Search Results

In the development of an FAW SUV, one of the goals is to achieve a state of the art drag level. In order to achieve such an aggressive target, feedback from aerodynamics has to be included in the early stage of the design decision process. The aerodynamic performance evaluation and improvement is mostly based on CFD simulation in combination with some wind tunnel testing for verification of the simulation results. As a first step in this process, a fully detailed simulation model is built. The styling surface is combined with engine room and underbody detailed geometry from a similar size existing vehicle. From a detailed analysis of the flow field potential areas for improvement are identified and five design parameters for modifying overall shape features of the upper body are derived. In a second step, a response surface method involving design of experiments and adaptive sampling techniques are applied for characterizing the effects of the design changes.

A decade of industrial experience with Exa's CFD software, PowerFLOW, has matured the simulation software to the point where the geometric modeling process is now the bottleneck to efficiency and effectiveness. Simply put, the actual CAE simulation event is now fast enough and accurate enough to drive design intent; however, the geometric design process that supplies alternative models to the software is not fast enough to keep up with the critical path of the design cycle. If CAE tools in general are to play in important role in creating design intent rather than simply verifying completed design work, then the modeling process which drives them will have to improve. In the context of this paper, geometric design involves both Class A exteriors and under-hood geometries. Two pieces of software have been developed to help in this area: PowerWRAP and PowerCLAY.