ITS ENGINEERING JOURNAL Vol. X, No.

Y, (2021) ISSN: 2337-3539 (2301-9271 Print) 1

Numerical Simulation of the Effect of Angle of

Attack on Front Wing Design of ITS Sapuangin
Formula Student Car in Turning Conditions
I Gede Rudy Artha Suteja
Industrial Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Vocational Studies, Institut Teknologi
Sepuluh Nopember
e-mail: rudyartha34@gmail.com
Abstract—When a vehicle passes a bend, the airflow field
observed from the vehicle's frame of reference becomes curved.
This condition causes the relative flow angle and air freestream
velocity to change both the width and length of the body. The
Large Eddy Simulation method is used to simulate the shape of
a multi-element airfoil (Front Winglet) with variations in Angle
of Attack (AoA) on the 1st and 2nd flaps with domains that
make the flow pattern close to the actual conditions when the
body is turning. The speed at the inlet is set at a value of 11.11
m/s which is the average speed of the Sapuangin Speed 6
formula car in the skidpad event. At a track radius of 15.25m
and a Reynolds number of 9.8 × 105, the performance of the
front wing will be analyzed with variations in Angle of Attack
on changes in drag force, downforce, lift coefficient (CL) and
drag coefficient (CD) values and their effect on changes in drag
force and drag coefficient (CD) on the front wheels of the car.
After obtaining the AoA front wing configuration with the
highest CL / CD the front wing will be installed on the
Sapuangin Speed 6 formula car to analyze its performance.
Keywords—Angle of Attack, Front Wing, Lift coefficient, drag
coefficient, downforce, drag force, Tires, Sapuangin Speed 6,
Freestream Speed, Static pressure, x-speed component, y-speed
component, z-speed component.
I. INTRODUCTION
method of utilizing a wind tunnel and using Computational
Fluid Dynamics to look for the effect of flap changes. angle
to the resulting lift and drag force. The conclusion drawn
from the experiment is that as the downforce angle of attack
(AoA) increases, drag and coefficient increase, but when
AoA is too high, drag and coefficient actually decrease, this
occurs due to stalls on the winglet flaps [2].
Research conducted by James Keogh [3] with the
original title "Techniques for Aerodynamic Analysis of
Cornering Vehicles" examines the best approach method for
vehicles when cornering. Tsubokura [4] and Nara [5] both
chose to use a rectangular domain using modified inlet and
outlet boundary conditions along the domain wall to achieve
the desired flow plane. This method allows the evaluation of
vehicle cornering simulations using the same mesh and also
allows dynamic simulations that incorporate variable curves
and directions.
II.RESEARCH DESCRIPTION
A. Boundary Layer Concept
In the actual state, each fluid has a viscosity that causes
surface friction, as a result, a thin layer will appear near the

I
wall. The tangential velocity in this thin layer increases from
TS Team Sapuangin first participated in the Student zero (on the wall/no slip) to its full value, the rapid change
Formula Japan (SFJ) competition from 2012 to 2019. The in the layer's tangential velocity component is called the
Sapuangin car that competed was named the VIIIth Boundary layer as shown in Figure 1. [6]
generation Sapuangin Speed (SAS). In the skidpad test, the
car's condition was felt to be not optimal in passing the track Figure 1. Boundary Layer
which required to turn quickly, this was partly due to the
loss of grip on the tires due to load transfer and the
emergence of centrifugal force acting on the car. The
addition of extra downward force is needed to increase tire
grip when the car is required to go through corners quickly.
The aerodynamic shape of the car body is quite helpful in
breaking air resistance, but aerodynamic devices are needed
to increase downforce to add traction to the tires when
turning at high speeds. An example of an aerodynamic B. Adverse Pressure Gradient
device commonly used on racing cars is a winglet whose On objects that have contours that tend to be sharp at the
main form is an airfoil, but if the airfoil is not enough to back, the flow separation will occur near the back, whereas
generate downforce or even increase flow separation then a for objects that have a blunt shape, the point of separation is
multi-element wing on both the front and rear of the winglet often not far from leading edge.
is needed. The most common application seen in formula
racing cars is the use of flaps, which are small winglets Figure 2. Boundary layer with adverse pressure gradient
placed above and behind the main airfoil [1].
Changes in the flap angle greatly affect the amount of
downforce and drag force on a formula car. One of the trials
was carried out by the UH17 car team from the University
of Hertfordshire which conducted experiments by varying
the angle of attack (-5o, 0o, 5o and 10o) with the actual
ITS ENGINEERING JOURNAL Vol. X, No. Y, (2021) ISSN: 2337-3539 (2301-9271 Print) 2

This can occur due to the adverse pressure gradient. collection in this study was the difference in the angle of
Adverse pressure gradient occurs when static pressure attack of the flaps on the airfoil. The flap angle in the basic
increases in the direction of fluid motion (∂ρ/∂x>0) as model is 25o for 1st flap and 35o for 2nd flap. Variations are
shown in Figure 2, as the pressure increases it causes the made by adding or reducing the flap angle in the basic
flow velocity to decrease and when this occurs the flow will model [9]. The following is table 1 of parameter variations
move away from the plane surface or commonly referred to and table 2 of the specifications tested in this study.
as flow separation which will result in a wake where
Table 1. Variation parameters tested in the study
turbulent flow is highly undesirable [7].
Parameter Variasi
C.Pressure Equation
Geometri Front wing Model dasar multi-element
Bernoulli's equation describes the relationship between airfoil Frontwing
air velocity and pressure. The relationship where the local
AOA first and seccond 00, 50, 100, 200, 300
static pressure P, density ρ and velocity V is: flap
2
p V (1) Kecepatan 11.11 m/s
+ =Constant
ρ 2 Reynolds Numbers (𝑅𝑒 ) 9.8e+5
The flow passes through a vehicle moving at a speed of
B. Multi-Element Front Wing Base Model Configuration
V∞, because the vehicle changes the local streamline, the
velocity increases in the area around the body [8]. Since the In this research, the front wing geometry design uses a
constants in the previous equation are the same, they can be multi-element configuration which consists of three
written as: elements, namely the main element namely main element,
2 2 1st Flap, and 2nd Flap. The three elements use an airfoil with
p V p∞ p∞ (2) an Eppler E423 profile [10]. Figures 3 & 4 show the
+ = +
ρ 2 ρ 2 geometry of the front wing along with the names of the parts
of the front wing being tested and their basic configuration
D.Aerodynamic Forces that Affecting Vehicle Performance
[11] [12].
The drag force that occurs is in the form of skin friction
drag ( F Df ), which is the drag force that tangentially touches
the surface arising from the presence of viscosity (shear
stress between the fluid and the surface of the object) and
pressure drag ( F Dp), which is the drag force perpendicular
to the surface of the object that arises due to fluid pressure.
The resultant between friction drag and pressure drag is
referred to as total drag which is defined as follows:
F D =F Dp + F Df (3)
(4)
F D =∫ cos θ ( P dA ) +∫ sin θ (τ dA)
The total drag force that restrains the vehicle's speed
greatly depends on the shape of the vehicle, each vehicle
body with a different shape has its own drag coefficient
factor or C D . The factors that affect the drag coefficient can
be formulated as follows:
Fd
CD=
1 (5)
ρV2 A Figure 3. Front wing and front wheel geometry
2
The lift force acts in the upward direction of the vehicle,
normal to the ground, in the downforce, the lift force acts in
the negative direction (-z direction). As with the drag force,
the lift force occurs as a result of the resultant compressive
force and shear force in the direction of the -Y axis so that
the lift force can be defined as follows:
FL
C L= (6)
1
ρV 2 A
2

III. RESEARCH METHODS Figure 4. The basic configuration of the front wing which
A. Variations in Retrieval of Simulation Data consists of the main elements, 1st flap, 2nd flap
The front wing model to be analyzed uses a multi-element
airfoil model with 3D geometry. The variation used in data
ITS ENGINEERING JOURNAL Vol. X, No. Y, (2021) ISSN: 2337-3539 (2301-9271 Print) 3

Table 2. Specifications The basic geometry of the multi-
element front wing
C.Computing and Meshing Domains
The choice of dimensions and domain design is based on
the research of James Keogh [3] and SAE [13] as shown in
Figure 5. The creation of the domain is done in Software
Ansys 18.1 Design Modeler. In the mesh used polyhedral
method. Polyhedral meshes are used because they are very
good for geometric shapes that are quite complex and are
quite common in winglet calculation analysis. Polyhedral
mesh is also used for time efficiency and simulation results,
capturing the boundary layer formed on the surface of the
airfoil and tires using inflation with a total thickness of
21mm [14]. Figure 6 shows the mesh for the airfoil and tire
models to be simulated.
Figure 5. Computational Domain in Study
Figure 6. Front wing mesh model and Sapuangin speed car
tires
Mesh quality can be assessed based on skewness, aspect
ratio, and orthogonal quality. In this study the authors chose
skewness as a mesh metric. ANSYS Fluent recommends a
maximum skewness value of 0.94 to get fairly accurate
results.
both at the separation points near and far from the trailing
edge of the airfoil. In this study, air was chosen as the
working fluid. The nature of the air used is air with a density
of (ρ) 1.225 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 and viscosity (μ) of 1.78𝑥 10−5 𝑘𝑔/𝑚.𝑠.
Operating conditions function to set parameters in the
operating area, wherein the operating area of this study it is
set at 1 ATM or 101,325 KPa. Boundary conditions are
surface settings that limit fluid zones in the computational
domain. The boundary conditions used in this simulation are
velocity inlet on the front domain, and pressure outlet on the
back. The upper part uses a wall, and the lower part uses a
wall that is set on a moving wall. Moving wall with the
same speed as the inlet in the lower domain to avoid the
formation of a boundary layer on the ground which can
affect the simulation results, and walls on the surface of the
airfoil and tires. The value of setting the boundary
conditions can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Boundary Condition
Parameter Variasi Keterangan
Inlet Velocity Kecepatan : 11.11 (m/s)
Turbulent K.E. 0.0185 (m2/s2)
ω 1.55 (1/s)
Turbulence Intensity 1%
Outlet Pressure Outlet Pressure (gauge) : 0 (Pa)
Turbulence Intensity 1%
Ground Moving Wall Kecepatan : 11.11 (m/s)
Reynolds Numbers (𝑅𝑒 ) 9.8e+5
The solution used in this study is the SIMPLE scheme,
setting the Green-Gauss Cell Based pressure gradient,
second order for pressure, second order upwind for
momentum turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent
dissipation rate. Initialization is a process to provide an
initial value in the numerical calculation process. This
process needs to be done before the simulation can be run.
The initialization process used is hybrid initialization.
Reference values are used to determine the drag coefficient
calculation reference (CD) and lift coefficient (CL) where the
reference value is determined by the conditions set at the
inlet. Residual monitor is a problem solving stage in the
form of an iterative process until the desired convergence
criterion is achieved. Settings on the residual monitor are
made to set the residual convergence criteria during the
simulation process. The residual convergence value is set at
1 𝑥 10−5.
E. Grid Independency Test
Grid independence test is used to prove the accuracy of
the mesh pattern used. This simulation uses different control
volumes and the value used as a comparison is the lift
coefficient on the front wing with a flap variation
configuration of 10o. In this grid independent analysis, 5
variations of Mesh are made, namely mesh A, mesh B, mesh
C, mesh D and mesh E. Table 4 shows the results of the grid
independency analysis.
Table 4. Grid Independence results
Y+ Quality
Mesh Nodes Element
Airfoil 1 Airfoil 2 Airfoil 3 Ban Max Skew
Cl Error

A 0.94 -0.311 -
D.Modeling Parameters 369196 1378355 6.168 8.159 8.193 4.439
B 369393 1379503 6.287 7.987 7.917 4.378 0.94 -0.317 1.84%
The turbulence model used in this study is the k-omega C 370099 1383609 6.461 8.049 8.208 4.411 0.94 -0.341 6.57%
SST. The choice of this model is based on research by Susin D 372361 1396704 5.991 7.821 7.821 4.373 0.93 -0.355 3.95%
E 397602 1541770 6.319 7.947 8.096 4.403 0.93 -0.363 2.31%
[15] where this model is able to capture flow phenomena
ITS ENGINEERING JOURNAL Vol. X, No. Y, (2021) ISSN: 2337-3539 (2301-9271 Print) 4

Based on the table above, all relative error values are B. Flow Velocity and Pressure Contours in the x-y Plane
below 5%. The biggest error value is between mesh B and
mesh C of 6.57%. After simulating using mesh D and mesh
E, the error value no longer increases significantly.
Likewise, it can be seen that each Y+ value between meshes
D and E does not increase significantly. Mesh D can be said
to be grid independent because the error in the lift
coefficient in mesh D is only 3.95% and there is no
significant jump in the relative error value in the mesh with
fewer cells than mesh D.

IV. DATA ANALYSIS

A. Data Retrieval Method Validation
In data collection, reference journals are used as a
reference for validating the results obtained in this study. In
the journal Keogh [3] which analyzes the effect of the
aerodynamics of an object that is turning with computational
and experimental methods. The dimensions and parameters
of the object tested are shown in Figure 7 and the boundary
conditions are the same in the Keogh journal [3].

Figure 9. Velocity Contour on each variation of Angle of

Figure 7. Geometry and mesh used for test validation
The validation parameter being compared is the trend
pattern of dimensionless velocity flow at x/L=0.036 between
the experimental results from Keogh [3] and the
computational method that the researchers used on the same
object with a radius of 5L.
In Figure 8 it can be seen that the comparison of the
dimensionless velocity flow pattern at x/L 0.036 has several
different dimensionless velocity characteristics, such as at
z/L=0.05 to z/L=0.4. However, because the data validation
method has the same trend as the reference data, the method
used in this study is said to be valid.
Attack
Figure 9 shows the velocity contours, pressure contours
and streamlined flow around the front wing with several
variations of the Angle of Attack. The figure shows that
there are differences in contour distribution around the front
wing due to the influence of angle of attack variations on the
first and second airfoil flaps so the larger AOA greatly
affects the occurrence of wake in the lower stream section of
each airfoil. At an angle of 30 o separation on the 1st airfoil
flap begins to occur which is indicated by the emergence of
a wake zone which is indicated by the blue velocity contour.
The wake zone appears due to the flow separation that
occurs due to the expansion of the flow section along the X-
axis. The expansion of the flow section causes an adverse
pressure gradient and causes separation so that in other
words the front wing at an AOA angle of 30o experiences a
stall.

Figure 8. Comparison of data validation and data reference

at x/L=0.036
Figure 10. Kontur Tekanan pada setiap variasi AOA
ITS ENGINEERING JOURNAL Vol. X, No. Y, (2021) ISSN: 2337-3539 (2301-9271 Print) 5

It can be seen that the upstream flow flows in a parallel

streamlined pattern, this is due to the large enough air
momentum generated so that air separation has not occurred. Re = 9.8 x 10^5
Ve locity=11.11 m/s
The increased momentum is caused by the addition of 2 Lift Force (N) Cl

flaps on the main airfoil element. Figure 10 shows the Variation Main
Element
First
Flap
Second
Flap
Total
Main
Eleme nt
First
Flap
Second
Flap
Total Add

phenomenon of flow near the ground past the first element AOA= 0 -10.46 -1.25 -0.342 -12.052 -0.265 -0.031 -0.008 -0.304 -

airfoil where there is a decrease in airflow pressure. This is %Contribution of total

AOA=5
86.79%
-10.979
10.37%
-1.541
2.84%
-0.361 -12.881 -0.278 -0.039 -0.009 -0.326 6.44%

shown by the blue and light green contours at the distance %Contribution of total 85.23% 11.96% 2.80%
AOA= 10 -11.707 -1.896 -0.455 -14.058 -0.296 -0.048 -0.011 -0.355 8.37%
between the ground and the airfoil and the presence of a red- %Contribution of total 83.28% 13.49% 3.24%

orange contour near the upstream multi-element airfoil AOA= 20

%Contribution of total
-13.855
80.86%
-2.653
15.48%
-0.627
3.66%
-17.135 -0.351 -0.067 -0.015 -0.433 18.01%

which indicates an increase in pressure. This event shows AOA= 30 -10.79 -1.895 -0.443 -13.128 -0.273 -0.048 -0.011 -0.332 -30.42%
%Contribution of total 82.19% 14.43% 3.37%
that there is an increase in speed on the downstream front
wing due to a ground effect that is created between the
distance the front wing and the ground are traversed. Based
on Bernoulli's equation for a flow that is on the same
streamline, a flow that has a high velocity will cause low
static pressure and vice versa. The phenomenon in this study
is in accordance with this theory.
C.Simulation Results of Multi Element Front Wing with the
Effect of Variation of Angle of Attack (AOA).
As the angles on the four flaps increase, it can be seen
from the table that the resulting lift coefficient (CL) also
increases before finally at extreme angles the value
decreases. This is caused by air separation due to the
increase in alpha (α), which is the angle formed between the
X-axis freestream velocity vector and the chord length of the
airfoil. When the air is separated in the downstream inverted
airfoil, the pressure on the upper surface also increases so
that the greater the angle α formed, the greater the lift Table 5. Result of lift force, lift coefficient (CL) from
coefficient that can be generated due to the pressure on the Angle of Attack (AOA) variation
upper surface. However, if the angle α is too large, the air
separation that occurs will be too large so that there is no Table 6. Graph of lift coefficient (CL) on the front wing
more streamlined air flowing in the lower surface airfoil, with variations in Angle of Attack (AoA)
this is caused by the viscosity properties of the air. The In Table 5 the highest value of the lift coefficient (CL) is
addition of a multi-element airfoil is able to delay the air obtained in the 20o configuration with a value of CL = -
being separated by increasing the momentum of the air to be 0.433 and the lowest value is in the 10o configuration with a
separated, due to an increase in the angle α formed by the value of CL = -0.304 which is also shown in graph 6. With
airfoil, through the gap (the distance formed between the an increase in the flap angle of 300 the lift coefficient (CL)
airfoils) which has been set at a distance. The result is that experiences drastic decrease which is caused by air
the front wing is able to produce an optimal lift coefficient separation due to the angle α formed,
(CL) even though the angle α formed is quite large.
Table 7. Result of drag force, drag coefficient (CD) Angle
of Attack (AOA)
Re= 9.8 x 10^5
Velocity=11.11 m/s
Drag Force (N) Cd
Variation Main Second Main First Se cond
First Flap Total Total Add
Element Flap Element Flap Flap

AOA= 0 1.849 0.757 0.354 2.96 0.046 0.019 0.008 0.073 -

%Contribution of total 62.47% 25.57% 11.96%
AOA=5 1.863 1.028 0.427 3.318 0.047 0.036 0.001 0.084 10.79%
%Contribution of total 56.15% 30.98% 12.87%
AOA= 10 1.985 1.392 0.594 3.971 0.05 0.035 0.015 0.1 16.44%
%Contribution of total 49.99% 35.05% 14.96%
AOA= 20 2.436 2.528 1.015 5.979 0.061 0.064 0.025 0.15 33.58%
%Contribution of total 40.74% 42.28% 16.98%
AOA= 30 2.499 2.721 1.152 6.372 0.063 0.069 0.029 0.161 6.17%
%Contribution of total 39.22% 42.70% 18.08%
ITS ENGINEERING JOURNAL Vol. X, No. Y, (2021) ISSN: 2337-3539 (2301-9271 Print) 6

Table 9. The result of the drag force, the drag

coefficient (CD) on the tire
E.
Re= 9.8 x 10^5 V
Velocity=11.11 m/s
e
Drag Force (N) Cd h
Variation i
Ban Loss Ban Loss
c
AoA= 0 2.712 - 0.068 - l
AoA= 5 2.39 -13% 0.06 -13% e
AoA= 10 2.098 -14% 0.053 -13%
AoA= 20 1.717 -22% 0.043 -23%
AoA= 30 1.088 -58% 0.027 -59%

Performance
In figure 13 the velocity field around the Sapuangin
Figure 11. Graph of drag coefficient (CD) on the front Speed 6 (SAS 6) is calculated and projected on the contour
wing with variations in Angle of Attack (AoA) plane along the car. The blue color indicates where the
The largest total drag force value is found in the 30 o velocity is quite low, and you can see that the air is
separated at the rear of the car. In this contour, you can see
variation. with a value of 6.372 N and the lowest at 0 o
in detail the separation of the flow occurring in the cockpit
variation with a value of 2.96 N. As the angles formed
area and an increase in speed in the area near the helmet and
between the freestream vector the X-axis direction and the
the bottom of the car due to the car's low ground clearance.
chord length of the airfoil or commonly called alpha (α) Stagnation pressure can be seen on the rider's helmet and on
increase, the resulting drag coefficient (CD) will also the main hoop.
increase due to wake caused by airflow separation in the
inverted airfoil. In table 7 and figure 12 the lowest drag Figure 12. Velocity contour on car formula SAS 6
coefficient (CD) value is obtained in the 0o configuration
with a CD value = 0.073 and the highest Cd value is in the
30o configuration with a CD value = 0.161.
Table 8. The results of the lift to drag ratio (𝐶L /𝐶D) on
the front wing
Re= 9.8 x 10^5
Variation Velocity=11.11 m/s
Cl Cd Cl/Cd Add
AoA= 0 -0.304 0.073 -4.1644 -
AoA= 5 -0.326 0.084 -3.881 -7.3%
AoA=10 -0.355 0.1 -3.55 -9.3%
AoA=20 -0.433 0.15 -2.8867 -23.0%
AoA=30 -0.332 0.16 -2.075 -39.1%

Based on table 8, a variation of the increase in flap angle

with a magnitude of 0o degrees is chosen as the
configuration for the front wing which will be installed on
the Sapuangin Speed 6 formula car with consideration of the
resulting lift coefficient (𝐶L) of -0.304 and the resulting drag
coefficient (CD) of 0.073 so as to produce 𝐶L /𝐶D ratio value
is -4.1644.
D.Effect of Angle of Attack (AoA) variations on the front
wing on the tires
Table 9 presents the effect of changing AoA on the
comparative value of the drag coefficient (CD) on the front
tires of the SAS 6 formula car. The table shows the effect of
adding winglets in front of the tires to reduce the CD value
on the front wheels of the car. The biggest decrease in drag
is -58% at AoA=30o and the smallest decrease is -13% at
AoA=50o. Changing the Angle of Attack has proven
successful in reducing drag on the tires which results in
reduced traction.
Figure 13. The surface of the pressure distribution on the
Sapuangin formula car (a) isometric view (b) bottom view
The pressure distribution on the surface of the car in
Figure 14 shows where the pressure is distributed when the
car is turning. The highest pressure with red contours
appears in the area in front of the front and rear wheels
inside the car, nosecone, on the driver's head, and on the
main hoop. You can see the dominant red color on the inner
wheels of the car when turning and there is a stagnation
point there. At the bottom of the car, the pressure
distribution along the surface of the car is marked in yellow
which is quite high and considering that the ground
conditions in the simulation are set by moving walls, there is
no ground effect that is utilized on the lower surface of the
car due to the absence of aerodynamic devices. It is also
ITS ENGINEERING JOURNAL Vol. X, No. Y, (2021) ISSN: 2337-3539 (2301-9271 Print) 7

visible on the wheels that the pressure that occurs can downforce results are obtained of 75.063 N where the
reduce the vehicle's traction when maneuvering. winglets contribute as much as 5.18% of the total downforce
The speed field around the car is visualized with a generated by the car. The increase in downforce was caused
contour plane where the blue color represents the area with by the value of the lift coefficient (C L) which also increased
low speed and the red color represents the area with higher due to the addition of winglets on the car. The total increase
speed. As shown in Figure 15, flow separation occurs in the in the coefficient of lift (CL) and downforce with the
cockpit area and behind the driver. The interesting thing is addition of winglets on the SAS 6 formula car in turning
how the speed distribution on the underside of the vehicle conditions is 36.89%.
changes thanks to the addition of the front wing. Table 11. Drag force result, drag coefficient (𝐶D) SAS 6
Re = 9.8 x 10^5
Ve locity=11.11 m/s
Drag Force (N) Cd
Variation
Winglet SAS 6 Total Winglet SAS 6 Total Add

SAS 6 w/o Winglet - 2.884 2.884 0 0.022 0.022 -

%Contribution of total 0.00% 100.00%
SAS 6 with Winglet 2.679 1.346 4.025 0.01 0.019 0.029 28.35%
%Contribution of total 66.56% 33.44%

The increase in downforce is not only beneficial but also

has consequences, where the resulting drag force also
increases in table 11 comparing the resulting drag force
between the SAS 6 formula car models without and with
Figure 14. Velocity contour on a formula car with front winglets. The simulation results show that the drag force
wing value generated by the SAS 6 car without winglets in
turning conditions has a value of 2,884 N, while the SAS 6
model with winglets in turning conditions has a drag force
value of 4,025 N. The winglets used alone account for a
percentage of 66.56% of the total value of the resulting drag
force. The increase in drag force is caused by an increase in
the drag coefficient (CD) where the model without winglets
has a CD value of 0.022 and the model with winglets has a
CD value of 0.029. The total increase in drag force and CD
drag coefficient on cars with winglets is 28.35%.
Figure 15. Surface pressure distribution on a formula car
V. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY
with front wing (a) isometric view (b) bottom view
After conducting research on the effect of the angle of
The pressure distribution on the surface of the car in attack on the front wing design of the Sapuangin ITS student
Figure 16 shows where the pressure is distributed when the formula car in turning conditions, several points of
car with the front wing is turning. Areas of stagnation occur conclusion were produced as follows.
on the front and rear wheels inside the car, the pressure on 1. The test results show that the Angle of attack
the lower surface body has decreased, this is indicated by a (AoA) variation at the 1st and 2nd flap obtained at
green contour. The addition of the front wing can reduce the AoA = 20o has the highest downforce value of
high pressure that occurs on the lower surface of the body, 17.135 N and 𝐶L of -0.433. The highest drag force
which means that the addition of the front wing successfully value is found in the configuration AoA=30o with a
deflects the airflow against the front wheels of the car. value of 6.372 N and a CD of 0.161.
Table 10. Result of lift force, lift coefficient (𝐶L) on SAS 2. Changes in the Angle of attack (AoA) are proven to
6 car be able to reduce the CD value of the front tires of
the car where the greatest decrease in drag is found
Re= 9.8 x 10^5
Velocity=11.11 m/s
in the AoA=30o variation with a percentage
Lift Force (N) Cl decrease of 58%
Variation
Winglet SAS 6 Total Winglet SAS 6 Total Add 3. The addition of the front wing to the car with the
Sapuangin Speed 6 formula in turning conditions is
SAS 6 w/o Winglet - -45.673 -45.673 - -0.349 -0.349 -
%Contribution of total 0.00% 100.00% proven to be able to increase downforce by 36.89%
SAS 6 with Winglet -3.889 -71.174 -75.063 -0.028 -0.525 -0.553 36.89% but this increase in downforce has consequences
%Contribution of total 5.18% 94.82%
where the resulting drag force also increases by
After the aerodynamic simulation is carried out, the 28.35%.
downforce value that can be generated by the SAS 6
formula car model in turning conditions without BIBLIOGRAPHY
aerodynamic devices is obtained and the results can be seen
from table 10 of 45,673 N. Meanwhile, in the SAS 6
formula car model with winglets in turning conditions, the
ITS ENGINEERING JOURNAL Vol. X, No. Y, (2021) ISSN: 2337-3539 (2301-9271 Print) 8

[1] K. S. P. Patil A, "STUDY OF FRONT WING OF FORMULA ONE CAR," International Journal of Mechanical,
2014.
[2] S. F. Abdulwahab, "AERODYNAMIC EVALUATION OF RACING WINGS OF A FORMULA CAR," Thesis
for: MSc, 2015.
[3] Keogh, J., Barber T., and Doig, G., "Techniques for Aerodynamic Analysis of Cornering Vehicles," SAE
Technical Papers, 2015.
[4] Tsubokura, M., "Unsteady Vehicle Aerodynamics during a Dynamic Steering," SAE International Journal of
Passenger Cars - Mechanical Systems , 2012.
[5] Nara, K., "Numerical Analysis of Unsteady Aerodynamics of Formula Car during Dynamic Cornering Motion,"
32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2014.
[6] D. H. SCHLICHTING, Boundary -layer Theory, 1979.
[7] F. a. Mcdonalds, Fluid Mechanic, 1976.
[8] J. Katz, race car aerodynamics, Massachusetts: Bentley, 1995.
[9] Soso M, Selig M. , "An Angle of Attack Correction Scheme for the Design of Low Aspect," SAE Technical
Paper, 2002.
[10] Dahlberg, "Aerodynamic development of Formula Student race car," Engineering, 2006.
[11] S. McBeath, Competition Car AERODYNAMICS, 1998.
[12] Zhang and Zerihan, "Aerodynamics of a Double-Element Wing in Ground Effect," AIAA Journal, 2003.
[13] SAE, FSAE Rules , 2020.
[14] Ansys Guide Book, Ansys Guide Book, 2013.
[15] D. I. Susín, "“Foundations, Methodologies and Design of the Formula UC3M Car Aerodynamics”," Aerospace
Engineering, 2019.