There is a great demand for car model series that can meet the needs of today’s research about vehicle aerodynamics due to the limitations of models used in the past. This paper focuses on the introduction of the extension of DrivAer model and discussions about the model’s experimental and simulation results. On the basis of DrivAer model, the upgrade and innovation of pickup styling back and concept of perception testing are added. Specifically, the SUV back and the Pickup back are redesigned in combination with Chinese aerodynamic design trend. The experiments were performed in a full-scale aero-acoustic wind tunnel with ground simulation system, consisting of boundary layer control system and five-belt system. Base on the wind tunnel experimental results, it can be found that the ground simulation has obviously influence on the drag coefficient, but has no influence on the distribution of surface pressure in upper body. The close state of the grilles, the absence of mirrors, and the fully enclosed of rims can significantly reduce the drag coefficient. Digital wind tunnel (DWT) simulation and open road (OR) simulation have been completed and verified with experimental results. It can be concluded that DWT simulation with the same geometry as the real wind tunnel performs better than the OR simulation. The maximum difference between the experimental results and the DWT simulation results does not exceed 2% and DWT simulation also performs well in the surface pressure simulation.
AgarwalRK.Sustainable ground transportation: review of technologies, challenges and opportunities. Int J Energy Environ2013; 4: 6.
2.
PeterM.The WLTP: how a new test procedure for cars will affect fuel consumption values in the EU. J Nanosci Nanotechnol2012; 12(5): 4035–4043.
3.
AhmedSRRammGFaltinG.Some salient features of the time-averaged ground vehicle wake. SAE Trans1984; 93: 473–503.
4.
Le GoodGMGarryKP. On the use of reference models in automotive aerodynamics, SAE technical paper 2004-01-1308, 2004.
5.
CogottiA.A parametric study on the ground effect of a simplified car model. SAE Technical Paper 980031, 1998.
6.
RaoAMinelliGBasaraB, et al. On the two flow states in the wake of a hatchback Ahmed body. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodynamics2018; 173: 262–278.
7.
GuilmineauEDengGBLeroyerA, et al. Assessment of hybrid RANS-LES formulations for flow simulation around the Ahmed body. Comput Fluids2018; 176: 302–319.
8.
TaimingHXiaodongZZhongminW, et al. Experimental and numerical investigations of the vehicle aerodynamic drag with single-channel rear diffuser. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2020; 234(8): 2216–2227.
9.
CarrGW.Correlation of aerodynamic force measurements in MIRA and other automotive wind tunnels. SAE technical paper 820374, 1982.
10.
RombergGGunnJALutzRG.The Chrysler 3/8-scale pilot wind tunnel. SAE technical paper 940416, 1994.
11.
RanzenbachRBarlowJBEsmailiH. Practical application of the two-variable blockage correction method to automobile shapes. In: SAE 2001 world congress, Detroit, USA, 2001.
12.
HoffmanJMartindaleBArnetteS, et al. Development of lift and drag corrections for open jet wind tunnel tests for an extended range of vehicle shapes. In: SAE world congress and exhibition, Detroit, USA, 2003.
13.
CarrGW.A comparison of the ground-plane-suction and moving-belt ground-representation techniques. SAE technical paper 880249, 1988.
14.
BerndtssonAEckertWTMerckerE. The effect of groundplane boundary layer control on automotive testing in a wind tunnel. In: SAE international congress and exposition, Detroit, USA, 1988.
15.
ShawCT.Predicting vehicle aerodynamics using computational fluid dynamics: a user’s perspective. In: SAE International congress and exposition, Detroit, USA, 1988.
16.
GaylardAPBaxendaleAJHowellJP. The use of CFD to predict the aerodynamic characteristics of simple automotive shapes. In: SAE international congress and exposition, Detroit, USA, 1998.
17.
KnightJShawCLuceyA. Fluid-structure modelling of convertible car roofs. In: Third MIRA international vehicle aerodynamics conference, Rugby, UK, 18–19 October 2000.
18.
HeftAIndingerTAdamsN.Introduction of a new realistic generic car model for aerodynamic investigations. SAE paper 2012-01-0168, 2012.
19.
BaekSWLeeSW.Aerodynamic drag reduction on a realistic vehicle using continuous blowing. Microsyst Technol2020; 26: 11–23.
20.
EkmanPWieserDVirdungT, et al. Assessment of hybrid RANS-LES methods for accurate automotive aerodynamic simulations. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodynamics2020; 206: 1–17.
21.
GuilmineauE.Numerical simulations of flow around a realistic generic car model. SAE Int J Passenger Cars Mech Syst2014; 7(2): 646–653.
22.
AshtonNWestALardeauS, et al. Assessment of RANS and DES methods for realistic automotive models. Comput Fluids2016; 128: 1–15.
23.
JakirlicSKutejLHanssmannD, et al. Eddy-resolving simulations of the notchback ‘DrivAer’ model: influence of underbody geometry and wheels rotation on aerodynamic behaviour. SAE technical paper 2016-01-1602, 2016.
24.
HeftAIndingerTAdamsN. Investigation of unsteady flow structures in the wake of a realistic generic car model. In: AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, Honolulu, USA, 2011.
25.
XiaoyanYJiaQRashidiMM, et al. Comprehensive investigating on the aerodynamic influences of the wheel contact patch. J Appl Comput Mech2020; 6: 934–955.
26.
PeichlMMackSIndingerT, et al. Numerical investigation of the flow around a generic car using dynamic mode decomposition. In: Proceedings of ASME fluids engineering division summer meeting FEDSM2014-21255, Chicago, USA, 2014.
27.
LiuJZhangZWangY, et al. Experimental study on the three-dimensional wake structure of the DrivAer standard model. J Visual2021; 24: 443–460.
28.
ZhongLLiQWangY, et al. Aerodynamic noise prediction of passenger vehicle with hybrid detached eddy simulation/acoustic perturbation equation method. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2019; 233: 2390–2404.
29.
JamesT, et al. Development of a full-scale DrivAer generic realistic wind tunnel correlation and calibration model. In: WCX world congress experience, Detroit, USA, 2018.
30.
WittmeierFKuthadaT.Open Grille DrivAer model: first results. SAE Int J Passenger Cars Mech Syst2015; 8(1): 252–260.
31.
KuthadaTWittmeierFBockB, et al. The effects of cooling air on the flow field around a vehicle. SAE Int J Passenger Cars Mech Syst2016; 9(2): 723–732.
32.
WojciakJTheissenPAdamsN, et al. Investigation of unsteady vehicle aerodynamics under time-dependent flow conditions. In: 29th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, Honolulu, USA, 2011.
33.
NayerNC.Experiments on the influence of yaw on the aerodynamic behaviour of realistic car geometries. In: The International Vehicle Aerodynamics Conference, Loughborough, UK, 2014, pp.43–51.
34.
WieserDSchmidtHJMüllerS, et al. Experimental comparison of the aerodynamic behavior of Fastback and Notchback DrivAer models. SAE Int J Passenger Cars Mech Syst2014; 7: 682–691.
35.
JessingCStollDKuthadaT, et al. New horizons of vehicle aerodynamics. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2017; 231: 1190–1202.
36.
StollDWiedemannJ. Active crosswind generation and its effect on the unsteady aerodynamic vehicle properties determined in an open jet wind tunnel. In: WCX world congress experience, Detroit, USA, 2018, vol. 11, pp.429–446.
37.
WoodigaSHowardKNormanP, et al. The GTU: a new realistic generic pickup truck and SUV model. In: WCX SAE world congress experience, Detroit, USA, 2020.
38.
LokhandeBSovaniSKhalighiB. Transient simulation of the flow field around a generic pickup truck. In: SAE world congress and exhibition, Detroit, USA, 2003.
39.
HaJJeongSObayashiS. Investigation of the bed and rear flap variation for a low-drag pickup truck using design of experiments. SAE technical papers 2010-01-0122, 2010.
40.
WangHLinTYuanX, et al. Simulation and aerodynamic optimization of flow over a pickup truck model. SAE technical papers 2014-01-2437, 2014.
41.
GuZWangSChouJ.Wind tunnel tests of MIRA model group for study of vehicle’s rear shape. Sci Technol Rev2011; 29(8): 67–71.
