Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2000-01-0354

Selecting Automotive Diffusers to

Maximise Underbody Downforce
Kevin R. Cooper and J. Syms
National Research Council of Canada

G. Sovran
GM Research, retired

Reprinted From: Vehicle Aerodynamics

(SP1524)

SAE 2000 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 6-9, 2000

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017
Selecting Automotive Diffusers to
Maximise Underbody Downforce
Copyright 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
Underbody diffusers are used on racing cars to generate
large downforce that will permit them to achieve reduced
lap times through aerodynamically-enhanced traction.
Both the configuration of these cars and their underbody
flows are complex, so the design of optimum underbody
geometries is a formidable task. The objective of the
present study is to generate data and understanding that
will facilitate design through knowledge of the relevant
physics and the application of a numerical analysis that
provides generalised design guidance.
The approach taken is one that is traditional in the study
of complex problems: to identify a less-complex but still
relevant sub-problem that has the key elements and flow
physics of the main one, and study it to generate a first
phase of cause-and-effect relationships. In addition to
having immediate utility, it can serve as the foundation
upon which future research activity can be built.
The result of the present study is an analytical model that
will facilitate the selection of optimum length and area
ratio for the underbody diffusers of flat-bottomed racing
cars. While not a universally-applicable design tool, the
guidelines developed should reduce the effort required to
develop underbody configurations that produce large
downforce.
INTRODUCTION
In an initial paper [1], an extensive set of wind tunnel test
results was reported for a simple rectangular-block model
with circular-arc front corners that was fitted with plane-
1
2000-01-0354
Kevin R. Cooper and J. Syms
National Research Council of Canada
G. Sovran
GM Research, retired
walled underbody diffusers of two lengths. Both fixed
and moving-ground test conditions were utilised. The
objective was to measure the influence of underbody dif-
fusers on lift and drag and to resolve the associated flow
physics.
At the relatively large ground clearance typical of passen-
ger cars, drag reduction that is important for fuel econ-
omy was achieved under some circumstances. Large
downforce production that is important for race cars was
achieved under many circumstances, particularly at the
small ground clearances typical of that application.
The focus of this paper is on racing-car applications of a
diffuser, and specifically on the effect of diffuser length
and area ratio on downforce generation. An analysis is
performed that permits diffuser measurements from [1] to
be generalised and applied to the identification of opti-
mum underbody geometries. The previous paper
explored the physics of downforce generation. This
paper extends the understanding gained and applies it to
primarily flat-bottomed, diffuser-equipped racing cars like
contemporary sports-racing prototypes.
BACKGROUND
The simple, wheel-less model of this investigation is
shown in Figures 1 and 2. It was fitted with diffusers of
either 25% or 75% of its length. The angle of the diverg-
ing wall was adjustable from 0 to more than 16. The
diffusers were fitted with partial side plates, and nearly all
the measurements were made at zero pitch angle. Fig-
ure 1 presents a photograph of the model on its overhead
sting.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

Figure 1. View of Model with Long Diffuser Showing

Maximum Diffuser Angle and Partial Side
Plates

A circumferential distribution of surface-pressure taps

was positioned on or near the longitudinal centre plane of
the model at the locations shown in Figure 2. The pres-
sure taps on the vertical rear face were connected
together and averaged pneumatically to give the average
pressure over the full base area. Two other sets of taps
on the roof of the model, marked by the curly parenthe-
ses in Figure 2, were averaged in the same fashion.
The model was mounted above a moving-belt system
that was 4.24 times wider and 3.85 times longer than the
model. It was tested over a full matrix of diffuser configu-
rations (2 diffuser lengths, 9 diffuser angles, 22 ride
heights), for both moving-ground and fixed-ground simu-
lations.
In [1], CFD was applied to three of the test configurations
to provide assistance in understanding the measured
data, and for comparison with experiment. The numeri-
cal model did not have the partial side plates of the phys-
ical model. The code was fully turbulent, and therefore
incapable of computing laminar separation if it were to
occur.
Figure 2. Model Geometry (dimensions in mm)
DOWNFORCE MECHANISMS
where the streamwise-distance-averaged, mean-effective
pressure coefficients (equation (A4)) are defined as,
Lift coefficient data were used in [1] to identify three dif-
ferent downforce mechanisms for the test body: under- 1 Xi
body upsweep (body camber), ground interaction and C pi
xi 0
C p ( x )dx
(2)
diffuser pumping. In the present paper, surface-pressure
distributions will be used for the same purpose. These and the subscripts l and u denote the lower and the
offer a more detailed picture of the physical mechanisms. upper surfaces, respectively. The overall length and
As developed in Appendix A, equation (A5), the lift coef- height of the body are L and H, respectively (see Figure
ficient of the test body can be expressed as, B2). Managing lift is a matter of managing the difference
between C pl and C pu . Since the primary interest of this
L
CL = C pl C pu (1) study is the underbody flow, a test body of simple overall
H
configuration was chosen so that the flow over its upper
surface would be relatively insensitive to changes in
underbody geometry and ground clearance. That this

2
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017
was the case is demonstrated by Figure 3 for several dif-
fuser wall angles, , and ride heights, (h1/H).
With this relative constancy of C pu , equation (1) indi-
cates that the behaviour of CL is essentially determined
by the underbody through C pl . Since downforce is nega-
tive lift, it is maximised by making C pl as negative as
possible.
1 .0
P res s ure C o effi ci e n t
0 .0
s olid lin e, =0.00, ( h1 / H)=0.338
-1 .0 c ha in -d as h ed line , =9 .6 4, ( h 1/ H)= 0.338
das hed lin e, =9.64, ( h 1 / H)=0.06 2
-2 .0
0 1 00 20 0
D i sta n ce fro m F ro n t F a ce , m m
Figure 3. Example of Invariance of Upper Surface
Pressure Distribution with Underbody
Variations
As also shown in Appendix A, equation (A6), C pl can be
resolved into two major components,
N N
C pl = 1 C pf + C pd
L L
where the component coefficients are defined according
to equation (2). The subscript f designates the under-
body surface (L-N) upstream of the diffuser (including the
front radius, but referred to as flat for convenience) and
d the diffuser of length N. The relative weighting of the
two component pressure coefficients is determined by
(N/L), the length of the diffuser relative to that of the body.
Two different diffuser lengths were evaluated in the test
program, a short one of (N/L) = 0.247 and a long one of
(N/L) = 0.752. Figure 4 shows their underbody pressure
distributions for the non-lifting symmetric configurations
having =0, at the relatively large ground clearance of
(h1/H) = 0.338 that is the largest value tested for the long
diffuser.
1. 0
=0 .0 0, ( h 1 / H) =0.338
s o lid lin e, s hor t dif f u ser ; C L = -0.004 4
da s he d line, lon g dif f u s er; C L = -0.058
P res s ure C o effi ci e n t
0. 0
s tar t of lo ng
dif f us er
bas e
-1. 0
s ta rt of s h or t pres s ur e
d if f us er
en d of r a diu s
-2. 0
0 10 0 2 00 3 00 4 00
D i sta n ce fro m F ro n t Fa c e , m m
Figure 4. Comparison of the Zero-Diffuser-Angle
Pressure Distributions from the Short and the
Long Diffusers; Ground Moving
30 0 4 00 The general form of the nearly identical pressure distribu-
tions is characterised by a strong suction peak at the
front corner, produced by strong streamline curvature in
the flow around its circular-arc geometry. This is followed
by a subsequent pressure relaxation that asymptotes to
the base pressure and is essentially completed by mid-
body length. The relaxation process has a local reversal
immediately downstream of the front radius that is
thought to be the consequence of a laminar separation
bubble resulting from a strong adverse pressure gradient
in the flow around the second half of the corner.
While the two configurations are nominally identical in
(3)
geometry, they have a small difference. The hinge at the
diffuser inlet that permits variation of the wall angle pro-
trudes slightly from the otherwise flat underbody surface
and is at a different streamwise location for the two
cases. For the short diffuser, this hinge produces a local
distortion in the pressure immediately downstream of
itself that is clearly evident in Figure 4. It is not present
for the long diffuser which does not have a surface dis-
continuity at that streamwise location.
There is a small difference in the local pressure reversal
just downstream of the front corner. This may also be
hinge related since the long diffuser has a hinge near that
region while the short one does not.
The generation of downforce by a symmetric, non-lifting
body as it is brought close to ground is illustrated in Fig-
ure 5 for the short-diffuser configuration. Only data for
the short diffuser are used in the analysis of this paper. It
was tested at 22 ride heights over the range 0.031(h1/
H)0.646. The curves in the Figure are for different ride
3
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017
heights. The lift coefficient at the largest ride height, (h1/
H)=0.646, is close to zero, and essentially the same as in
free air. Consequently, the corresponding pressure distri-
bution is the baseline from which to assess downforce
production as ride height, (h1/H), is reduced to very small
values (downforce due to ground proximity).
1.0
=0 .0 0
(h 1 /H) =0.100 (h 1/H)=0.64 6
P res s ure C o effi ci e n t
0.0
-1 . 0
(h 1/H)=0.06 2
-2 . 0
0 10 0 20 0 30 0
D i sta n ce fro m F ro n t F a ce , m m
Figure 5. Effect of Ground Proximity on the Underbody
Pressure Distribution with Zero Diffuser
Angle; Ground Moving
The three curves in Figure 5 have similar characteristics,
but noticeable and important differences. The magnitude
of the suction peak at the front corner is only slightly
affected by ride height but the local pressure-reversal
immediately downstream of the leading-edge radius is
significantly reduced as the local underflow is con-
strained by the approaching impervious ground. How-
ever, the major effect is an increase in the distance
required for the pressure to asymptote to the essentially
invariant base pressure. The relaxation process is one of
deceleration, requiring the streamtube to expand with
downstream distance. This increase in area is con-
strained by the ground as (h 1/H) decreases.
The area between curves at low ride height and that at
(h1/H) =0.646, sensibly out of ground effect, represents
the downforce produced by ground proximity. This identi-
fies the increased distance required for pressure recov-
ery from the suction peak as the major mechanism of
downforce production. The ground-proximity downforce
is a maximum at (h1/H) = 0.062.
The generation of downforce by an underbody diffuser as
a body is brought close to ground is illustrated for the
short-diffuser configuration in Figure 6.
1. 0
= 9.64
P res s ure C o effi ci e n t
(h 1 /H) =0 .1 00 (h 1 /H) =0.192 (h 1 /H) =0.64 6
0. 0
-1. 0
(h 1 /H) =0 .0 62
-2. 0
0 1 00 20 0 30 0 4 00
D i sta nc e from F ro nt F a ce , m m
Figure 6. Effect of Ground Proximity with an Underbody
Diffuser; Ground Moving
4 00 There are four curves for different ride heights, all for
rear-underbody upsweep of 9.64, all having the same
general shape. As already discussed, at (h1/H)=0.646
the body is essentially in free air. The upsweep produces
a pressure recovery over its length. Since the base pres-
sure is only slightly increased from its value for the sym-
metric body, producing a small reduction in drag, the
consequence of this pressure-recovery process is a
reduction in the pressure at the beginning of the
upsweep. The pressure relaxation from the front-corner
suction peak must decrease to this level and so a local
maximum is produced in the flat-underbody pressure,
resulting in a downward-concave profile.
As ride height is reduced, the combination of the upswept
underbody and the flat ground plane forms a diffuser of
asymmetric geometry whose ratio of outlet area to inlet
area (area ratio, AR) becomes increasingly greater than
unity. This generates greater and greater diffuser pres-
sure recovery that, since the base pressure remains
nearly constant, increasingly depresses the pressure at
the diffuser inlet. This results in higher flow velocity over
the upstream flat underbody, lowering the pressure
throughout that region and contributing to increasing
downforce. The diffuser effectively "pumps down" the flat
underbody, producing the large downforce measured at
low ride heights. At very low ride heights the underbody
flow resistance increases due to viscous effects, causing
less flow to enter the underbody so that the downforce
mechanism created by the diffuser is curtailed.
The area between any two (h 1/H) curves in Figure 6 rep-
resents the change in downforce produced with the asso-
ciated change in ride height with a diffuser. However, not
all of the downforce is due to diffuser pumping. As was
seen in Figure 5, changes in ride height alone, even with-
out a diffuser, also produce changes in ground-proximity
downforce. The separation of these two mechanisms is
illustrated in Figure 7.
4
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017
1 .0
=0.00, (h 1 /H) =0.64 6
P res s ure C o effi ci e n t
g r o u n d p r o xim it y
0 .0
-1 .0
dif fu s e r p u m p ing
=0 .0 0, ( h 1 /H) =0.062
=9.64 , ( h 1 /H) =0.062
-2 .0
0 1 00 20 0 30 0
D i sta n ce fro m F ro n t F a ce , m m
Figure 7. Mechanisms of Downforce Generation;
Ground Moving
The top two curves in Figure 7 are for the symmetric
body. The upper curve of this pair is for the free-air con-
dition at (h1/H)=0.646, and the lower one for the value of
(h1/H)=0.062 that produces maximum ground-proximity-
induced downforce. The area between the curves repre-
sents the downforce due to ground proximity. If the dif-
fuser angle of 9.64 that produces maximum downforce is
introduced at the lower ground clearance, the bottom
curve results. The area between this curve and the one
immediately above it represents the downforce due to dif-
fuser pumping.
The downforce mechanism called underbody upsweep
(body camber) that was identified in [1] is not an indepen-
dent mechanism when a body is close to ground.
ANALYTICAL MODEL OF VEHICLE
DOWNFORCE
An analytical model of vehicle downforce that permits
examination of the dependence of downforce on diffuser
design will be developed. This requires a diffuser pres-
sure-recovery map in the dominant variables of area-ratio
parameter and non-dimensional length, and a method for
its application. The stated application of this analysis is
to the diffusers of flat-underbody racing cars, where the
diffusers are typically less than one-half of the underbody
length. The analysis will be performed for only the mov-
ing-ground boundary condition, since this is the on-track
state.
The combination of equation (1) and Figure 3 indicates
that changes in the lift coefficient of the simple body
under consideration are determined by changes in the
mean-effective underbody pressure coefficient. Refer-
ring to equation (3), it is seen that this coefficient is com-
prised of two components that are,
N N
Cpl = 1 Cpf + Cpd
L L
The more negative this mean-effective pressure coeffi-
cient, the greater the downforce. Its evaluation requires
information on the component mean-effective pressure
coefficients for the diffuser, C pd , and for the flat upstream
underbody, C pf , in turn requiring a diffuser pressure-
recovery map.
DIFFUSER MEAN-EFFECTIVE PRESSURE
COEFFICIENT
The driving force behind the downforce generation pro-
cess is the diffuser pressure-recovery performance, so
this is the first element of the analysis to be developed.
4 00
The axial pressure distribution in a subsonic diffuser has
a characteristic non-linear shape that must be estab-
lished so that its mean-effective pressure coefficient can
be determined. This distribution and an equation for the
mean-effective coefficient are developed in Appendix B
(equation (B18)) for asymmetric, plane-walled, under-
body diffusers in inviscid, incompressible, one-dimen-
sional flow. The result is,
(1 C p2 )
C pd = 1 (4)
1 Cp
where C p2 is the pressure coefficient at diffuser exit (see
Figure B2 for geometry),
p p
C p 2 2 (5)
q
and C p is the overall pressure-recovery coefficient
(equation (B16)),
(Cp2 Cp1 )
Cp =
(1 C p1 ) (6)
For real flows in which the values of C p2 and C p are
known, it will be assumed that equation (4) suitably
reflects the non-linear behaviour of the pressure distribu-
tion in underbody diffusers and, for the purposes of this
paper, provides an adequate approximation of C pd .
It is assumed that C p2 can be best represented by the
area-averaged, base-pressure coefficient that was mea-
sured. This was essentially constant at a value of 0.19
for all the configurations tested. That is,
C p 2 = C pb = 0.19 (7)
The diffuser pressure-recovery coefficient, C p , is a func-
tion of diffuser area-ratio parameter, (AR-1), and non-
dimensional length, (N/h1). Its evaluation for particular
combinations of underbody-diffuser geometry and
(3)
ground boundary condition (moving ground, fixed
5
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

ground) requires a performance map with these vari- For each diffuser length in Figure 8, the underbody pres-
ables. In the next section, two such maps will be sure distribution was numerically integrated to provide
extracted from the experimental data.
C pf and C pd . The ratio of these quantities for each dif-
FLAT-UNDERBODY MEAN-EFFECTIVE fuser length is shown in Figure 9.
PRESSURE COEFFICIENT
4. 0

(Fl a t-U nd e rb od y / D i ffu s er) M ea n-

E ffe cti v e P re ss u re C o e ffi c i en ts
Once diffuser performance has been established, an (h 1 /H) =0 .0 62, ( A R- 1) =2 .6 7

expression is required for the mean-effective, flat-under-

body pressure coefficient that it induces. The axial pres-
sure distribution of the flat underbody is more 3. 0
complicated than that of the diffuser. As has been seen
in Figure 6, it is characterised by a strong suction peak as
the underflow curves and accelerates around the front
corner of the body, followed by a downward-concave 2. 0
pressure-recovery profile that terminates at the diffuser
y = 3 .61 x + 1.02
inlet. As diffuser length increases, the length of the con-
cave distribution decreases, as seen in Figure 8. The R 2 = 0.9 9

corresponding change in diffuser Cp affects the magni- 1. 0

tude of the front-corner suction peak and, more signifi- 0. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
cantly, the pressure level of the concavity.
D iffu se r L e ng th F ra c ti on , (N / L )
An analytical description of this pressure distribution and
its integration to directly produce the flat-underbody
mean-effective pressure coefficient is not feasible. Figure 9. CFD-Predicted Relationship Between Cpf
Instead, the approach taken is to seek a correlation and Cpd as a Function of Diffuser Length;
between C pf and C pd , thereby relating the flat under- Ground Moving
body pressures to the diffuser pressure recovery. The
experimental program used only two diffuser lengths, and This ratio was also calculated for the experimental data
this is insufficient for establishing such a correlation. from the two diffuser lengths studied. For each length,
Recourse has therefore been made to CFD for supplying the ratio of mean-effective pressures was insensitive to
suitable information. Computations with moving ground both ride height (h 1/H) and area-ratio parameter
at (h1/H)=0.062 and (AR-1)=2.67 were made for eight dif- ( AR 1) . Consequently, although the data in Figure 9
were derived for a single combination of ride height and
ferent diffuser lengths over 0.25(N/L)0.75. The results
area-ratio parameter, they will be taken as representative
are shown in Figure 8.
of all combinations of ride height and area-ratio parame-
ter.
1. 0
U n d erb o d y P re ss u re C o effc i en t

The data variation with length in Figure 9 is essentially

( h 1 /H ) =0.06 2, ( A R- 1) =2. 67
linear, and adequately represented by,
0. 0
Cpf / Cpd = 1.02 + 3.61(N / L) (8)
This correlation indicates that at any given area ratio, as
-1. 0 (N/L) is increased from a small value to improve diffuser
Cp and make its corresponding mean-effective pressure
0 .2 5 coefficient C pd more negative, the mean-effective pres-
-2. 0
0 .5 4 0.42 0.28
N/ L = 0.75
sure coefficient C pf of the flat underbody becomes more
0.59 0.48 0.37
negative even faster. This is the consequence of the
-3. 0 length and pressure level of the downward-concave part
0 10 0 2 00 30 0 4 00 of the pressure distribution along the flat component
being reduced (see Figure 8). Since the downward-con-
D i sta n ce fro m F ro n t F a ce , m m
cave pressure profile contains the most-positive portion
of the flat-underbody pressures, these changes make the
Figure 8. CFD Predictions of Underbody Pressure
net value of the flat-underbody component more nega-
Distributions; Ground Moving
tive.

6
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

UNDERBODY MEAN-EFFECTIVE PRESSURE Numerical values for the three required inputs to equation
COEFFICIENT (11) will be considered one at a time.
As already discussed in the analytical model for the dif-
Using the correlation of equation (8) in equation (3), the fuser mean-effective pressure coefficient and stated in
mean-effective pressure coefficient of the whole under-
equation (7), Cp2 is best represented by the area-aver-
body becomes,
aged base-pressure coefficient, which is essentially con-
stant at a value of 0.19.
N C pf N
C pl = 1 C pd + C pd In conventional diffuser research, a test diffuser is pre-
L L ceded by a constant-area inlet duct along which the pres-
C pd
sure gradient is very small. The inlet pressure to the
N N
2 diffuser is taken as the wall static pressure a short dis-
C pl = 1.02 + 3.59 3.61 C pd (9) tance upstream of the inlet, where the influence of flow
L L
curvature resulting from the diverging flow at the inlet is
negligible. Even though the underbody flow path preced-
The term in square brackets in this equation is positive
ing the diffuser is of constant height in the present study,
and has a local maximum of 1.91 at (N/L)=0.50.
the pressure along it varies significantly. As was seen in
Introducing equations (4) and (7) into equation (9) results Figure 6, there is a downward-concave pressure profile
in the final expression for the total underbody mean- immediately upstream of the diffuser. In view of this, it
effective pressure coefficient, was decided that the best measure of the inlet static
pressure coefficient, Cp1 , would be obtained by extrapo-
2 lating the downstream end of this profile to the diffuser
N N 1.19
C pl = 1.02 + 3.59 3.61 1 (10) inlet using a quadratic function.

L
L
1 Cp The inlet dynamic head of the diffuser, q1, was not mea-
sured, and so has to be inferred. Considering the flow
from far upstream of the body to the diffuser inlet,
As will be shown, if a diffuser map of Cp is available, this
equation will permit an optimum underbody geometry to p1 + q1 P1o = Po Ploss
o o
p + q Ploss
be determined. For example, the best geometry irre-
spective of diffuser length could be found. Alternatively, giving,
the best area ratio and ride height for a given diffuser
length, or the best area ratio for a given ride height and q1
= (1 Cp1 Closs ) (12)
diffuser length could be found.
q
DIFFUSER PRESSURE-RECOVERY where Closs is the loss coefficient of this flow. Unfortu-
PERFORMANCE nately, the value of Closs is not known. In order to pro-
ceed, it is assumed to be zero. With C loss = 0 , the
In [1], a performance map of diffuser-based downforce
was generated with coordinates of area-ratio parameter, resulting inlet dynamic pressure coefficient, (q1 / q ) , is
( AR 1) , and non-dimensional length, (N/h 1), the so- over-estimated and its usage in equation (11) yields,
called diffuser plane. This downforce map mimicked the
(Cp2 C p1 )
Cp =
diffuser pressure-recovery coefficient, Cp . In the present
study, a pressure-recovery map is evaluated directly. It is
(1 Cp1 ) (13)

derived from the pressure distributions measured on the
centre plane of the underbody. Only the short-diffuser
data is used in the development of this map. The long-
diffuser data are excluded because the diffuser inlet flow
interacts with the front-corner flow.
The pressure-recovery coefficient can be expressed in
the following form,
p p1 q
C p 2
q
( )
= C p2 C p1
1 q1
where the subscripts 1 and 2 designate the diffuser inlet
and outlet, respectively, and the infinity symbol desig-
nates a station far upstream of the body.
which produces an under-estimate of Cp . This conces-
sion to practicality does not limit the use of the resulting
diffuser map in the search for maximum vehicle down-
force. The major objective of the present study is the
determination of optimum diffuser geometry, not the
value of the corresponding maximum downforce coeffi-
cient. The procedure that has been described was used
with the measured underbody pressure distributions to
(11)
generate the results of Figure 10 for the short diffuser.
For clarity, only five of the nine available diffuser angles
are shown.

7
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

0.6 Short-Diffuser Pressure Recovery

Fixed Ground
P res s ure -R ec o ve ry C o e ffic i en t
2.87 d eg 6 .8 2 deg
6
9.64 d eg 1 3.50 de g
15 .5 9 deg

Area Ratio Parameter, (AR-1)

0.4

00
4 0 .3
50
0 .3
0.2
5
0 .3 7 0.
40 0
0.41 0
0
2 42
Gr o und f ix ed 0. 5
0.0 0.37
0
0.0 0. 2 0.4 0. 6 0 .3 5
0 .3 0 0
N o n -di m e n si o n a l R i d e H e i g h t, (h 1 / H ) 0.25 0 0.2 00
0.1 00
0
0 5 10 15 20
0. 6 Non-Dimensional Length, (N/h1)
P res s ure -R ec o ve ry C o e ffic i en t

2.87 de g 6.82 d eg
9.64 de g 13 .5 0 deg Short-Diffuser Pressure Recovery
15.59 d eg
Moving Ground
0. 4
6

Area Ratio Parameter, (AR-1)

0. 2 00
4 0 .3

50
0 .3
Gro und mo vin g
75
0. 0 0 .3
0
00 0.41
0. 0 0.2 0. 4 0. 6 2 0. 4 5
0 .41
N o n -d i m e n si on a l R i de H e i gh t, (h 1 /H )
0 .3 7 5
0 .3 50
Figure 10. Diffuser Pressure-Recovery Coefficients for 0.3 00
0.2 50 0.200
Fixed-Ground and Moving-Ground 0.100
Simulations 0
0 5 10 15 20
Non-Dimensional Length, (N/h1)
The pressure-recovery coefficients for all diffuser angles
were converted to the diffuser plane using the transfor- Figure 11. Diffuser Pressure-Recovery Coefficient Maps
mations of equations (14) and (15). (Based on Data from Figure 10)

(N / h1 ) N L H = 2.4 N H (14)
The maps for the two ground simulations are similar.
There are, however, significant differences between
L H h1 L h1
them, which can be summarised as:
(AR 1) = N tan (15) 1. the pressure-recovery contours with the moving
h1 ground are open at the higher non-dimensional
The results are plotted in the diffuser pressure-recovery lengths, not closed as with the fixed ground,
contour maps of Figure 11. 2. the location of the point of maximum pressure recov-
ery is different, with the maximum occurring at lower
area-ratio parameter and higher non-dimensional
length with the ground moving.
Constant-pressure-recovery-coefficient contours near
maximum pressure recovery for both ground simulations
are compared in Figure 12.

8
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

For the maps of Figure 11,

4. 0
N
A = 2.17
A rea R ati o P ar am ete r, (A R -1 )

3. 0
2. 0
1. 0
0. 0
0. 0
N o n -D im e n si o na l L e ng th , (N / h 1 )
Figure 12. Comparison of C p = 0.40 Pressure-
Recovery Contours with Fixed and Moving
Ground
The effect of ground simulation on optimum diffuser per-
formance is primarily caused by differences in diffuser
blockage. Velocity non-uniformity in cross sections of an
internal flow stream represents blockage. Such non-uni-
formity in the flat-underbody region upstream of the dif-
fuser, due to viscous flow effects, is increased by the
subsequent diffusion process, as described in [1]. The
distortion in the moving-ground velocity profiles is smaller
than with fixed ground because the ground boundary
be lt f ix ed
(17)
be lt mov in g h1
In diffuser research, aspect ratios of about 10 are used in
order to have the internal flow approach two-dimensional-
ity. For the current study, equation (17) indicates that this
value is achieved at (N/h1) =4.61. Most of the measure-
ments in the maps of Figure 11 are in the region of (N/
h1)4.61, where the diffuser aspect ratios are well over
10. However, the presence of only partial side plates per-
mits lateral flow into the diffuser, introducing flow three-
dimensionality. In spite of this, the analyses of [1]
5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5. 0 2 0. 0 showed that integration of the centre-line pressure distri-
butions gave sectional lift forces that closely matched the
balance lift measurements. It would appear, perhaps for-
tuitously, that the centreline pressures are representative
of the average distribution over the full width of the
model.
MAXIMUM VEHICLE DOWNFORCE
The analysis and rationale that have been presented
suggest a strong correlation between diffuser pressure-
recovery coefficient and the lift on the body. That this is
the case is shown in Figure 13.
0 . 50
L ift a nd P re ss u re-R e co v ery

layer is reduced by ground motion. Consequently, with 0 . 25 p r e s s u r e r e co ve r y

moving ground the effective area ratio at any given geo-
metric area ratio is always greater than that with fixed 0 . 00
C oe ffi ci e nts

ground. Thus, a given pressure recovery can be ( N/L) = 0.24 7

achieved at a smaller geometric area ratio with the mov- -0 . 25 = 15.59 d e g .
ing ground, explaining why the pressure-recovery contour
in Figure 12 with the ground moving falls below that with lif t
-0 . 50
the ground fixed.
Furthermore, at any given geometric area ratio, greater -0 . 75
values of diffuser length can be tolerated with the ground
moving before blockage in the diffuser reduces the effec- -1 . 00
tive area ratio to values for which the pressure recovery is 0 . 00 0 . 20 0 . 40 0. 6 0 0. 8 0
diminished, closing the contours. Such values of diffuser
length are not reached in the present data with the R i d e H e ig h t, (h 1 / H )
ground moving, so the pressure-recovery contours are
open to the right. Figure 13. Correlation of Lift Coefficient with Diffuser
Pressure-Recovery Coefficient; Moving
The pressure distributions on which the diffuser maps are Ground
based were measured only on the centre plane of the
underbody. How well they represent the whole width of Here, the pressure-recovery coefficient and the lift coeffi-
the body depends on the nature of the local flow at the cient for the short-diffuser are plotted against ride height
side edges of the diverging wall and on the ratio of the
width, W, to the height of the diffuser inlet, h 1, that is, on for the moving-ground simulation. When Cp increases
the aspect ratio of the diffuser inlet, where aspect ratio is locally, CL becomes locally more negative (more down-
defined as, force), and when Cp decreases, CL becomes less nega-
tive (less downforce). Each change in pressure-recovery
W W L N
A (16) coefficient is mirrored by a reverse change in lift coeffi-
h1 L N h1 cient.

9
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

A more detailed correlation is provided by the constant- APPLICATION TO UNDERBODY DIFFUSER

lift-coefficient contours on the diffuser plane ((AR-1) vs. DESIGN
(N/h1)) presented in Figure 14. The lift contour plots can
be compared to the pressure-recovery plots of Figure 11. The preceding analytical model, summarised in equa-
It is seen that the lift contours are similar to the pressure- tions (6) and (10), offers the opportunity for examining
recovery contours, but have their maximum magnitudes optimum diffuser design. This requires a diffuser pres-
at lower values of area ratio and length, and are closed at sure-recovery map as a function of the dominant vari-
longer lengths for both ground simulations. ables, area-ratio parameter and non-dimensional length.
It will be assumed that the variation of diffuser inflow con-
Short-Diffuser Lift Coefficient ditions with decreasing length of the upstream flat under-
Fixed Ground body (increasing N/L) is sufficiently small that the diffuser
6 maps of Figure 11 can be applied over a range of diffuser
lengths. A requirement for this assumption to be valid is
Area Ratio Parameter, (AR-1)

that the diffuser entry flow not interact with the flow enter-
-0 .4 00 ing the underbody region. If there is interaction, the entry
conditions to the diffuser are particularly uncertain and
4 -0 .5 00
there can be an effect on diffuser pressure recovery.
-0.6 00 Consequently, at some diffuser length it is to be expected
-0 .7 00 that this assumption will fail, although at what length is
uncertain. The long, three-quarter-body-length diffuser
-0. 750
falls into the interaction category, so the upper-length
2 -0.80 0 limit for general applicability of the analytical model is
0
0 60
.8 2 -0 . less than this. For the flat-underbody racing cars that are
-0
.500
the stated application of the analysis, diffusers are typi-
-0
cally less than one-half the underbody length, and it will
-0 .4 0 0
be assumed that the existing maps of Figure 11 are ade-
-0.300 -0 .2 0 0
0 quate to at least this length.
0 5 10 15 20
Referring to equation (3), it is seen that the mean-effec-
Non-Dimensional Length, (N/h1)
tive underbody pressure coefficient, proportional to
underbody downforce coefficient, is comprised of two
Short-Diffuser Lift Coefficient components.
Moving Ground
6
N N
Cpl = 1 Cpf + Cpd (3)
L L
Area Ratio Parameter, (AR-1)

When (N/L) is small, the flat component is the greater

0 0
- 0 .6 contributor, both because Cpf is significantly more nega-
4
-0 .7 0 0
0
tive than Cpd and because (1-N/L) is greater than (N/L).
-0 .7 5 As (N/L) increases at constant (AR-1) in order to increase
0
.80 C p and make Cpd more negative, there is a twofold ben-
-0
0

2 efit to the diffuser component. The flat component, how-

2
.8

0
40

75
-0

-0 . ever, has opposing effects because while Cpf becomes

.8
-0

-0 .700
more negative with Cpd (see equation (8)), its (1-N/L)
-0 .6 0 0
-0.500 weighting decreases. At some diffuser length, C p even-
-0.400
-0.3 00
0 tually reaches a maximum and then decreases with fur-
0 5 10 15 20 ther lengthening of the diffuser, and the opposing effects
Non-Dimensional Length, (N/h1)
in the flat component continue. It is likely that these
Figure 14. Contours of Constant Lift Coefficient; Short physics will produce a minimum in Cpl at some value of
Diffuser
(N/L).

10
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017
The preceding behaviour is captured in equation (10) of
the analytical model.
2 (unshaded circle). The reasons for the differences are
N N 1.19
C pl = 1.02 + 3.59 3.61 1 (10)
L L
1 C p
The analytical model is more useful if the moving-ground,
diffuser map of Figure 11 can be represented by a sur-
face fit. This is outlined in the following, where the varia-
tion of Cp in the map has been fitted by,
(
Cp (( AR 1), (N / h1)) = a( AR 1) exp b( AR 1)c
where the coefficients (a,b,c) are functions of (N/h 1) in
the form,
x2
x(N / h1 ) = x 1 +
1 + x 3 (N / h1 ) x 4
The numerical values of the xi coefficients for the
ground-moving case are:
Table 1. Coefficients for Variation of Cp with (AR-1) and
(N/h 1); Moving Ground
x(N/h1) x1 x2 x3
a 0.27 1.40 0.75
b -0.20 -45.00 1.50
c 1.40 3.00 0.03
With this input, equations (18) and (19) can be used to
calculate the variation of C p with (N/h1) at various
( AR 1) , and this then used in equation (10) to deter-
mine the variation of C pl with (N/L). A typical result for
(h1/H)=0.062 and (AR-1)=2.67 is plotted in Figure 15.
The inclusion of (h1/H) is required for equation (14) which
transforms (N/h1) in the diffuser pressure-recovery map
to (N/L).
The diffuser map of Figure 11 only extends to a non-
dimensional length, (N/h 1), of approximately 20. For the
ride height of Figure 15, this transforms to (N/L)=0.52.
Consequently, the curves in Figure 15 calculated from
the analytical model are dotted for (N/L) greater than this
value to indicate that the diffuser map is being extrapo-
lated.
The diffuser pressure-recovery coefficient increases
monotonically with increasing (N/L) up to (N/L)=0.40,
after which it decreases slightly. As suggested to be
likely, the analytical model for C pl , equation (10), has a
local minimum corresponding to maximum downforce,
and it occurs at (N/L)=0.46. The predictions of diffuser-
length effects from equation (10) are compared with CFD
results in this Figure. The CFD computations were made
for eight different diffuser lengths over 0.25(N/L)0.75.
The two curves are not the same, but are close at small
diffuser lengths, and both show a minimum. The CFD
curve is flatter, and has its minimum at (N/L)=0.37 (the
shaded circle) instead of at (N/L)=0.46 from the analysis
not known, but the lack of side plates and the absence of
laminar flow in the CFD simulation may be contributors.
In any event, the differences in the C pl curves do not
detract from the utility of equation (10). Its major contri-
bution is its delineation of the physics of downforce gen-
eration.
) (18)
0. 5
U nd e r bo dy P r e ss ur e C oe ffic ie nts
d if f us er p ress ure
re c ov er y, e qn. (18)
0. 0
( h 1 /H) =0 .0 62, (A R- 1) =2.67
m e an- e ffec tiv e un derb ody
(19)
pres sure c oefficient
-0. 5
f r om CFD
-1. 0
an aly tica l mode l eqn . (10)
-1. 5
x4 0 . 00 0 . 25 0 . 50 0. 7 5
1.00 D i ffu se r L e n gth F ra cti o n, (N / L )
3.40
2.50 Figure 15. Typical Dependence of Underbody Mean-
Effective Pressure Coefficient on Diffuser
Length; Moving Ground
Before proceeding further, it is instructive to analyse the
component effects in equation (10) that determine the
minimum in the underbody mean-effective pressure coef-
ficient C pl . Using the case of ( AR 1) = 2.0 and (h 1/
H)=0.062 for illustration, Figure 16 shows the variation of
the three contributing factors, and their net effect, with (N/
L).
The diffuser pressure-recovery coefficient, C p , is the
driver in the downforce generation process, and it has a
maximum at (N/L)=0.31. The corresponding diffuser
mean-effective pressure coefficient, Cpd , is negative and
has a minimum at the same diffuser length. This is the
second term of the product in equation (10). The qua-
dratic pre-multiplier of that equation has a maximum at
(N/L)=0.50 and it is not explicitly dependent on diffuser
performance. The product of the two terms is C pl and it
has a minimum at (N/L)=0.41, which is between the
extrema of its two contributors. This diffuser length for
maximum downforce (most-negative C pl ) is not coinci-
dent with that for maximum diffuser pressure recovery,
but is greater than it in this example. The latter seems
contrary to intuition and therefore warrants elaboration.
11
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

Calculations like those in Figure 17 were made at two

additional ride heights. For each of them, the area ratio
( h 1 /H ) =0. 06 2, ( A R -1 ) =2. 00
2. 0 giving the minimum mean-effective underbody pressure
coefficient (maximum downforce) was found and plotted
A n al y ti c al -M od e l C om p o ne n ts

in Figure 18.
qu adr a tic pr e- multiplier , eqn . ( 10)

1. 0 The optimum diffuser length changes as ride height and

p r es s ure- rec ov e ry c oef ., e qn. (1 8) area ratio vary, but is generally near (N/L)=0.5. The opti-
mum area ratio increases with decreasing ride height.
The magnitude of the maximum downforce (minimum
0. 0 dif f us e r mea n- ef f ec tiv e
mean-effective pressure coefficient) increases monotoni-
pr e s s u r e c oe f., e qn. ( 4)
cally with increasing area ratio up to ( AR 1) = 2.02 and
then decreases for larger area ratios.
-1. 0

u nde r bod y me an- e ff e c tiv e

-0. 2
p r es s ur e c oe f ., eqn . (10 )
-2. 0 (A R-1) = 7.50

U n d e rb o dy M e an -E ffec ti ve
0. 0 0 .2 0 .4 0. 6 -0. 4 op t

P res su re C oe ffi ci e nt
D iffu se r L e ng th F ra c ti o n, (N / L ) 2.20 5 .0 0
-0. 6
Figure 16. Breakdown of Component Effects in
3.50
Underbody, Mean-Effective Pressure
-0. 8
Coefficient; (AR=1)=2.0, (h1/H)=0.062,
Moving Ground 1.30
-1. 0 2.67
When (N/L) is increased just past the value for which C p ( h 1 /H)= 0.062

is a maximum, C p decreases and C pd becomes less -1. 2

negative, which is unfavourable for downforce production. 0 . 00 0 . 25 0 . 50 0 . 75
However, the correlation of equation (8) indicates that this
D i ffu se r L e n gth F ra cti o n, (N / L )
is offset by the mean-effective pressure coefficient, Cpf ,
of the flat underbody continuing to become more nega-
tive. Initially, this happens at a faster rate than Cpd -0. 2
becomes less negative, and so the quadratic pre-multi-
(A R-1 ) = 7.50
U n d e rb o dy M e an -E ffec ti ve

plier continues to increase, which is favourable for down-

-0. 4
P res su re C oe ffi ci e nt

force production. The net result is that the mean- o p t.

2.02 5.00
effective pressure coefficient for the whole underbody,
-0. 6
C pl , continues to become more negative past the length
for maximum diffuser pressure recovery. Eventually, 3.50

however, with further increase in (N/L), the unfavourable -0. 8

1.30
reducing negativity of Cpd dominates and C pl passes 2.67

through its minimum value and begins to increase (less -1. 0

downforce). ( h 1 /H) = 0.100

The results presented in Figure 15 are for only one area -1. 2
ratio and for only one ride height. The analytical model 0 . 00 0 . 25 0 . 50 0 . 75
can also examine the effect of changes in area ratio and
D i ffu se r L e n g th F ra c tio n , (N /L )
ride height, as is shown in Figures 17 and 18.
Figure 17 presents the variation of underbody mean- Figure 17. Effect of Area Ratio on Optimum Diffuser
effective pressure coefficient with area ratio and length Geometry for Two Ride Heights; Moving
for two ride heights. The area-ratio curve of maximum Ground
downforce is shown in bold in each graph. This area ratio
is different for each ride height, but is near ( AR 1) = 2.0
in both cases, and the optimum lengths are only slightly
different.

12
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

5. the diffuser pressure-recovery coefficients, C p , are

-0 . 2 under-predicted because of the manner in which
their normalising inlet dynamic head q1 is deter-
M e an -E ffec ti ve U nd e rb od y

( h 1 /H) , ( A R-1 )
mined.
P res su re C oe ffi ci e nt

-0 . 4 0 .1 50, 1 .7 0
6. there are viscous effects included in the region (N/
h1)>10.
-0 . 6
0.100 , 0.2 50, 1.13 While it is too optimistic to expect the model to exactly
2.02 predict the optimum underbody performance for arbitrary
-0 . 8 combinations of diffuser length, area ratio and ride
height, it should give values that are nearly correct.
-1 . 0 Therefore, it can serve to narrow the range of diffuser
geometries that need to be evaluated experimentally. It
0.06 2, 2 .2 0
also offers a technique for generalising diffuser perfor-
-1 . 2 mance measurements so that they can be used in the
0. 0 0 0. 2 5 0. 5 0 0. 7 5 vicinity of the experimental domain to evaluate diffuser
design variations that were not tested.
D i ffu se r L e ng th Fr a c ti on , (N / L)

CLOSING REMARKS
Figure 18. Effect of Ride Height on Optimum Diffuser
Geometry; Moving Ground
Underbody diffusers are used on racing cars to generate
large downforce that will permit them to achieve reduced
DISCUSSION
lap times through aerodynamically-enhanced traction.
Both the configuration of these cars and their underbody
The analysis and the analytical model that have been
flows are complex, so the design of optimum underbody
presented capture the underlying physics of the down-
geometries is a formidable task. The objective of the
force generated by underbody diffusers. The under-
present study is to generate data and an improved under-
standing that they provide should be generally useful in
standing of the relevant physics of underbody-diffuser-
guiding vehicle design. However, the assumptions and
induced flows. The application of this knowledge through
constraints involved need to be clearly appreciated, and
the numerical analysis presented can provide genera-
are collected here for easy reference.
lised design guidance that should facilitate effective
The caveats for the analytical model are the following: underbody design.
1. It is assumed that the streamwise pressure distribu- The approach taken is one that is traditional in the study
tion p(x) in a real diffuser flow between prescribed of complex problems: to identify a less-complex but still
inlet and outlet pressures is approximately the same relevant sub-problem that has the key elements and flow
as for an ideal flow between the same pressures. physics of the main one, and study it to generate a first
2. It is assumed that the underbody front-corner suction phase of cause-and-effect relationships. In addition to
peak of the simple test model is reasonably repre- having immediate utility, it can serve as the foundation
sentative of actual racing cars and that it does not upon which future research activity can be built.
interact directly with the diffuser flow. The general objective of the present study is to generate
3. It is assumed that the correlation for the ratio of the information that will facilitate the selection of optimum
mean-effective pressure coefficient of the flat under- length and area ratio for the underbody diffusers of flat-
body to that of the diffuser, equation (8), derived from bottomed racing cars, reducing the experimental effort
CFD results is adequately representative of experi- required to develop underbody configurations that pro-
ment. duce large downforce.
The analytical model requires a diffuser pressure-recov- Specific objectives are to demonstrate that optimum dif-
ery map. The moving-ground map that has been fuser geometries exist, with the details of the geometries
extracted from the experimental data is, to the authors being a function of regulatory and physical constraints,
knowledge, the first for a diffuser with one wall moving and to develop a semi-empirical, mathematical model of
relative to the other. Although based on data for only the the underbody flow that will permit such optimae to be
diffuser length (N/L) = 0.25, it is assumed to be adequate predicted. The design problem for any flat underbody
for determining optimum performance even though: could be to identify the best diffuser subject to no restric-
tions, or to do so subject to diffuser-length and/or ride-
4. it only extends to a non-dimensional diffuser length
height constraints imposed by a particular set of racing
(N/h1) of approximately 20.
rules. The approach taken is to model the downforce

13
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

generation of a simple diffuser/body combination and strong effect on downforce generation, and it is also
then, based on measurement, to generalise the experi- known that the introduction of a vortex into a diffuser can
mental diffuser pressure-recovery characteristics as an enhance its performance. These techniques are utilised
input to this model. in racing car design but have not yet been studied in sim-
ple geometries like the current one. Their study could
The analytical model has predicted the best diffuser
provide topics for future research.
length to be of order one-half the length of the underbody,
or less, thereby demonstrating that effective underbodies
REFERENCES
can be produced with relatively short diffusers. Also, it
provides insight into the underbody geometries required
1. K. R. Cooper, T. Bertenyi, G. Dutil, J. Syms, G. Sov-
for best downforce production. For example, it shows
ran - The Aerodynamic Performance of Automotive
that optimum diffuser length reduces as area ratio
Underbody Diffusers, SAE 980030, International
decreases and that optimum area ratio increases as ride Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, USA, Feb.
height decreases. 1998.
The analytical model offers an improved understanding of
the role of the diffuser in downforce generation and can CONTACT
be applied by other researchers. If the appropriate force
and pressure measurements are made during diffuser The first author can be contacted at:
development, they may then be used to search the near The National Research Council
vicinity of the test domain for a better configuration than Building M-2, Montreal Rd.
those tested. Ottawa, Ont.
This first iteration of underbody downforce prediction pro- Canada K1A 0R6
vides a preview of what may be possible with more infor- Telephone (613) 993-1141, Fax (613) 957-4309
mation. It was shown in [1] that body pitch angle has a e-mail Kevin.Cooper@nrc.ca.

APPENDIX A: LIFT COEFFICIENT

Assuming that the centre-line pressures on the upper The distance-averaged, mean-effective pressure coeffi-
and lower surfaces of the model adequately represent cient over a streamwise length xi is defined as,
the average pressures across the width of the body, W, at
1 Xi
all of its cross sections, as was shown in [1], then the
aerodynamic lift on a vehicle equipped with an under-
C pi
xi 0
C p ( x )dx (A4)
body diffuser is,
Introducing this into equation (A2) gives the final lift
L L expression,

L = pda = p( Wdx ) = W p l ( x )dx p u ( x )dx (A1)
0 0
CL =
L
C pl C pu (A5)
H
where pl and pu are the local static pressures on the
lower and upper surfaces, respectively. Reducing the lift The mean-effective pressure coefficient on the lower sur-
to coefficient form, face can be divided into two components, one for the
mostly flat under-body and one for the diffuser,
L L

L W
CL = = (p l p )dx (p u p )dx 1
L N L
q ( WH) q ( WH) 0 0 C pl

C pl ( x )dx + C pl ( x )dx
L 0
L N
So,
N N
C pl = 1 C pf + C pd (A6)
1
L L

L L
C L = C pl ( x )dx C pu ( x )dx (A2)
H o
o where the subscript f denotes the total underbody sur-
face of length (L-N) upstream of the diffuser and d
where pressure coefficient is defined as,
denotes the diffuser of length N.
p p
C pi i (A3)
q

14
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

APPENDIX B: DIFFUSER MEAN-EFFECTIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENT

Consider an inviscid, incompressible, one-dimensional

p p1 1 N p( x ) p1
flow in a rectilinear diffuser of any wall geometry, as in
Figure B1.

q1 N 0

q1
dx

1 p1N p p1
= p =
q1 N q1 (B6)
A ( x), p( x ), q( x )
A 1 , p 1 , q1 The diffuser in the present study is at the rear under-body
A 2 ,p 2 ,q2 of the simple test model and is plane-walled and asym-
metric, as sketched in Figure B2.
x
For this diffuser,
N
1 2 A ( x ) h( x ) x
= = 1 + tan (B7)
Figure B1. Two-Dimensional Diffuser A 1 h1 h1
and its area ratio is,
Ignoring any losses, the local conditions at any stream-
wise station x within the diffuser are related to those at
A h2 N
inlet by, AR = 2 = = 1 + tan (B8)
A1 h1 h1
p( x ) + q( x ) P o = P1o p1 + q1 L
Thus,
p , q
p( x ) p1 q( x ) H
= 1 (B1)
q1 q1
h2 , p2 , q2
Applying continuity,
ground plane h1, p1, q1 h( x ), p( x ), q( x)
2 2
q( x) V( x) A
= = 1 (B2) x
q
1 1 V A( x) N
1 2
Substituting this into equation (B1) gives the ideal pres-
sure distribution, Figure B2. Geometry of an Underbody Diffuser

p( x ) p1 1 The integral in equation (B6) can be evaluated using

= 1 (B3)
q 1 (A( x ) / A 1 )2 equations (B3), (B7) and (B8),

N
p p1 1

Applying equation (B3) at the outlet, station 2, provides 1
1 dx
the ideal, diffuser pressure-recovery coefficient, q = N
1 0 ( A( x) / A 1 ) 2
p p1 1 1 N
C p 2 = 1 = 1

(B4) 1 1 1 dx
q1 (A 2 A1 )2
AR 2 =
N 0
[1 + ( x / h1 ) tan ]2

The distance-averaged, mean-effective pressure over a
diffuser of length N is defined as, resulting in
N

1 p p1 1
p p( x )dx (B5) = 1
N o (B9)
q1 AR
This mean-effective pressure can be obtained from the
Using equation (B9) to replace the left-hand side of equa-
mean-effective value of the pressure coefficient on the
tion (B6),
left-hand side of equation (B3) in the following fashion,

1 p p1 (p p ) (p 1 p ) q
1 = = (B10)
AR q1 q q1

15
 Downloaded from SAE International by Oxford Brookes Univ, Saturday, December 02, 2017

Define the coefficient of mean-effective pressure over the

ables C p and C p2 is more useful because these are the
length of the diffuser as,
available experimentally-measured quantities.
pp
Cp
Area ratio can be eliminated from equation (B14), using
q (B11) equation (B4),

1
Using this in (B10), = 1 Cp (B15)
AR
1 q
1 = C p C p1 (B12) while C p1 can be eliminated by recourse to equations
AR q1 (B4) and (B13),
Relating conditions at the diffuser inlet, station 1, to those
far upstream of the model, (p p ) (p1 p ) q ( C p 2 C p1)
C p 2 =
q q1 ( )
1 C p1
(B16)
p1 p q
= 1 1 leading to,
q q
(1 C p2 )
(1 C p1 ) =
(1 C p )
so
(B17)
q1
(
= 1 C p1 ) (B13) Substituting equations (B15) and (B16) into equation
q (B14) provides the final form of the expression for the
mean-effective diffuser pressure coefficient, where the
Using this equation in equation (B12) and solving for C p , subscript d has been added to denote a diffuser value.

1
Cp = 1 (
1 C p1 ) (B14)
(1 Cp2 )
C pd = 1 (B18)
AR
1 Cp
This is the desired result. However, for the purposes of
this study, an alternative expression in terms of the vari-

16