Team Number 2 MECH4620

COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS OF
AN AHMED BODY
William M Cullen (z5114867), Gerard A. Atkins ( z5115030), JOE ABOU SERHAL
(Z5274807), Jiaxuan Li (z5086369), Atitat Rattanachata (z5227470), Jiacheng Dong
(z5252715)

School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,

The University of New South Wales,
Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia

Abstract

This report outlines a CFD analysis of an Ahmed body, a model representing a typical car, and the optimisation in
order to find the location of the rear flap that results in minimum drag and maximum downforce. The analysis used a
tetrahedral mesh with a total element count of 226,000 with inflation around the Ahmed body in order to fully
capture the properties of the flow. The CFD analysis found large eddies formed to the rear of the Ahmed body and a
region of low velocity developed above the rear flap. A region of low pressure was also found to the rear of the
Ahmed body, related to the turbulence that was created. The optimal location of the rear flap was found to be 57mm
along the rear slanted face at a 50 degree angle relative to the ground. At this location, less turbulence was found at
the rear of the Ahmed body and as a result a smaller region of low pressure. In addition, there was no flow
separation over the flap meaning no region of low pressure above the rear flap as was found in the base model.

Nomenclature

𝐶𝐷 Drag Coefficient
CL Lift Coefficient
ρ density (kg/m3)

𝛽 Angle of attack
𝜇 Dynamic Viscosity
𝑣 Kinetic Viscosity
u Inlet Velocity
A Area of Ahmed body front face

1 Introduction

Aerodynamic drag is a key contributor to fuel consumption of vehicles, it qualifies how much resistance force a
vehicle experiences from the surrounding fluid flow. It is imperative that vehicles are designed methodically in order
to achieve minimum aerodynamic drag to reduce fuel consumption. Due to the rapid advancement of numerical
methodologies and computational power, the application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has become a
very cost-effective way to analyse the flow structure around the vehicle and optimise the surface body for minimum
drag [1]. Previous CFD studies analysing the aerodynamic drag of vehicles have been conducted by simulating the

1
Team Number 2 MECH4620

flow over a model replicating real vehicles. A method proved by studies for having a significant impact on the
reduction of aerodynamic drag of vehicles is through the addition of a range of geometries to the exterior of the
model.

Ha and Obayashi found that by installing a flap, which is thin-flat rectangular geometry, to the rear window location
of a pickup-truck model with a downward angle will significantly reduce the drag coefficient of the model. The
reduced drag was found to be due to an increase in the pressure on along the rear surface, causing the downwash of
the bed flow to be inclined on the tailgate. They further stated that after lower flap angle to an extent, the drag
coefficient will increase due to bed flow increased the drag force at the tailgate and the flap lowered the pressure
field above the flap [2].

As ground vehicles are complex geometries and vary significantly depending upon the type of the vehicle, a
standard model in automotive engineering called an “Ahmed body” is generally used to simulate ground vehicle. An
Ahmed body is used as it has a simplified structure that still captures the aerodynamic properties of vehicles. The
simplified geometry allows for alterations to be made and results generated rapidly, enabling a range of parameters
to be tested.

By analysing flow around the Ahmed body, Tian and Xiao presented that by placing the rear flap at a 25-degree
angle relative to the ground, aerodynamic drag was reduced greatly with the drag coefficient effectively reduced by
21% relative to no flap [3]. It is noted that if the same flap was placed on a 35-degree angle in the same location, the
drag coefficient will be reduced by 6%. It was concluded the optimal angle for a rear flap was 25-

Based on the literature that was reviewed, it can be concluded that aerodynamic drag will be reduced by installing a
flap at the rear of Ahmed body. Nonetheless, optimum flap configuration, both the angle and location must be
adjusted in order to achieve the optimum result.

1.1 Project Description

In this project, a modified Ahmed body with the geometry given in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 will be attached
with a flap at the rear slant in the location marked in (2). Flow characteristics around the body will be investigated in
order to obtain aerodynamic drag and lift force. These forces will then be converted into the coefficients of lift and
drag using the following equations respectively.

1
𝐶𝐷 =
2𝜌𝑢2 𝐴

1
𝐶𝐿 =
2𝜌𝑢2 𝐴

2
Team Number 2 MECH4620

Figure 1 – Model Top View

Figure 2 – Model Front View

Figure 3 – Model Side View

3
Team Number 2 MECH4620

In addition to finding the configuration that provides minimum aerodynamic drag, maximum negative lift is desired
to ensure suitable traction for the vehicle. Flap configuration will be altered to find the best result, minimum drag
and maximum negative lift. The flap is rectangular with 40mm length and 6mm thickness and runs along the entire
width of the Ahmed body. The flaps will be placed at 5 different location, A B C D and E as outlined in Figure 4.
At each location, the slant angle will be increased at 10-degree increments relative to the ground, from a 10-degrees
through to 50-degrees inclusive.

Figure 4 – Flap Locations

The analysis will be conducted using the ANSYS – CFX software. The body is put into two enclosures as shown in
Figure 5 and meshed using tetrahedral meshes with a 500,000 elements restriction. Mesh refinement will be applied
where necessary in order to ensure accurate results. Due to the symmetry of the model, a symmetry plane along the
X-axis will be used to further ensure the element restrictions is met. The fluid used in the simulation is air with a
density (𝜌) of 1.2 kg/m3, dynamic viscosity (𝜇) of 1.599x10-5 kg/ms, kinematic viscosity (𝑣) of 1.132x10-5m2/s
and an inlet velocity (𝑉) of 15 m/s. Using these properties, the drag and lift forces can be found and converted into
the non-dimensional coefficients of drag and lift respectively.

4
Team Number 2 MECH4620

Figure 5 – Boundary Conditions

1.2 Project Aims

The physical behaviour that will be studied in the report is the Drag and Lift force on the model. Using these forces,
the non-dimensionalised coefficients of Lift and Drag (CL & CD) will be calculated to be further compared and
graphed with several interested values. From the base model, the location and angle of the flap located at the rear
will be altered into different configuration as described in the previous part in order to find the optimum position
that provides the minimum CD and maximum CL in the downwards direction.

2 Model Description

2.1 Grid Descriptions and Refinement

The geometry has two enclosures for the purpose of minimising total elements, demonstrated in Figure 7. The inner
enclosure (closer to the Ahmed body) has a finer mesh as data in this region is more important and intricate.
However, the outer enclosure has a significantly coarser mesh, as the flow here is more uniform and or less
importance to the project. This strategy allowed faster computation time while providing accurate results.

Furthermore, the model employed an unstructured meshing, using tetrahedral mesh. Although a structured mesh
allows for easy data management and mesh connectivity occurs in regular fashion, it increases grid non-
orthogonality or skewness for more complex geometries, which can cause unphysical solutions due to the
transformation of the governing equations [4].

Figure 6 – Mesh overview

5
Team Number 2 MECH4620

To fully capture the boundary layer and the complex turbulent velocities acting near the body an inflation layer was
applied, shown in Figure 7. Furthermore, edge sizing was applied specifying the total number of divisions. Table 1
outlines the final values of edge sizing used in the model.

Figure 7- Inflation Layer Meshing of Ahmed Body

To determine appropriate mesh sizing, a mesh sensitivity test was conducted. The initial element size for the outer
and inner enclosures was set to 0.25m and 0.15m respectively. The sizing of this mesh was reduced from this coarse
sizing to a very fine mesh and the drag on the body was calculated. Figure 8 demonstrates the trend of these results.

Figure 8: Resulting Drag from differing mesh refinements

From this, it is obvious that the results become mesh independent after the number of elements exceeds 226,000
elements. Therefore, this is the optimal choice for the model.

Table 1: Mesh Summary

Mesh Element Size (m) Number of Divisions

Outer Enclosure Body Sizing 0.25 m -
Inner Enclosure Body Sizing 0.15 m -
Face sizing of Car Body 0.01 m -
Face sizing of Flaps 0.005 m -
Edge Sizing of car body in x- - 45 divisions
direction
Edge Sizing of the front of the car in - 50 divisions
x direction
Edge Sizing of the front of the car in - 50 divisions
y direction
Edge Sizing of flaps in y-direction - 20 divisions
Edge Sizing of car body in y- - 80 divisions
direction

6
Team Number 2 MECH4620

Edge Sizing of rear in y-direction - 40 divisions

Edge Sizing of legs - 20 divisions

2.2 Convergence Criteria

Figure 9 and Figure 10 demonstrate the effect of changing residual target to the output values. Clearly, for values
lower than 10e-5 there is no improvement in results accuracy and a smaller value would just achieve longer
computational time. Therefore, the model employed a residual target level of 10e-5.

Drag vs. Residual Target

3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1

Drag (N)
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0
Residual

Figure 9: Drag results with different residual targets

Lift vs. Residual Target

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Lift (N)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
0.0012 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 0
Residual
Figure 10: Lift results with different residual targets

2.3 Boundary Conditions

Table 2 outlines the boundary conditions implemented in the model.

Table 2: Boundary Conditions

Inlet Velocity corresponding to the velocity given 15 m/s in

Inlet
the x-direction.
Outlet Average static pressure equal to zero

7
Team Number 2 MECH4620

Top and Bottom Wall No slip, smooth wall and adiabatic

Ahmed Body No slip, smooth wall and adiabatic
Symmetry Symmetry plane of the Ahmed Body

The natural symmetry of the Ahmed body allowed the use of a symmetry boundary condition in the z-plane.
Furthermore, treating the top and bottom confines of the model as walls acted to better replicate conditions in a wind
tunnel.
The position of the outlet was varied to determine a position which would not affect results while minimising
computation time. Figure x demonstrates that the final outlet position is significantly far from the body such that its
position does not interfere with the turbulent flow formed on the rear of the body.

Figure 11: Velocity Contour

2.4 CFD models

The k-ε turbulence model was implemented in the computer model. The k-ε model is the most common and stable
turbulence model and assumes turbulent stresses and rate of strain are linearly related to the turbulent viscosity,
which is calculated from solving local values of k and epsilon as below.

1
𝑘= 𝑢 "𝑢 "
2 𝑖 𝑖

𝜇 𝑇 𝜕𝑢𝑖 " 𝜕𝑢𝑖 "

𝜀= ( )( )
𝜌̅ 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗

Where turbulent viscosity is given by:

𝑘2
𝜇 𝑇 = 𝜌̅ 𝐶𝜇 (𝐶𝜇 = 0.09)
𝜀

ANSYS – CFX utilises the Favre-Averaged Navier-Stokes (FANS) criteria to solve both the above equations and
the transport equations. The Favre-average assumes constant density, which is a suitable assumption for our model
as the flow is not considered a compressible fluid at the velocities to be analysed. In addition, the FANS criteria
assumes the flow is turbulent, fully developed and isotropic.

Favre-Averaged Momentum:

8
Team Number 2 MECH4620

𝜕 𝜕
(𝜌̅ 𝑢̃𝑖 ) + (𝜌̅ 𝑢̃𝑖 𝑢̃𝑗 )
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝑢̃𝑖 𝜕𝑢̃𝑗 2 𝜕𝑢̃𝑖 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠
=− (𝜌̅ 𝛿𝑖𝑗 ) + [(𝜇 + 𝜇 𝑇 ) ( + ) − ( (𝜇 + 𝜇 𝑇 ) 𝛿 + 𝜌̅ 𝑘𝛿𝑖𝑗 )] + ∑ 𝐹𝑖
𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑖 3 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑖𝑗

𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜇𝑇 𝜕𝑘 ̃𝑖
𝜕𝑢
k: (𝜌̅ 𝑘) + (𝜌̅ 𝑢̃𝑗 𝑘) = ( ) + 𝜌̅ 𝑢𝑖 𝑢𝑗 − 𝜌̅ 𝜀
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎𝑘 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗

𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜇𝑇 𝜕𝜀 𝜀 ̃𝑗
𝜕𝑢 𝜀2
ε: (𝜌̅ 𝜀 ) + (𝜌̅ 𝑢̃
𝑗𝜀) = ( ) + 𝐶𝜀1 (𝜌̅ 𝑢𝑖 𝑢𝑗 ) − 𝐶𝜀2 𝜌̅
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎𝑘 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑘 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑘

3 Results

3.1 Pressure profile analysis

Figure 12 shows the resultant pressure contour. It is clear from this that there exists a large pressure on the front
face of the Ahmed body, contributing significantly to the coefficient of drag. Furthermore, there exists a high-
pressure region on the flap (outlined by the red circle in figure 12). This pressure, created by the existence of the rear
flap, further increases that coefficient of drag. However, this pressure increases the total pressure acting downward
on the body, serving to increase downforce on the body.

Figure 12: Pressure Contour

3.2 Velocity u profile analysis

Figure 13 is a contour plot of the u-velocity, the vertical component of the velocity. From this plot, a few things can
be observed. Firstly, as observed previously, the high-pressure zone on the front face of the Ahmed body has led to a
region of low velocity. Secondly, this velocity is then accelerated around the radial edges of the front face, reaching
peak velocity once the flow reaches the flat surfaces on the top and bottom of the car. It should be noted that the
region of high velocity flow extends longer on the under-body surface.

One observation that is more apparent from Figure 13 is the turbulent wake region aft of the Ahmed body. This
high-turbulence region is due to the sudden changes in geometry. From this contour, it can also be seen the extent to
which the turbulent region extends past the car, which exists after nearly another full car length.

9
Team Number 2 MECH4620

Figure 13: U-Velocity contour

3.3 Velocity v profile analysis

Figure 14 is a display of the v-velocity, the horizontal component of the velocity, contour plot. From this plot, it is
obvious why the high under-side u-velocity extends further than the top-side u-velocity. Due to the position of the
floor, the flow is restricted which forces the flow in the x-direction, while restraining it in the y-direction. This is not
the case on the top side which has a much more open geometry.
Further from this plot, it can also be noted the vertical extent of the turbulent flow, which protrudes above the body
by nearly another car height.

Figure 14: v-velocity contour

4 Optimisation Results

In order to achieve the aim of the report to optimise the Ahmed body model to achieve a negative downforce and
minimum drag, alterations to the model were made. The alteration made to the model was the location and angle of
the rear flap. A total of 5 locations were tested A through E, and at each location a range of angles are to be tested
from 10 through to 50 with 10 degree increments. Refer to Figure 15 for the location of the flaps.

10
Team Number 2 MECH4620

Figure 15 – Flap Locations for Optimisation

From the simulations, the Drag and Lift forces were converted into the C D and CL values. The values found for each
location is presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – Optimisation Results

Location Drag (N) CD Lift (N) CL

A
10 2.69435 1.433345968 0.017164 0.009130941
20 2.95332 1.571113372 -0.362976 -0.193096734
30 3.13381 1.667130821 -0.487075 -0.259115181
40 3.5338 1.879918341 -0.936577 -0.498242198
50 3.37087 1.793242497 -0.63699 -0.338867277
B
10 1.7535 0.93283061 -0.15404 -0.081946522
20 1.782 0.9479921 -0.3261 -0.173479362
30 1.7838 0.948949668 -0.44288 -0.235604232
40 1.8182 0.967249852 -0.58612 -0.311805348
50 1.82 0.96820742 -0.76205 -0.405396958
C
10 1.69311 0.900704211 0.124462 0.066211556
20 1.74582 0.928744988 0.00108288 0.000576073
30 1.78814 0.95125847 -0.186875 -0.099414155
40 1.78254 0.94827937 -0.265747 -0.141372647
50 1.80255 0.958924332 -0.368737 -0.196161483
D
10 1.705 0.907029478 0.41121 0.218756359
20 1.7388 0.925010473 0.3382 0.179916346
30 1.7731 0.943257459 0.23438 0.124685964
40 1.7803 0.94708773 0.16514 0.087851524
50 1.7802 0.947034532 0.083812 0.044586484
E
10 2.35311 1.251812397 1.65187 0.87876527
20 2.35474 1.252679527 1.49489 0.79525472

11
Team Number 2 MECH4620

Location Drag (N) CD Lift (N) CL

30 2.33888 1.244242291 1.18131 0.628435773
40 2.30372 1.225537801 1.15285 0.613295563
50 2.30781 1.227713607 0.884341 0.470453581

In order to compare the results of each location, the CD and CL was plotted against the location. The plot of
the CD and CL are found in Figure 16 and

Coefficient of Lift
1

0.5 A
0 B
CL

C
-0.5
D
-1
E
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Angle

Figure 17 respectively.

Coefficient of Drag
2

1.5 A
B
CD

1
C
0.5
D
0
E
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Angle

Figure 16 – Coefficient of Drag

12
Team Number 2 MECH4620

Coefficient of Lift
1

0.5 A
0 B
CL

C
-0.5
D
-1
E
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Angle

Figure 17 – Coefficient of Lift

From the graphs, locations D and E are infeasible since they produce a positive lift force. For A, B and C, location A
has the highest drag force while locations B and D have somewhat equal low drag force.

Considering the coefficient of lift locations, A, B & C all generate a negative coefficient of lift, with the magnitude
increasing as the angle increases. The ideal location would be at A at 40 degrees since it has the absolute lowest
value, indicating the largest downforce, lower than B or C.

Each of these values cannot be considered in isolation as they are directly related to each other as both are
dependent on the pressure generated around the Ahmed Body. The optimum location of the rear flap must
take into consideration the position that produces the minimum drag for the greatest downforce. In order to
identify this, the Lift to Drag Ratio (CL/CD) is considered. The lift to drag ratio for each iteration is presented

Lift to Drag
0.8
0.6
0.4 A
0.2
CL/CD

B
0
-0.2 C
-0.4 D
-0.6
E
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Angle
in

Figure 18 below.

13
Team Number 2 MECH4620

Lift to Drag
0.8
0.6
0.4 A
0.2
CL/CD

B
0
-0.2 C
-0.4 D
-0.6
E
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Angle

Figure 18 – Lift to Drag Ratio

Upon consideration of the lift to drag ratio, we see that the best location setting is C at a 50 degree angle, providing
both a negative enough lift force compared to the drag force and having the lowest drag force compared to its lift
force. Location C at a 50 degree angle provides the second greatest downforce and third least drag force, however,
the locations that are better in these individual areas, location A at 40 degrees for downforce, and locations C and D
for drag, they do not provide a suitable balance of the forces.

The pressure contour and velocity streamlines are presented in Figure 19. This shows the region of high pressure
and flow over the front of the Ahmed body remains the same as the base model. Over the rear flap, there is no
separation of flow that was present in the base model. The result of the flow not separating from the Ahmed body is
the creation of a smaller region of turbulence behind the Ahmed body and a smaller region of low pressure. This has
resulted in a much lower drag force and consequently CD.

Figure 19 – Optimal Pressure Contour and Velocity Streamlines

5 Conclusions

This project studied the flow over an Ahmed body with a rear flap in order to analyse the drag and lift forces and
their relation to the pressure and velocity of the fluid. The velocity contour of the base model shows a large region
of turbulence behind the Ahmed body and as a result a region of low pressure. In addition, the flow separates over
the flap and as a result, there is a region above and behind the Ahmed body of low pressure, further increasing drag.

In order to optimise the Ahmed body to identify the configuration that will provide the minimum drag and
maximum downforce, the location and angle of the rear flap was altered. The simulation was run with the flap in 5
different locations and at 5 separate angles. From the results of these simulations, the CD and CL were found and
compared. It was found that the locations that provided the optimal drag properties provided the least desirable lift

14
Team Number 2 MECH4620

properties and vice versa. In order to determine the optimal result, the lift to drag ratio was used. The optimal result
found was location B with an angle 50 degrees above the horizontal.

References

[1] "UNSW Moodle ", Moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au, 2019. [Online]. Available:

https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/pluginfile.php/4490489/mod_resource/content/5/ahmed%20body%20case%20study_2019_T3_v
er2.pdf. [Accessed: 06- Nov- 2019].

[2] J. Ha, S. Jeong and S. Obayashi, "Drag reduction of a pickup truck by a rear downward flap", International Journal of
Automotive Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 369-374, 2011. Available: 10.1007/s12239-011-0043-7.

[3] J. Tian, Y. Zhang, H. Zhu and H. Xiao, "Aerodynamic drag reduction and flow control of Ahmed body with
flaps", Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 168781401771139, 2017. Available: 10.1177/1687814017711390.

[4] Structured Mesh - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. 2019. Structured Mesh - an overview | ScienceDirect
Topics. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/structured-mesh.

[5] Boundary Layer Modeling using Inflation Layers – SIMULATE TOMORROW!. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://www.cadfem.in/blog/organic/fbu/modeling-boundary-layer-inflation/. [Accessed 04 November 2019].

15