CAMBERED AIRFOIL IN GROUND EFFECT- WIND TUNNEL AND

ROAD CONDITIONS

Robert Ranzenbach, Consultant. Member of AIAA &

Jewel B. Barlow, Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering. Senior member of AIAA

GLM Wind Tunnel, University of Maryland, College Park

Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1995-1909

Abstract
A critical aspect of the performance of the front
wing of a Formula One or Indy race car is studied by
idealizing it as a negatively cambered two-dimensional
airfoil operating in ground effect and computing the
flowfield at various heights. When the airfoil operates at
heights roughly equal to the airfoil thickness, significant
negative lift is generated. As the height is decreased,
there is an expected downforce reduction.
The primary objective of this work is to elucidate
the force reduction phenomena for the specific case of
t ground

an upside down NACA 4412 airfoil traveling at high

Reynolds number above ground in still air by utilizing a
Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes solver. This is the
road condition. The secondary objective is to compare
and contrast the flowfield about this airfoil in road con-
ditions and when operating in the wind tunnel environ-
ment, i.e. when the airfoil and the ground are not
moving relative to each other.
Nomenclature
L=chordlength
G=Minimum ground clearance, or gap
H=Non-dimensionalized gap=G/L
CI=Section Lift Coefficient
Cd=Section Drag Coefficient
U,=Edge velocity magnitude
U,=Freestream Velocity magn?tude
TURB=Turbulence quantities
Up= Velocity of ground
Uf= Velocity of foil
Cp=Pressure Coefficient
Copyright@ 1995 by Authors. Published by the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc.
with permission.
FIGURE 1. NOMENCLATURE
1.0 Introduction
The aerodynamic design of the front wing is crucial
to successful performance of Formula One and Indy
race cars. The well known difficulties associated with
the Ground Floor Boundary Layer (GFBL) in the wind
tunnel testing environment make experimental study of
front wing performance somewhat problematic. Classic
boundary layer analysis is not capable of yielding credi-
ble results when applied to the complex details of bodies
operating near ground such as merging andlor separated
boundary layers. The most promising technology for
modelling all of the pertinent flow details with the possi-
bility of application as a design tool are Reynold's Aver-
aged Navier-Stokes (RANS) methods.
To evaluate the applicability of RANS methods to
the design of front wings and better understand the force
reduction phenomena, a model problem was studied,
namely an upside down NACA 4412 airfoil at zero
degrees angle-of-attack operating near ground at a Rey-
nolds number of 1.5 million based upon chord length.
Two classes of flow were studied. wind tunnel and road
conditions. RANS calculations were performed at vari-
ous heights for each class of flows. This study should
better illustrate the flowfield about front wings than an

1208
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 earlier study by the ~ u t h o r s because
' the negative cam-
ber of the upside down NACA 4412 airfoil more closely
resembles typical practice of Formula One and Indy
cars.
Finally, the physical phenomena associated with the
road conditions case is described in detail and compared
to analysis by ~ e e s e . ~
2.0 Com~utationalMethod
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1995-1909
Solutions were obtained using a two-dimensional,
multi-block, structured grid RANS solver for computing
the incompressible, viscous flow around arbitrary bodies
referred to as Finite Analytic Navier Stokes (FANS).~
This computational approach has been previously vali-
dated by comparing computational and experimental
results over a number of axisymmetric geometries by
Chen and ~ o r ~ and u sthe~ vortex shedding frequency of
a rectangular block by Chen and chen4. In addition, an
earlier study by the Authors concluded that the approach
was applicable over the range of heights studied here
when applied to a similar problem, namely a symmetric
NACA 0015 airfoil in ground effect by comparing
experimental and computational results for wind tunnel
conditions. '
2.1 Flow Solver
In Cartesian coordinates, the non-dimensionalized
incompressible, RANS equations are:
- priate quantity from adjoining blocks.
where U, , {uiuj}, and P represent the Cartesian mean
velocities, Reynolds stresses, and pressure, respectively,
and repeated indices indicate summation.
The Reynolds number, Re = U L / u , is based upon
the appropriate length and velocity scales used to non-
dimensionalize the above relations.
The exact form of the Reynolds stresses depend on
the selection of a turbulence model. FANS uses a two-
layer turbulence model based upon the multi-layer
approach of Chen and patels, consisting of the k~
approach for the majority of the domain, and the one-
equation k l model for the near wall viscous sublayer.
Accuracy in adverse pressure gradients is improved by
using the "sensitization to irrotational strain" technique
of Hanjalic and ~ a u n d e r . ~
1209
American Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The current FANS implementation partially trans-
forms the RANS equations from Cartesian independent
variables ( x , , x2, t ) into generally non-orthogonal body-
fitted coordinates (c,, c2, T ) while retaining the depen-
dent variables (velocity components, pressure, and tur-
bulence quantities) in a Cartesian coordinate system.
The partially transformed momentum equations are
discretized using the finite-analytic method developed
by Chen, Patel, and J U .This
~ method relies upon writing
each momentum equation in the form of a general con-
vection/diffusion problem, and then linearizing across
each computational cell by assuming constant coeffi-
cients. The resulting equations may be solved by the
classic technique of separation of variables.
Pressure/velocity coupling is accomplished using
the hybrid SIMPLERPISO method of Chen and at el.^
The usefulness of this technique is that dependent vari-
ables reside at the grid nodes and the mass and momen-
tum are conserved simultaneously at every time step.
FANS solves the governing equations for mean
flow and turbulence on structured multiple block grids.
Each block is allowed to overlap its neighbors in an
arbitrary manner with the only requirement being that
the entire domain be completely covered by the union of
the blocks. Thus the onerous requirements of point-by-
point connectivity across block overlaps is eliminated.
Instead, communication between blocks is performed by
interpolation. The technique is referred to as Arbitrary
Block Overlap (ABO) and is similar to Chimera grid
schemes except that no points may be outside of the
flow d ~ m a i n At
. ~ each iteration, the approach sets vari-
ables on block faces that are interior to the solution
domain by reading them from the appropriate matching
block and then computing a solution block by block
using Dirichlet boundary conditions. The face values are
updated after each iteration by interpolating the appro-
The advantage of ABO is that no longer must the
grids posses smoothly fitted together blocks, and the fine
resolution near the body does not have to extend into the
far field. Thus grids can be produced with simplified
topologies, fewer points, and most importantly signifi-
cantly reduced man-hours. Additionally, the pre-pro-
cessing code PREFANS~, which reads an ABO grid and
computes all the necessary interpolation and block con-
nectivity information automatically, actually requires
less user input than necessary for more conventional
multi-block structured grids.
For the elliptic RANS method used here, boundary
conditions for the Cartesian components of the mean
 velocity and turbulence quantities must be specified on this case, the required spacing of the first point off the
all boundaries of the computational domain. body is a non-dimensionalized distance of 4.4 x
Grid independence studies were not undertaken as part
Forces are computed by integrating pressure and
of this study.
shear stresses over the body surface.
For the road conditions cases, a nine block grid is
The two-dimensional version of FANS' total mem-
used consisting of the same seven blocks used for the
ory requirement is 53 words per grid point, and requires
wind tunnel cases with added blocks to extend the com-
about 5.0 E-4 seconds of CPU time per grid point per
putational boundaries to four chords upstream, four
iteration on a 16 MFLOPS workstation. Typical results
chords downstream and four chords above. Because sig-
for the cases reported in this study required between
nificantly fewer grid points are required to resolve the
6000 and 12000 iterations to converge.
induced boundary layer along the groundplane, a
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1995-1909

An interactive graphics utility called XCON- smaller total number of grid points are sufficient to
VERGE is used for monitoring convergence statistics account for the larger computational domain. The total
such as the Euclidean and maximum norms of the solu- number of grid points for the road conditions cases is
tion variable updates and computed force coefficients. 29,730.
This allows the user to judge convergence using their
Because of the Chimera-like capability of the
own criteria. For this study, once the value of the com-
FANS code, arbitrarily overlapped grids, could be used
puted forces had reached a steady state value, further
which required only simple changes to the grid block
calculation was halted
directly between the airfoil and the groundplane to
allow for airfoil height changes. This made preprocess-
2.2 GRIDS ing of grids for the various heights quite straightfor-
In the present calculations for the upside down ward.
NACA 4412 airfoil in ground effect, a seven block grid Chen and ~ o r ~ have u s ~shown that the conver-
was constructed for the wind tunnel cases using the gence is independent of blocking topology
interactive gridding code I ~ G . " Block #4 is a thin C-
grid which wraps around the surface of the airfoil. Other
blocks are added to fill in the remaining domain as
shown in Figure A- I , in Appendix A.
3.0 THE "WIND TUNNEL" CASE
The computational domain was designed to coin- The wind tunnel case is modeled as a stationary air-
cide with the extents of an experimental apparatus to foil and ground, with a freestream velocity U,=1.0 as
mimic two dimensional flow which can be placed within shown in Figure 2. The lift and drag as a function of
the GLM Wind Tunnel developed as part of the authors non-dimensionalized minimum ground clearance, H, for
earlier work on symmetrical airfoils in ground effect.' the case of zero degrees angle-of-attack is reported.
As a result, the grid extends upstream from the leading
edge of the airfoil to the leading edge of the ground
plane 1.75 chord lengths and downstream from the trail-
ing edge of the airfoil, 1.25 chordlength to the trailing
edge of the groundplane. The top of the grid is fixed at
the tunnel ceiling height approximately 2.56 chords
above the center of the model and extends down to the
height of the groundplane which varies. The total num-
ber of grid points for these grids is 29,980.
The grid for every case is &ebraically generated
using spacing criteria developed from past experience in
the boundary layer, and near the leading and trailing FIGURE 2. CHARACTERISTIC VELOCITY PROFILE-
edges. The following criteria were used: Longitudinal WIND TUNNEL CONDITIONS
spacing near trailing edge=.002*chord; Longitudinal
spacing near leading edge=.001 *chord; and Transverse In the wind tunnel case, the boundary conditions on
spacing in the wake near the trailing edge of the air- the airfoil and groundplane were set to reflect no-slip
foil=100*boundary layer spacing. The turbulence model surfaces. To reduce the computational expense of these
requires that the first point off the body be at a y+=l.O studies, the boundary layer along the tunnel ceiling is
which roughly corresponds to a spacing of 10/Re. For neglected and the boundary conditions are set to reflect

1 2 10
American Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 an inviscid boundary, i.e. a no-penetration surface. Thus
the boundary conditions are summarized as follows:
Inlet plane: (U=l, V=O, P=extrapolated,
TURB=freestream)
Exit plane: (U=V=P=TURB=Neumann)
Groundplane: (U=V=O, P=extrapolated, TURB=O)
Ceiling: (U=extrapolated,V=O,P=extrapolated,
TURB=freestream)
Airfoil surface: (U=V=O, P=extrapolated, TURB=O)
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1995-1909
Observe the groundplane boundary layer thicken-
ing upstream of the airfoil and then subsequent thinning
in the presence of the favorable pressure gradient
beneath the airfoil. It can be observed that behind the
mid-chord, the distance between the airfoil and ground-
plane boundary layers approaches zero.
4.0 THE "ROAD CONDITIONS" CASE
In the "road conditions" case, i.e. an airfoil moving

through an otherwise quiescent flowfield, boundary con-

ditions different than those used in the wind tunnel case
3.1 COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS
are required. We model the airfoil moving above the
Ten heights were studied. The values of non-dimen- ground as a stationary airfoil, with the ground and the
sionalized minimum ground clearance were H=.903, freestream flow moving by at a relative velocity of 1.0
.403, .236, ,153, ,097, .083, ,069, .056, .042, and ,028. as shown in Figure 4.
~ c i b o r - ~ ~ l s kdescribes
i" how downforce increases
as ground clearance is reduced until some critical height
is reached at which point decreasing the height further
causes the airfoil to generate substantially reduced
downforce or possibly positive lift. This expected force
reduction is modeled by the computations. This phe-
nomena appears to be a result of the airfoil and ground-
plane boundary layers merging which reduces the flow
velocity beneath the airfoil, hence pressure is higher in
that region and downforce is reduced.
To visualize this effect, rather than plot displace-
ment thickness, a plot of vorticity magnitude is shown in FIGURE 4. CHARACTERISTIC VELOCITY PROFILE-
Figure 3 for a non-dimensionalized ground clearance of ROAD CONDITIONS
H=.028. The phenomena of considerable downforce
reduction occurs at this height. Similar to the wind tunnel case, both the airfoil and
the ground remain as no-slip surfaces as required by a
solid boundary in viscous flow. However, to maintain
the no-slip boundary condition on the groundplane, the
u-component of velocity along the groundplane must be
set to 1.0. The normal component remains at zero and
pressure remains extrapolated. The boundary conditions
were set as follows:
Inlet plane: (U= I , V=O, P=extrapolated,
TURB=freestream)
Exit plane: (U=V=P=TURB=Neumann)
Groundplane: (U= I .O, V=O, P=extrapolated,
FIGURE 3. WIND TUNNEL CONDITIONS- FORCE TURB=O)
REDUCTION, H=.028

Vorticity magnitude contours were selected so as to

provide a visual representation of the boundary layer
Airfoil surface: (U=V=O,P=extrapolated, TURB=O)
edge. The vorticity magnitude value of 7.0 was selected
by observing FANS results for a boundary layer along a
flat plate and calculating the vorticity magnitude at the
boundary layer edge defined by Ue=.995*U,.

1 2 11
American Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 4.1 COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS
The same ten non-dimensionalized ground clear-
ances as the wind tunnel cases, H=.903, .403, .236, ,153,
.097, ,083, .069, .056, .042, and .028, were studied.
Results for road conditions are similar to the wind tun-
nel cases but with significant differences in detail. Com-
parison of lift in the wind tunnel and road conditions is
shown in Figure 5.
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1995-1909
NACA 4412 In Gmund Enecl
FIGURE 5. LIFT COMPARISON- ROAD AND WIND
TUNNEL CONDITIONS
These results indicate that the downforce generated
in road conditions is larger at the same ground clearance
than the downforce generated in the wind tunnel case
over the entire range of heights studied. Lift results indi-
cate that at the large ground clearance H=.903, the lift is
very close to the accepted freestream value Cl=-.4 as
one should expect.
Comparison of drag in the wind tunnel and road
conditions is shown in Figure 6. Both sets of results
show a monotonic increase in drag as the height is
decreased except at the lowest ground clearance in the
wind tunnel condition. In all cases except the lowest
ground clearance, the drag generated in road conditions
is smaller at the same ground clearance than the drag
generated in the wind tunnel condition.
Drag results indicate that at the large ground clear-
ances, the drag is nearly indistinguishable from the sta-
tionary airfoil case as one might expect. This seems
quite reasonable because at these heights, the absence of
the groundplane boundary layer is virtually undetected
by the airfoil.
All cases except for the two lowest road condition
cases at H=.042 and H=.028 were run non-time accurate
with the solution under-relaxed at the end of each time
1 21 2
American Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics
step. Inherent unsteadiness of the small separated
regions near the trailing edge required the computation
to be performed in a time accurate manner and conver-
gence controlled by choice of the time step. In both of
these two cases, the time accurate iterations started from
an unconverged quasi-steady solution and ultimately
converged to a periodic solution. The values reported
for the lift and drag coefficients were the time averaged
values. The Strouhal number based upon airfoil thick-
ness was 2.15 for the H=.042 case and the Strouhal
number was 2.00 for the H=.028 case.
NACA 4412 tn Ground Ensct
O0 8 1
FIGURE 6. DRAG COMPARISON- ROAD AND WIND
TUNNEL CONDITIONS
4.2 FLOW FIELD PHENOMENA
To describe the changing flow field phenomena as
the airfoil nears the groundplane in the road conditions
case, it may be helpful to compare results from this
study to the following flow field classifications by Beese
and later described by weidemannl1:
Class A- Large ground clearance (non-dimensional
ground clearance is near 1.0). In this case the pres-
ence of the airfoil is virtually undetected by the flow
near the ground and consequently the velocity there
is nearly the freestream velocity U,. Forces on the
airfoil are close to that of an airfoil moving in
freestream. The case of H=.403 is representative of a
Class A flow field.
Class B- Medium ground clearance (non-dimen-
sional ground clearance is much smaller than 1.0) In
this case the velocity distribution near the ground-
plane differs from U,. As a result, a boundary layer
develops along the groundplane which affects the
flowfield between the airfoil and the groundplane.
This flowfield results in the generation of significant
downforce upon the airfoil due to the acceleration of
 the flow in the region between the groundplane and
airfoil and the associated reduction in pressure in
this region. The case of H=.O83 is representative of a
Class B flow.
A plot of vorticity magnitude for this case is shown
in Figure 7. The boundary layer on the groundplane is
very thin for this case, but the existence of two distinct
boundary layers on both the airfoil and groundplane can
be observed. In this case, a high velocity potential core
between the airfoil and groundplane boundary layer is
preserved. Note the very thick boundary layer along the
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1995-1909

bottomside of the airfoil near the trailing edge.

FIGURE 8. ROAD CONDITIONS, CLASS C- FORCE
REDUCTION, H=.028

The pressure coefficient along the groundplane is

shown in Figure 9 for representative cases of Class A,
B, and C flow fields. The axial position of the airfoil is
superimposed upon this figure for reference purposes.

NACA 4412 m Gmund Etlecl

1

FIGURE 7. ROAD CONDITIONS, CLASS B-

MAXIMUM DOWNFORCE, H=.OS3 '. I
0
b .,
Class C- Small ground clearance (non-dimensional 0" ' I
I

ground clearance is nearly zero). In this case there is ! !

local merging of the boundary layer developing
along the floor and the airfoil boundary layer. In
effect, the potential flow core between the airfoil and - - Class 0- H= 083
C l a s C- H= 028
the groundplane vanishes. The reduction of the flow
velocity due to the partial or complete "chocking - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2
Non-Dlrnsnaonal Axlal Locallon XA
3 4 5

off' of the flow in the region between the ground-

plane and the airfoil yields increased pressure which
is felt by the airfoil. This flow field results in a pre- FIGURE 9. ROAD CONDITIONS, CLASS A, B, AND C-
cipitous change in downforce and can actually yield GROUNDPLANE PRESSURE COEFFICIENT
positive lift i n extreme cases.
Evidence of the separated region for the Class C
The merging of the airfoil and groundplane bound- flow at H=.028 is visible in Figure 9 where the pressure
ary layers near the trailing edge can be observed in Fig- coefficient along the groundplane has a slight flattening
ure 8 for the case of Hz.028. in the region underneath the trailing edge of the airfoil.
Results for the force reduction case, H=.028, show
a quite thick boundary layer along the bottomside of the
airfoil and some degree of flow separation in that region 5.0 CONCLUSIONS
near the trailing edge. The separation region is approxi-
Application of FANS to the problem of an upside
mately 10% of the chord and the negative velocities in
down NACA 4412 cambered airfoil operating in the
the separated region reach nearly 15% of the freestream
wind tunnel environment led to the following observa-
value.
tions:

1213
American Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 As height is decreased, an increasingly large nega-
tive lift is developed until a critical height is reached
at which point decreasing the height further causes
positive increments in lift.
Drag monotonically increases with decreased ground
clearance except at the lowest ground clearance,
H=.028.
Application of FANS to the problem of an upside
down NACA 4412 cambered airfoil moving over sta-
tionary ground in still air, i.e. road conditions, led to the
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1995-1909
following observations:
Lift as a function of ground clearance is qualitatively
similar to the wind tunnel case but more downforce
is generated at any given height. Drag behavior is
also similar to the wind tunnel case but drag
increases monotonically over the entire range of
heights studied here. In addition, the computed drag
and is lower for any given ground clearance except
at the minimum ground clearance H=.028.
The force reduction phenomena is tied to the merg-
ing of the groundplane and airfoil boundary layers,
and the associated velocity and pressure fields gener-
ated between the two surfaces. Results indicate
regions of separated flow along the bottomside of the
airfoil for cases involving the force reduction phe-
nomena. The results also indicate that the heights at
which the force reduction phenomena occurs,
namely ground clearances less than approximately
6% of front wing chordlength, are below the operat-
ing ground clearances of typical front wings. This
however might not be true during abrupt maneuver-
ing such as braking and tight turning when the ride
height of the front wing may be much lower than
during normal operations.
Thick boundary layers and small regions of sepa-
rated flow exist at ground clearances up to nearly
10% of front wing chord length as evidenced by
results for H=.083. RANS calculations hold great
promise for modeling such flow details in this oper-
ating region which is more consistent with typical
front wing practice.
Computational flow solutions which mimic the basic
nature of the fl owfield classifications proposed by
Beese have been obtained. However the appearance
of separation at the lower heights shed doubt on
computational approaches that assume no separation
for these flows.
The shedding frequency exhibited by the airfoil at
the two lowest heights (H=.042 and H=.028) as evi-
denced by the calculated Strouhal numbers is quite
high. This may be an accurate portrayal of a physical
1 21 4
American Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics
phenomena or it may be an artifact of the FANS
numerics, or perhaps an artifact of the averaging
inherent to the RANS equations. This requires fur-
ther investigation.
With the advent of the ABO scheme which allows
quick preprocessing of grids, two-dimensional
RANS computations can be performed with suffi-
cient speed so as to be used in the design of the front
wings for Formula One and Indy cars. Various airfoil
profiles and angles-of-attack could be looked at sim-
ply by changing the one grid block directly along the
body. Computational speed and memory require-
ments are suited to presently available workstations.
Comparison of the road condition results to an ear-
lier study for the case of a symmetric NACA 0015 air-
foil indicate qualitative agreement but differences in
detail. The primary difference apart from the freestream
lift coefficient, is that the force reduction phenomena
occurs at a much higher ground clearance for the cam-
bered airfoil than for the symmetric airfoil. This leads to
the supposition that more highly cambered wings and
other high lift devices such as multi-element wings typi-
cally used by Formula One and Indy cars may be experi-
encing force reduction phenomena even during normal
operations. This requires further investigation.
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was partially supported by a Ford Motor
Company Research Fellowship.
REFERENCES
1. Ranzenbach, R.C. and Barlow, J.B., "Two-
Dimensional Airfoil in Ground Effect, An Experimental
and Computational Study," SAE paper 942509, 1994.
2. Beese, E., Untersuchungen zum Einflub der Rey-
nolds-Zahl auf die aerodynamischen Beiwerte von Trag-
flugelprofilen in Bodennahe. Disseratation, Fakultat fur
Machinenbau, Ruhr- Universitat Bochum, (1982).
3. Chen, H.C. and Korpus, R., "A Multi-block
Finite-Analytic Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
Method for 3D Incompressible Flows," ASME Summer
Fluid Dynamic Conference, 1993.
4. Chen, C.J. and Chen, H.C., "Finite Analytic
Method for Unsteady Two-Dimensional Navier-Stokes
Equations," Journal of Computational Physics 53, pp.
209-226, 1984.
 5. Chen, H.C. and Patel, V.C., "Near-Wall Turbu-
lence Models for Complex Flows Including Separa-
tion," AIAA Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 641-648, 1988.
6. Hanjalic, K. and Launder, B.E., "Sensitizing the
Dissipation Equation to Irrotational Strains, Journal of
Fluids Engineering, Vol. 102, No. 34, 1980.
7. Chen, H.C., Patel, V.C., and Ju, S., "Solutions of
Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations for Three-
Dimensional Incompressible Flows," J. Computational
Physics, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 305-336.
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1995-1909
Wake and Vorticity Transport Validation,", SAIC-931
1121, 1993, Science Applications International Corpo-
ration, Annapolis MD.
9. LaBozzetta, W. et. al., "The Interactive Graphics
for Geometry Generation Program (I3G)," Wright
Research and Development Center Configuration Data
Management System, Chapter 6, AFWAL-TR-88-117,
Eglin Air Force Base, FL, 1988.
10. Scibor-Rylski, A.J., "Road Vehicle Aerodynam-
ics," John Wiley & Sons,.New York, 1984.

8. Chen, H.C., and Patel, V.C., "The Flow Around 11. Weidemann, J., "Some Basic Investigations into
Wing-Body Junctions," Proceedings of the Fourth Sym- the Principles of Ground Simulation Techniques in
posium on Numerical and Physical Aspects of Aerody- Automotive Wind Tunnels," SAE Paper # 890369,
namic Flows, Long Beach, CA, 1988.
8. Weems, K., Korpus, R., and Fritts, M., "RANSI
Potential Flow Coupling, Gridding Improvements,

APPENDIX A

FIGURE A-1. REPRESENTATIVE GRID FOR WIND TUNNEL CONDITIONS. H=.069

1 2 15
American Institue of Aeronautics and Astronautics