This assesses the following module Learning Outcomes (from Definitive Module Document):

Critically evaluate the relative importance of various general flow mechanisms for aircraft and vehicle aerodynamics

Explore the application of CFD to real flows

Assess and modify different meshing procedures and discretisation methods

Recommend solution methods and monitor simulation results

Critically evaluate simulation results for complex problems using industry-standard techniques

Introduction

The aim of this assignment is to enhance the 'Formula One Front Wing' simulation created during the supervised tutorial sessions and to use this enhanced simulation to analyse the front wing at two different flow velocities. The sole deliverable for this assignment is a concise technical report that details the final CFD methodology used (i.e. the tutorial simulation and enhancements made to it) and the simulation results obtained.

image.png

Figure 1: Geometry detail, mesh detail, and post-processing taken from the tutorial session.

Figure 2: Residual convergence plot versus the number of iterations (from the tutorial session)

Part 1

Consider the CFD simulation created during the supervised tutorial sessions, which does not provide a good quality mesh nor adequate convergence of the simulation results (see Figures 1 and 2). Using a Constant flow velocity of 321.9km/h, apply improvements to the CFD methodology and show that these changes give improvements in both mesh quality and solution convergence. You may find the following prompts helpful when considering which aspects of the simulation methodology to modify:

Is the assumption of steady, incompressible, turbulent flow appropriate?

What are the thermodynamic properties of the working fluid used in this simulation?

Is symmetric modelling of the front wing adequate, or should the full wing geometry be considered?

Is the surface meshing strategy appropriate?

Is the volume meshing strategy appropriate?

Has the boundary layer of the flow been adequately captured? How can this be verified?

Has mesh independence been demonstrated? How could this be done?

How can the efficiency of different meshing strategies be quantified and compared?

How can an improvement in solution convergence be demonstrated?

Part 2

Briefly summarise your chosen simulation strategy:

Outline the final mesh settings, including the base size, the surface/volume type, the boundary layer parameters, and any areas of local mesh refinement. Justify your choices.

Detail all boundary types used and the physics imposed at each boundary.

Describe the chosen turbulence model. What are the advantages/disadvantages of this model compared to the other turbulence models that are available?

Part 3

Once the enhanced simulation strategy has been finalised, this should be used to simulate the front wing flow field at 321.9km/h and the individualised flow velocity that corresponds to your Student Reference Number (SRN).

Firstly, report the findings from each simulation:

What are the differences in drag and downforce between the two cases? Does this match your expectation considering a simple analytical analysis?

Describe any differences in the on-surface and off-body flow observed between the two cases. Justify the post-processing used to communicate these results (i.e. outline the design information that each type of post-processing provides to the reader).

Is the domain size used in your simulations appropriate?

What are the running parameters of your enhanced simulations (i.e. solution time, number of iterations to convergence, residual convergence)? Are these acceptable?

Finally, summarise the overall findings from this study in a concluding paragraph.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Assignment Resources

Front Wing Tutorial Document

Front Wing Geometry

Individualised Flow Velocities

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Deliverables:

Technical Report

The sole deliverable for this concise technical report. The technical report must:

Follow an engineering lab report structure, including elements such as (but not limited to) an abstract/executive summary and conclusion.

Use external references to support your arguments and conclusions, where appropriate.

Use engineering language and terminology appropriate for a professional engineering environment.

Be written in a concise manner over a maximum of 8 pages including the list of references.

Additionally:

Standard technical reporting features (e.g. a cover page, list of references, and appendices) may be used in addition to the specified page limit, however, only figures contained within the main body of the report will contribute to a student's grade (i.e. figures/diagrams contained within the appendices will be considered as evidence in support of the reported work but not specifically allocated marks).

The report should be written in Arial font with a font size of 11.

Line spacing of either 1.0 (single) or 1.5 may be used.

Standard (Normal) margins must be used.

References must be given in either the Harvard or Vancouver style.