Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T20:34:33.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aerodynamic optimisation of the rear wheel fairing of the land speed record vehicle BLOODHOUND SSC

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2016

J. Townsend ,
B. Evans  and
T. Tudor
J. Townsend
Affiliation:
College of Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
B. Evans*
Affiliation:
College of Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
T. Tudor
Affiliation:
University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Swansea, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes the design optimisation study used to aerodynamically optimise the fairings that cover the rear wheels of the Land Speed Record vehicle, BLOODHOUND SuperSonic Car (SSC). Initially, using a Design of Experiments approach, a series of Computational Fluid Dynamics simulations were performed on a set of parametric geometries, with the goal of identifying a fairing geometry that was aerodynamically optimised for the target speed of 1,000 mph. Several aerodynamic properties were considered when deciding what design objectives the fairings would be optimised to achieve; chief amongst these was the minimisation of aerodynamic drag. A parallel, finite-volume Navier–Stokes solver was used on unstructured meshes in order to simulate the complex aerodynamic behaviour of the flow around the vehicle’s rear wheel structure, which involved a rotating wheel, and shockwaves generated close to a supersonic rolling ground plane. It was found that the simple response surface fitting approach did not sufficiently capture the complexities of the optimisation objective function across the high-dimensional design space. As a result, a Nelder–Mead optimisation approach was implemented, coupled with Radial Basis Function design space interpolation to find the final optimised fairing design. This paper presents the results of the optimisation study as well as indicating the likely impact this optimisation will have on the ultimate top speed of this unique vehicle.

Keywords

CFDdesign of experimentsNelder-Mead design optimisationBLOODHOUND SSC
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 120 , Issue 1228 , June 2016 , pp. 930 - 955
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Noble, R.Thrust, 1998, Transworld, London.Google Scholar
2.(FIA) FIdlA. List of FIA Absolute World Records [Internet]. FIA World Land Speed Records: Fdration Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA); 2013. Available from: http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/basicpage/file/World%20Records.pdf.Google Scholar
3.Morgan, K., Hassan, O. and Weatherill, N.P.Why didn’t the supersonic car fly? Mathematics Today, Institute of Mathematics and Applications, 1999, 35, p 110.Google Scholar
4.Shang, J.S.Three decades of accomplishments in computational fluid dynamics, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2004, 40, (3), pp 173–197.Google Scholar
5.Hassan, O., Morgan, K., Probert, E.J. and Peraire, J.Unstructured tetrahedral mesh generation for three-dimensional viscous flows, Int J for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1996, 39, (4), pp 549–567.Google Scholar
6.Fisher, R.A.The Design of Experiments 1971, Hafner Publishing Company, New York, US.Google Scholar
7.Zou, Y.L., Hu, F.L., Zhou, C.C., Li, C.L. and Dunn, K.J.Analysis of radial basis function interpolation approach, Applied Geophysics, 2013, 10, (4), 397–410.Google Scholar
8.Nelder, J.A. and Mead, R.A simplex method for function minimization, The Computer J, 1965, 7 (4), 308–313.Google Scholar
9.Evans, B.J., Hassan, O., Jones, J.W., Morgan, K. and Remaki, L.Computational fluid dynamics applied to the aerodynamic design of a land-based supersonic vehicle, Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations, 2011, 27, (1), 141–159.Google Scholar
10.Evans, B., Morton, T., Sheridan, L., Hassan, O., Morgan, K. and Jones, J.W.Design optimisation using computational fluid dynamics applied to a land-based supersonic vehicle, the BLOODHOUND SSC, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2013, 47, (2), 301–316.Google Scholar
11.Evans, B. and Rose, C. Simulating the aerodynamic characteristics of the land speed record vehicle BLOODHOUND SSC, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: J of Automobile Engineering, 2014. doi:10.1177/0954407013511071Google Scholar
12.Anderson, J.D.Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 2001, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, US.Google Scholar
13.BLOODHOUND Reaches Major Milestone - Build Begins [Internet]. BLOODHOUND SSC Website, News 2011. Available from: http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/news/bloodhound-reaches-major-milestone-%E2%80%93build-begins.Google Scholar
14.Morgan, K., Peraire, J., Peiro, J. and Hassan, O.The computation of 3–dimensional flows using unstructured grids, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1991, 87, (2–3), 335–52.Google Scholar
15.Vassberg, J.C. and Jameson, A. Introduction to optimization and multidisciplinary design in aeronautics and turbomachinery, 8 April 2014, von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Rhode-St-Gense, Belgium.Google Scholar
16.Holland, J.Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, 1975, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, US.Google Scholar
17.Wang, J.F., Periaux, J.I. and Sefrioui, M.Parallel evolutionary algorithms for optimization problems in aerospace engineering, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 2002, 149, (1), pp 155–169.Google Scholar
18.Peigin, S. and Epstein, B.Robust handling of non-linear constraints for GA optimization of aerodynamic shapes, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2004, 45, (12), pp 1339–1362.Google Scholar
19.Shahrokhi, A. and Jahangirian, A.Airfoil shape parametrization for optimum Navier-Stokes design with genetic algorithm, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2007, 11, (6), pp 443–450.Google Scholar
20.Hicks, R.M. and Henne, P.A.Wing design by numerical optimization, J of Aircr, 1978, 15, (7), pp 407–412.Google Scholar
21.Jakobsson, S. and Amoignon, O.Mesh deformation using radial basis functions for gradient-based aerodynamic shape optimization, Computers and Fluids, 2007, 36, (6), pp 1119–1136.Google Scholar
22.Dwight, R.P. and Brezillon, J.Effect Approximations of the discrete adjoint on gradient-based optimization, AIAA J, 2006, 44, (12), pp 3022–3031.Google Scholar
23.Sorensen, K.A.A Multigrid Accelerated Procedure for the Solution of Compressible Fluid Flows on Unstructured Hybrid Meshes, University of Wales, Swansea, 2001.Google Scholar
24.Menter, F.R. and Egorov, Y. A scale-adaptive simulation model using two-equation models, AIAA Paper 2055-1095, 2005.Google Scholar
25.Batten, P., Clarke, N. and Causon, D.M.On the choice of wavespeeds for the HLLC Riemann solver, SIAM J of Scientific Computation, 1997, 18, pp 1553–1570.Google Scholar
26.Usab, W.J. and Murman, E.M.Embedded mesh solutions of the Euler equations using a multiple-grid method, in Habashi, W. G. (Ed), Advances in Computational Transonics, Pineridge Press, Swansea, 1985, pp 447–472.Google Scholar
27.Karypis, G. and Kumar, V. METIS 4.0: Unstructured graph partitioning and sparse and sparse matrix ordering system. Technical report, 1998, Department of Computer Science, University of Minnesota, US, http://www.cs.unn.edu/~metis.Google Scholar
28.Lallemand, M.H., Steve, H. and Derivieux, A.Unstructured multigridding by volume agglomeration – current status, Computers & Fluids, 1992, 21, (3), pp 397–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Mavriplis, D.J. and Venkatakrishnan, V.A 3D agglomeration multigrid solver for the Reynolds-averaged-Navier-Stokes equations on unstructured meshes, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 1996, 23, (6), pp 527–544.Google Scholar
30.Hu, Y.F., Emerson, D.R., Ashworth, M., Maguire, K.C.F. and Blake, R.J.Parallelizing FLITE3D – a multigrid finite element Euler solver, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2001, 35, (7), pp 809–827.Google Scholar
31.Sutherland, W.The viscosity of gases and molecular force, Philosophical Magazine, 1893, 36, pp 507–531.Google Scholar
32.Li, X.-L., Fu, D.-X., Ma, Y.-W. and Liang, X.Direct numerical simulation of compressible turbulent flows, Acta Mechanica Sinica, 2010, 26, (6), 795–806.Google Scholar
33.Wilcox, D.C.Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models, AIAA J, 1988, 26, (11), 1299–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C. and Anderson–Cook, C.M.Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 2009, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
35.Narayanan, S. and Iyengar, R.N. IUTAM Symposium on Nonlinearity and Stochastic Structural Dynamics. Proceedings of the Iutam Symposium, 4-8 January 1999, Madras, Chennai, India.Google Scholar
36.McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J. and Conover, W.J.A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code, Technometrics, 1979, 21, (2), pp 239–245.Google Scholar
37.Box, G.E.P. and Wilson, K.B.On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions, J. of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1951, XIII, (1), pp 1–45.Google Scholar
38.Mathworks: Matlab and Simulink for Technical Computing [Internet]. MathWorks UK: Mathworks. [2015; 2015]. Available from: http://uk.mathworks.com/help/stats/rstool.htmlGoogle Scholar
39.Stein, M.Large sample properties of simulations using Latin Hypercube Sampling, Technometrics, 1987, 29, (2), pp 143–151.Google Scholar
40.Buhmann, M.D. Radial basis functions, Acta Numerica, 2000, pp 1–38.Google Scholar
41.Fornberg, B., Driscoll, T.A., Wright, G. and Charles, R.Observations on the behaviour of radial basis function approximations near boundaries, Computers and Mathematics, 2002, 33, (3–5), pp 473–490.Google Scholar