International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Numerical investigation of flow around a 3D bluff body using deflector

plate
Ankush Raina a,∗, G.A. Harmain b, Mir Irfan Ul Haq a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, Katra 182320, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Srinagar 190006, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This paper presents a numerical study of drag reduction technique using passive flow device around a realistic
Ahmed body car model. The model used in this investigation is Ahmed body, at the rear top of which a deflector is installed.
Computational fluid dynamics Model is generated using the commercial package GAMBIT and simulations are performed in FLUENT to obtain
Drag and lift coefficient
the flow characteristics. The investigation is performed by sorting out the grid independence issues so as to have
Passive flow control
the less deviation from the accurate results. The performance of deflector is thereafter analyzed to determine the
angle at which maximum possible drag reduction can be obtained. The deflector angles are varied from −25°
to 60° at two inlet flow velocities of 16 m/s and 40 m/s. The results obtained are subsequently compared with
the already obtained experimental values in literature and a good conformity is acquired. Further, the effect of
two extra inlet flow velocities i.e. 20 m/s and 30 m/s is also studied to have the meticulous scrutiny of the flow
behavior. After carrying out the complete study, a 7% decrease in the drag coefficient is obtained with respect
to the case when there is no deflector.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The issues pertaining to the reduction of vehicle power consumption
presented a challenge to the researchers, since the inception of invention
of vehicle itself. The power consumption is related to speed of vehicle,
drag presented by the air and road conditions [1]. The design of vehicles
is dictated by the host of factors which includes drag force even under
smooth road conditions. The combined effect of the rolling resistance of
wheels and aerodynamic drag is responsible for opposing the forward
motion of the vehicle plying on a road. Aerodynamic drag is a force
produced as a result of the distribution of pressure around the vehicle
[2]. The major part of it comes from the pressure difference between
the rearward facing parts and the forward facing parts. The pressure
distribution around a vehicle is produced by number of interacting in-
fluences, one of the most important being the boundary layer and the
drag produced by this effect depends largely on where flow separation
occurs [3,4].
Ahmed et al [5] generated a 3D bluff body on a scale of 1:4 which
was nearly similar to the realistic fastback car model. The purpose be-
hind the generation of this model was to study the flow characteristics
at the rear end. Later on this model was named after Ahmed and is popu-
larly known as the Ahmed’s Body which became the fundamental area of
interest for several researchers [6–11]. Ahmed studied the effect on the
flow behavior by varying the rear slant angles of the proposed model. It
was observed that there is a sudden decrease in the coefficient of drag
for the rear slant angle of 30°. This is primarily due to the modification
in the flow by the domination of the longitudinal counter rotating vor-
tices. The effect of these vortices were studied by [12–14]. The different
unsteady conditions that could be encountered in the near wake of the
3D recirculated zone were investigated by Thacker, Aubrun, Leory and
Devinant [7].This study provided the physical understanding of the flow
dynamics for an Ahmed body with rear slant angle of 25°. Similarly, Co-
nan, Anthoine and Planquart [15] observed that for the rear slant angle
of 20° the two longitudinal vortices are mainly responsible for the in-
crease in the drag coefficient.
With the advancement in technology and availability of computing
resources it has become possible to evaluate the CFD tools by performing
the numerical simulations [16]. This tool when used in conjunction with
the experimental procedures can help in having the better understand-
ing of the aerodynamically behavior of the road vehicles. The ability of
these tools have been analyzed by different researchers [17–22] and the
flow behavior has been studied in detail. There are different flow control
strategies that have been offered by the literature [11,23,24] in which
use of passive devices is one of the ways to reduce the drag [25–28].
Various approaches as regards to these devices were explored and their
effect was evaluated. In this context, the study of the vortex generators
[29–33] on different models revealed that there is a substantial amount

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ankush.smvd@gmail.com (A. Raina).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.08.018
Received 6 June 2017; Received in revised form 27 July 2017; Accepted 9 August 2017
Available online 12 August 2017
0020-7403/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Raina et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711

Fig. 1. Different Views of Ahmed model using deflector (dimensions in mm).

Fig. 2. Different Views of Deflector used on rear top of the Ahmed Body (Dimensions in mm).

Fig. 3. Different conditions in the Flow Domain.

702
A. Raina et al.
Start GAMBIT
Creating the Geometry
Mesh Generation
Defining the boundary zones
Exporting mesh
Start FLUENT
Import mesh
Defining the model properties
Initializing the Problem
Reporting the Reference values
CFD Iterations
No Convergence
criteria met?
Yes
Analyze the various outputs
Stop
Fig. 4. Flowchart showing the modeling and simulation process.
of reduction in the values of the drag as well as lift coefficients. In a
similar type of study pertaining to vortex generators [34,35] it was per-
ceived that their optimum height is almost equivalent to the thickness of
the boundary layer i.e. 15 to 25 mm. The reduction of drag using splitter
plates placed at the front of the rear of Ahmed Body was investigated by
Gillieron and Kourta [36] and on a small scale model of General Motor
Sports Utility Vehicle were studied by Rohatgi [30]. An investigation on
the similar aspects was performed by Raju et al [37] where the effect
of collapsible wind friction reduction attachment at the rear portion of
the car was analyzed and it was observed that on the installation of the
attachment, drag coefficient was reduced by a factor of 0.2.
The use of flaps for reduction of drag was investigated by Wahba
et al. [38]. An overall reduction in the drag coefficient of up to 18%
for the bus and SUV models with the use of flaps was obtained. Stra-
chan, Knowles and Lawson [39] presented the Laser Doppler Anemom-
etry data for an Ahmed body at various back angles. It was observed
that the inclusion of a rolling road and the consequent overhead sup-
porting strut has a significant effect on the flow over the back end of the
703
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711
Fig. 5. Coefficient of drag corresponding to number of cell volumes.
Ahmed body. The overhead strut appears to reduce the strength of the
counter-rotating vortices, which are formed over the top of the model,
thus decreasing the coefficient of drag.
Hu and Wong [15] studied the effect of rear spoiler using standard
K-𝜀 model at the flow velocity if 40 m/s. Numerical simulations were
performed to examine the flow field around the car by taking three
parameters in to consideration viz, attachment position of the spoiler,
shape of the spoiler and the variable of the clearance between the rear
window and leading edge of the spoiler. The new approach to reduce the
aerodynamic drag coefficient by attaching bionic non-smooth surfaces
on motor vehicle body was investigated by Song et al. [40]. Authors de-
signed the non-smooth units containing pits and grooves with suitable
size range to fully adapt the structure of a given vehicle body surface.
Apart from the passive flow control methodologies several active
flow control devices have also been identified and their effect on the
flow behavior at the rear portion has been evaluated [32,33,41–45].
The use of pulse jet actuators by Gillieron and Kourta [6] at the top of
the rear window of Ahmed body with a rear slant angle of 35° resulted
in the increase in vertical size of the wake at the top side and a decrease
in the rotational velocity for the longitudinal vortices emerging out of
the lateral part of the rear window. The effect of another type of active
flow control device called base bled was studied by Howell, Sheppard
and Blakemor [46]. The use of base bled causes pressure of the vehi-
cles entire rear surface to increase which leads to decrease in the wake
region at rear portion of the vehicle. The most effective methodology
investigated was the one based on the Coanda jets by Khalighi, Chen
and Iaccarino [47]. The low-speed flow in the near-wake is completely
eliminated and the pressure recovery is extremely fast with a jet ve-
locity larger than the inlet velocity. Thus the effect of the flow control
strategies on the separation point and the longitudinal counter rotating
vortices is required to be critically analyzed as these are considered to
be the most responsible factors for the development of the wake region
at the rear portion of the vehicle [48–50].
The aerodynamic behavior of a bluff body with a deflector studied
over a varied range of velocities has not been explored much. This work
is aimed to numerically evaluate flow over Ahmed Body (a 3-D bluff
body) using deflector plate at the rear end. Analysis of the flow of air in
a fixed domain over the surface of the car model has been done by vary-
ing deflector angles with respect to the top most surface of the model
in order to obtain the corresponding change in the values of drag and
lift coefficient. The results so obtained are compared with the already
obtained experimental values of Fourrie et al [51]. Moreover in order
to have a deeper insight on the flow behavior around the Ahmed Body,
a wider range of inlet velocities has been studied. The methodology will
help to virtually foresee the flow behavior of different bodies in the field
of Aerodynamics.
A. Raina et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711

Fig. 6. Comparison of simulated and experimental [51] normalized velocity contours in the transversal plane at 0.22 m downstream of the Ahmed model at 𝜃 = −16.

704
A. Raina et al.
Fig. 7. Coefficient of Drag corresponding to deflector angle at inlet flow velocity of
16 m/s.
Fig. 8. Coefficient of Lift corresponding to deflector angle at inlet flow velocity of 16 m/s.
2. Geometric modeling
Various software packages may be used to generate the models of
Ahmed body. In this work the geometry has been created using GAM-
BIT where the zone and boundary types of computational domain and
Ahmed model are specified. The model used in this study is the same
model used by Fourrie et al [51], different views of which are presented
in the Fig. 1.
The length of the model is L = 1044 mm, the width is W = 389 mm
and the maximum height is H = 288 mm. The ground clearance is
G = 50 mm, the diameter of the four feet, which are used to secure the
model on the wind tunnel is 30 mm. The rear slant angle is 25° and the
length of the rear window is 222 mm. The width of the deflector used
at the rear end of the Ahmed Body (as shown in the Fig. 2) is 389 mm
the corners of which are cut at 45° The thickness of the plate is 1.2 mm.
Flow simulations are carried out by varying the deflector angles with
respect to the rear top surface of the Ahmed Body model. The value
of the angle is zero when defector and top surface of the Ahmed Body
model are coplanar and is considered as the reference plane, it is positive
when it moves in the upward direction and is negative when it moves
in the downward direction respectively from the reference plane. The
angles of the deflector with respect to top surface of Ahmed model are
varied from −25° to 60°. The same geometry with two inflow velocities
and with deflector angles only up to 16° was experimentally studied by
Fourrie et al [51].
705
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711
Fig. 9. Coefficient of Drag corresponding to deflector angle at inlet flow velocity of
40 m/s.
3. Numerical method
The turbulence model used in this study is the shear stress trans-
port (SST) k-𝜔 model [52], the basic foundation of which was first pro-
posed by Wilcox [53]. The model given by Wilcox is the original k-
𝜔 model designed for finite volume methods. This model is advanta-
geous for predicting the behavior of viscous flow in the near wall region
and hence it is capable of predicting the problems where the condition
of adverse pressure gradient prevails. As far as far field region is con-
cerned, the flow behavior shows a strong dependence on the values of
𝜔 [54] even for non turbulent flows but this deficiency is not present in
the k-ɛ model. In order to take the advantage of this property Menter
combined the basic k-𝜔 model with k-ɛ model. This is done by writing
the transport equation for ɛ in the k-ɛ model in terms of 𝜔. Both the
equations are multiplied with blending function which establishes the
relationship between two models. Blending function is related to the
distance to the nearest wall boundary. This function is zero within the
turbulent boundary layer where k-𝜔 formulation is directly useable and
it tends to be unity at the region beyond the boundary layer thereby
switching the k-𝜔 formulation to the k-ɛ in order to avoid the problem
of free stream dependence on the turbulence properties of the k-𝜔. The
model so obtained is in the modified form and is known as the SST k-𝜔
model [55]. Literature offers us several studies pertaining to the timely
modifications that have been made in this model which have led to the
better understanding of flow situations thereby enhancing the viability
of the model [56–59].
4. Computational details
The total length of the computational domain is 10 L (where L is
the length of Ahmed body) and it starts at 2.4 L in front of the model
as shown in Fig. 3. The width of the domain is 2 L and its height is
1.6 L. Grid is generated by selecting the finite number of control volumes
using GAMBIT. The exact number of control volumes has been defined
only after carrying out the grid independence studies. Due care has been
taken to generate the grids close to the model especially at the rear
portion. For such cases a sub domain is created with the finer mesh size
as compared to the rest of the domain. This is done in order to save the
extra computing effort and time.
At the surface of Ahmed model, no slip boundary condition is em-
ployed whereas velocity is prescribed at the inlet of the flow domain.
A set of four inlet velocities (16, 20, 30 and 40 m/s) corresponding to
Reynolds’s number of 3.1 × 105 , 3.8 × 105 , 5.8 × 105 , and 7.7 × 105
are used for the investigation of flow. The outlet of the computational
domain is conceived as pressure outlet where atmospheric pressure is
set for all the cases considered in the study. For the rest of the zones
A. Raina et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711

Fig. 10. Coefficient of Lift corresponding to deflector angle at inlet flow velocity of Fig. 12. Coefficient of Lift corresponding to deflector angle at inlet flow velocity of 20 m/s
40 m/s. and 30 m/s.

set of values a grid size having 1,270,002 number of cell volumes is ob-
tained as the best possible in terms of computational time and accuracy.
First the grid independence studies are performed for Ahmed Body
without deflector having rear slant angle of 30° at flow velocity of
30 m/s. The coefficient of drag and convergence time corresponding to
the number of cell volumes is shown in Table 1. It is observable that with
the increase in the number of cell volumes there is a decrease in the per-
centage deviation and at 1,270,002 cell volumes the drag coefficient is
nearly grid independent
Secondly, the grid independence studies have been performed for
two set of deflector angles i.e. 𝜃 = −16 and 𝜃 = 25° and the coefficient of
drag for different number of cell volumes has been shown in Fig. 5. It
can be observed that when the number of cell volumes are increased
the coefficient of drag showed decreased amount of deviation when
compared to the previous value. When the numbers of cell volumes are
1,270,002 the maximum deviation is only 1.9% in comparison to the
Fig. 11. Coefficient of Drag corresponding to deflector angle at inlet flow velocity of
20 m/s and 30 m/s. previous value. On further increasing the number of cell volumes be-
yond 1,270,002 there is very less improvement in the value of drag, but
the time consumed is considerably large.
a wall function is prescribed in the flow domain. The flow is governed Also the normalized velocity contours on the transversal plane at
by the following set of equations. This mathematical model is based on 220 mm from the rear end of the Ahmed Body when observed from the
Bradshaw’s hypothesis for the formulation for of turbulent eddy viscos- downstream at a deflector angle i.e. 𝜃 =−16° has been shown in Fig. 6.
ity, in which it was assumed that the principal turbulent shear stress is It has been observed that the normalized velocity contours so obtained
linearly aligned with the turbulent kinetic energy, k. at the considered deflector angle for number of cell volumes equal to
For turbulent kinetic energy k, 185,545 showed large deviations when compared with the normalized
[ ]
𝜕𝑘 𝜕𝑘 𝜕 ( ) 𝜕𝑘 velocity contours of [51]. But as the number of cell volumes are in-
+ 𝑈𝑖 = 𝑃𝑘 − 𝛽 ∗ 𝑘𝜔 + 𝑣 + 𝜎𝑘 𝑣 𝑇 creased these deviations showed an inverse response. At number of cell
𝜕𝑡 𝜕 𝑥𝑗 𝜕 𝑥𝑗 𝜕 𝑥𝑗
volumes equal to 1,270,002 the velocity contours are well in agreement
And for rate of dissipation 𝜔, to [51].
[ ]
𝜕𝜔 𝜕𝜔 𝜕 ( ) 𝜕𝜔 ( ) 1 𝜕𝑘 𝜕𝜔 On comparing the two different grid independence studies it has
+ 𝑈𝑖 = 𝛼𝑆 2 − 𝛽𝜔2 + 𝑣 + 𝜎𝜔 𝑣 𝑇 +2 1 − 𝐹1 𝜎𝜔2
𝜕𝑡 𝜕 𝑥𝑗 𝜕 𝑥𝑗 𝜕 𝑥𝑗 𝜔 𝜕 𝑥𝑖 𝜕 𝑥𝑖 been observed that the 1,270,002 are the optimum number of cell vol-
umes in terms of time and accuracy both. Thus the further work has
The problem is initialized and a convergence criterion is set which
been carried out at 1,270,002 number of cell volumes.
is followed by the reporting of reference values. The iteration process
is then executed till the convergence takes place. During the iteration
process, package itself solves the flow equations for the variables and
the values of these variables are updated and corrected through itera-
tions until the set convergence criterion is met. Once the solution gets 5. Results and discussion
converged several variables like velocity, pressure, turbulence, forces,
density etc. can be analyzed and the corresponding contours, velocity After carrying out grid independence studies the results for coeffi-
vectors, path lines can be obtained. The complete modeling and simu- cient of drag and lift for the Ahmed Body at varying angles of the deflec-
lation process is shown in the flow diagram given below (Fig. 4). tors were obtained at the four prescribed inlet flow velocities i.e.16 m/s,
Grid independence study has been investigated by taking two differ- 20 m/s, 30 m/s and 40 m/s (corresponding to Reynolds’s number of
ent cases in to consideration. In both the cases mesh size is increased 3.1 × 105 , 3.8 × 105 , 5.8 × 105 , and 7.7 × 105 ). Various angles of
gradually from coarse to fine in order to obtain the grid independent the Deflectors with respect to the top surface of the vehicle model are
value of the drag coefficient. After conducting the iterative tests on eight −25°,−16°,−5°, 0°, 5°, 16°, 25°, 31°, 38°, 47°, 52° and 60°.

706
A. Raina et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711

Table 1
Convergence time corresponding to the number of cell volumes.

S.No. Number of cell volumes Coefficient of Drag %age Deviation Convergence time

1 185,545 0.43440 – 1 hour

2 306,570 0.40396 7.535 1.5 hours
3 518,679 0.39062 3.415 2 hours
4 713,969 0.37424 4.376 3 hours
5 883,985 0.37184 0.645 4 hours
6 1,021,867 0.36731 1.233 14 hours
7 1,270,002 0.36225 1.396 22 hours
8 1,679,009 0.36224 1.121 28 hours

Fig. 13. Normalized velocity contours on the symmetry plane of Ahmed Body.

5.1. Drag and lift coefficient
The drag and lift coefficients obtained for series of velocities are plot-
ted in Figs. 7–12. In Figs. 7–10 the comparison between the simulated
values and experimental values for two inlet flow velocities has been
presented and in Figs. 11 and 12 the effect of two additional velocities
on the flow pattern is depicted.
When the angle of deflector is increased from 𝜃 = −25° (case when
there is no deflector) to 𝜃 = 0°, the increase in the drag coefficient has
been observed. This is due to the increase in the size of main vortices
which can be observed in Figs. 13(b) and 15(b). At the same time the
decrease in the lift coefficient has also been observed. However, when
the angle of deflector is increased beyond zero (𝜃 = 0°) there is a sudden
decrease in both, drag coefficient and lift coefficient. By taking in to
consideration the above behavior of the drag and lift coefficients with
respect to the change in the deflector angle, it can be assumed that there
must be a strong modification in the flow behavior at this deflector an-
gle. The interaction of the main vortices and the counter rotating longi-
tudinal vortices leads to the decrease in coefficient of drag (Fig. 15(d)).
On further increasing the angle of deflector beyond 𝜃 = 5° the increase
in the drag coefficient is observed whereas coefficient of lift shows a
further decrease in its value. The increase in drag coefficient here is at-
tributed to the dominance of main vortices over the two counter rotating
longitudinal vortices.

707
A. Raina et al.
Fig. 14. Normalized velocity contours on the symmetry plane of Ahmed Body.
Moreover by carrying out the studies at four different inlet flow ve-
locities it can be observed that the drag coefficient decreases with the
increase in the flow velocity and is minimum for V = 40 m/s for all the
deflector angles considered whereas the lift coefficient showed a varied
response.
5.2. Flow structure
Flow in the symmetry plane shows a pair of vortices rotating in the
opposite direction at the rear portion of the vehicle. The size of these
two vortices depends up on the type of the vehicle. If any how the size of
the upper vortex is increased it dominates the effect of the longitudinally
trailing vortices. In our case when 𝜃 = −25° it is apparent (Figs. 13 and
14) that the size of the upper vortex is smaller in size when compared
to the lower vortex. This lower vortex is considered as the one of the
major contributors to the coefficient of drag.
When the angle of the deflector is increased the size of the upper
vortex also gets increased as shown in Fig. 13(a)–(d). This is due to
the increased separation of flow caused by the deflector which is as
discussed in the previous section. The net effect of the increase in the
size of both the vortices leads to the increase in the drag coefficient.
But beyond 𝜃 = 0° the size of the upper vortex becomes so large that
it comes in to contact with two counter rotating longitudinal trailing
708
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711
vortices and the net effect is that a sudden decrease in the coefficient of
drag is observed which has already been reported in Figs. 7, 9 and 11.
On further increasing the deflector angle beyond 𝜃 = 5° the upper
vortex shows a negligible increase in its size while the size of the lower
vortex goes on increasing with the increase in the deflector angle as
shown in Figs. 13(e),(f) and 14. Due to this, again an increase in the
coefficient of drag is observed and can be seen in the Figs. 7, 9 and 11.
Thus at these inclinations deflector itself becomes a cause for increasing
the coefficient of drag. When the angle of deflector is increased beyond
𝜃 = 60° (not shown in figure) the size of both the vortices remains almost
constant and the corresponding value of coefficient of drag also tends
to be constant and hence the study of flow beyond this inclination is
immaterial.
5.3. Wake zone
The inclination of deflector has also a great effect on the wake be-
hind the Ahmed body. Fig. 15 shows the comparison of the contours of
the normalized velocity magnitude in the transversal plane at 0.22 mm
downstream of model, when viewed from the downstream direction.
This comparison has been made with the already reported normalized
velocity contours in the literature [51].
It can be observed that longitudinal vortices (shown on the left side
of the plane in Fig. 14(a)) are coherent in nature for 𝜃 = −25°. These
A. Raina et al.
Fig. 15. A comparison of simulated and experimental [51] normalized velocity magnitude fields in the transversal plane at 0.22 m downstream of the Ahmed model.
vortices become less coherent as the angle of deflector is increased from
𝜃 = −25° to 𝜃 = 0°. On the other hand when we consider the effect of
velocity loss caused due to the presence of model, this produces a main
wake behind the model at the central portion (which is shown on the
right side of the plane in Fig. 15(a). For 𝜃 = −25°, this wake produced
by the standing vortices is at a certain distance from the coherent lon-
gitudinal vortices i.e. they can be considered as two different shapes.
On increasing the angle of the deflector, the distance between these two
shapes, longitudinal vortex and the standing vortices produced by the
body goes on decreasing, due to the increase in the main wake produced
709
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711
by the standing vortices. The reason for this increase in size of the main
wake has been discussed in previous case.
Beyond 𝜃 = 0° the longitudinal vortices and the standing vortices pro-
duced by Ahmed body seems to merge in to each other. At this inclina-
tion the coefficient of drag is minimum as compared to the rest of the
cases. This is due to the fact that growth and widening on the main
wake caused by the standing vortices behind the Ahmed body disrupt
the development of the longitudinal counter rotating vortices on the side
edges of the rear window. This ultimately leads to the weakening of the
contribution caused to the drag coefficient by longitudinal vortices.
A. Raina et al.
Fig. 16. Normalized velocity magnitude fields in a transversal plane at 0.22 m downstream of the Ahmed model.
On further increasing the angle beyond 𝜃 = 5° (as shown in
Figs. 15 (e),(f) and 16), the main wake becomes wider and wider. This
behavior is due to the increased flow separation with the increased de-
flector angle. Then the effect caused by the longitudinal vortices is com-
pletely reduced by the separated flow and the increased size of the lower
vortex becomes a cause for the increase in the coefficient of drag.
Normalized velocity magnitude fields obtained by simulation (as
shown in Fig. 15) for varying deflector angles when compared with those
measured by the experimental values of [51] are in agreement with each
other. Also a good correlation between simulated and experimental val-
ues of drag and lift coefficient values was obtained as shown in Figs. 7–
10 for two inlet flow velocities. Based on the different errors associated
with the experimentation process, a slight departure from the expected
values has been observed. Nevertheless, the use of different turbulence
models finds a variety of applications both in case of internal as well as
external flows.
6. Conclusion
Simulations are performed for a series of inlet flow velocities corre-
sponding to the different set of the varying deflector angles from −25° to
60°. It is observed that the drag coefficient decreases with the increase
in the flow velocity and is minimum for V = 40 m/s for all the deflector
angles considered, whereas the lift coefficient showed a mixed response
i.e. there is a very slight increase or decrease in the value of lift for a
particular angle of deflector at different inlet flow velocities considered
in this study.
The normalized velocity magnitudes are also observed in order to
study the flow pattern at the transversal plane 0.22 m downstream of
the Ahmed model and it can be revealed that the wake behind the body
becomes less coherent with the increase in deflector angle. At 𝜃 = 5°
this wake comes in to contact with counter rotating longitudinal trail-
ing vortices, thus reducing the coefficient of drag. At this inclination of
deflector a 7% decrease in the drag coefficient has been observed with
respect to the case when there is no deflector. On further increasing the
angle of deflector the wake caused by the separation becomes predom-
inant and it ultimately leads to the increase in the coefficient of drag
once again.
710
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Director NIT Srinagar for the valuable sup-
port throughout the course of work.
References
[1] Mohamed-Kassim Z, Filippone A. Fuel savings on a heavy vehicle via aerodynamic
drag reduction. Transportation Res Part D 2010;15:275–84.
[2] Chadwick A, Garry K, Howell J. Transient aerodynamic characteristics of simple
vehicle shapes by the measurement of surface pressures. In: SAE technical paper;
2000. p. 1–6.
[3] Minguez M, Pasquetti R, Serre E. High-order large-eddy simulation of flow over the
“Ahmed body” car model. Phys Fluids 2008;20:095101.
[4] Guilmineau E, Chometon F. Numerical and experimental analysis of unsteady sepa-
rated flow behind an oscillating car model. In: SAE technical paper; 2008. p. 1–8.
[5] Ahmed S, Ramm G, Faltin G. Some salient features of the time-averaged ground
vehicle wake. SAE technical paper; 1984.
[6] Gilliéron P, Kourta A. Aerodynamic drag control by pulsed jets on simplified car
geometry. Experiments Fluids 2013;54:1–16.
[7] Thacker A, Aubrun S, Leroy A, Devinant P. Experimental characterization of flow
unsteadiness in the centerline plane of an Ahmed body rear slant. Experiments Fluids
2013;54:1–16.
[8] Serre E, Minguez M, Pasquetti R, Guilmineau E, Deng GB, Kornhaas M, et al. On sim-
ulating the turbulent flow around the Ahmed body: a French–German collaborative
evaluation of LES and DES. Comput Fluids 2013;78:10–23.
[9] Lahaye A, Leroy A, Kourta A. Aerodynamic characterisation of a square back bluff
body flow. Int J Aerodynamics 2014;4:43–60.
[10] Venning J, Jacono DL, Burton D, Thompson M, Sheridan J. The effect of aspect ratio
on the wake of the Ahmed body. Experiments Fluids 2015;56:1–11.
[11] Metka M, Gregory JW. Drag reduction on the 25-deg Ahmed model using fluidic
oscillators. J Fluids Eng 2015;137:051108.
[12] Roumeas M, Gilliéron P, Kourta A. Analysis and control of the near-wake flow over
a square-back geometry. Comput Fluids 2009;38:60–70.
[13] Lienhart H, Stoots C, Becker S. Flow and turbulence structures in the wake of a
simplified car model (Ahmed modell). In: New results in numerical and experimental
fluid mechanics III: Springer; 2002. p. 323–30.
[14] Tunay T, Sahin B, Ozbolat V. Effects of rear slant angles on the flow characteristics
of Ahmed body. Experimental Therm Fluid Sci 2014;57:165–76.
[15] Conan B, Anthoine J, Planquart P. Experimental aerodynamic study of a car-type
bluff body. Experiments Fluids 2011;50:1273–84.
[16] Barbut D, Negrus EM. CFD analysis for road vehicles-case study. Incas Bull.
2011;3:15–22.
[17] X-x Hu, T Wong. A numerical study on rear-spoiler of passenger vehicle. World
academy of science, engineering and technology; 2011.
[18] Al-Garni AM, Bernal LP. Experimental study of a pickup truck near wake. J Wind
Eng Ind Aerodynamics 2010;98:100–12.
A. Raina et al.
[19] Guilmineau E. Computational study of flow around a simplified car body. J Wind
Eng Ind Aerodynamics. 2008;96:1207–17.
[20] X-n QI, Y-q LIU, G-s DU. Experimental and numerical studies of aerodynamic per-
formance of trucks. J Hydrodynamics, Ser B 2011;23:752–8.
[21] Sanchez Martinez J. Numerical study on aerodynamic drag reduction of passenger
cars; 2015.
[22] Taherkhani AR. Computational fluid dynamics based optimisation of emergency re-
sponse vehicles. University of Leeds; 2015. p. 1–9.
[23] Bruneau C-H, Creusé E, Depeyras D, Gilliéron P, Mortazavi I. Active and passive flow
control around simplified ground vehicles. J Appl Fluid Mech 2012;5:89–93.
[24] Ha J, Jeong S, Obayashi S. Drag reduction of a pickup truck by a rear downward
flap. Int J Automot Technol 2011;12:369–74.
[25] Mazellier N, Feuvrier A, Kourta A. Biomimetic bluff body drag reduction by self-
-adaptive porous flaps. Comptes Rendus Mecanique 2012;340:81–94.
[26] Hsu F-H, Davis RL. Drag reduction of tractor-trailers using optimized add-on devices.
J Fluids Eng 2010;132:084504.
[27] Altaf A, Omar AA, Asrar W. Passive drag reduction of square back road vehicles. J
Wind Eng Ind Aerodynamics 2014;134:30–43.
[28] Ankush Raina GAH. Aerodynamic drag reduction by passive flow control. In: The
indian society of theoretical and applied mechanics (An international conference):
IIT; 2015. p. 1–10.
[29] Aider J-L, Beaudoin J-F, Wesfreid JE. Drag and lift reduction of a 3D bluff-body
using active vortex generators. Experiments Fluids 2010;48:771–89.
[30] Rohatgi US. Methods of reducing vehicle aerodynamic drag. In: ASME 2012 summer
heat transfer conference: Citeseer; 2012. p. 8–12.
[31] Kumar CR, Reddy AK. Study of aerodynamic drag reduction using Vortex generators.
Int J Adv Eng Sci Technol 2011;10:181–3.
[32] Cui W, Zhu H, Xia C, Yang Z. Comparison of steady blowing and synthetic jets for
aerodynamic drag reduction of a simplified vehicle. Procedia Eng 2015;126:388–92.
[33] Wieser D, Nayeri C, Paschereit CO. Experiments with Vortex generators applied to a
Notchback car model. In: 53rd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, AIAA science and
technology forum; 2015. p. 1–7.
[34] Koike M, Nagayoshi T, Hamamoto N. Research on aerodynamic drag reduction by
vortex generators. In: Mitshubishi motors technical review; 2004. p. 1–8.
[35] Sujith KS, Reddy GR. CFD analysis of sedan car with vortex generators. Int J Mech
Eng Appl Res–IJMEAR 2012;03:179–84.
[36] Gilliéron P, Kourta A. Aerodynamic drag reduction by vertical splitter plates. Exper-
iments Fluids 2010;48:1–16.
[37] Raju DKM, Tech M, Reddy GJ. A conceptual design of wind friction reduction at-
tachments to the rear portion of a car for better fuel economy at high speeds. Int J
Eng Sci Technol 2012;4:2366–72.
[38] Wahba E, Al-Marzooqi H, Shaath M, Shahin M, El-Dhmashawy T. Aerodynamic drag
reduction for ground vehicles using lateral guide vanes. CFD Lett 2012;4:68–79.
[39] Strachan R, Knowles K, Lawson N. The vortex structure behind an Ahmed ref-
erence model in the presence of a moving ground plane. Experiments Fluids
2007;42:659–69.
711
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 701–711
[40] X-w Song, G-g Zhang, Wang Y, Hu S-g. Use of bionic inspired surfaces for aero-
dynamic drag reduction on motor vehicle body panels. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A
2011;12:543–51.
[41] Bruneau C-H, Creusé E, Gilliéron P, Mortazavi I. Effect of the vortex dynamics on
the drag coefficient of a square back Ahmed body: application to the flow control.
Eur J Mech-B/Fluids 2014;45:1–11.
[42] Krajnović S. Large eddy simulation exploration of passive flow control around an
ahmed body. J Fluids Eng. 2014;136:121103.
[43] Han X, Krajnović S, Bruneau C-H, Mortazavi I. Comparison of URANS, PANS, LES
and DNS of flows around simplified ground vehicles with passive flow manipulation.
In: Direct and large-eddy simulation iX. Springer; 2015. p. 57–63.
[44] Martín-Alcántara A, Sanmiguel-Rojas E, Gutiérrez-Montes C, Martínez-Bazán C. Drag
reduction induced by the addition of a multi-cavity at the base of a bluff body. J
Fluids Struct 2014;48:347–61.
[45] McNally JW, Alvi FS, Mazellier N, Kourta A. Active flow control on an Ahmed
body-An experimental study. In: 53rd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting; 2015.
p. 0825.
[46] Howell J, Sheppard A, Blakemore A. Aerodynamic drag reduction for a simple bluff
body using base bleed. SAE technical paper; 2003.
[47] Khalighi B, Chen K-H, Iaccarino G. Unsteady aerodynamic flow investigation around
a simplified square-back road vehicle with drag reduction devices. J Fluids Eng
2012;134:061101.
[48] Cary WK, Landman D, Wood R. Experimental investigation of Wake boards for drag
reduction on an Ahmed body. SAE technical paper; 2006.
[49] Metka ML. Application of fluidic oscillator separation control to a Square-back ve-
hicle model. The Ohio State University; 2015.
[50] Kourta A, Thacker A, Joussot R. Analysis and characterization of ramp flow separa-
tion. Experiments Fluids 2015;56:1–14.
[51] Fourrié G, Keirsbulck L, Labraga L, Gilliéron P. Bluff-body drag reduction using a
deflector. Experiments Fluids 2011;50:385–95.
[52] Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applica-
tions. AIAA J 1994;32:1598–605.
[53] Wilcox DC. Multiscale model for turbulent flows. AIAA J 1988;26:1311–20.
[54] Menter FR. Performance of popular turbulence model for attached and separated
adverse pressure gradient flows. AIAA J 1992;30:2066–72.
[55] Menter FR. Zonal two equation k-turbulence models for aerodynamic flows. AIAA
Paper. 1993;2906:1993.
[56] Moshfeghi M, Song YJ, Xie YH. Effects of near-wall grid spacing on SST-K-𝜔 model
using NREL Phase VI horizontal axis wind turbine. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodynamics
2012;107:94–105.
[57] Schoenawa S, Hartmann R. Discontinuous Galerkin discretization of the Reynold-
s-averaged Navier–Stokes equations with the shear-stress transport model. J Comput
Phys 2014;262:194–216.
[58] Eça L, Hoekstra M. Numerical aspects of including wall roughness effects in the SST
k–𝜔 eddy-viscosity turbulence model. Comput Fluids 2011;40:299–314.
[59] Knopp T, Eisfeld B, Calvo JB. A new extension for k–𝜔 turbulence models to account
for wall roughness. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2009;30:54–65.