Bsc. Aeronautical Engineering: Eae 4065 - Aerospace Project Ii

BSc.
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING
EAE 4065 – AEROSPACE PROJECT II
GROUP 3
Aerodynamic Brake
Date: 13/06/2019
Submitted by:
Farah Bader EAU0715367
Kenneth Sum EAU0815582
Terra Roleda EAU0815417
Supervisor: Dr. Raed Kafafy

EAE 4065 AEROSPACE PROJECT II GROUP 3
Abstract
This report focuses on the CFD Analysis and Wind Tunnel Testing drag force prediction on a
simplified sports car model with various spoiler configurations mounted at the rear end of the
vehicle. A total of five configurations were simulated on CFX and tested on an AF100 subsonic
wind tunnel in order to determine the behavior of the flow around the car body and its
aerodynamic effects.
The CFD Analysis of the car model with various spoiler configurations were performed on
CFX at three speed configurations, namely at 60, 140, and 160 kilometers per hour. The
respective velocity and pressure contours were acquired and discussed along with the values
for the lift and drag forces. The corresponding coefficients for lift and drag were also calculated
and discussed for each configuration and Reynolds number.
In addition, the car model was scaled down to a size suitable for wind tunnel testing and was
simulated inside a 300 x 300 x 600 mm subsonic wind tunnel test section at the maximum
allowable wind tunnel speed. In which, the respective contours for velocity and pressure were
presented and discussed accordingly.
Furthermore, a wooden wind tunnel car model was produced for wind tunnel testing and flow
visualization. Proper wind tunnel testing procedure was carried out prior to conducting the test
and the results obtained for the drag force and drag coefficient were compared to the findings
from CFD Analysis and were further discussed as well.
ii
Acknowledgement
We would like to extend our sincere thanks and respect to all the people who have provided us
an immeasurable amount of help and guidance throughout the course of this project.
First and foremost, our completion of this project would not have been accomplished without
the support of our instructor, Dr. Raed Kafafy. We would like to thank him for his leadership,
his guidance, his supervision and his encouragements throughout the year.
We would also like to thank Dr. Elham Tolouei for sparing her valuable time to be of assistance
to us.
We would also like to thank the assistance of Eng. Mohammed Khateeb for his willingness to
lend out a helping hand.
We would also like to extend our thanks to the highly-skilled carpenter who was able to create
and provide our group with an amazing model.
Furthermore, we would like to convey our heartfelt thanks and appreciation for our colleague
Abdulrahim Aliaz for his dedication and contribution to this project.
Last but not the least, our utmost gratitude to our colleagues, professors and families who have
inspired us to work hard and strive forward in finishing this project.
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Isometric view of the car model with simplified wheels............................................ 2
Figure 2: Side view of the car model with simplified wheels.................................................... 3
Figure 3: Top view of the car model with simplified wheels .................................................... 3
Figure 4: Front view of the car model with simplified wheels .................................................. 3
Figure 5: Isometric view of the geometry .................................................................................. 4
Figure 6: Geometry for 0º angle of attack for car wing ............................................................. 4
Figure 7: Front view of the car geometry .................................................................................. 5
Figure 8: Sectioned Boundary View of Car Geometry Set up................................................... 5
Figure 9: 3D Mesh for the car .................................................................................................... 5
Figure 10: Visual representation of the meshing options used for the car ................................. 6
Figure 11: 3D Mesh for the car inside a wind tunnel test section .............................................. 7
Figure 12: Setup done in CFX ................................................................................................... 7
Figure 13: Isometric view of the 3D configuration meshing for laminar and turbulent flow
simulation................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 14: AF 100 subsonic wind-tunnel................................................................................. 10
Figure 15: Schematic of the AF 100 subsonic wind-tunnel..................................................... 11
Figure 16: (From left) Smoke flow visualization over a sports car and an airfoil [2] ............. 12
Figure 17: (From left) Flow Visualization using China Clay and Tufts [2] ............................ 12
Figure 18: Small car reference model in 3D WOX software. .................................................. 17
Figure 19: Fore section of CAD car model. ............................................................................. 17
Figure 20: Aft section of CAD car model................................................................................ 18
Figure 21: CAD wing model with rod at 0° angle of attack .................................................... 18
Figure 22: Dimensions of the scaled down car model ............................................................. 19
Figure 23: 3D printed Reference Car Model ........................................................................... 20
Figure 24: Wooden Car Model with one of the spoiler configurations ................................... 20
Figure 25: Wooden Car model with a 15 degree spoiler configuration ................................... 20
Figure 26: Wind Tunnel Car Model with no spoiler................................................................ 21
Figure 27: Wind Tunnel Car Model with a retracted spoiler ................................................... 21
Figure 28: Wind Tunnel Car Model with a spoiler at 0 degrees .............................................. 21
Figure 29: Wind Tunnel Car Model with a spoiler at 15 degrees ............................................ 22
Figure 30: Wind Tunnel Car Model with a spoiler at 55 degrees ............................................ 22
Figure 31: NACA 0012 Finite Wing (3D Airfoil) Model........................................................ 23
Figure 32: Wind Tunnel Test Results for the NACA 0012 3D airfoil model.......................... 24
Figure 33: NACA 0012 airfoil data with an aspect ratio of 6 [8] ............................................ 25
Figure 34: Car model with no spoilers and tufts inside the test section of the wind tunnel .... 26
Figure 35: Car model inside the test section of the wind tunnel viewed from the inlet .......... 27
Figure 36: Car model with a retracted spoiler inside the wind tunnel test section .................. 27
Figure 37: Car model with a deployed rear wing at 0 degrees inside the test section (viewed
from the inlet) .......................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 38: Car model with a spoiler at 15 degrees inside the wind tunnel test section ........... 28
Figure 39: Car model with a spoiler at 55 degrees inside the wind tunnel test section ........... 28
Figure 40: Wind Tunnel Results for a car model without a spoiler ......................................... 29
iv
Figure 41: Wind Tunnel Results for a car model with retracted spoiler .................................. 29
Figure 42: Wind Tunnel Results for a car model with a spoiler deployed at 0 degrees .......... 30
Figure 43: Wind Tunnel Results for a car model with a spoiler deployed at 15 degrees ........ 30
Figure 44: Wind Tunnel Results for a car model with a spoiler deployed at 55 degrees ........ 31
Figure 45: Wind Tunnel Car Model with tufts ........................................................................ 32
Figure 46: (From left) Retracted, 0 degrees, 15 degrees and 55 degrees spoilers with tufts ... 33
Figure 47: Configuration 1 - Velocity Contour at 60 km/h ..................................................... 34
Figure 48: Configuration 1 - Pressure Contour at 60 km/h ..................................................... 35
Figure 49: Configuration 1 - Velocity Contour at 140 km/h ................................................... 35
Figure 50: Configuration 1 - Pressure Contour at 140 km/h ................................................... 36
Figure 58: Configuration 2 – Pressure Contour at 220 km/h ................................................... 40
Figure 64: Configuration 3 - Pressure contour at 220 km/h .................................................... 43
Figure 77: Frontal Area estimation of the car .......................................................................... 50
Figure 78: Graph of the Drag Coefficient vs. Car Configurations at Different Re ................. 52
Figure 79: Graph of the Lift Coefficient vs. Car Configurations at Different Re ................... 53
Figure 80: Graph of the Cl/Cd vs. Car Configurations at different Re .................................... 54
Figure 81: Graph of the lift coefficient vs. the drag coefficient .............................................. 55
Figure 82: Cd vs. the Reynolds number for each car configuration ........................................ 55
Figure 83: Configuration 1 – Wind Tunnel Pressure contour.................................................. 57
Figure 84: Configuration 1 – Wind Tunnel Velocity contour ................................................. 57
v

Figure 93: Graph of boundary layer variation across the wind tunnel .................................... 62
Figure 94: Graph of boundary layer height vs Velocity .......................................................... 62
Figure 95: Graph of boundary layer variation across the wind tunnel .................................... 63
Figure 96: Graph of boundary layer thickness ......................................................................... 63
Figure 97: Boundary Layer Velocity Contour ......................................................................... 64
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Dimensions of the enclosure at with respect to the axis direction ............................... 3
Table 2: Meshing Options used ................................................................................................. 6
Table 3: Boundary Conditions ................................................................................................... 8
Table 4: Settings for the Meshing Method ................................................................................ 9
Table 5: Settings for the boundaries .......................................................................................... 9
Table 6: Comparison of the methods for flow visualization.................................................... 13
Table 7: Estimated Boundary Layer Thickness, 𝛿99 .............................................................. 14
Table 8: Estimated Displacement Thickness, 𝛿 ∗ .................................................................... 14
Table 9: Weight, Time taken and estimated cost for the 3D reference model ......................... 16
Table 10: Weight, Time and Cost for each part for 3D printing.............................................. 18
Table 11: Average Wind Tunnel Results ................................................................................. 24
Table 12: Comparison of results for a NACA 0012 airfoil (finite wing) wind tunnel experiment
.................................................................................................................................................. 25
Table 13: Comparison of results for a NACA 0012 airfoil ..................................................... 26
Table 14: Wind Tunnel Result for the Drag Force and Drag coefficient at 25 m/s (90 km/h) 31
Table 15: Results of the Drag force for each configuration..................................................... 49
Table 16: Results of the Lift force for each configuration....................................................... 50
Table 17: Results of the Drag Coefficient for each configuration ........................................... 50
Table 18: Results of the Lift Coefficient for each configuration ............................................. 51
Table 19: Typical value for the drag coefficient for certain vehicles ...................................... 51
Table 20: Percentage increase of Cd for all configurations with respect to Configuration 1 .. 52
Table 21: Percentage decrease of Cl for specific configurations ............................................. 53
Table 22: Percentage decrease of Cl/Cd for specific configurations ....................................... 54
Table 23: Drag Coefficient Comparison .................................................................................. 56
Table 24: Laminar flow boundary layer height in mm ............................................................ 64
Table 25: Turbulent boundary layer height in mm .................................................................. 64
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................vii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... viii
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Objectives .................................................................................................................... 1
2. CFD Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. AutoCAD Model ......................................................................................................... 2
2.2. Geometry and Meshing in ANSYS ............................................................................. 3
2.3. Setup in CFX ............................................................................................................... 7
2.4. 3D Meshing for Laminar and Turbulent Flow Simulation ......................................... 8
3. Wind Tunnel Testing ....................................................................................................... 10
3.1. The AF100 Subsonic Wind Tunnel ........................................................................... 10
Flow Visualization ........................................................................................................... 11
3.2. Boundary Layer Thickness........................................................................................ 13
3.3. Suitable Materials for Wind Tunnel Testing ............................................................. 15
3.4. Wind Tunnel Model .................................................................................................. 19
3.5. Wind Tunnel Testing Procedure ............................................................................... 23
3.6. Testing of the NACA 0012 Airfoil Model (3D Airfoil)............................................ 23
3.7. Wind Tunnel Testing of the Car Model .................................................................... 26
3.8. Flow Visualization .................................................................................................... 32
Smoke Flow Visualization ............................................................................................... 32
Tufts Flow Visualization.................................................................................................. 32
4. Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 34
4.1. CFD Analysis of the Car Model ................................................................................ 34
Configuration 1: No spoiler ............................................................................................. 34
Configuration 2: Retracted spoiler ................................................................................... 37
Configuration 3: Spoiler at 0 degrees .............................................................................. 40
Configuration 4: Spoiler at 15 degrees ............................................................................ 43
Configuration 5: Spoiler at 55 degrees ............................................................................ 46
4.2. Car Model inside the Wind Tunnel Test Section ...................................................... 56
viii
Configuration 1: No spoiler ............................................................................................. 56

Configuration 2: Retracted Spoiler .................................................................................. 58
Configuration 3: Spoiler deployed at 0 degrees ............................................................... 59
Configuration 4: Spoiler deployed at 15 degrees ............................................................. 60
Configuration 5: Spoiler deployed at 55 degrees ............................................................. 61
4.3. Simulation Result for Boundary Layer Thickness .................................................... 62
Results for Laminar Flow ................................................................................................ 62
Results for Turbulent Flow .............................................................................................. 63
5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 65
References ................................................................................................................................ 66
ix
1. Introduction
An aerodynamic spoiler is an automatic aerodynamic system which is designed to 'spoil'
unfavorable air movement across moving vehicles and change the flow of air over the rear part
of the vehicle. A change in air flow with varying angle of the spoiler will result in an increase
that will produce downforce on the rear part of the vehicle, and therefore this will help improve
transaction in an effort to prevent sliding while cornering, high-speed braking effectiveness,
and increase fuel efficiency.
Spoilers are usually described as turbulence or drag device, where the air flows around it from
leading edge (front) to the trailing edge (back). With smooth air flow and large velocity at the
rear side there will be a pressure drop after changing the angle of the spoiler with the help of a
hydraulic system. Thus, there is a low pressure at the rear side and higher pressure on the front
side, which creates a drag force that will eventually slow the car down and reduce the load on
the front axle. And these spoilers are often fitted to race and high-performance sports cars,
although they have become common on passenger vehicles as well. This spoiler will be used
as a break assist to keep the car impressively stable, even when approaching curved sections at
very high speeds, requiring a considerable slowdown, or when a sudden swerve or lane-change
the vehicle requires heavy braking.
In the design process, a NACA 23012 airfoil was used for the spoiler designs. Five designs
along with its corresponding geometric parameters and function on high performance vehicles
were identified. Through the understanding of how a spoiler works and its effect on the rear
part of the vehicle with respect to its position or placement on the rear end, a suitable spoiler
design was selected. In which one out of five of the designed spoilers, was selected and then
incorporated into a three-dimensional car model for further CFD analysis and wind tunnel
testing.
In addition, a three-dimensional car model was created through the use of AutoCAD along with
the various spoiler configurations, namely a car model without spoilers attached on the rear of
the vehicle, and spoilers at 0, 15, and 55 degrees angles-of-attack. Moreover, this CAD model
was then scaled down for wind tunnel testing purposes, in which for this scaled down model a
Reynolds number greater than 4000 was found, which indicated a turbulent flow.
1.1. Objectives
The objectives that would be achieved in this report are as follows.
 Perform CFD Analysis on a simplified three-dimensional car model with various

spoiler configurations with respect to the different speed configurations.
 Simulate the flow around a car model inside a wind tunnel test section at the maximum
allowable wind tunnel speed through the use of CFX.
 Perform wind tunnel testing and flow visualization on the manufactured wind-tunnel
model for each spoiler configurations.
1
It is important to note that Structural Analysis would not be performed, in contrast to what was
previously planned. This is due to the insufficient amount of time and the unfortunate departure
of our colleague Abdulrahim Aliaz from the group. Hence, the workload would have to be split
accordingly to the remaining members.
2. CFD Analysis
ANSYS CFX is a high-performance computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software tool that
delivers reliable and accurate solutions quickly and robustly across a wide range of CFD and
multi-physics applications. CFX is recognized for its outstanding accuracy, robustness and
speed when simulating turbomachinery, such as pumps, fans, compressors and gas and
hydraulic turbines.
The objectives for CFD Analysis are as follow:
 Experiment a real-life flow analysis being generated by the car at different speeds with
spoiler deflected at various angles and a car without a spoiler,
 Perform a wind tunnel CFD analysis and compare the values with the real-life wind
tunnel testing.
2.1. AutoCAD Model

A new AutoCAD model was designed for the CFD Analysis of the car with and without the
spoilers. Figures 1 to 4 shows the car model with simplified wheels in isometric, side, top and
front views, respectively.
Figure 1: Isometric view of the car model with simplified wheels
2
Figure 2: Side view of the car model with simplified wheels
Figure 3: Top view of the car model with simplified wheels
Figure 4: Front view of the car model with simplified wheels
2.2. Geometry and Meshing in ANSYS

Table 1 depicts the dimensions set for the enclosure, small and large, with respect to the
direction of the axes.
Table 1: Dimensions of the enclosure at with respect to the axis direction
Axis Direction Small Enclosure Dimensions Large Enclosure Dimensions

+X 0.5 20
+Y 5 5
+Z 0.001 0.001
-X 0.5 10
-Y 0.001 0.001
-Z 5 5
3
First, the car was imported as geometry into ANSYS and two enclosures were built around it,
where the length behind the car was at least four times its length and the front of the car was at
least equal to its characteristic length, as shown in figure 5. Figure 6 shows the geometry for a
car with a spoiler at zero degrees angle of attack.
Figure 5: Isometric view of the geometry
Figure 6: Geometry for 0º angle of attack for car wing
Two Booleans were then created:

1. The first Boolean was to subtract the small enclosure from the huge enclosure in order
to concentrate the mesh more around the car model for more accurate results.
2. The Second Boolean was needed in order to carve the shape of the car in the enclosure
which was going to be used for testing.
In order to generate an appropriate mesh for the problem, the first enclosure and second
enclosure both received a patch conforming method in order to convert the nodes to
tetrahedrons. Furthermore the body sizing function has been used in order to achieve a finer
mesh size around the car model body to provide more accurate readings.
4
Figure 7: Front view of the car geometry
Figure 8: Sectioned Boundary View of Car Geometry Set up
The visual representation of the mesh used for the car model is shown in figures 9 and 10.
Figure 9: 3D Mesh for the car
5
Figure 10: Visual representation of the meshing options used for the car
In which the corresponding method and body sizing for the meshing options used are listed in
table 2:
Table 2: Meshing Options used
Meshing Options
Method  Scoping Method - Geometry Selection
 Selected Bodies - Both Large and Small Geometries
 Method Used - Tetrahedrons
 Algorithm - Patch Conforming
 Element Midsize Nodes - Use Global Setting
Body Sizing  Scoping Method - Geometry Selection
 Selected Bodies - Different sizing's used for small and large
geometries
 Element Size - Large Geometry 0.23 m, Small Geometry 0.04 m
 Behavior - Soft
 Curvature Normal Angle - 18°
 Growth Rate – 1.2
 Local Min Size - 1.7737e-002 m
Statistics show that the total number of nodes is approximately greater than 492,897 and the
total number of elements is approximately greater than 2,750,275.
Note that any other options that are not specified, such as Display, Defaults, Sizing, Inflation
and Advanced has been left in its default setting or values.
In addition, figure 11 presents the mesh for the car model inside a wind tunnel test section.
6
Figure 11: 3D Mesh for the car inside a wind tunnel test section
2.3. Setup in CFX

Figure 12 shows the boundary conditions of the geometry created through ANSYS, and further
details are listed in table 3.
Figure 12: Setup done in CFX
Analysis Type: K-Omega with Automatic wall Function, High Resolution, First Order
Residual Target: 1E-4
Conversion Target: 0.01
7
Table 3: Boundary Conditions
Boundary Boundary Conditions

Velocity Inlet  Flow Regime – Subsonic analysis
 Testing Speeds – 60, 140, 220 km/h
 Turbulence – Medium (Intensity = 5%)
Opening  Flow Regime – Subsonic analysis
 Mass and Momentum – Opening pressure and direction
with Relative pressure equal to 0
 Flow Direction – Normal to the boundary condition
 Turbulence – Medium (Intensity = 5%)
Road (Boundary  Mass and Momentum – No Slip Wall condition
type: Wall)  Wall Roughness – Smooth Wall (Can be altered to simulate
real road roughness)
Pressure Outlet  Flow Regime – Subsonic analysis
 Mass and Momentum – Average Static Pressure with
Relative Pressure set to 0 and Pressure Profile blend set to
0.05.
 Pressure Averaging – Average over the whole Outlet
Symmetry  Symmetry
Car Body (Boundary  Mass and Momentum – No Slip Wall condition
Type: Wall)  Wall Roughness – Smooth Wall (Can be tailored to a
specific material type)
Note that the same set up was used for all the simulations of the car with the spoiler at different
angle of attacks.
2.4. 3D Meshing for Laminar and Turbulent Flow Simulation
Outlet
Located at the Front of Symmetry
the Geometry Situated at the Left and Right
walls of the Geometry
Smooth wall
Situated at the Top and Inlet
Bottom walls of the Located at the end of
Geometry the Geometry
Figure 13: Isometric view of the 3D configuration meshing for laminar and turbulent flow simulation
8
Table 4 shows the settings used for the meshing method.

Table 4: Settings for the Meshing Method
Meshing Method Settings Used/Description

Face Meshing Face meshing was used on the Inlet, Outlet,
Smooth wall and Symmetry to make the
mesh cells more uniform for faster/shorter
simulation run time.
Edge Sizing -Vertical edges of the geometry
 Type of mesh -> Number of Divisions
o Number of Divisions = 170
o Behavior = Soft
o Growth rate = 1.2
o Biased towards the extreme
top and bottom of the edges
with a Bias factor of 5
-Horizontal edges of the geometry
 Type of mesh-> Number of Divisions
o Number of divisions = 60
o Behavior = Soft
o Growth rate = 1.2
o Bias = No
The settings used for the boundaries are listed in table 5.

Table 5: Settings for the boundaries
Boundary Settings
Inlet ->Flow Regime
 Subsonic
->Mass and Momentum
 Normal Speed @ 32m/s
->Turbulence -Medium (Intensity = 5%) or
None (for Laminar)
Outlet ->Flow Regime
 Subsonic
->Mass and Momentum
 Average Static Pressure
 Relative Pressure = 0 Pa
 Pres. Profile Blend = 0.05
->Pressure Averaging
 Average Over Whole Outlet
9
Boundary Settings
Wall ->Mass and Momentum
 No Slip Wall
->Wall Roughness
 Smooth Wall (Assuming the glass in
the wind tunnels test section has a
roughness that is negligible)
Symmetry Symmetry
Note that the K-Epsilon and K-Omega models were chosen for the turbulent boundary layer
thickness of the wind tunnel simulation.
3. Wind Tunnel Testing

Prior to performing the wind tunnel testing of the manufactured wind tunnel model on the
AF1100 Subsonic Wind tunnel, the Boundary Layer Thickness of the wind tunnel test section
would have to be determined. Moreover, the type of material to be used for the testing needs
to be ideal for wind tunnel tests, such as wood, hence the need to choose the most suitable
material for testing.
3.1. The AF100 Subsonic Wind Tunnel

The AF100 Subsonic Wind Tunnel is an open-circuit suction wind tunnel that is used for
studying aerodynamics. It is compact, and also saves time and money compared with full-scale
wind tunnels. In addition, it offers a wide range or variety of experiments [1]. Figures 14 and
15 shows the wind tunnel and its schematic, respectively.
Figure 14: AF 100 subsonic wind-tunnel
10
Figure 15: Schematic of the AF 100 subsonic wind-tunnel
Results obtained are quite accurate, hence it is suitable for undergraduate study and research
projects. It also offers a comprehensive range of optional models and instrumentations
including a computer based data acquisition system.
In addition, the wind tunnel features a three-component balance. In which, when a model is
mounted on a force balance, one is able to measure the lift, drag and pitching moments over a
range of angle of attacks.
Furthermore, the wake height can also be measured and flow visualization around the model
can also be performed.
Flow Visualization
Since air is transparent, it can be quite difficult to directly observe its movement, especially
across a model. Instead, multiple methods of both quantitative and qualitative flow
visualization methods have been developed for testing in a wind tunnel [2], such as:
1. Smoke
 Smoke flow visualization, as shown in figure 16, can be performed using a
custom-made smoke generator and a probe. A stream of white smoke can be
inserted anywhere in the test section of the wind tunnel by varying the position
of the probe through the use of a traverse rig or by hand.
 Advantages: Easy to setup and quick re-positioning of the probe allows to
view the flow patterns around any portion of the model.
 Disadvantages: Extended use tends to fill the wind tunnel with smoke. Hence,
the wind tunnel has to be properly vented in order to remove the smoke before
further flow visualization can be performed. In addition, an oily residue is
often left on the model and pressure taps have to be protected to prevent it
from clogging.
11
Figure 16: (From left) Smoke flow visualization over a sports car and an airfoil [2]
2. Oil

An oil mixture and a dye can be applied on the surface of the model. When the
wind tunnel is turned on, these particles slowly move in the direction of the
local flow. For an improved visibility of the flow, an ultraviolet dye can be
used instead, such that when it is illuminated by an ultraviolet light the dye
fluoresces to clearly show the pattern of the flow.
 Advantages: Provides a pattern of the air flow on the model at a substantial
amount of time, hence photos can be taken when the wind tunnel is turned off.
In addition, this method clearly shows the transition of the flow from laminar
to turbulent flow, as well as flow separation.
 Disadvantages: After a certain amount of time, the oil will gradually run off
the model and pressure taps have to be protected to prevent it from clogging.
3. China clay
 A mixture of kerosene and clay powder is applied on the surface of the model.
When the wind tunnel is turned on, the kerosene tends to evaporate thus
leaving streaks of clay powder in the form of the flow pattern. Figure 17,
shows the flow visualization through the use of china clay.
 Advantages: One of the easiest flow visualization method to setup and apply.
The flow pattern on the model is clearly shown and it tends to last for a long
time, hence this method is ideal for taking photos when the wind tunnel is
turned off.
 Disadvantages: The position of the model cannot be varied during flow
visualization. In addition, the model must be a dark color, preferably black,
such that the powder against the surface can be clearly seen.
Figure 17: (From left) Flow Visualization using China Clay and Tufts [2]
12
4. Tufts:
 Tufts, pieces of yarn tufts, are attached (taped) to the surface of the model, as
seen in figure 17. When the wind tunnel is turned on, the tufts move in the
direction of the flow.
 Advantages: Relatively easy to install and this method allows flow visualization
at any position of the model.
 Disadvantages: It does not provide a detailed flow pattern around the model
since these tufts are constantly moving with respect to the air flow.
Table 6 presents the comparison between these flow visualization methods.

Table 6: Comparison of the methods for flow visualization
Method Flow Vis. Flow Vis. Photos with Photos with Effect on
On model Off Model Wind on Wind off the data
Smoke Yes Yes Yes No Small
Oil Yes No Yes Yes Small
China Clay Yes No Yes Yes Small
Tufts Yes No Yes No Very Small
Among the flow visualization methods described above, the use of tufts for the flow
visualization of the car model will be done alongside the wind tunnel testing.
3.2. Boundary Layer Thickness

Assuming Blasius flow, where a flat plate is in a uniform stream of velocity, the thickness of
the boundary layer inside the Subsonic Wind Tunnel test section for a laminar flow was
determined from the equation below [3],
δ99 ν
= 4.91√ Eqn. (1)
x xu0
For a turbulent flow, the boundary layer thickness was determined from the following equation
[4],
δ99 5 ν
≅ 0.38 ( √ ) Eqn. (2)
x xu0
Where δ99 is the thickness of the boundary layer, defined as the point where the velocity
u becomes 0.99u0 , x is the characteristic liner dimension of the wind tunnel test section
and, ν is kinematic viscosity of the fluid.
13
The experiment will be conducted in the wind tunnel at room temperature conditions and at a
speed of 25 m⁄s , due to the limitations of the wind tunnel. The kinematic viscosity of the
fluid at room temperature of 15 degrees centigrade is approximately 1.48 × 10−5 m2 ⁄s .
Table 7 shows the estimated values of the boundary layer thickness for laminar and turbulent
flows.
Table 7: Estimated Boundary Layer Thickness, 𝛿99
X (mm) Laminar Flow (𝛅𝟗𝟗 ) Turbulent Flow (𝛅𝟗𝟗 )

150 0.00146 m 0.00473 m
300 0.00207 m 0.00824 m
600 0.00293 m 0.01435 m
In addition, another thickness of importance is the displacement thickness δ∗ which is

determined from the following equation for laminar flow [3],
δ∗ ν
= 1.72√ Eqn. (3)
x xu0
In the case of turbulent flow, the displacement thickness was determined from the equation
below [4],
δ∗ 5 ν
≅ 0.048 ( √ ) Eqn. (4)
x xu0
Where δ∗ is the displacement thickness, ν is kinematic viscosity of the fluid at room

temperature, x is the characteristic liner dimension of the wind tunnel test section, and u0 is
the velocity of the fluid. Table 8 shows the estimated displacement thickness for laminar and
turbulent flows.
Table 8: Estimated Displacement Thickness, 𝛿 ∗
X (mm) Laminar Flow (𝛅∗ ) Turbulent Flow (𝛅∗ )

150 0.000513 m 0.000598 m
300 0.000725 m 0.001041 m
600 0.1025 m 0.1812 m
14
3.3. Suitable Materials for Wind Tunnel Testing

 3D Printer for Car Model
3D printers are machines that build three-dimensional models using an additive process. This
means that it starts building the 3D model layer by layer until the final model or shape is
achieved. This form of model or structure building was introduced a long time ago. Today this
technology is now available to the consumer at an affordable price and due to the versatility of
such a machine, it can be used to make parts that are not readily available in the market or even
complex shapes that require a skilled artisan to craft the desired model. The only drawback is
that the user must have proper experience with AUTOCAD software's as well as notable
experience using the machine in order to generate a proper model.
The two main types of plastics [5], commonly used for consumer 3D printing are Acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene (ABS) and Polylactic acid (PLA). PLA is the most popular among the two,
due to it's easy to handle properties such as lower printing temperatures and its ability to retain
its shape while cooling down during the printing process. Furthermore, PLA has a very slight
or almost no odor at all before, during and after printing. Another point to add about PLA is
the fact that it is biodegradable and is made from renewable resources such as sugar cane of
corn starch.
The most secondly used 3D printing material ABS is actually slightly superior to PLA in terms
of material properties as it is more flexible and it can withstand higher temperatures. However,
in order to use such a filament, the user has to be cautious when printing the material as it tends
to deform or warp if not cooled or heated correctly. Therefore, it is desirable to have a printer
with good ventilation and hotbed (heated printing base). In addition, fumes are generated
during the printer process that may contain an odor.
PLA printer filament properties:
 Strength: High, Flexibility: Low, Durability: Medium

 Difficulty to use: Low
 Print temperature: 180⁰C-230⁰C
 Print bed temperature: 20⁰C-60⁰C
 Shrinkage or Warping: Minimal
 Soluble: No
ABS printer filament properties:
 Strength: High, Flexibility: Medium, Durability: High

 Difficulty to use: Medium
 Print temperature: 210⁰C-250⁰C
 Print bed temperature: 80⁰C-110⁰C
 Shrinkage or Warping: Considerable
 Soluble: Esters, Ketones and Acetone
15
The 3D printer that was available to use, inside the institute was the 3D Wox 2X that had the
following specifications:
 Print Technology2 X FFF
 Print head: Dual Nozzle
 Nozzle Diameter: 0.4mm
 Max Build size (WxDxH): 228 x 200 x 300mm (8.9"x7.9"x11.8")
 Material: PLA, ABS, Flexible, PVA(Requires PVA Nozzle)
 Connectivity USB Flash Drive, Ethernet, WiFi, USB Cable
 Layer Thickness: 0.05 ~ 0.4 mm
 Filament Diameter: 1.75mm
 Size (W×D×H): 490 x 466 x 573mm (19.3"x18.3"x22.6")
 User Interface 5” color touch screen
 Auto Leveling Measurement + Manual Adjustment
 Auto-loading Cartridge Automatically loads filament to nozzle
 LED Lamp For Internal Lighting
 Monitoring Camera Check print status remotely with laptop or smartphone via WiFi
connection
 Slicer3DWOX Desktop Slicer
Sindoh Cloud Slicer
 Software Compatibility Solidworks Add-in 2016 or above
AutoDeskTinkerCAD
 Operating System Window 7 or above
Mac OSX 10.10 above
 Note: Standard VGA driver on operating system, or a graphics card doesn't support
OpenGL 2.0, may cause unknown error in 3DWOX Desktop.
To estimate the weight, cost and time taken for the reference model to print. A software unique
to the printer was supplied along with it. The cost per gram of PLA was taken from [6].
Table 9: Weight, Time taken and estimated cost for the 3D reference model
Weight of Reference car model in mm 107.51mm x 46.11mm x 30.60mm

(LxBxH)
Weight of printed reference model 53.9 grams
Time taken for printed reference model 5hr 17min
Estimated cost of the reference model PLA (1.75mm) ≈ $ 1.395
PLA (3mm) ≈$ 1.6
16
Figure 18: Small car reference model in 3D WOX software.
The model that was made for the wind tunnel of the car testing was designed into two sections
and one detachable part, as shown in figures 19 and 20. The proposed design was splitting the
3D printed model into half in order to accommodate the 3D printer’s maximum dimensions. A
type of sliding locking mechanism was drafted, which was located at the center of the model.
Furthermore, a hole was made for the test rod which is located at the center of gravity of the
object. The hole for the test rod was positioned in such a way on where it would prevent the
car model from sliding horizontally as well as vertically when all the parts are fixed together.
To make sure that the structure is strong enough when being wind tunnel tested, the thickness
of the walls towards the edges were increased significantly. Furthermore, the density of the
mesh was also increased in order to increase the structural strength of the model. The 3D
printed model was made using AutoCAD using 300/4463 scale of the original car model. The
CAD model was then converted into a stl. file format to convert the model into polygons or
meshes making it suitable for the 3D printing software.
Real scale car model dimensions (LxBxH) 4462mm x 1998mm x 1159mm

Wind tunnel car model dimensions (LxBxH) 300mm x 134mm x 78mm
Figure 19: Fore section of CAD car model.
17
Figure 20: Aft section of CAD car model.
Figure 21 shows the CAD model design for a rear wing at zero degrees angle of attack.
Figure 21: CAD wing model with rod at 0° angle of attack
Table 10 presents the weight, estimated time to print and the estimated cost for each part of the
wind tunnel model.
Table 10: Weight, Time and Cost for each part for 3D printing
Part Name Weight Time Cost Cost ($)[3mm,

(grams) ($)[1.75mm, PLA]
PLA]
Car Wind tunnel 592.8 48hrs 55mins 15.34 17.87
model front
Car Wind tunnel 536.8 44hrs 6mins 13.9 16.18
model back
3d printed wing 33.1 3hrs 17mins 0.856 1
model at 0°
model at 15°
model at 55°
Total 1229.5 102hrs 55mins 31.824 37.05
18
 Wood foam or foam for wind tunnel testing

Note: Foam was not used to create a testing model for this project.
Another type of material that is commonly used for creating low speed subsonic wind tunnel
models are different types of modeling foams [7]. The most prevalent ones to date are Balsa
foam, Pink, Yellow and Blue Foam. They are made from polystyrene which is a durable
material with adequate density and structural strength. The method used to create the 3D wind
tunnel model out of the different types of foams is usually a piece of hot wire that can easily
melt of the foam and take shape of the model, along with a precision knifing tool to carve out
tiny details in the model. This material has been used numerous times to not only create models
for wind tunnel testing, but to also build actual working models such as small hobby R/C planes
or small architectural models as it is very light and durable.
3.4. Wind Tunnel Model

The dimensions of the scaled down model size are shown in figure 22, in millimeters.
78 mm
134 mm 134 mm
92 mm
300 mm
Figure 22: Dimensions of the scaled down car model
19
A 3D printer was used to print a miniature car model. The materials used by the 3D printer
are the ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) and PLA (polylactic acid) filament types. Since
the model would only be used as a reference, the density of the material was set to 3, which is
fairly low. The model was then sent for printing and the print job was completed in
approximately 4 hours and 30 minutes. Figure 23 shows the 3D printed reference car model.
Figure 23: 3D printed Reference Car Model
As observed, the 3D printed model has a rough surface. Therefore, further surface finishing
would have to be made in order to smoothen out the surface. Since, a certain amount of time
would have to be allocated for surface finishing, which may be time consuming, the 3D printer
was not used to create the wind tunnel model.
A model of the simplified sports car was made for wind tunnel testing. Sketches for the
simplified version of figure 22, along with the spoiler configurations were provided to the
carpenter who then carved out the model by using wood as primary material for the model. The
following figures shows the car model with a spoiler design prior to proceeding to make final
touches.
Figure 24: Wooden Car Model with one of the spoiler configurations
Figure 25: Wooden Car model with a 15 degree spoiler configuration
20
Final touches such as surface finishing, were done to provide a smooth surface which is ideal
for wind tunnel testing, and painting the model in a black color was also done on the wooden
car model. The following figures below shows the final product that will be used for wind
tunnel testing at different spoiler configurations.
Figure 26 shows the wind tunnel car model with no spoilers attached at the rear.
Figure 26: Wind Tunnel Car Model with no spoiler
Figures 27 shows the second configuration, which is the retracted spoiler.
Figure 27: Wind Tunnel Car Model with a retracted spoiler
Figure 28 shows a deployed spoiler at zero degrees angle of attack, which is the third
configuration.
Figure 28: Wind Tunnel Car Model with a spoiler at 0 degrees
21
The fourth configuration showcases a deployed spoiler at an angle of attack of 15 degrees, as

shown in figure 29.
The last configuration, shown in figure 30, features a spoiler at 55 degrees angle of attack.
In addition, through the use of AutoCAD the center of gravity of the car model was located,
where it was found to be 15.7 centimeters from the front most part of the vehicle model and
2.7 centimeters from the bottom of the vehicle. A hole was drilled at a depth that is until the
location of the center of gravity. The rod was placed and fitted into the hole and will be used
for the three component balance.
22
3.5. Wind Tunnel Testing Procedure

The following procedure was applied for the wind tunnel testing of the NACA 0012 3D airfoil
and the wind tunnel car model:
1. The side window of the AF100 Subsonic wind tunnel test section was removed
carefully using the accompanying screws and the balance locks, located on the three-
component, are tightened.
2. The model was then placed inside the test section. For an airfoil, in particular, the model
was placed inside the test section at a height of approximately 152.5 mm (from the
bottom surface of the test section and the focal point of the airfoil).
3. The model was then locked into place from the three-component balance.
4. The side window of the test section was then placed back and tightened with the
accompanying screws.
5. The three-component balance scale was then set to zero degrees.
6. The balance locks were loosened prior to conducting the experiment.
7. The lift, drag, and pitching moment readings were then zeroed for error cancellation.
8. Carefully start the wind tunnel and increase the speed as desired.
3.6. Testing of the NACA 0012 Airfoil Model (3D Airfoil)

Prior to conducting the wind tunnel test on the car model with variable spoiler configurations,
a NACA 0012 airfoil with a span of 150 mm and a chord length of 150 mm, as shown in figure
31, was tested on a subsonic wind tunnel to check whether the wind tunnel is able to measure
the drag force, the drag and lift coefficients. The airfoil was tested at two speed configurations
at angles varying from an increments of 2 degrees and eventually the airfoil was also tested on
an angle of 15 degrees at 20 m/s.
Figure 31: NACA 0012 Finite Wing (3D Airfoil) Model
The test was conducted at a room temperature and pressure of 15 degrees centigrade and 1013
mbar, respectively. The results obtained were then verified from with the aerodynamic
characteristics of the NACA 0012 airfoil section at different angles of attacks at a constant
wind tunnel speed.
23
Moreover, three readings were recorded for each angle of attack configuration considered for
the testing at specified wind tunnel speed. Figure 32 presents the results obtained for the wind
tunnel testing of a NACA 0012 3D airfoil model.
Figure 32: Wind Tunnel Test Results for the NACA 0012 3D airfoil model
The average was then taken for each angle of attack configuration and the results are
presented in table 11.
Table 11: Average Wind Tunnel Results
Wind Tunnel Results

Wind Speed in m/s Angle in degrees Drag Coefficient Lift Coefficient
0 0.033 0.090
2 0.067 0.407
10 4 0.073 0.467
6 0.110 0.370
0 0.040 0.110
2 0.050 0.173
20 4 0.053 0.303
6 0.073 0.433
The results obtained from the table above was compared to the results attained from a
previous experiment for a wind tunnel speed of 10 m/s. The comparison of data is shown in
the table 12.
24
Table 12: Comparison of results for a NACA 0012 airfoil (finite wing) wind tunnel experiment
Previous Experiment Wind Tunnel Results

Wind Speed Angle in Drag Lift Drag Lift
in m/s degrees Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
0 -0.007 0.017 0.033 0.090
2 0.013 0.363 0.067 0.407
10 4 0.043 0.467 0.073 0.467
6 0.137 0.660 0.110 0.370
Results shows an increase in the drag coefficient and lift coefficient for both experiments as
the angle of attack is increased while keeping the wind speed at a constant value. However,
there are some slight differences when it comes to values obtained for the lift and drag
coefficients. The errors could possibly be due to human or instrumentation mishaps, such as
parallax error may have taken place while setting the angle of attack, fluctuating airspeed and
the digital systems values may not be as accurate since the wind tunnel has been in use for
several years.
Moreover, the wind tunnel data obtained was further compared to a NACA 0012 airfoil data
having an aspect ratio of 6, where its characteristics is shown in figure 33.
Figure 33: NACA 0012 airfoil data with an aspect ratio of 6 [8]
25
Table 13: Comparison of results for a NACA 0012 airfoil
NACA 0012 data Wind Tunnel Results Wind Tunnel Results

Angle in (AR = 6) (AR = 1) at 10 m/s (AR = 1) at 20 m/s
degrees Cd Cl Cd Cl Cd Cl
(approx.) (approx.)
0 0.010 0.100 0.033 0.090 0.040 0.110
2 0.012 0.150 0.067 0.407 0.050 0.173
4 0.015 0.300 0.073 0.467 0.053 0.303
6 0.020 0.450 0.110 0.370 0.073 0.433
Comparing the data obtained for a wind tunnel speed of 10 and 20 m/s. From the table above,
it was observed that the drag and lift coefficients for both data increases as the angle of attack
is varied regardless of the aspect ratio. However, for the wind tunnel result of 6 degrees at 10
m/s, a drop in the value of the lift coefficient was observed. This is possibly due to
instrumentation mishaps and fluctuating airspeeds. Overall, the data obtained from the wind
tunnel are quite reasonable for the wind tunnel test performed.
3.7. Wind Tunnel Testing of the Car Model

Figures 34 to 39 shows the car model inside the test section of the AF100 subsonic wind tunnel
for each spoiler configurations.
Figure 34: Car model with no spoilers and tufts inside the test section of the wind tunnel
26
Figure 35: Car model inside the test section of the wind tunnel viewed from the inlet
Figure 36: Car model with a retracted spoiler inside the wind tunnel test section
Figure 37: Car model with a deployed rear wing at 0 degrees inside the test section (viewed from the inlet)
27
Figure 38: Car model with a spoiler at 15 degrees inside the wind tunnel test section
Figure 39: Car model with a spoiler at 55 degrees inside the wind tunnel test section
The results obtained for the car model with no spoilers is presented in figure 40.
28
Figure 40: Wind Tunnel Results for a car model without a spoiler
Results for the car model with a retracted spoiler, a spoiler deployed at 0 degrees, 15 degrees
and 55 degrees are shown in figures 41 to 44, respectively.
Figure 41: Wind Tunnel Results for a car model with retracted spoiler
29
Figure 42: Wind Tunnel Results for a car model with a spoiler deployed at 0 degrees
30
The average of the drag force was then taken for each rear wing configuration at 25 m/s. In
addition, the drag coefficient was then calculated from equation (5) for the corresponding
configurations.
2𝐷
𝑐𝑑 =
𝜌𝑉 2 𝐴 Eqn. (5)
Where 𝑐𝑑 is the drag coefficient, 𝐷 is the drag force in Newton, 𝜌 is the density of air at
sea-level ( 𝜌 = 1.225 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚3 ), 𝑉 is the wind tunnel speed which is 25 m/s, and 𝐴 is the
frontal area of the car model. The frontal area of the model was obtained from AutoCAD and
was found to be 0.01024 𝑚2 .
Table 14 presents the results obtained for the drag force and the drag coefficient for each
configuration.
Table 14: Wind Tunnel Result for the Drag Force and Drag coefficient at 25 m/s (90 km/h)
Configuration Drag Force (N) Drag Coefficient

No spoiler 0.522 0.133
Retracted Wing -0.052 0.013
0 -0.222 0.057
15 -0.346 0.088
55 -0.666 0.170
31
From table 14, the negative sign indicates that the drag force is acting in the opposite direction.
Due to the vortex creation, a backflow was created since the wind tunnel test section was not
large enough hence pushing the car forward. Therefore, as the angle of attack of the rear wing
is increased, a stronger vortex is generated thus increasing the strength of the backflow.
3.8. Flow Visualization

Smoke Flow Visualization
The flow visualization through the use of smoke was tried on a separate wind tunnel which
does not feature a three component balance system. The car model, with various spoiler
configurations, was fitted into the wind tunnel in a similar position as seen on figures 34 to 39,
respectively.
Through the use of a smoke generator, the behavior of the flow around the car body was
observed, particularly towards the rear end of the model. However, since the top glass wall of
the test section was not clear enough, the flow pattern for each configuration were not witnessed
properly. Hence, another method for flow visualization was conducted in order to further
observe the behavior of the flow for each spoiler configuration.
Tufts Flow Visualization

Yarn threads for the tufts flow visualization were taped into the wind tunnel car model. Tufts
were attached into the model surface for each configurations in which the distance between the
tufts is approximately two centimeters from each other. Figures 45 and 46 show the tufts
attached to the car model and the rear wings, respectively.
Figure 45: Wind Tunnel Car Model with tufts
32
Figure 46: (From left) Retracted, 0 degrees, 15 degrees and 55 degrees spoilers with tufts
The flow visualization of the car model with tufts was done alongside the wind tunnel testing
of the car model at speed increments of 5, from 10 m/s to 25 m/s.
The flow visualization of the car model without a spoiler at various speeds shows that the tufts
remain attached to the surface of the model until a speed of 15 m/s. From this speed onwards,
the tufts attached at the rear end of the car body tends to flutter more as the speed is gradually
increased. Hence, based on the behavior of the tufts it can be said that the flow of air underneath
the vehicle is faster than the one above due to the air having a lower pressure, thus from
Bernoulli’s principle, the difference in pressure produces downforce on the vehicle. In which,
based on real life applications it improves the traction on the tires to keep the vehicle on the
ground at high speeds.
With the addition of the retracted wing, it can be said that the behavior of the flow around the
wing tends to become unsteady at a speed of 15 m/s onwards. Hence, for this configuration at
various speeds, the tufts flow visualization was observed to be similar to the first configuration
– the car model with no spoiler.
For the car model with a spoiler at zero degrees, the behavior of the flow around the vehicle
was observed to remain attached at until a speed of 10 m/s. From this speed onwards, the same
flow behavior from the first and second configuration was observed, in which the flow starts
to become unsteady at this speed.
The fourth configuration, the car model with a spoiler at 15 degrees, the behavior of the flow
around the vehicle was observed to remain attached at the surface of the model until a speed of
10 m/s. Similar to the previous configurations at a speed of 15 m/s, the flow towards the rear
end of the vehicle tends to become more unsteady as the speed is gradually increased, based
on the behavior of the tufts attached at the rear end.
Lastly, for a car model with a spoiler inclined at 55 degrees angle of attack, it was observed
that the tufts remain attached to the surface of the model at 5 m/s. However, upon increasing
the speed it was perceived that the flow around the rear end of the vehicle shows a drastic
change in flow behavior as the tufts begun to flutter consistently thus indicating regions of
unsteady flow.
33
However, flow separation was not observed as the tufts were not long enough to visualize this
phenomenon. Therefore, in order to further observe the behavior of the flow for each spoiler
configuration at various wind tunnel speeds, tufts that are of a smaller diameter and shorter
length could be applied on the surface of the model, while tufts of longer lengths can be used
towards the rear end of the model and on the rear wings in order to visualize the flow’s behavior
at this area.
4. Results and Discussion

The results obtained from CFX for each spoiler configuration at specified speeds of 60, 140
and 220 kilometers per hour are presented in this section. In addition, the contours obtained
from CFX for the CFD Analysis of the car model inside a wind tunnel test section are also
shown. Furthermore, comparison of results were done between the results obtained for the drag
force and drag coefficient from CFX and wind tunnel testing.
4.1. CFD Analysis of the Car Model

Configuration 1: No spoiler
Figures 47 to 52 depicts the velocity and pressure contours of the car model without any
spoilers at a velocity of 60, 140 and 220 km/h.
Figure 47: Configuration 1 - Velocity Contour at 60 km/h
34
Figure 48: Configuration 1 - Pressure Contour at 60 km/h
35
36
Configuration 2: Retracted spoiler

For this configuration, the velocity and pressure contours are shown in the figures that will
follow for three speed configurations.
37
38
39
Figure 58: Configuration 2 – Pressure Contour at 220 km/h
Configuration 3: Spoiler at 0 degrees

The contours of the third configuration at various speed configurations are shown in the
following figures below.
40
41
42
Figure 64: Configuration 3 - Pressure contour at 220 km/h

The fourth configuration velocity and pressure contours are shown from figures 65 to 70.
43
44
45

Figures 71 to 76 presents the velocity and pressure contours for this configuration.
46
47
48
Tables 15 to 16 shows the results obtained from CFX for the drag force and lift force,
respectively, for each car configuration at various speed settings.
Table 15: Results of the Drag force for each configuration
Drag Force (N)

Speed of the car (km/h)
60 140 220
No Spoiler 125.92 687.68 1706.36
Rear wing Retracted Wing 132.42 718.204 1800.38
Angle of 0° 139.48 767.426 1893.62
Attack 15° 165.26 882.88 2181.84
55° 283.56 1292.52 3197.64
49
Table 16: Results of the Lift force for each configuration
Lift Force (N)

60 140 220
No Spoiler 121.8 650.46 1585.6
Rear wing Retracted Wing 115.74 622 1578.08
Angle of 0° -12.92 -202.75 -543.06
Attack 15° -20.4 -215.48 -535.27
55° -163.5 -881.14 -2255
The frontal area of the vehicle was estimated from AutoCAD, as shown in figure 77.
Figure 77: Frontal Area estimation of the car
The drag coefficient was calculated from equation (5), in which the frontal area of the vehicle
was found to be 2.253 𝑚2 . The results for each configuration are presented in table 17.
Table 17: Results of the Drag Coefficient for each configuration
Drag Coefficient (Cd)

60 140 220
No Spoiler 0.325 0.326 0.328
Angle of 0° 0.360 0.364 0.364
Attack 15° 0.427 0.419 0.419
55° 0.732 0.613 0.614
50
The lift coefficient for each configuration was calculated from the following equation:
2𝐿
𝑐𝑙 =
𝜌𝑉 2 𝐴 Eqn. (6)
Where 𝑐𝑙 is the lift coefficient, 𝐿 is the lift force in Newton, 𝜌 is the density of air at sea-
level ( 𝜌 = 1.225 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚3 ), 𝑉 is the wind tunnel speed which is 25 m/s, and 𝐴 is the
frontal area of the car model. The results are presented in table 18.
Table 18: Results of the Lift Coefficient for each configuration
Lift Coefficient (Cl)

60 140 220
No Spoiler 0.085 0.083 0.082
Angle of 0° -0.009 -0.026 -0.028
Attack 15° -0.014 -0.028 -0.028
55° -0.114 -0.113 -0.117
Table 19 shows the typical drag coefficient values for certain vehicles.
Table 19: Typical value for the drag coefficient for certain vehicles
Car Name Model Cd

Nissan 240SX 0.32
McLaren F1 0.32
Koenigsegg CCX 0.32
Lamborghini Murcielago 0.33
Porsche 997 GT2 0.32
Mazda RX-7 0.33
Figure 78 shows the trend of the drag coefficient value versus different configurations of the
vehicle at different Reynolds numbers. The lowest amount of drag can be seen when the wing
is fully retracted, there is a small increase in drag when the car transitions from configuration
1 to 4. However, there is a significant increase in the value of drag at the 5th configuration.
This is due to the steep negative angle of attack of 55⁰ as the wing now acts as a sort of a partial
wall to be used for aerodynamic breaking.
51
Cd vs Car Configurations at Different Re

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Cd
0.4 Re=5,024,776
0.3 Re=11,724,475
0.2 Re=18,424,174
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Configuration
Figure 78: Graph of the Drag Coefficient vs. Car Configurations at Different Re
Table 20 represents the percentage increase of the drag coefficient value for the car at different
configurations with respect to configuration 1. It can be seen that at the 2nd configuration there
is a 5% increase of drag acting on the car which is then raised to 10% as the spoiler deploys
and set's itself to the 3rd configuration. At configuration 3 and 4, this increase of drag is
compensated by the down force produced by the wing, as it gives better traction to the tires for
easier control of the vehicle at higher speeds. When the car sets itself to the 5th configuration
the amount of drag increased is almost doubled as at this configuration the wing is being used
as an aerodynamic brake. Therefore, the significant increase of drag would help the car
decelerate faster.
Table 20: Percentage increase of Cd for all configurations with respect to Configuration 1
Configuration Re = 5x106 Re = 1.17x107 Re = 1.84x107

2 4.91% 4.25% 5.22%
3 9.72% 10.39% 9.88%
4 23.80% 22.10% 21.79%
5 55.59% 46.79% 46.63%
Figure 79 shows the variation of the lift coefficient acting on the car for different configurations
at various Reynolds numbers. Please note that the weight of the car was not defined during the
CFD analysis of the car and so the force of lift acting on the vehicle does not take into account
its weight. When the car is at Configuration 1 (No Spoiler) there is a significant amount of lift
force acting on the car body. As the car transitions to configuration 3 and 4 there is large change
in the lift acting on the vehicle in the negative direction indicating a down force being applied.
The increase in the down force of configuration 3 relative to configuration 4 is not very huge,
but the small increase of drag and lift on the car, which was seen from the above analysis. Adds
52
greater controllability to the vehicle at higher speeds. As for the car at configuration 5, the
difference in the value of negative lift relative to configuration 4 is quite huge. This large
increase in down force adds better traction to the tires assisting them for the breaking of the
car.
Cl vs Car Configurations at Different Re

0.15
0.1
0.05
Re=5,024,776
Cl
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Re=11,724,475
-0.05 Re=18,424,174
-0.1
-0.15
Car Configuration
Figure 79: Graph of the Lift Coefficient vs. Car Configurations at Different Re
Table 21 represents the percentage decrease of the lift coefficient value for specific
configurations.
Table 21: Percentage decrease of Cl for specific configurations

1-2 4.98% 4.38% 0.47%
3-4 -57.90% -6.28% 1.44%
5-4 87.52% 75.55% 76.26%
Figure 80 depicts the Cl/Cd ratio versus different configurations of the car at various Reynolds
numbers. The value of Cl/Cd is important in the field of aeronautics as it depicts the most
optimal value an object travelling through fluid can achieve. From figure 80 it can be seen that
at low to medium speeds, the best configuration for the car which produces the least amount of
drag would be at configuration 0, as the value for Cl/Cd is the largest. As the vehicle enters the
region of high speeds, the best configuration is found to be at configurations 3 and 4. In order
to be used for an aerodynamic break, there are two aspects to be taken into consideration when
talking about it. The down force acting on the car which increases the tires braking
effectiveness, and the amount of drag force that's acting on the overall vehicle due to the
deflection of the wing at certain angles. The value at configuration 5 shows the best overall
combination for both, as it creates a large amount of drag with a great amount of down force.
53
Cl/Cd vs Car Configurations at Different Re

0.3
0.2
0.1
Re=5,024,776
Cl/Cd
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Re=11,724,475
-0.1 Re=18,424,174
-0.2
-0.3
Car Configuration
Figure 80: Graph of the Cl/Cd vs. Car Configurations at different Re
Table 22 presents the percentage decrease of the lift coefficient value for specific
configurations.
Table 22: Percentage decrease of Cl/Cd for specific configurations

1-2 9.64% 8.44% 5.67%
3-4 -33.26% 7.62% 14.46%
5-4 78.59% 64.20% 65.21%
Figure 81 represents the variation of Cl against Cd for all configurations of the vehicle. From
figure 81, the least amount of drag acting on the car, is when there is no spoiler at all. In
addition, there is a very minute increase in drag when the retracted spoiler is placed. As the
configuration transitions from 2 to 3 there is a large drop in the value of Cl to the negative
region of the graph indicating a down force acting on the car due to the deployment of the
spoiler. The most amount of lift and drag can be seen at Configuration 5 when the wing is at a
steep negative angle of attack.
54
Cl vs Cd
0.15
0.1
0.05
Re=5,024,776
Cl
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Re=11,724,475
Re=18,424,174
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
Cd
–
Figure 81: Graph of the lift coefficient vs. the drag coefficient
Figure 82 represents the trend of the drag coefficient acting on the car for its different
configurations versus the value of Reynolds number at different velocities. From figure 82 it
can be seen that the lowest amount of drag is achieved when the there is no spoiler on the
vehicle followed by a very small increase in drag. As the configuration increases to 4 there is
an increase in the value of drag coefficient with a slight drop as the Reynolds number increases.
However, there is a huge change in trend in the value of Cd when the Reynolds number
increases for configuration 5 showing a massive increase in the value of drag at lower speeds
without the attachment of a spoiler. The lowest amount of drag acting on the vehicle is seen to
be for when there is no spoiler attached to the car.
Cd vs. Reynolds number for each configurations

0.77
0.72
0.67
0.62
Configuration 1
0.57
Cd
Configuration 2
0.52
Configuration 3
0.47
Configuration 4
0.42 Configuration 5
0.37
0.32
0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000
Reynolds Number
Figure 82: Cd vs. the Reynolds number for each car configuration
55
In conclusion, the results above give a rough estimate on the values of the Lift and Drag
coefficient acting on the tested car model at different configurations of the rear wing for
different Reynolds numbers. However, the value of some configurations may be inaccurate due
to various reasons such as discrepancies in the 3d modeling of the car or Improper mesh quality
of the CFD analysis. The results could be further improved by doing a CFD analysis of the car
at more Angles of attack along with further variations in velocity, so that a better understanding
is developed for the interaction between the car and rear wing at different speeds. In addition,
the quality of mesh, geometry and boundary conditions could be refined even more to get more
accurate and reliable results.
Furthermore, the data from table 17 was then compared to the data obtained from wind tunnel
testing at a speed of 25 m/s, which is approximately 90 km/h. Table 23 presents the results
for this comparison.
Table 23: Drag Coefficient Comparison
Drag Coefficient (Cd)

60 90 140 220
No Spoiler 0.325 0.133 0.326 0.328
Rear wing Retracted Wing 0.342 0.013 0.341 0.346
Angle of 0° 0.360 0.057 0.364 0.364
Attack 15° 0.427 0.088 0.419 0.419
55° 0.732 0.170 0.613 0.614
From the table above, the drag coefficients were calculated based on the drag force obtained
from the three-component balance of the wind tunnel. As observed, the coefficient of drag
falls behind by approximately 20% of the value obtained from CFD Analysis. However, a
lower drag coefficient was expected as the wind tunnel model is considerably smaller than
the actual car model used for the CFD Analysis.
4.2. Car Model inside the Wind Tunnel Test Section

CFX was used to simulate the flow around the car model inside a wind tunnel test section at a
constant speed of 25 m/s for each spoiler configurations.
Configuration 1: No spoiler
Figures 83 and 84 presents the pressure and velocity contours for this configuration,
respectively.
56
Figure 83: Configuration 1 – Wind Tunnel Pressure contour
Figure 84: Configuration 1 – Wind Tunnel Velocity contour
57
Configuration 2: Retracted Spoiler

Figures 85 and 86 presents the pressure and velocity contours, respectively, for a car model
with a retracted spoiler on the rear.
58
Configuration 3: Spoiler deployed at 0 degrees

Figure 87 depicts the pressure contour, behavior of pressure, inside a wind tunnel test section
at a speed of 25 m/s for a car model with the rear wing at 0˚ angle of attack.
Moreover, a velocity contour is depicted in figure 88 which shows the behavior of velocity
inside a wind tunnel test section at a speed of 25 m/s for a car model with the rear wing at 0˚
angle of attack.
59

In addition, the pressure and velocity contours of the car model with the rear wing at 15˚ angle
of attack are shown in figures 89 and 90, respectively.
60

The pressure and velocity contours of a car model with a rear wing deployed at 55 degrees are
shown in figures 91 and 92, respectively.
61
4.3. Simulation Result for Boundary Layer Thickness

Results for Laminar Flow
Figure 93: Graph of boundary layer variation across the wind tunnel
Figure 93 represents the variation of laminar boundary layer height across the wind tunnel. The
progression of the boundary layer height will remain the same across all four walls of the wind
tunnel's test section and so can be used inorder to develop a suitable model for the windtunnel.
Figure 94: Graph of boundary layer height vs Velocity
Figure 94 helps visualize the development shape of the laminar boundary layer starting from
the surface of the wall.
62
Results for Turbulent Flow
Figure 95: Graph of boundary layer variation across the wind tunnel
Figure 95 represents the variation of turbulent boundary layer height across the wind tunnel.
The progression of the boundary layer height will remain the same across all four walls of the
wind tunnel's test section.
Figure 96: Graph of boundary layer thickness
Figure 96 helps visualize the development shape of the turbulent boundary layer starting from
the surface of the wall.
63
In addition, figure 97 shows the boundary layer velocity contour.
Figure 97: Boundary Layer Velocity Contour
Tables 24 and 25 compares the results obtained for the boundary layer height in mm for a
laminar and turbulent flow, respectively.
Table 24: Laminar flow boundary layer height in mm
Laminar flow boundary layer height in mm

L1 L2 L3 L2+L3
2.82 2.65 0.93 3.58
Where:
L1 is the estimated laminar boundary layer height in the simulation at 32m/s.
L2 is the estimated laminar boundary layer height using Blasius's boundary layer equation
at 32m/s.
L3 is the estimated laminar boundary layer displacement thickness using equation at 32m/s.
Table 25: Turbulent boundary layer height in mm
Turbulent boundary layer height in mm

T1 T2 T3 T2+T3
11 13.8 1.74 15.54
64
Where:
T1 is the estimated turbulent boundary layer height in the simulation at 32m/s.
T2 is the estimated turbulent boundary layer height using Blasius's boundary layer equation
at 32m/s.
T3 is the estimated turbulent boundary layer displacement thickness using equation at
32m/s.
5. Conclusion
To conclude, from the designed spoiler designs which was incorporated to the three-
dimensional CAD model, the flow analysis across the car model with various spoiler
configurations was conducted at specified speeds, namely at 60, 140 and 220 kilometers per
hour. Results were obtained for the values of the lift, drag, and their coefficients along with the
respective velocity and pressure contours for each configuration. In addition, the flow analysis
of a car model inside a subsonic wind tunnel test section was also conducted, and the pressure
and velocity contours were obtained to depict the behavior of the flow.
Moreover, a wind tunnel model was created based on the geometric parameters of a scaled
down model size. This model was then tested in a subsonic wind tunnel provided by the
institute, while conducting flow visualization with the use of tufts at a speed increment of 5
m/s. Based on what was observed from the flow visualization, it can be said that Bernoulli’s
principle was witnessed based on the behavior of the tufts around the vehicle surface,
particularly towards the rear end of the vehicle model.
The results obtained for the drag coefficient from wind tunnel testing however, differs from
the values obtained from CFX. In which, the errors could possibly be due to fluctuating
airspeed and the digital systems values may not be as accurate since the wind tunnel has been
in use for several years.
Overall, it can be said that based on this study, due to the pressure difference on the rear end
of the vehicle a downforce is created that will eventually improve the traction of the vehicle on
the ground while cornering, travelling at high speeds and will assist in the braking effectiveness
of the vehicle, in real life applications.
65
References
[1] TecQuipment, "AF100 Subsonic Wind Tunnel," 2018. [Online]. Available:

https://www.infowerk.systems/data.cfm?vpath=ma-wartbare-inhalte/ma-
downloads/factsheets-teaching-equipment/af100_1015pdf. [Accessed 15 October 2018].
[2] University of Washington, "Flow Visualization," 2019. [Online]. Available:

https://www.aa.washington.edu/AERL/KWT/techguide/flowviz. [Accessed 30 May
2019].
[3] R. L. Panton, Incompressible Flow, 2nd ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1996,
pp. 581 - 589.
[4] Cengel and Cimbala, "The Turbulent Flat Plate Boundary Layer," 2015. [Online].
Available:
https://www.mne.psu.edu/cimbala/me320web_Spring_2015/pdf/Flat_plate_turbulent_BL.
pdf. [Accessed 18 April 2019].
[5] S. Rohringer , "3D Printer Filament Guide – All You Need to Know," 2019. [Online].
Available: https://all3dp.com/1/3d-printer-filament-types-3d-printing-3d-filament/.
[Accessed 30 May 2019].
[6] 3ders, "Price compare - 3D printing materials - Filament," [Online]. Available:

https://www.3ders.org/pricecompare/. [Accessed 30 May 2019].
[7] C. Nicholson, "The ID Student's Friend: Foamcore, Blue Foam, and Others," 2014.
[Online]. Available: https://www.core77.com/posts/27606/The-ID-Students-Friend-
Foamcore-Blue-Foam-and-Others. [Accessed 30 May 2019].
[8] H. J. Goett and K. W. Bullivant, "Report No. 647 - Tests of NACA 0009, 0012, and 0018
Airfoils in the Full-Scale Tunnel," United States, Virginia, 1939.
[9] T. Hoffman, "3D Printer Filaments Explained," 2018. [Online]. Available:

https://www.pcmag.com/article/360773/3d-printer-filaments-explained. [Accessed 15
May 2019].
66

Bsc. Aeronautical Engineering: Eae 4065 - Aerospace Project Ii

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bsc. Aeronautical Engineering: Eae 4065 - Aerospace Project Ii

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

BSc.

Supervisor: Dr. Raed Kafafy

Figure 85: Configuration 2 – Wind Tunnel Pressure contour.................................................. 58

Configuration 1: No spoiler ............................................................................................. 56

 Perform CFD Analysis on a simplified three-dimensional car model with various

2.1. AutoCAD Model

Figure 1: Isometric view of the car model with simplified wheels

Figure 2: Side view of the car model with simplified wheels

Figure 3: Top view of the car model with simplified wheels

Figure 4: Front view of the car model with simplified wheels

2.2. Geometry and Meshing in ANSYS

Axis Direction Small Enclosure Dimensions Large Enclosure Dimensions

Figure 5: Isometric view of the geometry

Figure 6: Geometry for 0º angle of attack for car wing

Two Booleans were then created:

Figure 7: Front view of the car geometry

Figure 8: Sectioned Boundary View of Car Geometry Set up

Figure 9: 3D Mesh for the car

2.3. Setup in CFX

Figure 12: Setup done in CFX

Conversion Target: 0.01

Table 3: Boundary Conditions

Boundary Boundary Conditions

2.4. 3D Meshing for Laminar and Turbulent Flow Simulation

Table 4 shows the settings used for the meshing method.

Meshing Method Settings Used/Description

The settings used for the boundaries are listed in table 5.

3. Wind Tunnel Testing

3.1. The AF100 Subsonic Wind Tunnel

Figure 14: AF 100 subsonic wind-tunnel

Figure 15: Schematic of the AF 100 subsonic wind-tunnel

Table 6 presents the comparison between these flow visualization methods.

3.2. Boundary Layer Thickness

X (mm) Laminar Flow (𝛅𝟗𝟗 ) Turbulent Flow (𝛅𝟗𝟗 )

In addition, another thickness of importance is the displacement thickness δ∗ which is

Where δ∗ is the displacement thickness, ν is kinematic viscosity of the fluid at room

X (mm) Laminar Flow (𝛅∗ ) Turbulent Flow (𝛅∗ )

3.3. Suitable Materials for Wind Tunnel Testing

 Strength: High, Flexibility: Low, Durability: Medium

ABS printer filament properties:

 Strength: High, Flexibility: Medium, Durability: High

Weight of Reference car model in mm 107.51mm x 46.11mm x 30.60mm

Figure 18: Small car reference model in 3D WOX software.

Real scale car model dimensions (LxBxH) 4462mm x 1998mm x 1159mm

Figure 19: Fore section of CAD car model.

Figure 20: Aft section of CAD car model.

Figure 21: CAD wing model with rod at 0° angle of attack

Part Name Weight Time Cost Cost ($)[3mm,

 Wood foam or foam for wind tunnel testing

3.4. Wind Tunnel Model

Figure 22: Dimensions of the scaled down car model

Figure 23: 3D printed Reference Car Model

Figure 25: Wooden Car model with a 15 degree spoiler configuration

Figure 26: Wind Tunnel Car Model with no spoiler

Figures 27 shows the second configuration, which is the retracted spoiler.

Figure 27: Wind Tunnel Car Model with a retracted spoiler

Figure 28: Wind Tunnel Car Model with a spoiler at 0 degrees

The fourth configuration showcases a deployed spoiler at an angle of attack of 15 degrees, as

Figure 29: Wind Tunnel Car Model with a spoiler at 15 degrees

Figure 30: Wind Tunnel Car Model with a spoiler at 55 degrees

3.5. Wind Tunnel Testing Procedure

3.6. Testing of the NACA 0012 Airfoil Model (3D Airfoil)