flow using streamwise synthetic jets. Flow Turbul. Combust. 103 (4), 1039–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirzaei, M., Krajnović, S. & Basara, B. 2015 Partially-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations of flows around two different Ahmed bodies. Comput. Fluids 117, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östh, J. & Krajnović, S. 2014 A study of the aerodynamics of a generic container freight wagon using large-Eddy simulation. J. Fluid Struct. 44, 31–51.Google Scholar
Patankar, S. & Spalding, D. 1972 A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional parabolic flows. Intl J. Heat Mass Transfer 15, 1787–1806.Google Scholar
Piomelli, U. & Chasnov, J. 1996 Large-eddy simulations: theory and applications. In Transition and Turbulence Modelling (ed. Henningson, D., Hallbäck, M., Alfreddson, H. & Johansson, A.), pp. 269–336. Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, S.B. 2001 Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prakash, B., Bergada, J.M. & Mellibovsky, F. 2018 Three dimensional analysis of ahmed body aerodynamic performance enhancement using steady suction and blowing flow control techniques. In Tenth International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ICCFD10).Google Scholar
Pržulj, V. & Basara, B. 2001 Bounded convection schemes for unstructured grids. AIAA Paper No. 2001–2593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, A.N., Minelli, G., Zhang, J., Basara, B. & Krajnović, S. 2018 Investigation of the near-wake flow topology of a simplified heavy vehicle using PANS simulations. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 183, 243–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouméas, M., Gilliéron, P. & Kourta, A. 2009 Drag reduction by flow separation control on a car after body. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 60 (11), 1222–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salati, L., Schito, P. & Cheli, F. 2017 Wind tunnel experiment on a heavy truck equipped with front-rear trailer device. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 171, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuetz, T.C. 2015 Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles, 5th ed. SAE International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadmani, S., Mojtaba, M., Mojtaba, S., Mirzaei, M., Ghasemiasl, R. & Pouryoussefi, S.G. 2018 Experimental investigation of flow control over an Ahmed body using DBD plasma actuator. J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 11 (5), 1267–1276.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, J. 1963 General circulation experiments with the primitive equations. Mon. Weath. Rev. 91 (3), 99–165.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweby, P.K. 1984 High resolution schemes using flux limiters for hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 21 (5), 995–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunay, T., Sahin, B. & Ozbolat, V. 2014 Effects of rear slant angles on the flow characteristics of Ahmed body. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 57, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunay, T., Yaniktepe, B. & Sahin, B. 2016 Computational and experimental investigations of the vortical flow structures in the near wake region downstream of the Ahmed vehicle model. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 159, 48–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Sicot, C., Borée, J. & Grandemange, M. 2020 Experimental study of wheel-vehicle aerodynamic interactions. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 198, 104062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H.F., Zhou, Y., Zou, C. & He, X.F. 2016 Aerodynamic drag reduction of an Ahmed body based on deflectors. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 148, 34–44.Google Scholar
Zhang, B.F., Liu, K., Zhou, Y., To, S. & Tu, J.Y. 2018 a Active drag reduction of a high-drag Ahmed body based on steady blowing. J. Fluid Mech. 856, 351–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Minelli, G., Rao, A.N., Basara, B., Bensow, R. & Krajnović, S. 2018 b Comparison of PANS and LES of the flow past a generic ship. Ocean Engng 165, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Y., Fan, D., Zhang, B., Li, R. & Noack, B.R. 2020 Artificial intelligence control of a turbulent jet. J. Fluid Mech. 897, A27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar