Hood 3

Downloaded from SAE International by Duke Univ, Friday, January 11, 2019
ARTICLE INFO
Article ID: 06-11-04-0021
Copyright © 2018
Honda R&D Americas, Inc.
doi:10.4271/06-11-04-0021
Steady Aeroelastic Response

Prediction and Validation
for Automobile Hoods
Justin Pesich and Jack McNamara, Ohio State University
Austin Kimbrell and Peter Kang, Honda R&D Americas, Inc.
Abstract History
Received: 02 Feb 2018
The pursuit of improved fuel economy through weight reduction, reduced manufacturing costs, Accepted: 25 Feb 2018
and improved crash safety can result in increased compliance in automobile structures. However, e-Available: 10 Jul 2018
with compliance comes an increased susceptibility to aerodynamic and vibratory loads. The hood
in particular withstands considerable aerodynamic force at highway speeds, creating the potential Keywords
for significant aeroelastic response that may adversely impact customer satisfaction and perception Hood, Aeroelasticity,
of vehicle quality. This work seeks an improved understanding in computational and experimental Fluid-structure interaction,
study of fluid-structure interactions between automobile hoods and the surrounding internal and Computational fluid
external flow. Computational analysis was carried out using coupled CFD-FEM solvers with detailed dynamics, Wind tunnel
models of the automobile topology and structural components. The experimental work consisted testing
of wind tunnel tests using a full-scale production vehicle. Comparisons between numerical and
experimental results yielded important insights into required modeling fidelity, coupling, and chal-
Citation
lenges in validation for the aeroelastic response of automobile hoods. Pesich, J., McNamara, J.,
Kimbrell, A., and Kang, P.,
“Steady Aeroelastic
Response Prediction and
Validation for Automobile
Hoods,” SAE Int. J.
Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst.
11(4):251-261, 2018,
doi:10.4271/06-11-04-0021.
ISSN: 1946-3995
e-ISSN: 1946-4002
251
252 Pesich et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 4, 2018
Introduction by the engine compartment. Results indicated less than a

10% difference between the prediction and experimental
A
results for displacement measured at two locations. Also, it
utomobile hood design is complicated by many weight was discovered that the externally mounted displacement
reduction efforts and often competing factors such as: measurement devices exhibited flow induced vibrations,
pedestrian/crash safety, weight, durability, styling, leading to noisy data.
aerodynamics, manufacturability, and cost. One important This study is motivated by the need for a better under-
design feature is hood compliance, which must be appropri- standing on aeroelastic interactions of automobiles, and
ately balanced to meet the above objectives. However, the specifically aeroelastic simulation of the hood. The goal is to
impact of hood compliance is not easily handled in the early assess the degree of aeroelastic coupling in a typical automo-
stages of design due to: (1) the potential for aeroelastic interac- tive hood, the importance of engine compartment flow, and
tions; (2) tight margins on allowable hood deflection, (3) the also model validation. This is carried out through system-
high cost of prototyping and experimentation, and (4) the atic development of coupled CFD-FEM for simulation of the
fact that sub-discipline modeling errors tend to aggregate in aeroelastic response of an automobile hood, and validated by
coupled systems. The second and fourth issues indicate that a comparison with experimental data for hood surface pressures
high level of model detail may be needed, while the third issue and deflections. Successful understanding of the steady-state
indicates that computational capabilities are critical. Thus, the solution will also enable confidence in pursuing unsteady
development and assessment of aeroelastic prediction tools, aeroelastic predictions of automobile hoods.
and considerations for their application and validation, are
important areas of study.
Previous studies published on the general problem of
automobile aeroelasticity are limited. One study focused on Experimental Setup
aeroelastic tailoring of an Indy car rear spoiler to reduce drag
at high speeds and maximize downforce at low speeds [1]. Experimental results for this study were obtained in a single
The analysis was carried out by coupling the Computational return closed test section wind tunnel with a maximum wind
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software ANSYS Fluent and Finite speed of 320 kph. The dimensions of the test section are
Element Method (FEM) software MSC Nastran to solve the given in Table 1. The tunnel is equipped with floor blowing,
static structural response. The optimized spoiler obtained a feature where a slot in the floor at the inlet of the test
a 3% reduction in wing drag while maintaining the same section inserts air at the equivalent dynamic pressure of the
downforce during cornering maneuvers. Consequently, the mean flow to eliminate the boundary layer. Floor blowing
vehicle top speed was projected to improve by 1 kilometer simulates an on-road aerodynamic environment and was
per hour (kph). Another study investigated the increase in used in the experiment.
drag due to a deformed chin spoiler [2]. STAR-CCM+ was Transverse hood displacement and surface pressure
used to carry out the coupled analysis for both domains. The measurements were recorded on a full-scale vehicle at 100,
chin spoiler deflection was predicted to increase the drag 160, and 200 kph. Displacement was recorded at three loca-
coefficient by 0.004, corresponding to a 0.15 mile per gallon tions specified in Figure 1. Externally mounted lasers were
decrease at 80 kph. The simulation results showed reason- used to measure the hood displacement, with an accuracy
able agreement with test data. Gupta et al. [3] and Gaylard to within 5 microns. The lasers at Points 1 and 2 were placed
et al. [4] used an uncoupled approach to assess hood vibra- in an airfoil-type enclosure to mitigate disturbances in the
tions due to wake shedding of an upstream vehicle. Time- flow, and mounted on the fenders of the vehicle as shown in
dependent pressure distributions on the trailing vehicle Figure 2. The laser at Point 3 was suctioned to the windshield
hood were predicted using the CFD software PowerFLOW. and held by a rigid fixture as shown in Figure 3.
Subsequently, these pressure distributions were prescribed Surface pressure was measured on five strips of probes
on an FEM model constructed with MSC Nastran. In some as shown in Figure 4. Strips 2–5 consisted of 20 probes, while
cases the wake shedding produced pressure fluctuations strip 1 consisted of 18. In addition, a pitot-static tube was
with frequency spectra near the free vibration modes of the affixed to the right mirror to record a reference pressure in
hood structure, naturally leading to relatively large vibra- the flow, as shown in Figure 5. The displacement and pressure
tory response. No validation effort was conducted in either data were taken separately so that the presence of the lasers
study. In [5], the steady aeroelastic response of a Jaguar would not affect the surface pressure measurements.
XK8 convertible car roof was predicted by coupling of the
CFD software STAR-CD to a third-party FEM solver. The
coupled results were within 20% of the uncoupled response. TABLE 1 Dimensions of wind tunnel test section.
No comparison to test data was given. Ramsay et al. [6]
predicted the static deflection of an automobile hood in Dimension Value (m)
an uncoupled manner using unspecified CFD and FEM Height 4.95
solvers. The model did not include internal flow; however, Width 7.09
pressure inlet/outlet boundary conditions were used on Length 13.1
the front fascia openings to model the resistance provided © 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.
© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
Pesich et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 4, 2018 253
FIGURE 1 Displacement measurement locations. FIGURE 4 Surface pressure probe locations.
© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

FIGURE 2 Laser fixture on driver’s side fender (Point 1). FIGURE 5 Pitot-static tube for reference pressure.

Modeling Description
FIGURE 3 Laser fixture on trailing edge midline (Point 3).

Fluid Model
Vehicle Configurations Three separate configurations
of a production vehicle were considered for the present study.
The first configuration resembled an initial design model
or “styling” model. This configuration, shown in Figure 6,
neglected the internal flow through the front fascia and had
a simplified underbody and wheels. This vehicle geometry is
denoted as V1. The second configuration was a “complete”
vehicle model, which included all under-hood and underbody
components shown in Figure 7. The radiator and condenser
were modeled as porous media. This vehicle geometry is
denoted as V2. Because of an inability to obtain a coupled
CFD-FEM solution using the V2 model, a third configuration
was considered using a simplified engine compartment and

underbody as shown in Figure 8. As highlighted in Figure 9,
the only under-hood components retained were the radiator,
condenser, front bumper support, chin spoiler and under-hood
structure. Furthermore, the powertrain and exhaust systems
were completely removed from the underbody exposing the
vehicle floor. This vehicle geometry is denoted as V3.
FIGURE 6 V1 model geometry. FIGURE 10 Fluid domain boundary conditions and

dimensions, front view.

FIGURE 7 V2 model geometry.
As indicated, aeroelastic computations were not achiev-

able with V2. This was due to relatively poor grid quality
around the complex internal geometries that yielded negative
volumes during grid morphing. However, V2 provided the
most accurate internal flow modeling for estimating under-

hood pressure. To properly account for the effects of under-
hood flow in the simplified models, the V2 model was used
to provide a distributed pressure loading condition during
aeroelastic simulations of V1 and V3.
Fluid Domain and Boundary Conditions The fluid
domain was modeled by solving the Reynolds Averaged
Navier-Stokes Equations using STAR-CCM+. The realizable
FIGURE 8 V3 model geometry. two-layer k-epsilon turbulence model was used assuming
incompressible flow conditions. The boundary conditions and
dimensions of the domain are shown in Figures 10 and 11. The
inlet and outlet boundaries were specified as a velocity inlet
and mass flow outlet, respectively. A mass flow outlet specifies
the percentage of mass that flows through the boundary face,
which for this setup was 100 percent. Using this boundary
condition over the more traditional pressure outlet allowed
the specification of a reference gauge pressure at a single (x, y,
z) location to anchor the solution. This was set to the average

pressure measured by the probe positioned off the passenger
mirror in the experimental study shown in Figure 5. Note that
this value need not be freestream pressure. The top, bottom,
and side walls were specified as a slip wall boundary condi-
tion, while the vehicle surface boundaries were set to no-slip
walls. The cross section of the fluid domain was set to match
the size of the wind tunnel facility so that the blockage ratios
were identical. The inlet and outlet were extended four and
FIGURE 9 Isometric view of remaining under-hood eight vehicle lengths from the vehicle, respectively, so that the
boundaries in V3. presence of these boundaries did not affect the flow solution.
FIGURE 11 Fluid domain boundary conditions and

dimensions (not to scale), side view.
FIGURE 12 Top view of volume mesh on floor of TABLE 2 Cell count for each vehicle configuration.
fluid domain.
Vehicle configuration Cell count
V1 35 million
V2 86 million
V3 59 million
size was reduced closer to the vehicle surface to capture the

boundary layer. The total cell count for each configuration is
presented in Table 2.
Mesh convergence was analyzed at a freestream velocity
of 200 kph. V2 was used to confirm mesh convergence since
it contained the most complexity. The integrated lift force
Mesh Generation A grid of the outer domain was created of the hood was used to determine convergence where
for each vehicle configuration (V1, V2, V3) by surface wrapping percent error was measured against the finest grid. Results
to create a watertight geometry. Body cutlines were modeled of the study are summarized in Table 3. The medium grid
for configurations V2 and V3 and ignored for V1. This implies is considered converged with a percent error of 1.26% and
that V2 and V3 consist of several watertight geometries where was selected as the best balance between accuracy and
V1 is a single watertight geometry. This was then followed by modeling resources.
surface and volume meshing. Each boundary on the vehicle
had a surface size ranging from 2.5–10 millimeters (mm)
depending on the geometric complexity and location of the Structural Model
part. The volume mesh was composed of two types of cells: The structural model was solved using the commercial
prism layers and trimmed cells. Prism layers are the first cells FEM software Abaqus Standard. The model consists of an
off the wall used to capture the boundary layer. The first cell assembly of several structural components and accounted for
height was calculated so that the wall y+ values fell within the geometric nonlinearity. Each component, material, mesh size
log-law range (30 < y+ < 300). Three rectangular zones were and element type is listed in Table 4. The mesh size for each
created to locally refine the mesh around the vehicle. The component was 4 mm. All materials were linear and modeled
cell sizes of the zones, as shown in Figure 12, were 10, 20 and using shell elements. The structural assembly is shown in
40 mm. A nearfield top view of the floor and a planar slice Figure 15. The frame is the load-bearing component of the
(y = 0) in the streamwise direction are provided in Figures 12 hood structure and is attached to the skin by a mastic material;
and 13, respectively. Planar slices of the computational domain the latch and hinges are bolted to the frame and attach to the
through the engine compartment for each vehicle configu- surrounding vehicle structure. In the structural model, the
ration are shown in Figure 14. The under-hood region was mastic interaction with the skin and the frame was solved as
captured within the 10 mm refinement zone, and the grid a contact problem using the penalty method. A depiction of
the boundary conditions for the latch and hinges is shown in
FIGURE 13 Side view of volume mesh on planar slice of Figure 16; both were constrained in translation, but were free
fluid domain. to rotate about any axis.
TABLE 3 Summary of grid convergence study.
Grid Cell count Hood lift (Newtons) % Error

Coarse 60M 248.3 4.87
Medium 86M 257.7 1.26
© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc. Fine 105M 261 -
FIGURE 14Under-hood volume mesh of each
vehicle configuration. TABLE 4 Hood structural components.
Component Material Mesh size (mm) Element type

Skin Aluminum 4 Shell
Frame Aluminum 4 Shell
Hinge Steel 4 Shell
Latch Steel 4 Shell
© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc. © 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.
FIGURE 15 Hood structural assembly. of the displacement at the measurement locations. Despite the
fact that the problem considered is steady-state in nature, the
CSE is implemented by STAR-CCM+ in time-accurate mode.
Thus the steady-state aeroelastic response was computed using

a time step of 0.1 s. Convergence to the steady-state solution
was accelerated by implementing critical Rayleigh damping.
The steady-state flow solution of the rigid vehicle was used as
the initial condition to the coupled simulation.
As noted earlier, one of the challenging aspects of aero-
elastic simulation is morphing the CFD grid to accommodate
structural deformation. This is a challenge for complex topolo-
gies with associated poor cell quality, as well as two structures
in close proximity to each other, both of which are susceptible
FIGURE 16 Structural model boundary conditions. to the appearance of negative volumes during mesh deforma-
tion. For this work, the engine compartment mesh for configu-
ration V2 experienced negative volumes during aeroelastic

simulation. Furthermore, the hood skin and frame were close
in proximity, and morphing these boundaries simultaneously
lead to the appearance of negative volumes. The mesh resolu-
tion required to morph both components simultaneously was
impractical for simulation within the confines of the study
duration; as a result, the coupling procedure described herein
was only applied to configurations V1 and V3 with the hood
skin as the lone boundary deformed.
Coupling Procedure
STAR-CCM+ and Abaqus use a native co-simulation engine Results
(CSE) to couple the domains. The CSE uses a loosely coupled
partitioned approach where the fluid and structure are
solved on separate solvers and coupled through an exchange Comparison between
of boundary conditions at the interface of the domains. The
partitioned fluid-structure interaction (FSI) workflow is
Numerical and Experimental
depicted in Figure 17. The fluid equations are initially solved Results
to determine the static pressure. The resulting fluid load is Experimental and numerical results were obtained for oper-
then mapped onto the FEM mesh. The structural equations ating speeds of 100, 160, and 200 kph. Fluid properties in
are solved, and the resulting displacement field is mapped to the simulation were specified to be consistent with that of
the CFD mesh. The CFD mesh is morphed according to the the experiment. Configuration V3 was used to compute the
computed displacement field, and the process is repeated. In FSI baseline prediction. The steady-state internal pressure
this study, the process was iterated until the steady aeroelastic distribution of V2 was mapped to the underside of the hood
response was achieved, where convergence was defined by a skin, and the top and bottom of the hood frame. The static
change of less than 0.001 mm between successive time steps pressure contours are shown in Figure 18, and indicate that
the skin bottom and frame top essentially have constant,
FIGURE 17 FSI simulation workflow. low-magnitude negative pressure distributions. The frame
bottom is predominately negative, excluding positive pressure
FIGURE 18 Steady-state internal pressure distribution

of V2.
FIGURE 19 Discrete pressure comparison along strip FIGURE 21 Discrete pressure comparison along strip
1, 100 kph. Simulated values have reasonable agreement 1, 160 kph. Simulated values have reasonable agreement
to experiment. to experiment.
150 300
Experiment Experiment
100 FSI Prediction 200 FSI Prediction
Rigid CFD Rigid CFD
100
Static Pressure [Pa]

50
0
0
-100
-50

-200
-100 -300
-150 -400
-200 -500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Probe Probe
regions near the cowl top and engine cooling aperture (flow Overall, the results indicate reasonable agreement between
stagnation zones). the experiment and prediction.
Comparisons of the hood surface pressure are shown in A potential source of error in the static pressure predic-
Figures 19-24. Pressure data along strips 1 and 4 are shown tion is the shape of the fluid domain. The fluid model neglects
in each figure for the experimental values, FSI predicted the wind tunnel contraction and diffusion in which the
values, and rigid hood prediction, at each speed. The CFD effect on the hood pressures is unknown. Since the simula-
derived pressures from the FSI prediction and rigid hood tion successfully captures the overall trend, it appears the
cases are nearly identical, indicating that the pressure at the contraction and diffusion of the tunnel is insignificant.
measured locations is not strongly sensitive to fluid-struc- Another potential source of discrepancy is the pressure sensor
tural coupling. The simulation captures the overall trend strips, which are not modeled in the CAD representation. The
of the experimental data, but consistently overshoots the sensors may cause turbulence particularly on the aft side of the
pressure on the trailing edge. L1 (mean absolute error) and hood where the turbulence model is unable to fully capture
L∞ norms for each velocity are provided in Table 5 using the adverse gradient effects. The sensors were not modeled due
data from all probe locations. The agreement between predic- to grid refinement requirements that would exceed available
tions and experiment decreases with increasing wind speed. resources for the simulation. Another potential issue is the
FIGURE 20 Discrete pressure comparison along strip FIGURE 22 Discrete pressure comparison along strip
4, 100 kph. Simulated values have reasonable agreement 4, 160 kph. Simulated values have reasonable agreement
to experiment. to experiment.
200 400
Experiment Experiment
FSI Prediction 200 FSI Prediction
100 Rigid CFD Rigid CFD
0
0
-200
-100
-400
-200
-600
-300 -800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920
Probe Probe
FIGURE 23 Discrete pressure comparison along strip TABLE 5 L1 and L∞ error norms of hood surface pressure data
1, 200 kph. Simulated values have reasonable agreement using FSI prediction pressures.
to experiment.
Velocity (kph) L∞ (Pa) L1 (Pa)
100 30.8 9.97
400
Experiment 160 70.9 23.70
FSI Prediction 200 123.9 36.13
200
Rigid CFD © 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.
0
than the symbols in each figure. In general, the predicted
-200 displacements are reasonably close to within experimental
uncertainty of the measured displacements. Furthermore,

the maximum displacements are O (1 mm) or less, which is
-400
consistent with the pressure comparisons, suggesting that
the chosen hood structure does not exhibit strong steady
-600 aeroelastic coupling.
A potential cause of discrepancy between the predictions
-800 and experimental measurements is the alteration of the local
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Probe surface pressure due to the presence of the laser devices. This
effect was examined by adding the laser devices to the CFD
domain, as shown in Figure 28, and repeating the coupled
presence of flow separation and recirculation between the analysis using V3 at 160 kph. As indicated in Figure 29,
hood and windshield, which is not adequately captured with there are significant local changes in surface pressure near
the current turbulence model with wall functions. the measurement locations. However, as indicated by the
The hood deflection results of Points 1, 2, and 3 are results listed in Table 6, these local pressure changes have a
provided in Figures 25-27. Post-analysis of the experimental negligible effect on the predicted displacement at Points 1
results indicated deflection of the laser measurement devices and 2, and a modest improvement on the predicted displace-
at Points 1 and 2 due to aerodynamic force. Subsequently, ment at Point 3. This is likely due to the relative stiffness of
bench testing of the laser assembly was used to correlate the considered hood. Aeroelastic analysis of more flexible
the aerodynamic loading at each tested wind speed to the configurations may exhibit stronger sensitivity to these local
laser deflection. The uncertainty bars on the experimental pressure variations, making this an important consideration
values, shown in Figures 25-27, account for the induced for future study.
deflection of the laser assemblies. This was not observed to The degree of fluid-structural coupling was further
be an issue at Point 3, thus no error bars are included since assessed by comparing the uncoupled and coupled struc-
the measurement uncertainty of the laser itself is smaller tural response at 160 kph. V3 was used for the uncoupled
FIGURE 24 Discrete pressure comparison along strip FIGURE 25 Displacement comparison of FSI baseline
4, 200 kph. Simulated values have reasonable agreement prediction to experiment, 100 kph. Predicted values
to experiment. lie approximately within the range of uncertainty for
experimental values.
500
Experiment
FSI Prediction
Exp 100kph
Rigid CFD 0.4 FSI 100kph
Hood Deflection (mm)
0
0.3
-500
0.2
0.1
-1000
0
-1500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920 -0.1
Probe Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
FIGURE 26 Displacement comparison of FSI baseline FIGURE 29 Pressure distribution of V3 with and
prediction to experiment, 160 kph. Predicted values without lasers.
lie approximately within the range of uncertainty for
Exp 160kph
0.8 FSI 160kph
0.6
0.4
analysis, and compared to the baseline coupled prediction

0.2 discussed in Figures 19-27. The results of the comparison are
shown in Figure 30 and Table 7. Consistent with the previous
0 examination of hood pressure values, the difference between
the coupled and uncoupled predictions is relatively small.
-0.2 This is indicative of a relatively stiff hood construction for
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 the chosen vehicle. Furthermore, these results indicate an
uncoupled analysis is adequate when predicted hood deflec-
tions are 1 mm or less.
FIGURE 27 Displacement comparison of FSI baseline

prediction to experiment, 200 kph. Predicted values Sensitivity to Internal Flow
lie approximately within the range of uncertainty for
The sensitivity of the aeroelastic response to the flow through
the front fascia, as well as the resulting under-hood pressure,
was examined numerically through the comparison of the V1,
1.5 V2, and V3 simulations. The impact of flow through the front
Exp 200kph fascia on the aeroelastic prediction was assessed at 160 kph by
FSI 200kph comparing the V1 prediction, which had a closed front fascia,
to that of the V3 model. In both cases, the internal engine

1 compartment pressure computed using V2 was applied onto
the FEM model as a distributed load. The effect of closing the
front fascia on the exterior hood skin pressure is shown in
Figure 31. The largest differences in pressure occur at regions
0.5 near the front and trailing edges of the hood. A larger suction
(higher magnitude negative pressure) is observed on the
central front and fender regions of the hood in the V1 model.
0 This is due to the closed apertures on the front fascia accel-
erating the flow over the hood. Conversely, the positive static
pressure on the trailing edge of the V1 hood exceeds that seen
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 in the V3 model. This is due to the presence of flow through
the more detailed cowl region in the V3 model compared to
the simplified representation used in the V1 model. These
modeling differences are highlighted in Figure 32. The impact
FIGURE 28 CFD modeling of laser instrumentation.
TABLE 6 Coupled displacement results of V3 with and

without lasers.
Transverse displacement (mm)

Location With lasers Baseline prediction % Difference
Point 1 0.46 0.47 2.2
Point 2 0.44 0.44 0.0
Point 3 -0.025 -0.012 52.0
FIGURE 30 Uncoupled vs. coupled structural response. FIGURE 31 Steady aeroelastic pressure distribution of V1
(closed fascia) and V3 (open fascia), highlighting the effect of
fascia modeling on hood pressure.

on the structural response is provided in Figure 33 and Table 8.

There is a small difference at Points 1 and 2, while the displace- FIGURE 32 Cowl top geometry of V1 and V3 models. V1
ment for Point 3 of V1 is nearly five times that of V3. However, simplification increases rear edge static pressure magnitude.
the magnitude of displacement at Point 3 remains relatively
small compared to the other locations.
The impact of neglecting under-hood pressure on the
aeroelastic predictions was assessed using the V1 model by
eliminating the mapped V2 engine compartment pressure
within the FEM model. The resulting comparison is consid-
ered in Figure 34 and listed in Table 9. For the analyzed
hood, removing the effect of under-hood pressure tends to
increase the displacement overall. This is due to the suction © 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.
force induced by the negative engine compartment pressure,

which tends to resist positive hood displacement. Compared FIGURE 33 Steady aeroelastic structural response of V1
to the minor effects of front fascia openings and instrumenta- (closed fascia) and V3 (open fascia) models.
tion flow disturbances, the inclusion of under-hood pressure
has a significantly larger impact on hood displacement at

the measured points, suggesting its importance in obtaining
accurate predictions of hood deflection.
Conclusions
Aeroelastic simulation in automobile development and
design is an important consideration as manufacturers vary modification from the displacement measurement devices
component compliance to meet increasingly challenging, and are observed to complicate the validation process. Results
sometimes conflicting, objectives. Critical to this challenge also indicate that hood displacements predicted at or below
are the development of computational tools, as well as vali- 1 mm from an uncoupled analysis do not exhibit strong
dation of these tools. This article examines this task in the aeroelastic interactions. Finally, sensitivity studies indicate
context of the aeroelastic response of a representative auto- that internal flow through forward and rear boundaries, as
mobile hood using both a coupled CFD-FEM fluid-structure well as engine compartment pressure, can have a modest
interaction framework and experimental measurement. impact on hood deflections. For the configuration studied,
Overall agreement between the experiment and aeroelastic the neglect of under-hood pressure was observed to be more
predictions is reasonable. Furthermore, compliance and flow significant than neglect of flow through the forward and
TABLE 7 Comparison of uncoupled and coupled response. TABLE 8 Coupled displacement results of V1 and V3.
Transverse displacement (mm) Transverse displacement (mm)

Location Uncoupled Baseline % Difference Location V1 V3 % Difference
Point 1 0.45 0.47 4.26 Point 1 0.45 0.47 4.26
Point 2 0.43 0.44 2.27 Point 2 0.43 0.44 2.27
Point 3 -0.0098 -0.012 18.3 Point 3 -0.054 -0.012 350
© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc. © 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.
FIGURE 34 Steady aeroelastic structural response of V1

with and without under-hood pressure loading, highlighting lift
Contact Information
sensitivity to the internal engine compartment pressure. Jack McNamara
The Ohio State University
mcnamara190@osu.edu
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge support for this work by
Honda R&D Americas, Inc.
References
rear boundaries. These findings provide important insight
toward the use of aeroelastic prediction tools in the design of 1. Massegur, D., Quaranta, G., and Cavagna, L., “An Indy
automotive components. Car Rear Wing Is Designed for Aeroelastic Response Using
In this study, comparison to experimental data has only Multidisciplinary Optimization,” ANSYS Advantage 1(1):9-
been done with one vehicle. Further validation on other vehicle 11, 2007.
models should be considered to gain insight to the fidelity of
2. Patil, S., Lietz, R., Woodiga, S. et al., “Fluid Structure
the FSI framework. In addition, this work should be carried Interaction Simulations Applied to Automotive
out on a vehicle with more substantial hood compliance to Aerodynamics,” SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1544, 2015,
further assess the importance of aeroelastic interactions on doi:10.4271/2015-01-1544.
hood deflection. Last, current understanding of the steady-
3. Gupta, A., Gargoloff, J., and Duncan, B., “Response of a
state aeroelastic problem enables confidence in progressing to
Prototype Truck Hood to Transient Aerodynamic Loading,”
unsteady aeroelastic study of automobile hoods.
SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-1156, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-
01-1156.
TABLE 9 Coupled displacement results of V1 with and 4. Gaylard, A., Beckett, M., Gargoloff, J. et al., “CFD-Based
without internal pressure loading. Modelling of Flow Conditions Capable of Inducing
Hood Flutter,” SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-1011, 2010,
Transverse displacement (mm) doi:10.4271/2010-01-1011.
With internal Without internal 5. Knight, J., Lucey, A. Shaw, C., “Fluid-Structure Interaction of
Location pressure pressure % Difference
the Jaguar XK8 Convertible Car Roof,” 18th World IMACS/
Point 1 0.45 0.51 11.8 MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia, 2009.
Point 2 0.43 0.52 17.3 6. Ramsay, T., Fredelake, A., and Stevens, K., “Correlation of a
Point 3 -0.054 -0.16 66.3 CAE Hood Deflection Prediction Method,” SAE Technical
© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc. Paper 2008-01-0098, 2008, doi:10.4271/2008-01-0098.
© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.; Published by SAE International. 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 International.
Positions and opinions advanced in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the
content of the article.

Hood 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Hood 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from SAE International by Duke Univ, Friday, January 11, 2019

Steady Aeroelastic Response

Introduction by the engine compartment. Results indicated less than a

FIGURE 1 Displacement measurement locations. FIGURE 4 Surface pressure probe locations.

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

FIGURE 3 Laser fixture on trailing edge midline (Point 3).

was considered using a simplified engine compartment and

FIGURE 6 V1 model geometry. FIGURE 10 Fluid domain boundary conditions and

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

FIGURE 7 V2 model geometry.

As indicated, aeroelastic computations were not achiev-

most accurate internal flow modeling for estimating under-

z) location to anchor the solution. This was set to the average

FIGURE 11 Fluid domain boundary conditions and

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

size was reduced closer to the vehicle surface to capture the

TABLE 3 Summary of grid convergence study.

Grid Cell count Hood lift (Newtons) % Error

Component Material Mesh size (mm) Element type

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

FIGURE 18 Steady-state internal pressure distribution

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

Static Pressure [Pa]

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

analysis, and compared to the baseline coupled prediction

FIGURE 27 Displacement comparison of FSI baseline

to that of the V3 model. In both cases, the internal engine

TABLE 6 Coupled displacement results of V3 with and

Transverse displacement (mm)

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

on the structural response is provided in Figure 33 and Table 8.

force induced by the negative engine compartment pressure,

© 2018 Honda R&D Americas, Inc.

Transverse displacement (mm) Transverse displacement (mm)

FIGURE 34 Steady aeroelastic structural response of V1

You might also like