Assessed Coursework Submission

Module No:
P04705 2

Module title:

Advanced Vehicle Aerodynamic

Assignment title/No :

Due date :

29th April

Estimated total time spent on assignment (hours):

If this is a group assignment, please enter all group members numbers, names, and group number or name. Student No(s): 10098728 Student Name(s): David Ojea Cerradelo Group:

Statement of Compliance (please tick to indicate that all elements are included) x x x
I/We have enclosed all the required elements of the coursework submission I/We have attached a completed copy of the relevant markscheme for this assignment, showing the overall mark I/we believe this work deserves I/We declare that the work submitted is my/our own and that the work I/we submit is fully in accordance with the University regulations regarding assessments (www.brookes.ac.uk/uniregulations/current)

Student Signature(s): Date:

FOR SCHOOL USE ONLY

Received by :
Notes:

Date received by school : Overall Mark Awarded:

Detailed feedback should be provided on a copy of the markscheme, or the reverse of this sheet

Diffuser Investigation and CFD Investigation

David Ojea Cerradelo Oxford Brookes University Copyright 2011 Oxford Brookes University

ABSTRACT This report studies the influence of different bluff body geometries on its aerodynamic performance. The first part discuses the influences of diffuser angle and ride height, both experimentally and computationally, in the underbody pressure distribution, drag and lift forces generated. The differences between the result yield by the experimental analysis and the computational and their source of errors will be stated. The second part analyses the influence of different backlight angles on a 10 diffuser model aerodynamic performance. In this case two mesh sizes were used in order to test their influence on results.

INTRODUCTION The use of diffusers is extensively used in racing and recently high performance vehicle since they contribute with well known gains in terms of downforce and therefore lap-time reductions. However, the use of diffusers not only can produce downforce since they also can reduce the level of drag associated with the improving of the underbody vehicle flow. This reduction of drag is associated with the efficient conversion of the kinetic energy of the underbody flow into a static pressure. Besides, the performance of diffusers depends upon factors such as attack angle, length, ride height and general geometry of the vehicle. When a fluid passes underneath a body in proximity with the ground the flow is forced to increase its velocity and therefore decrease the static pressure under the body. Additionally, when a diffuser is fitted in the underbody of a car it leads to further reductions in the underbody pressure. This configuration has a bigger underbody flow rate, lower underbody pressure and therefore greater downforce. The diffuser seems to pump down the body, creating a downward force on the vehicle. There is downforce on the flat bottomed model; however the presence of the diffuser gives further increment in downforce. This idea is shown in Figure 1 for both a flat bottomed model and a model with diffuser. (Cooper et al., 1998)

Figure 1 Diffuser generation of downforce

1

The basic diffuser geometry is shown in the next figure.

Figure 2 Diffuser Model However, as Christoffersen states (2011), there are three important effects involved in the diffusers function in automotive applications: The interaction with the ground: as previously explained when a body is brought into ground proximity it is generated a downward force, in an inviscid flow this downforce approaches to infinite when the ground clearance approaches to zero. However, real flows are not inviscid so when the body gets closer to the ground, the interaction of the viscosity becomes more influent and end up terminating the increment in downforce at some small value of ground clearance. (Cooper et al., 1998) The diffuser pumping effect: the diffuser is a device in which the cross section area increases in the flow direction hence it produces a decrease in flow velocity and a increase in static pressure from the inlet to the outlet. This phenomenon can be used to increase the flow rate through the diffuser, thus generate downforce. The upsweep of the underbody: since the underbody diffuser makes the model asymmetrical it will becomes a cambered body so in presence of a flow it will generate a downward lift force.

The following figure 3 shows the diminution of underbody pressure as the air flows between vehicle and ground along the underbody. The drop of underbody pressure is due the flow acceleration around the leading edge of the diffuser body. While in the case of zero degree diffuser angle there is a constant increment in the underbody pressure after the leading edge, in the ten degrees diffuser angle there is a second negative pressure peak at the start of the diffuser. As long as the diffuser angle gets bigger and the flow remain attached to the surface of the diffuser, the peak suction pressure and the overall pressure reduction along the underbody also get bigger. Underbody Pressure Distribution
600 400 Static Pressure (Kpa) 200

0
-200 0 -400 -600 -800 -1000 Distance Along Underbody (m) 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35

0 Degrees
10 Degrees

Figure 3 Underbody Pressure Distribution

2

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The intention of this coursework is to investigate the performance and characteristics of a diffuser model. The coursework consist of two parts, the first one took form of laboratory investigation using the closed working section wind tunnel Oxford Brookes facility and the other part was an analysis using Star-CCM+ CFD code. After that, a report is written discussing ride height and diffuser angle influence and identifying the key characteristics of diffusers. The main aims of the investigation are: Obtain and experimental analysis of underbody pressure data for a range of diffuser angles and ride heights using the bluff body provided. Perform CFD analyses, of the experimental set-ups and obtain the following; o Body Drag and Lift forces o Underbody Pressure Profiles o Pressure Coefficient Distribution Investigate and comment upon the influence of diffuser dimensions upon the underbody pressure distribution using CFD simulation.

EXPERIMENTAL TESTING
EXPERIMENTAL BLUFF BODY MODEL

The bluff body used in this experiment is made from Perspex and fitted with 18 pressure tappings located through the centreline of the underbody. The dimensions are of the body are 260x115x150mm and its leading edge has a 24mm radius and is not fitted with pressure tappings. All dimensions of the bluff body are shown in appendix 1. The diffuser model is shown in the following figure.

Figure 4 Bluff Body

WIND TUNNEL

The wind tunnel used in this coursework has a closed working section and has the next specifications:
3

305 mm x 305 mm working section (Closed) Maximum Flow Speed: 36 m/s Pitot-static tube mounted within the working section Fixed Ground Plane with no boundary layer removal

The tunnel used is made from aluminium; the air enters the tunnel through the effuser which is covered with a protective mesh. The working section of tunnel is Perspex, allowing the model to be observed throughout tests. Models can be attached to any of the sides. At the upstream end of the section there is a pitot-static tube which can be used to traverse across the working section and is used to determine the free stream static and dynamic pressures. The working section is attached to a diffuser which leads to an axial flow fan with the air velocity being controlled by a throttle valve arrangement located at the outlet. Pressure data is logged throughout the tests. This wind tunnel has some limitations that may cause inaccurate results. The first one and more obvious is the inappropriate tool used to fix the body to the working section that will produce an uneven distribution of the flow. Another issue is the lack of any boundary layer removal systems such as moving ground that will allow the boundary layer to increase excessively and finally another issue is the high turbulence generated within the wind tunnel.

Figure 5 Wind Tunnel Facility

EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS

In order to acquire a good approximation of the influence of the diffuser geometry in the diffuser performance, a set of tests on the bluff body was done. The setups can be seen in table 1. Parameter Value Ride Height 10 and 20 mm Diffuser Angle 0 and 10 Vehicle Attitude 0 Free Steam Velocity 25 m/s Table 1 Bluff Body Setups Tools like allen keys and ruler were used in order to set up the configurations of the bluff body and wind tunnel, this allows to fix the right position of diffuser angle and right height. Once all the pressure tappings are well connected to the instrumentation and the bluff body mounted within the wind tunnel with the appropriate angle
4

and ride height settings, the simulations can start but previously safety measures such as wearing ear defenders must be taken.

COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS MODELLING

CFD MODEL GENERATION AND PARAMETERS

On the one hand, in section 1 of the following discussion and results section were tested with StarCCM+ the model configurations that were experimentally tested within the wind tunnel. In order to do that, several CAD models simulating the flow domain were developed in SolidWorks. This was done using a Boolean operation with two different bodies; the diffuser body was extracted from the flow domain. Once the CAD models were established a mesh was created with StarCCM+. The meshing strategy was use a surface remesher, polyhedral and a prism layer mesh model. A full list of the mesh specifications is covered in the appendix 2, though as outline should be noted that the size of the cells was different between the region around the bluff body and rest of the geometry. The region around the body has the minimum cell size to achieve the best accuracy and the rest of the flow domain has a bigger cell size in order to minimise the computational time to solve the simulation. Finally, the meshed volume reckons around 150.000 cells for the 0 angle diffuser and 100.000 in the 10 angle diffuser. Regarding to the physics of the fluid model it was modelled as steady state, with constant density and k- turbulence model with segregated flow. The turbulence intensity was set to 3% since it is consistent with the high turbulence intensity attainable in the wind tunnel facility of the Oxford Brooks University which does not have any device to properly prepare the flow. The whole specifications of the physics of the fluid can be observed in appendix 3. On the other hand, for the section 2 the procedure was the same as in the section 1 but this time with the aim of test the influence of different configurations of upperbody backlight angle. Parameter Value Ride Height 10 mm Diffuser Angle 10 Backlight Angle 0, 12.5 and 25 Backlight Length 100 mm Vehicle Attitude 0 Free Steam Velocity 25 m/s Table 2 - CFD Simulation Settings The meshing and solving specifications were the same as in section 1 though two different mesh qualities were used in order to appreciate the influence of it on the values of lift, drag and underbody pressure coefficient. This further mesh size was aggrandized in comparison with the firstly used so although it takes less computational time, the values achievable are supposed to be less realistic. Finally, the calculation of cells in the volume mesh drops from around 100.000 to near 20.000. The next figure shows the different cell sizes used in these simulations.

Figure 6 Two mesh qualities used in the CFD analysis DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
SECTION 1

As we can see in figure 7 and 8, both for a 0 and a 10 diffuser angle configuration there is an initial drop in pressure after the stagnation point, Cp=1, but this tendency is not covered in the experimental data since the experimental model does not count on pressure tappings on its leading edge. However, the pressure distribution after the stagnation point differs in both models. For a 0 diffuser angle configuration there is a constant increment on pressure along the underbody, this is due to the close proximity of the ground which makes the section in which the air must flow very small so it is pushed to increase its speed and therefore decrease its pressure. On the other hand, when the diffuser angle is set to 10 the underbody pressure behaves different. In figures 7 and 8 we can clearly see the pumping effect of the diffuser. At the beginning of the underbody the behaviour of the flow is similar to the first configuration of 0 however after this initial unfavourable distribution of underbody pressure there is another negative peak in pressure, it occurs at the start of the diffuser due to its pumping effect. This effect leads to a greater downforce and to the reason to use diffusers. But the pressures recovery in the diffuser is very fast; as long as the boundary layer resists the unfavourable pressure gradient a greater downforce will be generated.

1,5 1 0,5 Underbody Cp 0 -0,5 0 -1 -1,5 -2 0,05 0,1

0 and 10 - 10 mm Ride Height

Experimental 0
0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 CFD 0

Experimental 10
CFD 10

-2,5

Position

Figure 7 Comparison of underbody Cp from experimental and CFD data

6

1,5 1 0,5 Underbody Cp 0 -0,5 -1 -1,5 -2 -2,5 0 0,05 0,1

0 and 10 - 20 mm Ride Height

Experimental 0 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 CFD 0 Experimental 10 CFD 10

Position

Figure 8 Comparison of underbody Cp from experimental and CFD data Additionally to the generation of downforce, the use of diffusers does not have to generate drag. However, if the diffuser angle becomes very big, the pressure gradient will become too big so the flow becomes detached from the surface of the diffuser and it will lead to boundary layer separation which is traduced as a reduction in downforce and an increment in drag. In the next figure 9 we can see the influence of the two design parameters in the CFD results, should be noted that the same behaviour occurs in the wind tunnel results. On the one hand, the ride height is responsible of the ground interaction effect. When the ride height decreases, the overall underbody pressure also does so this is traduced as an increment in downforce, however it will increase until the point where the effects of fluid viscosity becomes dominant and no further improvements of downforce are achievable (Christoffersen et al., 2011). On the other hand, the diffuser angle considerably affects the pressure distribution, especially at the rear of the body. While at the front of the body can be observed that the angle influence is almost negligible, at the rear it decreases the pressure under the body due to the previously mentioned diffuser pumping effect. Additionally, this effect increases when the ride height decreases.

0 and 10 - 10 and 20 mm Ride Height

1,5 1 0,5 Underbody Cp 0 CFD 0 - 10mmRH 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 CFD 10 - 10mmRH CFD 0 - 20mmRH CFD 10 - 20mmRH

-0,5 0
-1 -1,5 -2 -2,5

Position

Figure 9 Influence of Ride Height and Diffuser Angle in underbody Cp

7

Regarding to the differences between the underbody pressure distribution from the CFD and the experimental analysis should be stated that, as can be appreciated along this report and in the figures of the appendix 4, the CFD analysis gives more optimistic results with a lower pressure coefficient along the whole underbody being remarkable the lower minimum pressure coefficient at the front of the body and bigger diffuser pumping effect at the rear than in the experimental analysis. Therefore, if these differences are critically analysed we could conclude that, on the one hand the limitations of the CFD software when simulates the flow turbulence or the associated imprecision of the used mesh are sources of error. On the other hand, the wind tunnel does not truly represent either the reality of the diffuser since there are both small variations in the fixing of ride height and diffuser angle, the blockage of the flow due to the walls of the tunnel and the lack of any boundary layer removal systems. Finally, with regard to the drag and lift forces generated by the four body models can be observed in figure 10 a great increase on downforce (negative lift) thanks to the reduction on ride height and the increase in diffuser angle. In regard to the drag we can state that it remains almost constant in all configurations. It is noticeable a slight drag increment in the 10mm ride height configurations however theirs gains in downforce are noteworthy. Summarizing, we can conclude that if the ride height is reduced and the diffuser angle is increased, an improvement in aerodynamic efficiency is easily achievable without big penalisations. 0 and 10 mm RH 0 and 20 mm RH 10 and 10 mm RH 2.101 2.082 2.264 4.203 4.164 4.529 -0.873 -0.608 -4.031 -1.747 -1.217 -8.062 0.415 0.292 1.780 Table 3 Diffuser Body Drag and Lift from CFD data 10 and 20 mm RH 2.095 4.190 -3.018 -6.036 1.440

Drag Cd Lift Cl Cl/Cd

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 and 10 mm 0 and 20 mm RH RH Drag Lift 10 and 10 mm RH 10 and 20 mm RH Lift Drag

Figure 10 Comparison of Diffuser Body Drag and Lift from CFD data

SECTION 2

This section of the report discusses the influence of the upperbody backlight angle into the generation of lift, drag and underbody pressure coefficient. This section is based upon the investigations undertaken by Ahmed et al.(1984) along the 1980s in response to the fuel crisis of the 1970s to reduce fuel consumption. However, in the simulations shown in this report a model with a diffuser of 10 was used. Ahmed et al.(1984) is amongst the first studying the influence of the backlight angle on aerodynamic behaviour (Le Good andd Garry, 2004). The actually known as Ahmed model (appendix 5) is very similar to a production car despite it is slightly lon ger and thinner, the flow regime is the same.

Drag
2,5 2 Drag Lift 1,5 1 0,5 0 -5 5 15 Backlight Angle 25 35 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -5 5

Lift

15 Backlight Angle

25

35

Figure 11 Drag and Lift evolution with Backlight Angle Figure 11 shows how the drag and lift forces evolve with the different backlight angles. Although the range of backlight angle used in this simulation does not cover the whole range used by Ahmed et al. (1984) can be noticed that the results matches with what he stated. The biggest deal of drag comes from the rear end of the body and an increment in backlight angle provides a reduction in drag although after approximately 20 the reduction in drag stops and starts to raise again, this is due to the big pressure gradient after the harsh edge which causes flow separation. The reduction in drag is originated by the different behaviour of the flow over the backlight; if there is no angle, the flow is easily detached at the rear end of the body so it generates wakes which leads to drag production. However, if the backlight angle is small, the flow remains attached to the surface of the body for longer so the wakes generated are smaller and drag is reduced. The wakes produced with different backlight angle can be seen in the next figures.

Figure 12 Flow behaviour for 0 backlight angle

9

Figure 13 Flow behaviour for 25 backlight angle Consequently there is an optimum backlight angle which helps to develop the minimum drag of the body. On the other hand, can be observed in figure 11 that there is an increment in the generated lift; this is due to the low pressure originated by the backlight angle over top of the bluff body. In contradistinction with Ahmed et al.,(1984) the values of lift in this model remains negative until the studied value of 25 of backlight angle, this is due to the presence of the diffuser which generates more force downward than the upper surface upward. The next figure shows how the different values of backlight angle does not interfere too much with the underbody pressure distribution which remains almost the same for the whole range of backlight angles. Therefore can be concluded that lift forces when using backlight angles are determined by the pressure distribution along the top surface of the bluff body.
1,5
1 0,5 Underbody Cp 0 -0,5 -1 -1,5 -2 -2,5 Position 0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0 12.5 25

Figure 14 Backlight angle influence in underbody Cp Additionally, in figure 15 and 16 can be observed a reduction in the pressure along the top of the bluff body, the bigger the backlight angle, the bigger the reduction in pressure. However, as previously said, this reduction does
10

not go further when the pressure gradient originated by a big backlight angle leads to flow separation. Should be remarked that the pressure distribution on the top of the body has both a drop peak at the beginning of the backlight angle and is not affected by the backlight angle at the leading edge of the body.

Figure 15 Pressure over 25 backlight angle model

Figure 16 - Pressure over 12.5 backlight angle model Finally, the next figures show drag and lift values for two different mesh qualities calculated over the base size of the cells and from these values can be stated that the results from CFD simulations are highly dependent on the mesh quality.
0 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 0 50 100 150 % of Base Size 200 250 12.5 25 0 -1 Lift -2 -3 -4 -5 0 50 100 150 % of Base Size 200 250 0 12.5 25

Drag

Figure 17 Influence of mesh quality in drag and lift force values

11

Regarding to the wall Y+ it is a non-dimensional distance similar to local Reynolds number and in CFD describes how fine a mesh is for a particular flow. It represents the ratio between the laminar and turbulent influences in a cell (Ariff et al., 2009). The following figure show the value of wall Y+ of two mesh qualities of the 25 backlight angle configuration which is the model who gives the best aerodynamic efficiency.
100% base size mesh
70 60 50

200% base size mesh

Wall Y+

40 30 20 10

0
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 Position 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35

Figure 18 Wall Y+ The figure shows different values at the rear of the body for the different mesh qualities. Where the velocity fluctuations are big, the turbulence rapidly increases due to the large gradients in mean velocity. However, when the flow travels close to the wall the viscous damping and kinematic blockage reduces the velocity fluctuations. Finally, the values of Y+ around 30 are more desirable for wall cells while values of around 1 are more desirable for near wall cells.

CONCLUSION The main conclusions drawn by the data of these simulations are the following. The underbody pressure is highly affected by the diffuser angle. Different configurations of ride height give different values of underbody pressure coefficient but without change the overall underbody pressure distribution. Decrease the ride height produces an increment in the downforce of any model thanks to the less cross section available. However, the increment of downforce stops when a small ground clearance makes the influence of the fluid viscosity too high. Increase the diffuser angle produces an increment in the flow under the body due to the diffuser pumping effect. This produces a decrease of the underbody pressure and consequently an increase on generated downforce. If the backlight angle is smaller than around 20, the flow remains attached longer to the backlight surface which leads to a reduction in drag. If the backlight angle becomes bigger, the unfavourable pressure gradient causes flow separation and therefore increases the drag. Therefore there is an optimum backlight angle to minimise the drag on a bluff body. The underbody pressure distribution is almost unaffected by modifications on the top surface of a bluff body.
12

CFD setups must be carefully selected since they importantly affect the obtained results.

REFERENCES 1. A. Yamada and S. Ito, Computational Analysis of Flow Around a Simplified Vehicle-Like Body, SAE 930293 2. Ahmed, S.R., Ramm, G. and Faltin, G. (1984). Some Salient Features of the Time-Averaged Ground Vehicle Wake. SAE 840300 3. Ariff, M., Salim, S. M. And Cheah, S. C. (2009). Wall Y+ approach for dealing with turbulent flow over a surface mounted cube. Part 2: High Reynolds Number. Seventh International Conference on CFD in the Minerals and Process Industries. CSIRO, 9-11 December. Melbourne. 4. Christoffersen, L., Sderblom, D., Lofdahl, L., Hill, R. and Kerr, L (2011). Wing-Diffuser Interaction on a Sports Car. SAE 2011-01-1433 5. Cooper, K. R, Bertenyi, T., Dutil, G., Syms, J. And Sovran, G. (1998). The Aerodynamic Performance of Automotive Underbody Diffusers. SAE 980030 6. Le Good, G. M. And Garry, K. P. (2004). On the Use of Reference Models in Automotive Aerodynamics. SAE 2004-01-1308 7. Williams, J., Quinlan, W.J., Hackett, J.E., Thompson, S.A., Marinaccio, T. and Robertson, A. (1994). A Calibration Study of CFD for Automotive Shapes and CD. SAE 940323 CONTACT Please feel free to contact me. I will be very eager to assist in orienting others wishing to acquire fast understanding of the topics discussed in this paper. David Ojea Cerradelo 10098728@brookes.ac.uk

DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS Here is the Definitions section. This is an optional section. RH: Ride Height Cp: Pressure Coefficient CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics

13

APPENDIX Appendix 1

14

Appendix 2
| +-1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Mesh 1 | | | | | +-1 Models | +-1 Polyhedral Mesher | | | +-2 Prism Layer Mesher | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-3 Surface Remesher | | | | | | | `-4 Surface Wrapper | | | +-2 Reference Values | +-1 Base Size | +-2 Automatic Surface Repair | | | | | +-1 Minimum Proximity | | `-2 Minimum Quality | +-3 CAD Projection | +-4 Number of Prism Layers | +-5 Prism Layer Stretching | +-6 Prism Layer Thickness | | `-1 Relative Size | | | +-7 Surface Curvature | +-8 Surface Growth Rate | +-9 Surface Proximity | | | +-10 Surface Size | | | | | +-1 Relative Minimum Size | | | | | `-2 Relative Target Size | | | +-11 Tet/Poly Density | | | +-12 Tet/Poly Volume Blending | +-13 Wrapper Feature Angle | `-14 Wrapper Scale Factor `-3 Volumetric Controls OOC translation Verbose Output Per-Region Meshing Interpolation Option Interfaces Regions Run Optimizer Include Refinement Stretching mode Gap Fill Percentage Minimum Thickness Percentage Layer Reduction Percentage Boundary March Angle Concave Angle Limit Convex Angle Limit Generate Standard Cells Only Improve Subsurface Quality Do curvature refinement Do proximity refinement Minimum face quality Enable automatic surface repair Do curvature refinement Do proximity refinement Do gap closure Do wrapper mesh alignment Value Connected surface count limit Connected surface size limits Minimum Proximity Minimum Quality Project to CAD Number of Prism Layers Prism Layer Stretching Size type Percentage of Base Absolute Size # Pts/circle Surface Growth Rate # Points in gap Search Floor Relative/Absolute Size Method Percentage of Base Absolute Size Percentage of Base Absolute Size Density Growth Factor Blending Factor Angle Percentage false false false Nearest neighbour [] [Assembly 1.Body1] true false Stretch Factor 25.0 10.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 360.0 false true true true 0.05 true true false false false 0.0030 m None None 0.05 0.01 true 3 1.2 Relative to base 115.0 0.0034500000000000004 m 36.0 1.3 2.0 0.0 m Relative to base Min and Target 25.0 7.5E-4 m 100.0 0.0030 m 1.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 50.0

15

Appendix 3
| `-2 Physics 1 | | | +-1 Models | | +-1 Constant Density | | +-2 Gas | | | `-1 Air | | | `-1 Material Properties | | | +-1 Density | | | | `-1 Constant | | | `-2 Dynamic Viscosity | | | `-1 Constant | | +-3 K-Epsilon Turbulence | | +-4 Realizable K-Epsilon TwoLayer | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-5 Reynolds-Averaged NavierStokes | | +-6 Segregated Flow | | | | | | | | +-7 Steady | | +-8 Three Dimensional | | +-9 Turbulent | | `-10 Two-Layer All y+ Wall Treatment | +-2 Reference Values | | +-1 Min. Allowable Wall Distance | | `-2 Reference Pressure | `-3 Initial Conditions | +-1 Pressure | | `-1 Constant | +-2 Turbulence Intensity | | `-1 Constant | +-3 Turbulence Specification | +-4 Turbulent Length Scale | | `-1 Constant | +-5 Turbulent Velocity Scale | | `-1 Constant | `-6 Velocity | | | `-1 Constant Interfaces Regions [] [Assembly 1.Body1]

Database Material Method Value Method Value Two-Layer Type Normal Stress Term Two-Layer ReY* Two-Layer Delta ReY Secondary Gradients Convection Buoyancy Production of Dissipation Cmu C1e C2e Ct Sigma_k Sigma_e Sarkar Tke Minimum Tdr Minimum

Air (Air) [Standard/Gases] Constant 1.18415 kg/m^3 Constant 1.85508E-5 Pa-s Shear Driven (Wolfstein) false 60.0 10.0 On 2nd-order Boundary Layer Orientation 0.09 1.44 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 2.0 1.0E-10 1.0E-10

Minimum Absolute Pressure Secondary Gradients Convection

1000.0 Pa On 2nd-order

Value Value Method Value Method Value Method Method Value Method Value Coordinate System Method Value 16

1.0E-6 m 101325.0 Pa Constant 0.0 Pa Constant 0.03 Intensity + Length Scale Constant 0.01 m Constant 1.0 m/s Laboratory Constant [25.0, 0.0, 0.0] m/s

Appendix 4

0 and 10 mm Ride Height

1,5 1 0,5 Underbody Cp 0 0 -0,5 -1 -1,5 -2 -2,5 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35

Class Test
CFD Cp

Position

0 and 20 mm Ride Height

1,5 1 0,5

Underbody Cp

0
0 -0,5 -1 -1,5 -2 -2,5 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 Class Test CFD

Position

17

10 and 10 mm Ride Height

1,5

1
0,5 0 0 -0,5 -1 -1,5 -2 -2,5 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 Class Test CFD

Underbody Cp

Position

10 and 20 mm Ride Height

1,5 1 0,5 0 ,000 -0,5 -1 -1,5 -2 -2,5 ,05000 ,1000 ,15000 ,2000 ,25000 ,3000 ,35000 Class Test CFD

Underbody Cp

Position

18

Appendix 5

19