Hey guys,

me and my FSAE team are working in some half car simulations for the past few weeks, but this time,

rather than get the Cd or Cl of the car, we are trying to see the flow inside the sidepod and around the sidewing nn paraview.

The initial ideia was to work with a simplified geometry of our car and using the front tire.

Here´s the convergence and this test is from “Mesh test 4” the “3 layer 1201 ORSI” run

and the surface LIC from the sidepod+sidewing flow

When we first saw these big resirculations we thought it was some simulation bug, or something like that. So to simplify even more our geometry, in order to make a simpler simulation, we decided to take of the front tire to see what happends. So here are the results of the new simulation with just little mesh adjustments: (this is the 3.Layer/2 simulation “Run 1”)

So, here´s the question. After take of the front tire we solve the resirculations inside the sidepod, but one still continue after the back tire and…

- What are we seeing? Is this the wake of the back tire, and in the other simulation, the wake of the front tire inside the sidepod?

-If the surface LIC is a representation of the vectors, correct me if im wrong, how is the vectors going back? In a steady state simulation this kind a make sense, because its a frame of the phenomenon that we are trying to simulate, but when the car moves, in a real situation, the air just doesnt go back. And if our objective here is to see, analyze and quantify the sidepod+sidewing flow, isnt this a transient simulation case? This is our first year making aero and CFD studies so if we are quite inexperienced in steady-state simulations, imagine in transient .

-And here´s the last one: If what we are seeing its not the front tire wake, and shouldn´t be there when we analyze our sidepod flow, does anyone has an idea where i should go or do with this? I don´t think that just taking off the back tire is good enough because i wont solve the problem, i will just stop looking at it (if its a problem).

.

Thank you very much for the attention,

Mateus.