Final Design Proposal Report

ME 4243 - Capstone Design I

Team #28 - LSU TigerRacing Formula SAE Advanced Aerodynamics Package

Alyssa Hermesch, Ben Jahnke, Van Le, Harrison Longwell,

Eric Murrell, Josh Perkins, and Eddie Veal

12/05/2018
Abstract
Team 28’s project objective is to improve the aerodynamic performance of the Formula
Society of Automotive Engineers’ (FSAE) race car through the addition of an undertray/diffuser,
side elements, and the redesign of existing front aerodynamic components. The team developed
a functional decomposition to identify the following functional requirements: to perform, be safe,
operate reliably, and attach/detach efficiently. The team quantified the functional requirements by
documenting measurable engineering specifications. Initially the team set a goal to produce 400
pounds of downforce from the complete aerodynamic package. The team generated concepts to
meet the requirements of the functional decomposition, without violating competition rules, while
remaining within the geometric constraints surrounding the car as established by those rules. The
aerodynamic package was separated into three subassemblies for the front wing, the side wings,
and the undertray. Initial concepts for each subassembly were evaluated in Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) software through Siemens’ SimCenter STAR-CCM+. These concepts were
individually optimized via 2D CFD simulations and then integrated into full car design iterations
evaluated in 3D CFD simulations. Fourteen design iterations were simulated, analyzed, and
improved on the path to the final design. The result of the fourteen iterations is a package
producing approximately 320 pounds of downforce without compromising airflow to the radiator
or limiting the car with drag. The final design increases the car’s downforce by 60% while only
increasing the drag by 15%.

2
Executive Summary
Team 28’s project objective is to improve the aerodynamic performance of the Formula
SAE (FSAE) race car through the addition of an undertray/diffuser, side elements, and the
modification of existing front and rear aerodynamic components. The team developed a functional
decomposition with the following functional requirements: to perform, be safe, operate reliably,
and attach/detach efficiently. The project sponsor, the FSAE team, set a package goal of 400
pounds of downforce production measured at 60 mph, while not weighing more than 35 pounds.
Aerodynamic concepts were analyzed using the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
software, STAR-CCM+. The front and side wings were designed based on results from 2D
simulations, which improved performance parameters without using excessive computational
power. These designs were integrated into 3D simulations of the full car and undertray assembly.
Fourteen design iterations were used to develop the final design. The final design produces
approximately 320 pounds of downforce without compromising radiator airflow or violating
competition rules. This represents a 60% increase in downforce with only a 15% increase in drag,
compared to the 2018 aerodynamic package. This increase in downforce and drag corresponds
to approximately a 4% reduction in lap time, based on lap simulations.
Strength, weight, and manufacturability were all considered during material evaluation.
For the undertray, carbon fiber wrapped foam will be used for the main profile. Complex undertray
components will be made with only carbon fiber due to its high strength-to-weight ratio and ability
to be formed in desired complex shapes. The undertray will be mounted to the car with bolts
through inserts in the carbon and welded tabs underneath the car chassis. The inserts will provide
strength to the mounting area to withstand the bolt clamping forces.
Airfoil elements will be made of carbon fiber wrapped foam cores, secured to the car with
potted inserts embedded in the endplates. Foam was chosen for the elements after a decision
matrix was created comparing 3D printed structures and foam. Further evaluation included a
loading test in which deflections were recorded. While the 3D printed material was stronger, the
added weight would not benefit the team. The endplates will be constructed from carbon fiber
sandwich foam boards which provide strength for aerodynamic forces. Front wing endplates will
be attached to the chassis behind the impact attenuator. Side wings will be mounted to the
undertray and radiators, with steel support cables to the chassis as needed for extra support.
The team’s next steps will be to manufacture all components by mid-February. During
manufacturing, personal protective equipment (respirators, gloves, pants, closed toed shoes, and
safety glasses) will be worn. While testing aerodynamic components on the FSAE car, drivers will
be protected with fire retardant suits, helmets, and gloves. Observers will have fire extinguishers

3
on hand. Additionally, tests were performed to ensure that adding aerodynamic components to
the side of the FSAE car did not impede driver exit in the case of a fire.
Mid-February to May is reserved for testing. Mounting will be validated with a series of
static loading tests to ensure deflection is below the 0.02 in/lb engineering specification, and that
mounts will be able to withstand aerodynamic loads. A controlled cone impact test will also be
conducted to ensure sufficient mounting strength. Linear potentiometers attached to the car’s
springs will be utilized to test the produced downforce. Control weights will be added, and
compression of the potentiometers will be recorded to produce a calibration curve. The car will
then be driven at different long-duration, constant-speed runs. With this data, a downforce curve
can be generated and compared with CFD data. Coast down tests will be performed with and
without the aerodynamic package to validate drag numbers. Finally, the team will take the car to
the A2 Wind Tunnel facility in North Carolina to further evaluate downforce numbers and utilize
smoke streamlines to ensure flow paths align with CFD predictions. Flow rate to the radiator will
also be validated with wind tunnel anemometers. Lastly, the car will be driven on competition
representative tracks with and without the aerodynamic package to validate the lap time gains
predicted in lap simulations.
The package architecture as shown in the Appendix A.1.

4
Table of Contents

Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents....................................................................................................................... 5
Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................... 8
Table of Tables .......................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................11
Background Information ........................................................................................................11
Problem Description ..............................................................................................................11
Potential Customers ..............................................................................................................11
Competing/Existing Technologies..........................................................................................11
Engineering Specifications ........................................................................................................14
Objective Statement ..............................................................................................................14
Functional Requirements .......................................................................................................14
Qualitative Constraints ..........................................................................................................15
Measurable Engineering Specifications .................................................................................16
Embodiment..............................................................................................................................18
System Description................................................................................................................18
(1) Front Wings......................................................................................................................18
(2) Undertray .........................................................................................................................19
(3) Radiators..........................................................................................................................19
(5) Rear Wing ........................................................................................................................19
Concept Evaluation/Selection ................................................................................................24
Aerodynamic Concept Integration..........................................................................................25
Model 1 (simulated as Iteration 1)..........................................................................................25
General Element Structure Concept Generation....................................................................28
General Mounting Concept Selection ....................................................................................28
Wing to Endplate Mounting Concept Selection ......................................................................29
Endplate to Frame Mounting Concept Selection ....................................................................29
Undertray Mounting Concept Selection .................................................................................29
Engineering Analysis and Material Selection Processes ...........................................................29
Analysis Methodology............................................................................................................29
Lap Simulation Analysis ........................................................................................................33
Airfoil Design .........................................................................................................................34

5
 Endplate Design ....................................................................................................................35
Undertray Design ..................................................................................................................35
Mounting Design ...................................................................................................................36
Epoxy Resin/Molding Material ...............................................................................................36
Deliverables ..............................................................................................................................37
Wings ....................................................................................................................................37
Undertray ..............................................................................................................................38
Male Molds ............................................................................................................................38
Endplates ..............................................................................................................................39
Vacuum Bag Process ............................................................................................................39
Testing, Validation, and Implementation....................................................................................39
Component Weight and Attachment Strength ........................................................................39
Aerodynamic Performance and Assembly Strength ...............................................................39
Quality and Package Ergonomics ..........................................................................................40
Safety Considerations ...............................................................................................................40
Final Project Management ........................................................................................................41
Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................41
References ...............................................................................................................................42
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................43
Appendix A. Referenced Figures ...........................................................................................43
A.1. Assembly Model .........................................................................................................43
A.2. Drag Limitation Plot ....................................................................................................44
A.3. Correlation of Downforce to Lap Times .......................................................................45
A.4. CH10 Airfoil CFD Verification Study ............................................................................46
A.5. General Undertray Diagram ........................................................................................46
A.6. Ground Effect Study ...................................................................................................47
A.7. Iterative Progression of Generated Downforce ...........................................................47
A.8. Vehicle Acceleration with Drag ...................................................................................48
A.9. Performance Increase due to Modified Camshaft .......................................................49
Appendix B. Referenced Tables ............................................................................................50
B.1. Gear Ratio Calculations ..............................................................................................50
B.2. 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation Parameters .........................................51
B.3. Weight Evaluation of Different Undertray Constructions..............................................51
B.4. Driver Egress Test Results (produced by Ben Jahnke) ...............................................52
Appendix C. FSAE Rules.......................................................................................................52

6
 C.1. Boundaries of the Aerodynamics Package .................................................................52
C.2. FSAE Competition Rules Pertaining to the Project .....................................................52
Appendix D. Multi-Element Performance Analysis .................................................................57
Appendix E. Aerodynamics Package Design Iteration Models ...............................................59
E.1. Model 1 (produced by Harrison Longwell, Eric Murrell, Eddie Veal) ............................59
E.2. Model 2 (produced by Harrison Longwell, Eric Murrell, Eddie Veal) ............................64
E.3. Model 3 (produced by Harrison Longwell, Eric Murrell, Eddie Veal) ............................67
E.4. Model 4 - Final Design (produced by Harrison Longwell, Eric Murrell, Eddie Veal) .....69
E.5. Full Car Free Body Diagram Evaluation ......................................................................75
Appendix F. Final Design Engineering Drawings (produced by Van Le) ................................76
F.1. Master Assembly ........................................................................................................76
F.2. Subassembly #1: Front Wing ......................................................................................77
F.3. Subassembly #2: Side Wing .......................................................................................78
F.4. Subassembly #3: Undertray ........................................................................................79
F.5. Subassembly #3: Undertray - Inlet and Outlet Drawing ...............................................80
Appendix G. Engineering Analysis Methodology (produced by Harrison Longwell)................81
Appendix H. Airfoil Design .....................................................................................................84
H.1. Airfoil Profiles .............................................................................................................84
H.2. Airfoil Core Design......................................................................................................85
Appendix I. Component Assembly and Mounting ..................................................................87
I.1. Subassembly #1: Front Wing - Assembly and Mounting (produced by Josh Perkins)...87
I.2 Subassembly #2: Side Wing - Assembly and Mounting (produced by Josh Perkins) .....88
I.3. Subassembly #3: Undertray - Assembly and Mounting (produced by Josh Perkins) ....89
I.4. Component Mounting Method Selection.......................................................................90
I.5. Potted Insert - Critical Axial Load Calculation ...............................................................90
I.6. Potted Insert - Critical Pure Shear Load Calculation.....................................................91
Appendix J. Materials Selection .............................................................................................92
Appendix K. Off-the-Shelf Parts List ......................................................................................93
Appendix L. Project Management ..........................................................................................94
L.1. Objective Tree.............................................................................................................94
L.2. Project Definition Tables .............................................................................................95
L.3. House of Quality .........................................................................................................97
L.4. Critical Path.................................................................................................................98
L.5. Gantt Chart .................................................................................................................99
L.6. Project Timeline ........................................................................................................100

7
 L.7. Budget Allocations ....................................................................................................100
Appendix M. Test Equipment ...............................................................................................100
M.1 Component Weight and Attachment Strength ...........................................................100
M.2. Aerodynamic Performance and Assembly Strength .................................................101

Table of Figures
Figure 1. TU Graz Extended Nose Cone ...................................................................................12
Figure 2. Rennteam Stuttgart Aerodynamic CAD Package .......................................................13
Figure 3. CAD Model of the 2019 Aerodynamic Components ...................................................18
Figure 4. Regions available for aerodynamic devices on the 2019 TigerRacing car. .................22
Figure 5. Boundary Layer Development with Wall Y+ of approximately 3. .................................31
Figure 6. Diagram of the potted insert mounting method. ..........................................................36
Figure 7. CAD Model of the 2019 Aerodynamic Components ...................................................43
Figure 8. OptimumLap Gearing and Drag Plot (produced by Eric Murrell and Josh Perkins) .....44
Figure 9. Plot of Varying Lift (and Drag) Compared to Lap Time (produced by Eric Murrell)......45
Figure 10. Study of the CH10 airfoil comparing CFD predictions and experimental values. ......46
Figure 11. The undertray's major regions; inlet, throat, and diffuser. .........................................46
Figure 12. A comparison of free stream and ground effect simulations. ....................................47
Figure 13. Downforce results per each iteration. .......................................................................47
Figure 14. Available Torque vs Speed - Experimental Drag Included (produced by Eddie Veal)
.................................................................................................................................................48
Figure 15. 2018 Car Dyno Graph (produced by Eddie Veal) .....................................................49
Figure 16. 3D design space boundaries established by FSAE. .................................................52
Figure 17. Exclusion regions that consider the vehicle to be "open wheel." ...............................53
Figure 18. Exclusion regions for aerodynamic devices on the car. ............................................55
Figure 19. Wing Geometry Spacing (produced by Eddie Veal and Ben Jahnke) .......................57
Figure 20. 2D CFD Geometry (produced by Eddie Veal and Ben Jahnke) ................................57
Figure 21. Model 1 - Front View. ...............................................................................................59
Figure 22. Model 1 - Bottom View. ............................................................................................60
Figure 23. Model 1 - Rear View. ................................................................................................60
Figure 24. Model 1 - Front Wing. ...............................................................................................61
Figure 25. Iteration 1 - Inefficiency between Nose Cone and Front Wing. .................................61
Figure 26. Pressure distribution on Model 1 shows high pressure on the nose cone caused by the
center element of the front wing. ...............................................................................................62
Figure 27. Model 1 - Stall Area Behind Front Wing 2 (Note: Front tire hidden in this image). ....62
Figure 28. Stall Area Behind Front Wing (Note: Front tire hidden in this image) ........................63
Figure 29. Undertray design changes from Model 1 to Model 3. ...............................................63
Figure 30. Model 2 - Main View. ................................................................................................64
Figure 31. Model 2 - Side Elements. .........................................................................................65
Figure 32. Plot of pressure distribution on front wing Model 2. ..................................................65
Figure 33. Plot of velocity distribution in plane of radiator Model 2 ............................................66
Figure 34. Iteration 4 Residuals Plot (produced by Harrison Longwell). ....................................66
Figure 35. Model 3 - Main View. ................................................................................................67

8
Figure 36. Plot of pressure distribution on Model 3 Front Wing. ................................................68
Figure 37. Plot of Velocity Distribution in Plane of Radiator (Model 3). ......................................68
Figure 38. Model 4 - Main View. ................................................................................................69
Figure 39. Model 4 - Side Elements. .........................................................................................70
Figure 40. Model 4 - Bottom View. ............................................................................................71
Figure 41. Model 4 - Front WIng Pressure Distribution. .............................................................71
Figure 42. Model 4 - Final Model Velocity Profile in Plane of Radiator. .....................................72
Figure 43. Streamlines from Side Wing impacting rear wing in Model 3. ...................................72
Figure 44. Streamlines from Side Wing impacting rear wing in Model 4. ...................................73
Figure 45. Gurney flap helps pull air through undertray by lowering pressure behind Gurney flap.
.................................................................................................................................................73
Figure 46. Velocity profile showing improved flow through undertray due to inlet and outlet
improvements. ..........................................................................................................................74
Figure 47. Pressure distribution on bottom of undertray. ...........................................................75
Figure 48. Free Body Diagram (produced by Harrison Longwell). .............................................75
Figure 49. Axial Symmetry to Reduce Computational Time.......................................................81
Figure 50. Axial Symmetry to Reduce Computational Time.......................................................81
Figure 51. Visualization of Surface Mesh. .................................................................................82
Figure 52. Visualization of Transition between Fine and Coarse Mesh......................................82
Figure 53. Airfoils Evaluated in Design (produced by Eddie Veal and Harrison Longwell) .........84
Figure 54. (Top to bottom) Altair Inspire generated core design, solid foam core, ribbed foam core
(produced by Van Le and Alyssa Hermesch). ...........................................................................85
Figure 55. Pressure test results on airfoil cores (produced by Alyssa Hermesch). ....................86
Figure 56. Exploded view of potted insert and fastener interaction. ...........................................87
Figure 57. Mounting locations for center endplates of the front wing (produced by Josh Perkins).
.................................................................................................................................................88
Figure 58. Mounting plan for the radiators and side wings. .......................................................88
Figure 59. Mounting foam locations on the undertray for chassis mounting. .............................89
Figure 60. Undertray mounting locations in relation to the chassis. ...........................................89
Figure 61. Shear distribution curve of the core material due to axial loading (left). Equation
parameters (right). ....................................................................................................................90
Figure 62. Undertray mount load analysis. ................................................................................91
Figure 63. Pure shear load (left). Equation parameters (right). ..................................................91
Figure 64. Front wing mount shear load analysis due to cone impact. ......................................91
Figure 65. DragonPlate carbon fiber sandwich foam plate. .......................................................92

Table of Tables
Table 1. List of Project Functions with Explanations ..................................................................15
Table 2. List of Project Qualitative Constraints with Explanations..............................................16
Table 3. List of Project Measurable Engineering Specifications with Explanations ....................17
Table 4. Performance of side wing concepts when implemented in a full car iteration. ..............23
Table 5. Component Downforce Totals .....................................................................................24
Table 6. 2018 Car Gear Ratios (produced by Eddie Veal) .........................................................50
Table 7. Summary of 3D simulation Parameters .......................................................................51

9
Table 8. Undertray Material Evaluation Results.........................................................................51
Table 9. Egress times of drivers based on the presence of an obstruction. ...............................52
Table 10. 2D CFD CL Results (produced by Eddie Veal and Ben Jahnke)................................58
Table 11. Mesh Parameters. .....................................................................................................83
Table 12. Airfoil Core Material Decision Matrix (produced by Alyssa Hermesch). ......................85
Table 13. Surface Pressure Test Analysis. ................................................................................87
Table 14. Component Mounting Method Decision Matrix. .........................................................90
Table 15. Carbon Fiber Decision Matrix. ...................................................................................92
Table 16. Hardware Parts List. ..................................................................................................93
Table 17. List of Project Functions with Explanations (continued on next page) ........................95
Table 18. Qualitative Constraints with Explanations ..................................................................96
Table 19. List of Project Measurable E-Specs with Explanations ..............................................96
Table 20. Project timeline detailing milestones until the end of Spring 2019. ...........................100

10
Introduction
Background Information
TigerRacing is Louisiana State University’s Formula Society of Automotive Engineers
(FSAE) team. The team became a student organization in Fall of 2012. Since then, members
have successfully built a car and competed every season. FSAE is a student competition that
requires a team to design, build, test, and compete a two-thirds scale formula car. SAE regulates
and organizes events internationally; two of which are hosted in the United States, and both
attended by TigerRacing. Competition consists of four dynamic and three static events, ranging
from autocross-style racing to design presentations and scrutineering. The competition requires
design changes and improvements between each competition year.

Problem Description
Future designs are determined based on previous experience, analysis of designs, and
performance data from both TigerRacing’s and competitors’ designs. In recent years, aspects
related to vehicle weight, powertrain output, and chassis kinematics have improved. This allowed
the 2018 team to approach aerodynamic design, which consisted of a front and rear wing
implemented through the 2018 Capstone senior design project. Performance increased,
demonstrated by an improvement in placement in competition events and real-world testing data.
In order to compare to top competitors on an international level, further improvements must be
made to increase aerodynamic performance. The TigerRacing team proposed a project to
continue the development of the car’s aerodynamic package through the addition of side wings
and an undertray, integrated with a new front wing.

Potential Customers
The team identified three potential customers for the project: the TigerRacing team, FSAE
competition judges, and Louisiana State University (LSU). TigerRacing will not only use the
product to improve vehicle performance, but also to attract additional sponsors to fund future car
designs. The FSAE scrutineering judges will inspect the product to ensure it conforms to the rules,
and the design judges will evaluate the product design decisions and goals. Lastly, the team aims
to use the product to showcase the skill and hard work of LSU students.

Competing/Existing Technologies
The basic aerodynamic components of a successful FSAE car are largely consistent
between teams. Front, rear, and side wings, combined with an undertray, are used by nearly all

11
top FSAE competitors. The main car performance variables improved with these components are
downforce, drag, and radiator heat dissipation. The TigerRacing team currently utilizes a multi-
element front and rear wing. Throughout this paper, element refers to the individual airfoils that
make up the front, rear, and side wing assemblies. The successful integration of these features
is where the best teams separate themselves from the competition.
Downforce is made through the combination of a front wing, undertray, side wings, and
rear wing. The front wing must be integrated with the undertray and nose cone to optimize design.
TU Graz, a successful Austrian FSAE team, has a car with a nose cone that extends beyond the
leading edge of the front wing. The goal of this extended nose cone is to funnel clean air between
the nose cone and the front wing into the undertray. Figure 1 shows TU Graz’s extended nose
cone as well as the common shape for a side wing. Other teams prefer to draw air into their
undertray primarily from below the front wing. This design often results in a front wing that is raised
in the middle compared to the area of the wing towards the endplates.

Figure 1. TU Graz Extended Nose Cone

A multi-element side wing, also seen in Figure 1, is used by many FSAE teams. The main
element is a long wing that creates downforce by redirecting flow upwards into two small wings
at the rear of the side element. The trailing edge of the final airfoil is at a sufficient height to direct
air over the rear tire.
Figure 1 also shows a rear wing endplate design that reduces rear wing drag without
excessively compromising downforce by the use of slots cut into the side of the endplates. This
reduces vortex formation at the wing’s trailing edges by limiting the pressure differential between
the suction and pressure sides of the wings prior. Vortices form when the high-pressure and low-

12
pressure air on opposite sides of an airfoil abruptly interact at the trailing edge. High pressure air
from the top-sides of the wings is allowed to bleed off through the side cuts, reducing top-side
pressure and intensity of the trailing edge vortices. Less intense vortices at the rear wing trailing
edge reduces the wing’s drag significantly while only slightly reducing the downforce. However,
the benefit of drag reduction justifies this design decision.
Rennteam Stuttgart, another top FSAE competitor from Germany, has a unique integrated
cooling system that uses aerodynamic elements to maximize the mass flow rate of air through
the radiators. The cooling system draws air from between the side of the nose cone and the
trailing element of the front wing into side ducts. Within the ducts are multiple airfoils with the
suction side drawing air into the duct towards the radiator. This design is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Rennteam Stuttgart Aerodynamic CAD Package

The previously mentioned designs represent technologies that could improve the
performance of the TigerRacing car. Because all competition teams’ cars are inherently different,
no design can be directly taken and implemented in this project. However, these competing
technologies will be solution examples that will help Team 28 in concept generation.

13
Engineering Specifications
Objective Statement
To improve the aerodynamic performance of the FSAE race car through the addition of an
undertray/diffuser, side elements, and the modification of existing front and rear aerodynamic
components. Modifications to the front and rear aerodynamic components may include wing
profile placement on the endplates, number of elements used, and mounting locations.

Functional Requirements
The main function of the project is to improve the overall dynamic performance of the
FSAE car through the advancement of the car’s aerodynamic package. Aerodynamic research
shows that increased downforce improves tire grip and increases traction circle, which directly
translates to decreased lap times. Three of the four competition dynamic events, and nearly half
of competition scores, are judged on lap time. Other factors relating to car performance include
producing a lightweight car and allowing airflow to the cooling system. Weight is a factor to
consider in all components, as increased weight negatively impacts car performance. Along with
that, any blockage of airflow to the car’s radiator(s) will also hinder performance.
The package must also ensure customer safety and satisfy all competition safety rules.
There shall be no sharp leading edges on any aerodynamic component, and the front wing must
break away in a crash to allow the car’s impact attenuator to absorb impact forces.
In addition to being safe, the package must also be reliable. Wing element and mounting
designs will ensure sufficient strength to handle predicted track forces, forces to the frame, forces
from cone impact, as well as accidental contact forces made during handling. The FSAE rules
also state that there must be less than one inch of deflection on any aerodynamic component
when applying a load of 50 pounds.
While meeting the above requirements, the team must also ensure that the package
dimensions comply with the FSAE rules, found in Appendix C.2. Additionally, mounting must be
able to attach and detach within the times specified by the FSAE team. Due to the fast-paced
competition environment, as well as the need to remove car components for judges’ inspections,
it is necessary to design efficient mounting techniques.

14
 The team’s objective tree can be found in Appendix K.1, which includes a further
breakdown of the functions shown in Table 1, below.

Table 1. List of Project Functions with Explanations

Function Explanation

Generate downforce Downforce should be generated to increase the traction circle of the
car. This will lead to reduced lap times.

Add minimal weight Weight added to the car should be minimal, because any increase
in weight has negative impacts to vehicle performance.

Allow impact attenuator The front elements should break away in a crash to allow the
to absorb impact forces impact attenuator to absorb the impact.

Prevent injuries during No sharp leading edges should be produced to protect people
handling handling the car, as well as to abide by the FSAE rules.

Withstand forces The elements and mounting should be able to withstand all
operational and accidental contact forces.

Minimize deflection Deflection should be minimized in all elements to abide by the

FSAE rules.

Fasten/remove quickly Elements should have the ability to be removed quickly to access
other car components. Elements should have the ability to be
fastened on quickly to be able to get the car drive-ready in a short
amount of time.

Qualitative Constraints
Qualitative constraints result from logistics associated with car handling as well as sponsor
feedback. The FSAE team generates much of their funding through sponsorships. To attract and
please sponsors, it is necessary to display the quality finish of the car, which is frequently brought
to sponsor events and is displayed in a yearly sponsorship packet.
At competition, the TigerRacing team may be required to attach and detach the
aerodynamic components. For this reason, Team 28 identified quick removal of all components
as an essential function. Additionally, TigerRacing openly recruits members at all levels of
experience and skill. Ensuring that components can be easily removed allows new members to
be utilized due to minimal learning curve.

15
 Qualitative constraints are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. List of Project Qualitative Constraints with Explanations

Qualitative Constraint Explanation

Easy to fasten/remove The FSAE team requests that the elements be easy to take on and
off so that a majority of the members are capable of doing so.

Quality finish The elements should be produced with a quality finish to appease
sponsors of the FSAE team as well as the university.

Measurable Engineering Specifications

The aerodynamic system should produce 400 pounds of downforce. This downforce
specification was determined by examining the efforts of other teams’ experiences with
incorporating undertrays. Real world testing shows that the aerodynamic package developed by
the 2018 FSAE team created 200 pounds of downforce at 60 mph.1 This additional downforce
cannot come at the cost of a substantial weight handicap. The team decided, that to be considered
effective, the aerodynamic package must weigh less than 35 pounds.
An aerodynamic package creating 400 pounds of downforce was evaluated with lap
simulations and is expected to yield a five percent lap time improvement on a FSAE Lincoln
Endurance style track. The drag of the car is less significant because the car is nearly always
limited by tire grip, far before performance is limited by drag. For this reason, drag consideration
is not as high of a priority as the downforce specification. However, drag will not increase
substantially above previous designs.
The stiffness of the system is governed by competition rules but also by the sensitivity of
the aerodynamic package to deflection. Aerodynamic components are not allowed to flex more
than one inch in any direction with the application of a 50-pound load to any point.
The aerodynamic elements must allow enough airflow to the heat exchanger to maintain
a maximum running water temperature of 210°F and an oil temperature of 275°F. These limits
are dictated by standard operating conditions of the engine and the engine oil thermal properties.
The FSAE team has set a goal of being able to attach the aerodynamic packages in ten
minutes and detach it in seven minutes. This is to meet the functional requirement of quick
fastening and removing.

16
 The final requirement of the project is to not exceed the budget provided by the sponsor.
The FSAE team has set a budget of $8,500, which will allow for composite manufacturing and will
provide for extensive product testing.
Measurable engineering specifications are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. List of Project Measurable Engineering Specifications with Explanations

Measurable E-Specs Unit Value Explanation

Max time to attach min 10 Ensures that the final product can be fastened
quickly.

Max time to detach min 7 Ensures that the final product can be removed
quickly.

Max running water °F 210 Ensures that the engine maintains standard
temperature operating conditions.

Max running oil °F 275 Ensures that the engine maintains standard
temperature operating conditions.

Max wing deflection in/lbf 0.02 Ensures that the final product abides by the FSAE
rule for wind deflection.

Max weight lbs 35 Ensures that the final product is lightweight.

Min downforce lbf 400 Ensures that the final product produces the
downforce expected by the FSAE team.

Max cost $ 8500 Ensures that the final product does not exceed the
budget given.

17
Embodiment
System Description

Figure 3. CAD Model of the 2019 Aerodynamic Components

Figure 3 shows the five major subsystems for the 2019 aerodynamic package. This
consists of the Front Wings, Undertray, Radiators, Side Elements, and Rear Wings. All these
components are to be installed onto the 2019 LSU TigerRacing car as shown in the excerpt of
Figure 3. Each subsystem is broken down further to give a better understanding of this package.

(1) Front Wings

The front wings are the leading elements on the car and therefore the only elements
exposed directly to free stream air. A detailed drawing can be seen in Appendix F.2. The front
wing consists of multiple airfoils arranged in a multi-element scheme designed to maximize
downforce without compromising airflow to downstream elements. The lowest element is located
at a height chosen to capitalize on ground effect for increased downforce production. The main
elements are followed by smaller trailing elements on the outer edges. The center element is
placed at a negative angle of attack to direct air into the undertray around the nose cone. End
plates are used to mount the airfoils to the wing assembly, and to mount the wing assembly to
the car. These end plates are made of a carbon sandwich foam plate. The wings are carbon fiber
wrapped around a foam core with a structural carbon spar running the length of the wing to
support the wing and distribute the loads to the mounts and end plates.
The front wing will be mounted with potted inserts embedded in the end plates through
which six ¼-20 bolts will secure the endplates to the car frame. This design was chosen in order

18
to meet the requirements of fastening and removing all components quickly as well as being
strong enough to withstand various forces that could be applied to the front wings.

(2) Undertray
The undertray is a large and relatively flat component that runs along the underside of the
car. A detailed drawing can be seen in Appendix F.4. The undertray has inlets at the front and a
diffuser at the rear of the vehicle. Conceptually the undertray acts as a nozzle from the inlet to the
throat area, decreasing pressure and increasing velocity through the use of ground effect
underneath the vehicle. The diffuser section at the rear of the undertray increases downforce
performance and decreases the pressure difference between the front and rear of the vehicle,
lessening drag. Drag is also reduced by the creation of a streamlined surface underneath the car,
instead of exposed frame and suspension components that restrict flow underneath the car. The
undertray will also be mounted with potted-inserts attached to the car’s frame with the bolt heads
coming in from above.

(3) Radiators
Team 28 recognized that the major changes to the car’s aerodynamic performance would
significantly change the airflow provided to the radiators. For this reason, the team took
responsibility for selecting the placement and number of radiators on the 2019 TigerRacing car.
The radiators were evaluated in multiple positions to find increased cooling airflow and to ensure
the most effective use of the side envelope of the car to create downforce. The team’s analysis
and decision-making process led to the selection and placement of two radiators as shown in
Figure 3. The radiators are custom units that are typical fin and tube design.
(4) Side Wings
The side wings incorporate the analysis completed during front wing optimization and
airfoil selection. A detailed drawing can be seen in Appendix F.3. Guaranteed elements in this
system will be large side wings, end plates, and the parabolic ramp in front of the rear tire. The
wing will be identical in size and profile to the largest element on the front wing for ease of
manufacturing, but with a different angle of attack (if deemed necessary). Using the same array
of wing elements as the front wing, a multi-element design for the side wings will be examined.
The end plate supports the side wing, separates the tire vortices from the side wing, and reduces
the drag associated with wing vortices spilling over the wing. Lastly, the parabolic ramp is used
to direct air over the rear tire decreasing the vehicle wake and lift produced by tires.
(5) Rear Wing

19
 The rear aerodynamic components are being designed by members of the TigerRacing
club rather than the Team 28 Senior Design team. This has required extensive integration and
communication between Team 28 and the TigerRacing club. Their current design is shown in
Appendix E.4 integrated with Team 28’s aerodynamics package.

General Aerodynamic Concept Generation

Note: This section of the report discusses the development of the individual aerodynamic components (front wings,
side wings, undertray) prior to integration into the full car model. The changes made to these components after
integration into the full car model are discussed in the Aerodynamic Concept Integration Section.
The primary functional requirement identified in the functional decomposition is to improve
the car’s performance through the increase of downforce production. Increased downforce
improves tire traction, car stability, and overall car control.7 Downforce is the net lift force on the
vehicle due to the air flow. Conservation of momentum says that the deflection or acceleration of
air upward by the vehicle will create a reaction force that pushes the car down. There are many
ways that air can be redirected around the car to create downforce. The additional constraint
imposed by the FSAE rules dictates that all aerodynamic devices must be passive. Passive
aerodynamics eliminates the possibility of using fans or blowers to accelerate air upwards and
push the car down. Conservation of momentum led the team to investigate using airfoils to redirect
air upwards. Research into our competitors, showed that most successful teams utilize front, rear,
and side wings composed of multiple airfoils.
Bernoulli's principle specifies that an increase in velocity along a streamline corresponds
to a decrease in pressure between two points along the streamline. The team recognized that
acceleration of air to a higher velocity beneath the car will lower the flow’s local pressure and will
generate downforce. Air can be accelerated under the vehicle through the use of ground effect.
Ground effect is a phenomenon caused by the formation of boundary layers on the bottom surface
of the vehicle and the road. The formation of these boundary layers results in a pressure drop in
the fluid. This effect is much like head loss in an air duct. Automotive design takes advantage of
this effect by utilizing a large surface area sheet (known as an undertray) beneath the vehicle to
capitalize on the low pressure to create downforce.
Two primary aerodynamic variables affect the car’s dynamic performance - total drag and
downforce. The maximum speed typically achieved in an FSAE event is 65 miles per hour.
Simulations in OptimumLap software showed that the car is not limited by drag at this speed. The
analysis done in OptimumLap is discussed in detail in the Engineering Analysis section. See
Appendix A.3 and its accompanying explanation for details on the car’s speed capabilities. For

20
these reasons, initial designs focused on increasing downforce, with drag given secondary
consideration.
The safety of the drivers and other customers was given high consideration during concept
generation, evaluation, and selection. First, the side elements must not impede the driver from
quickly exiting the vehicle during an emergency. A simulated egress test was conducted that
shows the current design will not slow the driver from exiting vehicle. Second, the leading and
trailing edges of the wings must be rounded to prevent lacerations during incidental contact with
any of the project’s customers. The second subfunction is a qualitative constraint that is met by
selecting airfoil profiles that can be accurately and easily manufactured. During manufacturing of
the final product, the team will exercise care to ensure that no sharp leading edges are produced,
and that the inevitably sharp trailing edges are sufficiently protected to reduce incidental contact.
For the aerodynamic package to benefit the team, it must operate reliably. The team
identified that reliable operation is dependent on withstanding incidental contact and minimizing
deflection across the span of the airfoil. Both subfunctions relate to the strength of the material
used to manufacture the components. In competition, the team may be required to remove
aerodynamic components from the car during inspection or maintenance. For this reason, the
team identified the ability to fasten/remove the aerodynamic elements quickly as an essential
requirement of the design.
Additionally, the cooling system integration was considered since the placement and
sizing of the radiators would change the airflow seen throughout the system. Two radiator
placements were identified: side placement and rear placement. The radiator can also be split
into two smaller radiators, which can operate in parallel or in series. This may give the benefit of
having symmetry in the airflow if the radiators were placed on the sides, which also ensures that
the radiators see sufficient airflow coming directly from the front wing. The effects this may have
on the side and rear wings will be further analyzed.

Front Wing Concept Evaluation and Selection

Front wing analysis began by selecting high lift airfoils from airfoiltools.com. Three primary
profiles (S1223, CH10, and MSHD) were selected due to high lift characteristics and
recommendations from the 2018 senior design team. With the profiles selected, the team
validated the CFD tools used to construct the first iteration of the front wing. The CH 10 profile
was chosen for a study to compare 2D CFD predictions to experimental data. Results showed
that CFD matched experimental data within 10%. Two-dimensional CFD was then used to
optimize chord length and spacing. The first iteration design goal was to generate as much

21
downforce as possible. This would allow for effective optimization: The team would clearly know
if changes that benefited other element at the expense of the front wing were valid by the net car
downforce. S1223 was chosen as the main element for the front wing on the first full car model.
2D CFD was then used to experimentally add trailing elements of different chord lengths at
different angles of attack. The finalized first iteration front wing had two S1223 elements in front
of the tires and three S1223 elements between the tire and body.

Side Wing Concept Evaluation and Selection

As the primary functional requirement is to increase the amount of downforce, it is ideal to
utilize the total area allowable for aerodynamic elements. Shown in Figure 4 are the volumes
between the front and rear wheels available for aerodynamic devices.

Figure 4. Regions available for aerodynamic devices on the 2019 TigerRacing car.

Evaluation of TigerRacing’s previous aerodynamic package and research regarding

vehicle dynamics, showed that significant drag was produced by both drivetrain and suspension
components, therefore it is advantageous to control the flow around these objects. Generated
concepts consider drag effects of the wheel and suspension. As well, the effect of side
aerodynamic devices on the vehicle’s cooling was a design restriction. Three designs for side
aerodynamic devices were considered; single airfoil side-wing with structural endplate (Concept
1, Figure 21), single airfoil side-wing with a parabolic ramp in front of the rear tire (Concept 2,
Figure 31), and multi-element side-wings (Concept 3, Figure 39).

22
 Concept 1 was the first implementation of side aero. It included a low-Reynolds airfoil
behind the radiator, with an end plate for rigidity of the assembly. No consideration was made for
flow across drivetrain or suspension components.
Concept 2 included a single, low-Reynolds airfoil behind the radiator. A parabolic ramp
was added to produce downforce by changing direction of momentum, deflect flow from the rear
wheel, and add structural rigidity to side wing assembly.
Concept 3 incorporated findings from analysis of TigerRacing’s front wing designs and
lack of performance of the side wing designs of Concepts 1 and 2. The airfoil behind the element
was removed and a multi-element wing was implemented. This ensured that more of the available
area was utilized by a downforce producing device.
Initial analysis of each design used 2D CFD in STAR-CCM+. Once performance of a
design was increased, it was integrated with a full car model and evaluated using 3D CFD. From
the results of the full car simulation, the quality of a designs integration and performance was
evaluated. Multiple simulations of a single design could not be completed, due to the cost and
time necessary for a full-car simulation. Therefore, a large sample size regarding a design
elements performance is not available. Results for the performance of side wing concepts are
shown in Table 4. Differences between iterations using the same side wing design are due to
changes of other aerodynamic elements on the car and uncertainty error of the simulations.
Table 4. Performance of side wing concepts when implemented in a full car iteration.

Undertray Concept Evaluation and Selection

The primary function of the undertray is to produce downforce to improve car performance.
Initial concepts for the profile of the undertray were generated based on hand calculations and
improved through analysis of design iterations. The main concepts evaluated in the analysis

23
pertained to area ratios across the inlet, throat, and outlet of the undertray. See Appendix A.5 for
labeled regions of the undertray.
The complex three-dimensional interaction between the undertray and the vehicle’s nose
cone and body made two dimensional CFD impractical. For this reason, the undertray was
preliminarily designed using several three-dimensional simulations of the undertray on the 2018
(rather than 2019) car before integration onto the final 2019 full car model. In these iterations
preliminary decisions were made on the undertray inlet and diffuser outlet heights and locations.
These simulations gave the team insight into the complex aerodynamic events at play in the
design of an undertray and diffuser. However, in hindsight, this time spent was not entirely
productive. The interactions between the undertray and the 2018 front wing, rear wing, and body
were significantly different from the same interactions on the 2019 car. Because of this, most of
the undertray was redesigned as discussed in the Concept Evaluation/Selection, Aerodynamic
Concept Integration section.

Concept Evaluation/Selection
Note: Detailed models and images for each iteration are accessible for each iteration by hyperlink to the appendix.
Full car design iterations have been evaluated using the 3D CFD analysis techniques
discussed in the following section. The full car models include each of the individually designed
and optimized components discussed both above and in the System Description section.
Fourteen design iterations were evaluated leading to the final design values presented in the table
below. Table 5 details the findings of these simulations. A detailed explanation of simulation
parameters and methodology is included in the Analysis Methodology section.
Table 5. Component Downforce Totals

24
Aerodynamic Concept Integration
Model 1 (simulated as Iteration 1)
Note: “Model” refers to major design changes while “Iteration” refers to the simulation number. Multiple simulations
were run with only slight changes to the model
Model 1 was the first integration of all individually optimized parts. The primary result of
this first iteration was the realization that the initial design of the front wing was not acceptable.
The first iteration front wing utilized all available area per rules to generate downforce. The front
wing produced 17% more downforce at 60 mph than the 2018 front wing, but the wing produced
a huge stall region that limited airflow to the radiator, undertray, and side wings. The center
element of the front wing had an inefficient interaction with the nose cone of the car that prevented
maximum flow from entering the center portion of the undertray. Additionally, the inlet of the
undertray was lowered to avoid blocking upward-flowing air from the trailing edge of the front
wing. All the changes mentioned in this and subsequent paragraphs were justified with 3D CFD.
Images illustrating the results of these changes are provided in Appendix E, organized by model
number.

Model 2 (Simulated as Iteration 4)

Model 2 was run with a front wing designed to allow maximum flow to the radiator. The
trailing sections of the main element, two trailing between the tire and body and one trailing in
front of the tire, were replaced with two large elements resembling a biplane. The results of this
change can be seen in the increased radiator flow rate. As expected, the total downforce of the
front wing decreased. Increased flow rate to components downstream of the front wing also
contributed to an increase in downforce produced by the undertray. This increase helped to offset
the loss in front wing downforce. In this model the side wing was increased from 12 to 16 inches
while its width was narrowed. Outside of the side wing end plate a parabolic ramp was placed in
front of the rear tire. The total car downforce reached 304 pounds This increase was a significant
advancement from Model 1. However, the team was not satisfied with this design, and felt that
the design was approaching the maximum achievable downforce with the current front wing
design.

Model 3 (Simulated as Iteration 5)

Model 3 was run with a front wing that can be thought of as a middle ground between the
high flow rate front wing of Model 2 and the initial design of Model 1. Two trailing elements were
implemented that stretched from the tire to the halfway point between the tire and body. A gap

25
was left from this point to the body. This provided unobstructed flow through to the radiator while
taking advantage of as much downforce producing area as possible. The trailing element in front
of the tire from Model 1 was added back into the design. A smaller version of the biplane wing
was added above the main element to maximize downforce. This iteration was run with the same
side wing and parabolic ramp as Model 2. This concept is most efficient for this front wing design
as the part of the side wing that is blocked by the main elements of the front wing is eliminated
and replaced with an unobstructed wing outside of the side wing end plates. The total car
downforce reached 293 pounds on this design. As expected undertray and side wing downforce
decreased slightly but was made up for with the increase in front wing downforce. Additionally,
the rear wing downforce increased by approximately 10% from Model 2 despite no changes being
made to the wing. Later in the design process it was realized that the location of the side wing in
Models 2 and 3 was significantly affecting the performance of the rear wing. The team determined
that this is the cause of the discrepancy between rear wing performance in Models 2 and 3.

Model 4 (simulated as Iteration 14) Final Design

Model 4 was the best overall integration of the individual concepts selected to meet the
requirements of the functional decomposition. Model 4 produced the highest downforce (Iteration
14) without compromising radiator mass flow rate. Additionally, this model had a satisfactory
location of the center of pressure. Figure 48 in Appendix E.5 shows the 53% rear bias of the car’s
aerodynamic forces. This was accomplished with a completely redesigned front wing, and a
variety of small changes all aimed at improving the interaction between components. After Model
3 the team took considerable time to redesign the front wing. The final front wing was optimized
using ground effect to size the main element. Ground effect is a phenomenon that uses the ground
and the bottom of the main element of the front wing to nozzle the air. This further accelerates
the flow under the front wing and provides a higher coefficient of lift of the airfoil. Studies showed
that ground effect was most beneficial at low angles of attack with airfoils that are not highly
cambered. Utilizing low angles of attack allows for more trailing elements because the main
element uses less of the vertical area allowed by rules which gives a bigger envelope to place
trailing elements. Two-dimensional CFD simulations were used to choose airfoil location and
angle of attack. Figure 41 shows the final front wing design, which produced the most downforce
and performed best with the other aerodynamic components out of all front wing models
evaluated.
The performance of the undertray was improved in an iterative process that resulted in
several changes being implemented by Model 4. First, a Gurney flap was added to the diffuser

26
outlet to help pull more air through the undertray. A Gurney flap functions by reducing pressure
behind the flap. This lower pressure pulls air into the area behind the flap. This change is shown
in Figure 45. Additionally, the diffuser outlet was lowered to prevent recirculation and separation.
Recirculation and separation were causing areas of high pressure on the lower surface of the
undertray. The team determined that this recirculation was caused by an overly aggressive
expansion of the diffuser. The improvements from the addition of the Gurney flap and the lowered
diffuser outlet are shown in a velocity profile through the undertray, Figure 46. In the velocity
profile notice the decrease in size of the blue area of slow-moving air at the diffuser outlet. This
blue area was a zone of flow recirculation that was significantly reduced in the final design.
Finally, several areas of the undertray were modified to remove high pressure regions on
the undertray bottom surface. The undertray inlet was moved back and lowered to remove it from
the upward flowing jet of air coming from the trailing edge of the front wing, the side wing base
was removed, and, as mentioned, the diffuser outlet was lowered. These changes are shown in
Figure 47.
During the time spent on redesigning the front wing, many minor changes were
implemented and simulated between iterations 5 and 14. The interaction between the side wings
and rear wings was improved by lowering the endplates of the rear wing. This prevents flow off
the trailing edge of the side wings from impacting the bottom surface of the rear wing. The air
flowing off the trailing edge of the side wings is moving upward. In Models 1-3 this airflow was
redirected downwards by the rear wing. This change of momentum at the expense of the rear
wing clearly decrease rear wing downforce. Figure 43 shows how streamlines in the simulation of
Model 3 go off the trailing edge of the side wing and impact the bottom side of the rear wing.
Figure 42 shows how extended rear wing endplates redirect the air around the rear wings.
Additionally, during the iterations between 5 and 14, the senior design team helped the
TigerRacing club select between two rear wing prototypes. Iterations 9, 12, and 14 utilized the
rear wing used in the final design, while 8, 10, 11, and 13 used the rejected rear wing. This
decision process between the two rear wing options accounts for the large fluctuations in
downforce seen during this time. It was during this time that the team realized that the location of
the side wing in models one through three negatively impacted the rear wing (resolved with the
extended rear wing endplate).
Between Iterations 5 and 14 the team also finalized the location of the radiator. The team
found that the best location for the radiator was moved back towards the rear of the car compared
to Models 1 and 3. This is for several reasons. Moving the radiator back moves it out of the
streamlines between the front wing and the rear wing. Additionally, it offers a convenient mounting

27
opportunity for the side wing in its final location and will reduce the length of piping between the
radiator and engine. Eliminating this piping will save weight and increase cooling performance.

General Element Structure Concept Generation

Strength, weight, and manufacturability were all considered during element structures’
material selection and design. For the front and side wings, the wing elements must be strong
enough to handle accidental contact forces. Concepts were generated from research into what
other teams implement. The research concluded that the most viable options were 3D printed
internal structures or low-density foam internal structures. For external structures, all evaluated
teams incorporated a carbon fiber skin around the internal structure. In addition to element
structure, the team had to generate concepts for endplate material and designs. The materials
considered include pre-manufactured carbon fiber sandwich foam boards as well as in-house
manufactured sandwich foam boards. Finally, the team also had to generate concepts for the
undertray and diffuser material. The materials considered follow the same concepts as the
endplate materials.

General Mounting Concept Selection

Several options were considered for mounting components were considered, which
included potted inserts, aluminum sandwich mounts, and quarter-turn fasteners. These methods
of mounting were evaluated based on a few criteria, the priority being that the fasteners must be
lightweight and easy-to-use, both in installation and fastening. Potted inserts are commonly used
in aerospace applications where aluminum honeycomb panels are used. The inserts are
embedded into the panels in a process called “potting,” using epoxy to fix the inserts in place. The
inserts are either thru hole or threaded, which allow for different mounting options. Aluminum
potted inserts are lightweight and strong, in addition to allowing a flush mating surface for
assembling components. Aluminum sandwich mounts were used on the 2018 aerodynamics
package and are more similar to press-fit inserts, which means a flange is bonded to the panel
surface and results in a stronger and stiffer mounting point. However, the size of these mounts
can be quite large and can accumulate weight. Quarter-turn fasteners are commonly used in the
racing industry for their relatively low weight and quick fastening capability.
Using a decision matrix (see Table 14), the qualities of these mounting methods were
compared by quantifying their attributes in accordance to the weight of the each criterium. Potted
inserts were deemed the appropriate solution from this analysis. A potted insert made of a
composite material were identified and testing will be required to determine adequate potting

28
methods for the inserts. Thru hole potted inserts will be used for mounting the endplates and
undertray to the chassis. Thru threaded potted inserts will be used for assembling wing elements
to endplates.

Wing to Endplate Mounting Concept Selection

All airfoils will be directly attached to carbon fiber sandwich foam endplates through potted
inserts and epoxy resin. Hollow carbon fiber spars that are placed within each airfoil will have
aluminum caps epoxied at the ends. Potted inserts will be placed within carbon fiber sandwich
foam endplates at designed airfoil locations. Standard bolts are then threaded through these
potted inserts and into the epoxied aluminum caps. Epoxy resin will be utilized to strengthen the
assembly and to fill any creases between connections for increased efficiency.

Endplate to Frame Mounting Concept Selection

Endplates that are mounted directly to the frame will utilize the same concept as airfoil to
endplate mounting. There is a total of six mounting locations where the endplates are directly
attached to the frame. Welded mounts will be attached in the front of the chassis directly behind
the impact attenuator, as seen in Figure 57. Mounts will be drilled and tapped for direct bolt
connections. Standard bolts will be threaded through potted inserts and welded mounts for a
direct connection.

Undertray Mounting Concept Selection

The undertray will be mounted in two locations on the chassis. There is a total of four
mounting points underneath the lowest part of the chassis that will contain welded triangular tabs,
as seen in Figure 60. A welded nut will be located on the top side of the tab facing the seat of the
car. Standard bolts will be threaded through potted inserts and the welded nut that is located on
the tab. Two steel cable supports will be mounted to the rear of the main roll hoop directly to the
diffuser section of the undertray.

Engineering Analysis and Material Selection Processes

Analysis Methodology
The external aerodynamics of the full car were simulated in Siemens’ STAR-CCM+ CFD
software. The results of this analysis have been presented throughout the report and were used
as the major tool to create the final design. A freestream velocity of 60 mph was used to evaluate
downforce production of different aerodynamic elements. Although a speed of 60 mph is above

29
the average speed achieved in an FSAE event, it represents a baseline to compare the
performance of this year’s car with last year’s car. Additionally, aerodynamic components
optimized to perform well at higher speeds will generally have similar efficiencies at lower speeds.
For example, in general, an airfoil that does not have separation on the low-pressure side of the
wing at 60 mph will not have separation at 30 mph. Although the team has found no documented
correlation between Reynolds number and flow separation, the team has found evidence (in their
own simulations) of more severe separation in high speed flows.4 This logic led the team to use
60 mph as a benchmark for aerodynamic performance and a worst case for aerodynamic
efficiency in an FSAE competition.
STAR-CCM+ requires a fluid domain - similar to a wind tunnel - to be built around the
simulated object. The car is subtracted from the fluid region and then boundary conditions are
specified for each surface of the fluid domain. The fluid domain is built to have approximately five
car lengths before and ten lengths after the car to ensure complete resolution of the wake and
leading pressure gradients. Figure 50 shows the scale of the simulation domain relative to the
vehicle. The boundary conditions imposed on the domain were a uniform velocity inlet of 60 mph,
a uniform pressure outlet, a moving ground at 60 mph relative to the vehicle, and symmetry planes
around the sides and top of the domain. The vehicle’s radiator was simulated as a porous media
with a specified pressure drop per unit length. The vehicle’s tires were rotated at an angular
velocity to match the 60-mph road speed. The team took advantage of the car’s axial symmetry
to only simulate half the vehicle and save significant computational time. Figure 49 shows the
axial symmetry of the vehicle.
The team used an unstructured hexahedral mesh built with STAR-CCM+’s trimmed cell
mesher in all 3D simulations. The trimmed cell mesher discretizes a selected fluid volume into
hexahedral elements. The team selected this meshing technique for its superior performance in
analyzing flow from a single direction. Figure 51 and Figure 52 provide images of the surface
mesh and the gradual transition to the coarse mesh in the outer domain. The trimmed cell mesh
produces robust, efficient, and easy to visualize results. The primary trade-off of a trimmed cell
mesh is the difficulty in capturing complex geometry without reducing cell quality.2 This is an issue
that was monitored and addressed throughout the simulations. Volume meshes were generated
based off surface meshes that were optimized to capture all the complex geometries of the car.
Perhaps the most difficult part of meshing the car was ensuring adequate surface mesh resolution
on the trailing edges of the aggressively cambered airfoils used on the car. Prism layers (inflation
layers) were used to capture boundary layer development on scales that could not be resolved
with the base size of the mesh.

30
 The flow was modeled as incompressible and turbulent. Turbulence was resolved using
the k-⍵ SST Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes model. The team chose the k-⍵ SST model for
its high performance in resolving adverse pressure gradients and boundary layers over complex
geometries. K-⍵ SST blends the classic k-⍵ turbulence model near the wall with k-ε in free stream
locations. This approach takes advantage of k-⍵’s superior performance in near wall locations
without subjecting the simulation to its problems with instability from slightly inaccurate boundary
conditions.5,13
Wall y+ was monitored throughout all simulations. Wall y+ is perhaps the most important
metric to judge the resolution of a mesh in turbulent flow. Wall y+ is a non-dimensional height that
effectively measures the turbulence present in the cell contacting the simulated surface. Turbulent
boundary layers contain a laminar sublayer extremely close to the wall. The boundary layer is
completely resolved only if this laminar sublayer is modeled. A wall y+ of exactly one indicates
that the first cell in contact with the wall contains the entirety of the laminar sublayer with no
turbulent flow. Unfortunately, the complex geometry of the car and limited computational
resources made it difficult, if not impossible, to fully resolve the boundary layer across the entire
car. When the wall y+ is greater than one wall functions are used to approximate the contribution
of the laminar sublayer to the flow properties within the cell. Siemens offers an All Wall Y+
treatment that utilizes wall functions in high wall y+ cells and alternatively resolves the laminar
sublayer when possible.10 This method produced consistent and stable results regardless of mesh
size. Figure 5 shows the boundary layer on one of the simulated front wings at a local wall y+ of
approximately three.

Figure 5. Boundary Layer Development with Wall Y+ of approximately 3.

Simulations were completed using a SIMPLE based pressure and velocity coupling
algorithm3 of the Navier Stokes Equations, resolved with the k-⍵ SST model. Both were
discretized and solved with second order solvers. Initially, simulations were completed in a

31
steady-state domain, ignoring transient effects. Analysis of unstable residuals and oscillating
results demonstrated that simulations required solutions in the time domain. Unsteadiness in the
flow is caused by vortex shedding off the front and rear wings of the car and recirculation at the
diffuser outlet. A second order implicit scheme was used for solving the temporal discretization.
A timestep of 0.0075 seconds (sampling frequency of 133 Hz) was selected based on a
conservative estimate of the vortex shedding frequency of the car (Strouhal number = 1),
multiplied by a sampling frequency of ten times the estimated vortex shedding frequency. The
Nyquist sampling frequency theorem states that an oscillating signal must be sampled at a
frequency at least double the frequency of oscillation.9 Because the estimated vortex shedding
frequency was likely inaccurate, a sampling frequency of ten times the estimated vortex shedding
frequency was used to ensure the oscillations were fully captured.
The implicit scheme was used to allow the team flexibility in consideration of the CFL
condition for time based partial differential equations.2,3 An explicit scheme would require the team
to use a time step on the scale of one one-thousandth of that required to capture vortex shedding
in order to obtain a maximum Courant number of 1. This makes the implicit scheme the best
choice for temporal discretization with limited computing power. Each implicit time step went
through 100 inner iterations prior to the next time step being initialized. The team’s theory that
unsteadiness occurs on the vortex shedding time scale rather than the convective time scale
(Courant number) was validated throughout the simulations. Although the Courant number was
not directly considered during time step selection, it was monitored throughout simulations.
Figure 34 gives a general idea of the residual patterns seen in the unsteady simulations.
Convergence was judged based on all normalized residual quantities falling at least two orders of
magnitude during each time step while the simulation was producing consistent results for
reported quantities (Downforce, Drag, etc.) over many time steps. Typically, convergence was
better than this, but two orders of magnitude was used as the limit of acceptability.
Table 7 documents the parameters used for temporal and volumetric discretization in the
3D simulations. Note that in Iterations 1 and 2 oscillations were minimal and unpredictable. In the
other iterations, oscillation frequency was measured by finding the time period of plotted
downforce number oscillations. The Courant number does not directly affect the results of the
simulations. However, it does show consistency in mesh resolution compared to flow speed. A
consistent meshing procedure was developed through the first few iterations and was used
consistently from Iterations 4 to 14. The column with the average wall y+ values refers only to the
average on the aerodynamic components being analyzed (i.e. front wings, rear wings, side wings,
and undertray).

32
 Aerodynamic components were optimized individually before three dimensional
simulations began to integrate the components together. The team used two dimensional CFD to
select airfoil profiles, spacing, and angles of attack for the front wing. The meshing schemes,
physical models, and solvers were all consistent with the 3D analysis. Detailed results are
included in the concept selection section.
2D CFD was utilized to optimize the front and side wing assemblies. Analysis began by
simulating the S1223 airfoil at different angles of attack. This analysis was performed to ensure
confidence in 2D simulation and validate solvers used. With confidence established, the team
began simulation for the 2019 front wing. S1223 was chosen as the main element due to its high
coefficient of lift. Analysis done during the 2017-18 senior design project showed that the optimal
trailing wing size is between 40%-50% of the main element. To develop the first iteration of the
front wing, this constraint was utilized to minimize variables to design a first iteration front wing
quickly and efficiently. This consisted of a three element S1223 wing shown in Figure 20.. With
the first iteration designed, more 2D simulations were performed to evaluate different wing
configurations. The results showed exceptions to the rule suggested by the 2017-18 senior design
team. Table 10 shows the results of the analysis. Findings will be incorporated into the Iteration
6 front wing. A ground effect study is also being performed in 2D. The results will be incorporated
in mounting to ensure optimal placement of the front wing.
The undertray was the only aerodynamic component that could not be optimized
individually in 2D CFD. Area ratios between the inlet, throat area, and outlet, were based off hand
calculations to maximize downforce production. A preliminary design was modeled in SolidWorks
based off these area ratios and was refined through several design iterations. 2D CFD is not
viable to evaluate the undertray because of the three-dimensional geometry of the part. The
undertray is heavily influenced by components of the car in front of it. As a result, the realistic flow
field present at the undertray inlet, cannot be accurately represented by free stream air seen in a
2D model. Further, including just a cross section of the undertray introduces a region of high
pressure on top of the undertray as flow detaches over the inlet. The decision was made to
optimize the undertray in 3D CFD with the 2019 car model and updated front wing geometry to
fully account for the complex flow field seen by the undertray.

Lap Simulation Analysis

The first analysis done for this project was a fundamental point mass analysis of car
performance on a simulated Formula SAE Track. The program used for this analysis is
OptimumLap, produced as part of the OptimumG suite of vehicle performance evaluation

33
programs. This program operates by importing a three-dimensional path from collected GPS data
of a Formula SAE course. For the simulations done by Team 28, the 2014 Michigan track was
used as it had the most accurate model and is also extremely similar to the tracks that will be
seen this competition season. The vehicle’s data is entered into the program including the mass,
power curve of the car, gear ratios, tire behavior, lift, drag, and braking capabilities. This data is
used to create a point mass model of the car that incorporates the possible longitudinal and lateral
accelerations of the car. These calculations of the OptimumLap software have been validated to
have an accuracy typically within 5% of actual vehicle performance.
The team used this software for an evaluation of the car’s performance across a range of
downforce productions. The planned aerodynamics design changes were run through this
simulation in a sweep to determine if there was an effective limit to adding downforce and the
associated drag. Based on our projected relationship between lift and drag we found that the cars
performance continues to improve until approximately 1200 pounds of downforce (evaluated at
60mph). This information is valuable in that it shows that maximizing the downforce is first priority
with little concern to the drag created by the system. The team used these results to determine a
goal lap time reduction based on an attainable increase in downforce.

Airfoil Design
Each component shares the same constraints and criteria when selecting certain
materials. All components must be lightweight, able to withstand wind forces without noticeable
deflection, and able to withstand accidental impacts during testing/competition. These criteria
were considered when selecting different carbon fiber weave patterns and airfoil core materials.
Decision matrices for these material selections can be found in Appendix H.2 and Appendix I.4.
Airfoil cores will be made of low-density foam, as the material is lightweight, and provides enough
support during the carbon fiber layup process. The team explored the possibility of using a 3D
printed airfoil core built with the Markforged 3D printer in the LSU Advanced Manufacturing and
Machining Facility. The airfoil design approach was to utilize the increased stiffness of the
chopped-carbon nylon material and decrease weight of the airfoil cores. Using Altair’s Inspire, an
airfoil core design was generated with 90 percent less volume than before. However, after 3D
printing this airfoil, it was found to be rather heavy compared to the foam option. The airfoil core
weighed 1.73 ounces, which is much more than the solid foam core weighing 0.42 ounces. The
resulting weight of these cores were evaluated using a CH10 airfoil profile of twelve inches in
chord length and can be found in Appendix H.2.

34
 Before ruling out the 3D printed core, a load analysis was conducted on manufactured,
two-inch test pieces of the 3D printed core, solid foam core, and ribbed foam core (models shown
in Appendix ###). All cores had one layer of 3K 2x2 twill weave carbon fiber epoxied to the outside
for extra strength, much like how the final product will be made. Various loads were applied to the
test pieces, and deflection was recorded. The test set-up and results can be found in Appendix
###. The ribbed foam core failed at initial loading, so its results were not displayed. The results
show that the 3D printed structure had the highest strength, with nearly half the deflection of the
solid foam core at an applied load of 5.5 pounds.
After considering weight, strength, ease of manufacturing, and cost, the team decided to
pursue the low-density solid foam core option with an additional carbon fiber spar spanning the
length of the wing elements. The spar will provide sufficient internal structure strength without
sacrificing weight.
The front and side wing airfoils are to be made with one layer of 3K 2x2 twill weave carbon
fiber epoxied around a low-density foam core. The front main airfoil will be of a different
composition due to its likelihood of accidental impact – two layers of 3K 2x2 plain weave carbon
fiber will reinforce the front main airfoil.

Endplate Design
Multiple end plate materials were compared, with the two main considerations being flat
sheets of carbon fiber that are cut out and profiled on the water jet or DragonPlate that is cut out
and profiled on the waterjet. These are comparable in weight per square yardage with the
DragonPlate being slightly heavier. The DragonPlate has a significant advantage in mounting
options as potted inserts are viable and can be strong. As the potted inserts provide the necessary
strength for mounting, the DragonPlate was selected as the end plate material of choice.
DragonPlate uses a single layer of plain weave carbon fiber sandwiching Divinycell H100 foam.
All end plates will be 0.25 inches thick.

Undertray Design
Several options were considered for the design of assembly and material selection of the
undertray. The lightest option would be to utilize two to four layers of 3K 2x2 twill weave carbon
fiber and a skeletal structure of 0.0125-inch thick, 3 lb/ft3 density vinyl foam core. Table 8 shows
the weight breakdown of all options considered when creating the undertray. The weight of epoxy
was calculated using real-world measurements. A one-gallon container of epoxy and hardener

35
covers about 179 square yards. In our case, an approximate weight was calculated at two pounds
of epoxy resin and hardener at two to four layers of carbon. There are four mounting locations
underneath the lowest part of the frame that sectioned foam will be placed. In the rare case that
a cone gets caught underneath the car, four layers of carbon fiber are to be epoxied over these
foam mounting sections for extra resistance to shear. The inner end plate that attaches to the
undertray will consist of three layers of 3K 2x2 twill weave carbon fiber to be able to support side
wing airfoil mounting.

Mounting Design
Potted inserts were chosen as our primary method for mounting all aerodynamic
components to the chassis. Figure 2 represents an assembly of the front wing end plate being
fastened to the chassis. Steel support cables will be used to mount the side wing mounting plate
to the side of the chassis. Other support cables will be added as needed after components are
assembled and mounted.

Figure 6. Diagram of the potted insert mounting method.

Epoxy Resin/Molding Material

The team is currently exploring the opportunity of using an autoclave located at NASA’s
Michoud facility in New Orleans. If NASA agrees to collaborate with the team, materials selection
will have to be reevaluated for carbon fiber. The current material choices have been made for a
wet layup process. Materials used in making molds will not change.

36
Deliverables
The project deliverables will be the completed aerodynamic package, documentation of
all designs, documentation of all manufacturing procedures, and all findings obtained from testing
and analysis of designs. Providing documentation of all processes and results is a request of the
sponsor. TigerRacing requires this information as it is necessary for the design scrutineering
events at FSAE competitions. As well, this information will be used by TigerRacing to ensure
succeeding club members have a foundation for future aerodynamic designs.
Within TigerRacing, there is a group of underclassmen working to independently develop
aerodynamic improvements exclusively for the rear wing. It will be the responsibility of the senior
design team to deliver a product that works cohesively with their independent developments. The
senior design team will not be solely responsible for manufacturing drawings of the rear wings.
However, the senior design team understands that it is the team’s responsibility to deliver overall
aerodynamic improvement of the vehicle.
The completed prototype includes three individual assemblies, these subassemblies are:
the front wing, side wings and undertray. Individually, manufacturing processes are common
between the subassemblies. Raw materials for part construction include, 2x2 3K twill and plain
weave carbon fiber, DragonPlate, and 1.5 pounds and 3-pound closed-cell foam. Machinery and
other materials are necessary for manufacturing. Machinery includes CNC mills, CNC water jet,
vacuum bags and generator, and paint gun. Other materials include epoxy resin and vacuum bag
material.

Wings
Raw woven carbon fiber is received by TigerRacing on 5-foot spools. That is, sheets of
five feet width with the total length measured in yards. The carbon will be cut to the appropriate
size for manufacturing of a given airfoil assembly. For a carbon-skin airfoil, manufacturing requires
that a male mold core be used to support of the carbon fiber during the layup and curing
processes. The male mold also serves the purpose of an airfoil rib, adding internal structure to
the wing in the direction of the airfoil chord. Carbon is wetted with epoxy and laid around the airfoil
core, then placed in a female mold. The female mold ensures exterior shape and surface quality.
Once the female mold is closed around the airfoil, the entire assembly of the foam core, carbon
fiber, and female mold, is sealed and vacuum is created to increase pressure on the mold
assembly.

37
Undertray
The undertray will be manufactured in two parts. The horizontal sections and vertical
sections will be manufactured separately and attached to each other using rivets and epoxy resin.
The inner vertical mounting plate on the side of the undertray will be made out of the same
material as the endplates. Vertical sections include Gurney-flaps at diffuser outlet and fins that
run along the bottom of the undertray, shown in Figure 40.
carbon fiber will be cut to appropriate size for use on specific undertray sections.
Vertical sections will be made of multi-layered carbon-fiber sheets. The carbon will be laid
up on a flat surface. This will create a flat carbon panel that can be cut to shape using a CNC
water jet. These parts will be riveted to the undertray using pre-manufactured carbon fiber L-
brackets.
The main undertray body will be made on a single male mold. This will ensure a quality
surface finish on the functional side of the undertray. Three-pound foam will be cut and placed in
the mounting areas of the undertray. The foam will be bonded to the undertray with epoxy resin
and covered with a sheet of carbon fiber. The entire assembly will be vacuum bagged to pull
excess resin from the wet carbon fiber.

Male Molds
Male molds are used for undertray and airfoil manufacturing. For the undertray, material
used is high-density tooling board that is milled to the exterior shape a part. Surface preparation
is required to ensure that carbon fiber and epoxy does not adhere to the mold. Draft angles were
also considered while designing undertray molds for an easier product release. These
preparations include smoothing the mold surface and painting it with a gel-coat and release film.
The male mold for the undertray is not a part of the final undertray assembly, where as the male
mold for the wings is part of the final wing assembly.
An airfoil core is necessary for supporting the carbon-skin during manufacturing, adding
structure to inside of airfoil, and supporting the wing’s spar. These are manufactured from 1.5 lbs
closed cell foam, that is cut with a CNC water jet. Two-inch sections are cut to the profile of the
airfoil and are stacked together along the wing span.
The undertray mold is manufactured from tooling board which is milled on a large-scale
CNC. It is shaped to the contour of the bottom side of the undertray and prepared to ensure a
quality surface finish of the bottom of the undertray.

38
Endplates
End plates are made from DragonPlate carbon sandwich plate. This is premade from
DragonPlate, which is composed of a closed cell foam core with a carbon skin, shown in Figure
65. It is received in 4x4 feet sheets and is cut to shape with a CNC water-jet. Holes for mounting
components will be drilled manually to decrease manufacturing time and cost.

Vacuum Bag Process

A vacuum bag process is used to remove excess resin and increase bonding of a wet
carbon fiber layup. This process includes a permeable plastic bag, cotton sheet, vacuum bag,
and vacuum generator. The permeable bag is placed directly over the wet carbon and the cotton
sheet is wrapped around the plastic bag. This is placed inside the female airfoil mold, which is
then wrapped in a sealed vacuum bag. Once a vacuum is applied, the resin is forced through the
permeable plastic and absorbed by the cotton, which prevents the resin from reentering the
carbon matrix.

Testing, Validation, and Implementation

The engineering specifications outlined in the functional decomposition will each need to
be assessed to ensure the product meets the performance goals, is compliant with competition
rules, and also to validate the calculations performed. These tests will be used to ensure that the
system will be successful in competition and to provide credibility to the calculations and
simulations performed in the design phase.

Component Weight and Attachment Strength

The individual weights of each component will be weighed and recorded to document the
contributions of each component to the 35 lb weight goal of the system. This will be done with a
spreadsheet and a small digital scale. The individual mounting attachments into each different
mounting type will be tested. This involves potted inserts that will be tested in both axial and shear
loading in both dragon plate and undertray material. Each mount will be tested with specified
loads and the deflection and failure values will be recorded to validate use of mounting
components and ensure that they are appropriate for a given application.

Aerodynamic Performance and Assembly Strength

39
 With the wings installed, a calibration curve will be created by loading known weights onto
the wings and measuring the suspension deflection, in a static condition. Measurement devices
include four potentiometers connected to each spring and damper on the car. Weight will be
loaded to the max possible load. The max load is determined by compliance to the wing deflection
limit set by FSAE rules. With this calibration curve created, real world testing will be performed in
the form of a series of coast down tests and steady speed tests. A coast down test is used to
determine the drag on the car and will be performed with and without the aerodynamics package.
The steady speed tests are used to find the total downforce on the car and will involve the car
operating at a steady speed and the suspension potentiometer data used to calculate the
downforce and balance of the car at that speed.
Several testing procedure concepts for determining the performance of an individual
aerodynamic devices are being developed. This will allow for further validation of CFD results as
well as show which aerodynamic devices are most effective on TigerRacing’s car. These
incorporate the use of high static sensitivity measurement devices that can be implemented on
an aerodynamic component’s mounts.

Quality and Package Ergonomics

The quality and wing appearance will be evaluated by visual inspection and any trouble
areas will be marked for correction. An ideal quality level is to have a smooth surface finish with
consistency of the direction of carbon weave. Installation times will be done by starting with the
car on the ground with no aerodynamic components and timing the installation process. This will
be evaluated both for team and club members, who are unfamiliar with the design. Lastly, the
installed system will be sanded and taped to cover any sharp radii. These will then be measured
with a radius guide to ensure rules compliance and handling safety.
The front wing shear will not be tested dynamically because it is an emergency and
involves the destruction of the front wing in the event of a crash, which is too dangerous and
costly. All testing equipment is outlined in Appendix M.

Safety Considerations
When generating ideas for safety considerations, the team considered the potential
customers of the project. First, the TigerRacing team would interact the most with the product
where members would be working around the car and drivers operating the car. Second, the
competition judges and scrutineers would require that the package comply to competition rules
and safety regulations. Third, the existing or potential sponsors that would interact with the vehicle

40
must be protected from potential hazards. The team took the necessary precautions to ensure
that none of the customers as well as the members of Team 28 would not be harmed in the
handling of the product.
The team performed a driver egress test to ensure that the side wings would not obstruct
the driver from safely exiting the vehicle in case of an emergency. A 20-inch tall obstructing object
was used to act as the side wings and three egresses were times for two drivers. Both drivers
were able to safely egress out of the vehicle without difficulty and within the allotted time limit.
Accidental contact to sharp corners or edges were considered and a few precautions will
be implemented to prevent minor injuries. All leading and trailing edges that can be contacted will
be rounded or taped. Sharp carbon fiber edges will be taped to prevent injury from carbon
splinters. Labels will be used to reinforce prohibiting contact where injury can be likely.
During manufacturing, proper personal protection equipment will be worn during material
handling, manufacturing, and operation of the product. Gloves, safety glasses, closed-toe shoes,
and pants will be worn during the manufacturing processes. During operation of the vehicle with
the package installed, the driver must wear a full fire-retardant suit, helmet, gloves, and fire-
retardant shoes and personnel present during operation of the vehicle must wear pants and
closed-toe shoes, as well as carry fire extinguishers in case of fire emergencies.

Final Project Management

Overall, the project progress is on schedule, with some adjustments made to the initial
timeline. Some of these adjustments were due to a large 3D CFD learning curve, as well as small
complications faced. Additionally, Team 28 has absorbed the responsibility of designing the front
wing for the FSAE team. Early in analysis, it became apparent that integrating the front wing and
undertray design would be essential for a successful aerodynamic package. Table 20 includes a
summary of our project timeline. The team Gantt chart and critical path can be found in Appendix
L. The team’s budget of $8,500 was allocated to four categories: materials, molds, wind tunnel
testing, and contingency.

Summary and Conclusions

By using 2D and 3D CFD analysis, Team 28 was able to produce an advanced
aerodynamic package that is predicted to increase the generated downforce by 60%. The
package was divided into three subassemblies, comprising of the front wing, side wings, and
undertray. All of these subassemblies were evaluated through fourteen design iterations and
resulted in a final design that considered downforce generated, weight, and manufacturability.

41
Using the functional decomposition as a backbone for the iterative design process,
the aerodynamic package successfully carries out the functions as established by the team. Even
though the team did not meet the initial goal of 400 pounds of downforce, the team is confident
that the analytical methods used to design this package will accurately represent the performance
of the package in reality. Extensive testing will be required to validate the numerical calculations
used in the design to ensure both correct engineering analysis practices and successful product
functionality and implementation. Team 28 is striving to produce an advanced aerodynamics
package for the TigerRacing Formula SAE team that will improve their performance in competition
events.

References
1. Aguillard, Jared, et al. (2018). Team #28 Final Prototype Report.
2. Caminha, Guilherme. (2018) “The CFL Condition and How to Choose Your Timestep
Size.” SimScale, SimScale.
3. Dutykh, Denys. (2016) How to Overcome the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy Condition of
Explicit Discretizations? CNRS–Université Savoie Mont Blanc, France, 30 Nov. 2016.
a. Information used from section 2 - "Classical Numerical Schemes" on comparison
of explicit and implicit schemes.
4. Fox, Robert W., et al. (2012) Introduction to Fluid Mechanics. J. Wiley
. No mention of significant effect of Reynolds number on flow separation on airfoil
5. Frei, Walter. (2017) “Which Turbulence Model Should I Choose for My CFD
Application?” COMSOL Multiphysics©.
6. Hucho WH. (1998). Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles. Warrendale, PA: SAE Int. 4th ed.
7. Katz, Joseph and R. Bentley. (1995). “Ch. 1 Aerodynamics and Race Cars.” Race Car
Aerodynamics: Designing for Speed.
8. Penny, Chris. (2017) “FSAE Star CCM+ Resources.”
Thesteveportal.plm.automation.siemens.com.
9. Poynot, Joe. “Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics.” LSU ME 3834 Module:
Introduction to CFD.
10. “Star CCM+ User Manual.” Documentation.thesteveportal.plm.automation.siemens.com.
11. Selig, Michael S, and James J Guglielmo. (1995). “Summary of Low Speed Airfoil Data.”
12. Sriram, P.s., et al. (2012) “High-Downforce Airfoil Design for Motorsports.” SAE
International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 478–489.,
doi:10.4271/2012-01-1168.
13. “SST k-Omega Model.” www.cfd-Online.com.

42
Appendix
Appendix A. Referenced Figures
A.1. Assembly Model

Figure 7. CAD Model of the 2019 Aerodynamic Components

43
A.2. Drag Limitation Plot

Figure 8. OptimumLap Gearing and Drag Plot (produced by Eric Murrell and Josh Perkins)
This diagram shows some of the basic inputs to the lap simulation software and plots the
tractive force of the car along with the power and drag. This is used to determine if drag ever
becomes larger in magnitude than the available power of the engine.

44
A.3. Correlation of Downforce to Lap Times

Figure 9. Plot of Varying Lift (and Drag) Compared to Lap Time (produced by Eric Murrell)
This graph is the result of a simulation that sweeps the coefficient of lift and the
accompanying drag increase to determine the possible lap time benefits of the downforce created.
The CoL of 4.7 corresponds with 400 lbs of downforce in the simulation.

45
A.4. CH10 Airfoil CFD Verification Study

Figure 10. Study of the CH10 airfoil comparing CFD predictions and experimental values.

A.5. General Undertray Diagram

Figure 11. The undertray's major regions; inlet, throat, and diffuser.

46
A.6. Ground Effect Study

Figure 12. A comparison of free stream and ground effect simulations.

A.7. Iterative Progression of Generated Downforce

Figure 13. Downforce results per each iteration.

47
A.8. Vehicle Acceleration with Drag

Figure 14. Available Torque vs Speed - Experimental Drag Included (produced by Eddie Veal)
This analysis was performed on data collected in testing the 2018 FSAE car. The torque
output of the engine was multiplied through the driveline using the gear ratios of the transmission
and final drive. Available acceleration was calculated. The loss due to drag was subtracted from
the available acceleration value and the results were plotted against speed. The results show that
the car is not drag limited in any gear. Positive values of accelerations at the end of the curve for
each gear show that the car could continue to accelerate in that gear however the engine has
reached its maximum speed.

48
A.9. Performance Increase due to Modified Camshaft

Figure 15. 2018 Car Dyno Graph (produced by Eddie Veal)

Note: Torque and speed are values calculated during dyno testing

49
Appendix B. Referenced Tables
B.1. Gear Ratio Calculations
Table 6. 2018 Car Gear Ratios (produced by Eddie Veal)

Force at Wheel Due to Torque

[3]

Force Due to Drag

Note: Acceleration due to drag was experimentally for the 2018 FSAE car
[4]
[5]
Net Force
[6]
Net Acceleration
[7]

Dynamometer tuning the FSAE car outputs a table of Torque vs Speed. With that data,
Equation 3 was used to calculate the Force due to torque. Acceleration due to drag was
experimentally calculated using cost down testing. The drag force was calculated using Equation
5. The net force of the vehicle is the force due to drag subtracted from the force due to torque
(Equation 6). Figure 5 shows the plotted results.

50
B.2. 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation Parameters
Table 7. Summary of 3D simulation Parameters

Temporal Discretization Volumetric Discretization

Estimated Average Cell Count Avg. Wall Y+

Design Oscillations
Strouhal Numb. Courant Numb. (Millions)

2018 18.0 Hz 2.02 1.12 2.65 4.3

Iteration 1 NA NA 1.20 10.2 6.9

Iteration 2 NA NA .628 7.70 2.2

Iteration 3 23.2 Hz 2.60 1.38 5.26 4.5

Iteration 4 14.8 Hz 1.66 1.12 5.27 3.7

Iteration 5 14.04 Hz 1.57 1.38 6.10 2.66

B.3. Weight Evaluation of Different Undertray Constructions

Table 8. Undertray Material Evaluation Results

Foam Weight Equation

[1]
Carbon Weight
[2]

51
B.4. Driver Egress Test Results (produced by Ben Jahnke)
Table 9. Egress times of drivers based on the presence of an obstruction with a five-second time limit.

Driver 1 Driver 2

Unobstructed Obstructed Unobstructed Obstructed

3.72 3.97 3.31 2.76

3.65 3.56 2.93 3.2

3.21 3.02 2.85 2.56

Appendix C. FSAE Rules

C.1. Boundaries of the Aerodynamics Package

Figure 16. 3D design space boundaries established by FSAE.

C.2. FSAE Competition Rules Pertaining to the Project

T.1.1.1. Open Wheel vehicles must satisfy all of the following criteria:
a. The top 180 deg of the wheels/tires must be unobstructed when viewed from vertically
above the wheel.
b. The wheels/tires must be unobstructed when viewed from the side.

52
 c. No part of the vehicle may enter a keep-out zone defined by two lines extending vertically
from positions 75 mm (2.95 in) in front and 75 mm (2.95 in) behind, the other diameter
of the front and rear tires in the side view elevation of the vehicle, with tires steered straight
ahead. This keep-out zone will extend laterally from the outside plane of the wheel/tire to
the inboard plane of the wheel/tire

Figure 17. Exclusion regions that consider the vehicle to be "open wheel."

T.1.4.1. Ground clearance must be sufficient to prevent any portion of the vehicle except the tires
from touching the ground during dynamic events.
T.1.4.2. Intentional or excessive ground contact of any portion of the vehicle other than the tires
will forfeit a run or an entire dynamic event.
T.2.24.2 Outside Primary Structure
All non-crushable objects outside the Primary Structure must be addressed by either of the
following:
a. Objects must be mounted rearwards of an imaginary transverse vertical plane, offset
forwards from the Impact Attenuator Anti Intrusion Plate by a distance equal to the height
of the crushed Impact Attenuator.
b. Prove the combination of the Impact Attenuator Assembly and non-crushable object(s)
does not exceed the peak deceleration specified in T.2.25.2
Any of the following methods may be used to prove the design does not exceed 120 kN:

53
 • Physical testing of the Impact Attenuator Assembly including any required non-crushable
object(s). See the FSAE Online Website FAQs for an example of the structure to be
included in the test for wings and wing mounts
• Combining the peak force from physical testing of the Impact Attenuator Assembly with
the failure load for the mounting of the non-crushable object(s), calculated from fastener
shear and/or link buckling
• Combining the “standard” Impact Attenuator peak load of 95 kN with the failure load for
the mounting of the non-crushable object(s), calculated from fastener shear and/or link
buckling

T.9.1.2. All forward facing edges on the bodywork that could impact people, e.g. the nose, must
have forward facing radii of at least 38 mm (1.496 in). This minimum radius must extend to at
least 45 degrees relative to the forward direction, along the top, sides, and bottom of all affected
edges.
T.9.1.3. All forward facing wing edges including wings, end plates, Gurney flaps, wicker bills and
undertrays that could contact a pedestrian must have a minimum radius of bend and 3 mm (0.118
in) for vertical edges (end plates).
If the edges themselves do not meet this requirement, additional permanently attached pieces
designed to meet this requirement must be used.

T.9.2 General Aerodynamics

T.9.2.1 An aerodynamic device is a part on the vehicle intended to guide airflow for purposes
including generation of downforce and reduction of drag. Examples include wings, undertray,
splitter, endplates, vanes.
T.9.2.2 No power device may be used to move or remove air from under the vehicle except fans
designed exclusively for cooling. Power ground effects are prohibited.
T.9.2.3. All aerodynamic devices must be designed such that the mounting system provides
adequate rigidity in the static condition and such that the aerodynamic devices do not oscillate or
move excessively when the vehicle is moving.
T.9.2.4. All aerodynamic device limitations apply with the wheels pointing in the straight-ahead
position.

54
 Figure 18. Exclusion regions for aerodynamic devices on the car.

T.9.3 Front Mounted

T.9.3.1. In plain view, any part of any aerodynamic device must be:
a. No more than 700 mm (27.56 in) forward of the fronts of the front tires
b. Within a vertical plane parallel to the centerline of the chassis touching the outside of the
front tires at the height of the hubs
T.9.3.2. When viewed from the front of the vehicle, the part of the front wheels/tires that are more
than 250 mm (9.843 in) above the ground level must be unobstructed.

T.9.4 Rear Mounted

T.9.4.1. In plan view, any part of any aerodynamic device must be:
a. No more than 250 mm (9.843 in) rearward of the rear of the rear tires

55
 b. No further forward than a vertical plane through the rearmost portion of the front face of
the driver head restraint support, excluding any padding, set (if adjustable) in its fully
rearward position (excluding undertrays)
c. Inboard of two vertical planes parallel to the centerline of the chassis touching the inside
of the rear tires at the height of the hub centerline.
T.9.4.2. In side elevation, any part of an aerodynamic device must be no higher than 1.2 meters
(47.24 in) above the ground when measured without a driver in the vehicle.

T.9.5 Between the Wheels

T.9.5.1. Between the centerlines of the front and rear wheel axles, an aerodynamic device (e.g.
undertray) may extend outboard in plan view to a line drawn connecting the counter surfaces of
the front and rear tires at the height of the wheel centers
T.9.5.2. Except as permitted under T.9.4.1 above, any aerodynamic devices, or other bodywork,
located between the transverse vertical planes positioned at the front and rear axle centerlines
must not exceed a height of 500 mm (19.67 in) above the ground when measured without a driver
in the vehicle.
Bodywork within vertical fore and aft planes set at 400 mm (15.75 in) outboard from the centerline
of each side of the vehicle is excluded from this requirement.

IN.8.2 Aerodynamic Devices Stability and Strength

IN.8.2.1 Any aerodynamic devices may be checked by pushing on the device in any direction and
at any point.
The following is guidance, but actual conformance will be up to technical inspectors at the
respective competitions. The intent is to reduce the likelihood of wings detaching
IN.8.2.2 If any deflection is significant, then a force of approximately 200 N may be applied and
the resulting deflection should not be more than 25 mm and any permanent deflection less than
5 mm.
IN.8.2.3 If any vehicle on track is observed to have large, uncontrolled movements of aerodynamic
devices, then officials may Black Flag the vehicle for IN.15 Reinspection.

56
Appendix D. Multi-Element Performance Analysis

Figure 19. Wing Geometry Spacing (produced by Eddie Veal and Ben Jahnke)
Vertical spacing between elements is defined by the length of a perpendicular to the
leading element’s chord, located at the trailing edge. Horizontal spacing is defined by the distance
between the chord’s perpendicular and leading edge of the trailing element (seen in purple). This
measurement scheme is used because it ensures that the area of the gap between the elements
is constant at every angle of attack.

Figure 20. 2D CFD Geometry (produced by Eddie Veal and Ben Jahnke)
General setup involved creating rectangular body to represent the fluid domain, and
subtracting objects subject to analysis from this flow. The CAD model shown is then imported into
Star CMM+ where, boundary conditions and discretization are applied.

57
Table 10. 2D CFD CL Results (produced by Eddie Veal and Ben Jahnke)

Preliminary analysis of multi-element designs shows the effect of main element selection,
and trailing element angle of attack (AoA) changes. To validate the decision to follow
recommendations from 2018 team and sponsor to use high camber main elements, a low camber
NACA 6409 airfoil was chosen to test. This was compared with an S1223 main element of the
same chord length and angle of attack. Coefficient of lift is used as the performance metric. S1223
outperformed the lower camber airfoil. As well, an increase in AoA of the secondary element,
significantly increased lift. Later, it was found from qualitative feedback, that the increased AoA
hindered flow to radiator.

58
Appendix E. Aerodynamics Package Design Iteration Models
E.1. Model 1 (produced by Harrison Longwell, Eric Murrell, Eddie Veal)
Model 1 (Iteration 1) represents the first 3D design optimization design. Front and Rear
wings were optimized individually. Main features include three element design spanning the max
allowable area between body and wheel for the front wing. The undertray also incorporated a long
nozzle to accelerate flow under the car.

Figure 21. Model 1 - Front View.

59
Figure 22. Model 1 - Bottom View.

Figure 23. Model 1 - Rear View.

60
Figure 24. Model 1 - Front Wing.

Iteration 1 CFD Pictures

Figure 25. Iteration 1 - Inefficiency between Nose Cone and Front Wing.

The combination of the aggressive camber and neutral angle of attack of the center element of
the front wing make an inefficient entry for air to the undertray.

61
Figure 26. Pressure distribution on Model 1 shows high pressure on the nose cone caused by the center element of
the front wing.

Figure 27. Model 1 - Stall Area Behind Front Wing 2 (Note: Front tire hidden in this image).

The large stall area behind the front wing led to the redesign of the undertray inlet and front wing.

62
Figure 28. Stall Area Behind Front Wing (Note: Front tire hidden in this image)

Figure 29. Undertray design changes from Model 1 to Model 3.

Upward flowing air from the back of the front wing impacting the undertray inlet reduced
downforce. To solve this the inlet was moved back to remove high pressure region. Diffuser was
lowered, and a Gurney flap was added to the outlet to lower the pressure within the diffuser. The
side wing base was removed to remove the high-pressure region. See also Model 4 for final
design changes.

63
E.2. Model 2 (produced by Harrison Longwell, Eric Murrell, Eddie Veal)
Iteration 4 features the same front wing as Iteration 3 with redesigned side elements. The side
wing is reduced in size to allow room for the parabolic ramps in front of the rear tires.

Figure 30. Model 2 - Main View.

64
Figure 31. Model 2 - Side Elements.

Figure 32. Plot of pressure distribution on front wing Model 2.

65
Figure 33. Plot of velocity distribution in plane of radiator Model 2

Residuals Plot of Iteration 4

Figure 34. Iteration 4 Residuals Plot (produced by Harrison Longwell).

Note that X, Y, and Z momentum all fall approximately four orders of magnitude per timestep
while Tke (Turbulent Kinetic Energy) falls approximately two orders of magnitude.

66
E.3. Model 3 (produced by Harrison Longwell, Eric Murrell, Eddie Veal)
Iteration 5
Iteration 5 features a front wing that is a middle ground between iteration 3/4 and iteration 1/2.
This front wing has two trailing 6-inch S1223 airfoils off the lower element with a 6-inch S1223 as
the upper element.

Figure 35. Model 3 - Main View.

67
Iteration 5 CFD pictures

Figure 36. Plot of pressure distribution on Model 3 Front Wing.

Figure 37. Plot of Velocity Distribution in Plane of Radiator (Model 3).

68
E.4. Model 4 - Final Design (produced by Harrison Longwell, Eric Murrell, Eddie Veal)

Figure 38. Model 4 - Main View.

69
Figure 39. Model 4 - Side Elements.

70
Figure 40. Model 4 - Bottom View.

Figure 41. Model 4 - Front Wing Pressure Distribution.

71
Figure 42. Model 4 - Final Model Velocity Profile in Plane of Radiator.

Figure 43. Streamlines from Side Wing impacting rear wing in Model 3.

72
Figure 44. Streamlines from Side Wing impacting rear wing in Model 4.

Figure 45. Gurney flap helps pull air through undertray by lowering pressure behind Gurney flap.

73
Figure 46. Velocity profile showing improved flow through undertray due to inlet and outlet improvements.

74
Figure 47. Pressure distribution on bottom of undertray.

E.5. Full Car Free Body Diagram Evaluation

Figure 48. Free Body Diagram (produced by Harrison Longwell).

Note that the counterclockwise direction of the moment is correct. The moment was based
at an origin as shown in the image. Most of the drag occurred below this origin, resulting in the
counterclockwise orientation of the moment as shown.

75
Appendix F. Final Design Engineering Drawings (produced by Van Le)
F.1. Master Assembly

76
F.2. Subassembly #1: Front Wing

77
F.3. Subassembly #2: Side Wing

78
F.4. Subassembly #3: Undertray

79
F.5. Subassembly #3: Undertray - Inlet and Outlet Drawing

80
Appendix G. Engineering Analysis Methodology (produced by Harrison Longwell)

Figure 49. Axial Symmetry to Reduce Computational Time.

Figure 50. Axial Symmetry to Reduce Computational Time.

81
Figure 51. Visualization of Surface Mesh.

Figure 52. Visualization of Transition between Fine and Coarse Mesh.

82
Table 11. Mesh Parameters.

83
Appendix H. Airfoil Design
H.1. Airfoil Profiles

E214

CH10

S1223

MSHD

Figure 53. Airfoils Evaluated in Design (produced by Eddie Veal and Harrison Longwell)
Above are the airfoils investigated by the team. S1223 and E214 are currently being
utilized in design iterations 3, 4, and 5.

84
H.2. Airfoil Core Design
Table 12. Airfoil Core Material Decision Matrix (produced by Alyssa Hermesch).

Figure 54. (Top to bottom) Altair Inspire generated core design, solid foam core, ribbed foam core (produced by Van
Le and Alyssa Hermesch).

85
 These calculations show that to make a wing of equal weight as one of last year’s wings,
with 3D printed cores, the team could only use about four cores. Four cores spaced over a span
of 36 inches would be infeasible, as the wing produced would not be structurally sound in over 75
percent of its length. This evaluation concludes that 3D printed cores are not feasible for this
project.

Figure 55. Pressure test results on airfoil cores (produced by Alyssa Hermesch).

86
Table 13. Surface Pressure Test Analysis.

Appendix I. Component Assembly and Mounting

I.1. Subassembly #1: Front Wing - Assembly and Mounting (produced by Josh Perkins)

Figure 56. Exploded view of potted insert and fastener interaction.

87
Figure 57. Mounting locations for center endplates of the front wing (produced by Josh Perkins).

I.2 Subassembly #2: Side Wing - Assembly and Mounting (produced by Josh Perkins)

Figure 58. Mounting plan for the radiators and side wings.

88
I.3. Subassembly #3: Undertray - Assembly and Mounting (produced by Josh Perkins)

Figure 59. Mounting foam locations on the undertray for chassis mounting.

1 2

3 4

Figure 60. Undertray mounting locations in relation to the chassis.

89
I.4. Component Mounting Method Selection
Table 14. Component Mounting Method Decision Matrix.

I.5. Potted Insert - Critical Axial Load Calculation

Figure 61. Shear distribution curve of the core material due to axial loading (left). Equation parameters (right).

Critical Axial Load = 43 lbs

90
 Figure 62. Undertray mount load analysis.

I.6. Potted Insert - Critical Pure Shear Load Calculation

Figure 63. Pure shear load (left). Equation parameters (right).

Critical Pure Shear Load = 3868.32 lb

Figure 64. Front wing mount shear load analysis due to cone impact.

91
Appendix J. Materials Selection

Figure 65. DragonPlate carbon fiber sandwich foam plate.

Table 15. Carbon Fiber Decision Matrix.

The team decided it would be best to use different kinds of carbon fiber for different
components. 3K 2x2 twill weave pattern will be used for most of the components due to its
lightness and higher stiffness compared to plain weave. 3K 2x2 plain weave will be used for the
front main airfoil because of its susceptibility to accidental impact. Both 6k and 12k 2x2 twill weave
carbon fiber is heavy and have undesirable properties that cause difficulties in wet layup
processes.

92
Appendix K. Off-the-Shelf Parts List
Table 16. Hardware Parts List.

Parts Description Part Number Qty. Vendor Website

All-Thread ¼” – 20 90322A648 6 https://www.mcmaster.com/90322a648
Studs Grade 8 Steel
Socket M10x1.5mm, 91290A516 30 https://www.mcmaster.com/91290a516
Head 20mm Alloy
Bolts Steel
Potted Thru Hole AEP1034 10 https://www.clipnuts.com/products/potted-
Inserts in-inserts/catalog/nas1834
Potted Thru AEP1033 34 https://www.clipnuts.com/products/potted-
Inserts Threaded in-inserts/catalog/nas1833

93
Appendix L. Project Management
L.1. Objective Tree

94
L.2. Project Definition Tables
Table 17. List of Project Functions with Explanations (continued on next page)

Function Explanation

Generate downforce Downforce should be generated to increase the traction circle of the car.
This will lead to reduced lap times.

Add minimal weight Weight added to the car should be minimal, because any increase in weight
has negative impacts to vehicle performance.

Allow airflow to The car must maintain operating water and oil temperatures, which will be
cooling system affected by the airflow to the heat exchangers.

Allow impact The front elements should break away in a crash to allow the impact
attenuator to absorb attenuator to absorb the impact.
impact forces

Prevent injuries No sharp leading edges should be produced to protect people handling the
during handling car, as well as to abide by the FSAE rules.

Withstand forces The elements and mounting should be able to withstand all operational and
accidental contact forces.

Minimize deflection Deflection should be minimized in all elements to abide by the FSAE rules.

Fasten/remove The elements should have the ability to be removed quickly for the purposes
quickly of accessing other components of the car. The elements should have the
ability to be fastened on quickly to be able to get the car drive-ready in a
short amount of time.

95
 Table 18. Qualitative Constraints with Explanations

Qualitative Constraint Explanation

Easy to fasten/remove The FSAE team requests that the elements be easy to take on and off so
that a majority of the members are capable of doing so.

Quality finish The elements should be produced with a quality finish to please sponsors
of the FSAE team as well as the university.

Passive Devices Per FSAE rules no powered devices can be used to produce downforce.

Mounting Locations Attach to the FSAE 2019 frame (specified by node locations).

Table 19. List of Project Measurable E-Specs with Explanations

Measurable E-Specs Unit Value Explanation

Max time to attach min 10 Ensures that the final product can be fastened quickly.

Max time to detach min 7 Ensures that the final product can be removed quickly.

Max running water °F 210 Ensures that the engine maintains standard operating conditions.
temperature

Max running oil °F 275 Ensures that the engine maintains standard operating conditions.
temperature

Max wing deflection in/lb 0.02 Ensures that the final product abides by the FSAE rule for wind
f deflection.

Max weight lbs 35 Ensures that the final product is lightweight.

Min downforce lbf 400 Ensures that the final product produces the downforce expected
by the FSAE team.

Max cost $ 6,000 Ensures that the final product does not exceed the budget given.

96
L.3. House of Quality

97
L.4. Critical Path

98
L.5. Gantt Chart

99
L.6. Project Timeline
Table 20. Project timeline detailing milestones until the end of Spring 2019.

L.7. Budget Allocations

Budget - $8,500
Contingency
, $3,000
Materials,
$2,000
Wind Tunnel
Testing,
$2,000
Molds,
$1,500

Appendix M. Test Equipment

M.1 Component Weight and Attachment Strength

100
 Component Weight Testing Equipment
• Digital scale
Attachment Strength Testing Equipment
• Weights
• Caliper (to mark potting radii)
• Dial indicator (to measure deflection of endplate)

M.2. Aerodynamic Performance and Assembly Strength

Suspension Travel vs Downforce Calibration Testing Equipment
• Linear potentiometers
• Weights
• Vehicle speedometer

101