Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2000-01-0484

Advances in External-Aero Simulation of Ground

Vehicles Using the Steady RANS Equations
Francis T. Makowski and Sung-Eun Kim
Fluent Inc.

Reprinted From: Vehicle Aerodynamics

(SP–1524)

SAE 2000 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 6-9, 2000

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

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. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through 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 Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018
Advances in External-Aero Simulation of Ground
Vehicles Using the Steady RANS Equations
Copyright © 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
Numerical prediction of the aerodynamics around cars
has long been one of the rudimentary needs in automo-
tive engineering. Despite all of the recent developments
in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and its constitu-
ent technologies, however, it’s still not an easy task to
accurately predict the flows around and the aerodynamic
forces and moments acting on ground vehicles. The
complex configurations and flow physics involved in
ground-vehicle aerodynamics require, among other
things, sophisticated geometry modeling and meshing
tools, advanced turbulence models and an efficient solu-
tion algorithm.
This paper discusses various aspects of applying mod-
ern Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to the predic-
tion of aerodynamic flows around ground vehicles. The
discussion will be in the framework of an unstructured
mesh finite-volume method applied to the steady-flow
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations,
which has been established as a standard CFD approach
for external aerodynamics applications. The main issues
in this paper include mesh, numerics, and turbulence
modeling. The issue of mesh will be discussed with the
primary focus on unstructured meshes that allow the use
of cells of arbitrary topology, including hexahedra, tetra-
hedra, pyramids, prisms, and any combination of these.
Special emphasis will be placed on viscous-hybrid
meshes, which combine prism layers in near-wall regions
(for better resolution of strong gradients in wall boundary
layers) and a tetrahedral mesh in the far field. Solution-
adaptive mesh refinement will be discussed in view of its
ability to resolve economically a wide range of length
scales in the flow. We’ll discuss the impact of various tur-
bulence models on the prediction of the aerodynamics of
ground vehicles. We’ll also consider the great challenges
posed by the salient features of the subject flow, including
strong streamline curvature, crossflow, various types of
flow separation on the body, and the ensuing shear layers
and vortices. A second-moment turbulence closure,
employing Reynolds-stress transport equations, is pro-
posed as a viable turbulence model that can accurately
model the salient features of the flow around ground vehi-
1
2000-01-0484
Francis T. Makowski and Sung-Eun Kim
Fluent Inc.
cles. The issue of near-wall treatment will be addressed
with an emphasis on the use of wall functions. This paper
describes all of these issues in detail and it showcases
simulations for a selected number of vehicle shapes and
related configurations.
INTRODUCTION
The accurate prediction of external aerodynamics for
conceptual designs has long been a fundamental need of
the automotive industry. Despite all of the rapid develop-
ments in CFD and its constituent technologies, however,
it’s still not an easy task to accurately predict the aerody-
namic characteristics of ground vehicles. The complex
shapes and salient flow physics that are involved require,
among other things, sophisticated geometry modeling
and meshing tools, advanced physical models, substan-
tial computer resources and lastly, but most importantly,
the right simulation strategy. The finite-volume and
finite-difference formulations applied to the Reynolds-
averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations have been
established as the de facto standard CFD approach for a
wide range of industrial flows, including external aerody-
namics applications [1-3]. Aided by recent advances in
mesh generation, numerical algorithms, physical models
and parallel processing, the RANS approach has fully
matured in recent years. It now enables industrial CFD
practitioners to produce quick, cost-effective and accu-
rate predictions of aerodynamics for ground vehicles with
realistic geometry.
This paper describes a simulation strategy for the exter-
nal aerodynamics of ground vehicles using the unstruc-
tured-mesh-based solver technology in the FLUENT
code [4,5] which has been developed at Fluent Inc. over
the years.
SIMULATION STRATEGY
When CFD is used for design and analysis in typical
industrial settings, it is always subjected to some con-
straints. Among practical constraints are the allocatable
dynamic memory and the total amount of CPU-time that
may be spent on simulation. These constraints largely
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018

determine the total cell count and the modeling strategies according to the nature of the flow and taking
approach, the latter being reflected in the choices of the into account the impact of the chosen mesh topology on
turbulence model and the other physical models. An ideal cell count, numerical accuracy, etc. Such capabilities
CFD solution strategy should be such that it maximizes greatly benefit external aerodynamics applications.
the fidelity of the predictions given the constraints. In the
For a typical car-like shape, pressure or form drag is
following, we describe one such strategy.
dominant over skin friction, so the accuracy of the drag
and lift predictions are largely determined by the accu-
GOVERNING EQUATIONS – Reynolds-averaged
racy of the predicted (static) pressure distribution on the
Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations describe ensemble-
body. The pressure distribution is strongly affected by the
averaged turbulent flows. Its efficacy as a practical engi-
locations of flow separation and reattachment, if any.
neering approach has been demonstrated over the years
Therefore, it is critically important to resolve the boundary
for external aerodynamics applications[1-3]. Although
layer and its separation. To be able to resolve the
time-dependent mean flows can be modeled using the
boundary layer and its possible separation and subse-
unsteady form of the RANS equations, a great majority of
quent reattachment, prudent choices of cell aspect-ratio
turbulent flows, including the flows around ground vehi-
and growth rate are required in the boundary layer. Use
cles, can be economically and accurately modeled using
of tetrahedral cells throughout the entire flow domain is
steady RANS equations. A steady-flow simulation usu-
an option. However, as will be explained later, using a tri-
ally requires a small fraction of what a time-dependent
angular prism mesh in near-wall region combined with a
simulation would typically take, because the latter must
tetrahedral mesh elsewhere is the most effective way to
cover a span of physical time that is long enough to pro-
minimize numerical errors for a given cell count. A prism/
duce stable statistics. Hence, for a practical CFD code, it
tet mesh constitutes a viscous-hybrid mesh in Fluent
is essential to offer the option of steady-flow simulations.
Inc.’s terminology.
An even greater benefit of a steady RANS simulation
A good viscous-hybrid mesh starts with a triangulated
comes from the fact that the flow field approaches a sta-
surface mesh that faithfully resolves all of the important
tionary state as the solution converges. A stationary flow
features of the geometry and satisfies the requirements
field facilitates solution-adaptive mesh refinement, which
of the physical models and the solver. The goal is to pro-
is based on the solution on the current mesh. After only
duce, as close as possible, an equilateral surface triangu-
a few refinement-and-re-convergence cycles, the resolu-
lation with prudent rates of variation in the nodal spacing
tion of large gradients in the dependent variables
everywhere. Next, prism layers are extruded from the
improves greatly at the expense of only modest increases
surface triangles. Using a feature that was introduced in
in the cell count and the total iteration count. Needless to
TGrid V3.1, which is one of Fluent Inc.’s preprocessors
say, a better resolution of the flow field leads to more
used for generating tetrahedral and prism meshes, wall-
accurate predictions of aerodynamic coefficients. Solu-
adjacent prisms are extruded according to a user-speci-
tion-adaptive mesh refinement, as attractive as it may
fied value of aspect-ratio, and subsequent prism layers
sound, is impractical for time-dependent simulations,
increase in height at a user-specified growth rate. The
because the locations of the steep gradients change with
number of prism layers and its height should be enough
time. For time-dependent simulations, accuracy that is
to span the boundary layer. Finally, a tetrahedral mesh
comparable to that of a well-adapted steady RANS simu-
fills the remaining volume of the domain.
lation can only be achieved at a much greater cost in cell
count.
Surface Triangulation – Ideally, most surfaces should be
tessellated with low-skewness triangles. The faces of
MESH – The complex geometry and myriad details of
the surface mesh should be allocated such that the cur-
realistic car configurations defy straightforward meshing,
vature of every surface is well represented in terms of
and this has limited the usability of CFD. Unstructured
planar facets. (Note: Since the FLUENT solver has no
mesh technology has recently attracted a great deal of
access to the grid’s original geometry database, mesh
attention from the CFD community. FLUENT Version 5 is
adapation is not useful for improving the geometry reso-
based on unstructured mesh technology. It allows one to
lution of the surface mesh) Low-skewness surface trian-
employ computational cells of arbitrary topology, such as
gulation greatly facilitates extrusion of prisms, and a
triangles and quadrilaterals in 2-D, and in 3-D, tetrahedra,
smooth variation in triangle edge-length significantly
prisms, pyramids, hexahedra, etc., and all combinations
improves the prism quality.
of these. One immediate advantage of unstructured
meshes over structured meshes is their flexibility in deal-
Prism Zones – Boundary prisms provide low-skewness
ing with complicated configurations. Another advantage
elements where viscous effects are large. Layered ele-
is that unstructured meshes lend themselves to solution-
ments also provide good alignment with the flow near
adaptive local mesh refinement. Unstructured-mesh
wall boundaries, thereby reducing numerical diffusion.
capability therefore facilitates computation of industrial
Beginning with TGrid V3.0, prisms could be extruded
turbulent flows that have a wide range of length scales to
from all surfaces of a complex geometry simultaneously.
be resolved. What’s more, a hybrid mesh capability
However, for complex geometries, the maximum skew-
allows one to employ in different zones different meshing
ness of the prism-cap (i.e., the outer boundary of the final

2
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018
prism layer) generally increases with the number of prism
layers. For this reason, the face skewness of the surface-
mesh must be as low as possible.
TGrid V3.1 was enhanced to allow prisms to be extruded
for a specified value of cell aspect-ratio. Extrusion by
aspect-ratio is recommended for all prism layers on a
vehicle. This makes each prism’s height proportional to
the size of its base triangle. For good prism characteris-
tics with extrusion by aspect-ratio, the triangle size on
each surface must vary smoothly.
Each succeeding prism layer should increase in height at
a constant geometric rate. The number of prism layers
should be determined such that across the prism/tetrahe-
dron interface there is a good match in the normal dis-
tances from the cell centroid to the interface.
On a multi-element wing, the small gap between the trail-
ing edge of the main element and the leading edge of the
flap creates a jet that accelerates the boundary layer on
the suction side of the flap, thereby helping to prevent
flow separation. This jet is in very close proximity to the
front stagnation line on the flap. Hence, there are very
large gradients of static pressure in this vicinity. There
are also large pressure gradients along the front stagna-
tion line of the main element. If these gradients are
poorly resolved, then there will be either “overshoots” or
“undershoots” in static pressure elsewhere on the wing.
Prism layers are ideal for resolving such gradients. To
avoid a collision between the prism layers from the main
element and the flap when extruding by aspect-ratio,
smaller surface triangulation near the gap are required
on both elements. This typically requires strategically
non-uniform surface triangulation on both elements.
Given triangulated surfaces and the values of a few
parameters, prism layers are automatically created by
either TGrid V3 or GAMBIT V1, the latter being Fluent
Inc.’s newest preprocessor. Hence, the creation of 3-D
prism zones essentially requires only a 2-D level of effort.
Hexahedral Mesh Zones – The underbody surfaces of a
high performance car frequently constitute a ground-
effects duct. It is known that ground effects are responsi-
ble for approximately one-half of the total downward force
generated by typical Championship cars (which formerly
were better known as “Indycars”). Hence, the overall
accuracy of a Championship car simulation depends
heavily upon the accuracy of the contribution from the
underbody, which depends upon the kind of mesh that is
employed there. The underbody surfaces are smooth,
but the ground clearance is highly non-uniform. To pre-
vent prism layers on the underbody surfaces and the
ground plane from colliding during extrusion by aspect-
ratio, the sizes of the surface triangulation must be pro-
portional to the local ground clearance. This requirement
occasionally makes it easier to create zones of semi-
unstructured hexahedra under the car. An example of a
set of such zones is shown in Figure 1.
3
GAMBIT V1.0.4 offers the cooper tool option for creating
blocks of semi-unstructured hexahedra. “Coopered”
blocks in the underbody region offer the following advan-
tages:
1. They provide layered elements on both the under-
body surfaces and the ground plane.
2. A hexahedron may be subdivided into no fewer than
two prisms or five tetrahedra. Therefore, for ele-
ments of a given edge length, the cell count in a hex
block is much less than that in a corresponding
prism/tet domain.
3. Domains of semi-unstructured hexahedra, which are
bounded by surfaces of unstructured quadrilaterals
and surfaces of mapped quadrilaterals, facilitate the
decomposition of a complex region into multiple
blocks.
4. The sizes of surface tesselations are much less
dependent upon the local ground clearance.
The last advantage facilitates an investigation of the
effects of ride height, pitch angle and row angle on a car’s
aerodynamic characteristics. Firstly, the surface mesh on
the body and its corresponding prism layers may be
quickly and easily translated and rotated for height, pitch
and roll changes. Then, after a few parameters describ-
ing the existing set of coopered hex blocks are modified,
GAMBIT can automatically create a new set of coopered
hex blocks. Finally, a new enveloping tetrahedral mesh
can be created automatically. Hence, the mesh genera-
tion effort for simulations of additional chassis setups is
minimal.
The combination of tetrahedral and hexahedral zones
constitutes a zonal-hybrid mesh in Fluent Inc.’s terminol-
ogy. For a ground effects car, the viscous/zonal-hybrid
mesh is the most cost-effective choice. It offers high
accuracy and the best spatial resolution for a given total
cell-count.
Tetrahedral Zones – Tetrahedra usually envelop all other
cell types. Their completely unstructured nature allows
them to grow to unlimited size while maintaining confor-
mal connectivity with their neighbors. Hence, they effi-
ciently fill the remaining volume of the domain. This
facilitates calculations for domains with a very low level of
solid blockage, as necessary for accurate external-aero
predictions.
SOLUTION-ADAPTIVE MESH REFINEMENT – The
wide range of length scales involved in the flow around
realistic car-like shapes with all of their appendages
makes it difficult to create a mesh that resolves all of the
salient features of the flow. The difficulty is due to the
fact that the flow field obviously is not known a priori.
With traditional CFD tools, an accurate simulation typi-
cally require many “remesh-and-recompute” cycles,
which translates into a tremendous amount of analysis
time. The search for an optimum mesh for a given car
geometry can be greatly facilitated by solution-adaptive
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018

mesh refinement, which permits the user to refine the might be, then no amount of solution-adaptive mesh
mesh locally and selectively only where it is necessary as refinement will yield a completely satisfactory result. Fur-
indicated by the solution itself. The authors believe that thermore, the size of the region of significant discrepancy
solution-adaptive mesh refinement is indispensable for with experimental measurements can be much larger
accurate aerodynamics simulations of the car-like than the size of the under-resolved key geometric fea-
shapes. ture. One example of such key geometric features is the
surface curvature near the front stagnation line on an air-
One can use different mesh refinement strategies
foil element.
depending on the application and the flow physics. How-
ever, in external aerodynamics applications, mesh refine-
NUMERICS – FLUENT V5 [4,5] is capable of computing
ment based on gradients of static pressure has been
solutions on unstructured meshes with a variety of cell
found most effective in improving the accuracy of the
topologies. The tetrahedron usually is the element of
static pressure field and, ultimately, the aerodynamic
choice for CFD simulations, in light of the desirable fea-
forces. After each adaptation, 75-100 iterations usually
ture that tetrahedra efficiently fill any volumetric region
are sufficient to re-converge the solution to residual val-
bounded by arbitrary surfaces, and that high-quality (low-
ues that are comparable to those before the adaptation.
skewness) tetrahedral meshes can be created automati-
An adaptation cycle constitutes one mesh adaptation and
cally from triangulated surfaces. Hence, the task of creat-
the computation of its convergence transient. Experience
ing a volume-mesh essentially collapses to one of
has shown that more adaptation cycles, each on a
creating a set of surface-meshes, and that requires only a
smaller percentage of the cells, is better than fewer adap-
2-D level of user effort.
tation cycles, each on a larger percentage of the cells.
Based many simulations performed by Fluent Inc. and Cell-centered control-volume finite-difference flow field
those by our customers under advice from Fluent Inc., codes, such as FLUENT V5, require the cell-centroid val-
the predicted aerodynamic coefficients at the end of the ues of the dependent variables to be interpolated to the
adaptation process typically agree with their wind tunnel face centroids of each cell so that the convective fluxes
counterparts to within 1-3%. on the faces of the cells can be evaluated. In this con-
text, a tetrahedron is less desirable as a wall-adjacent
It should be emphasized that solution-adaptive mesh
element. This stems from the fact that the face centroids
refinement is necessary for external aerodynamics simu-
of a wall-adjacent tetrahedron are not the same distance
lations with FLUENT V5 only when the objective is wind
from the wall as the corresponding volume centroid.
tunnel verifiable values of the aerodynamic coefficients.
Hence, for a wall-adjacent tetrahedron, the direction of
If the objective were a valid conclusion about which
interpolation has a component that is normal to the wall.
design is the best among multiple candidates, however,
In FLUENT V5, these interpolations are second-order
then adaptation usually is merely optional. This is
accurate, just like the finite-differences are. However,
because a non-adapted viscous-hybrid mesh that satis-
inside the boundary layer, wall-normal gradients of the
fies the criteria expressed in the above Surface Triangula-
mean flow quantities usually dominate wall-parallel gradi-
tion section, when combined with appropriate
ents. This is especially true for the momentum and the
differencing schemes and physical models, resolves
turbulence equations. Under these circumstances, sec-
most of the fundamental features of the flow field, so the
ond-order-accurate interpolations might not be suffi-
corresponding well-converged solution is adequate for
ciently accurate. For the momentum equations, for
qualitative comparisons. Based again on many external-
instance, this is because the profile for the wall-parallel
aero simulations performed by Fluent Inc. and those by
velocity typically is similar to a one-seventh-power law.
our customers under advice from Fluent Inc., the drag
The overall effect is tantamount to well known numerical
coefficient from a good solution on a non-adapted mesh
diffusion in the context of a structured mesh, which usu-
typically exceeds the corresponding wind tunnel value by
ally becomes significant when the flow direction is not
15%. The magnitude of the predicted lift coefficient is
well aligned with the mesh.
similarly excessive. Therefore, a good solution on a non-
adapted mesh combined with prior experience in simulat- Low-skewness parallelepiped elements, typically underly-
ing the same class of vehicles can lead to very realistic ing structured or block-structured meshes, yield a mesh
estimates of the aerodynamic coefficients. that is nicely aligned with the flow in the near-wall region.
Furthermore, the face centroids and volume centroids of
Solution-adaptive mesh refinement is also useful for elim-
the wall-adjacent elements are at roughly the same
inating an oscillatory solution in a steady-flow calculation
height above the cell base, i.e., the wall surface. Hence,
on a less-than-ideal non-adapted mesh. Oscillations fre-
a low-skewness wall-adjacent hexahedron is less prone
quently are due to a volume mesh that is too coarse to
to the interpolation error that a wall-adjacent tetrahedron
resolve an important feature in the flow field. Once
inherently fosters. The strategy proposed in this paper
again, the best quantity for adaptation is the gradient of
makes use of prisms that preserve the same benefits that
static pressure. The amplitude of an oscillation generally
hexahedral elements offer. These benefits also apply to
decreases with each adaptation cycle.
the wall-adjacent prisms, which are extruded from a trian-
However, if the surface mesh fails to resolve a key geo- gulated surface in the direction of the local surface nor-
metric feature adequately, regardless of how small it mal. In general, inside the boundary layer, any layered

4
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018
element is preferable to a tetrahedron. Other reasons for
this conclusion are as follows:
1. Layered elements are automatically aligned with con-
vection along the wall.
2. Layered elements are automatically aligned with dif-
fusion normal to the wall.
3. A viscous-hybrid mesh, featuring layered elements of
appropriate aspect-ratio throughout the boundary
layer on every wall and tetrahedra everywhere else,
better resolves wall-normal gradients of static pres-
sure and yields lower values of wall y + than a pure-
tetrahedral mesh of the same cell count.
In external aerodynamics simulations, gradients outside
the boundary layers generally are much smaller than
wall-normal gradients inside the boundary layers. Out-
side the boundary layers, low-skewness tetrahedra, com-
bined with FLUENT V5’s second-order-accurate
interpolations and finite differences, provide accuracy
that is comparable to that of any other cell topology.
In FLUENT V5, as in its preceding versions, a user may
choose among several different discretization schemes
for the convection terms. By default, the convection terms
are discretized with a first-order accurate upwind
scheme. However, FLUENT V5 also offers the option of
an unconditionally stable second-order-accurate convec-
tion discretization scheme. The discretizations for all
other terms in the governing equations are second-order
accurate.
At the start of calculations, when the initialized solution
usually represents a very poor approximation of the con-
verged result, the non-linear terms can cause conver-
gence problems. Heavy under-relaxation is one remedy
often resorted to; another workaround is using less
under-relaxation combined with the first-order-upwind
convection discretization scheme. The latter course is
usually better. First-order upwind produces considerable
artificial diffusion, thereby dampening numerical instabili-
ties. But the dampening tends to be strategically local; it
generally is greater where the initialized flow field repre-
sents a worse approximation. In contrast, reduced
under-relaxation factors penalize the solution’s rate of
convergence everywhere. For this reason, at the start of
calculations it is advantageous to employ the first-order-
upwind convection discretization scheme but with stan-
dard under-relaxation. After approximately the first 50–
100 iterations, the switch usually can be made to the sec-
ond-order-accurate scheme which reduces artificial diffu-
sion and better captures the gradients in the flow.
The sophisticated numerics in FLUENT V5 [4,5] com-
bined with the Reynolds Stress transport Model (RSM)
yield significantly lower amounts of artificial diffusion
compared to most other codes.
TURBULENCE MODELING
Core Turbulence Model – The fidelity of CFD predictions
for turbulent flow is highly dependent upon the quality of
5
turbulence modeling. This is especially true when it
comes to the flow around ground vehicles, whose salient
features include three-dimensional boundary layers with
strong crossflow and streamline curvature, possibly vari-
ous types of separation on the body, subsequent stream-
wise evolution of ensuing shear layers and vortices, etc.
These features require a turbulence model that can prop-
erly account for anisotropy and non-equilibrium effects.
Surveying recent literature shows that there are numer-
ous engineering turbulence models, ranging from simple
algebraic models to second-moment closure models.
Among them, the original k-ε model proposed by Launder
and Spalding almost three decades ago (which is hereaf-
ter referred to as the “standard k-ε model”) still seems to
be the model that is used most widely by the external
aerodynamics community, because it is simple, robust
and reasonably accurate. Nevertheless, conventional k-ε
models have inherent drawbacks associated with their
underlying hypotheses of an isotropic eddy-viscosity.
Many investigators have found them to give mediocre
results in situations where the flow is dominated by
strong anisotropic turbulence and non-equilibrium effects.
One particularly well known drawback, among many oth-
ers, of conventional k-ε models in bluff-body aerodynam-
ics (which is closely related to ground-vehicle
aerodynamics) is that they tend to over-predict the turbu-
lent kinetic energy and, consequently, turbulent viscosity
near front stagnation points. This quite often leads to an
over-prediction of the pressure coefficient at stagnation
points, (Cp)max , which obviously will impact the form
drag on the body. It is not unusual for (Cp)max, as pre-
dicted by k-ε models, to be well in excess of 1.0.
Depending upon the local flow characteristics, it is physi-
cally possible for (Cp)max to exceed 1.0 (e.g., See Ref. [6]
page 266 and Ref. [7]); however, the values predicted by
conventional k-ε models are unrealistically high. This
erroneous prediction of (Cp) max by the k-ε models is due
to the Boussinesq’s isotropic eddy-viscosity assump-
tion. The mediocre performance shown by conventional
k-ε models has prompted the pursuit of better alterna-
tives. In the last few years, one increasingly encounters
industrial flow simulations employing second-moment
closure models, in which transport equations for the indi-
vidual Reynolds stresses are solved. The Reynolds
Stress transport Model (RSM) rigorously accounts for
anisotropy of turbulence and the transports of all Rey-
nolds stresses. For one thing, the RSM gives much more
realistic stagnation pressures.
Despite the greater potential offered by the second-
moment closure, the RSM has not been used widely for
industrial applications. One reason for the limited use of
the RSM perhaps lies in the perception that it incurs a
significantly higher cost. However, the overhead of using
the RSM is not as great as many would expect. In light of
the number of additional transport equations for the indi-
vidual Reynolds stresses, one might conclude that the
CPU-time per iteration and dynamic memory required for
an RSM calculation are much greater than those for an
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018
otherwise identical k-epsilon calculation. That is not true.
The CPU-time per iteration does not scale linearly with
the number of equations being solved, because the pres-
sure (correction) equation consumes a disproportionate
amount of computational effort in comparison to the other
transport equations.
The RSM in FLUENT 5 is based on the models of Gibson
and Launder [8] and, more recently, Speziale et al. [9],
and it is implemented in the framework of an unstructured
mesh. When the RSM is used in FLUENT V5, the com-
putation typically requires approximately 40 % more
CPU-time/iteration and 20% more dynamic memory than
a calculation with the standard k-ε model. The overhead
in terms of total CPU-time can vary from case to case,
depending on the flow being computed, because the
RSM rigorously accounts for individual Reynolds
stresses, and there can be strong interactions among the
Reynolds stresses themselves. RSM simulations seldom
require more than twice as many iterations as k-ε simula-
tions, and they occasionally require only the same num-
ber of iterations.
Before we present examples that are relevant to the main
theme of this paper, i.e., car aerodynamics, it would be
useful to examine what impact turbulence modeling can
have on the fidelity of CFD predictions. Here we will use
an example that has a direct bearing on the boundary
layer over a car shape. The example is a two-dimen-
sional steady boundary layer flow over a smooth bump,
which was studied experimentally by Baskaran et al. [10].
The mesh is shown in Figure 2. The upstream flow is a
flat-plate turbulent boundary layer flow. As the boundary
layer passes the bump, it is subjected to streamline cur-
vature of alternating signs, i.e., convex and concave, and
strong favorable and adverse pressure gradients, respec-
tively. The experimental data indicate that there is incipi-
ent separation on the leeward side of the bump about
1.1m aft of the bump’s leading (i.e., upstream-most)
point. The freestream Reynolds number per unit length
is approximately 1.33 x 10 6 1/m. The computations were
performed on a 170 x 90 quadrilateral mesh using three
different k-ε models (i.e., the standard, the realizable, and
the RNG models) and a second-moment closure model
(i.e., the RSM). Wall functions were employed for wall
boundary conditions. Figures 3 and 4 show the predicted
pressure and skin-friction distributions. Note that x = 0
corresponds to the leading point, and the trailing point is
located at about x = 1.284 m. All four turbulence models
yield practically identical pressure distributions over the
upstream half of the bump. However, the predictions
depart from each other downstream of the crest. The k-ε
models are shown to significantly over-predict the pres-
sure recovery in the recirculation region, although the
RNG k-ε model and the realizable k-ε model slightly
reduce the discrepancy. It is clear that the best prediction
is given by the RSM. The same ranking can also be
made from the skin-friction distributions; the RSM yields
the best result of all. It also predicts accurately the onset
and the extent of flow separation, which is illustrated in
Figure 5. (Note: Completely consistent with the stream-
6
line contours, most of the near-wall velocity inside the
separation bubble does indeed represent recirculation;
it’s just not readily apparent due to the locally small veloc-
ity magnitudes.) This example emphatically demon-
strates the importance of turbulence modeling in the CFD
analysis of the flow around ground vehicles.
Near-Wall Modeling – For high-Reynolds-number flows,
such as the flows around ground vehicles, it is a well rec-
ognized fact that resolving the near-wall region all the
way down to the viscous sub-layer is not a practical
option, because the number of cells that must be allo-
cated in near-wall regions is prohibitively large. For
example, one of our recent projects involved simulating
the flow around a covered-wheeled racing car at 210 km/
hr. The final adapted mesh contained approximately 9.25
million cells, a significant portion of which was allocated
in near-wall regions. Despite this very large number of
cells and a very fine mesh near the walls, the values of
wall y+ on the top-side surfaces of the car were mostly in
the range, 50-350. This is a telltale of the fact that it is
still impractical to resolve near-wall regions all the way
down to the viscous sub-layer with a mesh that can reli-
ably predict strong elliptic effects, such as flow separa-
tion.
It is well known that wall functions are based on semi-
empirical formulae that are derived from simple canonical
flows, such as fully-developed channel/pipe flows, and, at
best, equilibrium boundary layers. One might argue that
the wall function approach falls short of representing the
flows around ground vehicles, which can substantially
depart from simple equilibrium turbulent boundary layers.
However, it should be noted that almost all of the low-
Reynolds-number models for resolving the viscous sub-
layer actually rely on semi-empirical formulae for the so-
called “damping functions” which represent the effects of
a wall’s presence. Hence, low-Reynolds-number models
may also be criticized for some dependence on empiri-
cism. In actuality, the performance of the low-Re models
has not been convincing enough so far.
To overcome the well-known drawbacks of traditional wall
functions, FLUENT offers a novel wall function approach,
called non-equilibrium wall functions (NWF’s) [11].
Among the attributes, NWF’s are sensitized to the effects
of pressure gradient. This feature is of great potential
benefit to the prediction of ground-vehicle aerodynamics.
It partially accounts for the “wake” aspect of the velocity
inside turbulent boundary layers, and it tends to compen-
sate for the effects of higher-than-ideal values of wall y+
in high-Reynolds-number flows around typical vehicle
shapes. Besides being sensitized to the pressure gradi-
ent, NWF’s account for the effects of the local variation in
the thickness of the viscous sublayer when computing the
turbulence kinetic energy budget in wall-adjacent cells
[11].
In addition to these feature, the NWF’s incorporate a judi-
cious choice of reference velocity that is based on the
local value of turbulence kinetic energy. This extends the
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018
validity of the NWF’s such that they yield reasonable
results even near separation and reattachment points, as
demonstrated in [11].
It is recommended that NWF’s be selected for external-
aero simulations. Compared to traditional wall functions,
NWF’s provide more realistic predictions of the behavior
of turbulent boundary layers, including flow separation,
and they do so without a significant increase in either
CPU-time or dynamic memory.
EXAMPLES
AHMED BODY – The Ahmed body with the 30-degree
base-slant angle has long represented a difficult chal-
lenge for external-aero simulation. A rear view of the
surface mesh for the FLUENT simulation is shown in Fig-
ure 6. The model features mounting struts exactly as
used in the experiment, a plane of symmetry and a 0.5%
solid-blockage domain that approximates the open-sec-
tion wind tunnel of the experiment. A stationary ground-
plane was used. The corresponding volume mesh was of
the viscous-hybrid type, containing 704 Kcells. The initial
mesh proved to be fine enough that no solution-adaptive
mesh refinement was necessary.
Figure 7, sketched by Ahmed et al. [4] from their experi-
mental data, illustrates the richly structured wake flow
that has long defied simulation. An important feature of
the flow field for the 30-degree base slant is the partial
separation on the slant surface.
With the k-ε turbulence model, the FLUENT simulation
did not separate on the slant surface. With the RSM and
no other changes, the flow on the slant surface partially
separated in precise accordance with the experiment.
Figure C1 provides a comparison of the cell-averaged
effective viscosity and velocity for the wall-adjacent
prisms on the slant surface from the k-ε epsilon and the
RSM simulations. (Note: The effective viscosity is pro-
portional to the turbulence Reynolds number, which is a
measure of the strength of turbulence mixing. Although
the RSM does not explicitly utilize an effective viscosity in
its formulation, the quantity nonetheless is meaningful in
an RSM simulation. In Figure C1, the color spectrum is
standard, i.e., red implies high, and blue implies low.)
On average, the effective viscosity in the wall-adjacent
prisms from the RSM are lower than that from k-ε by a
factor of 1.5-2.0. This fact and its consequences are con-
sistent with the well known behavior of the isotropic eddy-
viscosity k-ε model, i.e., it over-predicts the effective vis-
cosity in regions where the turbulence is considerably
anisotropic. The pathlines and velocities in Figure C2
correspond to the RSM simulation which, when com-
pared against Figure 7, demonstrates that the simulation
reproduced all of the salient flow features of the experi-
ment.
A successful simulation of the 30-degree base-slant
Ahmed body involves more than just a good match
between the predicted and the experimental values of
Cd. It's possible to over-predict considerably the fore-
7
body's contribution to Cd while considerably under-pre-
dicting the aftbody's contribution, such that one gets a
good Cd through compensating errors. In fact, forebody
over-prediction and aftbody under-prediction are the
usual trends. A comparison of the predicted and mea-
sured force coefficients by zone follows:
Surface zone FLUENT exp.
front surface (pressure only) 0.037 0.016
slant surface (pressure only) 0.193 0.213
base surface (pressure only) 0.083 0.092
total (pressure + viscous) 0.361 0.378
CHAMPIONSHIP CAR HIGH-DOWNFORCE REAR
WING – The surface mesh for a high-downward-force
two-element rear wing from a Championship car is shown
in Figure 8. As usual, a viscous-hybrid mesh was
employed for this simulation. The domain boundaries
constituted a low-solid-blockage wind tunnel with a plane
of symmetry.
An enlargement of the surface mesh in the critical area of
the gap between the main element and the flap is shown
in Figure 9. Due to the close proximity of the stagnation
line on the flap and the jet created by the gap, a very
large pressure gradient exists in this vicinity. If this pres-
sure gradient were under-resolved, then regions of over-
predicted and under-predicted static pressures would
exist over a considerable portion of the wing, resulting in
erroneous aerodynamic coefficients and center of pres-
sure. The quadrilaterals on the endplate represent the
sides of prism layer that were extruded by aspect-ratio.
In addition to providing the above-mentioned desirable
effects of layered elements, the moderately high aspect-
ratio prism layers inherently provided good resolution of
the large wall-normal pressure gradients.
This was a completely blind simulation that was done for
a leading CART (i.e., Championship Auto Racing Teams)
competitor as a FLUENT validation exercise. The domain
boundaries for the simulation represented the working
section of the University of Maryland wind tunnel, in
which experimental measurements for the wing alone
had been made. A stationary ground-plane was used in
both the experiment and the simulation. The volume
mesh initially contained 500 Kcells. After five solution-
adaptive mesh refinements, it contained 735 Kcells.
Adaptation began after 500 iterations on the non-adapted
mesh and it was repeated at 100-iteration intervals there-
after. The RSM was employed.
Figure 10 shows that the adaptation process resulted in
an overall change of more than 10% for each of the aero-
dynamic coefficients, and that each coefficient was very
nearly stationary with iteration at the end. (Note: The
compression of the abscissa axes, made necessary by
space limitations, gives an exaggerated impression of the
coefficient variations near the end of the calculation.)
This was confirmed by two subsequent adaptations (not
shown) which yielded changes of only approximately 1%.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018
After the fifth adaptation, the downforce-to-drag-ratio was
3.26 (it was 3.28 after the seventh one) versus 3.28 from
wind tunnel measurements, which represents a discrep-
ancy of 0.6%. The simulation-versus-experiment dis-
crepancies for Cd and Cl were both approximately 2.5%.
Hence, the discrepancies in the individual coefficients
were slightly larger than the discrepancy in the ratio of
the coefficients. This was attributed by the CART compet-
itor to very slight differences between the setups of the
simulation and the experiment.
The pathlines and static pressure in Figure C3 demon-
strate that there is considerable spanwise non-uniformity
along the wing. For instance, the static pressure on the
suction side of the main element is locally higher above
the pylon. This corresponds to two small separation
regions, one on each side of the pylon, which were
induced by interactions with the pylon. Also, there is a
strong recirculation region on the endplate below the suc-
tion side of the main element that resulted from an out-
board-to-inboard flow under the endplate.
MODERN SEDAN – As suggested by the semi-transpar-
ent geometry in Figure C4, the modern sedan simulation
represented a combined external-aero/underhood simu-
lation that featured a completely detailed engine com-
partment and undercarriage. The domain boundaries for
the simulation represented the working section of the
Lockheed wind tunnel, where experimental measure-
ments had been made. A stationary ground-plane was
used in both the experiment and the simulation. The heat
exchanger was modeled in lumped-parameter form as a
porous medium, using the measured loss characteristics
of the production unit. A fan model was employed for the
cooling fan, and it too was based on the measured perfor-
mance characteristics of the production unit.
Successful aerodynamics predictions for realistic ground
vehicles require an accurate determination of the splits
among the over-vehicle, through-vehicle and under-vehi-
cle turbulent flows. The latter two constituents share
more features with high-Reynolds-number internal flows
than they do with typical external flows over bodies in
unbounded domains. Consequently, the accuracy of an
external-aero simulation depends significantly upon the
accuracy of the code’s predictions for internal flows.
FLUENT’s finite-volume formulation applied to the steady
RANS equations has proven to be successful for a wide
range of flows, including internal flows.
Figure 11 shows the final adapted surface mesh. Due to
significant underhood and undercarriage asymmetries,
no plane of symmetry was employed. The domain
boundaries represented a moderately low-solid-blockage
wind tunnel. The prism-cap (i.e., the outermost prism
layer) is shown over the body surfaces in Figure C4.
Noteworthy are the non-conformal interfaces (NCI’s)
which provide an interface between cells of different
topology that are adjacent but share no nodes. At NCI’s,
8
communication between adjacent cells is based in part
on interpolation. Mesh adaptation, even during parallel
processing, remains possible. Besides offering conve-
nience during mesh generation and providing generally
better cell-skewness characteristics in the immediate
vicinity, NCI’s result in a cell count that is significantly less
than that in the corresponding purely- conformal mesh.
In the case of the modern sedan, the reduction in cell-
count amounted to approximately 33%! The initial vis-
cous-hybrid mesh contained 1.6 Mcells. After two adap-
tations, the mesh had grown to 2.2 Mcells. Figure 11
indicates that most of the adapted cells are in the vicinity
of the A-pillar, C-pillar and the wheel/tire assemblies.
Cd decreased during the two adaptations by approxi-
mately 6% to 0.347, as shown in Figure 12. Experimen-
tal measurements indicated Cd ≈ 0.32 (Note: No
experimental value of Cl was available for comparison.),
so this simulation probably would have benefited from
further adaptation. However, its primary purpose was to
showcase the efficacy of the NCI’s, and in this regard it
was completely successful. Five adaptations usually suf-
fices for wind tunnel verifiable values of the aerodynamic
coefficients.
Pathlines plots, like those in Figure C4, revealed a small
separation bubble on the rear decklid at the base of the
backlight.
CONCLUSION
This paper addressed major issues impacting the quality
of CFD predictions for the external aerodynamics of
ground vehicles, covering mesh, numerics, and turbu-
lence modeling, and proposing a practical approach that
is geared to produce CFD predictions of high fidelity with
reasonable solution turnaround time. It is concluded;
1. The unstructured hybrid mesh with a solution-adap-
tive mesh refinement capability is of great benefit to
the CFD prediction of external aerodynamic flows
around ground vehicles. In particular, the meshing
strategy of using tetrahedral elements in combination
with prismatic near-wall elements is a very viable
approach in terms of its significant reduction in
meshing time, its flexibility in dealing with compli-
cated geometry, and its ability to resolve widely-vary-
ing length scales in the flow.
2. Steady RANS simulation, in combination with sec-
ond-moment turbulence closure and wall functions,
represents a cost-effective strategy for modeling the
salient features of turbulent flows past ground vehi-
cles, such as strong streamline curvature, crossflow,
three-dimensional separation, and flow reversal.
3. Still demanding a considerable computational effort,
routine CFD simulations of external aerodynamic
flows around ground vehicles, using the tools and
approaches described in the present paper, are now
within the reach of engineers and designers.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018
REFERENCES
1. Han, T., Computational Analysis of Three-Dimen-
sional Turbulent Flow Around a Bluff Body in Ground
Proximity, AIAA J., Vol. 27, No. 9, pp. 1213-1219,
1988.
2. Yamada, A. and Ito, S., Computational Analysis of
Flow Around a Simplified Vehicle-Like Body, SAE
930293, March 1993.
3. Hucho, W. and Sovran, G., Aerodynamics of Road
Vehicles, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 25:485-
537, 1993.
4. Mathur, S.R. and Murthy, J.Y., A Pressure-Based
Method for Unstructured Meshes, Numerical Heat
Transfer, Vol. 31, pp. 195-215, 1997.
5. Kim, S.-E., Mathur, S.R., Murthy, J.Y., and
Choudhury, D., A Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
Solver Using Unstructured Mesh-Based Finite-Vol-
ume Scheme, AIAA-Paper 98-0231, 1998.
6. Batchelor, G. K., An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics,
Cambridge University Press (1967).
7. Issa, R. I., “Rise of Total Pressure in Frictional Flow”,
AIAA Jour., Vol. 33, No. 4, May (1994).
9
8. Gibson, M.M. and Launder, B.E., Ground Effects on
Pressure Fluctuations in the Atmospheric Boundary
layer, J. Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 86, pp. 491--511,
1978.
9. Speziale, C.G., Sarkar, S. and Gatski, T.B., Modeling
of Pressure-Strain Correlation of Turbulence: An
Invariant Dynamical Systems Approach, J. Fluid
Mech. 227, pp. 245-272.
10. Baskaran, V., Smits, A. J., and Joubert, P. N., “A Tur-
bulent Flow over a Curved Hill – Part 1. Growth of an
Internal Boundary Layer”, J. Fluid Mechanics, 182,
pp. 47-83 (1987).
11. Kim, S.E. and Choudhury, D., A Near-Wall Treatment
Using Wall Functions Sensitized to Pressure Gradi-
ent, ASME FED-Vol. 217, Symposium on Separated
and Complex Flows, ed. M.V. Otugen at al., 1995.
12. Ahmed, S. R., Ramm, G. and Faltin, G., "Some
Salient Features of the Time-averaged Ground Vehi-
cle Wake", SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 840300,
International Congress & Exposition, Detroit, Michi-
gan, February 27--March 2 (1984).
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018

Figure 1. “Coopered” hex blocks inside a ground- Figure 4. 2-D bump. Comparison among cf values
effects duct. from simulation and experiments.

Figure 2. Mesh for a 2-D bump. Figure 5. Velocities and streamlines the on leeward
side of a 2-D bump.

Figure 3. 2-D bump. Comparison among cp values

from simulations and experiment. Figure 6. Surface mesh for Ahmed body with 30-deg.
base-slant angle (Rear view).

10
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018

Figure 10. Aerodynamic coefficients vs. iteration and

Figure 7. Sketch of experimental data from Ahmed et al adaption from the Championship car rear
(1984). wing.

Figure 11. Surface mesh (adapted) for the modern

sedan.
Figure 8. Surface mesh (adapted) for the
Championship car high-downforce rear wing.

Figure 12. Cd vs. iteration and adaption from the modern

sedan simulation.

Figure 9. Figure 8 viewing the gap between main

element and flap at endplate.

11
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018

Figure C1. μeff and velocities on 30-deg. Ahmed body

slant surface from k-ε (left) and RSM (right).

Figure C3. Static pressures and pathlines for the

Championship car rear wing.

Figure C2. Pathlines and velocities at the rear of 30-deg.

Ahmed body. (Compare with Figure 7.)

12
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Thursday, July 26, 2018

Figure C4. Modern sedan “x-rayed”; prism-cap over body, and static pressures and pathlines.

13