Effect of dirty air on the vehicle aerodynamic

performance
ABSTRACT: to have cars with high engine power and low
vehicle mass [8]. Aerodynamics performance is a
In this paper, the case study of dirty air scenario
key to achieve the desired target of each team as a
between two F1 cars positioned in 3 different
vehicle could generate aero forces over the vehicle
longitudinal distance (10, 15 & 20m) with zero
weight at higher speed ranges. As the design of the
offset in lateral side were taken to simulate using
car gets complex to increase the aero efficiency,
star CCM+. Aero forces were observed to drop high
the sharp edges create vortices that grow into big
level due to variation in flow velocity & pressure.
wake structure which hampers the following car.
A strong rotating vortex behind a leading car That turbulence wake named as ‘Dirty air’.
creates a “mushroom” shape like wake which Currently, the flow structure around the trailing car
grows with the vehicle distance. This significantly has become one of the sensational areas of the
affects the air flow structure and could reduce the actual F1.
downforce and drag force up to 40% & 22% Online research shows [16], Compare to 2016
respectively of the trailing car at a 10m distance. figures overtaking reduced nearly 50% in 2017
It was found that Wheels influence on the even with DRS system. However, it is influenced by
downforce doesn’t change much regardless of other factors [9] like the design of the track and
vehicle positions which is a key factor to affect the driver’s ability etc.
overall performance. The growth of the wake Exciting results were obtained by Simon McBeath
evolves up to 60% before reaching 1 car length [9] using CFD simulations, Downforce drop was
behind. Aero forces between vehicle 2 & 3 were considerably higher at the front than the rear of
found similar. the car. The following car’s rear balance shift
Simulation of the diffuser bluff body has been wasn’t affected much. Consistent results were
carried out and a comparison study made with the found by Robert Dominy [8] made a study with
experimental data. A sharp reduction in Cp scale grand Prix cars. The results indicate the
observed by expanding the diffuser angle. Which following vehicle aero forces drops high level at a
enhance the downforce with collective drag. shorter gap between them. Soso [6], who
However, surface pressure will be affected by investigated the efficiency of a single element front
going over the optimum angle value due to flow wing in ground effect behind a wake generator
separation. 15° found to be the optimal one and bluff body. And found that, the downforce drop
observed 12% of efficiency loss at 17°. depends on the front wing ride height. Sections
Overall, the data co-relation between CFD and close to mi -span experienced more losses than the
wind tunnel was found to be similar at centreline end of the wing.
but little deviation observed on the lateral points. The Diffuser on the race cars produces nearly 60%
of total downforce. Cooper [1] conducted a similar
study and attributed the downforce generation
INTRODUCTION: mainly due to diffuser pumping. So the ground
effect with a diffuser will have a higher flow
In recent years, the evolution of F1 car design has
velocity, lower pressure and hence, extra
been exciting and each and every curve on the
downforce.
body has its own purpose. The regulation enables

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 1

OBJECTIVE: Each of the sharp edges rolls up a small vortex.
These build into a larger and strong vortex. Inboard
The aim of this paper is to investigate how the
creates an anti-clockwise vortex.
wake created by a leading F1 car affects the
aerodynamic performance of trailing one.

1. Understand the components that form

vortices & slipstream.
2. Use the appropriate CAD model for the CFD
simulation.
3. Simulate 3 scenarios by spacing A, B & C as
Fig 3. Barge board
shown in fig1 from the leading vehicle [9] [5].
4. Analyse aero forces breakdown, Surface Directs the vortices from the front wing, wheels
pressure, pitching moment and velocity plots and suspension to outboard of the vehicle and a
to conclude the force losses on trailing cars. key part to form slipstream behind the car.
5. Investigation on the wake growth at a different
distance behind the leading car.

Fig 1. Basic Layout

1. Diffuser Bluff body performance measurement

using scale wind tunnel [11] in Oxford Brookes
University. Fig 4. Rear Wing
2. CAD model creation using the same dimensions Flaps: Another main component creates slipstream
as the experimental bluff body using solid works. by making upwash.
3. CFD Simulation of CAD model diffuser with a Curved endplate: Creates a pair of counter-rotating
range of diffuser angle from 0 to 17 degrees with vortices due to pressure difference around the
the constant ride height of 10mm [11]. wing refer Fig 10 [1].
4. The investigation on results between the
experimental and the CFD data to define the
accuracy of results and optimum diffuser angle.

VORTEX & SLIPSTREAM GENERATOR’S:

Fig 5. Diffuser
Curved strakes generate a strong vortex refer Fig
10[1].
Fig 2. Front wing

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 2

METHODOLOGY: Table 1. The Boundary conditions

In order to establish the simulation, fig 6 an F1 Inlet Velocity inlet

2017 full scaled half car model was used to reduce Outlet Flow-split outlet
the simulation time [14]. The geometry of this
model has been split into different groups to know Roof and sides Slip wall
the aero performance of each group such as the Floor Moving floor, Slip wall
front wing. 3 different spacing [9] [5] chosen
Centreline Symmetry Plane
between 2 vehicles to analyse the aero efficiency
between them.
Mesh condition:

The flow domain and the models were meshed

using a Surface wrapper, Surface remesher, Prism
layer mesher, and considering the meshing time
trimmer was used instead of polyhedral. A
Calculation made in order to finalize the proper
size of the cells. To obtain wall Y+ value from 30 to
Fig 6. F1 2017 CAD model 300.

Wheels were kept stationary [7] for this study.

Since the wheels contribution to the wake is not
significant as front and rear wing. Solid works was
used to verify the CAD model.

Fig 8. Volume mesh

CFD SETUP:
Slow cell surface growth rate is evident around the
Flow domain:
model. In fig 8, a probe point is kept just behind the
CFD was performed using Star CCM+. A Flow inlet to measure the freestream velocity and
domain was built around the model in solid works pressure. The mesh contains a total of 1.1 x 106
and imported to Star CCM+ considering the car cells with a minimum cell size of 1.25 mm. the
model size. Number of prism layer was 5. Custom control
applied to the flow domain.

Physics Setup:

Table2. Physics conditions

Inlet velocity 25m/s
Turbulence model K- Epsilon (k-ε)
The turbulence
0.01%
intensity
Fig 7. Flow domain dimensions
Turbulence Length
0.01m
scale
Turbulence Velocity
Blockage ratio is 3.45% [13]. 3.5 m/s
scale
Residual convergence < 10-4

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 3

K-Epsilon was preferred as turbulence model that as it goes behind that is evident here. Velocity drop
helps to forecast the turbulence in a complex observed where car at Position ‘A’ meets airflow at
environment and free-shear layer flows [10] [12]. 20m/s whereas ‘B & C’ were 25 and 27 m/s
Turbulence velocity scale was chosen as 10% of respectively.
inlet velocity [15]. The desired residual
convergence is specified as below 10-4 [4].

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

[1]

[2]

Fig 10. Pressure co-efficient (Cp)

Starting from the upper surface, the Noticeable

difference observed in the Cp as this is directly
proportional to the velocity of the air flow. The
structure of the flow gets ruined by the leading car
that increases the surface pressure of the trailing
vehicle.

Coming to the under-body, this is usually a low-

Fig 9[2]. Velocity mag @ X -1300 mm pressure region due to the ground effect.
Significant Cp increase observed on the front wing,
Fig 9[1], Vortices from tyre & diffuser fades out
Rear wing and Front wheels. At the same time,
before reaching position ‘A’. And the rear wing
Position ‘C’ car has got bit stabilized air flow as it
vortices collide together and formed as a single
vortex fig 9[2]. A mushroom shape like wake results in lesser surface pressure compare to ‘A &
structure created by the leading car hits the B’.
following vehicle. The strength of the wake reduces

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 4

 Fig 12 represents the airflow velocity at the
centreline of the car. Mild green colour indicates
the freestream air flow and the Blue colour shows
the drop in velocity created by the leading car.
Therefore, a reduction in aero forces is evident.

Point 1 illustrates the boundary layer variation

around the cockpit area. It is obvious that the
boundary layer of trailing cars has been affected
badly due to the wake. The most affected among
all is the car ‘A’.

Point 2 discuss the suction difference between

each car underneath the front wing that affects the
downforce considerably. To back-up, this point fig
13 have been added.

Fig 13. Cp _underbody @ Y0 section

Fig 11. Lambda 2 Criterion Suction areas like X-1200mm (Front wing),
The amount of air hits the vehicle surface can be X+500mm and X+3400mm (Diffuser starting point)
seen in fig11. To be specific, numbers mentioned have considerably experienced pressure increase
on the Leading car picture 1, 2 & 3 are the front due to inadequate air flow.
wing, Barge board and the rear wing respectively
are the locations where we could observe a
significant difference.

Fig 12. Velocity scalar @ Y0

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 5

One of the aims of this paper is to break down the The highest contribution comes from chassis &
aero forces acting on the components. underbody for all the cars except ‘c’. Interestingly
for ‘c’ it is rear wing, creates more downforce.

Table 4. Loss of Downforce

Position % of loss in total downforce
Leading car NA
A 41.8
B 32.4
C 26.8
To conclude this part, the impact of the leading
car’s wake let-downs the following cars A, B & C
downforce by 41.8 %, 32.4% & 26.8% respectively.
Fig 14. Component split for analysis

Fig 15. Downforce Breakdown Fig 16. Drag force Breakdown

The undesirable effect of the open wheels, The contribution of the wheels is nearly 40% of the
accounting for 150N negative downforce which is total drag force of each car which is the highest
22%, 39%, 33%, 30 % of the whole downforce compared to other parts. Among the following
generated by each vehicle in order. vehicles, less drag affected is ‘A’ since it is closer to
the slipstream. The rear wing of the leading car
Chassis & Underbody downforces of ‘B & C’ are
pushes the fresh air upwards. Which allows the
similar in magnitude.
rear car to accelerate faster than leading car.

Table 5. Contribution of drag force in %

Table 3. Contribution of downforce in % Leading
Components A B C
Leading car
Components A B C
car Front wing 12.9 11.1 11.7 12.3
Front wing 35.8 38.6 37.2 37.9
Rear wing 19.0 17.8 18.4 18.8
Rear wing 42.8 48.1 46.8 46.4 Chassis &
30.7 27.5 28.4 29.2
Chassis & Underbody
44.2 52.6 49.3 45.8
Underbody Wheels 37.4 43.5 41.5 39.7
Wheels -22.9 -39.4 -33 -30.1 Total
449.2 350.3 367.1 377
Total Force (N)
657.6 382.2 444 481.3
Force (N)

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 6

 Table 6. Loss of Drag force

Position % of loss in total Drag force

Leading car NA
A 22.0
B 18.2
C 16.0
To conclude this part, as the following vehicle
comes closer to the leading car the drag force
reduces as shown in table 6.
Fig 18. Accumulated Downforce
To back-up, the previous discussions Cd & Cl values
of each car has been plotted in fig 17.

Fig 19. Accumulated Drag force

Fig 17. Co-eff of drag & lift
Fig 20 shows, Dirty air completely sub-merged
following cars.
The drastic reduction in downforce takes place at
The pitching moment of following cars is smaller
the throat of the diffuser. Since the efficiency
than the leading one due to air flow deviation. CLF
reduces due to less air flow section ref fig 18.
& CLR were plotted and found a similar trend.
Overall drag force variation between ‘A to C’ is 8%
and fig 19 illustrates a similar trend of cumulative
force for all trailing cars.

Fig 20. Vorticity magnitude

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 7

 The Gap between the two sections is 5 meters. The
wake dimensions and the growth rates are in table
7 & 8 respectively.

Fig 21. Pitching moment Co-efficient, CLF & CLR

Fig 24. Measurement of wake

Table 7. Dimensions of wake

Dimensions S1 S2 S3 S4
H (m) 1.3 2.15 2.64 2.98
W (m) 1.23 1.71 1.74 1.77
Fig 22. Streamlines around the front wing R (m) 0.86 1.74 1.83 1.98

The approaching angle of the streamline varies for

each car gives an idea about downforce loss of the Table 8. Growth rate of wake in %
front wing. This makes the same effects as reducing Dimensions S1 to S2 S2 to S3 S3 to S4
the angle of attack of the front wing. Noticeable
H 60.0 22.7 12.8
difference in the air flow velocity.
W 38.0 0.02 0.01
R 90.5 12.3 0.08
To understand the size and growth rate of the
wake, cut sections were created refer fig 23.
The progression rate of the wake from section 1 to
2 is rapid and the dimension ‘H’ grows till S4 unlike
‘W & R’.

Fig 23. Growth of the wake

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 8

DIFFUSER (BLUFF BODY): The flow underneath of the bluff body rushes from
low to high-pressure region as the angle increase.
Which creates the ground effect that enhances the
downforce with an increase in drag.

Fig 26. Downforce & L/D efficiency

The optimum diffuser angle is 15 ° as it gives the

maximum downforce and Lift/Drag efficiency.

Fig 25. Velocity Magnitude at Y0 section

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 9

 Fig 27. Cp_Experimental Vs CFD data at different
diffuser angles (Points 1 to 17)

We could see, Good level of match between CFD

and experimental data. As the angle increases the
Cp value decreases but at some angle, the Cp value
stops decreases rather it will increase due to the 28. Cp on the underbody surface
flow separation and that leads to slow down the
exit flow velocity. Exit velocity can be expressed as, Cp starts increasing at 17° is evident here. Lowest
surface pressure observed at 15° near the throat
of the diffuser.

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 10

 Flow separation can be seen in fig 29. It can also be
seen in fig 25. Small Flow separation is observed at
15 ° and develops as the angle increases that
reduces diffuser efficiency by making the flow
going in a direction opposite to the bulk flow
direction.

Fig 29. Shear stress on the underbody surface

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 11

 Fig 30. Velocity vector section at Z -726mm

The endplate enhances the performance by

creating a vortex that makes the flow attached to
the surface during angle expansion. In general,
endplates and vortex generators can improve the
diffuser performance. Note: 17° flow velocity near
the fence is slower than 15°.

Fig 33. Cp_Experimental Vs CFD data at different

diffuser angles (Points 18 to 20)

Fig 31. Underbody air flow at 15°

Fig 32. Cut sections at Pressure tapping point

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 12

 Fig 35. Cp_Experimental Vs CFD data at different
diffuser angles (Points 26 to 28)

Fig 34. Cp_Experimental Vs CFD data at different

diffuser angles (Points 21 to 23)

Fig 36. Cp_Experimental Vs CFD data at different

diffuser angles (Points 29 to 31)

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 13

 smaller than the CFD simulation refer to fig 7. Same
can be applied to the f1 car model. The ground
plane configured as moving floor with a suction at
the leading edge of the floor to remove the
boundary layer and belt lift. The car must be
supported by using a plunger, one end mounted on
the roof another one on the vehicle. The plunger
must be capable of adjusting the model ride height
and pitch angle.

Instead of the leading car, wake generator [10] can

Fig 37. Cp_Experimental Vs CFD data at different be considered to gain more space inside the wind
diffuser angles (point no.32) tunnel. The wake pressure can be recorded using
Lateral pressure tapping points were shown in the hot-wires or multi-hole pressure probes. Pressure
fig’s 33 to 35. Outermost points, 20, 23 & 28 has tapping on the model should be made internally,
got higher Cp value to compare to the points that routing through plunger in locations like the front
are closer to the Y0. Since the flow velocity at the wing, underbody, diffuser & Rear wing refer pic 41.
outer lateral area found to be low.

Fig 36 shows the diffuser section Z-726mm where

the outermost points Cp values were lesser than
inner points due to the vortex near the endplate.

Fig 37 shows the rear face point on the bluff body.

The values are almost constant for all the angles.

Fig 39. Wake generator

Vehicle aero forces can be measured using 6-

component internal balance (6 CIB) [10] equipped
with strain gauges. One end of 6 CIB linked to the
plunger and another end to model.

Fig 38. Centre of pressure migration

The COP move forward as the diffuser angle

increase.
Fig 40. Representation of instrumentation layout

The surface pressure can be measured using the

EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY OF DIRTY AIR
transducer module. The flow velocity
EFFECT:
measurement can be obtained using the Positive
An actual wind tunnel consumes more energy and Input Ventilation (PIV) system.
time to perform the dirty air scenario. Instead, 2m2
scaled open jet wind tunnel can be considered for
the numerical approach which is 1:100 times

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 14

 found the optimum angle. For CFD it is 15° and 9°
for the experimental method. The difference in the
pressure coefficient values between experimental
and CFD might be due to the accuracy of pressure
tapping points, air temperature and density
variation inside the wind tunnel.
Fig 41. Pressure tapping on the model It was found that the efficiency of the diffuser
reduces if the angle goes over the optimum value
due to flow separation [11] and that reduces flow
velocity so does the vortex strength. The
downforce reduces with a corresponding increase
in drag.

REFLECTION:

On the whole, I enjoyed the research and writing.

Fig 42. 6 component internal balance gauge After finalizing the topic, I started researching
about it and got excited. My favourite part of this
study is the post processing where I could show the
depth of my analysis. It was a semester worth of
CONCLUSION:
hard work. I feel that this has been both a valuable
The investigation shows that the airflow quality and enjoyable experience. This study would
behind an F1 car is mainly conquered by a strong improve my skills towards aerodynamics and
vortex generated by the rear wing. And that affects simulation in future.
the air flow velocity and dynamic pressure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The trailing car under this case experiences a huge
I really want to thanks my module guides Mr Daniel
loss in downforce and drag causing difference and
Bell and Mr Miguel Ferreira for good guidance and
drop in overall efficiency [5] [8]. This aero forces
motivation throughout the course study.
could be recovered if the trailing car finds clean air
by overtaking the leading one. REFERENCES
The impact of the leading car’s wake reduces the 1. Cooper, K. R., et al. (1998) 'The
following car downforce by 41.8 %, 32.4% & 26.8% Aerodynamic Performance of Automotive
and drag force by 22 %, 18.2% & 16% from distance Underbody Diffusers': SAE International,
of 10, 15 & 20 meters between them respectively. pp.
2. Cooper, K. R., Syms, J. and Sovran, G.
It was found that the wake grows up-to 90% in (2000) 'Selecting Automotive Diffusers to
height before reaching the position ‘C’. Maximise Underbody Downforce': SAE
International, pp.
Given this proofs, Proposed 2019 design changes 3. Diosy, M. and Bell, D. (2018) 'Aerodynamic
were on the parts like the front wing, bargeboard Optimization of a Front Wheel Wake-
and the Rear wing. This study can be taken again in Related Bodywork on a Novel Electric
future with 2019 f1 car model to understand the Formula Car Using Metaheuristic
effect of design change. In addition to that, Study Approach': SAE International, pp.
can be extended by capturing aero force losses on 4. Huminic, A. and Huminic, G. (2010)
the leading car [5]. 'Computational Study of Flow in the
Underbody Diffuser for a Simplified Car
Diffuser Bluff body results in co-relation between Model': SAE International, pp.
experimental and CFD has been carried out and 5. Romberg, G. F., Chianese, F. and Lajoie, R.

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 15

 G. (1971) 'Aerodynamics of Race Cars in a_thesis.pdf (Accessed: 11 November
Drafting and Passing Situations': SAE 2017).
International, pp. 14. Ahmad N.E, Abo-Serie E and Gaylard A
6. Soso, M. D. and Wilson, P. A. (2006) (2010) “Mesh Optimization for Ground
'Aerodynamics of a wing in ground effect in Vehicle Aerodynamics,” CFD Letters.
generic racing car wake flows', Proceedings 15. Marklund, J., et al. (2013b) 'Performance
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, of an Automotive Under-Body Diffuser
Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, Applied to a Sedan and a Wagon Vehicle',
220(1), pp. 1-13. doi: SAE International Journal of Passenger
10.1243/095440705x69632. Cars - Mechanical Systems, 6(1), pp. 293-
7. Watts, M. and Watkins, S. (2014) 307. doi: https://doi.org/10.4271/2013-
'Aerodynamic Structure and Development 01-0952.
of Formula 1 Racing Car Wakes', SAE 16. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fo
International Journal of Passenger Cars - rmula-1-overtaking-slumped-half-2017-
Mechanical Systems, 7(3), pp. 1096-1105. 986173/1382221/
doi: https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-
0600.
8. Wilson, M. R., Dominy, R. G. and Straker, A. APPENDIX:
(2008) 'The Aerodynamic Characteristics of
a Race Car Wing Operating in a Wake', SAE BLUFF BODY METHODOLOGY:
International Journal of Passenger Cars - Experimental SETUP:
Mechanical Systems, 1(1), pp. 552-559.
doi: https://doi.org/10.4271/2008-01- Bluff body with dimensions shown in fig 44 used to
0658. capture the experimental data by using the scale
9. McBeneath, S. (2006) ‘Competition Cars wind tunnel [11] in Oxford Brookes university refer
Aerodynamics’ Fig 43.
10. NEWBON, JOSHUA,JAMES (2017)
‘Aerodynamic E_ects of the Salient Flow The Bluff body is capable of adjusting the Ride
Features in Grand Prix CarWakes’, Durham height and diffuser angle. The red colour threads
theses, Durham University. on the bluff body are to indicate the airflow around
11. Jowsey, Lydia. (2013) ‘An experimental the body. A pitot tube is mounted just fore above
study of automotive underbody diffusers’ the bluff body.
Loughborough University Institutional Total of 32 pressure tapping points including Pitot
Repository tube were connected to bluff body longitudinally
12. Unni T.P.A and SAE AeroTech Congress and and laterally underneath to capture the static &
Exhibition AEROTECH 2017 SAE AeroTech total pressure as shown in fig 45.
Congress and Exhibition, AEROTECH 2017
2017 09 26 - 2017 09 28 (2017) “Numerical
Investigation on Aerodynamic Effects of
Vanes and Flaps on Automotive
Underbody Diffusers,” SAE Technical
Papers,
13. Gnech, A. (2012) Development of a Robust
Workflow for a CFD Analysis of External
Aerodynamics in a Virtual Wind Tunnel.
Diploma Thesis. RWTH Aachen University.
Available at: http://www.cats.rwth-
aachen.de:8080/~pauli/pdf/gnech_diplom
Fig 43. Scale wind tunnel in Oxford Brookes
University 305 x 305 mm section

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 16

 minimum size of 0.3mm. The probe point in fig 47
imitates the pitot tube inside the wind tunnel.

Fig 44. Bluff body Dimensions

Fig 45. Pressure tapping points Fig 47. Volume Mesh

Physics setup:

CFD SETUP: The turbulence model selections were same as the

individual study refer to table 2. Simulation velocity
Star CCM+ was used to perform the simulation. A was 25m/s.
CAD model of the same scale shown in fig 44 was
created using Solid works and imported to CFD
software. The main advantage of this simple bluff DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS:
body is the simplicity so the over body flow will not
affect the geometry change in the underbody. That F1: Formula One
helps to capture the exact performance of the CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics
diffuser.
Cl: Lift coefficient

Cp: Pressure coefficient

Flow domain:
Cd: Drag coefficient

Fig 46. Flow domain Dimensions

Boundary conditions were the same as the

individual study.

Mesh Condition:

Same meshers were used here as the individual

study. Total of 2.3 x 105 cells was created with a

Kayalarasan Kanagasabai Advanced Aerodynamics_Oxford Brookes_Dec’18 17