Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2007-01-0100

Multi-Disciplinary Aerodynamics
Analysis for Vehicles: Application of
External Flow Simulations to
Aerodynamics, Aeroacoustics and
Thermal Management of a Pickup Truck
Bradley D. Duncan, Sivapalan Senthooran,
Dena Hendriana, Pradeep Sivakumar and David Freed
Exa Corporation

Mark Gleason and Deborah C. Hall

DaimlerChrysler Corporation

Reprinted From: Vehicle Aerodynamics 2007

(SP-2066)

2007 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 16-19, 2007

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-776-3036
Tel: 724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2007 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018
Multi-Disciplinary Aerodynamics Analysis for Vehicles:
Application of External Flow Simulations to Aerodynamics,
Aeroacoustics and Thermal Management of a Pickup Truck
Bradley D. Duncan, Sivapalan Senthooran, Dena Hendriana,
Pradeep Sivakumar and David Freed
Copyright © 2007 SAE International
ABSTRACT
During the design process for a vehicle, the CAD surface
geometry becomes available at an early stage so that
numerical assessment of aerodynamic performance may
accompany the design of the vehicle’s shape. Accurate
prediction requires open grille models with detailed
underhood and underbody geometry with a high level of
detail on the upper body surface, such as moldings, trim
and parting lines. These details are also needed for
aeroacoustics simulations to compute wall-pressure
fluctuations, and for thermal management simulations to
compute underhood cooling, surface temperatures and
heat exchanger effectiveness. This paper presents the
results of a significant effort to capitalize on the
investment required to build a detailed virtual model of a
pickup truck in order to simultaneously assess
performance factors for aerodynamics, aeroacoustics
and thermal management. This type of multi-disciplinary
approach using a single virtual model is referred to as
“total vehicle analysis” or “TVA”, and allows for
optimization across disciplines. Simulations are carried
out using the commercial code PowerFLOW from Exa
Corporation for a prototype pickup, and are used to
produce performance metrics for each TVA discipline.
For aerodynamics, the drag coefficient, front-end cooling
flow rate (with cooling fan off), and static pressures are
computed; for aeroacoustics wall-pressure fluctuation
spectra are produced on the upper body and underbody,
and for thermal management, cooling flow performance
and surface temperatures of underhood components and
are produced. Thorough analysis and visualization of the
2007-01-0100
Exa Corporation
Mark Gleason and Deborah C. Hall
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
simulation results show the importance of detailed
geometry for prediction of flow structures and surface
pressures which are critical for accurate prediction of
aerodynamic and aeroacoustic performance. Coupling
between the PowerFLOW simulation and thermal
simulation tools are also used: Exa PowerCOOL is used
to compute the 1-D coolant performance, and RadTherm
from ThermoAnalytics, Inc., (TAI) is used to compute
radiation from hot surfaces in the underhood and
underbody, leading to surface temperatures for the
underhood cooling simulations. Visualization of
underhood flow shows the relationships between flow
features at the fascia and underbody with cooling airflow
within the underhood region. Finally, the process for
incorporating this type of simulation data into the design
process for vehicles is explored.
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATION
In today’s business environment for the production of
automobiles, numerical simulations play an important
role in every aspect of engineering design. In particular,
simulations of complex turbulent flows on the exterior of
the vehicle are used for external aerodynamic
performance, wind noise on the greenhouse and
underbody, cooling flow rates through the grille and
cooling module, and surface temperatures of the
underhood and underbody. At highway speeds, the flow
of air on the exterior is in the high Reynolds number
regime and is turbulent and unsteady, which imposes
1
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018
challenging constraints on the numerical simulation
approach. In addition, accurate predictions for
application to vehicle design requires high-fidelity
geometry that correctly represents the vehicle. The level
of geometric detail imposes further constraints on the
numerical simulation. However, current fluid dynamics
simulation tools are able to capture high-Reynolds
number flow details around complex geometry by
employing a combination of automatic surface and fluid
domain discretization, near-wall turbulence models, and
unsteady turbulent flow methodologies such as VLES
(very large eddy simulation) or DES (detached-eddy
simulation) which correctly resolve the difficult-to-model
aspects of the complex turbulent flow field. In addition,
air density and temperature can be solved
simultaneously with the velocity and pressure using a
compressible solver and equation of state. With these
simulation tools, detailed flow environments are
computed that cross multiple disciplines of vehicle
design, namely vehicle aerodynamics, upper-body wind-
noise, underbody flow-induced noise, underhood cooling
flow, and underhood and underbody temperature
evaluation under thermal loads. Though these
disciplines are often considered separately for evaluation
of vehicle performance, they all share a common exterior
flow environment, which makes them each intrinsically
coupled to each other.
BACKGROUND
Examples of simulation studies for ground vehicles in
each of these disciplines are available in the literature.
For aerodynamics, examples of high-Reynolds number
simulations are provided by Duncan and Golsch[1] and
Albukrek et al.[2] for detailed race vehicles. In [1]
statistical and spectral analysis was used to evaluate the
unsteady flow features of various complex-flow regions
on the exterior of a stock-car race car. The results
showed that turbulent eddies were captured in both the
low frequency range up to 100 Hz, which is dominated by
fundamental and secondary instability mechanisms such
as vortex shedding and wake oscillations, and in the mid-
frequency range up to 1000 Hz and higher, in which the
fluctuation spectra collapse to a theoretical cascade
representative of isotropic turbulence. The low-
frequency behavior of the various flow regions were used
to characterize the nature of the turbulent flow structure
in those regions, while the mid-frequency range for each
collapsed to the more universal behavior when the
simulation grid resolution was adequate. This study
shows that flow structure details needed for complete
exterior flow analysis of realistic vehicle geometry can be
obtained with such a simulation.
Furthermore, exterior flow structure details are closely
tied to the details in the geometry. For actual vehicles,
studies such as Senthooran et al.[3][42], Alajbegovic et
al.[4] and Furukawa et al.[5] include finely-detailed
vehicle geometry, and illustrate that with adequate grid
resolution, small-scale geometric details can drive the
development of flow structures that are important for the
aggregate aerodynamic performance of the vehicle. For
example in [3] a current sedan was simulated at both
zero and ten degrees yaw angle for both aerodynamics
and aeroacoustics analysis, and wall-pressure fluctuation
data were compared between simulation and
experiment. The geometric details such as complex
grille geometry, glass offsets, A-pillar moldings, side-
mirror shape, and door handle geometry are evident in
the model. Detailed flow structures were visualized in
the flow field and on the surface side-mirror surface, to
gain understanding into the pressure fluctuation spectra.
In [42] the pressure fluctuation spectra on the side glass
were evaluated on a vehicle with and without side-mirror.
In [4] both aerodynamic and thermal analyses were
performed for SUV and car models with extensive
underbody detail. Comparisons of the aerodynamic
drag, front and rear lift, and wake flow structures show
excellent correlation to experiment.
Accurate computation of surface pressure fluctuation
spectra is required for simulation of wind noise. The wall
pressure fluctuations (WPF) induced by the turbulent
flow structures impinging on the vehicle surface are
important sources of excitation for transmission of flow
noise into the interior of the vehicle. For a turbulent flow
simulation, studies have found that WPF can be
accurately predicted as an additional output from high-
fidelity aerodynamics simulations, and that the frequency
range for evaluating wind-noise characteristics naturally
leads to a grid resolution requirement for the simulation.
See Vaillant and Maillard[6] and Senthooran et al.[7].
Similarly it is possible to evaluate the flow-induced
excitation of the underbody structure, using WPF on the
underbody surfaces.
Next, for application to thermal management, a
simulation must first provide an accurate cold flow mass-
flow rate through the front grille and other openings into
the cooling module. This in turn requires the correct
overall pressure distribution on the upper body, wheels,
underbody and wake, to provide the correct ratio of flow
forced through the cooling module. It also requires
accurate details of both the geometry of the grille texture
or bars and of the small-scale flow structure around this
geometry. Finally, it requires physically-consistent
models of the porous media and rotating fans. With the
cold flow characteristics meeting design criteria for
engine cooling, simulation with temperature evolution
activated can then be used to compute the cooling flow
and underhood flow temperature under a thermally-
loaded condition. The radiator aggregate thermal
properties and temperature distribution are coupled to
the airflow distribution, as two separate fluid systems: the
interior coolant and the external air. However, the
interior coolant can be modeled as a simple 1-D system
for which a 1-D simulation can be coupled to the airflow
simulation to produce the needed heat rejection and
temperature distribution. With these parameters
provided, the cooling air flow is established at the correct
mass-flow rate and temperature, and the underhood
temperature evolution can be computed. This simulation
2
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018
produces the hot flow performance characteristics of the
cooling module.
Fortunato [17] et al. used the Lattice-Boltzmann equation
solver for the cold flow over the entire car including the
underhood and a Navier-Stokes solver for the underhood
flow. The velocity field from the entrance surfaces of the
underhood area calculated by the Lattice-Boltzmann
solver was used as the inlet boundary condition to the
Navier-Stokes solver. Navier-Stokes solutions have
been coupled with heat exchanger codes in [8], [9], [10]
for passenger vehicles and in [11], [12] and [13] for
heavy trucks. Recently, Lattice-Boltzmann solvers have
been coupled with a one-dimensional tool to model the
interaction between the air flow in the exterior of the
vehicle and the heat exchangers in [14], [15] and [4].
With the hot flow simulation, it is possible to compute the
evolution of temperature on all of the surfaces in the
underhood and underbody including the effect of hot
surfaces such as the engine and exhaust. The
exchange of heat between the flow and these hot
surfaces (convection) is handled by the flow simulation.
However to include the additional effects of radiation and
conduction as two other mechanisms to transfer heat
between the hot surfaces, coupling between the flow
simulation and a heat transfer simulation tool is needed.
Fares [18] used the Lattice-Boltzmann method coupled
with a surface radiation and conduction solver on a
simplified vehicle model (SAE squareback shape) with a
heated plug on the bottom surface representing a hot
exhaust pipe, validating the simulation results with
experimental data.
OBJECTIVES
With a multi-disciplinary approach to performance
assessment of the vehicle exterior airflow, it is possible
to enable synergies in the vehicle development process
through shared geometry and simulation methodology
across disciplines. The synergy comes from both
concurrent analysis and from coupled analysis. The
benefits of concurrent analysis for vehicle optimization is
that trade-offs between various performance factors for a
particular geometry design can be assessed
simultaneously. In traditional design processes based on
physical prototypes, aerodynamics, thermal
management and aeroacoustics are evaluated at
different stages in the design process sometimes without
significant regard to each other. Concurrent analysis
allows the specific performance for each discipline to
occur much earlier, when the geometry has been first
designed and is still open to design changes. The
primary benefit of concurrent analysis is thus less cost
for meeting design targets, since any improvements
made earlier in the design process can be made more
cheaply and more effectively than corrections made late
in the design process.
The benefits of coupled analysis, on the other hand, are
that performance trade-offs, such as between drag and
side-glass wind noise, or drag and cooling air mass-flow
rate, can be evaluated and optimal design points can be
selected that simultaneously meet all targets. Often the
interactions between aerodynamic design choices and
the design choices affecting wind noise and thermal
management are not explored since the aerodynamic
performance is already “locked” at an earlier stage in the
design.
The concurrent and coupled synergies result from the
capability to simulate each discipline using the same
virtual model with all details relevant to these simulations
such as grille geometry, cooling module, parting lines for
surface panels, appendages such as wind-shield wipers
and side-mirrors, glass offsets, and moldings. Using a
simulation approach with automated meshing of the flow
volume and surfaces, analysis settings such as grid
resolution, test configuration, fan and porous media
properties and thermal properties can be changed to
produce different types of analysis rapidly. This type of
multi-disciplinary approach using a single virtual model is
referred to as “total vehicle analysis” or “TVA”, and
allows for optimization across disciplines.
The objective of this paper is to demonstrate such a
multi-disciplinary, or TVA, approach for a detailed
vehicle. Simulations are carried out using the
commercial code PowerFLOW, from Exa Corporation,
for the prototype pickup, and are used to produce
performance metrics for each TVA discipline. This
demonstration is a significant step toward application of
this methodology to the design of future vehicles, as
geometry becomes available early in the design process.
OUTLINE
First, the simulation approach is described, including the
software tools and physics approach used in this study.
Validation of this methodology is provided primarily
through references to detailed validation studies that
have been performed using PowerFLOW for
aerodynamics, wind noise, cooling flow, and surface
temperatures.
Next, several types of simulations are described. For the
aerodynamics baseline, the vehicle was simulated at
29.1 m/s (65 mph) with open grille but no cooling fans,
for consistency with the aerodynamics wind-tunnel
testing process. The grid resolution was established
using a predefined “Best Practice” refinement level. The
detailed turbulent flow structure for the entire vehicle is
evaluated. The aerodynamic drag is analyzed in detail
using part-by-part drag breakdown, surface distribution
of drag, and integration of incremental drag along the
streamwise axis from nose to tail.
For the aeroacoustics baseline, the grid resolution was
refined beyond the “Best Practice” for aerodynamics in
critical regions to account for fine-scale flow structures
that produce high-frequency fluctuations. For this
baseline, only the driver-side half-vehicle was used, with
3
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018
a symmetry condition on the centerline plane, in order to
reduce the size of the simulation. High-frequency
pressure fluctuation data was recorded from the
simulation for complete assessment of the wall-pressure
fluctuation levels. The flow structure responsible for
producing the wall-pressure fluctuations is shown both in
the fluid and on the surface using detailed visualization
and spectral analysis techniques.
A second aeroacoustics analysis was generated for
analysis of underbody wind noise. Pressure fluctuation
data from the aerodynamics baseline was used to
assess the low-frequency wall-pressure fluctuations on
the floor panels of the underbody. In addition to the
amplitude of fluctuations, spatial-temporal analysis of the
fluctuations on the main floor panels was used to isolate
strong oscillations which could excite structural vibrations
and contribute to the interior noise.
For the thermal management baselines, both cold flow
and hot flow simulations were performed for 26.4 m/s (59
mph) with rotating fan blades. The hot flow simulation
was coupled with both PowerCOOL for heat-rejection of
the radiator, and with RadTherm for conduction and
radiation from hot engine and exhaust surfaces.
APPROACH
PHYSICS FORMULATION – TURBULENT FLOW
The commercial software PowerFLOW, from Exa
Corporation, is used for performing time-accurate,
weakly-compressible, turbulent fluid dynamics
simulations. The underlying physics is based on the
Lattice-Boltzmann Method (LBM) in which the
fundamental equation of motion for fluid particles, the
Boltzmann equation, is solved on a cubic lattice using a
discrete set of fluid velocity states. The discrete
Boltzmann equation is coupled with the ideal gas
equation of state to represent realistic transfer of mass
and momentum sufficient to describe small-scale fluid
motions with very low numerical dissipation [Li et al.[19],
Chen et al.[20]]. The geometry of the surface enters the
LBM discretization as boundary facets immersed in the
lattice, and they provide the boundary conditions for the
discrete velocity states by enforcing zero-flux through the
wall[21]. The LBM thus provides a mass and momentum
solver that is capable of computing the evolution of
shear-layer instabilities, vortices, and pressure waves
with high-order accuracy, in the presence of complex
geometric boundaries.
This accuracy is a requirement for numerical methods
that can support “direct numerical simulation” and “large
eddy simulation” of turbulence. For high-Reynolds
number turbulent flow, a turbulence model is used both
for wall boundary layers and for dissipation of energy in
the fluid to the scales of turbulence that can not be
represented on the grid. The present approach can be
thought of as “very large-eddy simulation” or VLES. The
wall boundary layer model uses a multi-layer boundary
layer model with law-of-the-wall in the inner layer and the
RNG k-epsilon model in the outer layer. The turbulence
model provides the needed values of shear stress at the
wall, and eddy-viscosity in the fluid to produce the correct
physics of the outer boundary layer. The effect of
surface pressure gradients is included through a local
pressure gradient based rescaling of the usual law-of-
the-wall; the resulting wall shear stress leads to correct
prediction of boundary layer separation including when
driven by a local adverse pressure gradient [22]. The
VLES approach is achieved in the fluid domain by
solving the RNG k-epsilon equations in the fluid, and
coupling them to the Lattice-Boltzmann equations
through the eddy-viscosity. This is done in such a way
that the large-scale fluctuations in the velocity field that
can be adequately resolved on the grid are not
dissipated, but fluctuations on the order of the lattice grid
and smaller are modeled through the eddy-
viscosity[23][24]. This complete treatment of turbulence
allows time-accurate simulation of high-Reynolds
number flows over complex geometry, including the
effects of boundary-layer separation and reattachment,
primary flow instabilities, and a complete turbulence
cascade of energy to the sub-grid scales.
PHYSICS FORMULATION – AEROACOUSTICS
The physics related to exterior wind-noise is naturally
produced by the time-accurate turbulent flow solver. The
unsteady flow separation from various parts of the
vehicle produce high levels of “wall-pressure
fluctuations” (WPF) on the vehicle surfaces. .. These
excite structural vibrations of panels such as windows,
which transmit the fluctuation energy through the surface
and produce an acoustic response of the flow volume on
the other side. The LBM solver, with VLES turbulence
modeling, is capable of producing high-fidelity WPF up to
very high frequency, where the desired frequency is
limited mostly by the choice of grid resolution for the
computational lattice. See, for example, Vaillant and
Maillard [6], Senthooran et al.[7], and Belanger et al.[25].
In addition to WPF, the physics of aeroacoustics also
includes problems involving acoustic radiation from wall
surfaces and propagation of acoustic waves in the fluid.
The transient acoustic response of the fluid to a pressure
excitation at the boundary or initial pressure field is well-
captured in the weakly-compressible LBM mass and
momentum solver. Low numerical dissipation allows
acoustic waves to be accurately computed given
sufficient grid resolution to represent the acoustic
wavelengths of interest. For flow problems with natural
acoustic modes that are of the same frequency as the
high-energy turbulent flow structures, acoustic
resonance can occur, such as in the well-known
Helmholtz resonator, which is a model problem for an
automobile sun-roof or open side-window, and the
resulting acoustic resonance is called “buffeting”.
PowerFLOW is used for these types of flow problems,
and provides built-in coupling of the turbulent flow
4
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018
structure to the natural acoustic behavior of the resonant
geometry[26][43].
PHYSICS FORMULATION – TEMPERATURE
The above formulation does not directly address the
evolution of temperature directly, as the energy equation
is not included in the LBM formulation. In order to
provide capability for solution of temperature, the LBM
solver is fully-coupled with a separate energy equation,
or the so-called “active scalar” transport. The active
scalar formulation includes models for turbulent
temperature boundary layers and turbulent Prandtl
number which provides a thermal eddy diffusion similar
to the eddy viscosity[28][18].
The calculation of temperature using the active-scalar
formulation requires boundary conditions that represent
the needed physical test conditions. These are provided
in the form of prescribed wall temperature, heat transfer
coefficient, or heat flux wall (adiabatic wall for zero heat
flux). These conditions are sufficient to handle the heat
transfer problem of convection when coupled to a mass
and momentum solver. In order to handle conduction
and radiation of the surfaces, coupling to an external
physics solver is required. The commercial software
RadTherm, from ThermoAnalytics, Inc., TAI[28][29], was
used for this purpose and is coupled to the PowerFLOW
simulation, allowing complete heat transfer physics for
solid walls.
In addition, for application to engineering problems
involving heat exchangers and fans, additional physics
models are needed to represent porous media, rotating
fan blades, and the temperature and/or heat flux induced
in the fluid due to the heat exchanged in the porous
media. The current formulation provides for porous
media behavior prescribed by either curve fit parameters
or empirical data tables[30]. The rotating fan blades are
best handled using a non-inertial reference frame in an
axisymmetric region around the fan. This approach is
called multiple reference frame model, or MRF model,
and allows the effect of the fan blades to be accurately
captured. Finally, the thermal properties of the porous
media are computed using PowerCOOL, a tool for 1-D
simulation of the flow inside the heat exchanger. This
simulation is built-in to PowerFLOW software and is
labeled PowerCOOL. The PowerCOOL simulation is
coupled to the PowerFLOW simulation and produces the
coolant inlet temperature, coolant outlet temperature,
and the resulting heat rejection (heat flux into the air)
within the porous media[31][15]. Currently, the physics
of condensers are modeled in PowerFLOW as porous
media with constant volumetric heat rejection, but
coupling to more complex physical models of
condensers using third-party simulation tools is also
supported. The combination of PowerFLOW with active
scalar, porous media, MRF fan model, and coupling to
both PowerCOOL and RadTherm assembles a complete
solution for computing the temperature evolution in the
underhood and underbody regions.
VALIDATION OF PHYSICS
The above approach has been validated for many
academic and commercial cases, in particular for the
physics pertaining to aerodynamics, aeroacoustics, and
thermal management. The time-accurate physics of the
underlying LBM mass and momentum solver was
confirmed in Li et al.[19] by comparison of the time-
dependent drag force evolution for an impulsively-started
cylinder to detailed experimental measurements. The
accuracy of the VLES approach to turbulence using the
RNG k-epsilon model has been validated for
experimental datasets for many academic cases, such
as in Shock et al.[32][33], Li et al.[34], and Chen and
Doolen[35]. For actual vehicles, PowerFLOW has been
validated against numerous wind-tunnel datasets, such
as drag coefficient, pressure distributions, surface-flow
visualizations and wake measurements. Examples of
published studies are Chen et al.[23], Furukawa et al.[5],
and Lietz et al.[36], and show accurate prediction of time-
averaged aerodynamic performance and flow distribution
when adequate grid resolution is used and geometric
details are exactly matched between the simulation and
experiment.
The time-accuracy of the numerical approach is further
confirmed by validation of wind-noise simulations
compared to experimental microphone measurements
including pressure fluctuations up to high frequency (2-
10 kHz, depending on the measurement equipment). In
these simulations it has been found that pressure
fluctuations can be matched to the experiment quite
closely up to a frequency cut-off that is dependent on the
grid resolution. For example Senthooran et al.[42]
shows close correlation between simulation and
experimental microphone pressure fluctuation spectra on
an actual vehicle side glass up to about 5 kHz. In
addition, since the pressure fluctuations in the simulation
are obtained on entire surfaces, rather than just at
specific points, visualization of WPF levels on the
surface help to show where the experimental probe
locations are relative to regions of high gradients in the
WPF distribution, and show the sensitivity to small
changes in probe location. Further, the overall wind-
noise performance of an exterior surface is often
assessed experimentally by averaging the WPF spectra
over a set of microphone points. In the simulation,
averaging of the spectra over the entire surface of
interest produces a more complete representation of the
exterior noise compared to the microphone average, and
show that the microphone-averaged data often indicate
trends incorrectly.
The current approach was validated in Fares et al.[18]
for automotive thermal management applications by
conducting an experimental and numerical study of the
modified SAE model with a heated plug. The scalar
transport equation for the temperature was coupled with
the Lattice Boltzmann solver which produced a PDE that
takes into account temperature variation of the fluid due
to heat sources such as heat exchangers or heat
5
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018
transfer from a hot surface. The coupling into the
momentum equations results in change of density and
thus extends the range of temperatures that can be
simulated. The temperature wake flow field in the
numerical simulation compared very accurately with the
experiments and demonstrated an ability to predict the
flow structures of a realistic automobile application.
Curran et al. [49] presented a fast, semi-automated
method for calculating the time-varying effects of
radiative heat transfer using the software RadTherm[37].
The thermal model in RadTherm is derived from [38] and
the transient nodal temperatures are solved by the
implicit Crank-Nicholson method. The model has since
been extended to solve for radiation, conduction, and
convection in heat transfer problems and validated with
theoretical problem solutions and measurements with
thermal imaging equipment.
AERODYNAMICS SIMULATION
GEOMETRY AND TEST CONDITIONS
Simulations were performed on the prototype pickup to
provide a complete description of the baseline
aerodynamics, including analysis of the aerodynamic
drag distribution, cooling flow in the fan-off condition, and
basic flow structure description as a reference for further
study of the upper body wind-noise. The geometry was
complete in terms of detail of trim, parting lines, and
underhood and underbody components in the external
flow domain. A sequence of views of the geometry is
shown in Figure 1. The test conditions for the
aerodynamic baseline were 29.1 m/s (65 mph),
standard-day air conditions, with fixed floor and tires,
cooling fans removed (as an approximation to a free-
wheeling fan), and open grille with porous media models
for the radiator and condenser. These test conditions
match the testing process for aerodynamic performance
assessment in the DaimlerChrysler full-scale wind tunnel
[16]. The wind tunnel has an open-jet test section with a
large plenum around the vehicle, which was represented
in the simulation model as a very-small blockage (0.1%)
test section with velocity inlet and pressure outlet, both at
a distance from the vehicle which would not influence the
air flow. The ceiling and side-walls were modeled as
frictionless walls. The boundary layer properties on the
floor were set using a boundary-layer start location
located upstream of the vehicle so as to produce a
specified empty-tunnel boundary layer thickness at the
center of the wheelbase of the model. Upstream of the
boundary-layer start location, a frictionless wall condition
was used. The frictionless wall condition was also used
far from the model on both sides and aft of the test
section, so that boundary-layer resolution could be
relaxed in these regions. Thus the final floor condition is
a “friction patch” in the test section near the vehicle,
starting at the boundary-layer start location, surrounded
by frictionless floor extending to the edges of the flow
domain.
GRID RESOLUTION
The simulation parameters and geometry specify the
simulated test environment. To complete the
specification of the simulation setup, the fluid domain is
divided into nested regions surrounding the vehicle, and
these regions are used to specify the grid spacing for the
cubic lattice. The Lattice-Boltzmann Method in
PowerFLOW allows the grid spacing to change by a
factor of 2 between adjacent regions, and so these
regions are called Variable Resolution (VR) regions. For
the aerodynamics baseline the finest cell size was set to
3.0 mm, and 9 levels of refinement were used between
the edges of the flow domain and the finest region on the
vehicle. The grid spacing and location of each region is
summarized in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the location of
the VR regions for each level from VR level 9 (3mm
cells) located at several critical locations on the vehicle
surface such as the grille bars, front of the hood, cowl
region including the windshield wipers, and in the cooling
flow path from the grille to behind the radiator and
condenser (not shown here), to VR level 8 (6mm cells)
used in a thin layer around the entire vehicle, and out to
VR level 5 (48mm cells) used in a box-shaped region
around the vehicle. Beyond VR level 5, the grid cells
continue to expand in box-shaped regions to out to the
inlet, outlet, ceiling and side-walls. This particular
resolution strategy has been standardized for road
vehicles, with some flexibility left to individual judgment
on the location of the finest regions, and the exact cell
size used. This standardized approach has been
validated to regularly produce drag predictions accurate
to within a small percentage of experimental values.
Accordingly, this approach produces case sizes which
are quite resource-intensive, using 3000-5000 CPU-
hours on a 256-CPU cluster with 3.0 GHz Pentium Xeon
processors.
TRANSIENT SIMULATION
With the specified grid resolution setup, the cubic lattice
grid is automatically generated during a pre-processing
step. Then the fluid domain is initialized by running a
first-cut coarser simulation to produce a starting
condition for future runs. The complete case was then
run starting from this initial condition, for an overall time
window of 46,500 time steps, or 1.114 seconds of real
time. During this time window, the initial segment up to
about 20,000 time steps, was considered to be a
transient period of flow adjustment from the coarse run
to the finer grid. Then the remaining 26,500 time steps
were considered as valid data showing the time-accurate
evolution of the flow field. This determination was made
by examining the time history of the drag force
coefficient, as shown in Figure 4, including analysis using
moving averages. This time window was used for all
time-averaged data including the forces and flow field
data.
6
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018
DRAG ANALYSIS
The time-averaged aerodynamic drag coefficients for the
baseline run are shown in Table 1, including division of
the vehicle into fore-aft and upper-lower sections for drag
analysis. Note that the porous media exerts a body
force on the fluid which is measured in the simulation
and included in the total forces. Table 2 shows further
breakdown of the drag coefficient into contributions from
five sections cut parallel to the centerline plane, with
thickness 200mm. In Figure 5a the drag coefficient is
shown as an integral accumulated in the streamwise
direction (positive X coordinate), from the nose to the tail
of the vehicle. This graph shows the build-up of drag
from the different streamwise stations. In particular, it
shows that from the nose to the front axle, 61.4% of the
total vehicle drag coefficient is accumulated, and from
the front axle to the base of the windshield, the drag
increases by an additional 11.4%. From the base of the
windshield to the back of the cab and roof, the
accumulated drag increases by 17.9%; from the back of
the cab to the rear axle adds 1.8%, and from the rear
axle to the back of the vehicle it changes by an additional
7.4%, leading to the total vehicle drag coefficient (which
correlates well with wind tunnel experimental values). By
comparing this accumulated drag distribution with the
surface pressure images, the impact of high and low-
pressure regions on the total drag can be assessed.
This is shown in Figure 5a, where the distribution of Cp
(coefficient of pressure) from both a side-view and top-
view are compared to the accumulated drag graph. The
pressure distributions on the vehicle from other
perspective views are shown in Figure 5b. The
distribution of Cp shows the dominant aerodynamic
features affecting the drag. The high positive Cp area at
the nose, on the front face of the tires and base of the
windshield are dominant sources of drag. Conversely
the negative Cp areas on the forward-facing corners
around the fascia, and the front edges of the tires and at
the top of the windshield counteract the near-by positive
Cp areas. The base of the pickup cab and both sides of
the tailgate are relatively benign in that they have neutral
Cp values (near zero); however, small changes in the
average pressure in these areas can produce large
changes in drag due to the large rearward-facing area.
The influence of parting-lines on the pressure distribution
is visible, particularly in the side-view images. For
example, the inset step of the headlamp produces a
pressure rise in front and a low pressure immediately
behind as the flow is nearly or mildly separated and then
reattaches. A similar effect is seen at the front of the
door panel, B-pillar and C-pillar.
Due to the deflection of the flow under the nose by the air
dam, the pressure gradient in the underhood and
underbody floor region is minimal back to the fuel tank.
In the underbody under the truck bed, the fuel tank,
muffler, rear differential and spare tire have forward-
facing surfaces which cause the pressure to rise in the
underbody and add significantly to the drag. In general,
a higher pressure gradient in the underbody is related to
drag increase, and a zero-pressure gradient will not
produce drag since any components in such a region
would have the same pressure on both sides.
FLOW SEPARATION AND WAKE REGIONS
Next, the various features of the velocity field are
examined through surface flow pattern images, two-
dimensional streamlines on planar regions, and three-
dimensional streamlines. The surface streamlines, along
with velocity at the surface, show many details of the flow
direction, separation and reattachment, see Figures 6a-
6c. The flow is smoothly attached on much of the upper
body. On the front bumper, the dividing line between
upward and downward flow (this is called the stagnation
point) is about midway up the bumper. The flow that
travels down the bumper, onto the air dam, and then is
released into the underbody, has a large lateral
component that pushes flow toward the front tires and
wheel housings. On the top surface, the flow separates
over the headlamps at the corner of the hood, creating a
vortex that travels along the top of the fender and then
downward toward the wake of the front tires. The area at
the base of the windshield including the cowl and wipers
is a complex separated area, and the flow reattaches just
downstream of the wipers. The streamlines in the
separated cowl vortex can be seen traveling laterally to
the base of the A-pillar, and under the side-mirror. The
pattern of diverging then converging streamlines on the
front of the side glass indicates the A-pillar vortex. Below
this region is the separated wake of the side-mirror,
where it is connected to the side glass and impinges on
the B-pillar and rear side window.
The streamlines on the surface are induced by the
velocity field in the fluid. Figure 7 shows the 2-D
projected streamlines on several vertical planes which
help to show the recirculation patterns behind the pickup
cab and in the tailgate wake. On the centerline plane,
the streamlines from the back of the roof are directed to
the top of the tailgate where there is a small horizontal
spoiler. On the more outboard planes, the roof
streamlines are entrained by the lateral flow from the C-
pillars and travel downstream further above the tailgate.
Figure 8 shows the lateral flow using horizontal planes.
The wake recirculation zones are more clearly
represented in the 3-D streamlines shown in Figures 9
and 10. From the rear view, wakes behind the side
mirrors, rear window, and low-hanging underbody
components combine with the flow behind the tailgate to
produce the overall vehicle wake. As the wake travels
downstream of the vehicle it forms two counter-rotating
trailing vortices. Figure 10 shows the connection
between the front and rear surfaces of the vehicle at the
upper corners. The flow over the headlamp travels
directly to the side-mirror and then to the base of the C-
pillar, where it is carried inboard by the bed recirculation
and joins the wake at the top of the tailgate.
7
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018
UNDERHOOD AND UNDERBODY FLOW
The streamline images in Figures 6-9 also show the flow
through the grille, radiator and under the bumper into the
underhood and underbody regions. There is also flow
through a large gap over the bumper. The flow through
the grille and fascia provides the flow through the
radiator, much of which is deflected downward by the
engine block. The mass-flow rates for the cooling flow
are shown in Table 3.
The underbody flow shows some regions of flow
attachment to floor panels, skid plates, fuel tank, muffler
and spare tire. The velocity field below and around the
underbody components shows that these components
produce vertical and lateral deflections of the flow
(curved streamlines), corresponding to the pressure
gradients induced by these components. On the
centerline plane, the flow under the air dam is deflected
away from the front of the underbody back to the fuel
tank and muffler.
These analyses provide a description of the baseline
aerodynamic performance of the vehicle, by relating
metrics such as the drag and mass-flow to the flow field
characteristics and visualizations.
AEROACOUSTICS SIMULATIONS
TEST CONDITIONS AND GRID RESOLUTION
The focus of the aeroacoustics part of this study was the
WPF generated on the driver’s front sideglass. The
resolution setup for the wind-noise analysis is different
than for aerodynamics in the regions that affect the side-
glass, as shown in Figure 11. A thin offset region with
1.5mm cells (VR level 10), enclosed by a VR level 9
region with 3mm cells, is used at the surface of the hood,
windshield, mirrors and side glass. In addition, the VR
level 9 region is extended around the side-mirror and the
recirculation zone between the mirror and the side glass.
The impact of the refined grid is evident in the mean-flow
characteristics as shown in Figure 12. The flow
streamlines on the side glass show finer structures
including a smaller A-pillar vortex region that has a
secondary recirculation aft of the top portion of the A-
pillar. The flow pattern is also significantly refined both
fore and aft of the side-mirror. Clearly the detailed flow
structures in these regions are sensitive to resolution, so
to compute the small-scale structures responsible for
wall-pressure fluctuations it is critical to use a much finer
grid, not only to resolve the fluctuations but also to
provide the right mean flow behavior.
SIDE-GLASS WIND NOISE ANALYSIS
A snapshot of the unsteady flow details is shown in
Figure 13 using a scalar quantity called “Lambda 2”
which is used to identify vortex cores[39]. Isosurfaces of
Lambda 2 are shown in a flow volume region recorded
near the windshield and side glass, and colored by
vorticity magnitude. This image shows sporadic vortex
structures released at the base of the windshield along
with the windshield wipers, which travel up the windshield
all the way up to the roof. It also shows a dense roll of
vortices that travel within the cowl vortex outboard and
down below the side mirror. The A-pillar vortex region is
comprised of tiny vortex filaments that travel along the
mean flow direction. Similarly the shear layers bounding
the side mirror wake contain small laterally-oriented
vortices representative of shear-layer vortex shedding
and breakdown at high Reynolds numbers. The key
observation is that multiple sources of vortices all
contribute to the unsteady flow environment in the vicinity
of the side-glass.
The analysis of wall-pressure fluctuations (WPF) on the
side glass starts with Figure 14. Here, pressure probes
are used to show the frequency spectrum of surface
pressure, in units of decibels (dB). Three probes are
shown in the graph which are representative of the
fluctuations in the three primary flow regions on the side
glass: the A-pillar vortex, the side-mirror separation
region, and the reattached flow region. The side-mirror
wake produces the highest WPF levels at lower
frequencies, but the A-pillar vortex produces the highest
WPF levels at the frequencies above 300 Hz. Figure 15
provides a detailed distribution of WPF on the surface,
accumulated from each narrow-band frequency into
octave bands. The images, referred to as dB maps,
show detailed structures and high gradients in the
fluctuation distribution, which illustrate the potential pitfall
in using only a few probes to characterize the behavior of
the side glass. For the 250 Hz and 500 Hz octave
bands, the strongest WPF occur in two narrow strips, in
the A-pillar vortex edge behind the side-glass molding,
and along a line extending up and aft from the base of
the side-mirror arm. Figure 16 shows a way to
quantitatively represent the WPF on the side-glass, using
the area-averaged octave-band spectra in three sub-
regions of the side-glass, and shown using a bar graph.
This graph also shows the relative prominence of the A-
pillar vortex at the higher frequencies.
Next, in Figures 17 and 18 the pressure fluctuations are
shown in more detail on the surface, and in the fluid
region near the side glass. To show these fluctuations,
spectral analysis is used to isolate the frequency range
of interest [40][41]. In general, spectral-based filtering
can be used to decompose the flow structures at
different frequencies. In this case, the frequency range
40-1000 Hz is used as a high-pass filter to remove any
unsteady aerodynamic effects that are present in this
area and typically affect frequencies up to about 30 Hz.
These allow the fluctuations affecting wind-noise to be
examined in isolation. Finer breakdown of the fluctuation
structure can be performed using various other
frequency bands, as in [3] and [42]. The spectral filter
results are shown using both iso-surfaces of Cp (at
values -0.1 and 0.1) in Figure 17 and scalar color maps
of Cp on the surface and on planes in the fluid in Figure
18.
8
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018
The iso-surfaces of filtered Cp show some similarity to
the Lambda 2 visualization, in that vortex filaments in the
A-pillar vortex and vortex shedding in the mirror wake
can be seen to produce regular tubes in the pressure
field. These tubes produce wave-like pressure patterns
on the window surface as can be seen in Figure 18.
These visualizations help to show how the separated
flow structures, which are observed initially from the
mean-flow results, contain the fluctuations that produce
WPF which are measured by surface microphones in
experiments. By visualizing the detailed transient flow
structures, it is possible to gain insight into the source of
noise problems or differences between designs.
UNDERBODY WIND NOISE ANALYSIS
The WPF on the underside of the vehicle are also
important for the interior noise levels, typically at much
lower frequencies than at the side glass. To assess the
location, frequency and strength of WPF in the
underbody which are likely to be significant for
transmission to the interior, the WPF levels were
computed on the underbody floor panel. This data was
taken from the aerodynamics baseline run without a
symmetry plane. The grid resolution in the underbody
area was 6mm, at VR level 8. The distribution of WPF in
octave bands is shown in Figure 19. The results show
that the highest levels are about 115 dB and occur at
quite low frequency, around 10 Hz. The levels continue
above 100 dB up to the 125 Hz frequency band. The
spatial distribution shows high levels at the back of the
cab floor panel where flow impingement is more
predominant. The image for the 250 Hz band shows that
minimal fluctuation levels are felt at this frequency. Also,
the coarser resolution in this analysis, relative to the
high-resolution data on the side glass, may limit the
accuracy of predicted fluctuations in the high frequency
range.
Figure 20 shows graphs of the spectra produced by
spatial-temporal analysis, using transforms in both
frequency and streamwise wavenumber[40]. This type
of quantitative analysis shows the magnitude the
coherent convected turbulent structures as a function of
both wavenumber and frequency, which are important to
the excitation of the bending modes of the underbody
surface panels causing transmission of noise to the
interior. The graph of peak amplitude shows the same
trend as the WPF images: the peak at 10 HZ and the
levels above 100 dB up to 100 Hz. The graph also
shows a relative increase in the spectra near 100 Hz,
possibly representing a small second peak in the WPF.
These results combine with the side glass WPF analysis
to illustrate the ability to predict the key excitation
sources for wind noise heard in the vehicle interior. This
allows design optimization for reducing the strength of
critical noise sources which impact key surfaces for
vibroacoustic transmission, such as the sideglass,
underbody, and windshield.
THERMAL MANAGEMENT SIMULATIONS
COOLING FLOW ANALYSIS
The thermal simulations are performed to compute the
aerodynamics of the vehicle exterior and the flow in the
underhood area of the prototype pickup. Underhood
components are cooled by airflow which depends on the
vehicle speed. The pickup was simulated at a velocity of
26.4 m/s (59 mph). The heat exchangers consisted of
the radiator, the condenser, transmission oil cooler, and
the power steering oil cooler (Figure 21). The fan
geometry is also shown in Figure 21 and the flow in the
fan is modeled using the MRF approach. The
mechanical fan and electrical fan are located behind the
radiator and condenser respectively.
Thermal characteristics of the heat exchangers are
needed for cooling flow simulations using PowerCOOL.
Heat transfer coefficients are measured as a function of
air mass flow and coolant mass flow rates. The
measured values can then be interpolated by the
sandwich formula given below:
1
Htc = α β
(1)
1 1
Ka + Dh + K c
ma mc
Where ma is the air mass flow, mc is the coolant mass
flow rate and K a , K c , Dh , α , β are interpolation
coefficients. The heat transfer coefficients which are
essential to model the heat transfer between the coolant
and air flow are obtained by experiments. PowerCOOL
calculates the heat transfer in the heat exchanger and
the heat input calculated is fed directly into the heat
exchangers in PowerFLOW to give an accurate solution.
For this study, a hot flow simulation was performed with
PowerFLOW, coupled with PowerCOOL for the radiator
heat exchanger performance, to compute the flow field
including temperature in the underhood region. The
simulation was run for 116,000 time steps. The evolution
of these parameters is used as convergence criterion for
the flow simulation. Sectional views of velocity
magnitude and static pressure are shown at different
spatial locations in Figure 22. There is a region of low Cp
behind the radiator and as the flow accelerates into the
mechanical fan, it recombines with the flow over the top
of the heat exchangers and is fed back into a region
behind the engine assembly. The radiator slice at y = 0.2
and the top view shows that this circulation is responsible
for distributing the heat to the transmission assembly and
the front axle. The air mass flow through the condenser
is small compared to that of the radiator but most of the
hot air flows downstream into the underbody.
Temperature distribution in several lateral planes is
shown in Figure 23. There is a sharp rise in temperature
behind the radiator and the hot air from the radiator
moves downstream into the engine, transfer case
9
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018
assembly, and other components in the underhood
region. PowerCOOL coupling gives a valid solution of the
temperature field in the heat exchangers and the area
just behind the radiator.
SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS
A final simulation was performed as part of this study to
add the effects of radiation and conduction due to hot
surfaces in the underhood and underbody regions. For
this simulation, the thermal baseline was additionally
coupled with the surface temperature simulation using
RadTherm. The temperatures of hot surfaces under a
standard thermal loading condition were applied, as
shown in Figure 24. The effect of these hot surfaces in
heating the underhood flow around the heat exchangers
and engine can be seen in Figure 23. The primary result
from this simulation is the surface temperatures of
underhood and underbody components. These are
shown in Figure 25. Part of the heating of the underhood
occurs through the heat rejection of the heat exchangers,
which is seen in both thermal baselines. Additional
heating of the flow comes through convection by cooling
of hot surfaces, which are either heat sources
themselves, in the case of the exhaust components, or
are heated by proximity to these heat sources through
conduction and surface-to-surface radiation
mechanisms. The combined simulation with air flow,
heat exchangers, and surface temperatures, provides a
complete representation of the heat sources, and also
allows correct convection by the aerodynamic and
cooling flow from these heat sources to downstream
surfaces.
CONCLUSION
This paper has attempted to establish a methodology for
simulating multiple aspects of vehicle performance
during the early design phase, so that the targets related
to aerodynamics, aeroacoustics, and thermal
management can be assessed through virtual rather
than physical prototypes at this early stage. Techniques
for aerodynamics analysis, side-glass and underbody
wind-noise evaluation, cooling performance, and
underbody surface temperatures were demonstrated.
These techniques all leverage the same digital model of
a complete vehicle, and use a consistent simulation
strategy that enables an efficient process for meeting
both performance targets and timing requirements in the
vehicle design process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are thankful for help from the physics and
software groups at Exa Corporation responsible for the
development of PowerFLOW code. Development of the
hybrid code for thermal management in PowerFLOW
was supported by the National Science Foundation
under the Grant DMI-0239176.
REFERENCES
1. Duncan, B.D., and Golsch, K., “Characterization of
Separated Turbulent Flow Regions in CFD Results
for a Pontiac NASCAR Race Car”, SAE Paper 2004-
01-3556, 2004.
2. Albukrek, C., Doddegowda, P., Ivaldi, A., and
Amodeo, J., “Unsteady Flow Analysis of a Formula
Type Open Wheel Race Car in Cornering”, SAE
Paper 2006-01-3661, 2006.
3. Senthooran, S., Crouse, B., Freed, D.,
Balasubramamian, G., Noelting, S., Duncan, B. and
Powell, R., “Prediction of Wall Pressure Fluctuations
on an Automobile Side-glass using a Lattice-
Boltzmann Method”, AIAA 2006-2559.
4. Alajbegovic, A., Xu, B., Konstantinov, A., Amodeo, J.
and Jansen, W., “Simulation of Cooling Airflow under
Different Driving Conditions”, SAE PAPER 2007-01-
0766, 2007
5. Furukawa, N., Shiozawa, H., Koyama, R., Ishihara,
Y. and Aoki, H., “Application of CFD Aerodynamic
Computation Methods to New Vehicle Development
Based on a Model that Reproduces a 230 Engine
Bay and Floor”, JSAE Paper #20045513, 2004.
6. Vaillant, O. and Maillard, V., “Numerical Simulation
of Wall Pressure Fluctuation on a Simplified Vehicle
Shape”, AIAA Paper 2003-3271, 2003.
7. Senthooran, S., Crouse, B., Balasubramanian, G.,
Freed, D. and Noelting, S., “Simulation Of Wall
Pressure Fluctuations On Simplified Automobile
Shapes Using A Lattice Based Method”, Proc. 2005
ASME IMECE, Nov. 5-11, 2005, Orlando, Florida.
8. K. Srinivasan, Z.J. Wang, W. Yuan, R. Sun, “Vehicle
thermal management simulation using a rapid
omnitree based adaptive Cartesian mesh generation
methodology,” HT-FED2004-56748, 204 ASME Heat
Transfer/Fluids Engineering Summer Conference,
July 11-15, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
9. B. Uhl, F. Brotz, J. Fauser, U. Krueger,
“Development of engine cooling systems by coupling
CFD simulation and heat exchanger analysis
programs,” SAE 2001-01-1695.
10. G. Seider, F. Bet, T. Heid, U. Hess, T. Klein, and J.
Sauer, “A numerical simulation strategy for complex
automotive cooling systems,“ SAE 2001-01-1722.
11. H. Knaus, C. Ottosson, F. Brotz, W. Kuehnel,
”Cooling module performance investigation by
means of underhood simulation,“ SAE 2005-01-
2013.
12. T.P. Nobel, S.K. Jain, “A multidimensional approach
to truck underhood thermal management,” SAE
2001-02-2785.
13. C.L.R.Siqueira, P. Vatavuk, M. Jokuszies, M.R.
Lima, “Numerical simulation of a truck underhood
flow,” SAE 2002-01-3453.
14. Amodeo., J., Alajbegovic. A., and Jansen, W.,
“Thermal Management Simulation for Passenger
th
Cars toward Total Vehicle Analysis,” 6 MIRA
10
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

International Vehicle Aerodynamics Conference, Based Algorithm”, Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer,
Birmingham, UK, October 24-26, 2006.. Vol. 47, 4869-4879, 2004.
15. Alajbegovic, A., Sengupta, R., and Jansen, W., 28. Curran, A.R., Johnson, K.R., Marttila, E.A., and
“Cooling Airflow Simulation for Passenger Cars using Dudley, S.P., “Automated Radiation Modeling for
Detailed Geometry,” SAE 2006-01-3478. Vehicle Thermal Management,” 1995, SAE Paper
16. Walter, J.A., Duell, E.G., Martindale, W.R., 950615
Geierman, R.J., Gleason, M.E., Romberg, G., 29. RadTherm User’s Guide, Version 8.1,
Arnette, S.A., “The DaimlerChrysler Full-Scale ThermoAnalytics, Inc., 2006.
Aeroacoustic Wind Tunnel”, SAE 2003-01-0426, 30. Freed, D.M., “Lattice Boltzmann Method For
2003 Macroscopic Porous Media Modeling”, Int. J. Modern
17. F. Fortunato, F. Damiano, L. Di Matteo, P.Oliva, Physics C, 9(8):1491-1504, 1998.
“Underhood cooling simulation for development of 31. PowerCOOL User’s Guide, Release 4.0, Exa
new vehicles,” SAE 2005-01-2046. Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts, 2006.
18. Fares, E., Kuthada, T., Jelic, S., and Schrock, D., 32. Shock, R., Mallick, S., Chen, H., Yakhot, V., and
“Lattice Boltmann Thermal Flow Simulation and Zhang, R., “Recent Simulation Results On 2D NACA
Measurements of a Modified SAE Model with Heated Airfoils Using A Lattice Boltzmann Based Algorithm,”
Plug”, Proc. ASME FEDSM2006 Joint U.S.- AIAA J. of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2002, pp. 434-439.
European Fluid Engineering Summer Meeting, 2006. 33. Shock, R., Qian, Y., Chen, H., and Zhang, R.,
19. Li, Y., Shock, R., Zhang, R., and Chen, H., “PowerFLOW Simulations for 2D Cavity and
“Numerical Study of Flow Past an Impulsively Started Backward Step Flows”, 2002.
Cylinder by Lattice Boltzmann Method”, J. Fluid 34. Li, Y., Shock, R., Zhang, R., and Chen, H.,
Mech., Vol. 519, 2004, pp. 273-300. “Simulation of Turbulent Flow in a Cyclonic
20. Chen, H., Filippova, O., Hoch, J., Molvig, K., Shock, Separator with Lattice-Boltzmann Method”,
R., Teixera, C., and Zhang, R., “Grid Refinement in submitted to AIAA J., 2006.
Lattice Boltzmann Methods Based on Volumetric 35. Chen, S. and Doolen, G., “Lattice Boltzmann Method
Formulation”, Physica A 362, pp. 157-167, 2006. for Fluid Flows”, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., vol.30,
21. Chen, H., Teixeira, C., and Molvig, K., “Realization of pp.329-364, 1998.
Fluid Boundary Conditions via Discrete Boltzmann 36. Lietz, R., Mallick, S., Kandasamy, S., and Chen, H.
Dynamics,” Intl. J. Mod. Phys. C, 9 (8), 1998, p. “Exterior Airflow Simulations Using a Lattice
1281. Boltzmann Approach,” SAE Paper 2002-01-0596.
22. Teixeira, C., “Incorporating Turbulence Models into 37. RadTherm User’s Guide, Version 8.1,
the Lattice-Boltzmann Method,” Intl. J. Mod. Phys. C, ThermoAnalytics, Inc., 2006.
Vol. 9 No. 8, 1998, pp. 1159-1175. 38. PRISM 3.1 User’s Manual, Keeweenaw Research
23. Chen, H., Kandasamy, S., Orszag, S., Shock, R., Center, Michigan Technological University, 1993.
Succi, S. and Yakhot, V., “Extended Boltzmann 39. PowerVIZ User’s Guide, Release 4.0, Exa
Kinetic Equation for Turbulent Flows”, Science, Vol. Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts, 2006.
301,pp. 633-636, 2003. 40. PowerSPECTRUM Calculations Manual, Release
24. Chen, H., Orszag, S., Staroselsky, I. and Succi, S., 1.2, Exa Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts, 2006.
“Expanded Analogy Between Boltzmann Kinetic 41. Duncan, B.D., Sengupta, R., Mallick, S. and Sims-
Theory of Fluid and Turbulence”, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. Williams, D.B., "Numerical Simulation And Spectral
519, 2004, pp. 307-314. Analysis Of Pressure Fluctuations In Vehicle
25. Belanger, A., Meskine, M., Caruelle, B., and Debatin, Aerodynamic Noise Generation", SAE Paper 2002-
K., ”Aero-acoustic Simulation of a Double Diaphram 01-0597, 2002.
Using Lattice Boltzmann Method”, AIAA Paper 2005- 42. Senthooran, S., Crouse, B., Freed, D.,
2917, 2005. Balasubramamian, G. and Caridi, D., “Numerical
26. Crouse, B., Senthooran, S., Balasubramanian, G., Simulation of Windnoise on the Side-glass of a
Freed, D., Noelting, S., Mongeau, L., and Hong, J.S., Production Automobile”, F2006D124, FISITA 2006.
“Sunroof Buffeting of a Simplified Car Model: 43. Crouse, B., Senthooran, S., Freed, D.,
Simulations of the Acoustic and Flow-Induced Balasubramanian, G., Gleason, M., Puskarz, M.,
Responses”, SAE Paper No. 2005-01-2498, 2005. Lew, P. and Mongeau, L., “Experimental and
27. Zhou, Y., Zhang, R., Starolesky, I., Chen, H., Numerical Investigation of a Flow-Induced Cavity
“Numerical Simulation of Laminar and Turbulent Resonance with Application to Automobile Buffeting”,
Buoyancy-Driven Flows Using a Lattice Boltzmann AIAA 2006-2494.

11
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

TABLES

%CD, Porous media only 8.3%

%CD by quadrants excluding porous media:

Front Rear Front+Rear
Upper -6.7% 24.4% 17.7%
Lower 57.0% 17.0% 74.0%
Upper+Lower 50.3% 41.4% 91.7%

Table 1. Drag summary for aerodynamics baseline, including breakdown into the four quadrants shown in the diagram.

Sections cut parallel to centerline plane

Near Total all
Most outboard centerline sections
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 (half vehicle)
%CD Full Surface 8.2% 9.6% 9.7% 10.4% 12.6% 50.6%
%CD Upper 1.4% 0.9% 2.2% 2.1% 2.4% 9.0%
%CD Lower 6.8% 8.7% 6.6% 6.1% 8.3% 36.5%
%CD Front 2.9% 5.5% 4.8% 4.6% 6.3% 24.2%
%CD Rear 5.3% 4.1% 4.0% 3.5% 4.4% 21.3%
Table 2. Further drag breakdown of the driver-side of the vehicle by 200mm sections parallel to the centerline plane, and additionally by the quadrants
shown in the Table 1. This detailed breakdown provides the drag distribution for the vehicle in a tabular format useful for design comparisons.

Aerodynamics Baseline
Porous Media Area (sq. m.) Mass Flow (kg/s) Mean Velocity (m/s)
Radiator 0.2973 1.202 3.345
Transmission Cooler 0.0570 0.292 4.179
Condenser 0.1261 0.794 5.157
Table 3. Mass flow rate and average velocity through each of the porous media components for isothermal aerodynamics baseline run, with no cooling
fans and freestream velocity of 29.1 m/s (65 mph).

12
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

FIGURES

Figure 1a. Views of complete vehicle

Figure 1b. Views of underhood and underbody

13
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

VR8: 6mm in region offset from upper body and enclosing

the underbody components
VR9: 3mm on key areas on upper body, and entire cooling module

Front nearest vehicle outward: VR7 (12mm) in near-field flow volume down to floor, VR6 (24mm) large offset from VR7, VR5
(48mm) cells in box around vehicle
Figure 2. Variable resolution regions specifying the grid spacing for the cubic lattice grid.

Figure 3. Planar slices of the cubic lattice grid

110%
Drag History (%CD)

105%

100%

95%
Aero Baseline
Time-averaged Drag
90%
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Time (sec)

Figure 4. Time history of drag coefficient, including porous media contributions, for the aerodynamics baseline run. The run was initialized with a
coarse-grid result and shows minimal effect of the initial transient on the drag. The time-period from 0.532 to 1.114 seconds was used for the time-
averaged results.

14
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

0.500
0.450
0.400
0.350
Integrated CD 0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
X (m), Relative to Front Bumper

Figure 5a. Accumulated drag, coefficient of drag integrated along X-axis from nose to tail of the vehicle, compared to Cp distribution from side-view and
top-view. For aerodynamics baseline simulation at 29.1 m/s (65mph).

15
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Figure 5b. Additional views of pressure distribution

Figure 6a. Surface streamlines, surface colored by velocity magnitude for aerodynamics baseline simulation at 29.1 m/s (65mph).

16
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Figure 6b. Surface streamlines

17
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Near left (driver-side) A-pillar

Centerline plane

Right of centerline

Near right inner wheel-well

Near right (passenger-side) A-pillar

Figure 7. 2-D Streamlines on 5 planar slices, with the vehicle surface clipped at the slice plane. For aerodynamics baseline simulation at 29.1 m/s
(65mph).

18
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Figure 8. 2-D Streamlines on 5 planar slices, with the vehicle surface clipped at the slice plane. For aerodynamics baseline simulation at 29.1 m/s
(65mph).

19
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Figure 9. 3-D Streamlines showing wake structure for aerodynamics baseline simulation at 29.1 m/s (65mph).

Figure 10. 3-D Streamlines at base of C-pillar, surface colored by Cp. For aerodynamics baseline simulation at 29.1 m/s (65mph).

Figure 11. Grid distribution for wind-noise cases

20
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Figure 12. Surface streamlines and velocity magnitude for wind-noise baseline, with high resolution on windshield, A-pillar, mirror and side-glass. The
simulation was run using a symmetry condition at the centerline plane, with test speed of 29.1 m/s (65 mph)

Figure 13. Isosurface of the vortex identifier “Lambda 2” in the fluid region around the windshield and sideglass, for the wind-noise baseline

Apillar vortex region

Side mirror wake region

Reattached region

Figure 14. Power-spectra of pressure in decibels (dB) for three surface probes on the side-glass. The spikes above 4 kHz are numerical artifacts
caused by reflections at transitions in grid spacing for the cubic lattice grid.

21
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

31.25 Hz Octave Band 62.5 Hz Octave Band

125 Hz Octave Band 250 Hz Octave Band

500 Hz Octave Band 1000 Hz Octave Band

Figure 15. Octave-band power-spectra on the side-glass surface, shown using color-map images, for the wind-noise baseline.

22
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

A-pillar Vortex Region Different Flow Regions of Sideglass:

Area Weighted dB in Octave Bands

130

120

SPL, Octave Bands (dB)

110

100

90

80
Reattached Region
70

60
Mirror Wake Region 31.3 62.5 125.0 250.0 500.0 1000.0 2000.0
Frequency (Hz)

Mirror Wake Apillar Vortex Reattached

Figure 16. Area-weighted total power-spectra for the side-glass divided into three separate regions. For the wind-noise baseline at 29.1 m/s (65 mph).

Figure 17. Iso-surface of filtered Cp=-0.1 and Cp=0.1, calculated using band-pass filter with frequency range 40-500 Hz. For the wind-noise baseline at
29.1 m/s (65 mph).

23
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Figure 18. Filtered Cp values on the side-glass and two slice planes, calculated using band-pass filter with frequency range 40-1000 Hz. For the wind-
noise baseline at 29.1 m/s (65 mph).

24
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

9.8 Hz octave band 19.6 Hz octave band

67.5 Hz octave band

38.5 Hz octave band

125 Hz octave band 250 Hz octave band

WPF Level (dB)

Figure 19. Octave-band power-spectra on the underbody floor, shown using color-map images. These results were obtained from the aerodynamics
baseline at 29.1 m/s (65 mph).

25
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Figure 20. Spatial-temporal spectrum shown as a function of frequency and wavenumber. This spectrum was ensemble-averaged for a set of
streamwise oriented rakes in the unsteady flow beneath the underbody frame of the cab. The peak values for each frequency are shown in the X-Y
graph, along with the wavenumber at which the peak occurs.

Radiator

Transmission oil cooler

Condensor

Power steering oil cooler

Electrical fan

Mechanical fan

Figure 21. Geometry of the cooling module. The cooling fans were removed for the aerodynamics baseline and wind-noise baseline.

26
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Centerline slice, y = 0 Centerline slice, y = 0

Condenser Slice, y = -0.2 Condenser Slice, y = -0.2

Top view of the Heat Exchanger, z = 1.35 Top view of the Heat Exchanger, z = 1.35

Figure 22. Underhood results for thermal baseline, with cooling fans, PowerCOOL coupling for the radiator, and freestream velocity of 26.4 m/s (59
mph), freestream temperature of 25°C, under a typical thermally loaded condition. Fluid slice images of static pressure (left) and velocity magnitude
(right) distributions at different spatial locations.

27
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Centerline slice, y = 0 m

Radiator Slice, y = 0.2 m

Condenser Slice, y = -0.2 m

Top view of the Heat Exchanger, z = 1.35

Figure 23. Fluid slice images of Temperature distributions at different spatial locations for the thermal baselines without (left) and with (right) hot
surface conditions. Both simulations were run with cooling fans, PowerCOOL coupling for the radiator, and freestream velocity of 26.4 m/s (59 mph),
freestream temperature of 25°C, under a typical thermally loaded condition. In addition, for the surface temperature baseline, RadTherm coupling was
used to add the radiation and conduction of hot underbody components.

28
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Minnesota, Monday, July 30, 2018

Figure 24. Initial specified surface temperature distribution of underbody components for thermal baseline with RadTherm coupling. For hot surfaces
such as the engine transfer case and exhaust components, the temperature was kept at the specified temperature. For other surfaces, the temperature
evolution in time was simulated under the combined influence of surface radiation, surface conduction, and convection by the underbody airflow. The
above temperature distribution results from a first iteration of RadTherm for the steady-state heat transfer with no flow.

Figure 25. Results for the surface temperature baseline, showing surface temperatures on underbody components.

29