Você está na página 1de 10

<23th October, 1999.

>

INVESTIGATION OF RACECAR REAR WING


Horace LAU Supervisor(s): A. Professor K. Hourigan
Department of Mechanical Engineering Monash University, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA

ABSTRACT In recent years, the objectives of most aerodynamic research are to minimize the drag, and at the same time to maximize the negative lift characteristics, in order to increase the speed of the car and to improve the cornering performance. This report aims to investigate the aerodynamic performance of a Joukowsky J815 profile using the computational fluid dynamic program [FLUENT]. The results of the calculations are presented for wings having both positive and negative incidences, as well as those with and without ground effect. These results and patterns are then compared with previous experimental and mathematical results and smoke visualization. Finally the two elements wing with various flap deflection is also investigated. LITERATURE SURVEY
Types of lift force generate on racecar

Airflow will diversify while it approaches on the racecar, there are two different superimposed patterns to be considered that are the flow past over and the flow circulating around the racecar. The flow inclined upward over the racecar will cause the acceleration of air speed and decrease of pressure when comparing with the outside boundary layer, therefore the suction zone would generate and the aerodynamic lift would occur. Lift generated belongs to the vehicle shape and is produced by circulatory airflow, which is the flow circulating around the racecar and is also termed as aerodynamic circulation (Houghton, 1993). This causes the flow from underside of the racecar to flow diagonally towards the sides and to flow towards the roof, joining the faster stream outside. This aerodynamic interference is represented by vortices and these vortices will continue as a trailing vortex downstream.
Effect of lift force generation

One of the major limitations on the performance of racecar is the slip limit of their tires. An increase of the aerodynamic lift around the car would further reduce the lateral and longitudinal traction capabilities of the tires, which means reducing the tire and road adhesion. Moreover, the distribution of lift forces acting on the racecar will determine the magnitude of the pitching moment, which tends to reduce the tire load on the road and substantially lessen the grids when it arises. This affective factor would highly abase the racecar

 !

 #

"

 

 !

 

 

performance in several different ways such as its steering properties, stability and cornering speed.
Negative lift devices

By optimizing the downforce and together with the minimum aerodynamic drag force have become the main objectives of many racecar designers. But in fact, to design a good performance racecar the exterior designers have to work together with mechanical engineers because the aerodynamic forces act externally which actually combine with other forces of mechanical nature, such as frictional force between tires and road. Therefore, it is unreasonable to consider aerodynamics separately from mechanical aspects (Woodbridge, 1996). By the reason of their common theme relied upon the discipline of models, most of the development will concern over the upper surface of the racecar (Scibor, 1978). The improvement would perform based on either the body shape or some add-on devices. By remodeling and integrating the body shape and surface, features such as drooping nose, canopy and tail section, clearance and smoothness of underside panel, front and rear windows, ...etc. would be considered. Other than the influence of shape, some add-on aerodynamic devices like wedge shape body profile and rear negative wing have been used with varying degrees of success. Negative rear wing was first introduced in the 1960s. It is made of a short span wing usually like a rectangular platform and has aeronautical cross-sectional profile similar to those used on aircraft wings (Fenton, 1996). The rear wing fixed at a certain angle of incidence with respect to the oncoming airflow over the rear axle just acts like a flap where the basic profile is the racecar. The rear wing is the most practical approach to adjust the down force and to perform the highest efficiency comparing with other methods. Variables which will alter the level and efficiency of down force produced by the rear wing include the number of wing elements, size, position, angle of attack, shape, aspect ratio and other additional add-ons like end plates and Gurney flap.
Area concerned on rear wing Influence of shape and angle parameters

The shape and angle of the wing can be varied widely, just a small geometrical or angle change of the wing would make a considerable difference to their

aerodynamic characteristics (Riegels, 1961). Recently an ultimate negative rear wing that can provide the best performance for all occasions is nowhere to be found, because the negative lift force is inverse proportion to the drag. By integrating the airfoil shape, heavily cambered wing and high incidence will give a high negative lift coefficient together with large drag penalty, which means that it will be more suitable for slow speed circuits. With a lightly cambered wing and low incidence, the result will be vice versa and it will be more suitable for high speed circuits (Beccio, 1987). Therefore, the designers can only choose the wing shape and level of incidence based on highest aerodynamic efficiency with such requirement is taken into considerations.
Influence of position parameter

information can be obtained by using analytical, computational or experimental techniques (Dominy, 1992). Because of the enormous cost of equipment, models and manpower incurred by wind tunnel testing, Computational Fluid Dynamics has been widely developed due to the progress in super computer power and computational schemes (Hinemo et al, 1992). In this study the computational technique is used for examining the performance of a typical rear wing model of the racecar. With this highly cambered airfoil model the effects of the angle of attack and wing location are investigated. Also the comparison of the computational aerodynamic data with the experimental results are included. Furthermore, the two elements wing is also investigated in this paper. MODEL DESCRIPTION The shape of the wing being chosen for this investigation is the Joukowsky J815 profile, which is a typical highly cambered rear wing of racecar (Riegels, 1961). The coordinate of the wing section has been traced around to obtain 116 points, concentrated near the leading and trailing edges. These points were then entered into the geometry program (DDN) and grid generation program (P-Cube) in GeoMesh, which is a prepocessor for CFD solver to reproduce the wing section. A single element wing with chord of 235mm and wing span of 1000mm has been produced in Figure 1. For the two elements wing, the additional wing section with the same shape but in scale of size was used. The operating boundary of the model with a cross section of 1200mmx1700mm is suitable when accuracy and time have been taken into consideration. Comparisons of result accuracy are discussed in the next section of this paper.

From the aerodynamic point of view, the rear wing should be fixed comparatively high over the car to allow it to move in the undisturbed airstream. Yet in fact, when the wing mounts too high over the car, the aerodynamic drag force on the wing will produce negative pitching moment and will tend to rotate the car around the rear wheels and to lift the front wheel off the ground (Katz, 1996). The pitching moment does act contrary wise to the efficiency of steering, especially at high speed. However, the motion of the rear wing has been limited by racecar regulations to a maximum height of approximately the height of the roof, so that the design boundary is constrained. When the rear wing is lowering gradually towards the car body, the separated airflow can only be practically reattached onto the surface of the wing. If this happens, the rear wake behind the racecar may extend up to the lower surface of the wing. This would affect the actual pressure distribution on the wing and consequently its aerodynamic lift force. Furthermore, with wing at sufficient low position and the wake behind the racecar approaching each other, until a certain length, they will join together and this leads to sudden increase of lift. This type of effect is called body-wing interference.
Influence by add-on devices

The add-on devices of the rear wing can increase its downforce within the racecar regulations applied. The end plate has been used to hold the wing elements and to cut down the induced drag by impeding the flow round the wing tips so that the wing assumes a new effective aspect ratio, which is greater than the geometrical value. The end plate also creates an airflow pattern that is approximately two-dimensional, in order to sufficiently increase the aerodynamic lift. Another common device is the Gurney flap, which is attached perpendicular to the trailing edge of the rear wing (Katz, 1987). The Gurney flap can give a substantial rise in negative lift that is generated by the wing, but a large drag force penalty would also be introduced simultaneously. Multiple elements of rear wings have also become familiar in recent years, they are very similar to the airfoil in aircraft but this supplementary wing does not retract into the main wing (Katz, 1989). The development of the position and arrangement of wing and the corresponding aerodynamic

Figure 1 : Joukowsky J815 profile with grid. The grid model with finer resolution inside the leading and trailing domains of the wing can provide more detailed and accurate results within these critical areas. The general size of the grid will lie between 40000 to 95000 cells as in Figure 1. The determination of the size actually depends on the requirement of positions, arrangement and different incidences. For instance, some special models will require more than 150000 cells to provide reliable results. The CFD solver FLUENT is the computer code in which the setting of the model and the adjustment of

rear

operating condition are made. The equation that FLUENT applies to solve the fluid flow problem is the Navier-Stoke Equation
) 0 2 1 3 5

examination. When Reynolds number is increased, the coefficient of lift and drag will also be increased. This relation can be formulated further by the equation

Figure 2 : Comparison of CFD and EXP. result (FX-72 & NACA642-415). Overall the operating boundary and condition that were chosen for the investigation were predictably accurate enough to compare with actual wind tunnel results of the two-dimensional real scale model. Smoke visualization will also be compared in later section. COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS The computational results will be demonstrated by solving three main physical situations of interest. The first case being the effect of the wing with different angle of incidences within the non-boundary (i.e. isolated) conditions. In the second case, the effect of ground proximity on the wing and the body wing interference are to be considered. The third situation to be investigated is the effect on the wing aerodynamic characteristic by adding a supplementary element with variations of its angle of deflection and ground clearance.
Effect on Angle of attack

Furthermore, by increasing the boundary size to (2000mmx6000mm) of the operating area and a finer resolution to 160000 cells would only affect the result by 5% to 8%, but it prolongs the computational time by more than 10 to 15 times. By comparing the results obtained in different viscous models, the results of standard k-epsilon turbulence model being less accurate than that of the RNG k-epsilon turbulence model, also agrees with the background theory based (Wilcox, 1993). Finally, the prior mathematical and experimental results of a similar racecar rear wing profile, Wortmann Fx-72 MS150A was selected to compare with the computational result in this investigation. This comparison is shown again in Figure 2, both experimental and mathematical results do give an obvious similarity of aerodynamic characteristics when compared with the result given by the Joukowsky J815 model. There are several reasons for the possibility of the slight differences though, such as the uncertainty of Reynolds number used by the prior testing of Wortmann Fx-72 rear wing, and that the operating condition set for the model and for the test airfoil model are not identical. The relations between the lift and drag characteristics can also be explained by the results obtained from this

The resulting data were compared with the rear wing having different velocities 45ms-1 and 75ms-1, and different viscous models. Figure 3 demonstrates the coefficient of lift versus drag with the angle of attack varying from 8o to 24o. With the angle of attack being equal, it was found that the change of velocity would not affect the aerodynamic characteristic so much. With the

In order to affirm the accuracy of the aerodynamic results that were attained from the computational program, several comparative methods had been employed, such as comparing different resolutions, velocities, turbulent models, boundary sizes, and pressure distribution plots, and comparing with prior mathematical and experimental results. First of all, the accuracy of the results is found by comparing the experimental research result of NACA 642-415 wing section conducted by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics NACA (Abbott, 1959) with the computational result conducted by the use of designated operating condition and setting performed in existing investigation of Joukowsky J815 racecar rear wing. From the comparison of the gradient and data as shown in Figure 2, the computational results gives a reasonable match with the experimental research results.

COMPARISON OF RESULT ACCURACY

and the Quadratic Upwind Interpolation (QUICK) scheme is used to provide higher order accuracy. The viscous model used for this investigation is the two dimensional, directional positioned, segregated, renormalization group (RNG) k-epsilon turbulence model, which is also discussed in greater depth in the next section. The airflow velocities are 45ms-1 and 75ms1 , which correspond to a range of Reynolds numbers (based on the wing chord) of 7.2x105 to 1.2x106, with the atmosphere temperature of 298K. The operating pressure was set at 101325Pa atmosphere pressure, roughness constant at 0.5, density of air at 1.225kg/m3 and residual criterion at 1x10-7.

to explain the variance of velocity (V), chord length (c) and viscosity ().

Re

Reynolds Number

Re

V Vo
6 7

&

'

V 2c

the better will generally be the car performance. Nevertheless, there are cases where instead of optimizing the aerodynamic efficiency, either the term CD or the term CL tends to be optimized even at the expense of efficiency. The aerodynamic efficiency presented in Figure 4 demonstrates the angle of attack =0o with the maximum efficiency Emax which exponentially decreases while angle of attack increases. As the aerodynamic efficiency curves also show, the angle of attack =8o resulted in rapid deterioration of the negative wing lift due to the drop of lift coefficient and increases in drag. Again with Figure 3, the drag was reduced when the angle of attack of the wing was reduced, and it obtained the minimum coefficient of drag CDmin at incidence of =-4 and increased thereafter. This occurrence was agreed with all different viscous models and velocities.
CP 2 1

0
Y Y

-0.2 -1
u t

0.2

-2

-3
a e r d u v

-4
a

Figure 5 : Pressure coefficient distributed on the wing with different angles of attack.

Figure 3 : Effect of angle of attack compared with -CL and CD.


E
h n h

Other than looking at the lift coefficient of the rear wing characteristic, the aerodynamic characteristic can also be explained by analysis of the pressure distribution around the wing. Figure 5 shows some typical pressure distributions for the wing at various angles of incidence. It is convenient to deal with non-dimensional pressure differences with p , the pressure for upstream, being used as the datum. Thus the coefficient of pressure is introduced below

The aerodynamic efficiency is the ratio between vertical aerodynamic force acting on the car and its drag. Obviously, as the car performance strictly depends on vertical loads, the latter should be increased as far as

Figure 4 : Aerodynamic efficiency compared with different Angle of attack.

Looking at the plot for zero angle of attack =0, it is seen that there are small regions at the nose and tail of the lower surface where Cp is positive, but that over most of the section Cp is negative. The reduced pressure on the lower surface is tending to draw the section downwards while that on the upper surface has the opposite effect. The pressure distribution on the upper surface is positive and there is a resultant downward

-12

-8

-4

12

16

20

24

28

CP

(p

lower speed, the lift and drag coefficient would only reduce slightly. But with the use of standard k-epilson turbulence model, the result was observed to be fairly inconsistent and inaccurate, as well as obtaining lower aerodynamic efficiency. The lift curve has shown this particular highly cambered airfoil, which would reach its specific stalling point at approximately =20o. The circumstance of stall can be explained by the fact that the separated flow at the leading edge will not reattach to the lower surface. When this occurs, the large separated region of unordered flow on the lower surface produce an increase in pressure on that surface and consequently, a sudden loss in negative lift (downforce). Moreover, with negative incidence, for example, =-4, =-8, even it gave a good value of drag coefficient, but it would not generate enough negative lift required of rear wing character. Therefore, the angle of attack between 0o to 16o is the most appropriate working range to be focused on for further investigation.
W

possible without affecting the vehicle drag. Thus the greater the aerodynamic efficiency:

CL CD

L D

` u u ` `

x/c 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

a=-8 a=0 a=8 a=12

p ) V2

force on the section, which is the negative lift (Houghton and Carpenter, 1993). As incidence is increased from zero, the pressure reduction on the lower surface increases both in intensity and extent until, at large incidence, it actually encroaches on a small part of the front upper surface. Moreover, the stagnation point moves progressively further back on the upper surface, and the increased pressure on the upper surface covers a greater proportion of the surface. The large negative values of Cp reached on the lower surface at large incidences, e.g. =16, are also noteworthy. In some cases values of 7 are found as in =24. By an equation

sufficiently small. This in turn slows down the flow of air between the ground and the wing, instead of speeding it up, as is the case for non-viscous flow. The theoretical assumption of an ideal non-viscous airflow is no longer valid (Scibor, 1975). Furthermore, because of the highly compressed flow under the wing, some backward flow and local vortices have also been
W   ` Y t u Y t u  ` ` ` `    

generated below the wing. Figure 6 : Effect of ground proximity compared with CL and CD.

Effect of Ground proximity

The ground interference plays an important role in lift generations. Thus, to simulate a ground clearance of hc, a wall boundary with non-slip condition (i.e. account of shear stress on the wall that is specified) was designated in the computational program at the height of h under baseline of the wing profile, resulting in a solid surface (ground). Three angles of attack, =0, =4 and =8 with various height h=60mm, h=90mm, h=135mm, h=200mm, h=300mm and h=500mm from wing reference point were chosen for examination. This corresponded to the lower surface of the wing being 30mm, 60mm, 105mm 170mm 270mm and 470mm from the car body (ground) respectively. In general, the results presented in Figure 6 showed an increase of lift when the wing was lowered towards the car body. This behavior can be justified by the fact that the airflow between them was accelerating and thus creating a low pressure region on the lower surface of the wing, which also created a suction on the ground (upper surface of the car body) presented in Figure 7. A high pressure region (shown in red color) that can be visualized developed on the upper surface of the wing. Therefore, an excessive downforce was generated by this circumstance. Theoretically, for a non-viscous flow decreasing the area between the wing and the ground causes the velocity to increase as shown in Figure 8 and, therefore negative lift to occur. This negative lift, in theory, tends to increase infinitely when this area tends to zero, Figure 9. But the air is a viscous medium and the phenomenon of viscosity creates a boundary layer around the wing which interferes with the ground when the distance h is
{ { {

Figure 7 : Pressure coefficient distribution on 4o of incidence and h=60mm above ground.

Figure 8 : Velocity magnitude on 4 of incidence and h=135 above ground.

where is the speed of the undisturbed stream, this corresponds to local flow speeds of nearly three times the speed of the undisturbed stream. At the angle of attack around =20 or =24 the pressure reduction on the lower surface suddenly collapses and such little lift as remains is due principally to the pressure increase on the upper surface.
{ { z

rs

CP

q
tuv

Y } | ~ u } | ~  } |

The flow in this region was observed to be unordered as shown in Figure 10, which represented a height of 30mm corresponding to 0.55mm clearance. While these wake regions will extend and find a critical unstable phenomenon behind the racecar, the wake can suddenly spread itself out during fast cornering in relation to the change of relative wind direction. These effective phenomenons only occur when the height clearance is sufficiently small as in the example shown in Figure 10. At the same time the slowing down of the flow underside leads to an increase in the flow rate around the upper surface of the wing which causes an increase of the aerodynamic force. The effect of this would be to reverse the sign of the aerodynamic lift from negative to positive. This sudden variation of aerodynamic characteristic and wake shape can obviously affect the efficiency of the rear wing.
W

which produces a suction effect on the lower surface and highly increases its downforce (McCormick, 1995). Back again to Figure 6, the drag is also reduced when the wing is moved closer the ground, and it obtains the minimum coefficient of drag CDmin at the height of 135mm (i.e. 105mm clearance) and the regain of drag after that critical height.
CP

2 0 x/c 0.3 -2 -4 h=60 -6 -8 H=135 h=500 0.8

-0.2

Figure 9 : Lift coefficient variance of the wing gradually towards the ground.

Figure 10 : Vorticity magnitude occur on the =4 and 0.55mm ground clearance. As described earlier, the use of pressure distribution to analyse the wing aerodynamic characteristics can also be used to explain the effect of ground proximity as presented in Figure 11. With the wing closer to the ground, the CP on the lower surface reduced in both the intensity and extent (increase of negative pressure) and pressure increase on the upper surface simultaneously,

Y t a u

Figure 11 : Pressure coefficient distributed on the wing with different height.


Effect of two elements wing

The geometry and grid distribution of the two elements wing section used in the investigation is shown in Figure 12, the supplementary wing with the scale of of main wing. This shape of the airfoil slightly differs from that of multi-element airfoils used on aircraft, at the gap region between the two elements, since the second element does not retract into the main wing (Katz & Largman, 1989). These two elements wing utilized the modified wing with increased camber in an attempt to maximize downforce potential and the wing assembly to the deflection of the supplementary Figure 12 : Two elements wing geometry and grid

distribution. element, which is an ideal way to adjust rear downforce for different circuits requirement. As the results presented in Figure 13 shows clearly that the two elements wing has a much higher lift than the wing without second element. The reason can be explained by vector diagram shown in Figure 14. The vector diagram indicates that the flow is always separated and the formation of wake region on the suction side (low pressure region), behind the second element wing which

is shown in blue color. Furthermore, on the pressure side and above the wing, a small flow-recirculation area is observed. Therefore the lift increase can be attributed to the additional twisting of the streamlines at the vicinity of the wing trailing edge.
W t Y u ` `

Figure 15 : Comparison of CD and CL between one and two element rear wing with effect of ground proximity. By altering the deflection of the second element which is also being investigated and demonstrated in Figure 13, the 30o deflected flap has generated higher aerodynamic efficiency compared with 45o and 60o deflection. Further on the investigation of ground proximity of two elements wing, the magnitude of the lift and drag coefficients was demonstrated with the same increased ratio, by comparing the results presented in Figure 15 and Figure 13. According to the theory of ground effect that was described in previous section, the effect of ground proximity with a single element wing can also be hold for two elements wing. Flow Visualization Flow visualization techniques, such as the tuft method, oil film method, streak line method, hydrogen bubble method, Schlieren method and smoke technique ...etc., play an important role in understanding the relationship between the body configuration of a vehicle and its aerodynamic characteristics (Tsuyoshi, 1979). Smoke technique mainly contributes to the observation of the external airflow around the vehicle. The production of smoke lines in air is used for the basic investigation of boundary layers or shear flows as well as for the solution of technical flow problems. This kind of visualization generally yields qualitative results, and therefore, is applied often in addition to other computational and/or experimental techniques. The smoke flow visualization in this investigation enables the recognition of a certain structure and behavior of the wake region, flow separation, separation bubble, turbulent reattachment, stagnation point ...etc. and how it is affected by different angle of attack. The smoke tunnel used in this investigation basically consists of two parts, namely a twodimensional small-scale wind tunnel and an oil smoke generator. This smoke generator was developed by applying the principle that the smoke is generated by the vaporization of a mineral oil, and the oil vapor then distributes and travels through a row of 29 nozzles (i.e. 2mm dia.) into the test section. A wooden-made half scale (chord) Joukowsky J815 profile was located in the center of the test section, with an angle rotator attached to it. The smoke was jet at horizontal incidence with low speed allowing for trait visualization. Their smoke visualizations were pictured at 1/60 second together with strobe light. Some sample pictures presented in Figure 16 to 19 show the flow pattern around the wing at various angles of attack. In Figure 16, negative angle of attack =-8o was presented, which shows the flow separation development on the upper surface which provides low negative lift coefficient. Two regions of separation are clearly shown

Figure 13 : Comparison of CD and -CL between one and two element rear wing also with different angle of deflected flap. When the gap between the two wing elements was closed, the lift dropped further down together with a reduction of aerodynamic efficiency and increase of drag penalty, which showed the positive interaction between the elements and the advantage of the multi-elements design (Duncan, 1990).

Figure 14 : Vector diagram of two element wing with 45o deflection.


W

Figure 17 : Flow visualization from Smoke Tunnel with positive angle of attack =0 (1/60 shuttle speed without strobe light).

Most pictures also show that the boundary layer separates from the wing, a wake forms which contains the energy being introduced into the flow by the drag force against the wing. As seen in those positive incidence models, the wake consists of a dead air region in which the pressure is nearly constant. A free shear layer bounding this region is present between the wake and the potential flow. This shear layer is much more unstable than boundary layer (wall shear layer) because the wall has a damping effect (Eppler, 1990). Back on the observation of the pictures, in the downstream the free shear layer collapses and, in further downstream, behind the wing, the wake consists of a vortex motion which may have a certain structure like a Karman street as in Figure 18. The wing having negative angle of attack =-8, behind the leading edge of the upper surface or the vortex structure may be more irregular as the suction area behind the wing with angle of attack =24. In the experiment using smoke in the tunnel, the flow was laminar because of its lower velocity and that Reynolds number different to the turbulent flow used to perform in computational program. The laminar boundary layer that was found in the smoke tunnel around the wing needs much less adverse pressure gradient for separation to occur than the turbulent one. Due to the greater extent of a positive pressure gradient on such a layer, a much more rapid separation of the flow would be caused than if the layer were turbulent. A laminar layer is said to be away from the surface and causes a larger wake than turbulent one, but which can provide a better visualization of wake region such as Karman vortex as shown in the pictures. This highly cambered wing model with relatively large curvatures, and high local curvature over the forward part of the chord may initiate a laminar separation when the wing is at a moderate angle of attack. Small disturbances grow much more readily and at lower Reynolds numbers in separation, as compared to attached boundary layers. Consequently the separated laminar layer may well undergo transition to turbulence with characteristic rapid thickening. This rapid thickening may be sufficient for the lower edge of the, now turbulent, shear layer to come back into contact

Figure 18 : Flow visualization from Smoke Tunnel with positive angle of attack =4 (1/4 shuttle speed without strobe light). in Figure 17 with =0o. The region on the upper surface was shown by a small black patch just behind the leading edge and it reattaches on the surface. The other separation region is about 40% chord at the lower surface. As the angle of attack flowing on the upper surface is gradually increased, it starts to separate at the trailing edge and just behind the leading edge on the lower surface as in Figure 18. For further increase of angle of attack until it reaches its maximum negative lift coefficient, the wing will stall and the separation on the lower surface is fully developed as in the case shown in Figure 19.

Figure 16 : Flow visualization from Smoke Tunnel with negative angle of attack =-8 (1/60 shuttle speed with strobe light).

Figure 19 : Flow visualization from Smoke Tunnel with angle of attack after stall =24 (1/60 shuttle speed with strobe light).

-Fast speed circuit: Wing with =0 to 4 incidence would give a highest aerodynamic efficiency E, which means a lowest drag penalty together with a fair negative lift force. -Medium speed circuit: Wing with =4 to 8 incidence achieved a moderate range of negative lift force between others, which could provide better handling and cornering ability than the one used in fast speed circuit. -Low speed circuit: Wing with =8 to 12 that shows an increase of drag for the high angle of attack, but for its performance at high attitudes which makes it suitable for slow speed circuit where high level of vertical load are needed. 3) The influence of the ground proximity clearly shows that the lift coefficient increased exponentially with the rear wing gradually lowering towards the car body, and there was only a slight change on the drag coefficient. When the height clearance between the wing and car body was sufficiently small, it would slow down the airflow between them as the results gave for the height larger than 36mm. Also some local vortex and backward flow were found under the lower surface, which would largely interfere with the wing aerodynamic characteristic as compared with the report of Scibor-Rylski, 1975. The results for the two elements wing shown by an additional wing element added on can highly increase the downforce coefficient, but in the mean time, a larger drag penalty would be obtained. With the ground effect of the two elements wing, the lift and drag coefficient increase proportionally as the case in single element wing. By varying the deflection of second element angle, it was an ideal way to adjust rear downforce for different circuit needed. The results also proved that the second element with a 30 of deflection would give am outstanding aerodynamics efficiency ahead from all the others. The smoke visualization has given a better interpretation of flow behavior around the rear wing, with the influence of angle of attack. The visualization has clearly shown the structures of the flow such as, wake region, trailing vortex, Karman vortex street ...etc, and combining with the computational results obtained together, an excellent understanding of the aerodynamics characteristics and behavior of this particular rear wing model are provided.

In general, the velocity vector diagrams of various angle of attack generated by computational program were remarkably close to the flow patterns visualized around the wing model tested in the smoke tunnel. And the vorticity contour diagram with the unsteady state time dependant condition also indicate some similarity of vorticies behind the wing as in Figure 20. These indicated that the results generated by computational program were fairly consistent with the experimental results excluding the dissimilarity of velocity and Reynolds number. CONCLUSION The present investigations focus on understanding of the behavior of a racecar rear wing having effect of both positive and negative angle of incidences, with and without the ground effect and an additional wing element added on, with its effect to the aerodynamic characteristic including the effect of ground proximity. The following conclusions are obtained from the investigation: 1) (i) The Computational Fluid Dynamic program was well suited to develop and was used to analyze the aerodynamic characteristics of most automobiles and its components. The CFD program can provide a noticeably accurate result, as seen in the comparison with the experimental data provided by NACA. (ii) The RNG k-epsilon turbulence model gave a more accurate solution than standard k-epsilon turbulence model.

Figure 20 : Vorticity contour diagram with 60 deflection two elements wing.

4)

5)

with the surface and reattach as a turbulent boundary layer on the surface. In this way a bubble of fluid is trapped under the separated shear layer between the separation and re-attachment points. Within the bubble, the boundary is usually taken to be the streamline which leaves the surface at the separation point, two regimes exist. In the upstream region, a pocket of stagnant fluid at constant pressure extends back some way and behind this a circulatory motion develops, the static pressure in this latter region increasing rapidly towards the reattachment point. This can be referred to Figure 6 (Houghton & Carpenter, 1993).

(iii) Variance of Reynolds number will considerably change the aerodynamics characteristics of the rear wing extended to the full vehicle. 2) This typical rear wing stalled at s=20 and the working section between =0 through 16 angle of attack were most appropriate to be used on racecar. With the various types of racecar circuits, wing with different angles will require different categories stated as follows:

Further recommendations of this investigation include carrying on a series of experimental tests on the fullscale rear wing being isolated as well as with the wing being attached to the full car body. This type of experiment can properly validate the result of the present one. Moreover, a three dimensional model should be constructed into the program together with other add on devices such as Gurney-flap, end plates, and may be a multi-elements wing used in the Formula I car racing. Some conditional effects like side wind is also important to consider and simulate during further investigation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This investigation was supported by Monash University, Department of Mechanical Engineering. The author also gratefully acknowledges Associate Professor K. Hourigan for his valuable information and assistance throughout the whole investigation. Special thanks are given to P. Reichl and M. Tan for their assistance and advice on computational program. The author would wish to thank Mr. Long (Monash Workshop) for his support and assistance on smoke tunnel and experimental apparatus. REFERENCES ABBOTT, I.H. and VON DOENHOFF, A.E. Theory of wing sections, Dover Publications, INC. NEW YORK, 1959. ANDERSON, J.D. Jr. Fundamentals of aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill, Inc., (1991). BECCIO, S. Endurance group C1 Lancia racing car definition of rear wing aerodynamic contour, SAE Paper No. 870727, pp. 233-247 (1987). DOMINY, R.G. Aerodynamics of Grand Prix cars, Proc. Insitution of Mechanical Engineers Vol. 206 Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering 1992, pp. 267274. DUNCAN, L.T. Wind tunnel and track testing an ARCA race car, SAE Paper No. 901867 (1990). EPPLER, R. Airfoil Design and Data, SpringerVerlag, 1990. FENTON, J. Handbook of vehicle design analysis, (1996). GeoMesh and Fluent User Manual and Reference Guide. HINEMO, R., ONO, K., FUJITANI, K. and UENATSU, Y. Simultaneous computation of the external flow around a car body and the internal flow through its engine compartment, SAE Paper No. 920342 (1992). HOUGHTON, E.L. and CARPENTER, P.W. Aerodynamics for Engineering Students, John Wiley & Sons,Inc., New York (1993). HUCHO, W.H. Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles, 1985. Visualized Flow, The Japan Socirty of Mechanical Engineers, Pergamon Press, 1988. KATZ, J. Calculation of the aerodynamic forces on Automotive lifting surfaces, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering Vol. 107, December 1985, pp. 438-443. KATZ, J. and LARGMAN, R. Effect of 90 degree flap on the aerodynamics of a two-element airfoil, ASME

Journal of Fluids Engineering Vol. 111, March 1989, pp. 93-94. KATZ, J. Aerodynamics and possible alleviation of top fuel dragster Blow Over, SAE Paper No. 962519, pp. 115-126 (1996). KATZ, J. and LARGMAN, R. Experimental Study of the Aerodynamic interaction between an enclosed-wheel racing-car and its rear wing, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 111, June 1989, pp.154-159. McCORMICK, B.W. Aerosynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons., INC. 1995. RIEGELS, F.W. Aerofoil Section Results from Wind Tunnel Investigations Theoretical Foundation, Autterworths, London, 1961. SCIBOR-RYLSKI, A.J. Road vehicle aerodynamic, Pentech Press Limited, (1975). STEPHENS, H.S. Advances in Road Vehicle Aerodynamics, BHRA Fluid engineering (1973). TSUYOSHI ASANUMA, Flow Visualization, Hemisphere Publishing corporation., 1979. WILCOX, D.C. Turbulence Modelling for CFD, La Canada, CA: DCW Industries, Inc., (1993). WOODBRIDGE, D.M. and MILLER, R.B. The aerodynamic optimization of a successful IMSA GT Race Car, SAE Paper No. 962518, pp. 107-115 (1996).

10