[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post here information about your own engineering projects, including but not limited to building your own car or designing a virtual car through CAD.
User avatar
CAEdevice
49
Joined: 09 Jan 2014, 15:33
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Ok, tomorrow I'm going to send you the logs and all the of folder, including the geoemtry.

I will have the results in a couple of hours, but I have to leave the office in 10 minutes...

User avatar
CAEdevice
49
Joined: 09 Jan 2014, 15:33
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

LVDH wrote: [*]The other two result from your cooling inlet and outlet surfaces. They should have the same value. However you will notice that they don't. This is mainly due to interpolation reasons (assuming your cooling duct is closed). The surfaces you use might only be triangulated with only two triangles. If you refine the stl better the results should match better. In the very beginning of the solver.log you can see out of how many triangles the surfaces consit.[/list]
Do you think it would be possible to use the front/rear surfaces of the heat exchangers instead of the inlet/outlet surfaces of the ducts?

It would simplify the rule check (less areas to check, no advantages in case of a non completely waterproof heat exchanger installation, so no need to check it).

User avatar
LVDH
46
Joined: 31 Mar 2015, 14:23

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

First I only wanted to keep these useless surfaces to not change any rules. Then I noticed that they are very useful to measure the cooling air flow. There is not a really good reason why we could not have the surface in the middle of the heat exchanger and leave everything as open to you guys as possible.
But for the first two races I want to keep them because of the measurement inaccuracies you have also noticed.
I would not mind if people include a third HX-center surface just to also have this as a check.

User avatar
CAEdevice
49
Joined: 09 Jan 2014, 15:33
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Ok, I will add a third surface, it requires just a click. I can't wait too see the result tomorrow: I will process them with Paraview.

Finally, a question for Chris.
I am not sure (I don't have the cad models with me), but is it possible that the distance of the floor from the ground has been slightly reduced (from 45mm to 40mm?). I was in a rush so I am not sure to have measured it correctly.

cdsavage
cdsavage
19
Joined: 25 Apr 2010, 13:28

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

CAEdevice wrote:Ok, I will add a third surface, it requires just a click. I can't wait too see the result tomorrow: I will process them with Paraview.

Finally, a question for Chris.
I am not sure (I don't have the cad models with me), but is it possible that the distance of the floor from the ground has been slightly reduced (from 45mm to 40mm?). I was in a rush so I am not sure to have measured it correctly.
No changes made as far as the rulebook is concerned, but keep in mind that the rulebook specifies Z=0 as the reference plane, where the flat floor is located. The distance from the reference plane to the CFD ground plane is defined only at the CFD stage. I'm not sure if MantiumWFlow is different to OCCFD in that respect.

etsmc
etsmc
7
Joined: 04 Apr 2012, 13:20

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

so I think I have a simulation going.
I was able to create the case but had an issue trying to run the runcase.sh
turns out one of my windows directories had a space in the file name, I could navigate to it ok in the OpenFoam environment but the runcase.sh gave errors.
replaced the space in the directory name with a _ and rebuilt the case just in case and now it is running the runcase.sh in the OpenFOAM environment.
lets see how it goes.

just need something clearing up. the CFD parts on the website have the wheels individually but the documentation for MantiumWFlow implies that the wheels should be in pairs in 2 STL files. I guess a similar question for the intake and exhaust and the cooling should they be
lhs_Cooling_intake
rhs_Cooling_intake

or both in the same STL as Cooling_intake?

it's not clear from the documentation and the rule book submission information?

User avatar
LVDH
46
Joined: 31 Mar 2015, 14:23

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

You have spotted something I noticed only very late on.
For most parts you do not have to worry about anything. The HXs and the monitoring surfaces are the exception. That is why they have to be handled a bit carefully. Every cooling inlet and outlet should be an individual surface, the HXs as well.
The frt. wheels for example can be all in one file. To try things out the mvrc_fast option should be good.

User avatar
CAEdevice
49
Joined: 09 Jan 2014, 15:33
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Hi, I could complete the first simulation with WFlow.

Here are some information that I think can be useful:

- I copied all the files and folders generated by WFlow into the "username" folder created by the OpenFoam console
- This is the folder to use when launching "bash runCase.sh" (please check if the folder is correct with the command "ls")
- My advice is to use good quality STL (many triangles)
- The results are comparable with OCCFD ( = a car designed for the old KVRC is still efficient, but a small optimization could improve sligthly the df)

I am not sure about the cooling results. Do I have to compare the value of this parameters with the minimum flow included into the rulebook (3m3/s, whole car) ? :

Code: Select all

faceSource mSurf_cooling_inlet output:
    areaNormalIntegrate(sampledSurface) for U = (0.921226 0 0)

faceSource mSurf_cooling_outlet output:
    areaNormalIntegrate(sampledSurface) for U = (-0.837561 0 0)
I guess that the computed integrals are referred to a single duct, could some confirm that?
In this case, my cooling flow should be "0.92*2=1.84m3/s" (choosing the higher value between the two that should be almost indentical with a better stl): not too bad.

User avatar
RicME85
52
Joined: 09 Feb 2012, 13:11
Location: Derby

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Will MantiumWFlow eventually have an output like OCCFD did that displayed the results in an easy to read manner?

User avatar
LVDH
46
Joined: 31 Mar 2015, 14:23

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

RicME85 wrote:Will MantiumWFlow eventually have an output like OCCFD did that displayed the results in an easy to read manner?
No, much better. Have a look at this:
http://mantiumcae.com/wp-content/upload ... eport.html
Right now the MWFlow MVRC edition is missing some features. In Windows I cannot get the plots to work. Right now this is actually my biggest headache. All of the other images are created using two different versions of Paraview. I have a feeling that on Windows two other version will be necessary. So to get at least a minimal version out I removed those features for now. But looking at the post-processing capabilities of OF+
http://openfoam.com/version-v3.0+/post- ... Extraction
I think this is a more elegant solution and I will adapt MWFlow MVRC edition to that. This will take some two or three weeks until I will release those features to you guys. It will mean with no additional software to install you will get the full report.
CAEdevice wrote: I am not sure about the cooling results. Do I have to compare the value of this parameters with the minimum flow included into the rulebook (3m3/s, whole car) ? :

Code: Select all

faceSource mSurf_cooling_inlet output:
    areaNormalIntegrate(sampledSurface) for U = (0.921226 0 0)

faceSource mSurf_cooling_outlet output:
    areaNormalIntegrate(sampledSurface) for U = (-0.837561 0 0)
I guess that the computed integrals are referred to a single duct, could some confirm that?
In this case, my cooling flow should be "0.92*2=1.84m3/s" (choosing the higher value between the two that should be almost indentical with a better stl): not too bad.

Yes, these are only the measurements for half of the car. If you name your surfaces .._lhs and ..._rhs it might be more clear.
Also I forgot to mention that MantiumWFlow currently does not measure the frontal area, so it is set to 1m². This means that the force coefficients are effectively C*A.


Also I checked the floor position. It has not changed and I never intended to change it. Maybe you have to check your measurements.


Quite a few participants have now submitted their log files. They all looked good! If you guys send cars that run that well through the solver you will make the MVRC staff very happy. Also please keep in mind to use the stl check tool. If you guys submit designs that we have to clean up you are giving away some control over your design. And if we cannot fix the design in reasonable time the car might get disqualified, as stated in the rules, in case you did not notice.

User avatar
CAEdevice
49
Joined: 09 Jan 2014, 15:33
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

LVDH wrote:This means that the force coefficients are effectively C*A.
Sorry, I slept badly and I'm half asleep, but, what do you mean excatly?

LVDH wrote:Also please keep in mind to use the stl check tool. If you guys submit designs that we have to clean up you are giving away some control over your design. And if we cannot fix the design in reasonable time the car might get disqualified, as stated in the rules, in case you did not notice.
I hope that my STLs are good.

User avatar
LVDH
46
Joined: 31 Mar 2015, 14:23

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

CAEdevice wrote:
LVDH wrote:This means that the force coefficients are effectively C*A.
Sorry, I slept badly and I'm half asleep, but, what do you mean excatly?
The Cd reported is actually Cd*Areff, just like Cl is actually Cl*Areff ...

User avatar
CAEdevice
49
Joined: 09 Jan 2014, 15:33
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Hi, I have a question about the "mvrc_fast" option.

Wich are the differences between the two options? I noticed that the number of iterations (endTime) is 1000 instead of 1500.
Is the mesh simplifed?
Last edited by CAEdevice on 24 Aug 2016, 16:51, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LVDH
46
Joined: 31 Mar 2015, 14:23

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Yes, the mesh is a bit coarser, gets created faster and the number of iterations is less.
You can add your own templates, if you want.
I have not had the time to write a manual but this is rather simple.
Just go into the default_settings folder and copy past and rename all files ending with mvrc. You can open the new ones and change the contents. At the end of executing MantiumWFlow there should be a list with all of the available options. Some will not properly work for you guys as they are the the full version. But you can experiment.
The mvrc template is what will be used for the official simulations. As it produces varying results on adding the surface layers I will have to slightly adapt it after the first race. According to the log files I have received so far some cars seem to like growing the surface layers better than others.

User avatar
CAEdevice
49
Joined: 09 Jan 2014, 15:33
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Another question is about some strange things in the pressure integrals:

1) The inlet intake pressure integral is negative. Is it right, considering that the same inlet geometry worked very well in the KVRC? I set a negative flow value for the inlet (-0.15) and positive per the outlet (+0.15).

2) I am running a second simulation with very minimal changes and the "cooling" inlet and outlet flow converge, but they are both negative. I would expect an opposite direction.

Update: the same geometry, processed with the "standard" option, gives a "fatal error" after completing the mesh (the simulation runs without issues with the "fast" option selected).

Code: Select all


...

/*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*\
| =========                 |                                                 |
| \\      /  F ield         | OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox           |
|  \\    /   O peration     | Version:  v1606+                                |
|   \\  /    A nd           | Web:      www.OpenFOAM.com                      |
|    \\/     M anipulation  |                                                 |
\*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
Build  : v1606+
Exec   : simpleFoam -parallel
Date   : Aug 24 2016
Time   : 15:20:52
Host   : "default"
PID    : 460
Case   : /home/ofuser/workingDir
nProcs : 4
Slaves :
3
(
"default.461"
"default.462"
"default.463"
)

Pstream initialized with:
    floatTransfer      : 0
    nProcsSimpleSum    : 0
    commsType          : nonBlocking
    polling iterations : 0
sigFpe : Enabling floating point exception trapping (FOAM_SIGFPE).
fileModificationChecking : Monitoring run-time modified files using timeStampMaster
allowSystemOperations : Allowing user-supplied system call operations

// * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * //
Create time

Create mesh for time = 0


SIMPLE: convergence criteria
    field p      tolerance 5e-05
    field "(U|k|epsilon|omega)"  tolerance 1e-06

Reading field p

Reading field U

Reading/calculating face flux field phi

Selecting incompressible transport model Newtonian
Selecting turbulence model type RAS
Selecting RAS turbulence model kOmegaSST
Selecting patchDistMethod meshWave
kOmegaSSTCoeffs
{
    alphaK1         0.85;
    alphaK2         1;
    alphaOmega1     0.5;
    alphaOmega2     0.856;
    gamma1          0.555556;
    gamma2          0.44;
    beta1           0.075;
    beta2           0.0828;
    betaStar        0.09;
    a1              0.31;
    b1              1;
    c1              10;
    F3              false;
}

No MRF models present

Creating finite volume options from "system/fvOptions"

Selecting finite volume options model type explicitPorositySource
    Source: porosity_heat_exchanger_dx
    - selecting cells using cellZone heat_exchanger_dx
    - selected 40459 cell(s) with volume 0.0189225
Porosity region porosity_heat_exchanger_dx:
    selecting model: DarcyForchheimer
    creating porous zone: heat_exchanger_dx

Starting time loop

forceCoeffs forceCoeffs:
--> FOAM Warning :
    From function Foam::labelHashSet Foam::polyBoundaryMesh::patchSet(const Foam::UList<Foam::wordRe>&, bool, bool) const
    in file meshes/polyMesh/polyBoundaryMesh/polyBoundaryMesh.C at line 782
    Cannot find any patch or group names matching "rear_wheel_SX.*"
--> FOAM Warning :
    From function Foam::labelHashSet Foam::polyBoundaryMesh::patchSet(const Foam::UList<Foam::wordRe>&, bool, bool) const
    in file meshes/polyMesh/polyBoundaryMesh/polyBoundaryMesh.C at line 782
    Cannot find any patch or group names matching "Front_wheel_SX.*"
    Including porosity effects

[3]
[3]
[3] --> FOAM FATAL ERROR:
[3] faceSource faceSource_engine_exhaust: patch(engine_exhaust):
    Unknown patch name: engine_exhaust. Valid patch names are:
14
(
auto_wt_side
auto_wt_sym_plane
auto_wt_inlet
auto_wt_outlet
auto_wt_floor
auto_wt_top
heat_exchanger_dx
body
engine_intake
rear_wheel_DX
Front_wheel_DX
procBoundary3to0
procBoundary3to1
procBoundary3to2
)

[3]
[3]
[3]     From function void Foam::fieldValues::faceSource::setPatchFaces()
[3]     in file fieldValues/faceSource/faceSource.C at line 178.
[3]
FOAM parallel run exiting
[3]
[1]
[1]
[1] --> FOAM FATAL ERROR:
[1] faceSource faceSource_engine_exhaust: patch(engine_exhaust):
    Unknown patch name: engine_exhaust. Valid patch names are:
14
(
auto_wt_side
auto_wt_sym_plane
auto_wt_inlet
auto_wt_outlet
auto_wt_floor
auto_wt_top
heat_exchanger_dx
body
engine_intake
rear_wheel_DX
Front_wheel_DX
procBoundary1to0
procBoundary1to2
procBoundary1to3
)

[1]
[1]
[1]     From function void Foam::fieldValues::faceSource::setPatchFaces()
[1]     in file fieldValues/faceSource/faceSource.C at line 178.
[1]
FOAM parallel run exiting
[1]
[2]
[2]
[2] --> FOAM FATAL ERROR:
[2] faceSource faceSource_engine_exhaust: patch(engine_exhaust):
    Unknown patch name: engine_exhaust. Valid patch names are:
14
(
auto_wt_side
auto_wt_sym_plane
auto_wt_inlet
auto_wt_outlet
auto_wt_floor
auto_wt_top
heat_exchanger_dx
body
engine_intake
rear_wheel_DX
Front_wheel_DX
procBoundary2to0
procBoundary2to1
procBoundary2to3
)

[2]
[2]
[2]     From function void Foam::fieldValues::faceSource::setPatchFaces()
[2]     in file fieldValues/faceSource/faceSource.C at line 178.
[2]
FOAM parallel run exiting
[2]
faceSource faceSource_engine_intake:
    total faces  = 16
    total area   = 0.000849579
    weight field = phi


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPI_ABORT was invoked on rank 3 in communicator MPI_COMM_WORLD
with errorcode 1.

NOTE: invoking MPI_ABORT causes Open MPI to kill all MPI processes.
You may or may not see output from other processes, depending on
exactly when Open MPI kills them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[default:00457] 2 more processes have sent help message help-mpi-api.txt / mpi-abort
[default:00457] Set MCA parameter "orte_base_help_aggregate" to 0 to see all help / error messages