FYP Presentation

1

DESIGN AND CFD ANALYSIS OF FORMULA ONE FRONT WING

GROUP MEMBERS:HAZIQ ABDUL JABBAR 2011-ME-301

WAQAS SIDDIQ 2011-ME-322

M. ABDULLAH 2011-ME-316

PROJECT SUPERVISOR:MISS ANAM ANWARLECTURER MED, UET LAHORE (KSK CAMPUS)

2

CONTENTSMotivationDesign and Specification of Wing

a. Wing

b. Enplates

CFD Simulation

• Meshing

• Solver

• Solution

• Results

3

MOTIVATION

The huge advancement in the manufacturing and designing of the mechanical equipment and the need to minimize cost with improved results is the basic need of today’s engineering world specifically in the field of automotive and aernautics has fascinated us to learn the basic techniques about designing and simulating the model to check the performance and the effects of different parameters in real life conditions. With the interest in racing cars and the fast moving vehicles we target to model and simulate the results of formula one front and study the effect of different parameters on it.

4

DESIGN AND SPECIFICATION OF WING

• Wing:

We are designing from the scratch and having a simplified approach, as we did not get any Formula One aerofoil data so we are choosing a simple inverted NACA 4412 aerofoil. To draw its profile we used “PROFSCAN” as a tool in which we allocated 101 points as shown in given fig. along with some of the coordinates given in the adjoining figures.

5

CONT.

6

• Endplates:To deflect the flow we are using the same NACA-4412 Aerofoil here as endplate

that will be installed vertically at an incidence of 12 degrees. The profile of 4412 Aerofoil was generated by the help of “PROFSCAN”.

(Preliminery Model)

CONT.

7

• Secondary Model: The second model was improved by making the endplate curved and the nose

cone was added to the front not only to create the additional down force but also to make the body streamline the angle of attack of the wing was 12.

This will not only decrease the turbulence and the vortices formation but also the Co-efficient of lift is improved.

The features of model are depicted in the table.

CONT.

8

CONT.

(Secondary Model)

9

Meshing is breaking of physical problem that might be 2-D or 3-D into simpler element i.e. triangles, quadrilaterals, tetrahedral or hexahedral to make the solution easier and more accurate.

The denser the meshing the more accurate the results will be but at the same time it becomes more complex and difficult to solve.

For the best results the mush should be refined at the edges.

MESHING

10

MESH REFINMENT TECHNIQUES

The mesh was improved by adjusting the following parameters.

Mesh sizing

Relevance center

Center of Sphere

Inflation Layer

11

The CFD simulation were carried out with ANSYS FLUENT 13.0 which solves equations of momentum and turbulence models to simplify the problem.

Solver used for the analysis

• K-epsilon Turbulence Model

• Sparat Allmaras Model

CFD SIMULATION

12

Viscous Solver• The aim was to carry out viscous simulation to get evidence of the strong impact of a

moving ground.

• The Spalart-Allmaras viscous solver seemed to be the most suitable solver for this kind of study.

• This kind of solver did not converge for all types of models.

• It was not such a difficulty as it matches the grid generation and adaptation refinement strategy.

CONT.

13

Parameters for the Setup

CONT.

14

K-epsilon Solver:• Two-equation turbulence model is such that it solves two separate transport

equations so it allow the determination of both, a turbulent length and time scale.

• We used ANSYS Fluent, standard model in ANSYS Fluent belongs to this class of models and so it has become very popular in engineering flow calculations.

CONT.

15

Boundary Conditions:• Air at entrance is 60m/s

• Turbulence intensity is set to standard 2%

• Front wing is set as a “wall”

• The ground is set as a moving wall having the same speed as that of the incoming air i.e. 60m/s.

• Outlet of the domain is set as the outflow

CONT.

16

• The analysis was done on the flow visualization obtained using ANSYS FLUENT 13.0 that provided us the values of the Cl and Cd in addition to the flow pattern.

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

17

Observed Flow Patterns:

CONT.

18

PATH LINES TRACES

19

STRAIN RATE CONTOURS:

20

STATIC PRESSURE CONTOURS:

21

GRAPHS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Drag Convergence

Iterations

Coeffi

cien

t of d

rag

22

CONT.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Lift Convergence

Iterations

Coeffi

cien

t of L

ift

23

THANK YOU