Upm Racing 464l5b
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report 3i3n4
Overview 26281t
& View Upm Racing as PDF for free.
More details 6y5l6z
- Words: 423
- Pages: 5
The use of sculptor in the design of the body work and the diffs of a Formula Student car.
Whit the help of sculptor we were able to simulate different types of nooses and openings in the rear diffs. First we made a base model that we thought it would perform in a well manner. The characteristics of the first model are a 3,9 million cells, and after about 1000 iterations the solution converge to amount of 1exp-5 .After the first complete simulation the data is shown below .
As expected the two biggest producers of drag are the wheels especialy the front one.Whit the first aproach it can be seen that the lift coeffient its just below zero. It is a good staring point but we needed more downforce. After seeing all the values the best configuration was the lower nose and the basic diff position, this is because when increasing one of the areas of the diff the other would become small so no great effect was encounter here. The values of the final simulation are here shown. Whit sculptor we were able to increase the down force to -0.18 . That is up to 9 times the previous data.
Here are shown the different models that whit the help of Sculptor we were able to perform , the criteria that was taken in to , is the following , from the initial design of the nose there were three cases that we evaluate: lowering the nose height , rising it and one stretching the frontal area of the nose (due to the rules of the competition) this parameter was not able to be reduce in a great amount, there rules fix a minimum of 38mm radii .
Nose basic arrangement
Version 1
Version 2
Version 3
Version3 basic arrangement (superior view)
Also the rear diffs where modify , this was made by changing the angle of the exit flat in order to alter the cross sectional area of the inner or outer diff , here there were three cases the basic case and one reducing the area of the side tunnel and the other one increasing the same area.
Basic form
Version1
Version2 As a conclusion whit the help of sculptor we were able to optimize our geometry whit out the normal effort in time. Meshing a complete new
model is a considering amount of time that in our team is not acceptable, We are looking forward to experience more whit Sculptor.
Nicolas Gomez Osorio Chief Aerodynamic Division UPM Racing
Whit the help of sculptor we were able to simulate different types of nooses and openings in the rear diffs. First we made a base model that we thought it would perform in a well manner. The characteristics of the first model are a 3,9 million cells, and after about 1000 iterations the solution converge to amount of 1exp-5 .After the first complete simulation the data is shown below .
As expected the two biggest producers of drag are the wheels especialy the front one.Whit the first aproach it can be seen that the lift coeffient its just below zero. It is a good staring point but we needed more downforce. After seeing all the values the best configuration was the lower nose and the basic diff position, this is because when increasing one of the areas of the diff the other would become small so no great effect was encounter here. The values of the final simulation are here shown. Whit sculptor we were able to increase the down force to -0.18 . That is up to 9 times the previous data.
Here are shown the different models that whit the help of Sculptor we were able to perform , the criteria that was taken in to , is the following , from the initial design of the nose there were three cases that we evaluate: lowering the nose height , rising it and one stretching the frontal area of the nose (due to the rules of the competition) this parameter was not able to be reduce in a great amount, there rules fix a minimum of 38mm radii .
Nose basic arrangement
Version 1
Version 2
Version 3
Version3 basic arrangement (superior view)
Also the rear diffs where modify , this was made by changing the angle of the exit flat in order to alter the cross sectional area of the inner or outer diff , here there were three cases the basic case and one reducing the area of the side tunnel and the other one increasing the same area.
Basic form
Version1
Version2 As a conclusion whit the help of sculptor we were able to optimize our geometry whit out the normal effort in time. Meshing a complete new
model is a considering amount of time that in our team is not acceptable, We are looking forward to experience more whit Sculptor.
Nicolas Gomez Osorio Chief Aerodynamic Division UPM Racing
Related Documents 3h463d
Upm Racing 464l5b
March 2023 0
Upm 4dr3i
April 2023 0
Calendar Upm 6m5835
December 2019 72
Mastervodafone Upm 4u2g56
July 2021 0
- Upm Fka Thesis Format 6q585s
December 2019 93