`Motivation:
We need data on the best canopy shape for MS16
Task Description:
Experiment with different Canopy designs in SolidWorks and validate these designs using SimScale.
Requirements/goals:
Length/Width/Height/Point of max frontal area should be kept constant across different canopy shapes.
CFD sim conditions must be kept constant across different iterations.
Fixed dimensions:
Canopy Length: 1.85m
Canopy Height: 0.35m
Canopy Width: 0.6m
Point of max width and height (max frontal area): 900-1100 m from the front of the canopy
15mm fillet radius on the back
CFD conditions:
Minimum Box Values | Maximum Box Values |
|---|---|
X min: 0 | X max: 5m |
Y min: 0 | Y max: 4m |
Z min: -15 | Z max: 7.5 |
Boundary conditions:
Slip wall on top and outer side faces
No-slip wall on bottom face
Symmetry on inner side face
Pressure outlet on rear face
Velocity inlet on front face @ -20 m/s
Resultant CD (of the benchmark sim): 0.07, total drag force: 1.32 N
Message Liam (liam.ramlogan@uwaterloo.ca) for access to the sim
Strategy:
Refer to previous canopy shape research for inspirations on your designs.
https://uwmidsun.atlassian.net/wiki/x/PICOsQ
Canopy design log:
Version | Pictures | Descriptions/Notes | Sim Results |
|---|---|---|---|
Can 1 (Ryan) |   | FA = 0.15m^2 Initial/base draft (Ryan) | Cd = 0.0612 Fd = 1.098 |
Bullet v1 (Gavin) |  | FA = 0.1458 m^2 Initial Bullet design
| Cd = 0.0701 Fd = 1.222 |
Can 2 (Ryan) |   | FA = 0.147m^2 Shrank down front (this was a mistake don’t do that) Shrank down tail on the side profile | Cd = 0.0706 Fd = 1.266 |
Teardrop v1 |  | FA = 0.1365 m^2 Base teardrop canopy | Cd = 0.0666 Fd = 1.088 |
Drop 3 |   | FA = 0.13 m^2 Shrink down tail side profile to reduce low pressure drag Shrink frontal Area | Cd = 0.066 Fd = 1.036 |
Drop 4 |   | FA = 0.136 m^2 experiment with rounding out front side profile to give a more “airfoil”-y shape? definitely worse | Cd = 0.072 Fd = 1.173 |
Teardrop v3 |  | FA = 0.166 m^2 Bottom profile made a little straighter, especially near front of canopy | Cd = 0.0668 Fd = 1.328 |
Teardrop v3.5 |  | FA = 0.166 m^2 Same canopy as v3, except straightened side profile at the back Performed slightly worse - we can assume that a straight profile will not perform as well (tested in v5.5 - 5.6 as well) | Cd = 0.0669 Fd = 1.330 |
Teardrop v4 |  | FA = 0.1478 Flatter side profile , performed much worse than something slightly rounder like v3 | Cd = 0.0735 Fd = 1.300 |
Teardrop v4.5 |  | FA = 0.1478 Rounded the side profile and bottom profile out at the front | Cd = 0.0650 Fd = 1.150 |
Teardrop v5 |  | FA = 0.1478 Rounded side profile more | Cd = 0.0649 Fd = 1.147 |
Teardrop v5.5 |  | FA = 0.1410 Slightly straighter side profile in back half Very low FA | Cd = 0.0639 Fd = 1.078 |
Teardrop v5.6 |  | FA = 0.1410 Only change from 5.5 is a very straight back profile, which again did not perform as well | Cd = 0.0667 Fd = 1.126 |
Consider Manufacturability
Keep frontal areas the same- less variation in results
Meeting with interiors for canopy integration
