Aeropackage progress report

The primary objective of this project's aero package is to build upon the knowledge acquired
from last year's project and strive for improvements in every aspect. With a two-year project
timeline, ample time is available to extensively test various configurations and ideas. Our
approach is to progress incrementally and ensure that development proceeds in the right
direction. Notably, we are reverting to a symmetrical chassis design, which simplifies the
aero package integration process. The aero package comprises front and rear wings, and a
complete undertray featuring a splitter, a venturi tunnel on each side of the chassis, and a
diffuser at the back. This vehicle will also feature bull horn wings, a new addition that
significantly enhances the rear wing's efficiency. Other aerodynamic devices, such as side
wings and barge boards, are under evaluation and may be integrated into the final design.

Initial design process

Upon finalizing the overarching vehicle concept, the aerodynamics team embarked on their
initial task of selecting suitable airfoils. The objective was to conclude the airfoil selection
process before the chassis team completed the initial monocoque model. Subsequently, the
plan entailed translating the knowledge gained from airfoil selection into 3D models and
commencing more intricate CFD simulations. Surprisingly, the airfoil selection progressed
more smoothly than anticipated and was completed prior to the completion of the first
chassis model. Consequently, we made the decision to utilize an older chassis model from a
few years ago for the initial phase of development, as the new monocoque design did not
deviate significantly. Initially, the simulations primarily focused on the development of the
front wing and nose, followed by the introduction of the undertray and subsequently the rear
wing. Additionally, numerous smaller aerodynamic devices and elements were tested at
various stages of the design process to assess their impact on the overall aerodynamic
performance of the vehicle.
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

To date, we have conducted approximately 50 to 60 comprehensive vehicle CFD simulations

using SimScale, in conjunction with over 90 2D CFD simulations utilizing SolidWorks,
specifically for airfoil selection.

2
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

Airfoil selection process

In light of our dissatisfaction with the performance of last year's airfoils, we made the
decision to start afresh and explore a range of airfoils, including some that are not commonly
used in FSAE competitions. Our primary resource for this endeavor was the website
www.airfoiltools.com. Two critical factors that guided our selection process were the
airfoil's performance across various angles of attack and its manufacturability. In previous
seasons, certain airfoils, such as GOE 464, proved to be excessively challenging to
consistently produce using our existing methods at that time. Currently, we are confident
that we would not encounter significant production difficulties with the chosen airfoils.
However, we decided to exercise caution and avoid selecting excessively thin airfoils that
might pose unnecessary complications.

During our exploration, we stumbled upon Benzing airfoils. Despite the lack of readily
available data online and their absence from standard databases, we decided to conduct test
runs with BE airfoils. To our delight, we swiftly observed substantial improvements
compared to last year's airfoils, such as Eppler 423 and Eppler 420. It is worth noting that
we had not come across any FSAE team utilizing Benzing airfoils until now, further piquing
our interest in their potential.

3
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

Front wing
The concept of this front wing differs significantly from anything we have previously
attempted. It features a more intricate and curved main section compared to its predecessors,
accompanied by wingtip vortex generators on the flaps.

First FW design

Current working FW design

4
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020
The primary objective behind the curved main section is to enable maximum airflow to reach
the venturi tunnels. However, the approach to achieving this varies across the various front
wing elements. Specifically, for the middle section underneath the nose, our aim was to find
an airfoil with a lower camber line that is nearly tangent to its chord. The goal was to ensure
that the airflow departing from the trailing edge strikes the splitter as perpendicularly as
possible, thereby enhancing the undertray's performance. This was most effectively
achieved using the GOE 14 airfoil.

For other parts of the front wing, we quickly discovered that BE airfoils yielded excellent
results. Employing BE 122-155 for the side portions of the main section, along with BE 153-
055 for the flap elements, we realized that we could tilt the main section further into negative
angles of attack, provided the flaps generated enough pressure on top to prevent flow
separation at the leading edge. This arrangement offers the advantage of limiting drag by
reducing the overall reference area of the front wing. Additionally, it allowed us to
accommodate an additional flap element. We reached a limit of -7 degrees with three flaps.
However, during the 3D replication of these results, the maximum achieved was -2 degrees,
which necessitated a concept with two flap elements on each side to comply with FSAE
rules regarding the maximum height of front wing elements.

5
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

Another notable distinction between the middle and side portions of the front wing lies in
how the airflow is directed into the undertray area. As mentioned earlier, the middle section
directs the airflow over it onto the splitter, which necessitates lowering that part of the front
wing as close to the ground as possible to extract maximum downforce from ground effect.
Simultaneously, this design leaves ample volume between the wing and bulkhead for the air
to pass through. In contrast, the side portions are not as close to the ground, resulting in a
less pronounced low-pressure field, but facilitating increased airflow under the wing and
into the venturi tunnels.

6
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020
Regarding the flaps' wingtips, they are shaped in a manner that induces a high-energy vortex,
which travels between the suspension elements and over the undertray, energizing the
boundary layer around the chassis.

Vortex created at front wing flaps’ wingtips

The endplates adhere to the outwash philosophy. The leading edge of the endplates is
profiled to reduce drag while complying with the minimum leading edge radius regulations.
On the other hand, the trailing edge is cambered outward to bypass the front wheels.
Additionally, we utilize a "half-pipe" shaped footplate that restricts the inwash underneath
the endplates, thereby better isolating the low-pressure field beneath the wing.

7
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

Velocity field @ x=-0.7m

8
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

Different endplate design effect on inwash @ z=0.04m

Undertray
Regarding the undertray, this year's design process differs significantly from previous years.
Last year's vehicle had an asymmetrical chassis, which greatly influenced the aerodynamic
design, particularly the undertray. On one hand, the concept is simpler compared to last
year's design because the undertray can now be symmetrical. However, on the performance
side, there are several new aspects to consider.

The undertray concept closely aligns with that of other FSAE teams and incorporates a front
splitter, venturi tunnels on each side of the vehicle, and a central diffuser at the rear.

9
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020
Alongside other aerodynamic elements, the initial iterations of the undertray were modeled
around an older chassis. We used these early designs to test the basic geometry and compare
the performance of undertrays with and without a splitter. As expected, the undertray with
a splitter immediately demonstrated superior results, as it provided increased airflow to the
venturi tunnels.

Initial comparisson between an undertray with (bottom) and without (top) a splitter @ z=0.05m

10
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020
Once the first new monocoque model was completed, we began testing various outlet angles
for the venturi tunnels and the diffuser. Due to our suspension geometry, there was limited
room for experimenting with different floor inlet angles. Raising the inlet angle beyond 5
degrees would disrupt the airflow entering the venturi tunnels excessively, causing
unwanted turbulence underneath the vehicle. To address this, we added fences on the outer
sides of each inlet, extending closer to the tires. These fences serve to shield the undertray
area from the tire wake generated by the front wheels.

First undertray utilizing inlet fences (new chassis) @ z=0.055m

With the basic geometry established, the next step involved exploring the addition of various
aerodynamic elements to either increase downforce or reduce drag. One of the initial
concepts we tested was similar to the so-called "double diffuser." By creating a slit in the
diffuser, we allow the low-pressure field generated by the rear wing to further impact the
airflow in the diffuser. Essentially, by creating a pocket in the diffuser, we enable the air to
be drawn out from underneath the car, delaying flow separation and enhancing performance.

11
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

Comparisson of undertays with (bottom) and without (top) double diffuser @ y=0m

Currently, we are working on adding flap elements to the venturi tunnel outlets to extract
additional performance. Furthermore, we are evaluating different ideas employed in other
racing competitions, such as the "mouse hole" used in F1.

12
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

Current working undertray design

Ferrari SF23 mouse hole

13
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

Rear wing
In comparison to our other aerodynamic elements, the rear wing is relatively less developed
as it entered the design process later. The selection process for the airfoil used in the rear
wing followed a similar approach to that of the front wing. Consequently, it is not surprising
that our current working model utilizes the same airfoils (BE 122-125 for the main section
and BE 153-055 for the flaps), albeit with slightly different chord lengths. Additionally,
during the 2D CFD simulations, we tested numerous configurations incorporating slat
elements or beam wings. However, none of these configurations demonstrated superior
performance compared to the conventional design.

Current working rear wing design

14
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

Other aerodynamic elements

One of the initial small elements we tested were the bull horns positioned at the front of the
chassis. Without the presence of the rear wing, these bull horns proved to be a disadvantage
as they generated positive lift and decreased the vehicle's performance. However, their true
potential became evident when the rear wing was introduced. The bull horns effectively
redirected the airflow away from the rear wing, allowing more undisturbed air to impact its
surface. This effect is clearly demonstrated when comparing pressure field images.

Pressure fields with (bottom) and without (top) bull horn wings @ y=-0.375

15
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020
After successfully experimenting with the bull horn wings, we had the idea to incorporate
a barge board section that would convert the downward airflow from the bull horns into an
outward flow to mitigate the impact of tire wake. However, we have not yet achieved the
desired results, as the interaction between the air coming off the front wheels and the barge
board elements creates excessive turbulence. While our concept does induce some degree
of outwash, the turbulence generated either decreases overall vehicle performance or fails
to enhance it.

Turbulence created behind the barge board section @ z=0.18m

Lastly, we have side wings extending from the middle of the chassis over the venturi tunnels.
These elements work in conjunction with the bull horn wings. However, finding the optimal
position for these side wings, one that does not negatively impact the performance of the
rear wing, has proven to be a challenge.

Current working model pressure field @ y=-0.375m

16
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020

Plan for the remainder of the design process

Regarding the remaining design process, there are several key areas that require attention:

1. Front Wing: The front wing is in the advanced stages of development. Our plan is to test
cascade elements that induce more outwash to divert airflow around the front tires. However,
we need to assess the potential impact on downstream aerodynamic elements, such as the
bull horns, before finalizing the design.

2. Undertray: The undertray design is progressing well, with most changes aligned with
potential chassis modifications. We are also focusing on developing more intricate floor
edge geometry to improve the sealing of the underside, which will positively impact
performance.

3. Rear Wing: The rear wing is currently the least developed component of the aerodynamic
package. Our development plan includes refining the rear wing geometry based on the
airflow coming off the driver's helmet, once we have a more precise understanding of the
driver's sitting position. Additionally, we aim to extract significant performance gains by
utilizing endplates with an outwash effect.

4. Mountings and Structural Integration: A significant portion of our forthcoming work

involves the integration of aerodynamic elements with the vehicle's mounting points and
structural components. We collaborate closely with the chassis team, leveraging their
expertise in finite element method (FEM) analyses to ensure optimal performance and
structural integrity.

17
FORMULA STUDENT TIM
DRUMSKA STRELA 2020
By addressing these aspects, we aim to optimize the aerodynamic performance of the vehicle
while considering the structural requirements and integration challenges.

Current working aeropackage model

18