Aerodynamic Modelling and Testing of Helmets

Author(s)

Saqib Ali 15-ME-66

Waleed Ikram 15-ME-88
Hamza Pervez 15-ME-91
Sohaib-ur-Rehman 15-ME-99

Advisor
Dr. Muhammad Shehryar
Associate Professor

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL & AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
TAXILA
Jan Year
 Aerodynamic Modelling and Testing of Helmets

Author(s)

Saqib Ali 15-ME-66

Waleed Ikram 15-ME-88
Hamza Pervez 15-ME-91
Sohaib-ur-Rehman 15-ME-99
A Final year project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

B.Sc. Mechanical Engineering

Project Advisor:
Dr. Muhammad Shehryar
Associate Professor

Neutral Examiner Signature:

Project Advisor Signature:

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF MECHANICAL & AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY TAXILA
Jan 2019

ii
 Abstract

Aerodynamic Modelling and Testing of Helmets

The CFD analysis of multiple helmets available at the local market has been performed

on the ANSYS fluent. So, drag coefficient and the respective drag forces on them at

different air velocities can be calculated. The results later for the simulations being

performed numerically on ANSYS will be cross-examined on wind tunnel apparatus

experimentally. So, a level of conformity can be achieved. And once the validation

process is completed then as much simulations as we can on different conditions can be

done. Experimental cost of wind tunnel and time can be saved. In the end after changing

the overall profile of the helmets and by making them close to the streamline shape, will

be able to reduce drag.

Keywords: Fluent flow, Lift and Drag Coefficient, Experimental testing, Numerical

analysis.

iii
 UNDERTAKING

WE certify that final year project titled “Aerodynamic Modeling and Testing of Helmets”

is our own work. The work has not been presented elsewhere for assessment. Where

material has been used from other sources it has been properly acknowledged / referred.

Saqib Ali Waleed Ikram

15-ME-66 15-ME-88

Hamza Pervez Sohaib-ur-Rehman

15-ME-91 15-ME-99

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research would not have been possible without the academic and research support
received from University of Engineering & Technology, Taxila, Pakistan

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ............................................................................................... ………...iii

Undertaking ......................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. v

List of Figures ...................................................................................................viii

List of Tables ....................................................................................................... ix

Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... x

Chapter I: Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Objectives ................................................................................................. 1

1.2 CFD Introduction ..................................................................................... 1

1.3 Aim ........................................................................................................... 2

Chapter II: Literature Review…………………………………… ..................... 3

2.1 Importance .............................................................................................. 3

2.2 Aerodynamic Study of Time Trial helmets CFD Analysis ................... 3

2.3 Aerodynamic Study of Ribbed Bicycle Racing Helmet ....................... 4

2.4 Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of Motor Cycle Helmet ................. 5

2.5 Tail plates CFD simulation for Drag Reduction .................................. 6

Chapter III: Methodology…………………………………… ........................... 7

3.1 CAD Modeling......................................................................................... 7

3.2 Design of Models ..................................................................................... 9

3.2 Nature of case......................................................................................... 10

3.4 Selection Criteria of Steady and Transient state .................................... 11

3.5 Domain Criteria...................................................................................... 11

vi
 3.6 Mesh Generation .................................................................................... 13

3.7 Setup Model ........................................................................................... 14

3.8 Near-Wall Treatment ............................................................................. 14

3.9 Velocity Contours .................................................................................. 14

3.10 Simulation Results ............................................................................... 16

3.11 Wind Tunnel Test ................................................................................ 17

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................. 19

REFERENCES................................................................................................... 20

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 1: Air Flows around Aerofoil ......................................................................1

Fig 2: Helmet Models........................................................................................2

Fig 3: Point Edge on Back ................................................................................5

Fig 4: Solid Works model of passenger car.......................................................6

Fig 5: Dimensions of model 1 ...........................................................................7

Fig 6: Dimensions of model 2 ...........................................................................8

Fig 7: Dimensions of model 3 ...........................................................................8

Fig 8: Model 1 ..................................................................................................9

Fig 9: Model 2 ...................................................................................................9

Fig 10: Model 3 .................................................................................................9

Fig 11: Projected Areas ....................................................................................10

Fig 12: Laminar vs. Turbulent..........................................................................10

Fig 13: Domain Criteria ...................................................................................12

Fig 14: Mess around domain ............................................................................13

Fig 15: Velocity Contours ................................................................................15

Fig 16: Velocity Vectors……………………………………………………...15

Fig 17: 45 km/hr. Graph ...................................................................................16

Fig 18: 60 km/hr. Graph ...................................................................................17

Fig 19: 45 km/hr. Graph ...................................................................................17

Fig 20: Wind Tunnel Schematic ......................................................................18

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Frontal Area of Helmets……………………………………………4

Table 2: Boundary Conditions……………………………………………..12

Table 3: Mesh Specifications……………………………………………....13

Table 4: Simulation Values………...………………………………………16

ix
 ABBREVIATIONS

CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics

Cd: Drag force coefficient

CL: Lift force coefficient

Fd: Drag Force

FYP: Final year project

x
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objective:

Reducing drag force acting on helmet will be area of interest. For this purpose, firstly drag

and lift coefficient of existing helmet models will be found both experimentally and

numerically. Numerically using ANSYS Fluent and experimentally by using Wind Tunnel

Apparatus. Lift force is not much of concern in this case.

1.2 CFD Introduction:

Computational Fluid Dynamics is a numerical approach to solve complex problems by

using a set of physical and mathematical techniques to solve the real time problems by

simulating them numerically in order to save time and cost.

1.2.1: Aerofoil Example:

The case of our helmets is a typical analogy of a simple aerofoil which when placed

against a fluid experiences a drag which is similar to what is experienced by the helmets

when a biker rides.

Figure 1: Air flows around aerofoil [6]

1
1.3 Aim:

The aim of project here is to first determine the drag being experienced by the available

helmet designs. Once the drag values will be obtained via ANSYS FLUENT. Results will

be validated via wind tunnel. Once approach will be certain then same approach will be

used in the calculation of drags on other helmets with some modified features including the

frontal areas and the profiles close to that of the streamline.

Fig 2: Helmet models

2
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Importance:

Literature review purpose is to put each work/research in the context of its contribution

to understand research problems thoroughly that is being studied.

Lot of work have already been done to study aerodynamic behavior of different helmets

and methods proposed of reducing drag acting on them. In the upcoming section we

will be reviewing some of the work that have been done.

2.2 Aerodynamic Study of Time Trial Helmets CFD Analysis:

2.2.1 Introduction:

Three-time trial helmets for cycling racing are numerically analyzed by using ANSYS

CFD on different head positions of two cyclists. This method is used to study pattern

of air flow without wind at a constant velocity of 15m/s.

2.2.2 Methodology:

Three different types of helmets were selected to analyze aerodynamic behavior, one

helmet was having two lines at its tail section and surface was smooth, second helmet

design was standard tear drop, while third one was semi-spherical to analyze its

behavior.

2.2.3 Results:

By varying positions of head and cyclist frontal area, aerodynamic performance of

helmet is greatly affected. It is being observed at head down position, helmet 2 has

worst position because 6.4% frontal area is decreased as compared to head up position.

Good aerodynamic performance is shown by helmet 1 and 3.[1]

3
2.3 Aerodynamic study of ribbed bicycle racing helmets:

2.3.1 Introduction:

Considerable efforts have been done to improve the aerodynamic behavior of bicycle

racing helmets over the time. Further manufacturers and designers are pushed for

improvement demand to innovate new designs. Outer shell dimples like Golf ball is

introduced to reduce drag being studied.

2.3.2 Methodology:

Wind tunnel apparatus is used for analyzing drag coefficient of 6 helmets, 4 of them

are time-trial and 2 are road cycling helmets. Out of these 4-time trial helmets, two are

provided with dimples on its outer shell to analyze. Frontal area of these 6 helmets are

shown in table.

Table 1: Frontal area of Helmets [2]

Helmet Frontal Area (m^2)

Advantage 0.0686

Rocket 0.0748

Tardiz 0.0711

Vorticce 0.0723

Attack 0.0692

O2 0.0736

2.3.3 Results:

It is observed that by providing dimples on helmets, no significant effect on the drag

coefficient of helmet is produced. A vital role is played by frontal area of helmet as it

generates significant pressure drag. It is also observed that dimples provided on outer

4
 shell of Vorticce helmet, better aerodynamic performance is provided but due to large

frontal area considerable drag is produced. [2]

2.4 Aerodynamic design and Analysis of Motor Cycle Helmet:

2.4.1 Introduction:

Theoretical analysis has been done to observe drag and lift forces acting on bicycle

helmet with anti-glare visor. The back portion of rider neck is pressed by drag pressure

acting on helmet. Pro-E is used to design new helmet shape for analysis.

2.4.2 Methodology:

New streamlined aero foil shape of spherical helmet model is re-designed. Redesigned

model of the helmet while considering the aerodynamic behavior is represented below

in figure. Pointy edge is provided at the back surface of helmet so the flow of air

through it will be considered as streamlined. Modification is done to reduce drag acting

on it.

Fig 3: Point edge on back [3]

2.4.3 Results:

The results are indicated that streamline shape helmet is having low drag pressure as

compared to simple helmet. Pain in neck of rider for travelling is reduced by it. The

visor helmet portion is polymer coated and the refractive index is reduced.[3]

5
 2.5 Tail plates CFD simulation for drag reduction:

2.5.1 Introduction:

Numerical method CFD analysis is employed to obtain structure of flow around

passenger car using tail plates. ANSYS-14.0. FLUENT is used for constructing test

vehicle which is the CFD solver and is being employed in the present work. Numerical

iterations in this study are completed, Visualization of aerodynamic data can be

observed.

2.5.2 Methodology:

Passenger model car is first designed in Solid Works, evaluation of aerodynamic

behavior is done on ANSYS FLUENT. Air flow if get complex over body becomes

turbulent and it will not be solvable. In this model k-epsilon turbulence model with

non-equilibrium wall function is used to analyze.

Fig 4: Solid works model of passenger car [4]

2.5.3 Results:

Tail plates are provided on the rear bumper and on the rear side roof on base line car

with 12 degrees inclination. Drag Coefficient is 0.3376 and 0.1926 is coefficient of lift.

3.87% drag coefficient reduction in comparison of base line of coefficient of lift is

16.62%. Both drag and lift forces is observed to be reduced in proportion.[4]

6
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY
3.1 CAD MODELLING:
Dimensioning of helmet model was done by using Thermo-coil. By placing helmet on

thermos-coil, height, length and curvature radiuses were noted down with help of strings.

By taking reference plane same model was replicated on the cad software. Helmet was

made solid body so that air couldn’t pass through it. Later Simulation was performed on

ANSYS Fluent.

Fig 5: Dimensions of Model 1

7
Fig 6: Dimensions of Model 2

Fig 7: Dimensions of Model 3

8
3.2 Design of Models:

Total of 4 existing helmets design were selected from market and then it was being

modelled on SolidWorks 2016. Dimensioning was done by measuring curvature radiuses,

height, and all relevant dimensions.

Fig 8: Model 1 Fig 9: Model 2

Fig 10: Model 3

3.2.1: Projected Area:

It is area which resists fluid motion, its frontal area which is required in ANSYS

simulation. It was calculated by projecting area by taking another plane

9
 Fig 11: Projected Areas

3.3 Nature of Case:

The first thing that must be taken into consideration is whether the flow is Laminar or

Turbulent.

3.3.1 Laminar Flow:

In laminar flow, between two streamlines there is no transfer of mass and momentum. It

is flow in which fluid layers move smoothly past each other.

3.1.2 Turbulent Flow:

It is irregular flow in which fluid undergoes fluctuations; fluid speed is changing at every

moment.

Fig 12: Laminar vs. Turbulent [6]

10
3.4 Selection Criteria for Steady or Transient State:

Selection of steady or transient state depends on quality required to be achieved. Steady

state simulation ignores time factors of higher order while transient state has all these

terms in simulation. Easy convergence criteria for steady state was obtained because there

are less iterations to y.

Steady state simulation saves our time but that results cannot be taken into considerations

while making decisions as it do not involve time terms. Simulations in Transient state

were performed as it is more accurate.

3.5 Domain Criteria:

Different zones are formed on the surface when layer of fluid strikes on helmet surface.

1. Viscous sub-layer (where fluid velocity is almost negligible)

2. Buffer zone (fluid velocity is small but higher as compared to previous case, and flow

of fluid is linear)

3. Log low zone (less resistance as compared to above two cases, higher fluid velocity)

4. Free Stream Velocity (It is independent of bounding surface, where viscosity effect is

negligible)

So, a domain criterion was selected at which Free Stream Velocity zone could be

achieved, so we can study each characteristic of flow. Accurate results can be achieved

by choosing such domain criteria.

11
 Fig 13: Domain Criteria

Table 2: Boundary Conditions

Inlet Velocity 60km/hr

Pressure at the outlet 0

Area against drag 0.046540

Fluid flow direction -ve z direction

Density 1.225kg/m3

Fluid Air

12
3.6 Mesh Generation:

Fine meshes to achieve accurate results were created. To study each cell, structural

meshing on helmet were done. A Complex geometry was considered to select cut cell in

assembly meshing. So, mesh generated on helmet will be in proper order.

Fig 14: Mesh around Domain

Table 3: Mesh Specifications

Solver preference Fluent

Use advanced size function Proximity and curvature

Relevance center Fine

Smoothing High

Assembly Meshing Cut Cell

Use Automatic Inflation Programmed controlled

No. of nodes 264044

No. of elements 236357

13
3.7 Setup Model:

3.7.1 K-epsilon (2 equation):

In k-epsilon model, only log low region values were calculated and all other values were

assumed for viscous sub layer and buffer zone. As convergence rate was quite good in that

case so only low memory condition was required. It is only preferable when external flows

are studied, around complex geometries.

K-epsilon model was selected as exterior flow around complex geometry was to be studied.

3.8 Near-Wall Treatment:

In near-wall treatment, Non-Equilibrium Wall Function was selected because it was less

costly and consumed less time as compared to Enhanced Wall Treatment. So, it was more

suitable to use Non-Equilibrium Wall Function. However, if more accurate result was

required then we must have had to prefer Enhanced-Wall Treatment.

In Enhanced-Wall Treatment, it calculated values of drag coefficient for all zones (viscous

sub layer, buffer zone and log-low zone) but in Non-Equilibrium only values for log-low

region was calculated and all other values were assumed. So, time was saved and memory

requirements were reduced.

3.9 Velocity Contours:

After setting the conditons, the simulation were run and following contours were achieved

and are shown below:

14
 Fig 15: Velocity contours

Fig 16: Velocity Vectors

Stagnation point is on the leading edge where the flow velocity is zero. On the upper

surface of the helmet the fluid accelerates while on the lower surface of the helmet the flow

velocity decreases. With the help of CFD (Fluent) successful analysis of the aerodynamic

15
performance of the helmet has been carried out using K-epsilon turbulence model.

3.10 Simulation Results:

Simulation is performed at different fluid velocities their results are shown belo

At 45km/hr: (Convergence Criteria is 10^-3):

Table 4: Simulation Values

Convergence Speed (km/h) Drag Cofficient Drag Force (N)

Criteria (Cd)

10-3 45 1.77E-01 1.348178

10-3 60 1.88E-01 1.908203

10-5 45 2.43E-01 8.20E-02

Drag Force vs Cd
2.50E-01

2.00E-01

1.50E-01
Cd

1.00E-01

5.00E-02

0.00E+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Drag Force

Fig 17: 45 km/hr (10-3)

16
 Drag Force vs Cd
2.50E-01

2.00E-01

1.50E-01
Cd

1.00E-01

5.00E-02

0.00E+00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Drag Force

Fig 18: 60 km/hr (10-5)

Drag Force vs Cd
9.00E-02
8.00E-02
7.00E-02
6.00E-02
Cd

5.00E-02
4.00E-02
3.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.00E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 2.00E-01 2.50E-01 3.00E-01
Drag Force

Fig 19: 45 km/hr (10-5)

3.11 Wind Tunnel Work:

3.11.1 Wind tunnel:

A wind tunnel test will be conducted now in next approach to validate the existing

simulation results that were obtained via ANSYS FLUENT and for that purpose, 3-D
17
printing of our designs will be done after scaling them according to the testing area. Then

the values of drag will be cross-examined. The picture below is just a mere demonstration

of the wind tunnel testing.

Fig 20: Wind Tunnel Schematic [5]

Useful Formulae:

L
Coefficient of Lift, CL =
(0.5 ∗ ρ ∗ V 2∗ A)

D
Coefficient of Drag CD =
(0.5 ∗ ρ ∗ V 2 ∗ A)

PT − PW
Coefficient of Pressure, CP =
(0.5 ∗ ρ ∗ V 2 ∗ A)

Coefficient of drag, lift and pressure instead of their forces were measured due to the effect

that value of coefficient is not specified to any particular shape of the object rather it can be

used with any object having its own area.

Values of coefficient can be applied to wide range of conditions if the forces are measured.

Then air density and speed for each angle of attack will be calculated and more

cumbersome although the value of coefficient can be converted into the respective forces

by using formulae.

18
 CONCLUSION

It is concluded that drag force acting on the body depends on the sum of the factor.

Among them most important are velocity of fluid and frontal area, which opposes the air

flow past the body. It is being observed that at higher velocity helmet experiences higher

drag force when compared to low velocities. It is also observed that head position has

significant effect on drag produced. By varying head positions, frontal area is changed

which effects amount of drag experienced. Understanding developed that by changing the

profile of helmet close to a streamline, air flow past helmet model can be considered

Laminar which reduces drag.

19
 REFERENCES

1. Beaumont, F., et al., Aerodynamic study of time-trial helmets in cycling racing

using CFD analysis. Journal of Biomechanics, 2018. 67: p. 1-8.

2. Alam, F., et al., Aerodynamics of Ribbed Bicycle Racing Helmets. Procedia

Engineering, 2014. 72: p. 691-696.

3. Gandhi, V.S., et al., An Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of Motor Cycle Helmet
with Anti-Glare Visor. 2014. 8(3): p. 628-631.

4. Sharma, R., R.J.I.J.o.M. Bansal, and C. Engineering, CFD simulation for flow over
passenger car using tail plates for aerodynamic drag reduction. 2013. 7(5): p. 28-
35.

5. Kalagobe, T., Wind Tunnel Testing of a NACA0012 Aerofoil. 2017.

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow#/media/File:Laminar_flow_profile.gif

20
21
22
23