Aerodynamic Optimization of a Formula SAE Body

Paul G. Kirchner and Dr. Gary Mead

Department of Automotive Engineering Technology, Minnesota State University– Mankato

INTRODUCTION RESULTS

Formula SAE is the largest collegiate engineering competition in the nation organized by the So-
ciety of Automotive Engineers. The competition challenges engineering programs from around
the world to design and manufacture a small Formula-style race-car. The design process in-
cludes all components of the automotive industry, including research, development, marketing,
and financial management. For the 2012 competition in an effort to increase cornering speeds
and cooling system reliability, MSU-Mankato’s body was aerodynamically analyzed using com-
Figure 6. Downforce per diffuser angle. Figure 7. Drag force per diffuser angle
putational fluid dynamics. The sidepod which houses the vehicles radiator, was altered focusing
mainly on the effects of inlet size, length and shroud geometry. An undertray, which mount to
the vehicles underbody, was designed utilizing diffusers to increase downforce, the vertical
load provided by aerodynamic forces, as opposed to mass. The diffuser sections were simulat-
ed focusing on the effects of inlet area, ramp angle, and length.

Figure 4. Streamlines with velocity profile provide simulated flow visualization.

Sidepod A Sidepod B Sidepod C Figure 8. Streamline and pressure contour on final body. Figure 9. Final undertray v. no undertray downforce plot
Inlet Size (in) 8.45 in x 11 in 8.45 in x 15.25 in 11.5 in 18.5 in  Using previous research from several sources as
Inlet Area (in^2) 93.6 in^2 120.3 in^2 170 in^2 a starting point, multiple undertrays were designed varying the diffuser angle from 10° to 16°.
Inlet/Rad (%) 80% 100% 145%
 The center of pressure was set at the vehicles center of gravity in the for-aft position. (Figure 5)
Figure 1. Final CAD model of MSU–Mankato’s 2012 Formula SAE Car. Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.5438 0.5817 0.644
 After the initial undertray designs, it was evident that flow separation occurred near 15°.
Drag Force (lbf) 4.74 5.22 6.6
Lift Force (lbf) 0.165 0.14 0.498 (Figure 7)
Table 1. Size, flow rate, drag force, and lift force from 3 sidepod designs.  Several design changes followed after verifying the optimum angle, altering the inlet area 30%,
OBJECTIVES adding vortex generators, and the final addition of a keel nearly doubling the downforce.
 Each sidepod was initially analyzed alone to ensure a maximum cell count of 500,000 cells to keep
 The final undertray has a predicted gain of 49 lbs of downforce, and a decrease of 14 lbs drag.
 To analyze fluid dynamics turbulence models accuracy in calculating qualitative and quan- the simulation within the computers computational limits.
 The final design has been rapid prototyped using fused deposition modeling. The 1/8 scale
titative data.  The sidepod’s inlet area was altered between 80% and 145% of the radiator core size to analyze
model will be used for wind tunnel validation, as well as flow visualization validation using a he-
 To understand the significance sidepod size and geometry play in engine heat manage- the effects the turbulent air behind the wheel has on the quality of air the radiator is receiving.
lium bubble generator.
ment.  The pressure drop across the radiator was calculated using experimentally derived data, from
 To understand the significance diffuser angle, throat positioning, and length play in under- which a 4th order polynomial as a function of velocity was derived. Using this data α and β coeffi-
tray performance. cients were calculated and set for a porous baffle interface Eq. 1
REFRENCES
 To optimize the vehicles undertray and sidepod design to produce the highest obtainable (1)

 A polynomial was fit for the fan using the manufacturer given flow rates and pres-
METHODS
 CD-Adapco’s Star+CCM Computational Fluid Dynamic software, with internal mesh gen-
eration
 Due to the complexity of a Formula SAE cars geometry, initial simulations were run using
a simplified bluff body, and symmetry plane implemented along the vehicles centerline
to minimize the computational fluid domain.
 All initial simulations were run with an inlet velocity set to 35 mph, the average speed of
a Formula SAE vehicle during an endurance run.
 Wind tunnel validation using ELD’s model 402 wind tunnel.
 Helium Bubble Generator for flow visualization validation.
Cebeci, Tuncer, and J Cousteix. Modeling And Computation of Boundary-layer Flows: Laminar, Turbulent And Tran-
sitional Boundary Layers In Incompressible And Compressible Flows. 2nd rev. and extended ed. Long Beach, Ca-
sures, this fan curve was then set for a fan interface within the simulation. Eq. 2
lif.: Horizons Publishing , 2005.
(2) Cooper, K. R. Bertenyi, T. Dutil, G. Syms, J. Sovran, G. The Aerodynamic Performance of Automotive Underbody
Diffusers, SAE 980030, 1998
Katz, Joseph. Race Car Aerodynamics: Designing for Speed. Cambridge, MA, USA: R. Bentley, 1995.
ACKNOWLEDMENTS
I would like to thank the Northstar STEM Alliance for their funding contribution.
I would also like to proudly thank Dr. Bruce Jones, Dr. Gary Mead, Dr. Jeffrey Doom, Kevin Schull,
and Winston Sealy for all their help and support throughout this project.

Figure 2. Engineering Laboratory Design 402 Wind Tunnel Figure 3. Front half of 1/8 scale model for validation Figure 5. Pressure contour of undertray, showing center of pressure.