A Numerical Investigation of A Diffuser Onboard A 1-8th Scale On-Road Racing Car

A numerical Investigation of a diffuser onboard
a 1/8th scale on-road racing car

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO GLYNDWR UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING

IN

AERONAUTICAL & MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE FOR ARTS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

2010

STUDENT: M. NICOLAS MARTIN

SUPERVISED BY: MR. SHAFIUL MONIR

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
A numerical Investigation of a diffuser onboard a 1/8th scale on-road racing car 2010

Nicolas Martin 1 | P a g e
BEng (Hons) Aeronautical & Mechanical Engineering Yr3
Glyndwr University
Contents
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND AIM OF PROJECT .................................................................. 8
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Objectives and desired outcomes ............................................................................................... 10
1.2.1. Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 10
1.2.2. Desired outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 10
1.3. Scope and exclusions ................................................................................................................. 10
1.4. Constraints and assumptions ..................................................................................................... 10
1.4.1. Constraints ......................................................................................................................................... 10
1.4.2. Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 11
1.5. Users requirements ................................................................................................................... 11
1.6. Project approach ........................................................................................................................ 11
1.6.1. Initial hypothesis ................................................................................................................................ 11
1.6.2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 12
1.6.3. Mechanical building ........................................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................................................................... 13
1.1. Underbody diffuser shape considerations ........................................................................... 13
1.1.1. Background of rear axle ................................................................................................................ 13
1.2. Aerodynamic performances................................................................................................. 13
1.3. Turbulence models .............................................................................................................. 16
1.4. Standard K-Epsilon Model .................................................................................................... 21
1.5. Method of depicting pressure distribution .......................................................................... 23
1.6. Meshing ................................................................................................................................ 28
1.6.1. Definition ....................................................................................................................................... 28
1.6.2. Specifying scheme elements ........................................................................................... 29
1.6.3. Specifying scheme type ................................................................................................................. 30
1.7. Calculation of % difference .................................................................................................. 31
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN PROCESS .................................................................................................. 32
1.1. Initial numerical approach ................................................................................................... 32
1.2. With diffuser ........................................................................................................................ 39
1.3. Without diffuser ................................................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 4: RESULT COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER ......... 43
CHAPTER 5: PROENGINEER PARTS MANUFACTURING ............................................................ 91
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 94
REFERENCE ............................................................................................................................... 96
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................... 97

Table of figures
FIGURE 1 : 1/8TH SCALE ON-ROAD RACING CAR FIGURE 2 : 1/8TH SCALE ON-ROAD RACING CAR ............ 8
FIGURE 3 : 1/8TH SCALE ON-ROAD RACING CAR ................................................................................................ 9
FIGURE 4: BACKGROUND OF REAR AXLE UNDERBODY DIFFUSER AREA ................................................................. 9
FIGURE 5 : BACKGROUND OF REAR AXLE UNDERBODY DIFFUSER AREA .............................................................. 13
FIGURE 6 : AIRFLOW AROUND AN AEROFOIL ................................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 7 : PARTITION WALLS OF DIFFUSER REPRESENTATION ............................................................................ 16
FIGURE 8 : REPRESENTATION OF THE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AROUND AN AEROFOIL ........................................... 23
FIGURE 9 : PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION NEGATIVE (-) AND POSITIVE (+) PRESSURE AROUND AN AEROFOIL .................. 24
FIGURE 10 : STREAMLINE AROUND AN AEROFOIL ............................................................................................. 25
FIGURE 11 : FORCE COEFFICIENTS ACTING PERPENDICULAR AND PARALLEL TO THE CHORD LINE OF AN AEROFOIL ........ 27
FIGURE 12 : FORCE COEFFICIENTS ACTING PERPENDICULAR AND PARALLEL TO THE LENGTH OF THE MODEL RACE CAR .. 27
FIGURE 13 : PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION NEGATIVE (-) AND POSITIVE (+) PRESSURE AROUND AN AEROFOIL AT AN ANGLE
OF ATTACK (AOA) = 15 DEGREE .......................................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 14 : HEXAHEDRAL, TETRAHEDRAL & WEDGE SHAPE .............................................................................. 29
FIGURE 15 : EXPRESSION OF A TYPICAL MESH.................................................................................................. 29
FIGURE 16 : DIFFUSER RIGHT VIEW ............................................................................................................... 32
FIGURE 17 : DIFFUSER FRONT VIEW .............................................................................................................. 32
FIGURE 18 : REAR AXLE OF MODEL RACE CAR WITH IMPLEMENTED DIFFUSER........................................................ 33
FIGURE 19 : REAR AXLE OF MODEL RACE CAR WITH IMPLEMENTED DIFFUSER ........................................................ 33
FIGURE 20 : WIND TUNNEL + MODEL RACE CAR GAMBIT MODELLING & MESHING PHASE REPRESENTATION ............. 34
FIGURE 21 : DIFFUSER PROTOTYPE ................................................................................................................ 35
FIGURE 22 : POOR QUALITY ERROR MESSAGE NON-CAPABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY MESH ......................................... 35
FIGURE 23 : POOR QUALITY ERROR MESSAGE NON-CAPABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY MESH 1
ST
MESH ........................... 36
ND
MESH .......................... 36
FIGURE 25 : BOUNDARY NODES ERROR MESSAGE 2
ND
MESH.............................................................................. 36
RD
MESH .......................... 36
FIGURE 27 : BOUNDARY NODES ERROR MESSAGE 3
RD
MESH .............................................................................. 37
FIGURE 28 : MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MESH FACES ERROR MESSAGE 4
TH
MESH ..................................................... 37
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
FIGURE 29 : ALLOCATION OF BYTES OF DYNAMIC MEMORY 4
TH
MESH ................................................................. 37
FIGURE 30 : TETRAHEDRAL MESHING FAILED ERROR MESSAGE 5
TH
MESH ............................................................. 38
FIGURE 31 : MONO-BLOCK MODEL RACE CAR ................................................................................................. 38
FIGURE 32 : MONO-BLOCK MODEL RACE CAR ................................................................................................. 39
FIGURE 33 : EXAMINE MESH FUNCTION REPRESENTATION OF CAR WITH DIFFUSER ................................................ 39
FIGURE 34 : WIND TUNNEL + MODEL RACE CAR AFTER MESHING OF CAR WITH DIFFUSER ........................................ 40
FIGURE 35 : MESH GENERATION MESSAGE OF CAR WITH DIFFUSER ..................................................................... 40
FIGURE 36 : EXAMINE MESH FUNCTION REPRESENTATION OF CAR WITHOUT DIFFUSER ........................................... 41
FIGURE 37 : WIND TUNNEL + MODEL RACE CAR AFTER MESHING OF CAR WITHOUT DIFFUSER .................................. 41
FIGURE 38 : MESH GENERATION MESSAGE OF CAR WITHOUT DIFFUSER ............................................................... 42
FIGURE 39 : REFERENCES VALUES DIALOGUE BOX ............................................................................................ 46
FIGURE 40 : MODEL RACE CAR LENGTH FIGURE 41 : MODEL RACE CAR HEIGHT & WIDTH ...................... 47
FIGURE 42 : CONTOURS OF STATIC PRESSURE WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ...................................................... 48
FIGURE 43 : CONTOURS OF STATIC PRESSURE WITH DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ............................................................ 48
FIGURE 44 : CONTOURS OF DYNAMIC PRESSURE WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ................................................... 49
FIGURE 45 : CONTOURS OF DYNAMIC PRESSURE WITH DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ........................................................ 49
FIGURE 46 : CONTOURS OF TOTAL PRESSURE WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ....................................................... 50
FIGURE 47 : CONTOURS OF TOTAL PRESSURE WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ....................................................... 50
FIGURE 48 : CONTOURS OF VELOCITY MAGNITUDE WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ............................................... 51
FIGURE 49 : CONTOURS OF VELOCITY MAGNITUDE WITH DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ..................................................... 51
FIGURE 50 : CONTOURS OF TURBULENT KINETIC ENERGY WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ....................................... 52
FIGURE 51 : CONTOURS OF TURBULENT KINETIC ENERGY WITH DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ............................................. 52
FIGURE 52 : PATHLINES COLORED BY TURBULENT KINETIC ENERGY (K) (M2/S2) WITH DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ............ 53
FIGURE 53 : PATHLINES COLORED BY TURBULENT KINETIC ENERGY (K) (M2/S2) WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/H....... 53
FIGURE 54 : PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION NEGATIVE(-) AND POSITIVE (+) PRESSURE AROUND AN AEROFOIL ................. 54
FIGURE 55 : PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION NEGATIVE(-) AND POSITIVE (+) PRESSURE AROUND A MODEL RACE CAR ........ 54
FIGURE 56 : LINES METHODOLOGY FOR READING OF RESULTS INTO EXCEL WITH DIFFUSER ..................................... 55
FIGURE 57 : LINES METHODOLOGY FOR READING OF RESULTS INTO EXCEL WITHOUT DIFFUSER ............................... 55
FIGURE 58 : TAPPING POINTS REPRESENTED BY PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION APPLICATION .......................................... 56
FIGURE 60 : PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AROUND A MODEL RACE CAR AREAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT .................. 67
FIGURE 62 : PATHLINES COLORED BY TURBULENT KINETIC ENERGY (K) (M2/S2) WITH DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ............ 85
FIGURE 63 : PATHLINES COLORED BY TURBULENT KINETIC ENERGY (K) (M2/S2) WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/H....... 85
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
FIGURE 64 : STREAMLINE AROUND AN AEROFOIL ............................................................................................. 86
FIGURE 65 : STREAMLINE AROUND A MODEL RACE CAR .................................................................................... 86
FIGURE 66 : TRACK CLUB AUTO MODEL MCONNAIS ASSOCIATION ............................................................. 87

Table of graphs
GRAPH 1 : GRAPH OF PRESSURE COEFFICIENT AGAINST XC OF AN AEROFOIL AT A CERTAIN ANGLE OF ATTACK (AOA) . 26
GRAPH 2 : Y+ VALUE AGAINST MODEL RACE CAR WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/H .................................................. 44
GRAPH 3 : Y+ VALUE AGAINST MODEL RACE CAR WITH DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ........................................................ 45
GRAPH 4 : CP VALUE FOR MODEL RACE CAR WITHOUT DIFFUSER ........................................................................ 59
GRAPH 5 : CP VALUE FOR MODEL RACE CAR WITH DIFFUSER .............................................................................. 60
GRAPH 6 : CP VALUE OF NACA0012 AIRFOIL ................................................................................................. 60
GRAPH 7 : CP VALUE MODEL RACE CAR COMPARISON ...................................................................................... 61
GRAPH 8 : LIFT COEFFICIENT VALUE COMPARISON WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER ................................................. 63
GRAPH 9 : DOWNFORCE VALUE (N) COMPARISON WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER ................................................. 63
GRAPH 10 : DRAG COEFFICIENT VALUE COMPARISON WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER ............................................. 68
GRAPH 11 : DRAG FORCE VALUE (N) COMPARISON WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER ............................................... 68
GRAPH 12 : FLUENT CL VALUE AGAINST VELOCITY WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER ............................................... 71
GRAPH 13 ; FLUENT CD VALUE AGAINST VELOCITY WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER .............................................. 71
GRAPH 14 : FLUENT L VALUE AGAINST VELOCITY WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER ................................................. 72
GRAPH 15 : FLUENT D VALUE AGAINST VELOCITY WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER ................................................ 72
GRAPH 16 : CP VALUE AGAINST X/L UPPER & LOWER SURFACE ALL VELOCITIES COMPARISON ................................. 75
GRAPH 17 : CP VALUE AGAINST X/L UPPER & LOWER SURFACE WITH DIFFUSER ALL VELOCITIES DOUBLE-DECKER AREA
...................................................................................................................................................... 76
GRAPH 18 : CP VALUE AGAINST X/L UPPER & LOWER SURFACE WITHOUT DIFFUSER ALL VELOCITIES COMPARISON ..... 76
GRAPH 19 : CP VALUE AGAINST Y/L UPPER & LOWER SURFACE WITH DIFFUSER ALL VELOCITIES COMPARISON ........... 77
GRAPH 20 : CP VALUE AGAINST Y/L UPPER & LOWER SURFACE WITHOUT DIFFUSER ALL VELOCITIES COMPARISON ...... 77
GRAPH 21 : CP*X/L VALUE AGAINST X/L UPPER & LOWER SURFACE WITH DIFFUSER ALL VELOCITIES COMPARISON .... 78
GRAPH 22 : CP*X/L VALUE AGAINST X/L UPPER & LOWER SURFACE WITHOUT DIFFUSER ALL VELOCITIES COMPARISON
...................................................................................................................................................... 78
GRAPH 23 : TURBULENT KINETIC ENERGY AGAINST X/L UPPER SURFACE COMPARISON .......................................... 82
GRAPH 24 : TURBULENT KINETIC ENERGY AGAINST X/L LOWER SURFACE COMPARISON ......................................... 83

Table of tables
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
TABLE 1 : DIFFERENT COMBINATION INTO GAMBIT FOR MODELLING ................................................................. 31
TABLE 2 : REPORT FROM K-EPSILON VISCOUS MODEL WITH DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ................................................. 46
TABLE 3 : REPORT FROM K-EPSILON VISCOUS MODEL WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/H ........................................... 46
TABLE 4 : FLUENT AND EXCEL COMPARISON OF LIFT FORCE ............................................................................ 66
TABLE 5 : FLUENT AND EXCEL COMPARISON OF DRAG FORCE ......................................................................... 69
TABLE 6 : FLUENT CL, L, CD, D VALUES WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER TABULATION ........................................... 70
TABLE 7 : SUBGRID TURBULENT VISCOSITY DATA EXPORTED FROM ANIMATIONS WITH AND WITHOUT DIFFUSER 110 KM/
H ................................................................................................................................................... 89

Table of notes
NOTE 1 : .................................................................................................................................................. 57
NOTE 2 : .................................................................................................................................................. 64
NOTE 3 : .................................................................................................................................................. 65
NOTE 4 : .................................................................................................................................................. 73

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
ABSTRACT
Many people practice 1/8
th
scale on-road model race car. International events
are organized as this is an attractive discipline. That sport can be compared to the
formula one in terms of setups complexity, technical choices about meteorological
conditions, tracks grip, track technical aptitude: Fast and low technical nature or
sinuous track and low speed , staff efficiency. Rules are quite same, penalties,
qualifications, we have to respect some rules about model car characteristics: bodys
accordance weight limit, track width at the front and rear. We have to observe a
respectable behavior in terms of piloting.
Since the beginning of the financial crisis, it has been noticed that a decrease
of practicing peoples. Thus, various developers try to diversify ranges by innovating:
New need is new offer. Cheaper range as smaller scales is requiring less money due
to a better longevity because of less risk in terms of breakage. Anyway, 1/8
th
scale on-
road model race car is more and more undergoing the behavior changes. That is why
new ideas have to be developed to attract the peoples interest.
The idea of an underbody diffuser is considered as revolutionary. That is quite
challenging as the background of the rear axle is tight. From here, for implementation
reasons, a new rear axle has to be designed.

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank peoples in which this project would not have been
possible without the support of them. The author wishes to express his gratitude to
his supervisor, Mr. Shafiul Monir who was abundantly helpful and offered invaluable
assistance, support and guidance. Special thanks also to Mr. Stewart Davies and Dr.
Steeve Byrne without whose knowledge and assistance the parts of the rapid
prototyping machine would not have been successfully manufactured. The author
wishes to express her love and gratitude to her beloved families; for their
understanding & endless love, through the duration of her studies.

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND AIM OF PROJECT
1.1 Introduction
The purpose in this project is to carry out an aerodynamic study on a 1/8
th

scale on-road model car. The current 1/8
th
model is not constituted of a diffuser.
However. Designers are thinking about a diffuser in 1/8
th
scale classic range to
increase the pressure between the contact area of tires and the road surface, thus
creating more grip. The technology double-decker of new diffusers in Formula one
will be the point of design.
The model race car below is a Mugen Seiki MRX-3 designed on-time for the
world championship 1/8
th
scale on-road of Sydney in 2001. That model race car is
mine. All pictures and designs have been collected from that model car. The body in
orange, white and blue, is the body designed in ProEngineer. Various velocities are
studied and compared to determine the efficiency at any phases met on the track.

Figure 1 : 1/8th scale on-road racing car Figure 2 : 1/8th scale on-road racing car

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 3 : 1/8th scale on-road racing car
Dimensions of the1/8
th
scale on-road racing car are (Bibliography (3)):
Length = 442 mm
Width = 262 mm
Wheel base = 299 mm
Thread = 216.2 mm / 202.5 mm

Figure 4: Background of rear axle Underbody diffuser area

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
The diffuser will be designed in function of the existing rear axle mostly.
Obviously some parts will be redesigned to provide more space to implement the
underbody diffuser.
1.2 Objectives and desired outcomes
1.2.1. Objectives
Determine the efficiency of an underbody diffuser
Study aerodynamic performances of the whole model car and do a comparison
of the two case (case 1: car with diffuser, case 2 : car without diffuser)
Learn the use of Gambit and Fluent CFD software package and ProEngineer
CAD software
1.2.2. Desired outcomes
Downforce increases with diffuser. Better grip of the model car. Decrease of
turbulence flows
Members number increases with this innovation
29 highly project highlight / progress report
1.3. Scope and exclusions
Take advantage of results to plan the design underbody diffuser for another
scales on-road model car
Do not block the access of tuning off after implementing the underbody
diffuser
New 1/8
th
scale on-road model car
1.4. Constraints and assumptions
1.4.1. Constraints
Rear axle background is tight
Rear track width : 263 mm ( width of the two rear tires)
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Rear ride height : 7.5 mm
Tyre interior width : 142 mm
1.4.2. Assumptions
Underbody diffuser once fully implemented will be improved with experiences
in National Grand Prix and International Grand Prix context
1.5. Users requirements
Get easier control of the car in terms of mobility due to the grip increased
1.6. Project approach
This section of the report sets out the approach to meet objectives.
Methodologies applied, defined stages of the project, the structure of this report and
some of key project limitations
1.6.1. Initial hypothesis
From the outset of the project, our hypothesis for the way in which the project
may go on the wrong way is:
Wrong considerations of the diffuser design and analysis
Implicit in this is the assumption that the construction of simple, a wrong
consideration will generate a product that may does not satisfy mechanical
characteristics, and even may be more a constraint for the model race car and then
decreasing aerodynamic performances of the 1/8
th
scale model car. On that way, in
the case the model car manufacturers market the underbody diffuser and the
product does not succeed, they may be in trouble economically speaking about the
return of investment, generating loss and outcoming to a redundancy in the worse
case.

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
The disquiet has shaped the way in which the diffused has to be analyzed.
1.6.2. Methodology
The approach taken was to undertake as detailed a determination of the shape
of underbody diffuser by relating the shape of formula one underbody diffuser.
1.6.3. Mechanical building
In assessing the last of these, the design has been done on ProEngineer, the
background of the rear axle is the key, that is why most of parts have to be designed
to insure a realistic representation of the future underbody diffuser. The
understanding of aerodynamic performances enables us to provide an idea of what
results have to relate.

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1.1. Underbody diffuser shape considerations
1.1.1. Background of rear axle

Figure 5 : Background of rear axle Underbody diffuser area
Here above the background of rear axle where the underbody diffuser is to be
implemented and especially in the pink area.
The underbody diffuser will not have to go beyond chassis in Y axis because
of due to the suspension system. If the underbody diffuser is located between the
ground and the chassis, it may be deteriorated by scrubbing on the ground.
We have to consider the rear suspension triangle and rear suspension in +Y
axis, the underbody diffuser may interact both these two parts. In that case we will
have to re-design the rear suspension triangle to provide more space.
1.2. Aerodynamic performances
A diffuser works following the Bernoulli principle: Higher the velocity of a fluid,
lower the pressure.

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Bernoullis principle:
Static pressure + Dynamic pressure = total pressure
Ps +
pI^2
2
= Pt
_Ps +
pI
2
2
+ pg1_or scction 1 = _Ps +
pI
2
2
+ pg2_ or scction 2
Where:
P
t
: the Total Pressure
P
s
: Static Pressure
v
2
: the Dynamic Pressure
The aim of a diffuser is to annihilate the harmful aerodynamic forces applied
on a race car. Principles aerodynamic forces are lift force and drag force. Drag force is
in the direction of the airflow, the lift force is perpendicular to the airflow.
In the case of a race car, the drag sets against the driving direction while the
lift force degrades its grip. The diffuser acts to generate a negative lift force named
downforce, thus to increase a ground effect, and to decrease the drag force as well.
Moreover, the key of this aerodynamic appendage is to create a fictive load,
which means no harmful mass added about the dynamic behavior of the car.
Diffusers know a permanent development since 90s. However the principle
innovation operated in 2009. Brawn GP team designed the first double-decker
diffuser increasing significantly performances of the team (winner of 2009 F1
championship pilot and team ranking). Much larger, thus much more effective, the
classical diffuser is divided in two parts, right and left while the double-decker is a
third canalization appeared on the top of the two others, generating the effect of an
entire diffuser, thus basically named double-diffuser. The gain of aerodynamic
performances is nearly evaluated to 6%
[1]
.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

A diffuser works following the Bernoulli principle: Higher the velocity of a fluid,
lower the pressure. However Bernoulli does not explain the generation of downforce.
Thus the example of NACA0012 airfoil profile is a perfect one.
The profile of an airfoil is constituted of two parts: Extrado (upper surface) and
Intrado (lower surface). In the case of a race car, the airfoil has to be considered as
inversed. Given that the length of the Extrado is longer than the Intrado, the airflow
crossing the lower surface has much distance to ride than the airflow crossing the
upper surface. To join up the airflow on the top as it has been deflected, airflow
underneath the chassis has to increase its velocity occurring thus a vacuum on the
lower surface. The difference of pressure between the two surfaces of the profile
generates a force acting on the airfoil, from the high pressure to the vacuum, thus
from the top to the bottom.

Figure 6 : Airflow around an aerofoil
This principle is applicable to the diffuser. However the geometry of the
diffuser is much complex. The vacuum is not created into the diffuser but in the
upstream of the diffuser. The airflow velocity is increased at the entry of the diffuser
and then getting slower and slower as it is crossing that one. The volume of the
diffuser is increased at the back-end to generate an empty effect, slowing thus the
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
velocity of airflow down. The volume of the diffuser is increased at the back-end to
generate an empty effect.
The addition of vertical partitions enables to optimize the diffuser efficiency by
canalizing the airflow underneath the model car and thus preventing its spread
elsewhere.

Figure 7 : Partition walls of diffuser representation
1.3. Turbulence models
The difference between the Reynolds-Averaging-Navier-Stokes (RANS)
equations and more advanced turbulence models such as Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
and Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) is that RANS equations average any variables,
decompose them in terms of mean, averaging them over a time interval, and a
fluctuating component:

=
+
ii
(Eq. 1)

Which the time averaged quantity is as follows:
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

=
1
t
] dt
t+t
t
(Eq. 2)

The Reynolds averaging obeys the following property:

(Eq. 3)

i
= (Eq. 4)

Eq. 1 is substituted in the basic governing equations for and these are then
time averaged to yield the governing equations for mean quantities (using Eq. 3 and
4). For compressible turbulent flows, terms appearing in the Reynolds-averaged
momentum equations are difficult to categorize according to the acceleration of the
mean motion and apparent stresses. In such cases, the use of mass weighted
averaging leads to compact expressions. Mass weighted averaging, also called Favre
averaging, is defined as:

=
] p dt
t+t
t
] p dt
t+t
t
(Eq. 5)

For flows in which density fluctuations are negligible, the formulations become
identical. Favre-averaged quantities are not easily comparable with experimentally
measured quantities, which are normally non-weighted time averages. For most
chemical reactor engineering applications (except maybe combustion processes),
classical Reynolds averaging is suitable. The Reynolds-averaged form of the
conservation equations of mass (overall) and momentum for an incompressible
(constant density) fluid can be written as:

V . (pU) = S
t
k
(Eq. 6)

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

0
0t
(pU
) + V. (pU
+ puu ) = Vp V . z + pg + F
(Eq. 7)

where the overbar indicates a time-averaged value. u is the fluctuating velocity.

The terms appearing in Eq. 7 resemble those in momentum transport
equations except for an additional term appearing on the left-hand side. These extra
terms act as apparent stresses due to turbulent motions and are called Reynolds
stresses or turbulent stresses and defined as:

(z
|j
) = pu
t
u
j
(Eq. 8)

The Reynolds-averaged form of conservation equation for a general variable can be
written as:

0
0t
(p
) + V. (pU
+ pu
i
) = V . (j
+ S
k
(Eq. 9)

Where the additional term appearing on the left-hand side represents turbulent
transport of .

In the Reynolds averaging approach, it is not necessary to resolve all the
smallscale (spatial and temporal) phenomena since the variation of time-averaged
quantities occurs at much larger scales (Fig. 1).

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 8 : Schematic representation of scales in turbulent flows and their relationship
with modelling approaches (adapted from Ferziger and Peric, 1995)
[2]

Figure 9 : Resolved/Modelled ratio between RANS equations models, LES and DNS
models

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 10 : Stirred tank modelling options (turbulence models) CPU time vs. Grid
size
[3]

This approach, therefore, requires much less computing resources than the LES
or DNS approaches. However, not resolving the small-scale phenomena comes with
an inherent problem, the so-called closure problem. Time averaging of the basic
governing equations of flow processes leads to the appearance of new terms in the
governing equations, which can be interpreted as apparent stress gradients and
heat and mass fluxes associated with the turbulent motion. In principle, governing
equations for these new terms can be derived, however, these equations contain
further new unknown terms. It becomes, therefore, necessary to introduce a
turbulence model, which relates the new unknown terms to known terms in order
to close the set of governing equations. The process of closing the set of equations
through a turbulence model introduces some approximations and assumptions.
Generally, for most engineering applications, averaged equations are closed by
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
employing first-order or second-order closures. The cost-to-benefit ratio for
employing higher than second order closures is generally not favourable.

Before discussing RANS-based models, which are commonly used for
engineering simulations, it will be worthwhile here to examine the relationship
between the three main approaches (DNS, LES and RANS). DNS results can be used to
test and develop better sub-grid scale models, which can be used with LES
simulations.

Implications of the assumptions and approximations employed in RANS
modeling can be evaluated using large eddy simulations. With advances in the
development of massively parallel computing platforms and efficient computational
schemes (for example, lattice Boltzmann methods introduced by Frisch et al., 1986
[4]

), more and more attempts are being made to employ LES or DNS to flow processes
relevant to engineers. In recent years, attempts have been made to develop a
consistent modeling framework which can switch over from RANS to LES and then to
DNS continuously with increases in scale resolution employed in the computational
model (refer to Speziale (1998)
[5]
for a more detailed discussion). These studies
should be used to understand the potential and the limits of RANS-based models.
Judicious analysis and engineering creativity is essential to construct computational
models to simulate complex industrial engineering flow processes. Some of the key
models used to simulate turbulence with RANS equations are discussed below.

1.4. Standard K-Epsilon Model
The standard K-Epsilon model is a semi-empirical model that has been derived
from empiricism and phenomenological considerations. Two separate transport
equations constitute the solution of the two-equation models characterizing the k-
model. The fact this model offers a good enough accuracy and pretty cheap, this
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
turbulence model is the most popular model in industry for flow simulations and heat
transfer. However the standard K-Epsilon has weaknesses that have been reduced by
improving its performance. Thus the RNG k- model and the realizable k- model are
two variants of the standard one
[1]
.
The transport equations terms k and
[6]
are respectively the turbulence kinetic
energy and the dissipation rate. This model is used to analyze fully turbulent flows (
4uuu Rc)

0
0
t
(k) +
0
0
x
i
(ku
I
) =
0
0
x
]
[( +
t
o
k
)
0k
0
x
]
] + 0
k
+ 0
b
-
s
-
M
+ S
k

0
0
t
() +
0
0
x
i
(u
I
) =
0
0
x
]
[( +
t
o
s
)
0s
0
x
]
] + 0
1s
+
s
k
(0
k
+ C
3s
0
b
)+ C
2s

s
2
k
- S
s

With 0
k
= u
u
]
0
u
]
0
x
i
,
t
= C
k
2
s
and 0
b
= g

t
P
t
01
0x
i

Where:
6
k
is the production of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity
gradients
6
h
is the production of turbulence kinetic energy due to buoyancy
Y
M
is the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence
to the overall dissipation rate
6
1s
, C
2s
, C
3s
, C
are constants
n
k
and n
s
are the turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and
S
h
and S
s
are user-defined source terms

t
is the turbulent viscosity
Pr
t
is the turbulent Prandtl number for energy default value is 0.85
g
|
is the component of the gravitational vector in the i direction
Another evaluation of 0
k
can be done with the Boussinesq hypothesis :
0
k
=
t
S
2

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Where S is the modulus of the mean rate-of-strain tensor :
S =
_
2S
]
S
]

1.5. Method of depicting pressure distribution
The section below introduces the study of the pressure distribution around the
model race car with and without diffuser enabling thus to emphasis the effect and
the behavior that generates the diffuser over the entire car.
Integrating the pressure times the surface area around the body determines
the aerodynamic force on the object. We can consider this force to act through the
average location of the pressure on the surface of the object. We call the average
location of the pressure variation the centre of pressure (CP) in the same way that we
call the average location of the weight of an object the centre of gravity (CG).

Figure 11 : Representation of the pressure distribution around an aerofoil
Center of pressure is the average location of the pressure. Pressure varies
around the surface of an object P = P(x)
C
p
=
]X . P(x). Jx
]P(x). Jx

Aerodynamic force acts through the center of pressure. Center of pressure
moves with angle of attack of the aerofoil in that case of study. In the actual case,
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
study about a model race, the angle of attack is equal to zero. That fact will have in
incidence on the framework of the case of study later.
The centre of pressure is the point where the resultant force (lift) crosses the
chord line. In the model race, the chord line has to be compared as the length of the
model race car. The total lift term introduced right here is an important point,
enabling the distinction between Cl calculated from the pressure coefficient of every
velocity studied and the total Cl obtained from reports from FLUENT. Here is an
accurate representation of the pressure distribution representing the negative and
positive pressure respectively on the upper and lower surface generating lift. In the
case of a model race car, a downforce has to be generated by obtaining a positive
pressure on the upper surface and a negative pressure on the lower surface.

Figure 12 : Pressure distribution negative (-) and positive (+) pressure around an aerofoil
An important concept in the study of aerodynamics concerns the idea of
streamlines. A streamline is a path traced out by a massless particle as it moves with
the flow. It is easiest to visualize a streamline if we move along with the body as
opposed to moving with the flow.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 13 : Streamline around an aerofoil
Figure 10 shows the computed streamlines around an airfoil. We move with
the object and the flow proceeds from left to right. Since the streamline is traced out
by a moving particle, at every point along the path the velocity is tangent to the path.
Since there is no normal component of the velocity along the path, mass cannot cross
a streamline. The mass contained between any two streamlines remains the same
throughout the flowfield.
We can use Bernoulli's equation to relate the pressure and velocity along the
streamline. Since no mass passes through the surface of the airfoil (or cylinder), the
surface of the object is a streamline.
The pressure distribution has to be analyzed from the methodology below. It
has to be noticed that the methodology is used during the experiment of airflow over
a NACA0012 aerofoil in wind tunnel commonly performed in second year of
Aero/Mech by Dr. Xiaobing Huang. That methodology is to obtain results of the
pressure distribution and thus the pressure coefficient over the aerofoil from tapping
points located on the aerofoil. In the model race car case, the pressure coefficient at
every distance from the leading edge of the car has been obtained from FLUENT and
from a method that will be introduced in the Discussion. As FLUENT does not provide
Cl and Cd value at every point of the race car but only the resultant lift and drag
coefficient, that methodology breaks the lift and drag force down at every single
location of the model race car.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
This method shown in Graph 1 consists of a graph of pressure coefficient
against
c
x
, where x is the distance from the leading edge measured parallel to the
chord line and c is the chord length.This ration eneables to blend different distances
as a unique scale comprised between 0 and 1( i.e. case1: length 0.39 and x/c = 1
(0.39/0.39). Another hand case 2: length 0.497 and x/c = 1 (0.497/0.497). Conclusion,
two different lengths reduce to a same ratio enabling a unique and blend graph). But
convention negative values of C
p
are plotted above the x axis. From this graph the
stagnation point (max C
p
= 1) can be read off. Also the area enclosed by the curve
gives directly the value of the lift coefficient C
L
.

Graph 1 : graph of pressure coefficient against
X
C
of an aerofoil at a certain angle of attack (AOA)
In Figure 11, these coefficients C
x
and C
y
are force coefficients acting
perpendicular and parallel to the chord line and therefore they must be converted
into C
L
and C
D
, which act perpendicular and parallel to the relative airflow.
The resultant aerodynamic force C
R
of C
L
and C
D
acts at an angle ( = 90
0
)
to the normal force coefficient C
y
.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 14 : force coefficients acting perpendicular and parallel to the chord line of an aerofoil

Figure 15 : force coefficients acting perpendicular and parallel to the length of the model race car

From analysis of aerofoil force coefficients, it is known:
sin cos
x y L
C C C = and cos sin
x y D
C C C + =
Where :

c
x
d C C
p y
1
0
i.e. the area enclose by loop C
p

c
x
graph

c
y
d C C
p x
1
0

i.e. the net area enclose by loops formed by C
p

c
y
graph

c
x
d
c
x
C C
p m
1
0
i.e. the area enclose by C
p

c
x

c
x
graph
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
where C
m
represents the pitching moment coefficient about the leading edge.
In our case, as the model race car has an angle of attack of 0, Thus
y L
C C and
x y D
C C C +

Figure 16 : Pressure distribution negative (-) and positive (+) pressure around an aerofoil at an angle of
attack (AOA) = 15 degree

1.6. Meshing
1.6.1. Definition
A mesh is a structure of geometrical data enabling the representation of surfaces
from polynomes. The Mesh technique is used in Infography in particularly, to model surface,
or during an establishment of a pattern to discrete space as continuum. A mesh is
constituted as follow: Nodes connected each other by faces of polygonal shape. The
different types of mesh are hexahedral, tetrahedral and wedge (Prism)
[7] [8]
.
Hexahedral mesh: six rectangular faces (regular hexahedron is a cube)
Tetrahedral mesh: Four triangular faces (regular polyhedron is a equilateral
polyhedron)
Wedge mesh: Prism (two triangular faces + trapezoid face)
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 17 : Hexahedral, tetrahedral & wedge shape

The collection of nodes and finite elements is known as the mesh shown below:

Figure 18 : Expression of a typical mesh
In Gambit, to specify the meshing scheme, you must specify two parameters:
Element
Type
Elements are defined into Specifying scheme elements and enables options of
shapes following the previous types of mesh. The type parameter defines options of
meshing type.
1.6.2. Specifying scheme elements
Hexahedral: Specifies that the mesh is only constituted of hexahedral mesh
elements
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Hexahedral / Wedge: Specifies that the mesh is constituted of hexahedral
mesh elements with wedges elements as appropriate
Tetrahedral / hybrid: Specifies that the mesh is constituted of tetrahedral
mesh elements and may be constituted of hexahedral, pyramidal, and wedge
elements as appropriate
1.6.3. Specifying scheme type
Map: Creates a regular, structured grid of hexahedral mesh elements

Submap: Divivdes an unmappable volume into mappable regions and creates a
structured grid of hexahedral mesh elements in each region
Tet primitive: Divides a four sided volume into four hexahedral regions and
creates a mapped mesh in each region
Cooper: Sweeps the mesh node patterns of specified source faces though
the volume
Tgrid: Specifies that the mesh is constituted of tetrahedral mesh elements and
may be constituted of hexahedral, pyramidal, and wedge elements as
appropriate
Strairstep: created a regular hexahedral mesh and a corresponding faceted
volume that appropriates the shape of the original volume
The next table describes the different combination as possible to make
Elements
Type Hexahedral Hexahedral / wedge Tetrahedral / hybrid
Map X

Submap X

Tet primitive X

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Cooper X X

Tgrid

X
Strairstep X

Table 1 : different combination into GAMBIT for modelling

The use of Tet/hybrid elements associated to Tgrid type is commomly done in
K-Epsilon viscous model. It offers a fine mesh while an easy handling
1.7. Calculation of % difference
Next percentages traducing the gain or loss of efficiency and enabling the
evaluation of margin have been determined as follow:
% of decrease = 100 - ((higher value) 100 / (lower value))
% of increase = 100 - ((lower value) 100 / (higher value))

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN PROCESS
1.1. Initial numerical approach

Figure 19 : Diffuser right view

Figure 20 : Diffuser front view
Here are figures of the diffuser designed with ProEngineer Computer aid
Design (CAD) Software.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 21 : Rear axle of model race car with implemented diffuser

Figure 22 : rear axle of model race car with implemented diffuser

The understanding of choices done about the pattern and then simulations
done into FLUENT passes by a description of what it has been done before and what
it has worked or not.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Figure 20 is a pattern into GAMBIT of the car with diffuser. Given
performances of computers at Glyndwr University (3 gigabyte of RAM) it seemed
unrealistic to get a simulation of the entire model race car as represented Figure 19
with the entire rear axle design into ProEngineer CAD software because of a very high
number of elements after meshing the model race, the interior and the large box
corresponding to the wind tunnel of Glyndwr University. Thus a large simplification of
the initial chassis has to be done.

Figure 23 : wind tunnel + model race car GAMBIT modelling & meshing phase representation
After considering the effect of different parts in terms of airflow behavior
crossing into the model race, which means between the body and the chassis, it has
been chosen to conserve the strict minimum, which means the body, the chassis and
the diffuser. In the case of the model race car without diffuser, only the body and the
chassis are represented into GAMBIT. After trying to mesh the actual case into
GAMBIT, this solution has aborted because of a non-capability of the software to
reach a successful meshing. The point of this non-capability is due to the large hole
under chassis as represented on the figure 21. Indeed, the thickness of the chassis is
5 mm, thus the size of mesh has to be adjusted to enable the number of nodes
constituting mesh edges to be competent.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 24 : Diffuser prototype

Figure 25 : Poor quality error message non-capability to successfully mesh
As the specificity of the diffuser is to be designed around a double-Decker,
term used in Formula 1 to characterize this new technology from the season
2008/2009, and as the large hole enables the airflow underneath the chassis to go
through, thus the large hole cannot be suppressed.
However, before concluding on the non-feasibility of this process, various sizes
of mesh have been simulated to resolve this problem of poor face mesh quality.
1
st
Mesh size:
10 : Mesh edges spacing
10 : mesh volumes spacing of the interior
20 : mesh volume spacing of the wind tunnel box
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 26 : Poor quality error message non-capability to successfully mesh 1
st
Mesh
2
nd
Mesh size:

nd
Mesh

Figure 28 : Boundary nodes error message 2
nd
Mesh
3
rd
Mesh size:

rd
Mesh
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 30 : Boundary nodes error message 3
rd
Mesh
4
th
Mesh size:

Figure 31 : Maximum number of mesh faces error message 4
th
Mesh
After changing the value of default MESH. TRIMESH. MAX_FACES from 500000
to 10000000, another Mesh has been done. It is occurred an out of memory as the
number of elements traduced by bytes of dynamic memory is consequent.

Figure 32 : Allocation of bytes of dynamic memory 4
th
Mesh
5
th
Mesh size:
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 33 : Tetrahedral meshing failed error message 5
th
Mesh
From this observation, a mono-block model race car had to be considered,
figures 31 and 33 come from ProEngineer. After designing the mono-block part, it has
been exported into GAMBIT and then well Meshed. As normally the space between
the lower surface of the body and the chassis is nearly empty, further airflow are
crossing the model race. The fact the study will be from a mono-block, results will not
traduce exactly the really.

Figure 34 : Mono-block model race car

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 35 : Mono-block model race car
Figure 32 represents the model race car with key distances considered in excel
and another hand enabling the understanding of figures explained in discussion.
1.2. With diffuser

Figure 36 : Examine mesh function representation of car with diffuser

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 37 : wind tunnel + model race car after meshing of car with diffuser

Figure 38 : Mesh generation message of car with diffuser
While GAMBIT has well meshed the model race car, the interior and the wind
tunnel box, it generated some highly skewed elements, 18, corresponding to
anomalies concentrated in volume 3 corresponding to the interior box including the
model race car. Basically a skewed element corresponds to the difficulty to link a
mesh edge with a spacing of 4 and a mesh edge with a spacing of 6 at the tips
generally.
While the model race car has generated 18 highly skewed elements, GAMBIT
has well meshed the wind tunnel boxes without highly skewed elements. The number
of highly skewed elements is not much consequent and thus can be ignored. Fluent
will traduce values close enough to the reality.

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
1.3. Without diffuser

Figure 39 : Examine mesh function representation of car without diffuser

Figure 40 : wind tunnel + model race car after meshing of car without diffuser

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 41 : Mesh generation message of car without diffuser
Mesh size with mono-block body solution:
4 for body+diffuser
6 for interior
20 for wind tunnel

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
CHAPTER 4: RESULT COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION WITH AND
WITHOUT DIFFUSER
Results obtained from K-Epsilon simulation at different velocities give expected
results while the simulations has to be considered as at time = 0 second. Indeed,
animations have been made to provide an ideal of how the airflow evolves through
time and how is the turbulent viscosity evolving in same circumstances.. Animations
simulates pathlines, colored by subgrid turbulent viscosity (kg/m-s), at time step = 1
second, step number = 5 thus 5 seconds of simulation for mono-block body with and
without diffuser.
A fine mesh is suited for study of the airflow over a model race car, aiming a Y+
value between 50>Y+>500 as requires K-Epsilon viscous model. A Tetrahedral grid is
used around the model race car. 810,125 elements is constituting the grid
Conditions are set to be similar in real conditions which mean:
T = 15C = 273 + 15 = 288 K
V = 110 m/s
P =
754
7
x 1.01325 = 1.00525 Pa

air
=
P
1
=
1.525x1
.27x1
x 2
= 1.2161 Kg / m
3

The Reynolds number equation is:
Rc =
p

Where:
Re: The dimensionless Reynolds number.
: Density of the medium in kg/m
3
= 1.2161kg/m
3
.
v: Velocity of the body relative to the medium in m/s = 110km/h
L: Characteristic length of the body along the direction of flow in m = 0.497 m.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
: Dynamic Viscosity of the medium in Ns/m
2
= 1.79x10
-5
Ns/m
2

This equation could be simplified if we introduce the Kinematic Viscosity of the
fluid (m/s), which is the ratio between dynamic viscosity and density.
=
=
1.7 x 1
1.211
= 1.472 x 10
-5
m/s
R
e
=

=
11 x .47
1.472 x 1
= 3713994.565
As the Reynolds number is over 4000, thus the airflow is considered as
turbulent.
Y+ values found were comprised between 12 and 320 for the Y+ value without
diffuser and between 3 and 300 for the solution with diffuser as presented in graph
below. This is acceptable for the K-Epsilon viscous model. After getting Y+ values, the
choice keeping them is due to do not take over 500. An under-relaxation coefficient
of 0.05 is placed on the momentum solution to insure stability of the process. The
pressure and density coefficient have been retained. The second-order discretization
is preferable for non-aligned flow with the grid. The accuracy of results is insured.
With the following CFD code it was possible to access K-Epsilon in 3-D Fluent

Graph 2 : Y+ value against model race car without diffuser 110 km/h
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 3 : Y+ value against model race car with diffuser 110 km/h
Simulation was done using 240 iterations to converge. Thus the flow is
developed and stabilized in a regime. Approximately 2 hours is necessary to reach the
convergent process.
Influencing on the report, graphs values and files written from Fluent after
exporting data in excel, the Area (m) corresponding to the Width x Depth of model
race car, and Length (mm) corresponding to the length of the model race car are
defined as follow:
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 42 : References values dialogue box

Table 2 : Report from K-Epsilon viscous model with diffuser 110 km/h

Table 3 : Report from K-Epsilon viscous model without diffuser 110 km/h
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Reports come from fluent after convergence. Values surrounded in green
correspond to total force (N) = Drag force (Force vector: (1 0 0)) or Lift force (Force
vector: (0 1 0)). Values surrounded in red correspond to total coefficient = Drag and
Lift coefficient. Only the right definition of reference values enables to determine
right results.
Following formulas are the relationship of values and data:
=
1
2
p
2
C

=
1
2
p
2
C

Where (Drag case with diffuser):
D is the Drag in N = 22.58172 N
is the Density of air in kg/m
3
= 1.208 kg/m
3

U is the Velocity of airflow in m/s = 110 km/h =
111
3
= 30.555 m/s
A is the area of the projected surface opposed to the airflow in m
2
= 0.0349 m
2

C
is the Drag coefficient (no unit) = 1.1473979

Figure 43 : Model race car length Figure 44 : Model race car height & width
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Four simulations were performed to compare values of Cd, Cl, L and D
depending on velocity of the car. Various velocities are 50, 70, 90, and 110 km/h. All
results will be compared and discussed in this chapter.

Figure 45 : Contours of static pressure without diffuser 110 km/h

Figure 46 : Contours of static pressure with diffuser 110 km/h
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 47 : Contours of dynamic pressure without diffuser 110 km/h

Figure 48 : Contours of dynamic pressure with diffuser 110 km/h
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 49 : Contours of total pressure without diffuser 110 km/h

Figure 50 : Contours of total pressure without diffuser 110 km/h
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 51 : Contours of velocity Magnitude without diffuser 110 km/h

Figure 52 : Contours of velocity Magnitude with diffuser 110 km/h
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 53 : Contours of turbulent kinetic energy without diffuser 110 km/h

Figure 54 : Contours of turbulent kinetic energy with diffuser 110 km/h
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 55 : Pathlines colored by Turbulent Kinetic Energy (k) (m2/S2) with diffuser 110 km/h

Figure 56 : Pathlines colored by Turbulent Kinetic Energy (k) (m2/S2) without diffuser 110 km/h

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 57 : Pressure distribution negative(-) and positive (+) pressure around an aerofoil

Figure 58 : Pressure distribution negative(-) and positive (+) pressure around a model race car
Here is an accurate representation of the pressure distribution representing
the negative and positive pressure respectively on the upper and lower surface
generating lift. In review of literature it has been noticed that a downforce has to be
generated by obtaining a positive pressure on the upper surface and a negative
pressure on the lower surface. Thus here both a comparison between an aerofoil and
the model race car. While the aerofoil is generating a negative pressure on the upper
surface and a positive pressure on the lower surface, figure 55 traduces the inversed
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
effect about the model race car. This first consideration means that no major
mistakes have been done about ProEngineer and GAMBIT modeling and input data
into FLUENT. Next stage is to carry out a deep analyze of results. Figures 56 and 57
show the methodology of analyze.

Figure 59 : Lines methodology for reading of results into EXCEL with diffuser

Figure 60 : Lines methodology for reading of results into EXCEL without diffuser
What do these figures represent?
Figures 56 and 57, exported from FLUENT, represent the profile of the model
race car with and without diffuser completed with lines enabling the reading of
various values as turbulent kinetic energy or coefficient of pressure at every single
point of lines and then tabulated on EXCEL via exportation from FLUENT to EXCEL by
generating a XY file.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
What the need is?
The simple reading of figures of static pressures contours or turbulent kinetic
energys contours is not enough. The need to lean on results with graphs is necessary
and offers a scientific approach. Moreover the reading of graph is much easier than
the reading of figures for the understanding of results. Graphs enable an accurate
comparison by superposition of results as well
The XY file of coefficient of pressure enables to provide a clarification of
pressure distribution and the efficiency or not of the diffuser. It is the same purpose
about the XY file of turbulent kinetic energy.
From facilities employed in Aerodynamics A lab where the experiment of an
airflow over a NACA0012 aerofoil in wind tunnel commonly performed in second year
of Aero/Mech by Dr. Xiaobing Huang has been carry out, lines over and underneath
the model race car is inspired from the technology used on the NACA0012 airfoil
where this one is constituted of captors disposed at regular interval on the upper and
lower surface providing some tapping points taking thus the pressure distribution
around the airfoil down when the airflow is crossing the wind tunnel chamber.

Figure 61 : Tapping points represented by pressure distribution application
From the methodology stated in review of litterature (Method of depicting
pressure distribution), the pressure distribution enables the determination of Cl and
Cd and thus D and L values
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

How to get lines ?
From GAMBIT, a function Line/Rake enables to add lines from coordinated
points previously determined in function of the shapes of the profile to be close
enough and thus more accurate as possible.
Note 1 :
The term under diffuser is used both for the body with diffuser and
without diffuser as it can be noticed figure56 and 57. This process was to simplify
the research of data in excel because of plenty of data extracted from FLUENT and
another hand to provide the same comparison of the two case to consider.
The comparison between graph 55 and graph 54 traduce the difference of
effect in terms of lift force. Indeed graph 54 is traducing a negative coefficient of
pressure on the upper surface and a positive coefficient of pressure on the lower
surface and from the assignment in aerodynamics A performed in 2
nd
year of
Aeronautical and Mechanical Engineering by Dr. Huang, values of lift forces was
traduced by a positive value at every AOA. Conversely, graph 55 is traducing a
positive coefficient of pressure on the upper surface and a negative coefficient of
pressure on the lower surface. Graph 55 is traducing a significant proportion of
surface of the car under high negative pressure against a smaller proportion of
surface under positive pressure. Most of the surface under negative pressure is
located underneath the chassis and then three small locations on the upper surface.
Thus a first conclusion can be made from this comparison, it can be guessed the
model race car both without and with diffuser are making a certain downforce.
The pressure above the model race car with diffuser is included between -
2.29x10
-3
Pa (trailing edge) and 1.15x10
3
Pa (Leading edge) with a large surface
exposed to a pressure of 1.86x10
2
Pa and two negative pressure locations located on
the front-end of the cockpit (-2.27x10
2
Pa) and on the top of the pilots helmet (-
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
3.30x10
2
Pa). The pressure underneath the car and into the underbody diffuser is
strictly negative. The pressure is slightly evolving by getting lower and lower along
the chassis (from -2.27x10
2
Pa to -5.37x10
2
Pa) before falling down to -1.57x10
3
Pa at
the entrance of the diffuser located at 332 mm from the leading edge (Figure 32).
Once the airflow into the diffuser, the pressure is getting higher and higher while still
negative (from -1.57x10
3
Pa to -1.24x10
2
Pa)
In the model race car with diffuser case, conditions are slightly similar about
the upper surface. The pressure above the model race car with diffuser is comprised
between -2.77x10
-3
Pa (trailing edge) and 1.18x10
3
Pa (Leading edge) with a large
surface exposed to a pressure of 1.21x10
2
Pa and two negative pressure locations
located on the front-end of the cockpit and on the top of the pilots helmet (both -
1.68x10
2
Pa). Conversely to the car with diffuser, the pressure underneath the chassis
changes of behavior. The pressure is still strictly negative but the evolution of the
pressure is significantly perceived as symptomatic. Indeed the pressure from the
leading edge to the middle of the chassis is not evolving at all (-1.68x10
2
Pa), it
evolves by getting slightly lower and lower on approximately 70 mm before
consequently decreasing, but not as the previous case, to -1.04x10
3
Pa at the tail of
the chassis. The difference between the car with and without the diffuser is from the
tail of the chassis to the back end of the body. Indeed, while the diffuser brings a real
aerodynamic effect by decreasing the pressure progressively from the leading edge
to the entrance of the diffuser and then enables to getting higher and higher until the
atmospheric pressure, the car without diffuser generates a massive change of
pressure (from -1.04x10
3
Pa to -1.21x10
2
Pa). The question of stability of the tail of
the model race car has to be considered.
In the both case, it can be noticed a massive decrease of pressure while a very
small area on the top end of the body (-2.19x10
3
Pa for with diffuser case against -
2.91x10
3
Pa for without diffuser case). If we consider the Bernoulli theorem and if we
check the velocity magnitudes contours of both cars, it can be noticed at the same
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
location the velocitys airflow is suddenly increased (From 1.06x10
2
Pa to 2.07x10
2
Pa
for car with diffuser, from 9.91x10
1
Pa to 2.19x10
2
Pa for car without diffuser). As
states Bernoulli theorem, higher the velocity, lower the pressure and inversely.
This observation can be noticed from graphs below representing the evolution
of the coefficient of pressure along the model race car.

Graph 4 : Cp value for model race car without diffuser

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 5 : Cp value for model race car with diffuser

Graph 6 : Cp value of NACA0012 airfoil

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
The graph above enables the comparison with Cp values of the model race car.
It can be appreciated the representation of Cp values over the representation
of the model race car in background. On that way, lines have been inserted to locate
the interested points of Cp value curves. A clarification of these graphs is done by
comparing the Cp value graphs with a Cp value graph of NACA0012 airfoil taking part
in the aerodynamics As teaching note of Dr.Huang.

Graph 7 : Cp value model race car comparison

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Graph 7 is a comparative study of the Cp value of the with diffuser case and
the without diffuser case at 110 km/h (remain 4 study cases have been done on
FLUENT: 50, 70, 90 and 110 km/h). While the Cp value against X/L of the model race
car with diffuser is nearly similar to the without diffuser case. The addition of a
diffuser is significantly affecting the coefficient of pressure underneath the car.
Indeed an increase of 44.33 % (from -2.03 to -2.93, between 0.64 < X/L < 0.76) is
noticed and more precisely at the entrance of the diffuser. It can be seen that the
double-decker is sufficient as attests the Cp value. It is more important than the
without diffusers case traduced by an increase of 407.5 % ( -0.2 against -1.015 at the
same X/L distance).
Tables of reports (Table 2 & 3) and graph 7 are pretty concordant. Indeed the
body with diffuser generates more downforce in general, - 40.29 against -39.25 for
body without diffuser (2.65 % up) while a coefficient of pressures curve for upper
surface traducing a higher Cp than the body with diffuser. A peak of pressure of -2.93
at distance 331.5 mm (Graph 7) corresponding to the entrance of the diffuser
represents an increase of 44.33 % in comparison with the peak of pressure of -2.03 at
distance 329.27 mm (Graph8) corresponding to the back end of the chassis. This
sudden peak of pressure insures a reasonably large value of the downforce therefore
contributed mainly by the lower surface suction rather than the upper surface
pressure.
Graphs 8, 9, 10 & 11 directly represent the downforce (negative lift) and drag
coefficient and the downforce and drag force at every single point of the model race
car.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 8 : Lift coefficient value comparison with and without diffuser

Graph 9 : Downforce value (N) comparison with and without diffuser
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Note 2 :
Graphs above have been made from the following conclusion:
L
=
1
2
0
2
S C
=
1
2
0
2
S C
= C or s ngc o ttck or cqu to u

C
= Cx or s ngc o ttck or cqu to u

C
=
]Cp J(
X
) C
x
=
]Cp J(
)
Thus:

totuI
=
1
2
0
2
S |
]Cp J(
X
)]
totuI
=
1
2
0
2
S |
]Cp J(
)]
After considering this, it can be considered the following formulas:
ut
X
L
dstuncc
=
1
2
0
2
S |]C
p
J(
X
)]
ut
Y
L
dstuncc
=
1
2
0
2
S |]C
p
J(
)]
Where:
X is in meter (m) and L is in meter => X/L has no unit
Y is in meter (m) and L is in meter => Y/L has no unit
is in Kg/m
3

U is in km/h = km/h => m/s
S is in square meter (m)
Cp has no unit
Graph 9 representing the distribution of the lift or downforce at every single
point of the body traduces the same observation done from the Cp value graph. A
large peak of -0.82 N is 32.25 % higher for the with diffuser case than the peak of -
0.62N for the without diffuser case. Moreover, the downforce distribution is higher
on the entire lower surface of the body with diffuser. The diffuser brings a significant
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
addition of downforce as well. However it can be observe a change of distribution
between the Cp value graph and the downforce graph about the upper surface.
Indeed while the Cp value graph states a pressure distribution identical in the interval
0.2 < X/L < 0.4 corresponding to the cockpit and the pilots helmet area, the
downforce graph states a strong variation of the downforce distribution concentrated
in this same interval. A decrease of 65.21 % and 40.25 % of downforce for the with
diffusers case is noticed (from 0.278 N to 0.098 N and from 0.318 N to 0.19 N).
The report announces - 39.25 N for the body without diffuser and - 40.29N for
the body with diffuser. As EXCEL has been the main support to provide graphs and
thus bring furthers information about pressure basically, and as techniques exposed
in teaching note of Aerodynamics A exists to determine Cl, Cd, D and L from
calculations, here below a comparative study between Lift force got from reports and
Lift force got from calculation into EXCEL.
Note 3 :
As it can be considered the following formulas:
ut
X
L
dstuncc
=
1
2
0
2
S |]C
p
J(
X
)]
ut
Y
L
dstuncc
=
1
2
0
2
S |]C
p
J(
)]
The following formulas can be considered as well:
ut
X
L
dstuncc
=
1
2
0
2
S |
Mcun Cp
(
1
di]]crcncc
X
L
)
]
ut
Y
L
dstuncc
=
1
2
0
2
S |
Mcun Cp
(
1
di]]crcncc
Y
L
)
]
Where:
Mean Cp =
(Cp
n
+ Cp
n1
)
2

Difference
X
or
= (
X
)
n+1
(
X
)
n
or (
)
n+1
(
)
n

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Table 4 : FLUENT and EXCEL comparison of Lift force
Some variations between values can be observed while lift forces from EXCEL
insure a much better efficiency of the model race car without diffuser than FLUENT.
This difference of results between the two methodologies may be due to the
methodology used into FLUENT to export values into EXCEL. Indeed the methodology
is as accurate as needed. Lines have to be much closer to the inner surface of bodies.
Moreover, lines have to cover the entire periphery of bodies.


C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Figure 63 : Pressure distribution around a model race car areas not taken into account
Two specific locations are indeed not covered by lines: the high negative
pressure concentration on the top-end of the body, and the positive pressure
concentration area right in the corner. Given that the high negative pressure
concentration is higher for the without diffuser case (-2.19x10
3
Pa for with diffuser
case against -2.91x10
3
Pa for without diffuser case) while the positive pressure
concentration is higher for the without diffuser case too (5.99x10
2
Pa for with diffuser
case against 6.98x10
2
Pa for without diffuser case ) this contributes to a downforce
slightly higher for the with diffuser case because of a larger difference by subtracting
values (positive pressure negative pressure) in each case. However this brings not
enough change to total downforce values to assume a better downforce for the with
diffuser case.
The high negative pressure concentration has been neglected because of a
non-effect about the downforce. Indeed this pressure is not affecting a major inner
surface. However FLUENT considers all the pressure acting on any surfaces of the
model race car.
From report of FLUENT, a difference of 1 N despite a better distribution of the
downforce over and underneath the model race car with diffuser and more precisely
a better downforce distribution into the diffuser, thus at the tail of the body, let think
the report cannot be considered alone at all. An add-on of graph to support reports
has to be done to detail values of reports as well. However in our case results from
FLUENT and results from EXCEL are not concordant. By knowing FLUENT very well,
techniques can be used to get accurate XY values from FLUENT and then to exploit
into EXCEL.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 10 : Drag coefficient value comparison with and without diffuser

Graph 11 : Drag force value (N) comparison with and without diffuser
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Table 5 : FLUENT and EXCEL comparison of Drag force
From note 2 previously detailed, we can break the lift force and the drag force
down in terms of lift and drag distribution at every single point of the body and thus
trace graphs above out of the drag coefficient and the drag force against Y/L. It can
be observed the significant difference between the drag coefficient graph and the
drag force graph, where the first indicates that the diffuser reduces the drag
coefficient and even generates more negative drag coefficient than generates the
upper surface in term of positive drag coefficient. In that case the negative drag
coefficient is comparable to an existing thrust coefficient which can be traduced by a
force pushing the model race car, which case enables a gain of velocity.
Another hand, the drag force graph traduces an opposed observation. Indeed
the upper surface of the body with diffuser generates 5 more times of drag than the
upper surface of the body without diffuser while the drag distribution on the lower
surface of the with diffuser case is nearly 2 more times higher than the without
diffuser case.
After considering the two graphs, it can be asked the reliability of the
statement of the drag coefficient and the drag force at every single point. However
this statement is an interesting use and enables to know of how the model race car
generates drag.
From the comparative study between results from FLUENT and EXCEL, it is
noticed FLUENT varies in values. Indeed, results from FLUENT states an increase of
drag due to the diffuser of 13.68 % (22.58 N for the with diffuser case against 19.49 N
for the without diffuser case). EXCEL even states a generation of thrust in the with
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
diffuser case, which would be very interesting while unrealistic. The drag force on
excel for the without diffuser case is 307.54 % lower (10.88 N against - 22.58 N)
While the lift is slightly higher after implementing the diffuser at the tail of the
chassis, it generates a higher drag which generally is a mitigate result in terms of
expectation. Breaking the lift force and the drag force down in terms of lift and drag
distribution at every single point of the body may provide a clear representation of
how forces act on the body, however a mistake or several mistakes have certainly
been done in the formulation of calculations. The fact lift values are similar enough
(Table 4) compared to drag values (Table 5) traduces the technique employed is
suitable under right handling.
After extensively detailing the simulation at a velocity of 110 km/h, here below
the different comparative studies at the others case studied.
Here below the tables resuming the principles results of reports after
simulation.

Table 6 : FLUENT Cl, L, Cd, D values with and without diffuser tabulation
The next graphs compare the evolution of Cl, Cd, L and D against the different
velocities simulated.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 12 : FLUENT Cl value against velocity with and without diffuser

Graph 13 ; FLUENT Cd value against velocity with and without diffuser

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 14 : FLUENT L value against velocity with and without diffuser

Graph 15 : FLUENT D value against velocity with and without diffuser
For the same initial parameters as Area (Car dimensions: Height x Width),
Length (car dimension), temperature (15c = 288K), Density of air (1.208 kg/m
3
)
basically (Figure 39), FLUENT has generated values Cl, Cd, L and D and they have been
compared into EXCEL.
It is observed that the diffuser does not offer much aerodynamic performances
that expected but brings certitudes of the efficiency of the double-decker. Indeed the
diffuser increases the drag force between 22.86 % (50 km/h) and 13.68 % (110km/h),
it increases the downforce from 8.42 % (50 km/h) to 2.33 % (110 km/h). As
announced above, these are mitigate results. While percentages traduce a higher
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
increase of drag force than an increase of downforce, downforce still is higher than
drag force. However the determination of the global evolution of aerodynamic
performances is not established yet but just perceived. It would be interesting to
determinate what is the percentage of evolution of aerodynamic performances of
each case (increase or decrease determination).
On that way a comparative study of lift/drag ratio has been done to evaluate
which case is more efficient. The higher the lift/drag ratio value, the more efficient
the case (with or without case). Moreover this comparative study enables to
determine at which velocity aerodynamic performances of the model race car is
better.
Note 4 :
The determination of aerodynamic performances evolution is traduced by a
ratio of the lift and the drag force:
Rtio =
it
rg

As lift is the downforce in our case, the value is negative while drag is positive.
Thus we need to get an absolute value
|Rtio| = _
it
rg
_
As stated in review of literature (Calculation of % difference), here are formulas to
state an increase or decrease of value:
% of decrease = 100 - ((higher value) 100 / (lower value))
% of increase = 100 - ((lower value) 100 / (higher value))
Thus, here is below a table with values and different efficiencies against velocity

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Table 7: values and efficiency percentages of cases

Graph 16 : Lift/Drag ratio against velocity at each case

Graph 17 : Lift/Drag ratio against velocity at each case

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
After having done the ratio Lift/Drag at each case and at each velocity, the first
observation is that the diffuser is generating a mean decrease of 14 % in comparison
with the without diffuser case (15.96 %, 12 %, 12.61 % and 13.15 %). Indeed, while
the ratio Lift/Drag of the without case is 2.11, the ratio of with diffuser is 1.82 which
means a decrease of 13.15 %. It can be noticed that each velocity studied traduce the
same analysis as shown in Graph 17.
Graphs below are representing comparative studies of all the case of study.

Graph 18 : Cp value against X/L upper & lower surface all velocities comparison

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 19 : Cp value against X/L upper & lower surface with diffuser all velocities comparison Double-
Decker area

Graph 20 : Cp value against X/L upper & lower surface without diffuser all velocities comparison

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 21 : Cp value against Y/L upper & lower surface with diffuser all velocities comparison

Graph 22 : Cp value against Y/L upper & lower surface without diffuser all velocities comparison
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 23 : Cp*X/L value against X/L upper & lower surface with diffuser all velocities comparison

Graph 24 : Cp*X/L value against X/L upper & lower surface without diffuser all velocities comparison
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

As explained above and as noticed into graphs, the effect of the diffuser is
ambivalent. Graphs are nearly concordant while a change of velocity is occurred.
However Graphs 18 &19 (Cp - X/L with diff) state variations at the double-decker
level as an interesting point. Indeed higher the velocity, higher the coefficient of
pressure thus higher the downforce in the with diffuser case while no variation in the
without diffuser case. While a change of pressure as good occurs at lower velocity, it
is noticed the pressure does not evolve on the upper surface. Thus basically, it can be
told the diffuser brings a better downforce thus a better grip at lower velocity.
However the increase of drag is higher and higher too, as states Graph 17. It is not
negligible as different velocities studied correspond to velocities occurring in curves.
The fact the grip is better, the inertia effect due to the weight of the model race car
in curve is better absorbed, and thus the car handles better in curve but drag
generate a slight decrease of velocity.
It could be expected a general exponential evolution of downforce and drag
against velocities but only a linear progression for the downforce and a linear
reduction for the drag force is occurring. Another hand this observation is satisfying
enough because a worse harmful effect due to the diffuser could occurred too, and
the diffuser brings an increase of drag high than an increase of downforce. However
downforce values at every velocity are higher than drag force values
At the moment, It has been noticed an increase more important of the drag
force than the lift force after adding-on the diffuser. The aerodynamic performances
have been reduced because of the diffuser (From 15.96 % to 12 %). At any velocity
the diffuser is reducing aerodynamic performances. However, locally speaking the
diffuser has increased the max downforce of 32.25 % with a mean increase of 2.65 %
(FLUENT downforce data) while the drag is meanly increased of 13.68 % (FLUENT
drag force data). Downforce is still higher than the drag force. Practically speaking,
the model race car has a better grip but a velocity slightly reduced
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

If the Lift/Drag ratio has to be considered has the point of the analysis,
variations of Downforce and Drag force values represent a variation of nearly 1 N at
any case (with or without diffuser) at any velocity (50, 70, 90, 110 km/h analytically
the diffuser is less efficient but not so much.
While the pressure has been extensively explained, further explanations about
the velocity of the airflow around the model race car do not care.
Another hand, turbulence flows around the car cares because of the tight
relationship between turbulence flows and the drag force. Indeed, the higher the
turbulence flows, the higher the drag force. It can be noticed on contours of
turbulent kinetic energy (k) (m/s) of both cases that turbulence flows on the back
end of the model race car are nearly similar. Only values change. It can be noticed as
well that in both cases a location of high turbulent kinetic energy concentrated in a
small area is corresponding to the same area of high negative pressure concentration
in the static pressures contours and a high velocity concentration in the velocity
magnitudes contour. The high turbulent kinetic energy concentrations area of the
case with diffuser is larger than the case without diffuser and turbulence flows are
more spread in the with diffuser case than the without diffuser case. On that way the
contours graph of the car with diffuser indicates that the higher turbulent kinetic
energy value is 2.83x10
2
against 5.94x10
2
for the without diffuser case, thus a
decrease (52.35 %) of turbulence. The dissipation of turbulence flows are quite
similar with values fairly similar as well (5.27x10
1
(k) (m/s) (with diffuser) and
5.39x10
1
(k) (m/s) (without diffuser)).
It can be noticed at the diffusers level or at the back-end of the chassis level
two slight difference of behavior. While in the without diffuser case the area under
body generates a steady value of turbulent kinetic energy of 1.82x10
1
(k) (m/s), the
with diffuser case state a higher value of turbulent kinetic energy in the double-
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
Decker as the airflow is shocking a vertical surface at the front-end of the double-
Decker but is meanly lower under the double-Decker and at the entrance and exit of
the diffuser: 1.11x10
1
(k) (m/s). Conversely at the back-end of the chassis it can be
seen a small area of high turbulence of 8.95x10
1
(k) (m/s). This high turbulent
kinetic energy concentration is traduced by the fact the sudden change of cross-
section at the tail of the chassis while the fact the progressive change of cross-section
due to the diffuser do not suddenly disturb the fluidity of the airflow along the
diffuser.

This observation can be noticed from graphs below representing the evolution
of the turbulent kinetic energy along the model race car and a distance of 500 mm
behind that one

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 25 : Turbulent kinetic energy against X/L upper surface comparison
Graph 25 represents the evolution of the turbulent kinetic energy along the
upper surface of the body and behind that one. As previously stated, a small area of
high turbulent kinetic energy concentration is represented by a peak for each case.
X/L = 0.56 locates the peak on the top-end of the body. As stated as well, turbulence
flows values are slightly similar at the back of the model race car. The graph traduces
the reduction of turbulences due to the diffuser as the peak of turbulence is higher
for the without diffuser case.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Graph 26 : Turbulent kinetic energy against X/L lower surface comparison
This graph represents the evolution of the turbulent kinetic energy along the
lower surface of the body and behind that one. It is more complicated to visualize but
it can be appreciated the difference of turbulence between the two peaks of
turbulent kinetic energy (green and purple) of the case without diffuser and the two
peaks of turbulent kinetic energy (red and blue) of the case with diffuser. The
turbulent kinetic energy is divided by two in the with diffuser case at the two
different locations in each case(68.52 % and 16.52 % of decrease). At the back of
bodies, the turbulent kinetic energy are however higher in the case of the model race
car with diffuser (26.36 % and 14.17 % of decrease). Thus turbulences under the
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
model race car with diffuser are much lower which does not disturb the behavior of
the car in comparison of the car without diffuser, however turbulences are generated
by the diffuser at the back.
From that observation, it can be asked how these turbulences are
represented for real? Precisely, some animations have been done to represent
pathlines corresponding to streamlines and traducing the behavior of the airflow
against a given time. In our case the animation is representing a simulation of the
model race car, with an initial velocity of 110km/h, driving at 110 km/h during a
period of 5 seconds. The playing time of the animation is to 33 seconds each. Two
animations have been done for the two cases. Here below a description of what is
the behavior of the airflow.
After deflecting the airflow over the upper surface and underneath the lower
surface, the two flows join up at the trailing edge and form vortices which tends to
drift towards the model race car and diffuser tips, forming a large vortex.
It thus results in an overflow at the back end of both diffuser and chassis,
which traduces a whirlpool action (Figure 64 & 65). This whirling of the air is known
as a vortex. Also, the airflow on the upper surface of the body tends to move towards
the trailing edge. This airflow glues to the back-end of the body producing thus a
downflow. This downflow is known as induced downwash. The resultant downwash,
represent an acceleration of the airflow
Here below figures representing the airflow colored by the subgrid turbulent
viscosity (kg/ms)

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 65 : Pathlines colored by Turbulent Kinetic Energy (k) (m2/S2) with diffuser 110 km/h

Figure 66 : Pathlines colored by Turbulent Kinetic Energy (k) (m2/S2) without diffuser 110 km/h
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 67 : Streamline around an aerofoil

Figure 68 : Streamline around a model race car
It can be seen that the higher turbulence, the higher downwash of air behind
the trailing edge.
If the interest of the turbulence flows at a given time is primordial, it is useful
to study the evolution of the turbulence flows and the airflow in space and time and
to evaluate the cycle of generation of turbulence flows to predict the behavior of the
model race car, what it may occur, or even adapt the driving behavior of pilots to
perfectly handle the car in a given case.
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 69 : Track Club Auto Model Mconnais association
Here is above the track of the Club Auto Model Mconnais association of
Mcon located in France where I practiced the model race car discipline during 4
years. The yellow line represents the straight-line of 100 meter of length. It is one of
the longest straight-line in Europe, it is thus very restrictive for engines as the
acceleration and the top speed have to be assumed during 3 seconds. 3 seconds
because of a long high speed curve (70km/h) in entrance of the straightline and a
slight deceleration with a constant speed (60km/h) to keep curving at the exit of the
straight-line.
It would be interesting to know which the behavior of the model car is at
certain key point.
Two key points are primordial to study, at midway and before entering into the
curve. Why? At midway, it is usually occurring some overtaking in GP conditions
between two pilots. A good overtaking is characterized by a good apprehension of
the long high speed curve by keeping the trajectory with the adequate speed.
Conversely to the formula 1, suction effect is not as benefic as it could be with two
formula 1 race cars. The scale of model race cars does not enable to take advantage
of the suction effect. Conversely, the difference of turbulence flows of two model race
car may be the point of a comfortable overtaking. A high turbulence flow at an
entrance of curve may be characterized by a loss of grip due to vibrations of the rear
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
axle, or the non-ability to keep a constant velocity of the car, or a change of the
behavior of the car in curve as well. On that way it has to be studied the generation or
the reduction of turbulence flows in space and time.
The graph below represents the evolution of the subgrid turbulent viscosity
(kg/ms) on a period of 5 seconds and directly pointed out from animations. Indeed, to
get enough point, animations (33 seconds = playing time) have been interrupted
every 3 seconds to point max subgrid turbulent viscosity values out.

Graph 27 : Subgrid turbulent viscosity against time
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Table 8 : Subgrid turbulent viscosity data exported from animations with and without diffuser 110 km/ h
5second
From graph 27 the red curve represents the subgrid turbulent viscosity of the
model race car without diffuser while the blue curve represents the subgrid turbulent
viscosity of the with diffuser case. As noticed previously, the crossing time at top
acceleration is 3 seconds, corresponding to the middle of the long high speed curve
to the entrance of the curve at the end of the straightline, thus 5 seconds of
simulation is exhaustive. Intersections of curves have been indicated by the
corresponding times providing thus an interval of time (from 1.19 second to 2.11
second). Thus 3 phases traducing 2 changes of phase which are :
Phase 1 (0 sec to 1.19 sec): turbulence flows with diffuser < turbulence flows
without diffuser
Phase 2 (1.19 sec to 2.11 sec): turbulence flows with diffuser > turbulence
flows without diffuser
Phase 3 (2.11 sec to 5 sec): turbulence flows with diffuser < turbulence flows
without diffuser
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
From that interval it has been highlighted the two key times corresponding to
the time at midway and before entering into the curve. It can be observed at midway
(1.30 second) the model race car with diffuser generates more subgrid turbulent
viscosity: 10.75 % (0.0502 kg/ms against 0.0448 kg/ms) before falling down and
reaches 0.0331 kg/ms against 0.0392 kg/ms at 2.18 second corresponding to the
entrance of the curve.

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
CHAPTER 5: PROENGINEER PARTS MANUFACTURING
ProEngineer Parts have been manufactured to enable a physical approach of
the project.

Figure 70 : Comparison initial and ProEngineer parts
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University

Figure 71 : Major parts interacting with diffuser - Rear axle
Here above an assembly of the diffuser with the two rears lower arm, the two
rears bulk head and the brake bracket (black part). Rear bulk arm parts will be
fastened on the chassis from the bottom, and fastened over the diffuser. Tongues
from the diffuser are inserted between rear bulk head and the chassis. The choice to
design tongues has been made to fasten the chassis at different point to enable a
complete fastening thus no vibration. Rears lower arm are located between rears
bulk head and the diffuser. Axles crossing rear lower arms maintain them. Rears
lower arm have been modified to enable the implementation of the chassis, it is the
same process for rears bulk head.
The manufacturing brings a physical approach of how the diffuser looks like.
The first observation is the diffuser is very fragile at tips. Indeed the diffuser is too
thin as represent holes in the middle of the surface. Cracks appear and part even
failed after taking the diffuser off the rapid prototyping machine. It has been glutted
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
at some point to fix it. The second observation is the fluttering of the rear lower arm
is not important enough to insure a right absorption of absorbers without hit the
diffuser. The third observation is the material constituting manufactured parts are
too rigid.
It cannot be consider as right the current design. The material is too rigid for
the thickness of certain surface. However it has been considered a diffuser
manufactured in carbon composite: light, rigid and robust, it enables thin surfaces
too. However the thickness of certain surfaces has to be increase to annihilate holes
appearing. The fluttering of rear lower arms has to be better considered. Thus a
modification of rears bulk head in deep has to be made.

Figure 72 : New rear axle next to the current rear axle of the model race car

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
The project offered a complete case of study involving Computer aid Design
(CAD) and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) knowledge. Difficulties have been
met in GAMBIT Modeling and a deep thinking on how to overtake them spent a long
time. The choice of a mono-block model race car modeling was the one to
successfully mesh in GAMBIT.
In real cases the space between the lower surface of the body (thickness = 0.5
mm) and the chassis is nearly empty. Further airflows are thus crossing the model
race car. The fact the study will be from a mono-block part, results will not traduce
exactly the reality.
It has been noticed an increase more important of the drag force than the lift
force after adding-on the diffuser. The aerodynamic performances have been
reduced because of the diffuser (From 15.96 % (50 km/h) to 12 %(70 km/h)). At any
velocity the diffuser is reducing aerodynamic performances. However, locally
speaking the diffuser has increased the max downforce of 32.25 % with a mean
increase of 2.65 % (FLUENT downforce data) while the drag is meanly increased of
13.68 % (FLUENT drag force data). Downforce is still higher than the drag force
If the Lift/Drag ratio has to be considered has the point of the analysis,
variations of Downforce and Drag force values represent a variation of nearly 1 N at
any case (with or without diffuser) at any velocity (50, 70, 90, 110 km/h). Analytically
speaking the diffuser is less efficient but not so much.
Turbulence flows are more spread than the without diffuser case. However the
turbulent kinetic energy underneath the chassis and diffuser are reduces of 62.52 %
into the double-Decker and 16.52 % under-diffuser. Turbulence flows are higher of
26.36 % and 14.17 % at the back of the model race car. Thus turbulences under the
model race car with diffuser are much lower which does not disturb the behavior of
the car in comparison of the car without diffuser, however turbulences are generated
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
by the diffuser at the back, which means more constraints for pilots in case of
overtaking, the suction effect is less efficient. Animations have provided enough
necessary analysis to determine the evolution of turbulence flows dependent the
time. It is noticed that 2 changes of phase is occurring in which the first key time
traduces a better efficiency of the without diffuser case, and the second key time
traduces a better efficiency of the with diffuser case
In other words, the model race car has a better grip due to the gain of
downforce but a velocity slightly reduced due to the increase of drag. The fact the
grip is better, the inertia effect due to the weight of the model race car in curve is
better absorbed, and thus the car handles better in curve but the drag generates a
slight decrease of velocity. The increase of downforce at the entry of the diffuser of
32.25 % traduces a better grip at the tail of the model race car and increases the
pressure on tires which means a better motivity. Turbulence flows are reduced by the
diffuser which means a generation of drag less important acting on the model race
car, however turbulence flows at the back may disturb pilots in an overtaking case.
Diffusers are usually increasing aerodynamic performances of cars. It is not
operating in our case. We need to consider thus a new design of diffuser to increase
aerodynamic performances. After taking into account the shape of actual double-
decker diffusers of Formula one race car, the angle of the diffuser have to be
limitated at 4 degree as indicate aerodynamist engineers. Entrance and exit sections
have to be well studied to evaluate the increase of downforce at the front-end of the
diffuser and to control the empty effect of the diffuser essentially.

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
REFERENCE
Stephane, S. (2010) Wiki: Diffuseur (automobile), , retrieved via Netscape
http://wapedia.mobi/fr/Diffuseur_(automobile)

Ranade, V., (2002). Computational flow modeling for chemical reactor engineering

Lecture 8 Turbulence . Andr Bakker

Frisch, U., Hasslacher, B., and Pomeau, Y. (1986). Lattice-gas automata for the Navier-
Stokes equations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 56, 1505.

Speziale, C.G. (1998). Turbulent modeling for time-dependent RANS and VLES: A review.
AIAA J. 36(2), 173.

Fluent users guide

Bruce,B. (2009) Maillage (structures de donnees) , retrieved via Netscape
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillage_(structure_de_donn%C3%A9es)

Fluent, Inc. (2005) Fluent Incorporated (online), retrieved via Netscape
http://cdlab2.fluid.tuwien.ac.at/LEHRE/TURB/Fluent.Inc/gambit2.1/help/html/modeling_gui
de/mgtoc.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

Glyndwr University
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dr. Xiaobing H. & Dr. Zoubir Z., 2010, ENG 510 Aerodynamics A part I and II , United
Kingdom, Glyndwr University

Dr. Phil S., 2010, ENG 632 Project management, United Kingdom, Glyndwr University

Set-Up Mugen Seiki MRX 3

C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m
C
l
i
c
k

t
o

b
u
y

N
O
W
! P
D
F
-
X
C
hange V
ie
w
e
r
w
w
w
. d
o
cu-trac
k
.
c
o
m

A Numerical Investigation of A Diffuser Onboard A 1-8th Scale On-Road Racing Car

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Numerical Investigation of A Diffuser Onboard A 1-8th Scale On-Road Racing Car

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A numerical Investigation of a diffuser onboard

a 1/8th scale on-road racing car

is the Drag coefficient (no unit) = 1.1473979

= C or s ngc o ttck or cqu to u

= Cx or s ngc o ttck or cqu to u

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi