[KVRC] Khamsin Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

[etsmc]

i have a question on the heat exchangers in option 2 for cooling
4.1 option 2 says 'There must be one heat exchanger each side of the car:'
1.4 point 5 says 'OR ​planar shapes used to create the heat exchangers, named “hx­shape­1” a​nd “hx­shape­2”'

does this mean that we are not limmited to 1 heatexchanger perside and if we have multiple we submitthem as seperete files.

so if we had 4 heat exchanges per side we would have hxshape1,hxshape2,hxshape3,hxshape4??

also would there be any issues with stacking heat exchangers? one behind another would this be calculated correctly?

[CAEdevice]

Solidworks...

The same for me! How did you add that textures?

The renders were done in Keyshot, Solidworks is not my favorite for visualization of models.

Does anyone know if the the one-click works on Windows 10?

Yes, I run OCCFD on Win10 x64.

[machin]

i have a question on the heat exchangers in option 2 for cooling
4.1 option 2 says 'There must be one heat exchanger each side of the car:'
1.4 point 5 says 'OR ​planar shapes used to create the heat exchangers, named “hx­shape­1” a​nd “hx­shape­2”'

does this mean that we are not limmited to 1 heatexchanger perside and if we have multiple we submitthem as seperete files.

so if we had 4 heat exchanges per side we would have hxshape1,hxshape2,hxshape3,hxshape4??

also would there be any issues with stacking heat exchangers? one behind another would this be calculated correctly?

I personally read that as being 1 per side mandatory (no more, no less), and one of them (say the right-hand-side) must be called hxshape1 and the other (say left-hand-side) must be called hxshape2...

But I'm sure Chris will confirm....

[cdsavage]

i have a question on the heat exchangers in option 2 for cooling
4.1 option 2 says 'There must be one heat exchanger each side of the car:'
1.4 point 5 says 'OR ​planar shapes used to create the heat exchangers, named “hx­shape­1” a​nd “hx­shape­2”'

does this mean that we are not limmited to 1 heatexchanger perside and if we have multiple we submitthem as seperete files.

so if we had 4 heat exchanges per side we would have hxshape1,hxshape2,hxshape3,hxshape4??

also would there be any issues with stacking heat exchangers? one behind another would this be calculated correctly?

I personally read that as being 1 per side mandatory (no more, no less), and one of them (say the right-hand-side) must be called hxshape1 and the other (say left-hand-side) must be called hxshape2...

But I'm sure Chris will confirm....

Yep, that's correct.

[etsmc]

so when submitting a car we still submit half the car but then submit the heat exchanges for both sides with the filename hxshape1 and hxshape2.
would it not have been clearer if they are lables hxshapeL hxshapeR??

[RicME85]

Don't we submit whole cars?

[etsmc]

i have only ever submitted half the car..

[julien.decharentenay]

Just dropping a latish email. After battling with openFoam - I have gone through both my mistakes and issues (STL orientation) - but I finally nailed the workflow for modelling the radiators. You can download an update at http://www.khamsinvirtualracecarchallen ... .1-001.zip.I would welcome feedback on the radiators parameters as they do not look right at the moment. I will run some more checks and change as appropriate.

1) Windows openFoam: The explicit radiator requires openFoam v2.3 or v3.0. For Windows, the old version on SourceForge is v2.1 and not suitable. You can download a "suitable" one from cfdsupport at http://www.cfdsupport.com/download-open ... ndows.html

2) AWS: The explicit radiator option does not work on AWS at the moment. I need to upgrade openFoam there as well.

Also: the updated version does not output the force distribution, I am looking into it...

[CAEdevice]

Thank you Julien!

KVRC car design is becoming more and more interesting considering the cooling needs. My 2016 car is much more realistic (even if 20% less effcient). Once the simulation model will be completed there will be further perspectives (es. brakes cooling in 2017 or 2018?). I am convinced that KVRC will grow in the next years, involving CAE services/software providers and universities. The simulation framework is fundamental from this point
of view.

I also think that a sligthly finer mesh (15×10^6 cells) or a transient solution would improve realism. It would increase the simulation costs on the other side: what about a fee for professional partecipants (ex. CAEdevice? ).

Finally, I'd like to recommend all the partecipants an article that will be published on the italian web magazine http://www.formulapassion.it next weekend (I will copy a link here as soon as possible).

It is only in italian (sorry), but with with some pictures .

If it will receive comments and visits, I hope to write again about the KVRC 2016 season

[machin]

Quick question for Chris: will the "Class B" cars be checked for their cooling/combustion/exhaust flows, or does the entrant in this class need only think about downforce, drag and COP?

[cdsavage]

The plan at the moment is for all entries, including the subclass, to be checked for intake/exhaust flow. I'm not sure yet if this will change. It's true that it's much less relevant for the subclass since the regions surrounding the intakes/outlets are much more restricted.

[CAEdevice]

I think that the front wing design can dramatically change the flow that feeds the inlets, even for intro class.

[CAEdevice]

Here it is:
http://www.formulapassion.it/2016/02/kh ... enge-2016/

[machin]

Cool! Thanks for the link!

[LVDH]

Nice article. This should help to get more fans and maybe participants.

Today I took the best parts of my second Nürburgring car and also from the last race winner to build a new car for the pre season race and of course to see how the new rules work.
Here are two images of the heat exchanger:



I am wondering if I did something wrong or if this is the size? They seem huge, too huge.
On Matteo's car they look much smaller. Did I do something wrong?