For the aerodynamic development of an aircraft the induced drag is an important quantity and it has a significant impact on the design of the wing. The induced drag corresponds to the power requirement of the wing to generate the necessary lift. In many cases this is the dominant source of drag for aircraft. In ground vehicle aerodynamics the concept of induced drag up to now has attracted much less attention. This is partly due to the fact, that vehicle aerodynamicists usually optimize the vehicles to generate little or no lift. The second reason is that it is much more difficult for a ground vehicle to separate the total drag into the different contributions. During wind tunnel tests of vehicles with and without ground simulation some astonishing results were found, especially when comparing results for different rear end shapes. Notchback vehicles typically displayed lower drag results when measured with ground simulation, whereas wagon backs showed higher drag figures compared with the case without ground simulation. To explain these surprising results, the contribution of induced drag to the total drag was analyzed in detail. The proportion of induced drag was determined from measured polar diagrams. Different lift levels of the vehicles were created using an adjustable rear spoiler, whereas the trim level of the vehicle was kept constant. Notchbacks typically generate rear lift and wagon backs rear downforce. The two rear end types therefore are b-cated on different branches of the parabola describing the induced drag. By improvement of the ground simulation typically the lift is reduced and thus the induced drag is modified. Due to the difference in the basic lift level the drag is reduced for the notchback and increased for the wagon back. Induced drag can of course describe only a part of the complex influence of improved ground simulation. Notchback vehicles do not generally show lower drag results when using ground simulation. Nevertheless induced drag can explain some significant influences found in recent test results.
[1]
E. Mercker,et al.
On the Aerodynamic Interference Due to the Rolling Wheels of Passenger Cars
,
1991
.
[2]
Antonello Cogotti.
GROUND EFFECT SIMULATION FOR FULL-SCALE CARS IN THE PININFARINA WIND TUNNEL
,
1995
.
[3]
Trevor Bender,et al.
The GIE S2A Full-Scale Aero-acoustic Wind Tunnel
,
2004
.
[4]
Stefan Dietz,et al.
Gradient Effects on Drag Due to Boundary-Layer Suction in Automotive Wind Tunnels
,
2003
.
[5]
Antonello Cogotti.
A Strategy for Optimum Surveys of Passenger-Car Flow Fields
,
1989
.
[6]
E. Mercker,et al.
Ground Simulation with Moving Belt and Tangential Blowing for Full-scale Automotive Testing in a wind Tunnel
,
1989
.
[7]
E. Mercker,et al.
The Effect of Groundplane Boundary Layer Control on Automotive Testing in a wind Tunnel
,
1988
.
[8]
Per Elofsson,et al.
Drag Reduction Mechanisms Due to Moving Ground and Wheel Rotation in Passenger Cars
,
2002
.
[9]
Jack Williams,et al.
Aerodynamic Drag of Engine-Cooling Airflow With External Interference
,
2003
.
[10]
Jochen Wiedemann,et al.
The New 5-Belt Road Simulation System of the IVK Wind Tunnels - Design and First Results
,
2003
.
[11]
Gerhard Wickern,et al.
Rotating Wheels - Their Impact on Wind Tunnel Test Techniques and on Vehicle Drag Results
,
1997
.
[12]
Norbert Lindener,et al.
The Audi aeroacoustic wind tunnel: Final design and first operational experience
,
2000
.