[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

Hi, I can't find on the rulebook the explanation of the cop correction. Could anybody help me?

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

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

It gets adjusted towards the 1.65m in your advantage but only up to 5cm. This is carry over from KVRC. It is supposed to account for adjustments that would be done track side by real teams racing real cars. But as our cars are cooler I do not really see why we would need this next season.

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

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Ok, I would agree if you decided to use the CoP from CFD without correction, I just needed to know wich the official rule is, since I could not find it on the rulebook.

During these days without the hardware for CFD I read the rulebook and compared the data released after the first two races. I am convinced that JJR car is a step above all the others at the moment, despite the small gap I had at Nurburgring. I also modeled three updates for my car, in ordet to test them next week.

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

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

I agree, his car a one very big advantage over all of yours. I wonder if it will carry over to the high-efficiency races coming up now. And he only appeared a bit weak in the first race due to his smart penalty.

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

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

My car will be similar to the one I used at Nurburgring, I am working on small datails only (but lots of small details). I "hope" that to obtain the full cooling flow JJR will have to look for a compromise about efficiency.

During this period of reflection and observation, I compared MVRC cars with real LMP1 and it is interesting how we converged on realistic concepts. That is a good consequence of the new cooling rules (but we have to consider that our diffuser area is very different: this influences the general balance of the cars).

Despite the mesh, that is good but it could be more refined, I notices that vorteces generated forward the front wheels axle could have some effects on the rear diffuser efficiency: most of cars at the moment use a rear diffuser fed by air coming from the floor sides. I think that if we could seal the sides of the floor and "connect" the rear diffuser flow more directly to the front diffuser/wing we could have a huge advantage (I tried everything but without results at the moment...)

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

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

CAEdevice wrote: Despite the mesh, that is good but it could be more refined, I notices that vorteces generated forward the front wheels axle could have some effects on the rear diffuser efficiency: most of cars at the moment use a rear diffuser fed by air coming from the floor sides. I think that if we could seal the sides of the floor and "connect" the rear diffuser flow more directly to the front diffuser/wing we could have a huge advantage (I tried everything but without results at the moment...)
Obviously you are not an old Porsche engineer yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZxC-knQmkM

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

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Thanks for the link

JJR
JJR
16
Joined: 12 Jul 2013, 20:02

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Hi , can somebody please put here DarcyForchheimerCoeffs from fvOptions from mantiumFlow.
I m calibrating my own OF settings and I m not sure if I have correct one.
Thanks

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

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

JJR wrote:Hi , can somebody please put here DarcyForchheimerCoeffs from fvOptions from mantiumFlow.
I m calibrating my own OF settings and I m not sure if I have correct one.
Thanks
Hi JJR, here is the whole fvOptions generated by WFlow

Code: Select all

FoamFile
{
version     2.0;
format      ascii;
class       dictionary;
object      fvOptions;
}


porosity_heat_exchanger_dx
{
type            explicitPorositySource;
active          yes;
explicitPorositySourceCoeffs
{
selectionMode   cellZone;
cellZone        heat_exchanger_dx;
type            DarcyForchheimer;
DarcyForchheimerCoeffs
{
d   (100 2000 2000);
f   (50 1000 1000);
coordinateSystem
{
type    cartesian;
origin  (0 0 0);
coordinateRotation
{
type    axesRotation;
e1      (1 0 0);
e3      (0 0 1);
}
}
}
}
}

JJR
JJR
16
Joined: 12 Jul 2013, 20:02

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Thank you Matteo.

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

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Hi, I read the rulebook but I am not sure if I still need to submit the cooling inlet and inlet surfaces or only the "mid" surface (that one is inside the heat exchanger).

The measure will be computed only on the mid surface? In my opinion it would be the best solution.

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

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

K1.4
An entry should be a single compressed archive file (ZIP etc) containing:
● (only for full entries) In a directory named “special_bc”:
○ (K4.2) Each engine inlet surface as a separate STL
○ (K4.3) Each engine exhaust surface as a separate STL
● (only for full entries) In a directory named “monitoring_surfaces”:
○ (K4.1) The front face of each heat exchanger translated rearwards by 50mm
● (only for full entries) In a directory named “porous_media”:​
○ (K4.1) Each heat exchanger extrusion as a separate STL
● (optional)​ In a directory named “high_res_surfaces”:
○ Some or all bodywork forward of the FWCL, excluding the front fenders
○ (K3.2) Rear wing
● In a directory named “vehicle_body”:​ All remaining bodywork. Introductory subclass: d​ o not include the supplied bodywork.
These parts should be exported as separate STL files with 1 unit = 1m. The unit setting may be verified by opening the STL file in ParaView and checking “bounds”.


no mention of submitting cooling inlet and outlets.

User avatar
TalnoRacing
3
Joined: 22 May 2015, 10:50

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Hi,

I am having trouble with post processing from the GUI. After a "MVRC Fast" run is complete I select "Start Post Processing" - this produces performance numbers in the dialogue screen at the bottom, and a .txt file with the relevant data. However, the "case.foam" file does not open in Paraview 5.2.0. I have to open specific .vtk files in Paraview, but then I am unable to do a Surface.LIC section as Paraview crashes.

What should the flow on the "mid" surface be to give 100% engine power? I currently have a flow rate of "-0.689m^3/s" but do not know how this compares with the optimum. Also, is this value for one side of the car or both?

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

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Hi, I am currently travelling and will arrive back tomorrow, so I hope I did not miss too much on the support forum.

The case.foam file cannot be an issue at all. So maybe it is once more a Paraview version thing. Also SurfaceLIC definitely works with the vtk files. So once more you should try a different Paraview version. I am more and more planing to release a self made simple post-processer as these Paraview issues are really very annoying. And you do not have to open the vtk files, I just find them much more convenient as they load much much faster.

Your flow rate issue, should be a bit better explained when using the latest release of MantiumWFlow MVRC edition. It tells you that it doubles the value as you are using a symmetry plane. If it does not do that then I think you are using and older version. I think the newer version also exports the absolute value as the minus sign does not make sense with the monitoring surface. The target are 3m³/s.

Thanks etsmc for helping Matteo to read. You are right, you guys submit a box for the heat exchanger and a surface which is in the middle of the box.