Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract
Table of Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction........................................................................................................... 3
Modelling............................................................................................................... 3
Geometry........................................................................................................... 3
Half Cage......................................................................................................... 3
Half Cage Hooded......................................................................................... 4
Full Cage.......................................................................................................... 4
Full Cage Roofed........................................................................................... 5
Computational Fluid Dynamics...........................................................................5
Meshing and Statistics..................................................................................... 5
Results and Discussion.......................................................................................... 6
Addition of Full Cage........................................................................................... 6
Addition of a Roof............................................................................................... 7
Comparison of Half Cage, Full Cage, and Roof models.......................................7
Addition of Dome................................................................................................ 8
Flow Visualisations.............................................................................................. 8
Half Cage......................................................................................................... 8
Full Cage.......................................................................................................... 8
Half Cage Hooded......................................................................................... 8
Full Cage Roofed........................................................................................... 8
Conclusion............................................................................................................. 8
References............................................................................................................. 8
Appendix................................................................................................................ 9
Half Cage............................................................................................................ 9
Full Cage........................................................................................................... 10
Half Cage Hooded.......................................................................................... 10
Full Cage Roofed............................................................................................ 11
Introduction
A roll cage is a frame designed to form an exo-cage around the passenger of a
vehicle to protect them from injury, particularly pertaining to roll overs. There are
a number of varieties of roll cage offering varying degrees of encapsulation and
touting different safety standards. One such variety is a half roll cage, or simply
roll bar; essentially a hoop behind the headrests that triangulates the car when
upside down. A full roll cage generally has four pillars and cross supports that
enclose the occupant of the car.
The full roll cage is more beneficial from a structural and therefore safety
standing: it is more rigid and less prone to failure, and also physically blocks
more than the half cage. However, there is debate among kit car enthusiasts that
the addition of such a full roll cage introduces significant Aerodynamic drag,
which results in a tangible power loss and performance drop.
It is this reports intention to investigate whether adding a full cage causes any
significantly increases in drag forces (and thus, power losses). This problem is
obviously widely applicable to all racing automobiles, but the scope shall be
restricted to a Clubman kit car, modelled from a provided scale chassis model
and photographs.
Modelling
The modelling approach in this investigation can be summarised as being
comparative, not replicative. The scope of the project focuses on establishing a
rough trend, but does not aim to find exact values for power losses. Therefore,
the models used do not need to exactly match a real life specimen, but are
intended only to mimic flow scenarios to compare the effects of key geometry
changes. With this in mind, the following simplifications and assumptions were
made in modelling
Most geometry was generated from sensible estimation and kit car owner
forums.
Geometry
Creo Parametric 2.0 was used as the CAD modelling package for geometry
generation.
Half Cage
The dimensions of this model form the basis of all subsequent models. Changes
are only made to key components being examined. The windshield was
previously made to match reality more closely, but caused an inordinate number
of problems in ANSYS due to errors in meshing solids defined by surface
modelling. It was deemed that the windshield was reasonably insignificant to
comparative analysis, so was simplified to an extrude
Full Cage
The full cage essentially extends the half cage to having four pillars and 2 cross
struts. The thicknesses of the beams were based on 45mm, an oft quoted figure
on locost forums and other open discussion boards related to clubman cars [1],[2].
The basic frame for the cage below taken from [3].
4 geometries, each at 3 speeds, with each simulation running for about an hour
means approximately 12 hours was used to simulate (not counting all the
previous test simulations etc)
For the full monitor plots and skewness metrics of each simulation, see the
Appendix.
Meshing
Inflation layers were placed on the roll cages and passengers in every simulation.
These were based on a first layer thickness of 0.5mm and a 1.15 growth rate, for
a max of about 20 layers. An inflation layer was also placed on passenger in the
hooded and half cage models, so that the forces on the passenger could be more
accurately compared.
Ploss=V F d
The power loss associated with changing from the Half cage to the full cage is
This power loss can then be represented as a percentage of the clubmans max
power (given as 150 HP at the wheels, or 111kW).
5.6%Driveline Losses
[5]
5.8% Braking and Inertial Losses
While these values would not exactly match that of the clubman, it is reasonable
to assume they are a good ballpark approximation. With that in mind, and
considering the clubman would realistically be maxing out at 200km/hr, a 2%
additional loss in power from the full cage is largely insignificant. The
performance loss is insignificant enough to be largely ignored in the
interest of improving safety with the full cage.
Addition of a Roof
Speed Half Full Cage % Power %Drain of
(km/h Cage with Roof Increas Sap max
r) (N) (N) e (kW) power
200 Drag 1225.3 1272.6 3.860 2.628 2.367
Force
Down 696.69 682.506 -2.036 - -
Force
Y+ 1273 3797.6 - - -
Table 3: Comparisons between drag, down-force and associated power losses in the half
cage and roofed models
It is clear that again, the % drain of max power is fairly low for the addition of a
roof. To better put this into perspective, compare the effects of power loss when
converting from a half cage below:
It is clear from Table 4 that the addition of a roof only adds 0.37% power loss
compared to converting from half to full cage. This investigation finds that for
these particular circumstances the addition of a thin roof benefits the
down force of the clubman with a minimal trade off in performance.
However, intensive analysis of the roofed model at different angles and wind
speeds will need to be carried out, and a more complex roof shaped devised for
these tests. In this way, the roofs effect in more complicated scenarios (cresting
a hill for instance) can be evaluated.
Table 5: Comparison of Down force between full cage and roof models
The table above shows the drops in down force when going from a half cage to
full cage, and also a half cage to full cage with roof. It is clear that a substantial
amount of down force is lost with the addition of the full cage: this is
most likely owing to the front bars of the cage disrupting the smoother flow over
the car which presses it down onto the road (see Flow Visualisations). In the
full cage with roof, the drop in down force is much less significant, and
would likely not affect the overall handling of the clubman. This is most
likely due to the fact that the roof angles downward facing the flow, which
pushes the structure down onto the road (see smoother streamlines in flow
visualisations).
2500
2000
Half Cage
Drag Force (N) 1500 Full Cage
1000 Roof Full Cage
500
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Speed (km/hr)
Figure 5: Comparing Drag forces with half cage, full cage and roofed models.
Addition of Dome
T
a
Speed Half Cage (Force Half Cage with Hood % b
l (km/hr) on Head N) (Force on Head N) Decre e
6 ase :
100 3.27 0.46 85.88%
200 12.73 4.10 67.82%
300 27.44 7.92 71.16%
Comparisons between drag, down-force and associated power losses in the domed and
half cage models
It is evident from the results above that the addition of a domed structure
behind the passengers head decreases the force on the passenger
substantially; the simulation suggests a 75% reduction on average. While this
exact value is fraught with potential error due to modelling simplifications, the
trend is undeniable. Further analysis would be again needed, with a more refined
and accurate model of a dome behind the passenger head.
The high Y+ values reported in the above results were global maximums: they
occurred in areas (particularly under the car where velocity tend to intensify due
to narrow openings) where geometries are largely ineffective on the desired. At
areas of interest such as the car body and roll cage, the Y plus maximum values
were always between 30 and 100. This means that the results on these areas are
valid for the K-Epsilon solver (the range of valid Y+ values for K-Epsilon is 30 to
100[4]). Further mesh refinement (beyond the scope of this report and the
hardware/time given) would be required to remove these high Y+ values.
Conclusion
The following things can be resoundingly concluded from this investigation:
References
[1] http://www.locost.ozcarnut.com/
[2] http://www.prbaustralia.com.au/
[3] http://www.agi-precision.com.au/roll-cages/roll-cage/
[4] http://www.computationalfluiddynamics.com.au/tips-tricks-turbulence-wall-
functions-and-y-requirements/
[5]
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_ener
gy_losses.html
Full Cage
Half Cage
control
Full Cage
Appendix B - Flow Visualisations -more extensive
breaking of flow
Vector Plots
than half cage.
Hooded Model
Roof Model
-note smoother
flow curves than
the full cage.
MECH4580 Major Project Report CFD Analysis of Clubman Roll Cages
Page 14 3146568
Pressure Iso-surfaces
Illustrates buffeting
on the passenger
Illustrates baffling
effect of roll cage
Illustrates buffeting
on the passenger