汽车风阻系数试验与数值模拟的对比分析
CSTR:
作者:
作者单位:

1.同济大学 上海地面交通工具风洞中心, 上海201804;2.吉利汽车研究院(宁波)有限公司, 浙江 宁波 315336

作者简介:

付强(1980—),男,工学博士,主要研究方向为汽车空气动力学。E-mail: ft999999@163.com

中图分类号:

U467


Comparative Analysis of Automobile Drag Coefficient Test and Numerical Simulation
Author:
Affiliation:

1.Shanghai Automotive Wind Tunnel Center, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, China;2.Geely Automobile Research Institute (Ningbo), Ningbo 315336, Zhejiang, China

  • 摘要
  • | |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献 [10]
  • |
  • 相似文献 [20]
  • | | |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    汽车风阻系数(Cd)可以通过道路滑行试验、风洞试验和数值模拟获得。其中,滑行试验最接近实际使用工况,但受环境因素影响较大,风阻系数重复性稍差;风洞试验重复性最好;数值模拟具有不确定性,其原因在于湍流模型、网格策略等的选择对结果可能产生直接影响。为此,对15款乘用车滑行试验、风洞试验和数值拟模结果进行分析,结果发现以滑行试验作为对比基准,其结果大多介于风洞试验和数值模拟的0°~5°偏航角之间。此外,通过对以滑行为代表的道路行驶工况、风洞试验与数值模拟的差异点进行讨论,并对某款电动车车型使用3种方法获得的风阻系数进行对比分析,对误差产生原因进行初步解析。

    Abstract:

    The coefficient of drag (Cd) can be obtained by road coast down test, wind tunnel test, and numerical simulation. Of the three methods, the coast down test is the closest to the actual use condition of consumers, but it is greatly affected by environmental factors. The Cd has a slightly poor repeatability. The wind tunnel test has the best repeatability. The numerical simulation is uncertain of because the choice of turbulence model and grid strategy may have a direct impact on the results. A comparison of the results of the coast down test, the wind tunnel test, and the numerical simulation of 15 passenger cars indicates that taking the coast down test as the comparison benchmark, most of the results are between 0° and 5° yaw angle of the wind tunnel test and the numerical simulation. By discussing the differences between the road driving conditions represented by the coast down behavior, the wind tunnel test, and the numerical simulation, the Cd obtained by the three methods for an electric vehicle model is compared ,and the causes of errors are preliminarily analyzed.

    参考文献
    [1] HUCHO W H. Aerodynamics of road vehicles[M]. 4th ed. Warrendale PA: SAE book, 1998.
    [2] 王福军. 计算流体动力学分析[M]. 北京:清华大学出版社, 2004.WANG Fujun. Analysis of computational fluid dynamics[M]. Beijing: Tsinghua University press. 2004.
    [3] 余志生. 汽车理论[M]. 北京:清华大学出版社, 2000.YU Zhisheng. Automobile theory[M]. Beijing: Tsinghua University press. 2000.
    [4] 张富兴,刘桂彬,高海洋,等. 我国汽车滑行试验标准分析与改进建议[J]. 北京汽车,2012(2): 1.ZHANG Fuxing, LIU Guibin, GAO Haiyang, et al. Analysis and improvement suggestions of vehicle coast down test standards in China[J]. Beijing Automotive Engineering, 2012(2): 1.
    [5] 张庆良, 赵树国. 汽车空气阻力系数的试验测定法[J]. 公路与汽运, 2009(5): 17.ZHANG Qingliang, ZHAO Shuguo. Test method for determination of automobile wind resistance coefficient[J]. Highways & Automotive Applications, 2009(5): 17.
    [6] OBIDI T Y. Theory and applications of aerodynamics for ground vehicles[M]. Warrendale PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, 2014.
    [7] BUCHHEIM R, UNGER R, JOUSSERANDOT P, et al. Comparison tests between major european and north american automotive wind tunnels[C]// SAE International Congress and Exposition. SAE Technical Paper 830301, 1983. https://doi.org/10.4271/830301.
    [8] 庞加斌,刘晓晖,陈力, 等. 汽车风洞试验中的雷诺数、阻塞和边界层效应问题综述[J]. 汽车工程, 2009, 31(7): 609.PANG Jiabin, LIU Xiaohui, CHEN Li, et al. A review on Reynolds number, blockage and boundary layer effect in automotive wind tunnel tests [J]. Automotive Engineering, 2009, 31(7): 609.
    [9] D'HOOGE A, REBBECK L, PALIN R, et al. Application of real-world wind conditions for assessing aerodynamic drag for on-road range prediction[J]. SAE Technical Paper, 2015-01-1551. https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-1551.
    [10] SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice. SAE road load measurement using onboard anemometry and coast down techniques: SAE Standard J 2263[S]. Warrendale PA: SAE International, 2008.
    引证文献
    网友评论
    网友评论
    分享到微博
    发 布
引用本文

付强,杨志刚,张辉香,梁盛平,朱贞英.汽车风阻系数试验与数值模拟的对比分析[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版),2021,49(S1):48~53

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:213
  • 下载次数: 1373
  • HTML阅读次数: 47
  • 引用次数: 0
历史
  • 收稿日期:2021-09-28
  • 在线发布日期: 2023-02-28
文章二维码