See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315542610

Formula SAE Aerodynamics: Design process with focus on drivability

Conference Paper · September 2015

DOI: 10.4271/2015-36-0359

CITATIONS READS
0 1,003

3 authors:

Paulo Soliman Mario Eduardo Santos Martins

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adriano Schommer
Federal University of Santa Catarina
5 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

HCCI, LTC, PCCI, RCCI View project

The use of wet ethanol in SI engines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mario Eduardo Santos Martins on 26 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Formula SAE Aerodynamics: Design process with focus on drivability
Abstract
This paper presents the design process of an aerodynamic kit for a
Formula SAE competition vehicle using CFD with special attention to
the distribution of aerodynamic loads. The methodology for the
development of concepts is to create a boundary that respects the
geometric constraints of the vehicle and also complies with FSAE
2015/16 Rules. Inside these boundaries different geometries of
aerodynamic accessories can be analyzed and several full vehicle
models can be created. The initial model is conceived based on the
literature and then analyzed in CFD to generate another model. The
process repeats until it reaches a model that cannot be considered
optimum but is close enough, achieving the targets previously defined.
On the numerical simulation, are first presented the equations that
govern it and the reason for its use. The simplifications in the CAD
model are explained and the domain is then discretized in
predominantly hexahedral elements with orthogonal prismatic cells
next to wall surfaces. Another difference is that the airfoil profiles used
are specifically designed for use on racing vehicles. The most relevant
parameters in multi element profiles (slots, AoA) have been optimized
and wind-tunnel validated in studies of the literature used. After the
CFD analysis is completed and the final concept defined, the gains due
to the aerodynamic kit are quantified based on lap time simulations.
Finally the performance on the track with and without the kit is
evaluated and gg diagrams are made with the obtained data.
Additionally flow visualization techniques are used.
Introduction
The first known attempt to run an aerofoil on a racing vehicle have
been made in 1956. Michael May mounted an aerofoil above the
cockpit of his Porsche, but he was stopped in the scrutineerings of the
races that he intended to participate and it is believed that he never ran
with the vehicle. In 1966 Jim Hall ran in New York with his Chaparral
2E with a wing attached, and is credited the first to actually race a
vehicle with aerofoils fitted [1]. Since then the aerodynamics expanded
to practically all major categories of motorsport and areconsidered, in
some categories, some of the most determining factors determining
which vehicle will be the fastest. Aerodynamic downforce increases
the tire normal force and, consequently, the maximum friction without
increasing the vehicle’s weight [2].
With a downforce of 600 N at 60 km/h a lap time could be shorten by
2 seconds of 60 seconds for a usual FSAE endurance course [3. The
score is much more beneficially sensitive to downforce than is
negatively to drag, mass and CoG and a simple front and rear wing
configuration, providing relative low downforce (1000 N at 110
2015-36-0359
Paulo Soliman
Adriano Schommer
Mario Martins
Federal University of Santa Maria
km/h), gives an improvement in performance equating to a gain of
approximately 40 points during the dynamic events of a Formula SAE
competition, which means a jump of three places in a typical
competition The gains in total times come mainly from the increased
cornering speed and from reduced braking distance. The increase in
drag forces was not a limitation for the wing project, since the straight
are short and the maximum speeds are low. The question, if the wings
work or not, was answered with the observation of positive effects on
the overall vehicle performance. In 2012 at Formula Student Germany,
17 vehicles had an aerodynamic device, either wings or shaped
underfloors. Ten of these vehicles finished in the top 20 and the top
five vehicles all employed such devices [4,5,6].
When the dilemma seemed to be over, the FSAE Rules was changed
and aerodynamic constraints considerably increased. This work may
provide an answer to the reader who wonders if the wings and other
aerodynamic accessories remain being beneficial for a FSAE vehicle
after the rules change for the 2015/16 season. It also describes a design
process that uses relatively inexpensive tools with great potential for
repeatability, and can be of great value to other FSAE teams or similar
categories. The design process was used in Formula UFSM FSAE
team from the Federal University of Santa Maria, Brazil.
The paper begins with an overview of CFD, creating a basis for
explaining what the commercial code solves. Then the initial choices
for airfoil profiles and undertray geometries are explained. All
simulated models are presented and the changes that were made until
achieve the final model are shown. Finally earnings due to the kit are
predicted by lap time simulation and the prototype is analyzed on track.
Numerical analysis
Computational Fluid Dynamics or CFD is the analysis of systems
involving fluid flow, heat transfer and associated phenomena such as
chemical reactions by means of computer-based simulation. Its use
enables a substantial reduction of lead times and costs of new designs
[7].
The math behind the code
The codes that are now on the market are very robust, but their
operation still requires a high level of skill and understanding from the
operator to obtain meaningful results in complex situations [7].
Governing equations 𝐷𝐸𝑥 𝜕[𝑢(−𝑝 + 𝜏𝑥𝑥 )] 𝜕(𝑢𝜏𝑦𝑥 )
𝜌 =[ +
𝐷𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦
The governing equations of a fluid flow are based on the conservation 𝜕(𝑢𝜏𝑧𝑥 ) 𝜕𝑞𝑥
laws of physics. + ] 𝛿𝑥𝛿𝑦𝛿𝑧 − 𝛿𝑥𝛿𝑦𝛿𝑧
𝜕𝑧 𝑥
+ 𝑆𝐸 (5)

SE – source of energy to include the effects of potential energy.

Mass conservation
This is the energy equation for the x-component. For a complete
Rate of increase of mass in fluid element = Net rate of flow of mass
equation it should be expanded to the y and z directions.
into fluid:
These are the unsteady, three-dimensional governing equations for a
𝜕𝜌 𝜕(𝜌𝑢) 𝜕(𝜌𝑣) 𝜕(𝜌𝑤)
+ + + =0 compressible fluid. They are arranged in conservative form
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧 (1)
(emphasizing the property that is conserved) for later use in differential
ρ – density of the fluid; t – time; u,v,w – velocity in x,y,z directions. and integral form in the finite volume method.

Momentum (Newton’s Second Law) Turbulence models

Rate of increase of momentum of fluid particle = Sum of forces on Turbulence is a chaotic and random state of motion in which the
fluid particle: velocity and pressure change continuously with time within substantial
regions of flow. This is developed at high Reynolds numbers. The
𝐷𝑢 𝜕(−𝑝 + 𝜏𝑥𝑥 ) 𝜕𝜏𝑦𝑥 𝜕𝜏𝑧𝑥 random nature of a turbulent flow precludes computations based on a
𝜌 = + + + 𝑆𝑀𝑥 complete description of the motion of all fluid particles. For most
𝐷𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧 (2)
engineering purposes it is unnecessary to resolve the details of the
p – pressure; τij – viscous stress component acting in the j-direction on turbulent fluctuations and only the effects are usually sought. [7]. A
a surface normal to i-direction; SMx – source of x-momentum per unit turbulence model is a computational procedure that allows the
volume per unit time. quantification of these effects.

This is the equation that defines the x-component of momentum. The Standard k-ε
equations for the y and z-components are analogous to this.
A k-ε model is a two-equation model in which transport equations are
Energy (First Law of Thermodynamics) solved for the turbulent kinetic energy k and its dissipation rate ε. In
other words, a k-ε model focuses on the mechanisms that affect the
Rate of increase of energy of fluid particle = Net rate of heat added to turbulent kinetic energy [7]. This model is widely used by its
fluid particle + Net rate of work done on fluid particle. recognized robustness, ease of convergence and reduced
computational consumption. The equations of the turbulent kinetic
The net rate of work done on a fluid particle in the element by a surface energy and its dissipation for the model are:
force is equal to the product of the force and velocity component in the
direction of the force. Taking as an example the x-component: 𝜕 𝜕
(𝜌𝑘) + (𝜌𝑘𝑢𝑖 )
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑖
𝜕[𝑢(−𝑝 + 𝜏𝑥𝑥 )] 𝜕(𝑢𝜏𝑦𝑥 ) 𝜕(𝑢𝜏𝑧𝑥 ) 𝜕 𝜇𝑡 𝜕𝑘
[ + + ] 𝛿𝑥𝛿𝑦𝛿𝑧 = [(𝜇 + ) ] + 𝐺𝑘 + 𝐺𝑏
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧 (3) 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎𝑘 𝜕𝑥𝑗
− 𝜌𝜀 − 𝑌𝑚 + 𝑆𝑘 (6)
δx, δy and δz – the sides of a small element of fluid.

Again, the equations for the y and z-components are analogous to this.
𝜕 𝜕
The net rate of heat transfer to the fluid particle due to heat flow in the (𝜌𝜀) + (𝜌𝜀𝑢𝑖 )
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑖
x-direction:
𝜕 𝜇𝑡 𝜕𝜀
= [(𝜇 + ) ]
𝜕𝑞𝑥 1 𝜕𝑞𝑥 1 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎𝜀 𝜕𝑥𝑗
[(𝑞𝑥 − 𝛿𝑥) − (𝑞𝑥 − 𝛿𝑥)] 𝛿𝑦𝛿𝑧
𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜀2
𝜕𝑞𝑥 + 𝐶1𝜀 (𝐺𝑘 + 𝐶3𝜀 + 𝐺𝑏 ) − 𝐶2𝜀 𝜌
=− 𝛿𝑥𝛿𝑦𝛿𝑧 𝑘
𝑥 (4) + 𝑆𝜀 (7)

qx – heat flux vector in x-direction.
Then the rate of increase of energy in x-direction of a fluid particle is
equal to the sum of equations (3) and (4):
Gk – generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity
gradients; Gb – the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to
buoyancy; Ym – contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in
compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate; C1ε, C2ε and C3ε
– constants; σk, σε – turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and ε; Sk and Sε –
pre-defined source terms.
Standard k-ω

The k-ω model is a two-equation model that is an alternative to the k-

ε model. The transport equations that are solved are for the turbulent
kinetic energy k and a quantity called ω, which is defined as the
specific dissipation rate, that is, the dissipation rate per unit turbulent
kinetic energy (ω ~ ε/k) [8]. This model is known to be superior to the
k-ε in situations where there is a complex boundary layer with flow
under adverse pressure gradient and separation. The equation of the
turbulent kinetic energy and its specific dissipation rate for the model
are:

𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝑘
(𝜌𝑘) + (𝜌𝑘𝑢𝑖 ) = (𝛤𝑘 ) + 𝐺𝑘 − 𝑌𝑘 + 𝑆𝑘
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 (8)
Figure 1: CAD model example
𝜕 𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝜔
(𝜌𝜔) + (𝜌𝜔𝑢𝑖 ) = (𝛤𝜔 ) + 𝐺𝜔 − 𝑌𝜔 + 𝑆𝜔
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑖 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 (9) The main elements that were kept: the tires, the bodywork, the radiator,
the firewall and the head restraint. Where there is an accumulation of
triangulated tubes a tangent outer surface was modeled for
simplification. The main hoop and the main hoop bracings were kept
Shear-Stress Transport k-ω because they were considered tubes that are very exposed to the flow
resulting in considerable interaction especially with the rear wing. The
The k-ω SST model was developed to effectively blend the robust and driver was dimensioned according to the 95th percentile male template
accurate formulation of the k-ω model in the near-wall region with the [11].
freestream independence of the k-ε model in the far field. The standard
k-ω model and a transformed k-ε model are both multiplied by a Computational domain
blending function and both models are added together. The blending
function is designed to be one in the near-wall region, which activates In experiments, for simulation of an open road condition, the cross
the standard k-ω model, and zero away from the surface, which sectional area of the wind tunnel should generate a blockage ratio of
activates the transformed k-ε model [9]. less than or equal to 0,2%. The blockage ratio is calculated using the
ratio of the projected frontal area to the cross sectional area of the wind
As there is no definitive turbulence model considered superior to all tunnel [8, 10]. It is important not to oversize the domain to save
analyzes, caution is required in the selection. A good approach is to computational processing. Due to computational limitations were
use k-ε model for initial iterations and then solve with k-ω SST. It is made only half vehicle simulations, which saves processing but makes
also common to use k-ε for the optimization stage and the k-ω SST for it impossible to analysis the vehicle behavior during yaw situation.
the analysis of the final model.

The finite volume method

The first step of the finite volume method is to divide the domain into
discrete control volumes. The governing equations already presented
are then integrated along each of those control volumes created to yield
a discretized equation at its nodal points. Discretized equations must
be set up at each of the nodal points in order to solve a problem. For
control volumes that are adjacent to the domain boundaries the general
discretized equation is modified to incorporate boundary conditions.
The resulting system of linear algebraic equations is then solved to
Figure 2: Domain size based on vehicle dimensions (for better visualization
obtain the distribution of a general property at nodal points [7].
figure is not in scale)

CAD model Grid generation

The CAD models were developed to represent the main features that
affect the flow but with caution to not over detail the prototype. The
excess details, despite being a more faithful representation of the
vehicle, can significantly increase the Reynolds number throughout the
vehicle, which can hinder the convergence of calculations.
The bolts, tubes, spokes of the rims and driver details can be removed
without compromising the accuracy and reducing the complexity of
the model [12]. To reduce Reynolds sensitivity, small features such as
the engine details and roll hoops can be removed [4].
To discretize the domain was used the parts-based meshing tool of
STAR-CCM+ software. Parts-based meshing is a meshing strategy in
which you create one or more mesh operations to define the steps that
must be performed to generate the volume mesh. It detaches the
meshing process from physics modeling and provides a flexible and
repeatable sequence of mesh operations. To run a different geometry
is only required to feed the software with the CAD model and remesh.
All parameters such as size and type of elements as well as their
refinements are included in these steps which ensures parity between
models.
A trimmed mesher was chosen because it´s a robust and efficient package (front and rear wings and undertray) up to 97% of downforce
method of producing a high-quality grid. It utilizes a template mesh generated comes from the wings [12].
that is constructed from hexahedral cells and trims the core mesh using
the starting input surface. The template mesh contains refinement that Table 1: Boundary conditions
is based on the local surface mesh size and local refinement controls.
Region Boundary Condition
The resulting mesh is composed predominantly of hexahedral cells
Domain Inlet Velocity inlet = 52 km/h*
with trimmed cells next to the surface. Trimmed cells are polyhedral
cells but can usually be recognized as hexahedral cells with one or Domain Outlet Pressure outlet = 0 Pa
more corners and/or edges that are cut off. [8]. Ground Slip wall
Tunnel Walls Symmetry plane
Model surface No-slip wall
Wheels Rotating wall = 541 rpm**
Radiator Porous region with viscous resistance

*Arithmetic mean of the average speed range at a FSAE Endurance

Event provided by the rules [11].

**Calculated for the vehicle speed.

Table 2: Solver setup

Discretization Second-Order Upwind

Solver Algebraic Multigrid Method (AMG) Linear Solver
Figure 3: Some cells of the trimmed mesh around the vehicle Velocity = 0.9
Pressure = 0.1
To resolve near wall flow accurately orthogonal prismatic cells are Under-Relaxation Factors
k, ω, ε = 0.9
created next to wall surfaces, this is called the prism layer. The
turbulence modeling approach that is used and the desired fidelity of Turbulent Viscosity = 0.9

the physics determine the thickness, number of layers and distribution

of the prism layer mesh. It is important to mention that the
characteristics of the prism layer are related to the selected wall
treatment and consequently to the wall y+ and the turbulence model.
The all-y+ wall treatment was used for being the most suitable for the
turbulence models used.
Choosing the airfoil profiles
Typically, race vehicles wings have very low aspect ratios and work in
certain Reynolds number range, which makes it inappropriate to use
even the most efficient aeronautical sections. In the work of Benzing
[13] using a curvature method similar to NACA, sections were
calculated with velocity and pressure distributions that would be
totally unacceptable for flight but which are very effective in the scope
of racing vehicle performance.

Figure 4: Prism layer generated at the rear wing's flaps
Boundary Conditions and Solver
The boundary conditions and the solver setup main characteristics are
presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Wings
Wings are devices that generate aerodynamic downforce due to a
pressure gradient which is derived from a speed difference between
surfaces. The price paid by the gain in downforce is the increase in
drag. Studies show that in a FSAE vehicle with a full aerodynamic
Were searched sections that best suited the position they would have
in the vehicle. For example, with a profile of less camber the ground
effect is better used throughout ventral extension, which is desirable
for the main profile of the front wing. Because of the low speed FSAE
circuits a large acceleration immediately after the leading edge is
important. A thick and high cambered profile is desirable in this
situation, this was considered to choose the main profile of the rear
wing. The effect of flaps is similar to having a wing with only one
element but with an extreme camber. But in this wing with only one
element would be severe flow detachment which would spoil their
efficiency. The increase in kinetic energy due to the ducts (called slots)
formed between a profile and another maintains the flow attached. Due
to this function of flaps special sections were also chosen for them. In
Benzing’s [13] book are presented geometric parameters (slots,
relative angles of attack and sizes) investigations of multi elements
profiles and correlated with the efficiency of the wing.
End plates influence of other vehicle parts in the wings, the whole optimization
was done with half vehicle simulations.
When we have high and low pressure fields the air tends to migrate
from the high to the low pressure field. This causes vortexes which Table 3: Vehicle concepts developed and the changes (highlighted in red)
between them
result in increased drag. It also reduces the pressure gradient which
decreases generated downforce. End plates attenuate this effect since Model Main Features
reduces this migration.
Same FW/RW
Foot plates are mounted perpendicular to the end plates and prevent configuration: main
the air from spilling under the end plate, they are used mainly in the element plus 1 flap;
front wing. As the wingspan is restricted by the width of the vehicle The flap of FW is
the footplates can be exchanged with a full wingspan. With foot plates located only in the
of a size equivalent to 1,8% of the wing chord was observed a gain of inner area of the tire
3,6% in downforce compared to using the full wingspan [1]. (rules restriction); No
undertray; Additional
single element on FW;
Six end plates.

Same as 1 but with an

additional single
element on RW; The
FW additional
element is larger and
with more AoA.
Figure 5: Wings components

Undertray
The idea of the undertray is based on the Venturi effect. The flow is
The profiles going
accelerated to the throat where it reaches full speed. This increase in
through the whole
speed causes a drop in pressure resulting in downforce. After the throat
front consists now of 1
flow must be slowed down to free stream velocity.
main element plus 1
The undertray also reduces drag by decreasing the wake after the flap; FW main
vehicle, the smaller is the wake less energy is expended to move the element has less
vehicle against the air [14]. As the downforce is directly proportional camber and thickness
to the area, the search is for maximum throat area without for best use of ground
compromising the nozzle and diffuser. The main parameters that must effect; Additional
be dimensioned are: the angle of the nozzle, throat ground clearance elements has now 1
and the angle of the diffuser. The downforce is inversely proportional flap and the profiles
to ground clearance if we analyze the Bernoulli’s principle. But as are different from the
Bernoulli does not consider the viscosity of the fluid that is true up to previous one.
a critical point, when it begins to occur the flow detachment. In the
No additional
literature these optimal points were sought through CFD analysis [1,
elements; FW has a 2nd
15]. As the undertray had to adapt to a chassis that was already
flap in the inner area
designed, these parameters had to be reassessed, but the values found
of the tire and just 4
in previous studies served as initial guess.
end plates; RW has 3
flaps; st undertray is a
CFD results profile ventral surface
working on ground
The previous prototype complied with the 2014 rules and because of
effect.
that had an aerodynamic area many times greater than the maximum
allowed for 2015. For this reason the values achieved previously not
served as a parameter for the new kit. Based on the literature and some
benchmarking the goal set was 500 N of total downforce at 52 km/h
with approximately 50% of the load on each axle, if there is an
imbalance should be in favor of front. A loss of 30-40% of downforce
was observed comparing the simulation of a wing in free stream
against the same wing mounted in the vehicle [6]. Because of this huge
 The wings are the
same from model 4;
Undertray is now
composed of a nozzle,
a flat throat and a
diffuser.
Figure 6 shows the visual difference between speeds below the front
wing of the models 2, 3 and 4. The ground clearance is the same and
it´s based on the chord of the wing [1]. This demonstrates that a profile
with less thickness and camber takes best advantage of the ground
effect. The large increase in the wing efficiency (less drag and more
downforce) is also due to the flap extending from side to side of the
vehicle.

FW is the same from

model 4; RW has only
2 flaps and a 0,3%
chord gurney flap at
the 2nd flap; Undertray
is composed by 5
tunnels with different
nozzle and diffuser
angles.

Wings are the same

from model 6;
Undertray is similar to
the model 5 but the
throat and the diffuser
are larger.

RW main element has

much more camber
and thickness; Its
leading edge is better
positioned to collect
the flow behind the
driver’s helmet;
Undertray has a
different ground
clearance.

Figure 6: Models 2, 3 and 4 ground plane

Table 4: Results Figure 7 shows the difference of the flow between the undertray
models. The model 5 has the first undertray that generates significant
Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 downforce. The model 6 has a complex undertray geometry, the nozzle
FW -Lift (N) 172 184 220 254 232 194 246 218 extends up near the front wing. It proved its ineffectiveness for 2
FW Drag (N) 76 81 72 66 70 62 64 64 reasons: it generated very little downforce and had great negative
Undertray -Lift (N) 0 0 0 8 62 30 64 84 influence on the front wing. The nozzle near the wing causes a sort of
RW -Lift (N) 200 216 202 230 198 186 198 226 suction effect causing the flow separation and thus spoiling the wing
RW Drag (N) 94 92 86 82 78 66 72 84 efficiency. Models 7 and 8 are the same but with different throat
Total -Lift (N) 372 400 422 492 492 410 508 528 ground clearance. The ground clearances are: 20 mm for model 7 and
Car CL 1,52 1,63 1,66 2,08 2,36 1,68 2,3 2,39 30 mm to 8. With 20 mm loss of downforce due to the detachment of
Car CD 1,21 1,22 1,15 1,27 1,09 1,07 1,14 1,2 the flow caused by the viscosity is observed. But 20 mm is an
% Front 51,5% 51,6% 52,6% 53,2% 53,0% 52,4% 53,4% 52,3% impractical ground clearance due to chassis rollover. In conclusion, to
get the maximum downforce at the analyzed speed the lowest feasible
ground clearance can be used. Another important observation is that
the more the undertray accelerates the flow, generating more
downforce, more flow tends to separate in the front wing, spoiling their
efficiency. This becomes clear if we look at the differences in models
4, 7 and 8 in figures 6, 7 and 8. All models have the same front wing
configuration. The numbers in table 4 also demonstrate that when
undertray is becoming more efficient the front wing ends up becoming
less.

Figure 8: Models 2,3,4,7 and 8 symmetry plane

Figure 8 shows the symmetry planes velocities. The idea behind the
additional elements is to use a larger area to generate greater
Figure 7: Models 5, 6, 7 and 8 ground plane downforce. However, in model 2 it may be observed that the additional
element causes flow acceleration in the low speed field of the main higher than that calculated for the engine cooling system have the heat
element and hence decreases the pressure gradient of the main element, exchange necessary for the maintenance on its temperature.
reducing the downforce. On balance it is noted that the larger area used
does not compensate the loss of downforce on the main element. The For comparison purposes it was made a simulation with all the rear
same was observed for the additional elements in the front wing. The wing profiles replaced by Selig 1223. This aeronautical profile is
additional element of model 3 has a flap and is smaller to try not to widely used in FSAE for its good coefficient of lift at low Reynolds
interfere too much in the main element. As expected it really less number.
accelerated the low speed field, but guided the rear flap to have great
flow detachment. On models 8, 7 and 4 it can be seen that the
effectiveness of the wing is quite sensitive to the position of the main’s
element leading edge. As the wing is already at the maximum allowed
height and length, it is preferable to decrease the size of the wing and
place it over backward and upward. Thus its leading edge is exposed
to a cleaner flow from the space between the main hoop and the driver's
helmet. The result was that the model 8 generates almost the same
downforce of model 4 with a smaller area and one less flap. In Figure
8 is visible that the rear wing in model 8 accelerates more the flow over
a larger area.

After analyzing the results the team has chosen design 8 for the 2015
prototype. With the design defined the final simulation was made. The
model includes the radiator to check if the mass flow is sufficient for
engine cooling. To accommodate some new chassis members the
bodywork is slightly different from that used in the optimization. For
this model was used the k-ω SST turbulence model, final results are
shown in table 5.

Figure 10: Model with Selig 1223

The results were 186 N of downforce with 70 N of drag.

Grid independence study

To verify that the result is independent of the resolution of the mesh

and element type was made a grid independence study. The results are
shown in table 6.

Table 6: Grid independence results

Element
FW Lift FW Drag Undertray RW Lift RW Drag
base size Mesh type Car CL Car CD
(N) (N) Lift (N) (N) (N)
(mm)
50 Trimmer 205 58 54 210 77 2,17 1,05
30 Trimmer 201 60 52 211 80 2,15 1,07
25 Trimmer 198 63 51 210 83 2,15 1,08
25 Polyhedral 196 62 44 222 80 2,16 1,06

It can be noted some variation in values with the change in mesh

Figure 9: Final model CAD resolution. It would be interesting refine it more to achieve a more
stable value. Due to computational constraints it has not been possible
Table 5: Final model results
but the existing error was considered tolerable for the purposes of this
FW FW RW RW Total Mass flow study.
Undertray Car Car %
Lift Drag Lift Drag Lift in radiator
Lift (N) CL CD Front
(N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (kg/s) Distribution of aerodynamic loads
198 63 51 210 83 459 2,15 1,08 52,1% 1,02
An imbalance in favor of the rear axle is indicated to reduce oversteer
During the optimization process the downforce target was exceeded. at high speeds [1].The FSAE tracks do not allow such high speeds. The
However, the final simulation showed values below the previously Formula UFSM’s 2014 prototype had 48% of the aerodynamic loads
achieved. The obtained values were considered close enough to the on the front axle and guided the vehicle to have an understeer behavior.
goal and the design was accepted by the team. The mass flow was Another problem is that the downforce of the front wing is very
dependent of the ground effect which makes it more sensitive to
chassis rollover compared to the rear wing. For these reasons have 52%
of aerodynamic loads on the front axle was considered a positive value.
The diagram of moments used for calculation is shown in figure 9. The
downforce generated by the undertray was disregarded because its CoP
is sufficiently close to the vehicle’s CoG.
The analysis shows a pessimistic scenario because it is difficult not to
increase the static score with a more detailed study. The second
assumption can also reduce the potential score.
Table 8: Aerodynamics effect on overall position

Non-aero (FS AEL 2013 Formula Aero (OptimumLap

UFS M Results) S imulated)
Acceleration Score 44,25 Acceleration Score 44,25
Skid pad score 15,88 Skid pad score 32,19
Autocross score 104,61 Autocross score 150,00
Endurance score 167,98 Endurance score 237,13
Efficiency score 54,67 Efficiency score 45,71
S tatic score 70 S tatic score 70
Dynamics total S core 387,39 Dynamics total score 513,40
Total S core 457,39 Total S core 583,40
Overall Position 27 Overall Position 23
Figure 11: Moment diagram
On-track evaluation
Performance analysis
g-g diagrams
To analyze the performance will be verified the effect of the
aerodynamic kit addition in a usual FSAE competition. It was chosen Race vehicles should have large g-g maneuvering diagrams throughout
the FSAE West Lincoln 2013 because it was the highest level of their performance envelope and that race drivers should operate close
competition already faced by Formula UFSM team. The vehicle that to the diagram boundaries [16]. A short circuit has been mounted, with
competed there did not have any kind of aerodynamic accessory. As approximately 300 m, thus allowing a greater number of laps to
the team competed there the obtained times might be compared to the attenuate some of driver mistakes. The track sought to represent the
simulated in OptimumG's OptimumLap software. With a good model main features provided by the rules. The most experienced team’s
was possible to enter the aerodynamic coefficients and other driver, which also competes with karts since 2006, drove around the
modifications caused by the kit (mass, frontal area). With the changing track with and without the kit the same number of laps. A break
times the scores of the events were recalculated following the FSAE between heats was done to ensure the stabilization of vehicle
Rules equations and the change in the overall position can be obtained. temperatures and driver physical reinvigoration. Accelerations were
logged in the ECU and used to plot the g-g diagrams. The data was
Table 7: Simulated and real results
smoothed in the software MathWorks MATLAB and then used the
FS AE Lincoln convex hull to plot the g-g external boundaries.
Optimum
2013 Formula Optimum
Lap non-
UFS M Lap aero
aero
Results
Acceleration (s) 4,611 4,18 4,51
S kid Pad (s) 5,606 5,6 5,19
Autocross (s) 57,226 57,1 51,44
Endurance best lap (s) 80,984 79,7 72,9
Endurance total (s) 1678,149 1651,1 1521,9
Fuel consumption (lts) 3,652 3,18 4,41

The software calculates just one lap time and extrapolate this for 19
laps would not be appropriate. For a more realistic scenario the actual
times of the 19 laps were arranged in ascending order, then was
calculated the average difference between the times. This average was
added consecutively to the simulated time until it reach 19 laps. The
sum of 19 laps is the total endurance time. Assumptions:
Figure 12: g-g diagrams
1. The static score does not change;
The analysis of the diagram shows that the vehicle had higher lateral
2. If a simulated time with aero is larger than non-aero but smaller
accelerations as well as longitudinal decelerations while showing
than the real one, the actual score will be applied. This process
smaller longitudinal accelerations. In this test the aerodynamic kit
aims to eliminate a false gain due to a real performance under the
resulted in a 12,8% increase in maximum lateral acceleration, a 7,4%
vehicle's ability.
increase in the maximum longitudinal deceleration and decreased
8,3% at maximum longitudinal acceleration. A 4% decrease in the
average lap time was observed with the use of the kit.

Yaw rate

Using a gyro sensor also logging in the vehicle ECU differences in yaw
rate with and without the kit were analyzed. Yaw rate is important to
quantify how agile the car is. Surely the aerodynamic kit increases the
yaw moment of inertia which reduces the yaw. What was evaluated is
if the extra grip compensates this increase in moment of inertia and
enhances vehicle’s agility.

It was observed that in the balance of less moment of inertia or extra

grip was preferable to have the extra grip. With the aerodynamic kit
the vehicle showed higher yaw rates. The figure with the gyroscope
raw data is in the appendix.

Flow visualization

The wool tuft technique was used to analyze two phenomena observed
in CFD of great interest:

1. If the layer remains attached until the last flap of the rear wing;
2. If the layer is detached in the last flap of the front wing;

Figure 14:FW CFD velocity vectors vs. FW on track with wool tufts

It was observed that the layer remains attached to the last flap of the
rear wing. In CFD occurs recirculation from the first flap of the front
wing, indicating the detachment. On the track was observed same
phenomenon, the wool tufts had chaotic movements. The MoTeC i2
Pro software was used and the captured videos were synchronized with
the logged data to ensure that the analysis was performed at the same
speed of the simulation.

Summary/Conclusions
The key learnings developed with this work:

 CFD is a powerful tool. Even with computational constraints, it

is able to give answers to many engineering problems. Despite the
robustness of current codes the physics of the problem must be
known by the operator to obtain consistent results;
 The correct choice and positioning of the profiles produces
considerable differences in the generated downforce. The rear
wing with automotive profiles showed a 12,9 % higher downforce
compared to the same wing geometry but with aeronautical
profiles;
 For the average speed faced in FSAE endurance event the
undertray throat may have the lowest ground clearance workable
for achieving maximum downforce. Workable means not
touching the ground excessively, which would be a problem
according to the FSAE Rules;
 Under the conditions analyzed the undertray showed a harmful
Figure 13: RW CFD streamlines vs. RW on track with wool tufts interaction with the front wing;
 52,1% of aerodynamic load on the front showed to be a feasible
value for the types of events faced in FSAE;
 Gains from the aerodynamic kit come from a higher speed
maintained in turns and a later braking before them.
 The loss of time due to mass and additional drag is not very large
because of the low speeds. It is interesting to examine that the
CL/CD car is equal to 2, that is, for each unit of drag the twice in
downforce is generated. However, the fuel consumption was
sensitive to these conditions and had an estimated increase of
38%.
 The kit showed an estimated increase of 27.5% in the total score
which would represent a jump of 4 placements in the analyzed
competition;
 Even with the increase in the moment of inertia caused by the kit,
the vehicle obtained greater yaw rates;
 With accelerometers and lap times the effects of aerodynamic kit
can be validated on the track. But techniques for measuring the
generated forces are needed to CFD validation. There are several
techniques that use sensors (such as strain gauges and LVDTs)
for this measurement. Despite the wind tunnel arguably be
desirable for being a controlled environment, good results has
been obtained on track;
14. Buscariolo, F. F., De Oliveira, D. A., Sales, F. B., “Comparative
CFD Study of Undertray Designs over an Open Wheel Prototype
Race Car,” SAE Technical Paper 2012-36-0110, 2013, ISSN
0148-1791.
15. Ehirim, O., “Optimal Diffuser Design for Formula SAE Race Car
Using an Innovative Geometry Buildup and CFD Simulation
Setup with On-Track Testing Correlation,” SAE Technical Paper
2012-01-1169, 2012, ISSN 0148-1791.
16. Milliken, W. and Milliken, D., “Race Car Vehicle Dynamics,”
(Warrendale, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1995), ISBN 1-
56091-526-9.
Contact Information
Paulo Soliman
psoliman.formula@gmail.com
Mario Martins, PhD
mario@mecanica.ufsm.br

References Federal University of Santa Maria

Mechanical Engineering Department
1. McBeath, S., “Competition Car Aerodynamics, Second Edition,” Avenida Roraima, nº1000 - Cidade Universitária - Camobi
CEP: 97105-900
(Sparkford, Haynes Publishing, 2011), ISBN 978-0 85733-007-9.
Santa Maria - RS
2. Katz, J., “Race Car Aerodynamics: Designing for Speed,” Brazil
(Cambridge, Robert Bentley, 1995), ISBN 0-8376-0142-8.
3. Fujimoto, T. and Suzuki T., “Aerodynamic Design for SR11
(Formula SAE Racing Car),” SAE Technical Paper 2013-32- Definitions/Abbreviations
9100, 2013, ISSN 0148-7191.
4. Craig, C. and Passmore, M., "Methodology for the Design of an CFD – Computational fluid dynamics;
Aerodynamic Package for a Formula SAE Vehicle," SAE Int. J.
Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 7(2):2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01- CAD – Computer-aided design;
0596.
5. Rodrigues, J. C. M. and Vieira R. D. S., “Evaluation of the effects RW – Rear wing;
of adding front and rear wings on the lap times of a formula sae
car,” SAE Technical Paper 2012-36-0136, 2012, ISSN 0148- FW – Front wing;
7191.
AoA – Angle of attack;
6. Rehnberg, S., Börjesson, L., Svensson R. and Rice, J., “Race Car
Aerodynamics - The Design Process of an Aerodynamic Package
CoP – Center of pressure;
for the 2012 Chalmers Formula SAE Car,” SAE Technical Paper
2013-01-0797, 2013, ISSN 0148-7191. CoG – Center of gravity;
7. Versteeg, H. and Malalasekera, W., “An introduction to
computational fluid dynamics,” (Harlow, Longaman, 1995), FSAEL – Formula SAE West Lincoln;
ISBN 0-582-21884-5.
8. CD-adapco, “The Steve Portal,” https://steve.cd-adapco.com/, ECU – Engine Control Unit;
accessed May 2015.
9. ANSYS, “ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide,” LVDT – Linear Variable Differential Transformer;
http://148.204.81.206/Ansys/150/ANSYS%20Fluent%20Theory
%20Guide.pdf, accessed May 2015.
10. SAE International, “Guidelines for Aerodynamic Assessment of
Medium and Heavy Commercial Ground Vehicles Using
Computational Fluid Dynamics,” SAE Standard J2966.
11. SAE International, “2015 Formula SAE Rules,”
http://students.sae.org/cds/formulaseries/rules/2015-
16_fsae_rules.pdf, accessed May 2015.
12. Lu, X., "Research on the Flow Field Around a Formula SAE Car,"
SAE Technical Paper 2015-26-0208, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-26-
0208.
13. Benzing, E., “Ali/Wings,” (Vimodrone, Giorgio Nada Editore,
2012), ISBN 978-88-7911-539-1
APPENDIX

Figure 15: Gyro raw data

View publication stats