Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

UAS has recently begun using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software to aid us in designing elements of our aerodynamics package.

Unforunately time and cost constraints make a true to life simulation a difficut task to achieve, as ideally every component down to the smallest washer should be modeled into the software and then animated to garner accurate results.

STANDARD CAR

FULL CAR SIMULATION

The above two videos show the flow trajectories over the UAS Zed and a standard 300ZX respectively. Though the models are rough they are enough to indicate significant changes in aerodynamic downforce and drag. The figures in the above simulations showed the UAS Zed generated five times more downforce than the standard 300ZX at 200km/h.

To give the exact measurements that is an increase from approximately 50kg to almost 280kg. Drag also increased but only by a factor of two with the standard car measuring 100kg of downforce to the UAS car's 230kg.

The UAS rear wing is a fantastic example of how we use the software to aid our design despite our time constraints. By focusing on a small area in isolation, we can more clearly judge how changes will impact our drag and downforce characteristics.

REAR WING

In this instance it was found that adding a 15mm gurney strip to the larger lower rear wing increased the overall downforce by a significant amount ( ≈ 11%). This produces an extra 14kg of effective weight on the rear at 200kph, with only ≈3% increase in total rear wing drag.

We have also been able to generate numerical data using the program. Doing so allowed us to find a number of interesting results.

On straights, the wear wing of the UAS Zed has a tendancy to flex under the downforce load. This change in area has an impact on the overall downforce of the wing.

circuit_battle.jpg

Using CFD analysis we were able to simulate a number of different instances. We simulated a straight wing, one with the top wing flexing to touch the lower and an instance of both flexing to the same degree. We did this at both 200km/h and 100km/h simulating a worst case scenario through high and low speed corners.

As can be seen from the tabulated data this flexing causes a drastic change in the dynamics of the wing. Both downforce and drag are significantly reduced as the wing starts to bend.

graph.jpg

On straights this is beneficial as it has the same effect as the adjustable rear wing systems used in the 2011 formula 1 season, if to a lesser degree, reducing drag so we can achieve a higher top speed.

In low speed areas it is slightly more detrimental, however it should be noted that at these speeds overall downforce is significantly lower and as such flex is reduced causing a corresponding reduction in overall downforce lost.

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

what is the wing made of/? that is some serious flex

Carbon fibre epoxy resin with sandwich foam core. It flexes because it has 200+kg downforce.

We recently added an aluminium right angle gurney strip to the trailing edge of the main rear wing blade. This will stiffen it up a little bit, although the flex is not all bad as it creates maximum efficiency at low speed where it needs it most. At high speed as it bends it reduces efficiency but also less drag.

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
    • Holy hell! That is absolutely stunning! Great work!!!
×
×
  • Create New...