- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Fluids

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Featured in Physics
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Drag reduction mechanisms of a car model at moderate yaw by bi-frequency forcing

Ruiying Li1,*, Jacques Borée1, Bernd R. Noack2,3,4,5, Laurent Cordier1, and Fabien Harambat6

  • 1Institut Pprime, CNRS – Université de Poitiers – ISAE-ENSMA, 86360 Futuroscope Chasseneuil, France
  • 2LIMSI-CNRS, UPR 3251, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
  • 3Technische Universität Braunschweig, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
  • 4Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany
  • 5Harbin Institute of Technology, Graduate School Shenzhen, 518058 Shenzhen, China
  • 6PSA Groupe, Centre Technique de Vélizy, 78140 Vélizy-Villacoublay, France

  • *ruiying.li@ensma.fr
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 034604 – Published 19 March, 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.4.034604

Abstract

A bi-frequency open-loop control strategy aiming to combine both high- and low-frequency forcing effects is used to experimentally reduce the drag of a simplified car model at a slight yaw angle of 5∘. The unforced mean wake features a lateral asymmetry which induces a low base pressure footprint close to the leeward side and increases drag compared to the aligned model. Forcing is performed with pulsed jets along the windward trailing edge. High-frequency forcing acts as a time-invariant flap. The fluidic flap effect deviates the windward shear layer towards the leeward side and reduces the wake bluffness, but the lateral asymmetry of the near wake is still observed. The drag reduction related to this high-frequency forcing is about 6% with a high actuation efficiency. A modulation of the high-frequency forcing with a low-frequency component is then introduced in order to modify the mass and momentum exchange in the separating shear layer at the windward trailing edge. We find that the modulated forcing provides the ability to manipulate the mean wake orientation while maintaining the fluidic flap effect. Among all wake orientations, those reducing drag are the ones having a mean symmetric wake. The bi-frequency control strategy leads to a maximum drag reduction of 7% for the best choice of frequencies. Importantly, the bi-frequency control is more efficient than the single high-frequency forcing, the actuator requiring only half the actuation energy and presenting an actuation efficiency multiplied by 3. Finally, the physical mechanisms related to drag reduction are carefully analyzed. In particular, we show that the wake symmetrization reduces the global production of turbulent kinetic energy in the shear layers. These results open up opportunities for closed-loop control of wake asymmetries.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Synopsis

Air Jets Reduce Car Drag

Published 19 March, 2019

Wind tunnel experiments show how blasting air from the back of a vehicle can reshape the vehicle’s wake and lower its drag by several percent.

See more in Physics

Article Text

References (45)

  1. C. Baker, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 22, 69 (1986).
  2. M. Gohlke, J.-F. Beaudoin, M. Amielh, and F. Anselmet, Exp. Fluids 43, 579 (2007).
  3. C. N. Nayeri, D. Wieser, H. J. Schmidt, C. Strangfeld, and O. Paschereit, in The International Vehicle Aerodynamics Conference (Woodhead, Sawston, UK, 2014), p. 43.
  4. M. Grandemange, O. Cadot, A. Courbois, V. Herbert, D. Ricot, T. Ruiz, and R. Vigneron, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145, 282 (2015).
  5. J. M. García de la Cruz, R. Brackston, and J. Morrison, Adaptive Base-Flaps Under Variable Cross-Wind, SAE Technical Paper, No. 2017-01-7000 (2017).
  6. G. Rossitto, C. Sicot, V. Ferrand, J. Borée, and F. Harambat, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part D: J. Automobile Eng. 231, 9 (2017).
  7. A. D'Hooge, R. Palin, L. Rebbeck, J. Gargoloff, and B. Duncan, SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars-Mech. Syst. 7, 617 (2014).
  8. J. Howell, SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars-Mech. Syst. 8, 306 (2015).
  9. J. Kim and T. R. Bewley, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 383 (2007).
  10. H. Choi, W.-P. Jeon, and J. Kim, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40, 113 (2008).
  11. C. Nayeri, J. Haff, D. Greenblatt, L. Loefdahl, and C. Paschereit, in The Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles II: Trucks, Buses, and Trains (Springer, Berlin, 2009), pp. 179–191.
  12. R. Littlewood and M. Passmore, Exp. Fluids 53, 519 (2012).
  13. M. Grandemange, A. Mary, M. Gohlke, and O. Cadot, Exp. Fluids 54, 1529 (2013).
  14. H. Schmidt, R. Woszidlo, C. Nayeri, and C. Paschereit, Exp. Fluids 56, 151 (2015).
  15. J. Pfeiffer and R. King, in 6th AIAA Flow Control Conference, Atlanta, 2012 (AAIA, Washington, DC, 2012), pp. 1–14.
  16. J. Pfeiffer and R. King, Exp. Fluids 59, 45 (2018).
  17. L. Cattafesta and M. Shelpak, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 43, 247 (2011).
  18. D. Barros, J. Borée, B. R. Noack, A. Spohn, and T. Ruiz, J. Fluid Mech. 805, 422 (2016).
  19. A. Glezer, M. Amitay, and A. Honohan, AIAA J. 43, 1501 (2005).
  20. D. Barros, J. Borée, B. R. Noack, and A. Spohn, Phys. Fluids 28, 065104 (2016).
  21. N. Gao, Y. Q. Li, H. L. Bai, and C. J. Wu, Flow Turbul. Combust. 97, 729 (2016).
  22. M. Pastoor, L. Henning, B. R. Noack, R. King, and G. Tadmor, J. Fluid Mech. 608, 161 (2008).
  23. J. F. Morrison and A. Qubain, Adv. Turbul. XII, 225 (2009).
  24. B. Vukasinovic, Z. Rusak, and A. Glezer, J. Fluid Mech. 656, 51 (2010).
  25. A. Oxlade, J. Morrison, A. Qubain, and G. Rigas, J. Fluid Mech. 770, 305 (2015).
  26. G. Minelli, S. Krajnović, and B. Basara, J. Fluids. Eng. 140, 121101 (2018).
  27. J. C. Griffin, M. Oyarzun, L. N. Cattafesta, J. H. Tu, and C. W. Rowley, in 43rd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, San Diego, June 2013 (AAIA, Washington, DC, 2013), pp. 1–19.
  28. S. Ahmed, G. Ramm, and G. Faltin, SAE Technical Paper 840300 (1984), https://doi.org/10.4271/840300.
  29. R. Li, Aerodynamic drag reduction of a square-back car model using linear genetic programming and physics-based control, Ph.D. thesis, École Nationale Supérieure de Mécanique et d'Aérotechnique, Poitiers, France, 2017.
  30. R. Li, B. R. Noack, L. Cordier, J. Borée, and F. Harambat, Exp. Fluids 58, 1 (2017).
  31. P. Bradshaw, Effects of Streamline Curvature on Turbulent Flow, Technical Report, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, Paris, 1973.
  32. G. Bonnavion and O. Cadot, J. Fluid Mech. 854, 196 (2018).
  33. V. Gentile, B. W. van Oudheusden, F. F. J. Schrijer, and F. Scarano, J. Fluid Mech. 813, R3 (2017).
  34. D. Barros, J. Borée, O. Cadot, A. Spohn, and B. R. Noack, J. Fluid Mech. 829, R1 (2017).
  35. D. Barros, J. Borée, A. Spohn, and B. R. Noack, in 10th International Symposium On Turbulent and Shear Flow Phenomena (TSFP-10), Chicago (2017), pp. 1–5.
  36. B. Khalighi, K. H. Chen, and G. Iaccarino, J. Fluids Eng. 134, 061101 (2012).
  37. M. Grandemange, M. Gohlke, and O. Cadot, J. Fluid Mech. 722, 51 (2013).
  38. R. D. Brackston, J. M. García de la Cruz, A. Wynn, G. Rigas, and J. F. Morrison, J. Fluid Mech. 802, 726 (2016).
  39. R. Li, D. Barros, J. Borée, O. Cadot, B. R. Noack, and L. Cordier, Exp. Fluids 57, 158 (2016).
  40. O. Inoue, J. Fluid Mech. 234, 553 (1992).
  41. J. H. Gerrard, J. Fluid Mech. 25, 401 (1966).
  42. A. Roshko, J. Aeronaut. Sciences 22, 124 (1955).
  43. T. Berk, T. Medjnoun, and B. Ganapathisubramani, Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 074605 (2017).
  44. G. Rigas, A. R. Oxlade, A. S. Morgans, and J. F. Morrison, J. Fluid Mech. 755, R5 (2014).
  45. S. L. Brunton and B. R. Noack, Appl. Mech. Rev. 67, 050801 (2015).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 034604– Published 19 March, 2019
  • Received 28 June 2018
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2019 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation