Alistair Duff, for technical assistance Mr. Andrew Crockett, for strain gauge assistance
Download 3.93 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 17.4 FLAT PLAT A-PILLAR COMPARISON
17.3 GAMBIT: MESHING & SOLVINGMeshing of the car and wing mirror was again an iterative process, similar to the process employed for the flat plate model. Several mesh sizes were applied before a successful configuration was found. The wing mirror and wing mirror mount were meshed with a triangular mesh with an interval size of 5 which is a coarser mesh than that applied to the wing mirror on the flat plat setup. A triangular mesh with an interval size of 50 was then applied to the rest of the car surfaces. The flow domain walls were also meshed with a triangular scheme, with an interval size of 300. The flow domain volume was then meshed with a tetrahedral scheme with an interval size of 350.These mesh sizes represented the best compromise between model accuracy and realistic solvability. The same boundary conditions applied to the flat plate were then set, with the exception of the domain wall situated under the car geometry which was set as a wall to represent the ground. The continuum was then set as a fluid and the mesh was exported for use in Fluent. The exported mesh was opened in Fluent and the six analyses running from 10 to 60mph were carried out - using identical initial conditions and reference values to the ones set in the flat plate analyses 17.4 FLAT PLAT & A-PILLAR COMPARISONWith the solutions obtained, a comparison between the drag readings obtained through the two fluent models was made. Graph 3 shows a plot of drag against velocity for each Fluent model across the velocity range. 
Graph 3 – Flat Plate & A-Pillar comparison, Drag v Velocity From Graph 3 it can be seen that the presence of the A-Pillar brought about very little change in the drag produced by the wing mirror, with a maximum difference in drag of just over 1N at 60mph. Download 3.93 Mb. Share with your friends:
|