MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1862917528 · doi:10.4271/2009-01-0777

The Effects of Detailed Tire Geometry on Automobile Aerodynamics - a CFD Correlation Study in Static Conditions

2009· article· en· W1862917528 on OpenAlexaff
Todd H. Lounsberry, Mark Gleason, Satheesh Kandasamy, Khaled Sbeih, Richa Mann, Bradley D. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Mechanical Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerodynamicsComputational fluid dynamicsAerospace engineeringMechanicsGeometryEngineeringPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A correlation study was performed between static wind tunnel testing and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for a small hatchback vehicle, with the intent of evaluating a variety of different wheel and tire designs for aerodynamic forces. This was the first step of a broader study to develop a tool for assessing wheel and tire designs with real world (rolling road) conditions. It was discovered that better correlation could be achieved when actual tire scan data was used versus traditional smooth (CAD) tire geometry. This paper details the process involved in achieving the best correlation of the CFD prediction with experimental results, and describes the steps taken to include the most accurate geometry possible, including photogrammetry scans of an actual tire that was tested, and the level of meshing detail utilized to capture the fluid effects of the tire detail. The effects of this scanned tire geometry were significant, and improved the results for drag, lift, and the cooling drag for the vehicle relative to experimental full scale testing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Mechanical SystemsSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207