2001-01-2990
Experimental and Computational Modeling of the
Aerodynamics of a Racecar
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Wichita State University
Copyright © 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
The aerodynamics of a typical Le Mans configuration is
investigated numerically and experimentally. The purpose of
the investigation has been to gain a better understanding of the
aerodynamic characteristics of such configurations in extreme
off-design conditions. Computational modeling is performed
with a low-order panel method, while flow visualization is
accomplished with dye injection in a water tunnel using a 1/24-
scale model. At low angles of attack, excellent agreement is
shown between the streamline patterns observed experimentally
and those predicted computationally, despite the large
differences in Reynolds numbers. Experimental results indicate
presence of attached boundary layers over a large part of the car
at very high angles of attack. Furthermore, strong vortical
structures are detected around sharp edges of lower part of the
car at these extreme attitudes. It is postulated that these flow
characteristics assist the catastrophic departure of these vehicles
once they separate from the track.
INTRODUCTION
Racecar aerodynamics has evolved into an important technology
that often makes the difference between success and failure on
the racetrack. Today all serious racecars are tested in wind
tunnels with the well-funded teams spending significant time
and money in continuous development. However, due to the
highly competitive nature of the sport, individual teams closely
guard their results. Consequently, little is information is
available in the open literature on such efforts.
As speeds have increased gradually over the years, reliance on
ground effect in maintaining traction has become the
cornerstone of many designs. It is not unusual to see a
configuration in which the negative lift generated by the body at
racing speeds approaches or even surpasses the vehicle weight1.
In an effort to maximize the ground effect, little attention is paid
to off-design behavior of the configuration, especially in those
cases where the car separates from the track. Consequently, loss
of ground effect during a race can have catastrophic
consequences.
In recent years, a few accidents have pointed out the necessity
for a closer examination of these configurations outside of their
operational envelope. During the 1999 Le Mans 24-hour race, a
Robert E. Atkinson and Kamran Rokhsaz
Mercedes CLR separated from the track and assumed an
extreme pitch attitude leading to a catastrophic take off2. This
accident was similar to another with a Porsche GT1 at the 1998
Petit Le Mans at Road Atlanta3. These types of incidents clearly
show the unusual aerodynamic characteristics of these vehicles
in off design conditions.
Parallel with increased popularity of wind tunnel testing, over
the past two decades, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has
assumed a more significant role in analyzing the aerodynamics
of road vehicles4, 5. Development of low-cost robust computer
codes along with innovations in desktop computing has made
CFD solution more accessible to the technical community.
Examples of such low-order three-dimensional panel codes
include Personal Simulation Works (PSW) that is supported by
AeroLogic6. These techniques have proven invaluable in
determining the effects of configuration changes quickly and
efficiently during the design phase. However, the same methods
can also be used to explore the off-design characteristics of
these configurations as well.
In the present paper, results are shown from a simple study in
which the aerodynamic characteristics of a typical racecar in
extreme pitch attitude are examined. Specific attention is paid
to the nature of the flow over the car outside of the ground
effect, especially at high angles of attacks. Attention is also
drawn to vortical structures that develop on the lower sides of
the car when placed at such attitudes.
A 4,200-panel model of the typical configuration is used for
estimating the surface pressure distribution and streamline
pattern over the car. These streamline patterns are examined
and compared with those obtained via flow visualization in a
water tunnel.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Computational Method
The panel code used for the present analysis was originally
developed at NASA Ames Research Center under the name of
PMARC7 (Panel Method of Ames Research Center). The
original code, developed in FORTRAN, lacked the flexibility of
dynamic memory allocation. Therefore, the code was converted
into C language and labeled CMARC. The new code that can
be executed on a personal computer has been supported since by
AeroLogic6 as the analysis module of the PSW.
In CMARC, the potential flow solution is obtained by modeling
the geometry with a collection of quadrilateral panels of uniform
source and doublet distributions, constituting a low-order
method. The wakes of lifting bodies are modeled with doublet
panels whose strengths are related to those on the surface
through the Kutta condition. The code allows specifying
porosity on select panels as part of the input. Therefore, inlets
and exhaust areas that constitute holes in the geometry surface
can also be modeled. From the potential flow solution, the code
can estimate the position and the shape of any surface
streamline passing through a predefined panel.
Boundary layer analysis is performed along user-specified
streamlines using momentum integral techniques. The laminar
portion of the boundary layer is modeled with a modified
Thwaites’ method. Transition points are identified through
correlation of the local Reynolds number based on momentum
thickness and the local pressure gradient. Turbulent boundary
layers are analyzed using the method of Nash and Hicks8. No
action is taken in the code to modify the potential flow solution
for viscous effects.
The viscous flow modeling employed by the code, being two-
dimensional, is expected to break down in regions of severe
cross-flow. Such regions abound on a racecar where aspect
ratios are small, the surface is composed of compound curves,
and there are many fittings and sharp corners that can trip
boundary layers. Therefore, the results of the boundary layer
analysis performed by the code can be used only qualitatively at
best. Furthermore, since this study focused on high angles of
attack, large regions of separated boundary layers were present
in the flow. Consequently, no reliable force data could be
obtained with this method.
Computational Model
A typical Le Mans category racecar was modeled for the
purpose of the present study. Figure 1 shows the configuration
and its grid distribution. The geometry was represented with
approximately 4,200 quadrilateral panels.
The numerical model included as much detail as possible.
Nevertheless, certain elements of the geometry had to be
approximated. These included the wheels that were modeled as
extensions of the lower surface, without any gap between the
tire and the car body. No attempt was made to model details
such as the recess at the base of the windshield, rear-view
mirrors, and gaps in the body surface. Air intake and exhaust
ports could be modeled with panels of user-defined porosity.
However, such modeling was not used for the purpose of
accurate comparison with the experimental results.
The code could account for the ground effect using the method
of images, without generating additional panels. Typical run
times were of the order of 5 minutes on a personal computer
with 128MB RAM and a 733 MHz Pentium III processor.
2
Figure 1: Grid distribution on a generic racecar.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
Test Facility
The work described here was performed in the water tunnel at
the National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR), located on
the campus of Wichita State University (WSU). This facility is
a closed-loop horizontal tunnel containing approximately 3,500
gallons of water. The clear test section, visible from five
directions, is 2-ft deep, 3-ft high, and 6-ft long. A 2.5-ft segment
with constant cross sectional area connects the test section to the
diffuser. This section can also be used as an extension of the
test section. Water speed can be varied from 0.05 ft/s to 1.0 ft/s
with very low levels of turbulence. However, the flow speeds of
0.2 to 0.6 ft/s result in the least amount of turbulence.
The majority of the runs used for the current research were
made at tunnel speeds of 0.5 ft/s, corresponding to a Reynolds
number of approximately 50,000 per foot. The lowest level of
free stream turbulence was visually observed in the
neighborhood of this speed, which also corresponded to the
lowest tunnel vibration levels measured with an accelerometer
in an earlier experiment. Flow visualization was performed by
dye injection on the surface of the model. Figure 2 shows the
schematic of this facility.
The model was mounted on a C-strut that protruded into the
flow from the top surface. The strut allowed controlling the
model orientation in pitch and in yaw. Pitch attitudes from –45
degrees to +60 degrees could be attained. However, only
positive pitch angles were used in the present study. Yaw angle
could be varied over ± 45 .
Water Tunnel Model
The water tunnel model was composed of a 1/24-scale model of
the car. The model was fitted with 7 dye ports on the top and 6
ports on the bottom for flow visualization. The dye ports were
flush mounted and all were located symmetrically to allow
detecting any asymmetry due to unintended yaw. The model
 Test Section
Figure 2: Schematic view of the WSU/NIAR water tunnel.
was mounted on the tunnel C-strut and placed near the center of
the test section.
All inlet ports to the model were blocked to prevent flow
through the model. Likewise, the recess at the bottom of the
windscreen was filled to provide a smooth transition between
the hood and the glass. The wheel wells were left open and the
suspension parts were exposed to the flow.
Flow Visualization
For flow visualization, food coloring was injected next to the
surface through the dye ports mounted on the model. The dye
lines were embedded inside the model with openings on the
surface at specific points. Dye flow rates were maintained at a
minimum in order to avoid altering the natural boundary layer
flow over the model. In those cases where the dye ports were
not in the desired position, dye injection was accomplished
using an external wand. This method proved invaluable for
establishing the surface streamline pattern on the model prior to
installation of the dye lines inside the mode. Also, prior
experience had shown that the points on the model from which
vortex filament emanate depend on angle of attack. Therefore,
these flow structures were visualized only with the aid of the
wand.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
On the one hand, the low magnitude of the Reynolds number in
the water tunnel was of considerable concern in accurate
modeling of the flow. On the other hand, the solution obtained
from the panel method lacked all viscous effects. In order to
alleviate these concerns, streamline patterns obtained from the
two methods were compared, as shown in Figure 3. Several
points are highlighted in this figure. First, the geometric
similarity between the computational and the experimental
3
Figure 3: Comparison of the streamlines obtained
computationally and experimentally.
models is quite evident. Secondly, it is quite obvious from this
figure that the two flow fields agreed very well, even in those
areas containing large amounts of turbulent flow. Therefore, the
computational model could be used for better understanding of
the flow field in those areas where flow visualization was not
available. Finally, it was interesting to observe that the viscous
layer remained attached over most of the body, despite the
presence of many sharp corners that tripped the boundary layers.
No reverse flow was observed near the surface, except for
regions near the very back of the car, which would indicate
boundary layer separation. Nonetheless, neither method was
capable of producing quantitative data regarding the
aerodynamic coefficients. Experimentally, the low values of
dynamic pressure made such measurements impractical, while
the computational model could not account for the strong
viscous effects. However, the authors believed that the
combination of the two methods could provide significant
insight into the details of the flow around the configuration.
The influence of ground effect could only be examined
numerically. The proximity to the ground plane would not
influence the streamline pattern on the model as much as it
would affect the pressure distribution. Figure 4 shows the top
surface pressure distribution with and without the ground plane.
The reader is cautioned that in this figure not all surface panels
are visible due to problems with the post-processing package.
The model with the ground effect was characterized with much
higher pressures on the top surface, as was expected. The
downward lift generated by the model without the ground effect
was only 40% of that created in the presence of the ground
plane. Therefore, it was logical to expect that any loss of
contact with the track would result in a sudden decrease in
traction, and potentially unintended flight of the vehicle.
Experimental investigation indicated an absence of separated
boundary layers on the top surface of the configuration, even at
very large angles of attack. The sequence of Figures 5(a)
through 5(c) shows attached boundary layer flow over the model
at pitch attitudes reaching 30 degrees. For Figure 5(a), dye was
released from the center location on the hood. The resulting
streamline remained attached until encountering the inlet duct
above the windscreen. For Figures 5(b) and 5(c), only the dye
ports on both sides of this inlet were used (see Figure 4). At no
 (a) with ground effect
(b) without ground effect
Figure 4: Top surface pressure distribution with and
without ground effect.
point, reversed flow near the surface, indicating boundary layer
separation was observed on the model, except on a small region
behind the top inlet duct. In actual operation, a considerable
amount of air flows through this duct, which was plugged for
the purpose of these tests. This flow relieves some of the local
adverse pressure gradient, rendering the separated-flow region
even smaller.
The persistent attached flow was deemed unusual in light of the
very low values of Reynolds number. However, computational
results indicated a region of accelerated flow near the rear side
(a) 15-degree pitch
(b) 25-degree pitch
4
(c) 30-degree pitch
Figure 5: Effect of pitch attitude on boundary layers.
on the top surface at large angles of attack. This flow was
characterized with contracting streamlines in this region
depicted in Figure 6. It is believed that the resulting strong
favorable pressure gradient in that region kept the boundary
layers attached at extreme angles of attack. Such flow fields
guarantee lift generation well beyond ordinary pitch attitudes.
The streamline pattern shown in Figure 6 suggested the
possibility of flow wrapping around the side of the car at high
incidence angles. This type of flow pattern had the potential of
forming strong streamwise vortex filaments that would emanate
from the sharp corners on the lower side of car, finding their
ways to the top and aiding in lift generation at high angles of
attack. Therefore, the streamlines pattern on the side of the
configuration at high incidence angles was also studied. The
case shown in Figure 7 clearly demonstrated the flow wrapping
around the lower side edge of the car at such attitude.
(a) level attitude
(b) 15-degree pitch
Figure 6: Effect of pitch attitude on streamline pattern.

Figure 7: Streamline pattern on the side panels at 15 degrees
angle of attack.
Expectedly, no vortex filament was modeled by the inviscid
flow solution, but the presence of this type of vortical flow
structure was experimentally verified, as indicated in Figure 8.
In this case, because of the absence of dye ports at proper
locations on the model, flow visualization was accomplished
with the aid of the dye wand.
The cases shown in Figures 7 and 8 were generated without a
ground plane. It would be logical any ground effect would
magnify these phenomena. Furthermore, although not observed
experimentally on this model, it is possible for some of these
vortex filaments to find their ways up over the top of the car at
high angles of attack, as indicated by the numerical model. This
behavior would lead to persistent lift generation well past
attitudes that should result in aerodynamic stall.
The above situation can be aggravated further if the
configuration is equipped with a splitter plate. The model used
for most of the experimental investigation reported above lacked
a splitter plate. However, on many racecars this device is used
to gain better ground effect.
Generally, the splitter plate is a relatively thin sheet mounted
under the front of the car, extending some distance ahead of the
nose. If the car encounters a high incidence angle,
Figure 8: Vortex filament emanating from the corner of the
wheel well.
5
Figure 9: A vortex filament emanating from the edge of a
sliptter plate.
this plate can act as a vortex generator, similar to aircraft
leading edge extensions. Again, the resulting streamwise vortex
filaments, if convected over the top surface, can keep the
boundary layers attached over the body at extreme pitch
attitudes. Figure 9 show a typical vortex filament emanating
from a simulated splitter plate.
These results, however exploratory, clearly demonstrate the
undesirable characteristics of a well-designed racecar in off-
design attitudes. It is evident that a configuration optimized for
maximum aerodynamic efficiency, which includes strong
ground effect, tends to act as a wing of small aspect ratio once
separated from the ground plane. For the safety, of the occupant
and of the other participants, it may be adviseable to consider
adding active devices to destroy organized flow structures in
such events.
CONCLUSIONS
An exploratory investigation of the aerodynamic characteristics
of a typical Le Mans class racecar was presented, in an effort to
better understand its behavior in off-design attitudes. Primary
emphasis was placed on extreme pitch orientations outside of
the ground effect. Results from a combination of computational
and experimental modeling were shown. Computational
modeling was performed with a low-order panel method, while
flow visualization was accomplished with dye injection in a
water tunnel using a 1/24-scale model.
Streamline patterns obtained from the two methods agreed very
well at small angles of attack, despite the large differences in
Reynolds numbers. Experimental results indicated the presence
of attached boundary layers over a large part of the car at very
high angles of attack. Computational results suggested this
behavior to be due to the favorable pressure gradient over the
upper surface at high incidence angles.
The computational model suggested the formation of
streamwise vortex filaments emanating from the sharp corners
of the lower sides of the car. Flow visualization confirmed
strong vortical structures around sharp edges of lower part of the
car at extreme pitch attitudes, which are believed to be even
stronger in close proximity to the ground.
It was suggested that these flow patterns could assist the
catastrophic flight of the vehicle if it separated from the track. It
was recommended to consider employing active lift-destroying
devices as integral parts of these configurations.

REFERENCES

1. Dominy, R.G., Ryan,A., and Sims-Williams, D.B., “The

Aerodynamic Stability of a Le Mans Prototype Race Car
Under Off-Design Pitch Conditions”, SAE Paper 2000-01-
0872.
2. West, T., “The Compleat Great Gawk – A Gentleman’s
Guide to Staring at Le Mans,” Road & Track, Vol. 51, No.
1, September 1999, pp.130-134.
3. Mitchel, K., “Ferrari Takes Road Atlanta 10-Hour Petit Le
Mans: Record Crowd Witnesses Violent Crash,” The
Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Oct. 11, 1998, pp. E10.
4. Katz, Joseph, “New Directions in Race Car Aerodynamics”,
Robert Bentlry, Inc., 1995.
5. Hiu, T. W., “Modern Panel Methods in Vehicle
Aerodynamics: Formula-One Cars and Trains,” Advances
in Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 11, Edited by H. Schmitt,
Computational Mechanics Publications, 1977, pp. 35-72.
6. Garison, P. and Pinella, D. F., Personal Simulation Works
Users Manual, AeroLogic, Los Angeles, CA, 1998.
7. Ashby, D. L., Dudley, M. R., Iguchi, S. K., Browne, L., and
Katz, J., “Potential Flow Theory and Operation Guide for
the Panel Code PMARC_12,” NASATM-102851, January
1991.
8. Nash, J. F. and Hicks, J. G., “Integral Method Including the
Effect of Upstream History on the Turbulent Shear Stress,”
Computation of Turbulent Boundary Layers, Vol. 1,
Proceedings of the AFOSR-IFP-Stanford Conference,
Stanford University Press, 1969.