This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
If you look at all the factors in Formula One that can be influenced with engineering, more than 70 percent is aerodynamics. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) plays an increasing role in the design process for the automotive industry, in particular for the prediction of aerodynamic characteristics. The present study is concerned with the simulation of the aerodynamic flow around the front section of a Formula 1 racing car. The numerical simulation involved four phases: geometry modeling, generation of the computational mesh, flow computation, and visualization and analysis of the flow solutions. Due to the significant resources required, the flow computation was performed on a high-performance parallel computer system. Comparison of the numerical predictions with wind tunnel data shows that the correct dependencies of the aerodynamic forces on various tuning parameters are obtained. Thus, despite the complexity of both the car geometry and the flow behavior, the present study has shown that numerical simulation can provide a wealth of information useful to the design process. Aerodynamics plays an important role in the performance of a Formula 1 racing car. A number of critical flow areas can be designated, such as the front and rear wings. The flow in these areas is extremely complex, being highly three-dimensional and turbulent. In addition, the flow in different areas is coupled; indeed it is the overall aerodynamic behavior of the vehicle that governs its performance.  The aerodynamic forces exerted on a Formula 1 racing car can be modified by tuning various properties of the car and its appendages. The major goal is to provide maximum down force to facilitate power transfer from the engine, and to enhance stability especially when cornering. In order to optimize the performance of the car, it is important to determine how the aerodynamic forces vary with the tuning of various parameters such as road height, wing configuration and flap angles.  Numerical flow simulation has not been extensively employed initially for Formula 1 aerodynamic design for essentially two reasons: 1
Due to the complexity of the flow, large-scale numerical simulations require advanced numerical software and substantial computational resources that have not been available,
As in other application areas, there is reluctance to embrace a new technique such as Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) until it has been proven to provide useful and reliable information. Aided by the continual development of computer software and hardware, a number of Formula 1 teams have begun using CFD for aerodynamic design. While numerical simulation can not entirely replace existing experimental methods, it has a number of potential uses and advantages:
To reduce the dependence on - and cost of – wind tunnel testing Since it provides local values of the flow quantities (e.g. pressure, velocity) throughout the flow domain, significantly more information is available
Certain aspects can be simulated more easily numerically than experimentally (e.g. cornering with front wheels having a non-zero yaw angle)
With increasing computer software and hardware capabilities, the turnaround time for numerical simulations can be shorter than for wind tunnel testing. 
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
An extensive literature review on Formula One car analysis in CFD was performed by Satyan Chandra1, Allison Lee2, Steven Gorrell3 and C. Greg Jensen4. Their study presence aerodynamic design of formula one car wings. The aerodynamics is one of the predominant means of enhancing the performance of the car. The car can traverse a corner faster than the competitor if the car can generate greater down force. The different is noticeable over a matter of laps. It also would make a very significant difference during 60 odd laps in each race. Moreover, less drag would translate to a better top speed along straight laps. The aim of CFD is to resolve the equation that drives theoretically every kind of flow:
Where u is the fluid velocity, ρ is the fluid density, Si is a mass-distributed external force per unit mass. Aerodynamics is the science that studies objects moving through air. It is closely related to fluid dynamics as air is considered a compressible fluid. In aerodynamics, creating down force is important because it pressing the car down onto the road and increasing the available frictional force between the car and the road, therefore enabling
Figure 2.1. Fluid flow around Formula One car. 2.1 Lift Force And Drag Force Lift, or down force is the force generated perpendicular to the direction of travel for an object moving through a fluid .The same effect occurs when a fluid moves over a stationary object, such as an airfoil in a wind tunnel. Airfoils are the most efficient shapes found so far that can generate lift while at the same time minimizing drag. Drag is an unavoidable consequence of an object moving through a fluid. Drag is the force generated parallel and in opposition to the direction of travel for an object moving through a fluid as shown in Figure 2.2. Drag can be broken down into the following two components: i. Form drag (or pressure drag) - dependent on the shape of an object moving through a fluid ii. Skin friction - dependent on the viscous friction between a moving surface and a fluid, derived from the wall shear stress.
Figure 2.2.Lift and drag force direction The lift and drag force depend on the density ρ of the fluid, the upstream velocity V, the size, shape and orientation of the body. Lift and drag coefficient can be defined as:
Where: F L =Lift force F D=Drag force ρ =Fluid density (sea level air is 1.204 kg/m3) V = Velocity A = Frontal area
2.2 Numerical Modelling The numerical model was set up and run using the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code. This numerical study involve generate a model in any CAD software and produce boundary conditions for analysis. The analysis of wings of formula one car by changing angle of attach (AOA). The result will get in terms of lift and drag forces. Select the optimize design components such that, there should be minimum drag and maximum negative lift.
2.3 Wind Tunnel Testing Wind Tunnel, with the twisting vanes removed, and the walls contoured into a contraction to form an open jet. In addition, a moving belt, driven by an electric motor was used to provide the correct boundary condition at the ground by being driven at the same speed as the onset air flow. A half-scale model made of carbon fibre was used for the testing. It was attached to the under-floor wind tunnel balance. The car wheels were not attached to the car model, but were positioned accurately and spun by the belt action. A photograph of the model mounted above the belt is given in The flow quality above the belt was examined by performing many velocity profiles. There is not space in this abstract to include those profiles A large amount of wind tunnel testing was carried out including: independent front and rear wing testing, on-model front and rear wing testing at various angles with a Gurney flap of various sizes, pitch and yaw tests, and estimation of the centre of pressure. As an example, the effect of the rear wing height and front wing accessories on the location of the centre of pressure. The aerodynamic appendages enable the centre of pressure to be moved substantially, and give the designer considerable freedom to optimize the design. 2.4 On-Track Testing For the analysis of the performance of the aerodynamic appendages are those of the movement of the shock absorbers, longitudinal and lateral accelerations recorded by the vehicle, as well as engine parameters such as throttle position, RPM and coolant temperature. Two of the three available axes from the accelerometer were utilized to determine the braking, acceleration and cornering performance of the vehicle. As the track was particularly bumpy in places only data recorded from a smooth section in the 6
middle of the run was utilized to establish the relationship between the position of the shock absorber and the speed with which the vehicle was travelling. Full details of the effect of adding the aerodynamic features.
3. PHYSICAL CHARACTORISTICS
3.1 Physical Dimension Of Wings A Formula one front wing is a single element configuration comprised of two sections, one on either side of a fiberglass nose. Each wing section has angle of attack adjusters on the inboard end and spill plates on the outboard end. The wing has a chord of 15.01 in. (38.1cm). It is mounted with the center of the leading edge 5.5 in. (13.97cm). above the ground, well within the distance of ground effect. The simulation here will concentrate on the angle of attack and effect of the ground on the lift and drag in the case of the front wing on the car and on the effect of the angle of attack on the rear wing. A sectional drawing of the front wing is shown in Figure 3.1 .The angle dimension in the drawing is the difference in angle of attack between the SCCA (Sports Car Club of America), Inc. measurement method and standard aerodynamic practice. Based on the wing dimensions and the properties of Standard Air, the front wing operates at Re = 0.9 × 106 at 128 km/h and at Re = 1.5 × 106 at 209 km/h. A drawing showing the cross section of the rear wing is shown in Figure. 3.2. It is of single element design with two support struts in the center and spill plates on the end. Angle of attack adjusters are provided as part of the support strut assembly. The wing has a chord of 17.75 in. (45 cm). (SCCA, Inc). The wing is mounted above the bodywork and can be considered to be in free air. The dimensioned angle in the drawing is the difference in angle of attack between the SCCA, Inc. measurement method and standard aerodynamic practice. Based on the wing dimensions and the properties of standard air, the rear wing operates at Re = 1.1 × 106 at 128km/h and at Re = 1.8 × 106 at 209 km/h.
Figure 3.1.Dimension of front wing formula one. 8
Figure 3.2.Dimension of rear wing formula one
3.2.The Physical Model The problem was treated as a two-dimensional problem to validate the concept and to determine the amount of computer resources required for future work. Racecars, on the other hand, generally have a finite depth of airfoil, and hence the treatment here is mainly to capture the main features of the airfoil geometry and the effect of the important parameters such as the angle of attack and the ground effect on the front airfoil describes limitations of applying two-dimensional wind tunnel results to three-dimensional wings with finite length expanded on this specifically to racecar applications where the flow about the airfoil interacts with the ground and body. Because of this interaction, only a small part of the wing operates in true two-dimensional conditions. Despite these limitations, the two-dimensional approach can be applied to this problem, because the problem is structured as a comparison between different conditions using the same airfoil.  The wings are inverted to create down force instead of lift. Hence the angle of attack nomenclature is reversed from aerodynamic convention as applied to aircraft. A positive angle of attack means that the leading edge is lower compared to the trailing edge. 
4.1. Geometry Modeling The configurations employed in this study have been designed using the CAD system. The geometrical description of the configurations was supplied to the LMF in standard IGES format. Only slight modifications of these descriptions were found necessary for use in the numerical simulation procedure. 
Figure 4.1 Geometry CAD model. 4.2. Grid Generation The domain i.e. the flow area under consideration is divided into some shapes like triangles or quadrilaterals and assumption is made that flow properties are constant cell to cell. The way that such a grid is determined is called Grid Generation.[4,8] Basically there are two types of grids 1. Structured grid 2. Unstructured grid 4.2.1 Structured grid: In structured three dimensional grids, one can associate with each computational cell an ordered triple of indices (i,j,k) where each indices varies over a fixed range, independently over the value of other indices that varies by +/- 1. Thus if Ni, Nj, Nk are number of cells in i,j,k, index directions respectively, than the number of cells in entire mesh is Ni*Nj*Nk. 10
Types of structured grid a) O-type grid b) C-type grid c) H-type grid
O-type grid: Here one of the grid lines resembles the general shape of the letter O; such grid are typically used for multiple connected body as shown in Figure4.2.
Figure4.2. O-type grid around an airfoil.
C-type grid: Here one of the grid lines resembles the letter C as shown in Figure4.3. Cgrids are preferred when one is interested in investigating the wake of a body with fine grids in the wake. In O-grid, a large number of points are present ahead of the body where hardly anything happens. This is specifically avoided in C-type grid.
Figure 4.3. C-type grid around an airfoil 11
H-type grid: Here the grid lines form a lattice network similar to the stream function contour lines and the velocity potential contour lines of the irrigational potential flow. Such grids have the good attributes of a C-type grid. They are mostly used in internal flows where the fluid is moving without solid walls.
Figure 4.4. H-type grid of a duct.
Figure184.108.40.206. shows H-type grid for a fluid flow in a pipe. Note the denser grid spacing in the contracted section of the duct. This was specifically done to capture the phenomenon of shockwave, which was likely to occur in that region, in more detail
4.2.2Unstructured grid: In contrast to structure grid which reflects some type of consistent geometrical regularity, unstructured grid consists of grid points placed in flow field in a very irregular fashion. There is nothing about finite volume method (FVM) that demands a structured mesh; it can be applied to mesh cells of any arbitrary shape. This has given rise to the use of unstructured meshes. Unstructured mesh allows for maximum flexibility in matching cells with boundary surfaces and for putting cells where you want them. Unstructured grids require more information to be stored and recovered than structured grids. Due to the strong interaction between the quality of the computational mesh and the accuracy of the resulting flow solution, a substantial effort was made in the mesh generation phase. The generation of suitable computational meshes was performed in two stages: triangulation of all surfaces, followed by the creation of a tetrahedral mesh in the volume 12
bounded by these surfaces. The surface mesh creation is by far the most complex and time-consuming; while surface mesh generation using PCube is very flexible, it is also very user-intensive. Creation of the 3D volume meshes for the present study was performed with TGrid, which uses a robust, fast and highly automated Delaunay method that requires little time or effort.
Figure 4.5 Mesh generated formula one car. To aid in the surface mesh generation, the geometry is divided into separate parts (e.g. wing main plane, flap, side plate, body, wheels, ground plane, etc.) and the individual surfaces meshed separately. These are then assembled to form the complete surface mesh for the computational domain as shown in Figure 4.2.1. This has the advantage that, modifications to the geometry (e.g. changes in the wing, ride height and wheel positions) can be accommodated without a major investment of effort. [4,7] The computational domain for the present application was chosen to be a box of sufficiently large extent such that the position of the external free stream boundaries has essentially no influence on the computed flow. Surface mesh cells were concentrated in regions considered to be of most importance, e.g. on the wing. Surfaces of lesser interest, e.g. the wheels, have been allocated less mesh cells, leading to a lower accuracy in the flow solution in neighboring regions.
Figure 4.6. Front wing in ground effect grid pattern Grid generation is by far the most critical process of CFD analysis apart from selecting the flow equations. The type of grid you choose for a given problem can make or break the numerical solution. The suggested distance of the grid above and below the airfoil is 2.56 times the chord. These dimensions were used for this problem. For the 45.05 cm (17.75 in.) rear wing chord, this is calculated as 77.5 cm (31.0 in.) between the inlet and leading edge, 135.25 cm (53.25 in.) behind the trailing edge, and 114.3 cm (45 in.) on the top or bottom of the airfoil. These numbers were rounded off to obtain a rear wing calculation grid of 274.32 cm × 228.6 cm (108 in. long × 90 in. tall). The leading edge of the wing was set at 90.0 cm (36 in.) from the inlet, which meant that the trailing edge was 137.16 cm (54.0 in.) forward from the outlet. The default symmetry boundaries were accepted at the top and bottom as a condition where the normal velocity and normal gradients of all other variables are zero. This was the most suitable of all the boundary conditions. For the front wing in ground effect, the height of the grid was modified by a wall boundary 13.97cm (5.50 in.) below the leading edge to simulate the ground plane.
Figure 4.7. Rear wing grid pattern.
The calculation grid for the front wing was constructed to include 1764 cells. Figure 4.2.2 shows the grid of the front wing in ground effect. Figure 4.2.3, which has 10,968 cells, shows the grid pattern for the back wing. A grid independency test was performed on the front airfoil to determine a suitable mesh size for the problem.
Figure 4.8. Grid independency test for numerical problem
Three nodal densities were chosen for the runs, i.e. 2208, 4416 and 8832 nodes. Figure 4.2.3 and present results to validate the choice of grid density. Figure 4.2.4 shows a plot of velocity profiles on a vertical line chosen at 12.7 cm downstream (horizontally) from the airfoil leading edge. The line spans the distance from the bottom of the airfoil to the ground level. also summarizes the values of the integrated Fy down force on the airfoil. Both these results indicate that there is practically no difference in the overlaid values of the velocity for these three nodal densities, and also that there are very small differences between the calculated normal down force (1.0%), which is deemed accurate for engineering calculations.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Simulations were run at 3 speeds (160 km/h, 241km/h, and 354 km/h) and 5 angles of attack (3 degrees to 7 degrees in 1 degree increments) for both the Front Wing and the Rear Wing. The focus of this seminar is to show how to obtain a CFD simulation from a complicated CAD model and steps that can be taken to efficiently accomplish that process. The simulation results are simply presented here as an example of what can be learned from a CFD simulation. A grid independence study was outside the scope of this effort. The ideology was to determine the best combination of orientation for both the Front and Rear Wings and then use those angles of attack on the entire car. Figure 5.1 shows the down force (negative lift) and drag values for each simulation.
Figure. 5.1: Front Wing and Rear Wing simulation results. It is evident that the Rear Wing is insensitive to changes in its angular orientation both in terms of downforce and drag while the Front Wing is much more sensitive to the angle of attack. Looking first at the Rear Wing (also called Back Wing), it is apparent that both the lift and drag are not greatly affected by the change in angle. It is important to note however, that the drag seems to decrease slightly with increased angle. Thus a higher angle may be preferable. This suggests the rear wing must be moved more than 5 degrees or redesigned to be more sensitive to angle-of-attack. The Front Wing does show a trend of increasing lift and drag with increasing angle, though there is a slight decrease 17
in the lift at the final angle of 7 degrees. An S-shaped behavior exists as the increase in downforce starts to diminish with an increase in the angle of attack. It is apparent that the Front Wing has a greater influence than the Back Wing pertaining to the performance of the car. Lift (absolute downforce) to drag ratios were calculated in order to select the best angular combination of the Rear Wing and the Front Wing. Although the goal was to select the highest Lift to Drag ratio, the absolute values of the lift and drag forces also had to be considered For example, although the Front Wing produced the maximum lift to drag ratio at 3 degrees, the actual lift was the least of all angle-of attack orientations. Hence the end goal was to identify the highest lift possible and then utilize the ratios as a method of optimization (Refer Table 5.1)
Lift : Drag Ratio Front Wing 160 km/h Front Wing 241 km/h Back Wing 321 km/h Back Wing 402 km/h 3 9.73 4 9.00
Angle 5 8.92 6 8.87 7 7.78
Table. 5.1: The various Lift: Drag ratios of the Front Wing and Rear Wing at 241km/h to 354km/h. As a next step, the best angles were then chosen for a simulation of the entire car. Angles 6 and 7 were chosen for the Front Wing as they both had the top two highest downforce values and angle 6 was chosen for the Rear Wing. The results of such a combination on the full car were surprising (Refer Figure 5.2).
Figure. 5.2: Results of full car simulations at a fixed 6 degree orientation of the Rear Wing and a 6 and 7 degree orientation of the Front Wing. A 6 degree Front Wing angle of attack was determined to be most effective in maximizing downforce.The results clearly indicated that a Front Wing orientation of 6 degrees would maximize downforce, as at 7 degrees there was a drop in downforce, and also since a Front Wing orientation of 5 degrees, although possessing a higher Lift: Drag ratio (Refer Table 5.1), had significantly lower downforce. What remained to be determined was the most optimum Rear Wing orientation. At a Front Wing angle set at 6 degrees now, simulations were run with a Rear Wing orientation varying from -3 degrees to +10 in increments of 2 degrees. Any coupling effect of the Front and Rear Wings on the downforce was ignored given the linearity of the problem. It was evident that changing the angle of attack on the Rear Wing, either positively or negatively, had little effect on the downforce but had a strong impact on the drag, unexpectedly so. Exceeding a Rear Wing AOA (angle of attack) of +2 degrees or going below -3 degrees added less than 80 Newton’s to the downforce but significantly increased drag. Hence the safe bracket for the Rear Wing was determined to be -3 degrees to +2 degrees reflecting a design flaw with regards to the Rear Wing as such behavior was neither expected nor ideal. The CFD results question the Formula 1 car’s design and aerodynamic capabilities and suggested several flaws in the design and recommendations for optimization. In the end the car under-performed greatly with regards to downforce but did exceptionally well with a very low drag coefficient (Refer Table 5.2). As most Formula 1 cars have a drag coefficient varying between 0.75 and 0.90, the PACE Formula 1 car achieved a staggering low drag coefficient of 0.75 with a maximum touching 0.83. However it failed in its efforts to obtain a 1:1 Downforce to Weight ratio at 241 km/h and 354 km/h.[4,6] 19
Best Downforce At 160 km/h None
Best Downforce At 241 km/h
Best Downforce At 354 km/h
Best FW – RW AoA combination
Max/ Min Drag Coefficient
FW: 6 deg
Table 5.2: The final results of aerodynamic performance of the PACE Formula 1 race car.
A two-dimensional CFD study has been performed on the airfoil profiles of the front and rear wings of a Formula one race car for various AOA. First-hand the process of designing a car from an aero-dynamical perspective, right from the CAD model to analyzing streamlines and pressure paths, for the most dangerous speeds and have developed a strong appreciation for automotive design, the capabilities of aerodynamic and CFD analysis and an ever growing liking for Formula 1 racing. The goal was to select the highest Lift to drag ratio. Front wings anticipated to be the case where increased drag is achieved on the wing, along with the increased lift, until the expected stall condition is approached. The Front Wing does show a trend of increasing lift and drag with increasing angle, though there is a slight decrease in the lift at the final angle of 7 degrees. Angles 6 and 7 were chosen for the Front Wing as they both had the top two highest downforce values and angle 6 was chosen for the Rear Wing. The expected stall condition is approached. When considering the rear wing airfoil, similar effect on the front wing and shows the marked change in the Cl as the AOA approaches different angle. It is evident that the Rear Wing is insensitive to changes in its angular orientation both in terms of downforce and drag while the Front Wing is much more sensitive to the angle of attack.
1. P.Bharathidasan **, P.Rajesh ***, “AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF FORMULA 1 RACECAR”, N.Azhaguvel et al. / and Technology (IJEST). 2. FORMULA 1 RACE CAR”, Milano, Italy, July, 20-24 2008. 3. W. Kieffer a , S. Moujaes b,∗ , N. Armbya b, “CFD analysis of formula 1 car”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 43 (2011) 1275–1287. 4. Satyan Chandra1, Allison Lee2, Steven Gorrell3 and C. Greg Jensen4” CFD Analysis of PACE Formula-1 Car”, Computer-Aided Design & Applications, PACE (1), 2011, 1-14 5. Bienz C., Larsson T., Sato T., Ullbrand B. “CFD analysis of F1 car”, EACC 2008 European Automotive CFD Conference. 6. Larsson T., Sato T., Ullbrand B. “CFD analysis of Formula 1 car”, EACC 2009 European Automotive CFD Conference. 7. MANAN DESAI, S.A. CHANNIWALA, H.J.NAGARSHETH “Experimental and Computational Aerodynamic Investigations of a Car”, WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on FLUID MECHANICS ,October 2008 8. Joseph Katz “Aerodynamics of Race Cars”, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2006.38:27-63. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org International Journal of Engineering Science
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.