Design of High-Lift Airfoil For Formula Student Race Car

Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019
ARTICLE INFO
Article ID: 02-12-01-0002
Copyright © 2019
SAE International
doi:10.4271/02-12-01-0002
Design of High-Lift Airfoil for

Formula Student Race Car
Abdelrahman Ibrahim Mahgoub, Hashim El-Zaabalawy, Walid Aboelsoud, and Mohamed Abdelaziz,
Ain Shams University, Egypt
Abstract History
Received: 25 Jun 2018
A two-dimensional model of three elements, high-lift airfoil, was designed at a Reynolds number Revised: 04 Oct 2018
of 10 6 using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to generate downforce with good lift-to-drag Accepted: 14 Oct 2018
efficiency for a formula student open-wheel race car basing on the nominal track speeds. The e-Available: 05 Dec 2018
numerical solver uses the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equation model coupled with
the Langtry-Menter four-equation transition shear stress transport (SST) turbulence model. Such Keywords
model adds two further equations to the k − ω SST model resulting in an accurate prediction for the Aerodynamics, Airfoil
amount of flow separation due to adverse pressure gradient in low Reynolds number flow. The k − ω design, Design optimization,
SST model includes the transport effects into the eddy-viscosity formulation, whereas the two Race car, Formula student,
equations of transition momentum thickness Reynolds number and intermittency should further Computational fluid
consider transition effects at low Reynolds number. Starting with a baseline design using the under- dynamics
standing of high-lift airfoils, all elements were arranged using an Eppler E421 profile. The lift coef-
ficient was improved by varying the flaps’ overlaps, gaps, and deflection angles sequentially, thus Citation
testing 31 rigging combinations. Finally, these data were plotted to choose the best rigging in terms Mahgoub, A.,
of maximum lift coefficient and to better understand the sensitivity of lift and drag coefficients to El-Zaabalawy, H.,
these parameters. Lift coefficient improved by 8.9% compared to the baseline design. It was also Aboelsoud, W., and
found that the lift coefficient increased 5.9 times when compared to a single-element Eppler Abdelaziz, M., “Design
E421 airfoil. of High-Lift Airfoil for
Formula Student Race Car,”
SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh.
12(1):19-29, 2019,
doi:10.4271/02-12-01-0002.
ISSN: 1946-391X
e-ISSN: 1946-3928
19
20 Mahgoub et al. / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 12, Issue 1, 2019
I. Introduction FIGURE 1 Ain Shams University FS vehicle on the

autocross track.
T
HROUGH the past decades-especially since the end of
the 1960s [1]-the importance of aerodynamics for
motorsports has been increasing rapidly. Since then
more and more motorsports vehicles started using the concept
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved

of adding inverted wings to add more downforce to further
increase cornering speeds, as generating downforce should
increase the adhesion friction between the tires and the
ground and, therefore, the vehicle should resist the skidding
or rolling forces at corners finally pushing up the skid-speed
limit. In addition the generated downforce would enhance
braking performance in terms of braking distance, and it will
reduce slip effect through increasing traction between the tire
and the ground.
Formula student is a student competition that takes place
in many countries across the world; Ain Shams University’s
ASU racing team participates in the Silverstone, United
Kingdom, competition organized by IMechE. This article presents the design and optimization of a 2D
The competition is about getting students to design, build, three-element wing through finding the optimum combina-
present, and compete with scaled formula race vehicles into tion of rigging parameters. The wing consists of three elements:
static and dynamic events. Static events include presenting the main element with the longest chord length, in addition
the technical design aspects of the vehicle and presenting a to two flaps (Figure 2).
business logic case of the vehicle along with the cost analysis
report. On the other hand, the dynamic event involves time
attack events of skid pad, acceleration, autocross (sprint), and
A. High-Lift Aerodynamics
endurance races. Introduction
It is arguable that most teams focus on increasing down-
force rather than reducing drag because although drag should a. High-Lift Airfoil Gaps Effect Understanding the gaps
reduce the vehicle’s acceleration; however, the autocross and and slots effects was discussed by Prandtl [2] and attributed
endurance tracks consist of hard and successive corners starting mainly to energizing the boundary layer. This concept was then
from 5 to 20 meter radii, whereas straight lines which are not better justified by the work of A.M.O Smith [3] according to the
long enough for a vehicle to reach its top speed are intended for following effects:
safety considerations. Thus the nominal vehicle speed is esti- 1. The slat effect: The slat vortices protect the leading
mated to be about 50 km/h, and therefore the performance of edge of the main element by decreasing the energy of
the vehicle onto these corners appears to be more important air impacting the main element’s leading edge. Thus
and more effective in terms of lap time than that on straight lines. at higher angles of attack, it reshapes the flow to
The problem that appears to every motorsports aerody- be smooth over the leading edge and hence delays
namicist is the limiting space rules for aerodynamics devices, leading edge separation stall.
thus creating the need for an efficient wing. This efficiency is 2. The circulation effect: The downstream element causes
interpreted into generating as much lift force with the limited the upstream element to be in high-velocity area.
available space and keeping in mind to reduce drag as possible. Thus the circulation has to increase in order to meet
FIGURE 2 The airfoil’s arrangement and design parameters.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

Mahgoub et al. / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 12, Issue 1, 2019 21
the Kutta condition. So the downstream increases In conclusion, adding a downstream flap to the rear of a
circulation and thus lift of the upstream element. race car airfoil should not change the slope of the lift curve,
3. The dumping effect: The trailing edge of the but rather the curve itself will shift upward, thus increasing
downstream element has higher velocity than the free maximum lift [4]. From the previous and according to the
stream. So the boundary layer will come off the requirements of the application, it was chosen to design a
forward element with high velocity where a reduction double-slotted flap setting.
in pressure recovery occurs.
4. Off-surface pressure recovery: The boundary layer
accelerates at the trailing edge with speed more than B. Computational Fluid
free-stream speed and then converts into a wake; the Dynamics Introduction
recovery to free-stream velocity will be efficient away
from the walls of the airfoil, where the wake should Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques are used to
not merge with the walls’ boundary layer. numerically solve the governing equations for a flow field to
predict flow variables such as pressure, velocity, and tempera-
5. Fresh boundary layer: The purpose is to start a fresh
ture. Thus it is important to define two equation sets related
boundary layer at each element in order to have three
to the focus of this article: firstly the Navier-Stokes mass,
thin boundary layers on three elements that is better
than having a thick one on a single airfoil. momentum, and energy conservation equations and secondly
introducing the problem of turbulence modeling. Once these
b. H
igh-Lift Airfoil Geometry and Rigging as models are defined, they are solved by the finite volume
Shown in Figure 2 method (FVM) used in ANSYS FLUENT.
1. Main element chord C: To which all coefficients and a. Continuity and Navier-Stokes Equations These
dimensionless parameters are related. Defined as the equations express the conservation of mass and momentum;
distance between the main element’s leading and such equations are then applied to the control volumes
trailing edges, although some other references might through the domain to be solved numerically according to
instead use a mean chord starting from the main the boundary conditions:
element’s leading edge down to the last downstream
element’s trailing edge; however, such definition is ¶r
+ +Ñ. ( rV ) = 0 Eq. (1)
problematic as the chord length changes with each ¶t
iteration and displacement of the elements. Hence a
comparison using the dimensionless coefficients of
lift and drag will fail; therefore here it is set to be the ¶p æ ¶2u ¶2u ¶2u ö æ ¶u ¶u ¶u ¶u ö
rg x - + m ç 2 + 2 + 2 ÷ = r ç + u + v + w ÷
fixed value of the main element’s chord. ¶x è ¶x ¶y ¶z ø è ¶t ¶x ¶y ¶z ø
2. Flap gap Gf1: The diameter of the circle drawn from Eq. (2)
the upstream element’s trailing edge, tangential to the
flap, suffix 1 or 2 indicates the specified flap 1 or 2. ¶p æ ¶ 2 v ¶ 2 v ¶ 2 v ö æ ¶v ¶v ¶v ¶v ö
3. Flap overhang Of1: The horizontal distance between rg y - + m ç 2 + 2 + 2 ÷ = r ç + u + v + w ÷
the upstream element’s leading edge and the flap’s ¶y è ¶x ¶y ¶z ø è ¶t ¶x ¶y ¶z ø
leading edge. Eq. (3)
4. Flap deflection δf1: The minimum angle between the ¶p æ ¶2 w ¶2 w ¶2 w ö
flap’s chord and the main element’s chord. rg z - + mç 2 + 2 + 2 ÷
¶z è ¶x ¶y ¶z ø
c. Trailing Edge Devices æ ¶w ¶w ¶w ¶w ö
= rç +u +v +w ÷ Eq. (4)
1. Plain flap: It is just a part of the main element, but it is è ¶t ¶x ¶y ¶z ø
given a degree of freedom in order to take the
required deflection without slotting. where
2. Slotted flap: As Smith explained the effects of slotting, ρ = Density
the slotted flap increases the maximum achievable lift p = Pressure
through making the boundary layer withstand g i = Gravitational acceleration component in the
further camber and higher pressure differential. i-direction
3. Fowler flap: Improved flap performance could u, v, w = Velocity components in the x-, y-, and
be concluded when the flap produces a Fowler action, z-directions
where the Fowler action is defined as “the measure of μ = Fluid dynamics viscosity
change in position of the leading-edge of the flap in the
plane of the chord of the fore element.” Also the extended b. Turbulence Modeling Turbulent flow is a type of
chord could be defined as the cruise airfoil chord plus the flow characterized by irregular local fluctuations in both
Fowler action; this increase in airfoil area increases the magnitude and direction of properties with respect to time.
achievable lift without significant increase in drag. Due to the excessive kinetic energy, the fluid particles overcome
the damping effect of viscosity. The problem of modeling the Thus according to the Boussinesq hypothesis:
fluctuating irregularities does not only arise in the very short
time step among which these fluctuations occur but also that ¶u æ ¶u ¶u ö ¶p
r + rç u + v ÷ = + mÑ2 u + fturb , x Eq. (10)
the solution for such problem would be much affected with ¶t è ¶x ¶y ø ¶x
the initial conditions and boundary conditions; thus the sim-
plest error would result in huge variation of the solution. Thus fturb , x is the force due to turbulent stress in the
the problem of turbulence is either solved by the following x-direction.
methods. Now through more derivation, turbulent shear stress is
function in turbulent viscosity; this is derived as follows through
1. Direct numerical solution (DNS): analogy with normal shear stress and normal dynamic viscosity:
•• This simulation resolves the irregular fluctuations
completely from the smallest dissipative eddy up to ¶tturb
xy
tturb
xy = dy Eq. (11)
the integral scale ones. ¶y
•• Such simulation requires significant computational
resources; thus it is mainly used for æ ¶v ¶u ö
tturb
xy = m turb ç + ÷ Eq. (12)
academic applications. è ¶x ¶y ø
2. Large eddy simulation (LES):
The term μturb is the coefficient of turbulent viscosity, which
•• The large unsteady turbulent eddies are resolved,
the RANS EVM turbulence models are intended to solve as
whereas the small ones are modeled.
function in a set of partial differential equations, so in other
•• Its idea is to decrease the required computational words, turbulence models are equations added to the RANS
resources of the DNS using a low-pass flow model, in order to solve the turbulence unknown terms.
filtering method.
3. Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations:
•• The fluctuation is decomposed statistically into two
components: an average component and a peak II. Procedure
component where the fluctuation equals the
average plus or minus the peak.
•• Reynolds stresses are either all modeled and solved A. Optimization Method
using the six-equation Reynolds stress models, or an Brute force optimization would require giving the model
analogy using the Boussinesq hypothesis is made to ranges for all design parameters which are the gaps, overlaps,
relate the RANS unknowns to a new term called and deflections for both flaps (Gf1, Of1, δf1, Gf2 , Of2 , δf2) and
turbulent viscosity. And then zero-, two-, and four- then solving all possible outcomes and finding the best
equation models are used to solve this term. possible results in terms of lift and drag. If each of the six
parameters takes only four values, this produces the
RANS Eddy Viscosity Flow M o d e l . Usi ng
required 4 6 = 4096 simulations to cover the whole varia-
Reynolds decomposition:
tions. This method could get a well-optimized wing with
good understanding of the parameters’ sensitivity; however,
u = u + u Eq. (5)
it needs a lot of effort, time, and computational resources.
where u is a local average x velocity and ù is the fluctua- Alternatively to solve the previous problem, the optimiza-
tion above the average value. Averaging the continuity equation: tion was started with a baseline design using deep under-
standing of high-lift aerodynamics and the relation between
¶u ¶v slotting and the boundary layer of each element. Now having
+ = 0 Eq. (6)
¶x ¶y a baseline design of acceptable lift and drag coefficients, a
parameter is varied while all other parameters are kept
¶u ¶v constant till reaching lift coefficient maxima; subsequently
+ = 0 Eq. (7)
¶x ¶y this parameter value producing the maxima is kept constant,
In the x-direction, we have: and the next parameter is varied and so on in one direction
as follows:
¶u æ ¶u ¶u ö ¶p
r + r ç u + v ÷ = - + mÑ2 u Eq. (8) G f 1 ® Of 1 ® df 1 ® G f 2 ® Of 2 ® df 2
¶t è ¶x ¶y ø ¶x
Reaching the last parameter (δf2) should end the first pass.
Using the decomposition equation: To find an even better combination, a second pass should
be performed using the acquired parameters of the first pass
¶u æ ¶u ¶u ö ¶p æ ¶u ¶u ö
+ r ç u + v ÷ = - + mÑ2 u - r ç u + `v ÷ and again starting to vary parameters in the same direction
r ç ¶t
¶t è ¶x ¶y ø ¶x è ¶t ÷ø and order until a maximum lift coefficient is.
Eq. (9) The optimization procedure is shown in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3 Flowchart of the design procedure. intermittency and transition momentum thickness Reynolds
number Reθ-are introduced and shown below.
It is considerable to note that the k − ω SST model has
the advantage of using a k − ε model at the far stream [6] and
using the k − ω model at the wall. Sensitivity is an inherent
property of the model and requires some fine tuning. It has
been found that for practical applications, the K-omega SST
model behaves well with adverse pressure gradients and sepa-
ration detection. The four-equation Langtry-Menter transition
SST model is given by the following four equations:
¶ ( rk ) ¶ ( ru j k ) ¶ é ¶k ù
+ = Pˆk - D
ˆ +
k ê( m + s k m t ) ú Eq. (13)
¶t ¶x j ¶x j êë ¶x j úû
¶ ( rw) ¶ ( ru j w) ¶ é ¶w ù
+ = Pw - Dw + ê( m + s w m t ) ú
rs ¶k ¶w
+ 2 (1 - F1 ) w2 Eq. (14)
w ¶x j ¶x j
¶ ( rg ) ¶ ( ru j g ) ¶ éæ m t ö ¶g ù
+ = Pg - E g + êç m + ÷ ú Eq. (15)
¶t ¶x j ¶x j êëè sf ø ¶x j úû

( qt
¶ rRe ) + ¶ (ru Re

) =Pj qt
+
¶ é
êsqt ( m + m t )
qt ù
¶ Re
ú
qt
Eq. (16)
where
k = Turbulent kinetic energy
ω = Specific turbulence dissipation rate
γ = Intermittency
qt = Transition momentum thickness Reynolds number
Re
B. Turbulence Model
The objective is to accurately calculate the pressure field in
C. Turbulence Model
order to obtain both lift and drag coefficients, keeping in mind Validation
the crucial importance of capturing the boundary layer sepa- Narsipur, Pomeroy, and Selig validated the transition SST
ration accurately, as this is the point before which the model for a two-element high-lift airfoil [7], where the airfoil
maximum lift coefficient is determined. NLR 7301 was analyzed using this model. The result lift and
It was found that both LES and DNS models would not drag curves were compared against experimental data
go along with the available resources; thus the choice was collected in the low-speed wind tunnel at the National
made for the RANS model. It is crucial to choose an appro- Research Labs, the Netherlands. “The two-element system
priate RANS model for the problem in hand as each one of consisted of the NLR 7301 airfoil section and a flap element
them is flawed at a point and accurate at another. of 32% chord at a deflection angle of 20°, a gap of 2.6% chord,
One other modeling challenge was that the vehicle and an overlap of 5.3%.”
operates at rather low Re numbers-typically below 106; thus According to their work and experiments, the transition
the flow lies into the transition region between a fully turbu- SST model underpredicts Cl by nearly 3%, whereas it overpre-
lent and fully laminar flow. So a model that wouldn’t predict dicts Cd by nearly 4% for all angles of attack. The accuracy of
such transition would detect false stall. the model could be attributed to the well-resolved laminar
Hence based on the relative advantages and disadvantages and turbulent boundary layer.
of various RANS model options, it was decided to use the
transition shear stress transport (SST) model.
The transition SST [5] model is based on the two-equation
k − ω SST model but further adds two more equations to detect
D. Mesh Properties
transition; one for the intermittency and the other In order to fulfill the requirements of the transition SST
for the transition onset criteria. Thus two more variables- model, the boundary layer must be resolved by keeping y+
FIGURE 4 The model’s mesh. From left to right, the C-domain, refinement sphere of influence, and inflation prisms.
value around 1 for the airfoil walls. But in order to make the margin. The next step was varying Gf l which appeared to
process more robust, the far-field mesh was set to be unstruc- be the most sensitive parameter in comparison to the rest.
tured triangular elements, whereas the quad elements are Increasing Gf l by five times increased Cl by 7.1%. These results
layered only at the airfoil walls to reach the required y+ value. are shown in Figure 7. Then varying δf l by 5.71% yielded into
Thus a hybrid mesh setting was used. further increasing Cl by 0.89%, whereas any further attempt
The domain is a C-domain mesh which is advised by to increase deflection was met by boundary layer separation
NASA. For refinement around the airfoils to capture the stall. Thus optimizing flap 1 settings yielded into a total Cl
turbulence wakes, a sphere of influence was defined at such increase of 8.2%.
region. Figure 4 and Table 1 sum up the final mesh properties Now keeping the acquired flap 1 rigging and proceeding
for the model. with flap 2 optimization. Reducing Of2 by 47.5% increased Cl
In order to make sure that the mesh sizing does not affect by 0.16% as shown in Figure 8. Then increasing Gf2 by 30%
the final solution, a mesh independency study was carried on further increased Cl by 0.52% as shown in Figure 9. Thus opti-
where the refinement zone was further refined and the effect mizing flap 2 yielded into further increase of 0.63% in
on lift and drag coefficients was recorded and displayed lift coefficient.
in Figure 5. Figure 10 describes how optimizing the variables changed
For mesh independency study, the sphere of influence lift and drag coefficient. It is noted that flap 1 gap had the
refinement sizing was varied and plotted against lift and drag highest contribution to the lift coefficient increase, where the
coefficients. Figure 5 shows that further refinement after final L/D ratio is 41.9.
501,000 cells would result in variation of only 0.32% for Cl One can note that nearly all lift and drag curves behave
and 3.67% for Cd, thus pointing that mesh independency is in a similar way before stall limit, which could be attributed
achieved as target criterion is less than 5%. This convergence to the fact that as pressure differential across the airfoil
was satisfactory for the model and fidelity of the increases, lift would increase in expense to additional drag;
solutions obtained. such behavior could be noted too in a single-element airfoil.
Also one idea that would explain the behavior of lift and
drag vs. gaps and overlaps is that the intent of a gap is to supply
TABLE 1 Meshing properties’ summary. air with sufficient energy to overcome the adverse pressure
gradient, thus delaying separation and enhancing overall
Used meshing software ANSYS WB meshing
circulation. Increasing the gap much beyond limit would make
Domain description C-domain mesh with sphere of air enter with insufficient velocity and unguided direction
influence
which might lead to separation of the boundary layer onto the
Meshing method Hybrid of tetrahedral mesh and following element. Reducing the gap too much would result
inflating prisms around the airfoils
in very high throttling losses for air entering the gap; thus it
Maximum skewness 0.51
would have insufficient energy to withstand the adverse
Size functions Proximity and curvature pressure gradient. As a result, the design point should lie
Total mesh count 5E+5 between these two conditions.
Inflation method First layer thickness calculated from Figures 11 and 12 show a comparison between the velocity
desired y+ value of 1 contours of the baseline vs. the optimized setting; it is clear
Free-stream velocity 14.7 m/s that the optimized rigging provides more air flow with proper
direction to energizing the boundary layer and generating a
favorable wake. It is also clear that the wake generated by the
baseline design prevented adhesion between air and the
III. Results and Discussion second flap due to separation. A problem overcame as shown
by the optimized design.
Figure 6 shows the relationship between Of l and Cl, where a Figures 13 and 14 show how the optimized rigging
decrease of Of l by 20% increased Cl by 0.13% which is a small increased the pressure differential through increasing suction
FIGURE 5 Lift and drag coefficient mesh independency.
0.153 6.27
0.152
0.151 6.265
Drag coefficient Cd
li coefficient Cl
0.15
6.26
0.149
0.148 6.255
0.147
0.146 6.25
0.145
6.245
0.144
0.143 6.24
0.E+00 2.E+05 4.E+05 6.E+05 8.E+05 0.E+00 2.E+05 4.E+05 6.E+05 8.E+05
No. Elements No. Elements
FIGURE 6 Lift coefficient vs. flap 1 overlap. FIGURE 8 Lift coefficient vs. flap 2 overlap.
6.26 6.80
6.25 6.75
6.25 Li coefficient 6.70
Li coefficiet
6.24 6.65
6.24 6.60
6.23 6.55
6.23 6.50
6.22 6.45
1.08 1.18 1.27 1.59 1.91 0.00 0.92 1.84 2.67 3.50 5.53
Flap 1 overlap (% main chord) Flap 2 overlap (% main chord)
FIGURE 7 Lift coefficient vs. flap 1 gap.

FIGURE 9 Lift coefficient vs. flap 2 gap.
6.80
6.81
6.70
6.80
6.60
Li coefficient
6.79
Li coefficient
6.50
6.40 6.78
6.30 6.77
6.20 6.76
6.10 6.75
6.00 6.74
3.7
3.4
4.0
4.3
4.9
5.5
6.1
7.7
9.2
10.7
12.3
15.3
18.4
2.67 3.07 3.34 3.41 3.47 4.01

Flap 1 gap (% main chord) Flap 2 gap (% main chord)
© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved. 25

FIGURE 10 Variable optimization contribution to lift and drag coefficients.
Optimization contribution to lift and drag coefficients

OPT GP2

OPT OVRL2
OPT def1
OPT GP1
OPT OVRL1
Baseline
5.80 6.00 6.20 6.40 6.60 6.80 7.00 7.20
Lift Drag
FIGURE 11 Velocity contour comparison, optimized design on the right and baseline on the left.
FIGURE 12 Velocity contour comparison zoom out.

26 © 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 13 Baseline design pressure coefficient distribution. From the left main element, flap 1, and flap 2.
FIGURE 14 Optimized design pressure coefficient distribution.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved. 27

pressure above the wing. In baseline rigging, the maximum

suction pressure coefficients of elements were −11.52, −3.55, V. Acknowledgments
and −0.5 for the main element, flap 1, and flap 2, respectively,
whereas for the optimized rigging, these values increase to This research article was carried out by the help, support, and
−12.67, −8.36, and −1.03 consequently. facilitations of ASU racing team; we would like to thank all
Keep in mind the rough number stated by Smith that the of this entity’s leaders and members who have helped us
maximum achieved value of 𝑒 is about 70%. through this research, and we would like to thank the teaching
It is important to note that the optimized design did stall assistants at the automotive department, Ain Shams
on trying to further increase the flap 2 deflection, as well as University, who voluntarily give much time and effort in
in attempt to further optimize and do a second-pass variation; helping ASURT students, mentioning Eng. Mohamed
thus the boundary layer is on the verge of separation as recom- Abdelwahab, Eng. Ahmed Abdelqader, Eng. Mohamed Essam,
mended by Smith. and Eng. Mohammed Abdelshakour.
The following figures show the plot of pressure coefficient We would like to thank all of our professors, teaching
for both upper and lower surfaces for each airfoil against hori- assistants, and staff at Ain Shams University’s mechanical
zontal distance measured downstream from the main engineering department who guided us to the knowledge and
element’s leading edge. mindset we have.
We are also grateful to Eng. Mohammed El-Beheiry (tech-
nical analyst at Optumatics) and Eng. Ibrahim Gad El-Haq
(teaching assistant, mechanical power department, Ain Shams
University) for their help and comments for the sake of
IV. Conclusion and Future this research.
Work And most importantly, we thank our family, friends, and
colleagues who stood by us all along.
This article has shown the effect of varying rigging parameters
against lift and drag coefficients for a 2D airfoil. Such airfoil Nomenclature
could be used for race or even commercial car applications
for both speed and stability performance enhancements. CFD - Computational fluid dynamics
However, if used for commercial vehicles that do not only RANS - Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
follow the formula student track, it is advised to use an active LES - Large eddy simulation
wing design so as to use the wing when required at sharp
SST - Shear stress transport
corners, whereas at straight lines where acceleration is
required, the wing should not be used. DNS - Direct numerical simulation
Clearly the challenge was to keep air attached until the Cl - Lift coefficient
last downstream element through finding the right rigging Cd - Drag coefficient
combination that delays separation due to adverse
Cp - Pressure coefficient
pressure gradient.
Although 2D design was used to generate the best C - Main element fixed chord length
profile; however, one of the aerodynamics challenges for a y+ - Non-dimensional wall distance
formula student vehicle is the short available wingspan due Gf1 - Flap 1 gap
to competition rules; therefore the trailing vortex effect will
Gf2 - Flap 2 gap
surely affect both lift and drag. Thus future work should
include the 3D simulation of the previous airfoil and should Of1 - Flap 1 overlap
show how to overcome losses generated by the trailing Of2 - Flap 2 overlap
vortex. Some ideas might be using a twisted airfoil in δf1 - Flap 1 deflection
addition to an optimized endplate to minimize air spilling
from the upper high-pressure to the lower low-pressure δf2 - Flap 2 deflection
surfaces at the ends.
Afterward the 3D optimized wing’s lift and drag coeffi-
cients should be inserted to a track simulation code and find VI. References
out how the vehicle would perform with and without the wing.
Then finally such results should be compared to real on-track 1. Katz, J., Race Car Aerodynamics: Designing for Speed (Robert
results for final validation. Bentley, Incorporated, 1996).

2. Prandtl, L., “Uber Fltissigkeitsbewegung bei sehr kleiner Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes,” AIAA Journal
Reibung,” III International Mathematiker-Kongress, 47(12):2894-2906, Dec. 2009.
Heidelberg, 1904. 6. Menter, F.R., “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence
3. Smith, A.M.O., “High-Lift Aerodynamics,” AIAA Journal of Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA Journal
Aircraft 37th Wright Brothers Lecture 12(6), 1975. 32(8):1598-1605, Aug. 1994.
4. Mason, W.H., “Configuration Aerodynamics,” Virginia 7. Narsipur, S., Pomeroy, B.W., and Selig, M.S., “CFD Analysis
Tech, 2018. of Multielement Airfoils for Wind Turbines,” 30th AIAA
5. Langtry, R.B. and Menter, F.R., “Correlation-Based Applied Aerodynamics Conference 2012-2781, New
Transition Modeling for Unstructured Parallelized Orleans, LA.
© 2019 SAE International. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.
Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. Responsibility for the content of the work lies
solely with the author(s).

Design of High-Lift Airfoil For Formula Student Race Car

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Design of High-Lift Airfoil For Formula Student Race Car

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Downloaded from SAE International by Brought to you by Auburn University Libraries, Saturday, August 24, 2019

Design of High-Lift Airfoil for

I. Introduction FIGURE 1 Ain Shams University FS vehicle on the

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved

FIGURE 2 The airfoil’s arrangement and design parameters.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved

FIGURE 5 Lift and drag coefficient mesh independency.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved

Flap 1 overlap (% main chord) Flap 2 overlap (% main chord)

FIGURE 7 Lift coefficient vs. flap 1 gap.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved

2.67 3.07 3.34 3.41 3.47 4.01

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved. 25

FIGURE 10 Variable optimization contribution to lift and drag coefficients.

Optimization contribution to lift and drag coefficients

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved

FIGURE 12 Velocity contour comparison zoom out.

26 © 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 14 Optimized design pressure coefficient distribution.

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved. 27

pressure above the wing. In baseline rigging, the maximum

© 2019 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

I. Introduction FIGURE 1 Ain Shams University FS vehicle on the