Study of A Formula 1 Wheel

SOLID BASED ON THE NEW 2022
AERODYNAMIC FORMULA 1 WHEEL.

ANALYSIS OF A SOLID.
Pablo Seisdedos Barrabés

Pau Gabàs Lavilla
THE NEW 18-INCH

WHEELS FOR THE F1
2022
1
INDEX
ANALYSYS DESCRIPTION.......................................1
-Preface.............................................................
-Description of the most important concepts. ...
CASE 1. STATIC CASE............................................2

-Summary
-Dimensions
-Mesh
-Boundary conditions and solution strategy
-Simulation visualization
-Results
CASE 2 3
-Summary
-Dimensions
-Mesh
-Results
CASE 3..................................................................4
-Summary
-Dimensions
-Mesh
-Results
CASE 4..................................................................5
-Summary
-Dimensions
-Mesh
-Results
GRAPHICS AND COMPARISON OF THE CASES. 6
2
ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTION
CONCLUSION
PREFACE
The new Formula 1 regulations and the different elements that have been updated make
us focus our work on one of the most significant changes in F1, the wheels.
The size of the wheels has varied from 13 inches to 18 inches and that alters both the
dynamic and aerodynamic behaviour of the car.
We will focus specifically on the aerodynamic field and we will use ALTAIR's Hyper
Works CFD software to perform the simulations.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CONCEPTS
The conditions we consider are:

-Velocity: 315km/h.
We assume that the car travels on one of the longest straights in Formula 1, so we will
have an approximate speed of 315km/h. We will take this value for all the cases that we
will study.
-Fluid: Air.
Obviously, the simulation has to be as close as possible to real life, therefore the only
fluid we can choose is air. The pressure will be the atmosphere (101325 Pa) and the
density is that of air (1.225 kg/m³).
-Wheel size: 18 inch.
According to the specifications of PIRELLI (tire and rim manufacturer) the
measurements of the set from limit to limit is:
Radius: 0.36m
Width: 0.305m
CASE I
Difference between 2021 and 2022 wheels
STATIC CASE
3
In this static analysis we will analyse the wheel in an ideal state, that is, without
touching the ground and without angular speed.
-Summary:
This report summarizes the results of an external aerodynamic CFD analysis performed
by Altair’s Hyperworks CFD, leveraging AcuSolve’s CFD technology.
The first section provides a brief overview of the run and its results.
AcuSolve version 2021

Simulation type steady
Wind Tunnel Inlet 87.5 0.00 0.00 m/s (constant)
Table 1.1: Problem Information
-Dimensions:
This view contains geometric dimensions related to the wind tunnel and the body.
Wind tunnel dimension 11.72 m x 5.76 m x 3.60 m.
Body dimension 0.72 m x 0.72 m x 0.305 m.

Distance inflow - body 5.50 m
Table 1.2: Geometric Dimensions
4
-Mesh:
This section contains mesh statistics and screenshots of several cutting planes
through the mesh.
Numb. of nodes 234063

Numb. of elements 2d 25539
Numb. Of elements 3d 618269
Table 1.3: Mesh statistics
-Boundary conditions and solution strategy:

In this section the boundary conditions and the setup for the CFD run are listed.
5

Slip Walls Top, bottom, left faces of wind tunnel
No-slip Walls Wheel
Symmetry Walls Right face of wind tunnel
Table 1.4:
Boundary conditions.
Steady update factor 0.6
Turbulence model Spalart-Allmaras
Phase flow Incompressible
Pressure scale Gauge
Moving ground False
Rotating wheels False
Steady maximum steps 100
Convergence tolerance 0.001
Table 1.5: Solution Strategy.
Density 1.225 kg/m3

Dynamic Viscosity 1.781e-005 kg/m-sec
Table 1.6: Material Model
To compute the above aerodynamic coefficients, the following equations are used:
6
Drag coefficient: Lift coefficient:
-Fx,Fy and Fz, forces are acting on the body in x,y and z directions, respectively.
-Rho is density of fluid (1.225kg/m3)
-V is a free stream velocity.
-Aref is frontal.
x
2·F
-Drag area, Cd· A= 2
ρ·v
p− p ∞
-Pressure coefficient, Cp = 2
(0.5) x (rho)x (v )
-Simulation visualization:
PRESSURE: The fundamental unit of pressure that will appear on all pressure simulation
images is given in MPa.
7
Fig 1.7: This image represents the same case but with the contour lines to correctly
visualize the pressure zones.
8
CASE I
CASE I
Fig 1.10: The volumetric surfaces called iso-surfaces that appear (in transparent contour)
are the areas of highest pressure in 3D. The one at the front is larger (mentioned above)
and the one at the rear is caused by air re-occupying the vacuum created by the wheel.
Fig 1.9: An isometric view, offering a global view of the zone of maximum pressure.
VELOCITY: The fundamental unit of velocity that will appear on all velocity
simulation images is given in m/s.
9
Fig 1.11: View of the xz plane (symmetry). At the front, the air slows down due to the
surface of the wheel and the impact of the air itself slows down the one that comes next.
The vacuum created behind the wheel prevents the air from flowing, but as it moves away,
it returns to its previous position, speed and direction.
10
CASE I
Fig 1.12: The same display in the Fig 1.10 but in isometric view.
11
CASE I
Fig 1.13: 3D speed contour (iso-surfaces), represents approximate speeds at about 60km/h,
1/5 of the initial speed. This indicates that the studied surface does not contribute to a
good aerodynamics (to be expected).
SHEAR STRESS TENSOR (x,y,z):
Fig 1.14: Shear stress is one which, fixed in a plane, acts tangentially to it. When a force or
shear stress is applied to a fluid, the fluid presents a resistance to movement, as this stress
continues, the fluid tends to deform. The red areas represent the surfaces that suffer the
most stress.
12
CASE I
Fig 1.14:
VELOCITY IN STREAMLINES:
Fig 1.16: That’s the same display that the Fig 1.15 but behind appears a transparence
velocity display.
13
EDDY VISCOSITY: Eddy viscosity is the proportionality factor describing the turbulent
transfer of energy as a result of moving eddies, giving rise to tangential stresses.
CASE I
Fig 1.19: This contour represents the zone of most turbulence created by the wheel,
because of its "anti-aerodynamic" shape it leaves a large and intense range of turbulent
zone behind it as can be seen
14
Results and observations:
Drag Area, Cd·A 0,06

Lift Area, Cl·A 0,19
Table 1.7: Coefficients (results)
15
CASE I
Firstly, we can see that in terms of pressure, in Fig. 1.6 to 1.10, that pressure is higher where the
air hits the wheel and just after that surface, the pressure drops drastically. As we get to the back
of the wheel, the pressure starts to increase slowly and, later, it reaches the starting air pressure.
This makes sense as is what is it expected from air hitting a wheel, the front face is hit by air
(having high pressure), this air, should open from the tyre and makes a gap at the back of the
wheel, getting there a lower pressure until it restores the initial flow of air.
Paying attention into velocity, in Fig. 1.11 to 1.13, we can see that the velocity of the surface
where air hits the wheel is low, that is because of the air rebounds into the wheel, making the air
coming, slower. At the top and bottom of the wheel, as the rebound is more or less in the
direction of the air, the velocity increases in that part. As in the pressure, a gap is created behind
the wheel, therefore the air velocity is zero or very low. Few centimetres behind the wheel, the air
restores its initial velocity. We can explain this quite precisely with streamlines in Fig. 1.15 to 1.18.
The shear stress shown in Fig 1.14, shows us that the stresses are higher where the velocity is
higher, this makes sense because when fluid layers flow at different velocities, they cause shear
stresses that can trigger instabilities eventually large enough to make the flow transition from
laminar to turbulent.
This last statement can be backed up with eddy viscosity or turbulence showed in Fig 1.19 and Fig.
1.20, as we can see that turbulence is created just after the highest shear stresses shown in Fig.
1.14. They are created at the gap of behind the wheel.
CASE II
WHEEL WITHOUT WALLS BUT WITH ANGULAR VELOCITY

In this case we will study the aerodynamics of the wheel in a free space, without
walls but with a speed that we will obtain using the formula: Air speed = Speed of
the wheel (angular) / radius of the wheel.
16
W = V/r = (87.5m/s)/(0.36m) = 243.05rad/s
-Summary:
This report summarizes the results of an external aerodynamic CFD analysis
performed by Altair’s Hyperworks CFD, leveraging AcuSolve’s CFD technolog
The first section provides a brief overview of the run and its results:

Dimensions:
Figure 2.1:
Shown here is the wind tunnel
box with the wheel on one
side. It should be said that in
this section we had already
applied the geometry with
which we will only visualize
half, but since it is symmetrical
the results will be equivalent
on both sides.

CASE II
-Mesh:
This section contains mesh statistics and screenshots of several cutting planes
through the mesh.
17
Figure 2.2: The mesh is placed in such a way that there is more resolution in the vicinity of
the wheel. Boundary layers enclose the wheel in a smaller and more powerful mesh.
Fig 2.3 and 2.5: In these images you can see a section in the middle of the wheel, both in
plan and isometric views.

CASE II Numb. Of elements 3d 602345
The meshes of case 1 and case 2, although they seem equal, they are not.
-Boundary conditions and solution strategy:

In this section the boundary conditions and the setup for the CFD run are
listed.
18

Fig 2.6: As can
Slipbe seen in the legend,Top,
Walls eachbottom,
colour belongs to a characteristic
left faces of wind tunnel of each surface.
The face No-slip
to face ofWalls
the input is theWheel
outlet and the lateral faces that are not seen are slip.
Table 2.4: Boundary conditions.

Moving ground False
CASE II Rotating wheels
Steady maximum steps
True
100
Density 1.225 kg/m3

To compute the above aerodynamic coefficients, the following equations are

used:
19
-Rho is density of fluid (1.225kg/m3)
-Aref is frontal.
x
2·F
ρ·v
p− p ∞
(0.5) x (rho)x (v )
Now apply the

mentioned angular
velocity to the wheel.
CASE II
Simulation visualization:
PRESSURE: The fundamental unit of pressure that will appear on all pressure
simulation images is given in MPa.
20
Fig 2.6: The highest air pressure is positioned where the angle of attack is most aggressive (90
to the exact midpoint of the wheel, an "ideal" point). As the air slides up and down the width
of the wheel, the angle of attack increases. As the air slides up and down the width of the
wheel, the angle of attack decreases, then the pressure decreases until it exceeds the surface
impacted by the air, then it takes off and returns to normal. The green zone it is not
symmetrical and is distorted by the speed of the wheel.
CASE II
Fig 2.7: Cut at the perpendicular bisector of the wheel in the xz plane. Same display as
previous photos. The maximum pressure (red zone) extends approximately 1/8 of the
diameter of the wheel.
21
CASE II
Fig 2.9: An isometric view, offering a global view of the zone of maximum pressure.
22
Fig 2.10: View of the xz plane (symmetry). At the front, the air slows down due to the
surface of the wheel and the impact of the air itself slows down the one that comes next.
The vacuum created behind the wheel prevents the air from flowing, but now, the shape of
the vacuum is altered by the rotational surface of the wheel.
Fig 2.11: The same display in the Fig 2.10 but in isometric view.
23
CASE II
Fig 2.12: 3D speed contour (iso-surfaces), represents approximate speeds at about 60km/h,
1/5 of the initial speed. This indicates that the studied surface does not contribute to a
good aerodynamics (to be expected).
Fig 2.13: Shear stress is one which, fixed in a plane, acts tangentially to it. When a force or
shear stress is applied to a fluid, the fluid presents a resistance to movement, as this stress
continues, the fluid tends to deform. The red areas represent the surfaces that suffer the
most stress.
24
Fig 2.14: Streamlines, streaklines and pathlines are field lines in a fluid flow. They differ
only when the flow changes with time, that is, when the flow is not steady. In this case they
only have 1 row of lines and you can see that they surround the width of the wheel in a
uniform way (since the wheel does not rotate).
Fig 2.15: That’s the same display that the Fig 1.15 but behind appears a transparence
velocity display.
25
Fig 2.16: Same surface contours but with isometric view.
Fig 2.17: An elevation view to observe the profile of the wheel and the trajectory that the
lines make when passing through it.
CASE II
EDDY VISCOSITY: Eddy viscosity is the proportionality factor describing the turbulent
transfer of energy as a result of moving eddies, giving rise to tangential stresses.
26
CASE II
-
Results and observations:

27

Firstly, we can see that in terms of pressure, in Fig. 2.6 to 2.9, that this case is quite similar to CASE
I. Pressure is higher where the air hits the wheel and just after that surface, the pressure drops
drastically. As we get to the back of the wheel, the pressure starts to increase slowly and, later, it
reaches the starting air pressure. This makes sense as is what is it expected from air hitting a
wheel, the front face is hit by air (having high pressure), this air, should open from the tyre and
makes a gap at the back of the wheel, getting there a lower pressure until it restores the initial
flow of air.
Paying attention into velocity, in Fig. 2.10 to 2.12, similarities are shown as in CASE I, but many
differences created too because of rotation. We can see that the velocity of the surface where air
hits the wheel is low, that is because of the air rebounds into the wheel, making the air coming,
slower. At the top part of the wheel, we can see high velocity of air, that’s because of the rotation
of the wheel, making the air there faster. Bottom and back of the wheel, as in the pressure, a gap
is created behind the wheel, therefore the air velocity is zero or very low, but now we can see that
it won’t be symmetric or straight, now, because of rotation, it makes a curved shape. Few
centimetres behind the wheel, the air restores its initial velocity. We can explain this quite
precisely with streamlines in Fig. 2.14 to 2.17.
This last statement can be backed up with eddy viscosity or turbulence showed in Fig 2.18 and Fig.
1.19, as we can see that turbulence is created just after the highest shear stresses shown in Fig.
1.13. They are created at the gap of behind the wheel, in this case, this curved form.
CASE III
WHEEL WITH FLOOR (0 VELOCITY) AND ANGULAR VELOCITY.

28
In this case the wheel is touching the ground and with the speed mentioned above.
The ground in this case does not move.
-Summary:

Dimensions:
Figure 3.1:
on both sides.

29
CASE III
-Mesh:
This section contents mesh statistics and screenshots of several cutting planes
through the mesh.
Figure 3.2: Front view of the mesh.

Numb. Of elements 3d 436588
Fig 3.3 and 3.4 Side and isometric view of the mesh.
CASE III Table 3.3: Mesh statistics
Boundary conditions and solution strategy:

listed.
30

Fig 3.4: Boundary conditions of the wind tunnel. Back and bottom faces are slip, right face is
outlet.
No-slip Walls Wheel

Moving ground False
Rotating wheels True
CASE III Convergence tolerance 0.001
Density 1.225 kg/m3
used:
31
- ρ is density of fluid (1.225kg/m3)
-Aref is frontal.
x
2·F
ρ·v
p− p ∞
(0.5) x (ρ)x ( v )
CASE III
-Simulation visualitzation:
32
Fig 3.5: Pressure visualisation (front face view)

33
CASE III
CASE III
Fig 3.8: Pressure visualisation (isometric view)
34
Fig 3.9: Pressure vector visualisation (isometric view)
CASE III
Fig 3.10: Velocity visualisation (front face view)
Fig 3.11: Velocity visualisation (isometric view)

35
CASE III
Fig 3.12: Velocity iso surface visualisation (isometric view)
36
CASE III
Fig 3.13: Velocity in stream lines visualisation (front face view)
Fig 3.15: Velocity in stream lines visualisation (isometric view)

37
CASE III
Fig 3.17: Shear stress visualisation (isometric view)
EDDY VISCOSITY:
CASE III
-
Fig 3.18: Eddy viscosity visualisation (isometric view)
Results:
38

Lift Area, Cl·A -0,215
Firstly, we can see that in terms of pressure, in Fig. 3.5 to 3.9, we see that is similar to CASE II.
Pressure is higher where the air hits the wheel, from somewhere just a bit higher from the centre
of the wheel, until it touches the floor. Just after that surface, the pressure drops drastically. As
we get to the back of the wheel, the pressure starts to increase slowly, same shape as CASE II but
now as we have the floor, this limits the curved path shown in CASE II. Later, it reaches the
starting air pressure. This makes sense as is what is it expected from air hitting a wheel, the front
face is hit by air (having high pressure), this air, should open from the tyre and makes a gap at the
back and under the wheel, getting there a lower pressure until it restores the initial flow of air.
coming, slower. At the top we can see high velocity of air, that’s because of the rotation of the
wheel, making the air there faster. Bottom and back of the wheel, as in the pressure, a gap (larger
than in CASE II) is created behind the wheel, therefore the air velocity is zero or very low, but now
we can see that it won’t be symmetric or straight, now, because of rotation, it makes a curved
shape but just at its top, at the bottom, as there is the floor, it delimits. In this case, behind the
wheel, in our wind tunnel we can’t see air restoring its initial velocity. We can explain this quite
This last statement can be backed up with eddy viscosity or turbulence showed in Fig 3.18, as we
can see that turbulence is created just after the highest shear stresses shown in Fig. 3.17. They are
created at the gap of behind the wheel.
We think that the negative lift must be a problem, because there is no logic in lift being downforce
just because there is a floor, and our knowledge acquired in class tells us that it must be positive
lift. Therefore, we will pick the value in positive for the conclusions.
39
WHEEL WITH MOVING FLOOR (AIR VELOCITY) AND ANGULAR VELOCITY.

In this case the wheel is touching the ground and with the speed mentioned above.
The ground in this case does not move.
-Summary:

Dimensions:
Figure 4.1:
on both sides.

-Mesh:
40
This section contents mesh statistics and screenshots of several cutting planes
through the mesh.
Figure 4.2: Front view of the mesh.

Numb.
Fig 4.3 and Of elements
4.4 Side 3d view of438768
and isometric the mesh.
Boundary conditions and solution strategy:

listed.
41

Fig 4.4: Boundary conditions of the wind tunnel. Back and bottom faces are slip, right face is
outlet.
No-slip Walls Wheel

Moving ground True
Rotating wheels True
Density 1.225 kg/m3
used:
42
- ρ is density of fluid (1.225kg/m3)
-Aref is frontal.
x
2·F
ρ·v
p− p ∞
(0.5) x (ρ)x ( v )
CASE IV
-Simulation visualitzation:
43
Fig 4.5: Pressure visualisation (front face view)

44
Fig 4.8: Pressure visualisation (isometric view)

45
Fig 4.9: Pressure vector visualisation (isometric view)
Fig 4.10: Velocity visualisation (front face view)
Fig 4.11: Velocity visualisation (isometric view)

46
Fig 4.12: Velocity iso surface visualisation (isometric view)
47
Fig 4.15: Velocity in stream lines visualisation (isometric view)

48
Fig 4.17: Shear stress visualisation (isometric view)
EDDY VISCOSITY:
-
Fig 4.18: Eddy viscosity visualisation (isometric view)
Results:
49

Firstly, we can see that in terms of pressure, in Fig. 4.5 to 4.9, we see that is very similar to CASE
III. Pressure is higher where the air hits the wheel, from somewhere just a bit higher from the
centre of the wheel, until it touches the floor. Just after that surface, the pressure drops
drastically. As we get to the back of the wheel, the pressure starts to increase slowly, same shape
as CASE III. Later, it reaches the starting air pressure. This makes sense as is what is it expected
from air hitting a wheel, the front face is hit by air (having high pressure), this air, should open
from the tyre and makes a gap at the back and under the wheel, getting there a lower pressure
until it restores the initial flow of air.
coming, slower. At the top we can see high velocity of air, that’s because of the rotation of the
wheel, making the air there faster. Bottom and back of the wheel, as in the pressure, a gap (even
larger than in CASE III) is created behind the wheel, therefore the air velocity is zero or very low,
but now we can see that its shape will be more or less the CASE III shape. In this case, behind the
wheel, in our wind tunnel we can’t see air restoring its initial velocity. We can explain this quite
This last statement can be backed up with eddy viscosity or turbulence showed in Fig 4.18, as we
can see that turbulence is created just after the highest shear stresses shown in Fig. 4.17. They are
created at the gap of behind the wheel.
We think that the negative lift must be a problem, because there is no logic in lift being downforce
just because the floor is moving, and our knowledge acquired in class tells us that it must be
positive lift. Therefore, we will pick the value in positive for the conclusions.
-Graphics and comparison of the cases:

50
CASE I
Fig 5.1: Graph plot case I (green: lift force, red: cross force, blue: drag force)
CASE 2
Fig 5.2: Graph plot case II (green: lift force, red: cross force, blue: drag force)
51
CASE 3
Fig 5.3: Graph plot case III (green: lift force, red: cross force, blue: drag force)
CASE 4
Fig 5.4: Graph plot case IV (green: lift force, red: cross force, blue: drag force)
52
Comparison of the cases:
We have explained each case more detailed at the end of every case. Now we want to show the
differences between each case, using the logic and the knowledge acquired at class. We will see
each case, compared to the next, as there are small but significant differences between each one
that change the result of the numerical and visual analysis.
CASE I - CASE II:

The difference in the problem formulation between CASE I and CASE II basically is the fact that
CASE I the wheel is static, and in CASE II, the wheel has angular velocity.
Firstly, we will start analysing visual results. In terms of pressure, it’s almost equal. Having small
variations, quite difficult to analyse. In terms of velocity, is where most differences are seen, as
the wheel rotates, in CASE I the gap of velocity reduction behind the wheel is almost straight and
symmetric (Fig 1.12). In CASE II, this gap we can see, because of rotation, that is more at the
bottom and asymmetric (Fig 2.10). That is because of rotation, the air is guided as the movement
of the wheel, to under the wheel, therefore the turbulence created by the wheel is different in
each case.
In terms of numerical analysis and shown by the values taken from the graphics (Fig 5.1 and Fig
5.2), we can see that the drag in CASE I and CASE II are different but close:
CASE I:
CASE II:
We can calculate the increment of drag and lift:
Drag increment:
0,062−0 , 06
x 100=3 ,33 %
0 ,06
Lift increment:
0,207−0 ,19
x 100=8 , 95 %
0 ,19
We can see that both increments are low, but in case of lift starts to be an important increment.
CASE II - CASE III:

The difference in the problem formulation between CASE II and CASE III basically is the fact that
CASE II there is no walls, and in CASE III, the wheel is resting over a floor with 0 velocity.
53
Visual analysis. In terms of pressure (Fig 2.6 and 3.5), is quite similar, but now, in CASE III and
because of the floor, the higher pressure is also in the front-bottom part, because the air hitting
there, now can’t go away from the wheel, as the floor guides it to the bottom of the wheel. In
terms of velocity (Fig 2.10 and 3.11), it’s the same, but the floor avoids the air to go under itself,
making the bottom part of the turbulence to be over the floor.
5.3), we can see that, again, the drag and lift in CASE II and CASE III are different but close:
CASE II:
CASE III:
As said in their respectively observations, we think that the negative value in case III is wrong
maybe because of the mesh or some problem with the program, so we will do the calculations
with the positive number.
Drag increment:
0,100−0,062
x 100=61 ,29 %
0,062
Lift increment:
0,215−0,207
x 100=3 , 86 %
0,207
In this case we can see that the drag has increased a lot, as the floor impede the air that should
flow under the wheel. In case of lift there is a bit of increment.
CASE III - CASE IV:

The difference in the problem formulation between CASE III and CASE IV basically is the fact that
CASE III the floor is static, and in CASE IV, the floor has the air velocity in the same direction.
Visual analysis. In terms of pressure and velocity, both cases are very similar, not much can be
taken out from the visual analysis.
5.4), we can see that, again, the drag and lift in CASE III and CASE IV are different but close:
54
CASE III:
CASE IV:
As said in their respectively observations and in the previous case, we think that the negative
value in case III and IV is wrong maybe because of the mesh or some problem with the program,
so we will do the calculations with the positive number.
Drag increment:
0,104−0,100
x 100=4 %
0,100
Lift increment:
0,220−0 ,215
x 100=2 ,33 %
0,215
In this case we can see that both, drag and lift, have a low but substantial increment in drag and
lift.

Study of A Formula 1 Wheel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study of A Formula 1 Wheel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOLID BASED ON THE NEW 2022

AERODYNAMIC FORMULA 1 WHEEL.

Pablo Seisdedos Barrabés

THE NEW 18-INCH

CASE 1. STATIC CASE............................................2

DESCRIPTION OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CONCEPTS

The conditions we consider are:

Difference between 2021 and 2022 wheels

AcuSolve version 2021

Wind tunnel dimension 11.72 m x 5.76 m x 3.60 m.

Body dimension 0.72 m x 0.72 m x 0.305 m.

Numb. of nodes 234063

-Boundary conditions and solution strategy:

Wind Tunnel Inlet 87.5 0.00 0.00 m/s (constant)

Density 1.225 kg/m3

Drag coefficient: Lift coefficient:

-Rho is density of fluid (1.225kg/m3)

-V is a free stream velocity.

SHEAR STRESS TENSOR (x,y,z):

Results and observations:

Drag Area, Cd·A 0,06

WHEEL WITHOUT WALLS BUT WITH ANGULAR VELOCITY

W = V/r = (87.5m/s)/(0.36m) = 243.05rad/s

AcuSolve version 2021

Wind tunnel dimension 11.72 m x 5.76 m x 3.60 m.

Numb. of nodes 230046

-Boundary conditions and solution strategy:

Wind Tunnel Inlet 87.5 0.00 0.00 m/s (constant)

Table 2.4: Boundary conditions.

Density 1.225 kg/m3

To compute the above aerodynamic coefficients, the following equations are

-Rho is density of fluid (1.225kg/m3)

-V is a free stream velocity.

Now apply the

SHEAR STRESS TENSOR (x,y,z):

Fig 2.16: Same surface contours but with isometric view.

Results and observations:

Drag Area, Cd·A 0,062

WHEEL WITH FLOOR (0 VELOCITY) AND ANGULAR VELOCITY.

AcuSolve version 2021

Wind tunnel dimension 11.72 m x 5.76 m x 3.60 m.

Body dimension 0.72 m x 0.72 m x 0.305 m.

Figure 3.2: Front view of the mesh.

Numb. of nodes 17944

CASE III Table 3.3: Mesh statistics

Boundary conditions and solution strategy:

Wind Tunnel Inlet 87.5 0.00 0.00 m/s (constant)

Simulation type steady

- ρ is density of fluid (1.225kg/m3)

-V is a free stream velocity.

images is given in MPa.

Fig 3.5: Pressure visualisation (front face view)

Fig 3.9: Pressure vector visualisation (isometric view)

Fig 3.10: Velocity visualisation (front face view)

Fig 3.11: Velocity visualisation (isometric view)

Fig 3.14: Velocity in stream lines visualisation (front face view)

Fig 3.15: Velocity in stream lines visualisation (isometric view)

SHEAR STRESS TENSOR (x,y,z):

Fig 3.17: Shear stress visualisation (isometric view)

Drag Area, Cd·A 0,100

Table 3.7: Coefficients (results)

WHEEL WITH MOVING FLOOR (AIR VELOCITY) AND ANGULAR VELOCITY.

AcuSolve version 2021