INDEX

2. VARIABLES
2.1. RIDE HEIGHT.
2.2. DIFFUSER ANGLE.
2.2.1. Inlet angle.
2.3. WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION.
3. DESIGNS
3.1. FIRST EXAMPLE.
3.1.1. Values to compare.
3.2. SECOND EXAMPLE.
3.3. THIRD EXAMPLE.
4. SIMULATION
4.1. FIRST STEP.
CONCLUSIONS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1
 DIFFUSER DESIGN

To understand the Aerodynamics of the Undertray and Diffuser you need to be familiar
with two physicists: Bernoulli and Venturi. Essentially, when a fluid is forced through a
reduced cross-sectional area, to comply with the principle of mass continuity, its
velocity must increase. This gain in kinetic energy must be balanced by a decrease in
pressure in accordance with the conservation of energy principle. The diffuser at the
rear of the car increases in volume along its length and this area needs to be filled with
the air from underneath the car. Therefore, the diffuser effectively accelerates the air
through the ‘throat’, increasing its velocity and thus creating the low pressure region
that generates downforce. As the volume of the air expands at the rear of the diffuser,
the velocity gradually decreases, matching the speed of the air flow in the wake [3]. It is
an efficient way to increase downforce because magnifies the section force produced.
The lowest pressure occurs where the air moves the fastest, just immediately ahead of
the diffuser [1].

Figure 1. Behavior of flow lines.

Due to these relatively low speeds and the high power of Formula Student cars, drag is
not such a big factor in our design, so we are always pushing for downforce.’[1]

2
 Figure 2. 2D simulation.

The rear wing is the device that limits you in terms of total downforce because when the
air reaches the rear wing, it has already lost large amounts of kinetic energy. That makes
it very hard, especially behind the driver and the roll hoops, to generate high amounts of
downforce. Also, because the rear wing is much higher off the ground, it is more
difficult to generate extra downforce. You need a large rear wing to generate the
same amount of downforce as with a small front wing,’ highlights Pfeiffer. ‘That is
why we started developing the rear wing first, and once we achieved the maximum
downforce possible, we then designed the front wing to equal the rear wing’s
downforce. We could easily achieve huge amounts of downforce at the front, but
that would destroy our overall balance, making the car undriveable.’ Once a balance
has been struck between the two ends of the car, the wings can then be refined to
improve the flow to the other aero devices such as the undertray and diffuser [3].

Figure 3. Load direction.

3
Our front wing is approximately 235% more efficient than our rear wing and this
is due to its proximity to the ground,’ explains Pfeiffer. The starting point when
designing a wing is to quickly understand the characteristics of a range of different
aerofoils and their interactions with each other. For this, Teams often use 2D CFD
simulations and simplified meshes to minimize simulation running time to seconds.
‘We actually used an Aerofoil database called airfoiltools.com rather than developing
the cross sections ourselves,’ highlights Pfeiffer [3].

Figure 4. Less possible opposition.

Figure 5. Example of diffuser.

‘The deviation of the aero efficiency from the transient Detached Eddy Simulations
(DES) to the Wind Tunnel was only around 3%, whereas the averaged steady state

4
simulations were approximately 7% higher. This is primarily due to the
simplifications in both the Wind Tunnel and within our simulation methods and
models.’

Figure 6. Different designs to avoid turbulence.

Figure 7. start-up.

5
The drag and lift coefficients are defined as:

As low Cd is, more aerodynamic a car is, and easier it can move through the wall of air,
shown in figure 3.5. [4]

Figure 8. Drag coefficients shapes.

Figure 9. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-physics-of-diffusers-how-to-
make-a-car-really-suck-feature [14]
6
Figure 10.Drag and lift coefficients of a FSAE car with different aerodynamic
packages.

7
 Figure 11. Ground effect on a moving car [8].

HIGHLIGHTS.

 Greater “expansion chamber” greater pressure difference.

 Reduce turbulent air -drag-.
 Greater vacuum, more “down force”.
 Allows greater air outlet "facilitates its circulation".
 Large area with the lowest possible pressure.
 Be careful about this Cp (center pressure) to stay close to Cg (gravity center).
 Start developing the rear wing.
 Front wings are so much efficient than rear wings.
 Start with 2D models.
 Motorsport underfloor diffusers though can be made to work very well indeed
with angles exceeding 20 degrees.
 Mediante la simulación de dinámica de fluidos computacional en ANSYS, se
obtuvieron las fuerzas aerodinámicas (resistencia al arrastre - Drag y la
sustentación - Lift) siendo estas; 662,45 N y -18,9 N respectivamente, los cuales
son de buen nivel, en comparación con los resultados obtenidos por otros
equipos pioneros de la competencia. Igualmente, se pudo visualizar que las
tomas de aire para el radiador detrás de las llantas delanteras, se encuentran bien
ubicadas, puesto que en esta zona se presenta alta presión, generando

8
 velocidades bajas, lo cual permite que el fluido ingrese sin dificultad para la
refrigeración del motor.[14]

2. VARIABLES

2.1. RIDE HEIGHT.

To analyze the ground effect it is need to consider:

 The height of the car with respect the ground.

 The irregularity of the bottom. The more regular the shape is, the more
downforce is achieved.
 The bottom shape. The smoother the shape is, the more downforce is get. [4]

Figure 12. 30 m/s, Cl vs Ride height [3].

To reduce the drag and increase the downforce, it can be design the bottom like a
nozzle, smoothing the air inlet and delaying the growth of the boundary layer, also
increasing the speed of the air and generating a low pressure at the exit, that means
more grip. The variation of drag and lift versus distance with respect the ground for a
wing is show with the figure 2.9. Being h the height and c the length of the wing. [4]

After choosing the form and height of the car bottom, it can be done two alternatives:

 Block the air ow that goes under the car.

 Allows the flow go under it but in controlled conditions.

9
 Figure 13.Ground effect graph.

Figure 14. Total drag and negative vertical lift values for different ride heights [7].

10
Figure 15.Lift and drag coefficient variation with ground clearance for a race car with
underbody diffuser [8].

Figure 16.Ground clearance vs downforce [9].

11
Figure 17.Graph btw ground clearance and force [10].

Figure 18. Graph btw length of diffuser and force [10].

12
The analysis of the diffuser with different diffuser angle and diffuser height shows that
it varies with diffuser height considerably. It is found out that at the diffuser height of
30 and diffuser angle of 9 degree gives the optimal downforce for the cornering speed
of 120 km/hr. [12]

The pressure and turbulence performance for varying ride heights and ramp angle
designs were used to understand why certain ride heights required certain ramp angles
for ideal performance. Whereby a ride height of 30mm required a ramp angle of 6
degrees while the 50 and 70mm ride heights required ramp angles of 9-10 degrees for
optimal performance. [13]

Figure 19. Ride height, Cl and ramp angle [12].

13
It seems logical to think that closer distances of the under tray to the floor are going to
generate more downforce because the flow under the car will be more rapid. This is true
to some extent. A ground clearance below a certain level could generate a positive lift
due to blockage of the flow which would result as an increase of the pressure under the
car. In contrast, greater distances to the track will not allow adequate flow acceleration
and as a consequence low levels of downforce will be created. In terms of drag the
clearance to the track is less injurious but is also affected in some way.

Figure 20. Lift coefficient variation with the diffuser angle and track height [16].

The previous graph exposes the variation of negative lift coefficient (downforce) in
function of non-dimensional track height, where H is the height of the model and h is
the distance to the track. For slight values of height the lift increases with respect to the
lift at the optimum height which could be due to the airflow blockage.

Figure 21. Relation between the dimensions used [16].

14
In the case of the drag, the behaviour is different. An increase of this is observed for
smaller values of clearance, but as a general rule, the drag coefficient decreases as the
clearance increases. That is due to the easiness that the air has to pass through the car
and the track and also because of the minor area of depression behind the bodywork.

Figure 22. Drag coefficient variation with the diffuser angle and track height [16].

2.2. DIFFUSER ANGLE.

Figure 23. The lowest pressure occurs where the air moves the fastest, just immediately
ahead of the diffuser [8].

15
The angle or slope of the diffuser is also important; the diffuser must have a gradual
change of angle to prevent flow separation from its roof and sides. The angle of the
diffuser relative to the ground affects the magnitude of downforce that is created. If the
angle of the diffuser is close to zero the boundary layer flow will not detach, but the air
speed will not be reduced enough to make a laminar transition of the air at the end of the
car when to two airstreams meet. If the diffuser has a very large angle the boundary
layer flow will detach and the airflow underneath the diffuser will be turbulent. In
general, it is desired to have the highest angle without flow separation to generate
maximum downforce.[8]

In figure 5.16, the variation of the drag force is constant but the lift is reducing as much
the angle is bigger, this is beneficial to get finally a downforce. In the table 1 it is
describe the dimensions of the diffuser.

Figure 24. Diffuser height simulations.

Model Angle Drag Lift Lateral

◦
Diffuser 28 49.223 N 17.667 N -0.028 N
Table 1. Diffuser cone design resume [4].

16
A CFD study was done in order to find the optimum diffuser angle for our car. A
diffuser set up done on the CFD model as described in the methodology section.
Simulation was run at 30 mph and 1” ride height. The CFD simulation was done at
four different diffuser/ramp angles i.e. at 7, 11, 15 and 17 degrees. After the simulation
was run, a graph was plotted for downforce, drag and efficiency (L/D) against different
ramp angles as shown below. Here the efficiency is referenced to the ratio of downforce
to that of drag. The graph suggested that there was decrease in downforce number at 15
deg., which suggests that the diffuser stalled close to 15 degrees. According to the
theory, the diffuser is expected to stall at 10 deg at 1” ride height
(www.formula1dictionary.net). This CFD study was considered as very optimistic
Therefore, an intermediate value of 12 deg. was chosen as the ramp angles.

Figure 25. Diffuser angle [°] vs downforce [N] vs L/D. [5]

17
 Figure 26. Diffuser angle [°] vs Negative vertical lift [N/m]. [7]

From the analysis we found that with increase in outlet angle there is increase in down
force with a decrease in drag. Thus the drag/ downforce ratio decreases.

Table 2. Outlet angles vs Drag/Downforce ratio [9].

2.2.1. INLET ANGLE.

Inlet angle of the diffuser plays an important role as it acts as a nozzle and channels the
air below the undertray. This nozzle increases the velocity of the air while passing
through it. If this angle is zero there is no increase in velocity formed. But if this angle
is very high then the it would be very difficult to make the outlet conditions similar to
inlet condition and will require larger area for it. Also there is restriction in dimension
as well. [9]

18
 Figure 27. Graph btw angle of diffuser and force [10].

2.3. WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION.

Downforce has to be balanced between both the front and rear, left and right of the car.
Due to the symmetry of the car, the balance between left and right can be easily
achieved but achieving balance between front and rear is a different thing. Flow in the
front greatly affects flow in the back of the car and vice versa. Downforce must be
adjusted according to each racing track characteristics of the different FSAE events
(Endurance, Skidpad etc.) and the dynamic behavior of the car. If a car has significantly
more downforce at the rear than at the front or even if it has lift at the front, the front of
the car can feel lighter under certain situations on the track. That lightness in the front of
the car can lead to understeer, simply because the front wheels are lacking grip relative
to rear grip. S most FSAE teams are trying to achieve an increase in front and rear
downforce, while keeping the balance between the two forces correct, in order to avoid
introducing any undesirable handling or grip issues by getting that balance wrong.[8]

19
 Figure 28.Aerodynamis forces percentage distribution based on the efficiency of each
device.

Another advantage of balancing downforce is that it can help reduce body roll while
cornering and body pitch during braking or acceleration. This in turn helps reduce
sudden variations in vertical forces applied to the tires at the limit, increasing vehicle
stability in the wake of driver input. Vehicle behavior is also more linear near the limit
of adhesion, contributing to increased driver control. A typical aerodynamic balance is
approximately 45% downforce to the front and 55% to the rear [8].

Oversteer in aerodynamic terms means more front downforce (or less rear downforce)
while understeer would be more rear downforce (or less front downforce) and neutral
would be a good combination of both. In this case the center of pressure (Cp) is defined
as the point where the force caused by the entire aerodynamic pressure can be
represented by a single force vector. Knowing this and determining the exact center of
pressure, the entire car can be balanced by tactically locating the diffuser. Especially
without the possibility of balancing with adjustable front and rear wings, this is
extremely important for car handling and overall drive performance. The figure below
from own URE performance research shows that a center of gravity 60 percent towards
the back of the car would enable optimal performance and hence lowest lap times.

20
Figure 29. a) A Cp ahead of Cg is able to lead on an oversteering situation. b) When Cp
is behind the Cg an understeering situation is expected.

Figure 30. Weight distribution [%] on rear axle vs lap time [s]. [7]
21
3. DESIGNS

3.1. FIRST EXAMPLE.

Figure 31. Schematic 2D simulation concept for an undertray with rear diffuser.

22
The undertray geometry as shown above can generally be divided in separate geometric
parts with variable dimensions. The main geometric variables are:

 The ride height hr. sometimes referred to as ground clearance.

 The inlet slope angle ϕi
 The inlet length Li
 The flat length Lf
 The diffuser slope angle θd
 The diffuser length Ld (and diffuser height hd , depending on θd and Ld)
 The Gurney flap: a mini flap attached to the end of the rear diffuser.

Table 3. The initial domain, undertray and diffuser dimensions as used for the first
simulations.

23
3.1.1. VALUES TO COMPARE.

Figure 32. [7]

24
3.2. SECOND EXAMPLE.

In the figure 20 it can be seen the geometrical parameters that were considered to design
the diffuser the horizontal length (DL) and the vertical height (DH) related both of them,
with the angle respecting to the horizontal plane.

Figure 33. Diffuser geometrical parameters

Also, it was analyzed the use of small endplates in the diffuser but, they do not generate
any benefit in the behavior or even getting worse. In figure 21 it is shown a diffuser curve
plates that can slow down the air from the car bottom, but for this model, it worses. In
case of figure 22 it neither works but they were straight plates.

Figure 34. Diffuser curve plates

The plates are used to provide rigidity to the element and to reduce the creation of large
vortices in the wake of the car.

25
 Figure 35. Diffuser straight plates

In figure 23 it can be seen, that it was modeled a bottom with channels to gen- erate
vortices in the turbulent flow and slowdown in the rear part the flow. This vortices
changes the flow into turbulent but they avoid the detachment of the laminar flow.
However, this also worse for the car behavior.

Figure 36. Non flat bottom shape

[4]

26
3.3. THIRD EXAMPLE.

Figure 37. [6]

27
 4. SIMULATION

The objective of this study was to look at how changing the inlet area ratio would
influence the Cl. The inlet area ratio is the ratio of the height of the inlet divided by the
height of the throat section. Figure 4 illustrates the figure of a unit span profile of an
under-tray.

Figure 38. Area ratio schematic.

Each case was run at the 1.75 inch ride height.

Before the results are presented, it is important to understand about the limitations of the
2-D study. The 2-D studies are concerned only with how changing the inlet area ratio
affects the throat and the diffuser inlet section. These studies have focused on trends and
not absolute numbers. As stated previously, it became apparent early on that an under-
tray could not be fully analyzed with a 2D model. The effects of the air coming in from
the sides of the under tray and creating vortices within the tunnels could not be
captured. Thus trying to get a benchmark these models is nearly an impossible task.

Figure 39. Inlet angle study.

28
 Figure 40.Inlet area ratio study [11].

4.1. FIRST STEP.

29
 CONCLUSIONS.

 Due to these relatively low speeds and the high power of Formula Student cars,
drag is not such a big factor in our design, so we are always pushing for
downforce.
 You need a large rear wing to generate the same amount of downforce as with a
small front wing- is easily achieve huge amounts of downforce at the front- but
that would destroy our overall balance, making the car undriveable. Front wing
is approximately 235% more efficient than rear wing and this is due to its
proximity to the ground
 Teams often use 2D CFD simulations and simplified meshes to minimize
simulation running time to seconds.
 As low Cd is, more aerodynamic a car is, and easier it can move through the
wall of air

RIDE HEIGHT

 It seems logical to think that closer distances of the under tray to the floor are
going to generate more downforce because the flow under the car will be more
rapid. This is true to some extent. A ground clearance below a certain level
could generate a positive lift due to blockage of the flow which would result as
an increase of the pressure under the car. In contrast, greater distances to the
track will not allow adequate flow acceleration and as a consequence low levels
of downforce will be created. In terms of drag the clearance to the track is less
injurious but is also affected in some way.
 The ratio h / c must be small, around 0.1 more or less; another study shows a
relationship between 0.025 and 0.04. With a diffuser length of 0.65 m you get a
maximum of downforce.
 The best ratio h (height from the ground) / H (height of the diffuser) is around
0.08 to 0.09 for an angle of 9 to 10 ° to generate the greatest amount of lift; in
regards to the drag, this angle does not present the best value but is close to that
same angle.
 The ride height must be between 25 to 50 mm for 15 °, 28 to 55 mm for 17 °, 35
to 60 mm for 20 °, 30 mm for 6 ° and 50 to 70 mm for 9 to 10 °, where it is
conjoined with 30 mm for maximum downforce, another study shows 50 mm.

DIFFUSER ANGLE
30
 The best efficiency (Lift / drag) can be found between 11 ° and 15 °; up to 15 °
there is a significant increase in the lift; after 18 ° the efficiency remains
approximately constant.
 The inlet angle is close to 160 °, appropriately increases the downforce; another
study recommends 170 °.
 The weight distribution must be between 55 to 65 % on rear axle.
 H2 (height of the entrance of the diffuser with respect to the floor) / H1 (height
with respect to the floor) is approximately 1.8.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]. http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/tech-explained-formula-student-
aerodynamics/
[2]. airfoiltools.com para diferentes funciones de alabes
[3]. https://www.racetechmag.com/2017/08/willem-toet-explains-motorsport-
diffusers/
[4]. AERODYNAMIC DESIGN OF FORMULA STUDENT CAR. Universidad
Carlos 3 de Madrid
[5]. AERODYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT OF AN IUPUI FORMULA SAE
SPECIFICATION CAR WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
(CFD) ANALYSIS. University Purdue, Indianapolis, USA.
[6]. AERODYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT OF FORMULA STUDENT RACE CAR.
KTH Vetenskap Och Konst.
[7]. CFD BASED AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION OF A 2D CAR DIFFUSER.
Eindhoven University of Technology. ”Buena información para hacer la
simulación, buenas optimizaciones ”
[8]. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT OF AN AERODYNAMIC PACKAGE FOR A
FSAE RACE CAR. University of Thessaly. Volos, Greece “Buena información
para simulación en 3D, abarcan muchos elementos”.
[9]. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF UNDERTRAY DIFFUSER FOR A
FORMULA STYLE RACECAR. International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology. KJ Somaiya College of Engineering, Mumbai,
India.
[10]. DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION OF THE DIFFUSER FOR THE
FORMULA SAE CAR FOR IMPROVED PERFORMANCE. Birla Institute of
Science and Technology Pilani, Dubai.

31
[11]. DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION OF UNDERTRAY FOR FORMULA
SAE RACE CAR USING CFD ANALYSIS. The University of Texas at
Arlington .USA. “”buena información para la simulación en 3D”.
[12]. EFFECT OF DIFFUSER HEIGHT AND ANGLE ON PERFORMANCE
OF FSAE CAR. School of Aeronautical Engineering, Hindustan University,
Chennai, INDIA.
[13]. CFD STUDY ON THE DIFFUSER OF A FORMULA 3 RACECAR.
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, University of
Sydney.
[14]. ANALISIS AERODINÁMICO DE UN VEHÍCULO TIPO FORMULA
SAE. Facultad de Ingeniería Mecánica, Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira,
Colombia.
[15]. DEVELOPMENT OF A FORMULA SAE BODY 100% REPORT.
Florida International University, USA. “”buena información para la simulación
en 3D”.
[16]. AERODYNAMICS IN RACE CARS, DESIGN AND
CHARACTERIZATION OF A DIFFUSER FOR A FORMULA STUDENT
RACE CAR. Escuela Ingenierías Industriales, Valladolid, España. “”buena
información para la simulación en 3D”.
[17]. http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~nwb/lectures/GoodPracticeCFD/Articles
/Turbulence_Notes_Fluent-v6.3.06.pdf
[18]. https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/SIMULATION/FLUENT+Learnin
g+Modules
[19].

32