Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Computational Analysis of a
Inverted Double-Element Airfoil
in Ground Effect
Xin Zhang
Professor
Aerospace Engineering,
School of Engineering Sciences,
University of Southampton,
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
The flow around an inverted double-element airfoil in ground effect was studied numerically, by solving the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations. The predictive capabilities of six turbulence models with regards to the surface pressures, wake flow field,
and sectional forces were quantified. The realizable k model was found to offer improved predictions of the surface pressures and wake flow field. A number of ride heights
were investigated, covering various force regions. The surface pressures, sectional forces,
and wake flow field were all modeled accurately and offered improvements over previous
numerical investigations. The sectional forces indicated that the main element generated
the majority of the downforce, whereas the flap generated the majority of the drag. The
near field and far field wake development was investigated and suggestions concerning
reduction of the wake thickness were offered. The main element wake was found to
greatly contribute to the overall wake thickness with the contribution increasing as the
ride height decreased. DOI: 10.1115/1.2353268
Introduction
grid used was extremely coarse compared to current computational investigations 68 in which grids typically contain of the
order of 200,000 cells. The variation of the sectional forces with
ride height was presented in conjunction with vorticity contour
plots. The variation in sectional forces with ride height was captured accurately in addition to the force reduction phenomena.
Based on previous research 9,10 the force reduction phenomena
was attributed to the merging of the ground and airfoil boundary
layers.
In 1998 Jasinski and Selig 8 experimentally investigated an
inverted double-element wing in ground effect. The main element
and flap were specifically designed for the investigation and were
mounted in a single slotted configuration. The ground was stationary and impermeable during all investigations producing an unrealistic ground boundary layer. Both a two-dimensional wing and a
three-dimensional wing with endplates were tested. No data was
presented for the two-dimensional wing. Downforce results were
presented for various flap incidences and freestream velocities
Re= 0.7 106 to 1.3 106 for a fixed ride height of 0.3 of the
chord.
Most recently Zhang and Zerihan 11,12 presented experimental force data, surface flow field data and off-surface flow field
data for a generic inverted double-element wing in ground effect.
Tests were performed at Reynolds numbers ranging between
7.35 105 and 7.65 105 based on the total chord. The surface
pressures indicated that the majority of the downforce was generated by the main element. As with the previous investigations
performed by Zerihan 13 and Zerihan and Zhang 14,15 the
force reduction phenomena was attributed to the bursting of the
lower edge vortices and separation on the suction surfaces of the
wing. These findings are in contrast to the findings of Razenbach
and Barlow 5,9,10.
So far investigations into multielement wings in ground effect
have contributed to the general understanding of the flow physics.
With the exception of Razenbach et al. 5 all previous investigations have been experimental and utilized finite span wings. The
drive has been to investigate fully three-dimensional flows. However, the predictive capabilities of current computational techniques is such that two-dimensional investigations still pose a
high degree of difficulty. There has been a lack of computational
investigations into inverted multi-element airfoils in ground effect
indicating a void in understanding.
This investigation will computationally investigate an isolated
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
inverted double-element airfoil in ground effect. Due to the practical applications of inverted double-element wings within motorsport the flow field is significantly influenced by surrounding
bodywork, in particular the front wheels and chassis. However,
the current understanding of the flow field generated by an isolated double-element airfoil in ground effect is incomplete. Therefore, this investigation aims to provide a foundation upon which
further work may be conducted. In particular studies to quantify
the performance of an inverted double-element wing within a
practical application. This investigation with undertake quantitative comparisons with an isolated double-element airfoil in ground
effect previously studied experimentally 13. The influence of
individual turbulence models and grid resolution will be initially
assessed. Data will be quantitatively analyzed concerning the surface flow field, sectional forces, wake flow field, and their variation with ride height.
Numerical Method
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
The design of the supporting system utilized within the experimentation 13 was such that alterations in airfoil incidence were
observed between the static and wind-on situations. These alterations in airfoil incidence, due to flexing of the wing, were dependent on the forces generated by the wing and ranged between
0.67 deg and 1.87 deg. For a specific ride height the variation
in airfoil incidence and transition locations was taken into account
when designing the computational grid.
The computational boundary conditions were configured to replicate the experimental conditions. The upstream boundary was
modeled using a velocity inlet boundary condition. The corresponding inlet velocity was set at 30 m / s in a positive streamwise
direction. Turbulence within the flow was prescribed using values
of turbulence intensity and turbulent length scale. The turbulence
intensity and length scale within the 2.1 m 1.7 m wind tunnel
facility were experimentally quantified at 0.3% and 0.039 m, respectively, at a freestream velocity of 30 m / s. The variance within
the freestream velocity, turbulent length scale and turbulence intensity were experimentally quantified at 6.15 105, 9.98
103, and 4.82 104, respectively, using a hot wire technique.
A vertically uniform inlet condition was, therefore, prescribed.
The downstream boundary was modeled using a pressure outlet
boundary condition. The gauge pressure was set at zero. The
height of the upper edge of the domain above the simulated
ground plane corresponded to the height of the wind tunnel test
section. A slip wall boundary condition was imposed on the upper
edge, therefore, imposing a zero cross-flow condition and removing the requirement of additional boundary layer resolution. This
formulation was set in order to replicate the experimental conditions imposed by the roof of the wind tunnel test section. The
surfaces of the airfoil and ground were modeled as solid walls
with a no-slip condition enforced. The ground surface was provided with a translational velocity equal to freestream. Further
details concerning the design of the moving ground facility within
the 2.1 m 1.7 m wind tunnel facility may be found in the work
of Burgin et al. 24.
Prior to the final steady-state simulations the dependency of the
solution on the resolution of the grid was investigated. A grid
sensitivity study was performed at a ride height of h / c = 0.211
with the airfoil at the reference incidence. Three grids were constructed: A coarse grid of 184,335 cells, a medium grid of 380,812
cells and a fine grid of 846,317 cells. Turbulence was modeled
using the realizable k model with all three grids. The surface
pressures and wake profiles at x / c = 1.066 for all three grids are
presented in Fig. 3. Very little variation in the results was observed. Although steady-state simulation were performed it was
noted that with the fine grid unsteady features were detected, especially within the wake flow field. These effects were periodic
and are illustrated in the wake profile for the fine grid between
y / c = 0.06 and 0.06. Due to the presence of these temporal unsteady flow features the fine grid resolution was not applicable
within the context of this investigation. Therefore, in all simulations the coarse grid resolution was used in order to reduce the
computational cost while maintaining a valid steady state solution.
Results
3.1 Turbulence Models. A quantitative study of the six turbulence models previously stated, was conducted. Two cases were
selected h / c = 0.211 and 0.079. h / c = 0.211 represents a flow
condition where the ride height of the airfoil is within the force
enhancement region 12 and a thin dual wake flow field is observed. At h / c = 0.079 the airfoil is close to maximum downforce
and a thick main element wake is observed in addition to the thin
flap wake. From this point on the main element and flap wakes
will be referred to as the lower and upper wakes, respectively. The
suitability of each turbulence model was quantitatively assessed
using the surface flow features and wake characteristics.
At h / c = 0.211 Fig. 4a all the turbulence models accurately
1174 / Vol. 128, NOVEMBER 2006
Fig. 3 Effect of grid resolution a surface pressure distributions and b wake profiles at x / c = 1.066
captured the surface pressures over both the main element and
flap. The leading edge stagnation pressures C Pstag on the main
element and flap were correctly predicted by all turbulence models at streamwise location of x / c = 0.009 and x / c = 0.567, respectively. The streamwise location of the suction peak was found to
be independent of turbulence model, occurring at x / c = 0.11 in this
configuration. The term suction peak refers to the value of maximum downforce downstream of the leading edge suction spike as
illustrated in Fig. 3. The quantitative features of the surface pressures predicted by each turbulence model at h / c = 0.211 are listed
in Table 1.
Unlike the surface pressures variations were observed in the
prediction of the velocity profile of the wake at x / c = 1.066 Fig.
4b. The experiential data presented was obtained by Zhang and
Zerihan 12 using laser doppler anemometry LDA techniques.
The agreement between the computational results and the experimental measurements within the core of the wake was poor for all
six turbulence models. The agreement between the results obtained with each turbulence model however, was good. All the
turbulence models accurately predicted the velocity profile between the ground plane and the lower boundary of the lower
wake. It may be noted that towards the ground plane the nondimensional velocity u / U decreases to approximately 0.89 then
sharply increases to a value of unity. Since the ground plane is
provided with a freestream velocity this trend seems incorrect.
However, it must be remembered that the airfoil generates an
adverse streamwise pressure gradient due to the recovery of the
flow beneath the suction surface. This in turn generates a boundTransactions of the ASME
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 4 Effects of turbulence models a surface pressures at h / c = 0.211, b wake profiles at x / c1.066 for
h / c = 0.211, c surface pressures at h / c = 0.079, and d wake profiles at x / c1.066 for h / c = 0.079
x / c at C Psuc
C Psuc
Experimental
Spalart-Allmaras
k SST
Standard k
k RNG
Realizable k
Standard k
0.08
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
4.48
4.96
4.95
4.93
4.94
4.91
4.93
Table 2 Wake profile information at x / c = 1.066 for various turbulence models; h / c = 0.221
umin / U
y / c at umin / U
y / c at
99 / c
Turbulence
Model
Low
Top
Conf
Low
Top
Conf
Low
Top
Low
Top
Experimental
Spalart-Allmaras
k SST
Standard k
k RNG
Realizable k
Standard k
0.69
0.67
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.60
0.60
0.79
0.64
0.64
0.66
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.99
1.02
1.01
0.97
1.02
1.03
1.03
0.150
0.113
0.113
0.111
0.111
0.112
0.112
0.200
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.185
0.153
0.147
0.147
0.151
0.149
0.149
0.126
0.082
0.084
0.078
0.078
0.080
0.080
0.205
0.182
0.182
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.184
0.059
0.071
0.063
0.069
0.073
0.069
0.069
0.020
0.029
0.035
0.037
0.033
0.035
0.035
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
3.3 Sectional Forces. The calculated sectional forces generated by the airfoil at various ride heights are presented in Fig.
6a. Experimental sectional forces, calculated from the measured
surface pressures are also shown. The overall trend in sectional
downforce CL variation with ride height was captured. The overprediction of the surface pressures with the realizable k model
resulted in overpredictions within the sectional downforce. Variations within the downforce trends were observed at h / c = 0.105
caused by the removal of the laminar zone, since transition was
found to occur immediately at the main element leading edge. The
greatest discrepancies between the computational and experimental data was 15% at h / c = 0.132.
The variation of the downforce, generated solely by the main
element CLm and flap CLf , with ride height is shown in Fig.
6b. It is clear that the majority of the downforce is generated by
the main element which varies similarly to the overall downforce
with ride height. The percentage of total downforce due to the
main element increased asymptotically as the ride height was reduced from h / c = 0.395, until a maximum of approximately 84%
was reached at h / c = 0.079. Decreasing the ride height from h / c
= 0.395 to 0.132 caused the downforce generated by the flap to
increase linearly. Further decreases in ride height resulted in the
flap downforce decreasing until a minimum ride height was
achieved. Similar downforce variations with ride height were observed experimentally 11.
3.4 Flow Between Airfoil and Ground. Figure 7 presents
line contours of relative streamwise velocity u / U for h / c
Transactions of the ASME
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 6 Sectional forces at various ride heights a total downforce b downforce due to the main element and flap
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 8 Streamwise development of main element wake thickness at various ride heights; realizable k
dicted for h / c = 0.395 and overpredicted for h / c = 0.079. The profile of the wall jet and associated velocities was captured well for
all ride heights, however the lower wake boundary was
underpredicted.
The velocity deficit within the lower wake was overpredicted
for all ride heights however, the rate of velocity recovery was
captured accurately. Decreases in ride height resulted in the velocity deficit increasing and the lower boundary of the lower wake
Discussion
The circulation around the main element was increased with the
addition of the flap Fig. 3. This was observed as increased suction on the lower surface and increased pressure on the upper
surface. The pressure recovery over the suction surface of the
main element remained constant. Smith 1 described the influence of a flap through five effects of which circulation effects and
dumping effects were observable in the surface pressures.
A jet flow between the lower boundary of the lower wake and
the ground plane was observed, especially at low ride heights
h / c = 0.079. It is well documented that flows with large mean
strain rates, such as jets, are difficult to model using turbulence
models. The method adopted by the realizable k model is to
calculate the eddy viscosity locally, therefore, allowing the model
to remain realizable even in regions of large mean strain rates.
Shih et al. 21 has shown that this modification results in a much
improved simulations of jet flows in particular the spreading rates.
It could, therefore, be hypothesized that improved simulations of
the jet flow resulted in improved simulations of the lower boundary of the lower wake.
The channel created between the suction surfaces of the airfoil
and the ground plane resembles a venturi nozzle. The flow entering between the main element leading edge and the ground plane
is, therefore, initially accelerated until the throat of the nozzle the
lowest point on the main element suction surface then decelerTransactions of the ASME
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
y / c at umin / U
y / c at
99 / c
h/c
Expt/CFD
Low
Top
Conf
Low
Top
Conf
Low
Top
Low
Top
0.395
Expt
Real k
Expt
Real k
Expt
Real k
0.72
0.64
0.66
0.60
0.58
0.34
0.74
0.65
0.76
0.65
0.80
0.70
0.93
0.98
0.96
1.03
0.99
1.08
0.164
0.140
0.150
0.112
0.134
0.105
0.203
0.195
0.200
0.172
0.192
0.184
0.190
0.174
0.184
0.149
0.180
0.165
0.136
0.105
0.124
0.080
0.102
0.050
0.217
0.215
0.207
0.184
0.198
0.192
0.054
0.069
0.060
0.069
0.078
0.115
0.027
0.041
0.023
0.035
0.013
0.027
0.211
0.105
y / c at umin / U
y / c at
99 / c
x/c
Expt/CFD
Low
Top
Conf
Low
Top
Conf
Low
Top
Low
Top
1.066
Expt
Real k
Expt
Real k
Expt
Real k
Expt
Real k
0.58
0.34
0.58
0.35
0.62
0.42
0.67
0.54
0.80
0.70
0.89
0.80
0.85
-
1.00
1.08
0.96
1.02
0.89
-
0.134
0.105
0.162
0.120
0.194
0.130
0.254
0.140
0.192
0.184
0.215
0.198
0.210
-
0.180
0.165
0.200
0.180
0.195
-
0.102
0.050
0.120
0.055
0.141
0.055
0.180
0.040
0.198
0.192
0.222
0.210
0.260
0.225
0.329
0.240
0.078
0.115
0.080
0.125
0.119
0.140
0.149
0.200
0.013
0.027
0.022
0.030
0.030
-
1.184
1.381
1.776
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Conclusion
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Honda Racing F1 for their
input and discussion, in particular Jonathan Zerihan and David
Jeffery. Stephen Mahon would like to dedicate this technical paper
to his late father Tony Mahon.
Nomenclature
c total chord, 380 mm
CL sectional lift coefficient, L / 1 U2c
2
C p coefficient of pressure, p p / 1 U2
2
C Pstag coefficient of pressure at the leading edge stagnation point
C Psuc coefficient of pressure at maximum suction
h ride height
L lift, positive indicates downforce, i.e., force in
a negative y-direction
p static pressure
Re Reynolds number, Uc /
t time
u , v , w streamwise, traverse and spanwise velocity
components
u mean streamwise velocity at x / c = 0.99 between the lower boundary of the lower wake
and the ground plane
uconf u velocity component at wake confluence point
ulow minimum u velocity component in lower wake
utop minimum u velocity component in upper wake
U freestream velocity
x , y Cartesian coordinates, x positive downstream,
y positive upwards
y + nondimensional length, yU /
Greek Symbols
incidence, positive for nose down rotation
g
low
o
top
99
flap gap
lower boundary of lower wake thickness
flap overlap
upper boundary of upper wake thickness
wake thickness as measured by 99% displacement thickness
viscosity
density
Subscripts
a
f
m
conf
low
top
airfoil
flap
main element
wake confluence point
lower wake
upper wake
freestream value
References
1 Smith, A. M. O., 1975, High-Lift Aerodynamics, J. Aircr., 126, pp. 501
530.
2 Agathangelou, B., and Gascoyne, M., 1998, Aerodynamic Design Considerations of a Formula 1 Racing Car, SAE Publication 980399.
3 Jeffrey, D., and Alperin, M., 2000, Aspects of the Aerodynamics of Year 2000
Formula One Racing Cars. 3rd Mira International Vehicle Aerodynamics Conference, 1819 October 2000, Rugby.
4 Maddah, S. R., and Bruun, H. H., 2002, An Investigation of Flow Fields over
Multi-element Aerofoils, J. Fluids Eng., 124, pp. 154165.
5 Ranzenbach, R., Barlow, J. B., and Diaz, R. H., 1997, Multi-Element Airfoil
in Ground EffectAn Experimental and Computational Study, AIAA Pap.
972238.
6 Rogers, S. E., 1994, Progress in High-lit Aerodynamic Calculations, J.
Aircr., 316, pp. 12441251.
7 Moitra, A., 2002, Automated CFD Analysis of Two-Dimensional High-Lift
Flows, J. Aircr., 394, pp. 662667.
8 Jasinski, W. J., and Selig, M. S., 1998, Experimental Study of Open-Wheel
Race Car Front Wings, SAE Publication 983042.
9 Ranzenbach, R., and Barlow, J. B., 1994, Two-Dimensional Airfoil in Ground
Effect, an Experimental and Computational Study, SAE Publication 942509.
10 Ranzenbach, R., and Barlow, J., 1996, Cambered Airfoil in Ground
EffectAn Experimental and Computational Study, SAE Publication
960909.
11 Zhang, X., and Zerihan, J., 2002, Aerodynamics of a Double Element Wing
in Ground Effect, AIAA Pap. 20020834.
12 Zhang, X., and Zerihan, J., 2003, Aerodynamics of a Double-Element Wing
in Ground Effect, AIAA J., 41, pp. 10071016.
13 Zerihan, J. D.C., 2001, An Investigation Into the Aerodynamics of Wings in
Ground Effect, PhD thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
14 Zerihan, J. D.C., and Zhang, X., 2000, Aerodynamics of a Single Element
Wing in Ground Effect, J. Aircr., 376, pp. 10581064.
15 Zerihan, J., and Zhang, X., 2001. A Single Element Wing in Ground Effect;
Comparisons of Experiments and Computation, AIAA Pap. 20010423.
16 Mahon, S., and Zhang, X., 2005. Computational Analysis of Pressure and
Wake Characteristics of an Aerofoil in Ground Effect, J. Fluids Eng., 1272,
pp. 290298.
17 Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R., 1992. A One-Equation Turbulence Model
For Aerodynamic Flows, AIAA Pap. 920439.
18 Launder, B. E., and Spalding, D. B., 1974, The Numerical Computation of
Turbulent Flows, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 3, pp. 269289.
19 Menter, F. R., 1994. Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for
Engineering Applications, AIAA J., 328, pp. 1598-1605.
20 Yakhot, A., and Orszag, S., 1986, Renormalization Group Analysis of Turbulence: I Basic Theory, J. Sci. Comput., 11, pp. 151.
21 Shih, T.-H., Liou, W. W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z., and Zhu, J., 1995, A New k Eddy Viscosity Model for High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows, Comput. Fluids, 24, pp. 227238.
22 Wilcox, D. C., 1988, Multiscale Models for Turbulent Flows, AIAA J.,
2611, pp. 13111320.
23 Czerwiec, R., Edwards, J. R., Rumsey, C. L., Bertelrud, A., and Hassan, H. A.,
2000, Study of High-Lift Configurations Using k Transition/Turbulence
Model, J. Aircr., 376, pp. 10081016.
24 Burgin, K., Adey, P. C., and Beatham, J. P., 1986, Wind Tunnel Tests on Road
Vehicle Models Using a Moving Belt Simulation of Ground Effect, J. Wind.
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 22, pp. 227236.
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm