Abstract
In spite of its shortcomings, faster turnaround time and cost-effectiveness make the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes modeling approach still a popular and widely used methodology in many industrial applications, including the automotive industries in general, but the motorsports sector in particular. Existing literature suggests that all Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes models generally fail to predict pressure and velocity flow fields with a reasonable accuracy, especially in the vehicle wake region. Recent numerical works suggest that, when using two-equation eddy viscosity turbulence models, improved correlation between the experiment and computational fluid dynamics is not achievable through only mesh refinements or adding additional corrective terms in the turbulence transport equations, and additional efforts are necessary for better predictions. In this backdrop, the prediction improvement strategy adopted in this paper is based on the realization that the turbulence model closure coefficients are normally specified as constants and their values are determined from either a single observation or a simple functional form is assumed and that these coefficients are constructed and/or constrained to behave correctly in extremely limiting circumstances. Subsequently, this study investigated the influence of a few selected turbulence model closure coefficients on the veracity of computational fluid dynamics predictions by analyzing simulations run with turbulence model closure coefficient values that were different from the commonly used default ones. This was done by first investigating the individual effect of each model parameters on the prediction veracity, and then a combination of model closure coefficient values was formulated in order to obtain a prediction with the best experimental correlation. This procedure was applied to four different test objects which include NACA 4412 airfoil at 12° angle of attack, the 25 and 35° slant angle Ahmed body, and a full-scale sedan type passenger vehicle. The shear-stress transport
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
