2019
DOI: 10.1007/s12239-019-0107-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative Analysis of Turbulence Models for Automotive Aerodynamic Simulation and Design

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
20
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, it is important to optimize the aerodynamic shape of the car properly to minimize fuel consumption. Pressure drag and friction drag are the most important factors in aerodynamic design [3]. Aerodynamic drags can be minimized through geometry and flow modification of the vehicle since the geometry of the car is considered as one of the main factors affecting the drags [4].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, it is important to optimize the aerodynamic shape of the car properly to minimize fuel consumption. Pressure drag and friction drag are the most important factors in aerodynamic design [3]. Aerodynamic drags can be minimized through geometry and flow modification of the vehicle since the geometry of the car is considered as one of the main factors affecting the drags [4].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are many published studies in the literature that present the results of simulations aimed to provide insight into the flow around the Ahmed body. For example, two recent studies showed the wake structures of the vehicle in detail by Igali et al [5] and Sadykov et al [8], respectively, with the former using the RANS approach and the latter the URANS one. Their usefulness is in the comparison of results obtained by the RANS and URANS approaches with different turbulence models, where Igali et al [5] achieved 2.474% of error in comparison with experimentally measured drag coefficient using the RANS approach, while Sadykov et al [8] obtained 1.68% error using the URANS method.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, two recent studies showed the wake structures of the vehicle in detail by Igali et al [5] and Sadykov et al [8], respectively, with the former using the RANS approach and the latter the URANS one. Their usefulness is in the comparison of results obtained by the RANS and URANS approaches with different turbulence models, where Igali et al [5] achieved 2.474% of error in comparison with experimentally measured drag coefficient using the RANS approach, while Sadykov et al [8] obtained 1.68% error using the URANS method. Moreover, each of the papers has a detailed flow visualization of the wake region at the back of the vehicle model.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations