Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Kenji Takeda
Senior Lecturer
e-mail: ktakeda@soton.ac.uk
Xin Zhang
Professor
e-mail: x.zhang1@soton.ac.uk
School of Engineering Sciences,
University of Southampton,
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
Vortex generators can be applied to control separation in flows with adverse pressure
gradients, such as wings. In this paper, a study using three-dimensional steady computations for an inverted wing with vortex generators in ground effect is described. The
main aim is to provide understanding of the flow physics of the vortex generators, and
how they affect the overall aerodynamic performance of the wing to complement previous
experimental studies of the same configuration. Rectangular vane type sub-boundary
layer and large-scale vortex generators are attached to the suction surface of the wing,
including both counter-rotating and co-rotating configurations. In order to provide confidence, Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes simulations using the SpalartAllmaras turbulence model are validated against the experimental results regarding force, pressure,
and wake characteristics, with the validation exhibiting close agreement with the experimental results. The streamwise friction shows the downwash induced by the generated
vortex acts to suppress flow separation. The flow field survey downstream of the vortex
generators features breakdown and dominance of the generated vortex in the flow. The
vortex generated by the counter-rotating sub-boundary layer vortex generator grows in
size and breaks down as it develops downstream, while the vortex generated by the
counter-rotating large-scale vortex generator shows high vorticity even further downstream, indicating the persistence of the vortex in the flow. The flow field behind the
co-rotating sub-boundary layer vortex generator is dominated by a lateral flow, having
the spanwise flow component rather than a swirling flow, and the vortex quickly dissipating as it develops downstream. The results from this paper complement previous
experimental measurements by highlighting the flow physics of how vortex generators
can help control flow separation for an inverted wing in ground effect, and how critical
vortex generator type and size are for its effectiveness. DOI: 10.1115/1.4000741
Introduction
In open-wheel racing series, such as Formula 1 and Indy Racing, a front wing is inverted to produce downforce, that is, negative lift, leading to an enhancement of traction and cornering ability of cars. The front wing is operated in close proximity to a solid
boundary, known as the ground effect regime, where different
flow features are exhibited, compared with the freestream condition. Since aerodynamic performance plays a significant role in
open-wheel race cars, investigations and testing are typically conducted via wind tunnel testing, computational simulations, and
track-based testing 1. Although wind tunnel testing remains a
significant tool for aerodynamic development, computational fluid
dynamics CFD plays an important role because of its efficient
cost performance compared with wind tunnel testing, and the detailed flow information that is available.
The first computational investigations of an inverted wing in
ground effect were performed by Katz 2 and Knowles et al. 3,
using a potential flow-based panel method to simulate a singleelement wing in ground effect. Katz 2 observed an enhancement
of downforce as the wing is brought closer to the ground. Previously conducted experimental investigations 47 show downforce reduction below the height where the maximum downforce
is produced due to flow separation and breakdown of edge vortices around end plates of a wing. No downforce reduction phenomenon, however, was observed even at excessively low ride
height in the study of Katz 2; viscous effects were not simulated,
Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the
JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received September 14, 2009; final
manuscript received November 20, 2009; published online February 3, 2010. Assoc.
Editor: Zvi Rusak.
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Freestream
VG
x
z
U
Moving wall
h
symmetric boundary (za)
or
periodic boundary (zc)
2hVG
2hVG
hVG
4hVG
Computational Modeling
are given in the study of Zerihan 18. The ride height h is defined
as the distance from the lower boundary to the lowest point on the
suction surface of the wing, and is varied between 0.067c and
0.448c in this study. The incidence is measured relative to a line
from the trailing edge to the most swelled point on the pressure
surface, which corresponds to 2.6 deg relative to the chord line,
and is fixed at 1 deg in this study, corresponding to the true incidence of 3.6 deg. A further description can be found in Refs.
7,16.
Rectangular vane type of sub-boundary layer vortex generators
SVGs and large-scale vortex generators LVGs are studied here
with a device height of 2 mm hVG / c = 0.009 and 6 mm hVG / c
= 0.027, respectively. Figure 2 shows a schematic of VG configurations. The VGs attached on the suction side of the wing are
oriented at 15 deg relative to the streamwise direction. The trailing
edge of the VGs is set at x = 120 mm, corresponding to x / c
= 0.537. The height and chord ratio of the VGs is fixed at 1:4, and
the distance between the spanwise ends of the computational domain and the trailing edge of the VGs is fixed at 2hVG. Since the
CtLVG configuration demands a grid three times wider than the
other configurations in the spanwise direction, the CtLVG computational domain has additional cells along both the spanwise ends
so that the grid expansion ratio from the VG is the same in both
the computational domains. For the clean wing configuration, the
same computational grid as the SVG configurations is used, where
the computational cells for the VG are not set as a solid boundary.
The computational VGs are modeled as a zero-thickness solid
boundary because it is much simpler to generate, easier to modify,
and can decrease the number of grid points significantly. Allan et
al. 19 compared a simply modeled rectangular vane having zero
thickness with a fully modeled trapezoidal vane with finite thickness. The comparison showed that the performance of the simply
modeled rectangular vane is similar to that of the fully modeled
trapezoidal vane, and hence, the simplified model is employed
here.
A three-dimensional multiblock structured grid is used in this
study. A grid generation package, Gridgen V15, is used to build
the grid, and any special functions in the package are not used,
although the functions may provide an optimized grid, leading to
quicker convergence. The upstream boundary is modeled with a
freestream velocity inlet of 30 m/s, corresponding to the Reynolds
number of 450,000, based on the wing chord. The turbulent viscosity ratio of 8 is used as a result of preliminary studies to simulate previous experimental studies of the same configuration. For
the downstream boundary, a condition of zero flux diffusion is
applied, where the boundary plane is extrapolated from the downstream values and there is no gradient in the streamwise direction.
A no-slip boundary condition is applied to the wall boundaries,
which are the wing, VGs, and lower boundary. A moving wall
condition is simulated at the lower boundary where a moving
velocity is equal to the freestream. The initial cell spacing on the
wall boundaries is fine enough to solve the viscous sublayer of the
flow on the wall properly, maintaining y + of O1. The upper
boundary is modeled with a symmetric condition. To simulate the
counter-rotating VG configurations, both spanwise ends of the
boundary are defined as symmetric conditions; meanwhile, periodic conditions are applied for the co-rotating VG configuration.
Symmetrically imaged VG
15
U
4hVG
(a)
2hVG
Periodically imaged VG
za(symmetric B.C.)
2hVG
zb(symmetric B.C.)
Symmetrically imaged VG
15
U
4hVG
(b)
2hVG
zc(periodic B.C.)
2hVG
zc(periodic B.C.)
Periodically imaged VG
Fig. 2 Configurations of VGs on wing and boundary conditions at spanwise ends: a counter-rotating VGs and b co-rotating VGs
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
1.57
4e+6
1e+6
0.3
2e+6
3e+6
4e+6
2D
3D
3D_LVG
CLs (%)
CLs
0.2
1.565
0.1
2D
3D
3D_LVG
1.56
(a)
2e+5
4e+5
6e+5
5e+6
-0.1
(b)
1e+5
2e+5
3e+5
Fig. 3 Grid refinement study with clean wing configuration: a sectional downforce
coefficient and b convergence ratio
zc(periodic B.C.)
Clean_CFD
CtSVG(z=za)_CFD
CtSVG(z=zb)_CFD
Clean_experiment
CtSVG_experiment
1
0
CP
-1
-2
-3
-4
CtSVG
-5
-6
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
x/c
(a)
Clean_CFD
CtLVG(z=za)_CFD
CtLVG(z=zb)_CFD
Clean_experiment
CtLVG_experiment
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
CtLVG
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
x/c
(b)
Results
To examine an application of RANS simulations to computations of an inverted wing with VGs in ground effect, validations
of the computations against the experiments of Kuya et al. 7,16
are presented here. This is followed by the detailed investigations
of the flow physics based on the computations.
Co-rotating
zc(periodic B.C.)
zb(symmetric B.C.)
Clean_CFD
CoSVG(z=zc)_CFD
Clean_experiment
CoSVG_experiment
1
0
-1
CP
Counter-rotating
za(symmetric B.C.)
CP
-2
-3
CoSVG
-4
-5
-6
(c)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
x/c
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
CLs_CFD
CLs_experiment
CLs %
Clean
CtSVG
CtLVG
CoSVG
1.63
1.91
15
2.29
2.46
7
2.25
2.37
5
1.70
1.68
1
On the pressure surface, all the computations capture the general trend of the experimentally obtained distributions, while the
computational values indicate underpredictions compared with the
experiments. The computation of the clean wing shows flow separation at about 70% chord, characterized by a constant value region on the suction surface.
For the CtSVG configuration, the computation predicts the
pressure distributions on the suction surface fairly well, including
the gradient of the pressure recovery, in particular, the suction
peak, while the experiments show somewhat less suction near the
trailing edge. For both the counter-rotating configurations at z
= za, a spike near the leading edge of the VG is noticeable in the
computations. The size of the spike is more remarkable in the
CtLVG configuration. The computation of the CtLVG configuration predicts the distribution upstream of the VG relatively well,
including a prediction of the suction peak, while the computations
show more suction near the trailing edge. The CtSVG configuration predicts more suction on the suction surface compared with
the CtLVG configuration, which is in good agreement with the
experiments. Of interest here is that both the counter-rotating VG
configurations show a moderate pressure recovery slope toward
the trailing edge and eliminate the constant value region, indicating the reduction in flow separation.
The computations of the clean wing and CoSVG configuration
show apparently similar pressure distributions, indicating the flow
separation region as featured by the experimental results. Therefore, there appears little or no effect of the CoSVGs in terms of
the separation control. The spike near the leading edge of the
CoSVGs is smaller than that of the counter-rotating VG configurations.
3.2 Sectional Force Characteristics. The wing used in the
experiments has generic end plates at both spanwise ends of the
wing, and the force characteristics are affected by the edge vortices induced around the end plates. Meanwhile, the computations
are performed with symmetric or periodic boundary conditions at
the spanwise ends of the computational domain. The end plates,
therefore, are not simulated in the computations, so the computations correspond to a simulation around the center portion of the
wing where there is no effect of the edge vortices. Accordingly, a
comparison of the force values of downforce and drag between
the experiments and computations is not sufficient. Alternatively,
a comparison of sectional downforce is presented here. The ex-
0.12
2.5
Clean_CFD
CtSVG_CFD
CtLVG_CFD
CoSVG_CFD
Clean_CFD
CtSVG_CFD
CtLVG_CFD
CoSVG_CFD
0.10
2.0
CLs
CDs
0.08
0.06
1.5
0.04
0.02
1.0
0.1
(a)
0.2
0.3
h/c
0.4
0.5
(b)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
h/c
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Counter-rotating
za(symmetric B.C.)
Co-rotating
zc(periodic B.C.)
zb(symmetric B.C.)
zc(periodic B.C.)
Clean_CFD
CtSVG(z=za)_CFD
CtSVG(z=zb)_CFD
Clean_experiment
CtSVG(z=za)_experiment
CtSVG(z=zb)_experiment
y/c
0.1
-0.1
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
u/U
(a)
Clean_CFD
CtLVG(z=za)_CFD
CtLVG(z=zb)_CFD
Clean_experiment
CtLVG(z=za)_experiment
CtLVG(z=zb)_experiment
y/c
0.1
-0.1
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
u/U
(b)
Clean_CFD
CoSVG(z=zc)_CFD
Clean_experiment
CoSVG(z=zc)_experiment
y/c
0.1
-0.1
0.5
(c)
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
u/U
h / c = 0.090 are shown in Fig. 7. Note that the vertical and horizontal lines in the figures represent the leading and trailing edges
of the VGs, and the value of CFx = 0, respectively.
The friction of the clean wing shows negative values downstream of 70% chord, corresponding to a region of the flow separation. The experimentally obtained separation point is at 6580%
chord of the clean wing; the wide range of the separation point is
due to the strong three-dimensionality of the separated flow.
Both the counter-rotating VG configurations indicate higher
values than the clean wing. This is because suction of both the
counter-rotating VG configurations is stronger than that of the
clean wing, and therefore, a larger amount of flow runs along the
suction surface, resulting in the increase in the friction. A variance
of the value in the spanwise direction is observed downstream of
the VG, due to the secondary flow induced by the VG-generated
vortex. The downwash toward the suction surface suppresses the
flow separation, leading to higher values of the friction, as shown
in the distributions at z = za.
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Clean_CFD
CtSVG(z=za)_CFD
CtSVG(z=zb)_CFD
CtLVG(z=za)_CFD
CtLVG(z=zb)_CFD
CtSVG
0.03
CtLVG
CFx
0.02
0.01
-0.01
zb(symmetric B.C.)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
x/c
(a)
Clean_CFD
CoSVG(z=zc)_CFD
0.03
CoSVG
0.02
CFx
Counter-rotating
za(symmetric B.C.)
0.01
-0.01
Co-rotating
zc(periodic B.C.)
zc(periodic B.C.)
0.2
(b)
0.4
0.6
0.8
x/c
Discussion
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
0.5U
VG
x
-25
x/c=0.63
z/c
0
-0.01
x/c=0.72
x/c=0.63
25
x/c=0.72
z/c
0.01
-0.01
0.02 0.04
-0.04 -0.02
0.01
-0.01
x/c=0.81
x/c=0.81
z/c
0.01
-0.01
0.02 0.04
-0.04 -0.02
0.01
-0.01
0.01
yw/c
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
(a)
z/c
z/c
z/c
-0.04 -0.02
0.02 0.04
-0.02
yw/c
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
(b)
-0.10
z/c
z/c
0
-0.01
z/c
0
0.01
yw/c
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
(c)
Fig. 8 Characteristics of VG-generated vortex in cross plane at h / c = 0.090 at x / c
= 0.63, 0.72, and 0.81: a CtSVG, b CtLVG, and c CoSVG
Concluding Remarks
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Acknowledgment
Y. Kuya gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
of Japan and the School of Engineering Sciences, University of
Southampton.
Nomenclature
Roman Symbols
CDs sectional drag coefficient =2Ds / U2 c
density
x streamwise wall shear stress
x nondimensional streamwise vorticity =w / y
v / zc / U
Glossary
CoSVG co-rotating sub-boundary layer vortex
generator
CtLVG counter-rotating large-scale vortex generator
CtSVG counter-rotating sub-boundary layer vortex
generator
S-A Spalart-Allmaras
References
1 Zhang, X., Toet, W., and Zerihan, J., 2006, Ground Effect Aerodynamics of
Race Cars, Appl. Mech. Rev., 59, pp. 3349.
2 Katz, J., 1985, Calculation of the Aerodynamic Forces on Automotive Lifting
Surfaces, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 107, pp. 438443.
3 Knowles, K., Donoghue, D. T., and Finnis, M. V., 1994, A Study of Wings in
Ground Effect, Proceedings of the Loughborough University Conference on
Vehicle Aerodynamics, Vol. 22, pp. 113.
4 Zerihan, J., and Zhang, X., 2000, Aerodynamics of a Single Element Wing in
Ground Effect, J. Aircr., 376, pp. 10581064.
5 Zerihan, J., and Zhang, X., 2001, Aerodynamics of Gurney Flaps on a Wing
in Ground Effect, AIAA J., 395, pp. 772780.
6 Soso, M. D., and Wilson, P. A., 2006, Aerodynamics of a Wing in Ground
Effect in Generic Racing Car Wake Flows, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part D J.
Automob. Eng., 2201, pp. 113.
7 Kuya, Y., Takeda, K., Zhang, X., Beeton, S., and Pandaleon, T., 2009, Flow
Separation Control on a Race Car Wing With Vortex Generators in Ground
Effect, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 131, p. 121102.
8 Zerihan, J., and Zhang, X., 2001, A Single Element Wing in Ground Effect
Comparisons of Experiments and Computation, AIAA Paper No. 2001-0423.
9 Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R., 1992, A One-Equation Turbulence Model
for Aerodynamic Flows, AIAA Paper No. 1992-0439.
10 Zhang, X., and Zerihan, J., 2003, Off-Surface Aerodynamic Measurements of
a Wing in Ground Effect, J. Aircr., 404, pp. 716725.
11 Mahon, S., and Zhang, X., 2005, Computational Analysis of Pressure and
Wake Characteristics of an Aerofoil in Ground Effect, ASME J. Fluids Eng.,
127, pp. 290298.
12 Kieffer, W., Moujaes, S., and Armbya, N., 2006, CFD Study of Section Characteristics of Formula Mazda Race Car Wings, Math. Comput. Model. Dyn.
Syst., 43, pp. 12751287.
13 Mahon, S., and Zhang, X., 2006, Computational Analysis of a Inverted
Double-Element Airfoil in Ground Effect, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128, pp.
11721180.
14 Diasinos, S., Barber, T. J., Leonardi, E., and Hall, S. D., 2004, A TwoDimensional Analysis of the Effect of a Rotating Cylinder on an Inverted
Aerofoil in Ground Effect, Proceedings of the 15th Australian Fluid Mechanics Conference.
15 Diasinos, S., Barber, T., Leonardi, E., and Gatto, A., 2006, The Interaction of
a Rotating Cylinder and an Inverted Aerofoil in Ground Effect: Validation and
Verification, AIAA Paper No. 2006-3325.
16 Kuya, Y., Takeda, K., Zhang, X., Beeton, S., and Pandaleon, T., 2009, Flow
Physics of a Race Car Wing With Vortex Generators in Ground Effect, ASME
J. Fluids Eng., 131, pp. 121103.
17 FLUENT, 2005, FLUENT 6.2 Users Guide, ANSYS Inc., Southpointe, PA.
18 Zerihan, J. D. C., 2001, An Investigation Into the Aerodynamics of Wings in
Ground Effect, Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, UK.
19 Allan, B. G., Yao, C.-S., and Lin, J. C., 2002, Simulation of Embedded
Streamwise Vortices on a Flat Plate, NASA Technical Report No. CR-2002211654, ICASE Report No. 2002-14.
20 Lin, J. C., 1999, Control of Turbulent Boundary-Layer Separation Using
Micro-Vortex Generators, AIAA Paper No. 1999-3404.
21 Pauley, W. R., and Eaton, J. K., 1988, Experimental Study of the Development of Longitudinal Vortex Pairs Embedded in a Turbulent Boundary Layer,
AIAA J., 267, pp. 816823.
Downloaded 11 Mar 2010 to 152.78.214.194. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm