Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2006-01-1441

A Robust CFD Methodology for Physically

Realistic and Economically Feasible
Results in Racing – Part II: Intake Cowl
J. Logan Marshall, Yaling Ma, Adrian M. Mistreanu and James H. Leylek
Clemson University

2006 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 3-6, 2006

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2006 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018
A Robust CFD Methodology for Physically Realistic and
Economically Feasible Results in Racing – Part II: Intake Cowl
J. Logan Marshall, Yaling Ma, Adrian M. Mistreanu and James H. Leylek
Copyright © 2006 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Part V of the present five-part paper focuses on a
research project designed to uncover new and
innovative means of increasing airflow to the engine
within NASCAR rules. Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) offers an alternative to the current “build-and-
bust” technique reducing costs and time per design
iteration, and provides the sponsor with a physics-based
design tool with true predictive capability. Armed with a
validated CFD based design system, the team could
respond quickly to rule changes by analyzing new
configurations through simulations avoiding the
fabrication and track testing that is currently necessary.
A robust and easy-to-use CFD methodology for this
class of problems was developed and implemented to
understand the flow physics and explore novel
configurations, as described in Part I. Specifically, these
problems involve external flow around a racecar
traveling at 180 mph. One critical issue attracting
attention in this research was the link between external
high speed flow and how it negotiates a hairpin turn into
the intake cowl.
This comprehensive computational methodology
was used to reduce or eliminate errors due to geometry,
grid, discretization, false diffusion, and turbulence
modeling. The RANS equations were solved on an
exact electronic replica of the geometry. A multi-block,
multi-topology, unstructured, adaptive grid made up of
high-quality, high-density finite volumes was created for
use in all the simulations presented here. Fully
converged and grid-independent solutions based on
strict convergence criteria were obtained for all the
cases without an exception. Turbulence closure was
obtained through the realizable k-İ turbulence model
with non-equilibrium wall functions to account for
curvature and pressure gradient effects.
1
2006-01-1441
Advanced Computational Research Laboratory (ACRL)
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Clemson University
Through detailed analysis of flow physics novel
configurations were identified and analyzed to determine
intake cowl systems that produced the highest flow rate.
Performance was improved significantly above the
baseline configuration; flow rate was improved as much
as 222% in one case. A new phenomenon was
discovered that directly coupled external aerodynamics
with intake cowl flow. For the first time in the open
literature, detailed physics involving intake cowl flow
phenomena are described in detail.
INTRODUCTION
In NASCAR, as in most industries, competition fuels
the need for research. Power or engine output is of
utmost concern. Increasing engine horsepower and
torque by less than one percent will give a team a
significant advantage over the competition. This
increase can only come from burning more fuel. In turn,
increased fuel burn must have increased air for
combustion. Current rules in NASCAR are very strict
concerning the modifications made to the vehicle and
engine. The engine air inlet is located at the base of the
front windshield. This is known as cowl induction. This
opening leads to an air box that encompasses the air
filter and empties into the carburetor. The present
research project is focused on finding new and inventive
means of increasing airflow to the engine within
NASCAR rules.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) can be used
to reduce the design cycle time by avoiding the current
“build-and-bust” technique, saving money and time,
which is extremely important in NASCAR due to the
intense weekly race schedule. The race teams need a
physics-based design tool that could provide consistent
and accurate results in a timely and economical fashion.
This would eliminate the effort put into designing and
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018
testing many solid prototypes. There are, however,
unique problems for CFD practitioners, as NASCAR
teams typically are not well prepared for this technology.
For example, computer aided drawing (CAD) data may
not be available, and boundary condition information
may be sparse. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an
especially robust and easy-to-use CFD methodology as
described in Part I. Beyond that, the specific goals of
this project were to understand the complex flow
physics, explore novel configurations for increased
engine airflow through “what if?” type experiments, and
document the performance of readily available
turbulence models. An evaluation of available near-wall
treatments was performed as well for this class of
problems involving internal flow as it is coupled with
external flow around a race car traveling at 180 mph
(miles per hour).
Often, race teams report that dynamometer tests of
certain engines demonstrate great performance, but
track testing of the same engine show less than
adequate performance. Therefore, a focal point of the
present research was how the airflow negotiates a
hairpin turn into the intake cowl, and the effects this has
on external aerodynamics.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Little or no information exists in the open literature,
either experimental or computational, on the intake cowl
aerodynamics related flow phenomena found in this
study. Similarly, the authors could not find a single
paper on high-speed external aerodynamics coupled
with a intake cowl into flow. There is also no literature
that describes the methodologies involved when only a
solid prototype is available for the creation of the
electronic description of the computational domain. A
number of papers addressed the relevant issue of
current study are discussed as follows.
Laise and Bayless [1] extensively documented the
aerodynamic development of a NASCAR Winston Cup
race car through purely experimental means. Since the
date of the publication, NASCAR rule changes designate
a new fully enclosed air cleaner housing as seen in this
current study. Other purely experimental vehicle
developments are reported, such as in references [2]
and [3].
Katz and Dykstra [4] reported on the computational
methods applied to the aerodynamic development of a
prototype race car. A three-dimensional inviscid solver
was used to perform numerous “what-if” scenarios
centered on underbody flow and wing cluster design.
Flow physics and CFD methods are not discussed.
Werner et al. [5] performed an aerodynamic optimization
of the Opel Calibra ITC race car using both experimental
and computational fluid mechanics. Internal and
external flows were considered using the RANS solver
and RNG turbulence model of Star-CD. Williams and
Vemaganti [6] performed a calibration study for front-end
cooling airflow using a Ford in-house code. The solver
is based on the RANS equations for incompressible
fluids employing the standard k-H (SKE) turbulence
2
model and standard wall functions (SWF). Many
different configurations, using approximately 3.65 million
structured Cartesian cells, were explored and compared
to experimental data with good results.
Andra et al. [7] studied the effects of boundary and
geometry simplification on the numerical simulation of
front-end cooling. Fluent was used with its SKE
turbulence model and standard wall functions. The
RANS equations were solved on an unstructured
tetrahedral grid of 1.2 million cells. With cooling system
flow as a gauge, the results showed that geometric
simplification in the under hood area was useful for quick
evaluations of alternative designs in early design stages
when packaging issues are not finalized. Secondly, the
exit plane was moved from the wind tunnel exit to
between the B and C pillars of the vehicle with no effect
on the flow rate through the cooling package. This
information, in particular, is important to the current
study. Gillieron et al. [8] evaluated the potential of CFD
to predict under hood flow phenomena. The primary
concerns, air speed and turbulence values at the air inlet
and in the engine compartment were solved using
Fluent’s first order, incompressible scheme with the SKE
turbulence model and standard wall functions.
2-D and 3-D external aerodynamic simulations were
performed and reported by different researchers in
reference [9] to [20]. There are numerous other papers
describing aspects of CFD-aero simulations such as
underbody flow, wheel cavity flow, and wake flow, but
little additional information pertains to the current study.
PRESENT CONTRIBUTIONS
The unique set of contributions of this research may
be listed as follows:
x Develop a complete computational methodology for
this class of problems while striking a balance
between physical realism and economic feasibility;
x Investigate the physical mechanisms coupling
external aerodynamics and internal air box flow;
x Explore novel techniques such as geometry
modifications, energizing the boundary layer, and
boundary layer suction to increase engine airflow;
x Package and transfer the complete computational
methodology to a typical race team which has no
previous experience with CFD;
x Explain why some engines perform well on
dynamometer, but not in race conditions.
SIMULATION DETAILS
Within any CFD simulation four important tasks must
be completed in order to provide consistent and
accurate results. These tasks include proper: 1)
computational modeling; 2) geometry and grid
generation; 3) discretization schemes; and 4) turbulence
modeling. Satisfaction of these critical steps insures that
the right answers are found for all the right reasons.
COMPUTATIONAL MODELING
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018
The flows encountered in the present simulations
are highly three-dimensional due to curvature of
surfaces such as the hood, windshield, and roofline.
The internal flow in the air box includes even more
complex geometry leading to a three-dimensional
regime.
The nature of this study leads to a steady-state
simulation. The actual environment being simulated is a
vehicle moving in a straight line at a constant speed.
This simulation involves the external aerodynamics of
the vehicle that is upstream of the reciprocating engine
flow processes. Also, the area of interest is situated far
upstream of the highly unsteady flow region typically
found downstream of the C-pillars. This simulation does
not take into account any engine components below the
air box exit. Steady-state simulations have been widely
used in the past to characterize total pressure losses
throughout the engine geometry and pressure on the
external surfaces of vehicles. Also, this simulation does
not try to resolve wake structures and vortex shedding;
therefore a steady-state simulation will provide the
information in question. The main physics in question
are the interactions of external aerodynamics with the
amount of air that can be taken into the engine through
the cowl opening at the base of the windshield. Note
that a serious downside of unsteady simulations is that
they are much more expensive, time-consuming, and
difficult to solve. An unsteady simulation could take up
to ten times longer to converge if convergence is ever
reached at all. Such simulations are not consistent with
the stated objectives regarding the need to develop
robust, time effective CFD technologies.
It is very important that the correct decision about
the amount of space encompassed by the computational
domain be made. The extents of the domain considered
are closely linked to the type and location of the
boundary conditions. Inlets and exits can only be placed
where known information exists concerning velocity,
pressure, temperature, and turbulence. Boundary layer
growth on the hood must be modeled to correctly
represent the conditions experienced at the cowl
opening (history effects).
To reduce the number of finite volumes used in the
simulation, a preliminary two-dimensional simulation was
performed on the centerline plane in order to resolve the
boundary layer growth on the hood. This information
was used to clip the three-dimensional computational
domain and reduce its size. This allows the inlet
placement closer to the area in question; therefore
higher-density grids can be used where needed. The
exterior domain exit was also moved closer to the area
of interest using the same technique. This technique
captures all the essential physics with much more
economy. The vehicle and all details are symmetric
about its centerline allowing for a half-domain to be
considered further reducing computational needs.
Overall, computational resource requirements were
reduced by nearly 60 %. The internal cowl exit plane is
placed at the entrance to the carburetor where the static
pressure can be prescribed.
3
Once computational modeling is completed and the
domain extents are set, the geometry internal and
external to the cowl was created with exact detail. Since
no CAD data was available, a new technique was
needed to insure that an electronic definition of the exact
vehicle geometry was captured. A laser scanning
system was employed to scan and digitize the needed
surfaces such as hood, roof, and windshield for input
into CAD software. Interior air box dimensions were
obtained through a similar system. Thin slices of the air
box were cut and digitized laser points taken. The laser
scanning information resulted in a “point cloud” that was
used to generate computational model, the specific
technology can be found in Part I.
Figure 1 shows the computational domain for
the two-dimensional centerline study case used to
generate the boundary conditions for the clipped three-
dimensional domain. The reference three-dimensional
computational model is found in Figure 2. A partial
section of the hood and roofline, and the windshield are
included as well as the cowl air box. A significant
volume above the car is included for an accurate model
of the free stream. The upper boundary follows an
actual streamsurface where no flow crosses.
The quality and density of the grid will play a large
role in the accurate modeling of the flow physics. The
techniques used to obtain a high density, high quality
grid are discussed in Part I in detail. Figure 3 shows a
sample grid along the cowl centerline.
A hybrid topology approach was used. In areas of
complex geometry and areas of high interest, an
unstructured tetrahedral grid was used. Structured grids
are placed only in the boundary layers on the external
vehicle surfaces and designed so that the hexahedral
elements are aligned in the flow direction to reduce
numerical diffusion. A multi-block and multi-topology
meshing technology was employed to control grid size.
Also, hexahedral grids was stepped and stretched on
+
the vehicle surfaces to efficiently maintain y values and
navigate the 180-degree turn into the cowl air box. This
stair-step method allows for quick, but well-controlled
changes in grid density and sharp turns. Pyramids were
used for transitions between hexahedral and tetrahedral
grids. For transition into the free stream a non-
conformal interface (NCI) was used.
The geometry and grid were designed using a
modular approach so that new designs can be quickly
added to the exterior geometry with minimal re-meshing.
All of the mesh need not be generated each time the
cowl geometry is changed. On average, the
computational grids contained about five million finite
volume cells.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND DISCRETIZATION
SCHEMES
The boundary conditions found here involve inlets,
exits, walls, and symmetry planes. The inlet conditions
were extracted from a comprehensive two-dimensional
full-vehicle simulation of the centerline plane including
the far-field (upstream, downstream, and above the test
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

vehicle). This allowed for a smaller, more manageable, x Scoop 2 (SC2), where an arbitrary scoop was added
and accurate three-dimensional model. The two- where the flat rear wall of the REF air box along with
dimensional data captured all pertinent variables needed a more rounded forward entrance wall;
to define the inlet conditions and boundary layer x Scoop 3 (SC3), the same as SC2 without the
formation on the hood. Two exit conditions are needed, rounded forward entrance wall.
one pertaining to external aerodynamics and the other
for internal cowl flow. The same two-dimensional model Upon these geometries the effects of an energized
was used for the external exit. The internal, or cowl, exit boundary layer, boundary layer suction, and a
data was obtained from tests performed by the sponsor. combination of these techniques were performed.
The conditions here specify a static pressure across the Additionally, the performance of available turbulence
exit. This value was determined by varying the pressure models and near-wall treatments was performed and is
until the known test flow rate of 580 CFM (cubic feet per presented for the REF geometry. The results are
minute) was obtained. This is the value that the engine presented in a chronological order. Since an increase
receives at 180-mph, according to tests. The resulting in flow rate and additional physics were not found in
pressure, 0.19 PSI (pounds per square inch) was used cases 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14, they are omitted from the
for all simulations. A half model in the lateral direction discussion.
was created with symmetry planes on either side. All
surfaces are modeled as adiabatic since heat transfer is TABLE 1. TEST MATRIX
not of concern. The upper boundary, which happens to Case Geometry Variation
coincide with a streamsurface, has a prescribed free
1 Roush Standard
stream pressure, which allows flow in and out of the
2 Roush Hood BL Energized
domain to accurately model flow around the race car.
No mass flow enters through this “slip” surface. All the 3 Roush BL Suction (-1.0 PSI)
results presented in this study are declared grid- 4 Roush SKE
independent and fully converged. 5 Roush RNG
6 Roush SWF
TURBULENCE MODEL AND CONVERGENCE 7 Scoop 2 Standard
8 Scoop 2 Hood BLEnergized
The choice of turbulence model is key in the trade 9 Scoop 3 Standard
off between physical realism and economic feasibility as 10 Scoop 3 Hood BL Energized
documented in Part I. Realizable k-H turbulence model 11 Scoop 3 BL Suction (-1.0 PSI)
(RKE), with non-equilibrium wall function (NWF) near- 12 Scoop 3 BL Suction (-1.5 PSI)
wall treatment, is used for the modeling of turbulence in 13 Scoop 3 BL Suction (-0.5 PSI)
the present study. 14 Scoop 3 Combo (-0.5 PSI)
Convergence for this simulation was declared when 15 Scoop 3 Combo (-1.0 PSI)
global mass and energy imbalances fell below 0.1%. In
most cases these imbalances were driven three orders
of magnitude below 0.1% to insure full convergence. In
Contours and vectors are shown on the vehicle
summary, convergence is declared when:
centerline, planes parallel to the cowl inlet and outlet, a
x Residuals of all dependent variables fall at least plane parallel to the cowl bottom, and a cross plane
three orders of magnitude or more; normal to the flow direction. Contours of total pressure
x Velocity and turbulence kinetic energy profiles do (Pt), static pressure (Ps), and velocity magnitude (V,
not change; mph) demonstrate the physical mechanisms that play a
x Global mass and energy imbalances fall below role in overall cowl air box performance while velocity
0.1%. vectors are used to show flow patterns. All pressures
are given in PSI (gage) and all velocities are given in
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS mph.

All together, fifteen different simulations were REFERENCE CASE RESULTS

performed on three different geometries. The complete
test matrix can be seen in Table 1. Standard indicates
that RKE is used with non-equilibrium wall functions.
Combo indicates a combination of boundary layer
suction and an energized boundary layer. The
pressures shown in the table below are gage pressures.
The three geometries used are as follows and can be
seen in Figure 4:
x The reference geometry (REF), also known as the
Roush Daytona configuration;
The Roush air box built for the Daytona
configuration of the 2000 Monte Carlo race car served
as the reference case for all three-dimensional cowl
simulations. A 3-D computational model was developed
that eliminated the need to model the entire car body
while still maintaining a high level of modeling accuracy.
Based on the boundary conditions provided by the
sponsor, the air flows through the cowl into the
carburetor at approximately 580 CFM. The cowl outlet

4
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018
pressure was varied in a series of numerical studies until
this flow rate was obtained.
The velocity contours and velocity vectors along the
cowl centerline plane in Figure 5 highlight that the high-
speed flow is not able to navigate the sharp turn into the
cowl. Thus, a large recirculation region is formed in the
inlet region so that the effective area seen by the flow
entering the cowl is only about 20 % of the actual inlet
area defined by the bounding metal surfaces. The small
amount of high-speed flow that does enter the cowl is
not diffused efficiently, so it stays close to the cowl wall.
The small scoop region at the base of the cowl does
decelerate the flow nearly isentropically, but the flow
must accelerate again as it moves over the large hump
for the carburetor. Because of the corner shaping at the
cowl outlet, the flow must accelerate as it turns into the
carburetor, apparently resulting in a separation region at
the carburetor inlet reducing the effective flow area.
Nevertheless, the flow mechanisms most damaging
to cowl efficiency are not due to the cowl geometry, but
the cowl placement and location, which are mandated by
NASCAR. The contours of total pressure along the cowl
centerline plane shown in Figure 6(a) illustrate the thick
boundary layer (low energy fluid that is dragged down by
the hood) that forms over the length of the hood. This
boundary layer separates the highest-energy (high total
pressure) flow from the cowl inlet by almost two inches
and allows only a small amount of high-energy flow to
enter the cowl. It is primarily the low energy flow in the
hood boundary layer that enters the cowl. Highest
losses in the Roush (REF) configuration are in the
boundary layer at the cowl inlet. Furthermore, the
stagnation region shown by contours of static pressure
in Figure 6(b) is downstream of the cowl inlet at the base
of the windshield. The highest pressure then is not at
the cowl inlet but downstream of it. Consequently, the
pressure differential through the cowl, which is the
driving force behind the engine airflow, is reduced,
further reducing the efficiency of this reference
geometry. The flow in the cowl stagnates against the
forward-most wall, forcing the air back towards the cowl
outlet Figure 6(b).
Figure 7 shows the flow features at and below the
cowl inlet plane viewed from the top. As shown in Fig.
6(a, b), the effective inlet area for high-speed, high-
energy flow is reduced by as much as 80 %. Sidewall
effects account for about 5 % of this blockage, but
compared to the inlet losses described above, this
feature is less significant. The recirculation region also
prevents the inlet geometry from efficiently diffusing the
high-speed flow, so it remains close to the back wall of
the cowl.
As shown in Figure 8, sidewall and pressure effects
combine to create a secondary flow that moves towards
the cowl outlet. However, the total pressure contours in
this figure show the low energy of this flow compared to
that of the free stream. This secondary flow combines
with the pressure differentials shown in Figure 6(b) to
create the large, counter-rotating vortex structures on
the cowl outlet plane shown in Figure 9. This flow enters
5
the carburetor and will result in additional variations in
cylinder-to-cylinder performance.
REFERENCE CASE WITH ENERGIZED BOUNDARY
LAYER
In order to assess the effects of a thinner boundary
layer on cowl performance, a “proof-of-concept”
simulation based on the REF model was developed and
analyzed. This simulation has the designation RBL
(Reduced Boundary Layer).
The computational model used is an exact duplicate
of the REF geometry. However, in the current
simulation imposing a constant total pressure inlet has
decreased the boundary layer thickness from the REF
case. In essence a brand new boundary layer is started
at the inlet plane resting on the vehicle hood. This is
accomplished through a flat Pt profile at the inlet.
By reducing the boundary layer thickness along the
hood of the car, the amount of high-momentum flow
entering the cowl is greatly increased. This observation
represents a fundamentally important alteration in airflow
management over the hood of a race car for the purpose
of increasing the flow rate into the engine. It is important
to note that, even without any optimization, the RBL
case shows a 28.9 % higher CFM than the REF case.
The flow physics behind this improvement are described
below.
Contours of total pressure and static pressure in
Figure 11 show the effect of a thin boundary layer
approaching the cowl. Because the high-speed, high-
energy flow is closer to the hood surface, more is able to
enter the cowl, as shown in Figure 11. The high-velocity
air is unable to turn the sharp corner completely, but
because of the thin boundary layer, the small amount of
flow that is deflected into the cowl has the highest value
of total pressure. This high-speed, high-energy flow
stagnates on the rear of the cowl, forming a high-
pressure region closer to the cowl inlet, as shown in
Figure 11(b). The high-energy flow that is not deflected
into the cowl forms another stagnation region
immediately downstream of the cowl at the base of the
windshield. The close proximity of these two regions
turns them into an excellent high-pressure source to
drive more airflow toward the low-pressure sink present
at the carburetor inlet plane.
Other flow features inside the cowl are similar to
those seen in the REF case, but there are significant
differences in the details of the flow. The high-energy
flow entering the cowl diffuses somewhat, with the small
scoop at the bottom of the filter housing acting as a
stagnation region. However, the standard Roush cowl
design is not at all an effective diffuser, and most of the
high-energy flow maintains a relatively high velocity near
the cowl wall. In addition, as in the REF case, the RBL
case shows the low-pressure regions near the
carburetor inlet that is a result of flow accelerating
around the corners of the cowl outlet. However,
because the air entering the RBL cowl has a higher
velocity and energy level than that entering the REF
cowl, the magnitude and extent of the low pressure
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018
regions are more pronounced, indicating that the flow
turning into the carburetor is moving at a relatively high
velocity and is more susceptible to separation. Finally,
the airflow stagnates at the back wall of the cowl, as
shown in Figure 11(b), creating a high-pressure region
that forces air back towards the cowl outlet. Clearly,
these observations highlight the opportunities available
for the creation of a substantially better cowl design.
An analysis of contours of velocity magnitude and
velocity vectors, shown in Figure 10, further highlights
the unique effects of a reduced boundary layer over the
hood of the car. Because of the larger amount of high-
velocity air that enters the cowl, the recirculation region
is reduced somewhat. However, the high-velocity fluid
still remains close to the cowl wall and does not diffuse.
The small scoop does decelerate the flow somewhat, as
shown in Figure 10(a), but the relative magnitude of the
incoming air velocity prevents this deceleration from
becoming significant. The challenge is now centered on
the transfer of kinetic energy of the incoming air stream
into high pressure right over the carburetor.
The benefit of capturing more high-energy flow in
the cowl is that the total pressure of the air entering the
cowl is higher than in the REF case. However, the high-
energy, high-velocity flow is not well diffused, so most of
it remains close to the cowl wall. Complex secondary
flow structures are enhanced due to the higher flow
rates entering the cowl compared with REF case shown
in Figure 9.
Scoop 2 Results: Standard vs. RBL Case
The computational model, a modified scoop
geometry (SC2), is an exact replica of that used in
modeling the reference geometry, the standard Roush
design, with only two changes. An arbitrary scoop was
added to the rear cowl wall in an attempt to better diffuse
the flow. In addition, the front opening was rounded
(front scoop) to give the flow a smoother transition into
the cowl. Boundary conditions for these two simulations
are the same as for the REF case and the REF case
with an energized boundary layer, respectively.
The velocity contours and velocity vectors along the
cowl centerline plane in Figure 12 highlight the nature of
the flow entering the SC2 configuration. The high-speed
flow is more able to navigate the new turn into the cowl;
thus, eliminating the large recirculation region. Only a
relatively small region of recirculation is located at the
roof of the cowl. The small amount of high-speed flow
that enters the cowl is still not diffused as efficiently as
possible, so it remains close to the cowl wall. The larger
scoop region at the base of the cowl decelerates the
flow nearly isentropically, but the flow must accelerate
again as it moves over the large hump. Because of the
corner shaping at the cowl outlet, the flow must
accelerate as it turns into the carburetor, resulting in a
separation region at the carburetor inlet. These features
are not at all desirable as they induce losses, increased
resistance to flow, and swirl into the carburetor. Overall
the geometry modification alone increased airflow by
only 2.4 %.
6
Figure 14 shows the velocity contours and vectors
associated with an energized boundary layer, which was
generated in a separate simulation. The boundary layer
was energized as mentioned above for the REF
geometry. Flow separates immediately from the front of
the cowl due to the much higher velocities. This causes
the reformation of the recirculation region seen in the
standard Roush (REF) case. The scoop at the rear of
the cowl helps to diffuse the flow better than the Roush
(REF) box. An increase in volumetric flow rate by about
37.7 % is seen compared to the reference Roush case.
The new geometry creates a sharp edge at the rear of
the cowl. This edge causes flow separation, and a
region of recirculation grows. The velocity magnitude in
the cowl is on average higher with an energized
boundary layer.
The flow mechanisms most damaging to cowl
efficiency are not due to the cowl geometry, but the cowl
placement and location. The contours of total pressure
along the cowl centerline plane shown in Figure 13(a)
illustrate the thick boundary layer that forms over the
length of the hood. This boundary layer separates the
highest-energy flow from the cowl inlet by almost two
inches and allows only a small amount of high-energy
flow to enter the cowl. Thus, the highest losses in the
Scoop 2 (SC2) configuration are in the boundary layer at
the cowl inlet. Furthermore, the stagnation region
shown by contours of static pressure in Figure 13(b) is
downstream of the cowl inlet at the base of the
windshield. The highest pressure then is not at the cowl
inlet but downstream of it. Consequently, the pressure
differential through the cowl is reduced.
Figure 15(a) shows the increase in high total
pressure air that enters the cowl due to an energized
boundary layer. Outlet flow is increased drastically by
this modification. This case shows that the geometry will
need to be refined much more before effective use of the
flow increase is made. A better geometry will most
probably lead to higher flow rates throughout the engine.
Figure 15(b) shows that the stagnation region remains
downstream of the cowl inlet. Relocation of the cowl
inlet closer to the base of the windshield would most
likely result in flow increases as well. Similarly, elevating
the surface at the base of the windshield, while at the
same time lowering the hood at the cowl inlet, will be
very helpful regarding all aspects of what has been
highlighted.
Figure 14 also shows that the recirculation region
has reformed. This region and sidewall effects account
for much of the blockage at the inlet. The recirculation
region also prevents the inlet geometry from efficiently
diffusing the high-speed flow, so it remains at high
speed and still close to the back wall of the cowl.
Sidewall effects in both cases are much less significant
in reducing outlet flow rate than the other mechanisms
mentioned above.
Sidewall and pressure effects combine to create a
secondary flow that moves towards the cowl outlet. This
secondary flow combines with the pressure differentials
shown in Figures 13(b) and 15(b) to create the large,
counter-rotating vortex structure on the cowl outlet plane
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018
compared to REF case shown in Figure 9. Such a
swirling flow entering the carburetor will result in an
inefficient performance and non-equal charging of the
cylinders. The vortex structures increase in the
energized boundary layer case due to the much higher
flow rate.
REFERENCE CASE WITH BOUNDARY LAYER
SUCTION
The reference case was modified by opening a
portion of the front surface at the cowl inlet and applying
a suction pressure of –1 PSI. This technique, called
boundary layer suction (BLS), has the effect of removing
the boundary layer and helping the high-speed flow
navigate the turn into the air box. Removal of the
boundary layer also allows more high-energy air to enter
the air box. These two effects eliminate the inlet dead
region and increases the effective flow area. The result
is about 150.2 % increase in exit flow rate.
Certain faces on the front wall of the cowl opening
were rezoned into a newly created pressure-outlet. This
pressure outlet was set to –1 PSI after reviewing 2D full
car simulations. So that this technique could be
implemented with no additional mechanical hardware a
location of very low gage pressure was sought. It was
determined that this pressure could be achieved if piping
was ran to just behind the chin spoiler at the nose of the
car. The pressure sink found here was -1.5 PSI. Such
an installation has a built-in control system. The sink
pressure develops as the speed of the race car
increases. This is precisely the type of variation needed
for this devise to be effective. Figure 16 shows an
isometric cutaway view of the exact replica of the Roush
geometry used in the simulation, along with the location
of the boundary layer suction surface.
The velocity contours and velocity vectors along the
cowl centerline plane in Figure 17 highlight the nature of
the flow entering the Roush configuration with suction
(REF BLS). The high-speed flow slows by nearly 100
mph and turns sharply with the aid of the suction
surface; thus, the large recirculation region found in
previous simulations that reduced the effective area to
about 20 % of the actual inlet area is eliminated. A
region of very low velocity flow arises just below the roof
of the air box. This level of suction cannot turn the flow
a full 180 degrees. The high-speed flow entering the
cowl is not diffused efficiently, so it stays close to the
cowl wall. This is where one of the previously
documented scoop configurations may prove to be
effective in diffusing the flow. The airflow first stagnates
in the small scoop region at the base of the cowl, and
then accelerates to move over the hump as it enters into
the carburetor. Because of the corner shaping at the
cowl outlet, the flow must accelerate as it turns into the
carburetor, resulting in a separation region at the
carburetor inlet. However, the increase in volumetric
flow rate is significant enough not to worry about this
detail.
The contours of total pressure along the cowl
centerline plane shown in Figure 19(a) illustrate that the
7
boundary layer that forms over the length of the hood is
removed allowing more high-energy air to enter the
cowl. The result is a significantly higher flow rate at the
exit plane of the cowl. Quantitatively, this increase
corresponds to about 150.2 % improvement (from 577.2
to 1444.3 CFM) over the standard Roush design. The
stagnation region shown by contours of static pressure
in Figure 18(b) is within the cowl inlet for the first time.
This is a very desirable outcome; such a high pressure
increases the driving potential for the flow through the air
box. The flow in the cowl stagnates against the back
wall, forcing the air back towards the cowl outlet.
However, it is possible to have a clever geometry
modification in the future that could take advantage of
the existing flow patterns and guide the low-speed air
toward the cowl exit plane. The remaining mechanisms
contributing to losses are found at the lower cowl wall.
Flow stagnates in the small scoop at the base of the
cowl. This flow then has to accelerate up the hump and
turn at the same time. The contours clearly indicate
unnecessary losses in this region.
As shown in Figures 18 (a, b), the effective inlet area
for high-speed, high-energy flow is much larger than
seen in all the previous cases. For the first time, the air
flowing over the hood and approaching the cowl inlet
area actually “sees” almost as much opening as
suggested by the surrounding metal. Sidewall effects
account for about 5% of the blockage. This blockage,
which has not been addressed thus far, is now the most
significant mechanism creating flow blockage. Figure
19(c) shows that high-energy flow remains present to
this point. All three plots in Figure 19 show clearly that
overall performance of the intake cowl is much improved
over the standard Roush design REF. Moreover, the
specific features highlighted in this figure indicate that
boundary layer suction may prove to be an especially
potent technique when used in conjunction with
previously documented methods, such as the RBL case.
As shown in Figure 20, sidewall and pressure
influences combine effectively to create a secondary
flow that moves towards the cowl outlet (as desired). It
is significant to note that the total pressure contours in
this figure show the energy of the flow is only slightly
less than that of the free stream. This secondary flow
combines with the pressure differentials shown in Figure
18(b) to create the flow structure found on the cowl
outlet plane shown in Figure 21. The exit flow pattern is
more uniform than those seen in prior simulations. This
should reduce cylinder-to-cylinder power variations. A
uniform flow moving vertically down into the carburetor
with a minimum swirling motion is highly desirable.
SC3 WITH BLS AND RBL
The reference case was modified by adding an
arbitrary scoop where the original back wall was located
and opening a portion of the front surface at the cowl
inlet as described above. A suction pressure of –1.0 PSI
was applied as in the previous boundary layer suction
case. Additionally the boundary layer was energized.
This presents a combination of all the techniques used
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018
in the current study to increase airflow to the engine.
The results are surprising. Engine airflow increased to
1306 CFM, an increase of over 126%, but still less than
that of the REF geometry with BLS.
The same back-pressure is carried over to the
suction case with energized boundary layer. The
suction case was developed in the same manner as
above for the REF case with boundary layer suction.
The most important flow feature that arose from this
simulation is the separation region above the car’s
roofline. This brand new phenomenon that appeared in
this simulation has never been reported through
computations or experiments in the open literature. It
can be seen in Figures 22 and 230 as blue velocity
magnitude and total pressure contours. This couples
engine intake air with aerodynamics, and is possibly the
reason that some engines perform well on the
dynamometer but not on the race track. This region
arises when the suction surface slows the free-stream
by nearly 100 mph as seen in Figure 22(a). The flow
then accelerates along the windshield. The flow cannot
navigate the sharp turn onto the roof due to its lack of
momentum. The result is separated flow. A showed more desirable contours. This secondary flow
recirculation region appears along the roof. This region
is characterized by very low pressure and velocity. In an
aerodynamic sense down force is reduced and drag is
increased.
Less importantly, the velocity contours and velocity
vectors along the cowl centerline plane in Figure 22
highlight the nature of the flow entering the Scoop 3
configuration with suction and energized boundary layer.
The high-speed flow turns sharply with the aid of the
suction surface; thus, a large amount of air enters the
engine. Low velocity flow arises in most of the air box.
Suction cannot turn the flow a full 180 degrees, leading
to areas of near-zero velocity. In turn, this leads to high
static pressures in the cowl, as seen in Figure 23(b). It
can also be seen that the airflow first stagnates in the
scoop region at the base of the cowl, and then
accelerates to move over the hump as it enters into the
carburetor. Because of the corner shaping at the cowl
outlet, the flow must accelerate as it turns into the
carburetor, resulting in a separation region at the
carburetor inlet. This effectively shrinks the opening.
The contours of total pressure along the cowl
centerline plane shown in Figure 23(a) illustrate that the
boundary layer that forms over the length of the hood is
removed allowing more high-energy air to enter the
cowl. The result is a significantly higher flow rate at the
exit plane of the cowl. Quantitatively, this increase
corresponds to about 126 % improvement over the
standard Roush design (REF). The stagnation region
shown by contours of static pressure in Figure 23(b) is
outside the cowl inlet as seen in all previous cases with
the exception of the Roush case with suction (REF
BLS). The flow in the cowl stagnates against the back
wall, forcing the air back towards the cowl outlet. The
remaining mechanisms contributing to losses are found
at the lower cowl wall. Flow stagnates in the scoop at
the base of the cowl. This flow then has to accelerate
8
up the hump and turn at the same time. The contours
clearly indicate unnecessary losses in this region.
Figure 24 shows the flow features at and below the
cowl inlet plane. The combination of suction and an
energized boundary layer seems not to pull as much air
through as suction alone. Instead the combined
techniques seem to turn very little air sharply. The result
is a low sink pressure that slows a great volume of air
that is pulled into the cowl. Sidewall effects account for
about 5% of the blockage. This blockage, which has not
been addressed thus far, is now the most significant
mechanism creating flow blockage. Figure 24(c) shows
that moderate-energy flow remains present to this point.
All three parts in Figure 24 clearly show that overall
performance of the intake cowl is much improved over
that of the standard Roush (REF) design.
As shown in Figure 25, sidewall and pressure
influences combine effectively to create a secondary
flow that moves towards the cowl outlet (as desired). It
is significant to note that the total pressure contours in
this figure show the energy of the flow is much less than
that of the free stream. The Roush case with suction
combines with the pressure differentials shown in Figure
23(b) to create the flow structure found on the cowl
outlet plane. The exit flow pattern is more uniform than
those seen in prior simulations except for the Roush
design with suction.
SC3 WITH BLS
Computational model used here, as shown in Figure
48, is an isometric cutaway view of the exact replica of
the Scoop 3 (SC3) geometry used in the simulation,
along with the location of the boundary layer suction
surface. A suction pressure of –1.0 PSI was applied as
in the previous boundary layer suction case. One last
case presented here in order to increase engine airflow
while trying to avoid roofline separation. Engine airflow
increased to 1857 CFM, an increase of over 222 %, but
roofline separation still occurs. So, once again, it is not
recommended that this geometry be used with BLS due
to the aerodynamic effects seen downstream of the cowl
opening.
Obviously, airflow cannot continually increase
through an engine. There is a theoretical maximum
amount of airflow that can be obtained. For this
particular engine with 358 cubic inches of displacement,
the maximum flow rate was found to be 1657.4 CFM
when the engine is rotating at 8000 rpm. When possible
it would be advantageous to design the entire intake
path toward this maximum flow rate.
In light of these details, the physics of the cowl flow
are discussed since this is the highest flow rate thus far.
The velocity contours and velocity vectors along the
cowl centerline plane in Figure 26 highlight the nature of
the flow entering the Scoop 3 configuration with suction.
The high-speed flow turns sharply with the aid of the
suction surface; thus, a large amount of air enters the
engine. Low velocity flow arises along the scoop wall
and just above the cowl outlet. This level and location of
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018
suction cannot turn the flow a full 180 degrees, leading
to areas of near-zero velocity. In turn, this leads to high
static pressures in the cowl, as seen in Figure 27(b).
The location of this stagnation region is highly desirable
as it acts to pump flow out the exit. It can also be seen
that the airflow first stagnates in the scoop region at the
base of the cowl, and then accelerates to move over the
hump as it enters into the carburetor causing losses in
total pressure. Due to the corner shaping at the cowl
outlet, the flow must accelerate as it turns into the
carburetor, resulting in a separation region at the
carburetor inlet. This effectively shrinks the opening,
however, this would be of no consequence if the above-
mentioned flow rate was introduced to the engine
without the separation region above the roofline.
The contours of total pressure along the cowl
centerline plane shown in Figure 27(a) illustrate that the
boundary layer that forms over the length of the hood is
removed allowing more high-energy air to enter the
cowl. The result is the highest flow rate at the exit plane
of the cowl attained in this study, which is about 222 %
improvement over the standard Roush design (REF).
The stagnation region shown by contours of static
pressure in Figure 27(b) is outside the cowl inlet as seen
in all previous cases with the exception of the Roush
case with suction (REF BLS). The flow in the cowl
stagnates against the back wall, forcing the air back
towards the cowl outlet. The remaining mechanisms
contributing to losses are found at the lower cowl wall.
Flow stagnates in the scoop at the base of the cowl.
This flow then has to accelerate up the hump and turn at
the same time. The contours clearly indicate
unnecessary losses in this region.
Figure 28 shows the flow features at and below the
cowl inlet plane. The boundary layer suction surface
alone with this geometry provides the most high-energy,
high-velocity air for the engine. This technique seems to
turn the flow and slow a great volume of air that is pulled
into the cowl. Sidewall effects account for about 5 % of
the blockage. This blockage, which has not been
addressed thus far, is now the most significant
mechanism creating flow blockage. Figure 28(c) shows
that high-energy flow remains present to this point and
diffused throughout the cross-sectional area. All three
plots in Figure 28 clearly show that overall performance
of the intake cowl is the best of all studied.
Sidewall and pressure influences combine
effectively to create a secondary flow that moves
towards the cowl outlet (as desired). This secondary
flow combines with the pressure differentials shown in
Figure 27(b) to create the flow structure found on the
cowl outlet plane shown in Figure 29. The exit flow
pattern is more uniform than those seen in prior
simulations with the exception of the Roush (REF)
design with suction.
CONCLUSIONS
The important flow characteristics were identified
from the computational results of REF case simulation:
the thick boundary layer approaching the cowl inlet
9
prevents the highest-energy flow from entering the cowl;
The free stream flow stagnation point is at the base of
the windshield, past the cowl inlet plane, and results in a
reduced driving potential due to lower pressure
differential between the cowl inlet and outlet; Because
the high-speed flow cannot navigate the sharp turning
radius into the cowl, a large separation region is formed
that both reduces the effective inlet area by 80% and
pumps flow in the wrong direction away from the outlet
(toward the cowl inlet); The Roush geometry is a poor
diffuser and fails to slow the high-speed flow entering
the cowl except in the small scoop region, where the
flow is decelerated nearly isentropically; Sidewall and
pressure effects result in large secondary flow vortices
on the cowl outlet plane.
Two new geometry changes as SC2 and SC3
combined with RBL and BLS techniques showed variety
improvements over REF case. By reducing the
boundary layer thickness along the hood of the car, the
RBL case produced a 28.9 % higher CFM than the REF
case. Boundary layer suction allowed more high-energy
air to enter the air box and resulted about 150.2 %
increase in exit flow rate than REF case. Both
techniques can be used to improve cowl performance.
Geometry modification SC2 alone is not able to add
more airflow (only 2.4% than REF case), however, SC2
combined with RBL generated about 37.7% increase
compared to REF case. Geometry modification SC3
with BLS and RBL increased about 126% in flow rate
over the REF case, even better, SC3 with BLS only add
222% improvement in flow rate over REF case.
Although flow rates have been increased greatly in
two SC3 cases, however, this case and others, slowed
air so much at the base of the windshield that the flow
was unable to navigate the roofline. The flow then
separated created a recirculation region characterized
by low-velocity, low-pressure air. This would in turn
reduce the down force and increase the drag
experienced by the race car. A car with large amounts
of horsepower and torque, but no down force and
increased drag will not be effective during a race. To the
authors’ knowledge this is the first documented account
of this new phenomenon coupling external
aerodynamics and internal engine airflow. This also
offers an explanation for certain engines performing well
on the dynamometer, but not in race conditions.
Excluding cases that demonstrated this new
phenomenon, the flow rate was increase by 150 % in the
Roush REF case with BLS, an impressive amount. The
research sponsor reported a 0.238 second reduction in
lap time using some techniques outlined in this study.
When this is multiplied by the number of laps driven on a
super speedway (usually 250), this equates to an
impressive advantage over the competition.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Team Amick
MotorSports for funding this study, and Fluent, Inc.
personnel for continued support, with special thanks to
Dr. Lounsbury and Dr. Koutsavdis. Thanks as well to
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018
Will Robinson for his excellent support of computing
systems.
REFERENCES
1. Laise, T. D., and Bayless, K. S., 1994, “Aerodynamic
Development of a Successful NASCAR Winston
Cup Race Car,” SAE Paper 942521, International
Congress & Exposition, Feb. 1994, Detroit, MI, pp.
275-284.
2. Emmelmann, H. J., Berneburg, H., and Schulze, J.,
1990, “the Aerodynamic development of the Opel
Calibra,” SAE Paper 900317, International Congress
& Exposition, Feb. 1990, Detroit, MI, pp. 472-483.
3. Woodbridge, D. M., and Miller, R. B., 1996, “The
Aerodynamic Optimization of a Successful IMSA GT
Race Car,” SAE Paper 962518, International
Congress & Exposition, Feb. 1996, Detroit, MI, pp.
107-114.
4. Katz, J., and Dykstra, L., 1994, “Application of
Computational Methods to the Aerodynamic
Development of a Prototype Race Car,” SAE Paper
942498, International Congress & Exposition, Feb.
1994, Detroit, MI, pp. 161-169.
5. Werner, F., Frik, S., and Schulze, J., 1998,
“Aerodynamic Optimization of the Opel Calibra ITC
Racing Using Experiments and Computational Fluid
Dynamics,” SAE Paper 980040, International
Congress & Exposition, Feb. 1998, Detroit, MI, pp.
149-158.
6. Williams, J., and Vemaganti, G., 1998, “CFD Quality
– A Calibration Study for Front-End Cooling Airflow,”
SAE Paper 980039, International Congress &
Exposition, Feb. 1998, Detroit, MI, pp. 133-147.
7. Andra, R., Hytopoulos, E., Kumar, K., and Sun, R.
L., 1998, “The Effect of Boundary and Geometry
Simplification on the Numerical Simulation of Front-
End Cooling,” SAE Paper 980395, International
Congress & Exposition, Feb. 1998, Detroit, MI, pp.
213-225.
8. Gillieron, P., Samuel, S., and Chometon, F., 1999,
“Potential of CFD in Analysis Under-Bonnet Airflow
Phenomena,” SAE Paper 1999-01-0802,
International Congress & Exposition, Mar. 1999,
Detroit, MI, pp. 99-111.
9. Glober, S., Klimetzek, F., and Wessels, M., 1991,
“Simulation of Aero- and thermodynamic Problems
in Automotive Applications,” Presented at the Fourth
FIDAP Users Conference, April 14-16, 1991, pp. 1-
17.
10. Williams, J., and Hajiloo, A. 1994, “Aerodynamic
Flow Field Around Two Car-Like Shapes,
Computational vs. Experimental Fluid Dynamics,”
Presented at the Seventh FIDAP Users Conference,
1994.
10
11. Williams, J., Quinlan, W. J., Hackett, J. E.,
Thomson, S. A., Marinaccio, and T., Robertson, A.,
1994, “A Calibration Study of CFD Automotive
Shapes and CD,” SAE Paper 940323, International
Congress & Exposition, Feb. 1994, Detroit, MI, pp.
308-327.
12. Okumura, K., and Kuriyama, T., 1995, “Practical
Aerodynamic Simulations (CD, CL, CYM) Using a
Turbulence Model and 3rd-Order Upwind Scheme,”
SAE Paper 950629, International Congress &
Exposition, Feb. 1995, Detroit, MI, pp. 1149-1161.
13. Hajiloo, A., Williams, J., Hackett, J. E., and
Thomson, S. A., 1996, “Limited Mesh Refinement
Study of the Aerodynamic Flow Field Around a Car-
Like Shape, Computational vs. Experimental Fluid
Dynamics,” SAE Paper 960321, International
Congress & Exposition, Feb. 1996, Detroit, MI.
14. Gaylard, A. P., Baxendale, A. J., and Howell, J. P.,
1998, “the Use of CFD to Predict the Aerodynamic
Characteristics of Simple Automotive Shapes,” SAE
Paper 980036, International Congress & Exposition,
Feb. 1998, Detroit, MI, pp. 97-106.
15. Axelsson, N., Ramnefors, M., and Gustafsson, R.,
1998, “Accuracy in Computational Aerodynamics
Part 1: Stagnation Pressure,” SAE Paper 980037,
International Congress & Exposition, Feb. 1998,
Detroit, MI, pp. 107-118.
16. Perzon, S. Sjogren, T., and Jonson, A., 1998,
“Accuracy in Computational Aerodynamics Part 2:
Base Pressure,” SAE Paper 980038, International
Congress & Exposition, Feb. 1998, Detroit, MI, pp.
119-131.
17. Perzon, S., Janson, J., and Hoglin, L., 1999, “On
Comparisons Between CFD Methods and Wind
Tunnel Tests on a Bluff Body,” SAE Paper 1999-01-
0805, International Congress & Exposition, Mar.
1999, Detroit, MI, pp. 133-148.
18. Makowski, F. T., and Kim, S., 2000, “Advances in
External-Aero Simulation of Ground Vehicles Using
the Steady RANS Equations,” SAE Paper 2000-01-
0484, International Congress & Exposition, Mar.
2000, Detroit, MI, pp. 79-90.
19. Martin, W., and Gillieron, P., 2001, “Integration of
Fluid Flow Modeling in the Vehicle Renault
Development Process,” SAE Paper 2001-01-0700,
International Congress & Exposition, Mar. 2001,
Detroit, MI, pp. 133-140.
20. Basara, B., Przulj, V., and Tibaut, P., 2001, “On the
Calculation of External Aerodynamics: Industrial
Benchmarks,” SAE Paper 2001-01-0701,
International Congress & Exposition, Mar. 2001,
Detroit, MI, pp. 141-153.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Far-field Open Boundary

Inlet
Outlet

Relative Motion
of the Ground

Figure 1. Two-dimensional domain (center plane) used to generate boundary conditions for 3D model.

Far-field Open Boundary

Vehicle Hood

Vehicle Windshield

Cowl Opening

Cowl Air Box

Cowl Outlet

Outlet

Inlet

Figure 2. Three-dimensional computational domain (with foreground symmetry plane removed).

11
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Triangle Cells

Stair-stepping using quads

Zoom Area

Figure 3. Two-dimensional sample grid along symmetry plane (REF).

Cowl Inlet

(a) REF Cowl Exit (b) SC2

(c) SC3

Figure 4. Cut-away of the three geometries used in simulations: (a) REF, (b)SC2, (c)SC3.

12
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

(a) Velocity Magnitude

Zoom Area

External Flow
Direction Stagnation region is at the
Viewing Plane: base of the windshield, behind
Centerline the cowl inlet

Velocity High speed flow does not

diffuse well as the cowl volume
200 increases

To carburetor Flow must accelerate to Small scoop in airbox isentropically

160 turn into the carburetor decelerates the flow
High velocity flow cannot
navigate sharp turn into cowl
(b) Velocity Vectors
120
mph Additional recirculation
Flow Direction
region

80 Large recirculation region

forms large blockage at the inlet

40
Effective area for the flow
entering the cowl is ~25% of
0 the available area

Flow in recirculation region

actually pumps through the
cowl backwards!

Figure 5. The complex nature of the flow along the centerline plane of the Roush configuration is shown by (a) contours of
velocity magnitude and (b) velocity vectors colored by velocity magnitude (REF).

Flow Direction

Thick boundary layers form

along the hood, separating high-
energy flow from cowl inlet
Viewing Plane:
Centerline
Only a small amount of high-
Total Static energy flow enters cowl

0.74 0.50
High-energy flow eventually
dissipates, allowing low-energy
(a) Total Pressure flow to enter the carburetor
0.62 0.40

0.50 0.30 Stagnation region is behind the

PSI PSI White area cowl inlet, decreasing the driving
clipped to scale potential through the cowl
0.38 0.20
Flow stagnates against
the forward wall Small scoop area acts as a
0.26 0.10 stagnation region

0.14 0.00

Flow accelerating into the carburetor

(b) Static Pressure causes a localized low-pressure
region at the cowl exit

Figure 6. Contours of (a) total pressure and (b) static pressure along the cowl centerline highlight the major physical
characteristics of the flow in the critical regions of the cowl (REF).

13
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Velocity (mph) 200 150 100 50 0

Recirculation region reduces
Total Press. (PSI) 0.74 0.59 0.44 0.29 0.14 effective inlet area by about 80%
Front of Car

Rear of Car
(a) Velocity Magnitude at Inlet
Side-wall effects reduce the
effective inlet area by about 5%

Viewing Plane:
Inlet

(b) Total Pressure at Inlet

Inlet geometry cannot diffuse the
high-energy, high-velocity flow

Viewing Plane: (c) Total Pressure Below Inlet

1.25” Below Inlet
Cowl Centerline

Figure 7. Contours of (a) velocity magnitude at the inlet, (b) total pressure at the inlet, and (c) total pressure 1.25” below
the inlet show the reduction in effective inlet area of the cowl (REF).

High-energy flow does not

reach the carburetor
Cowl Centerline

Viewing Plane: Total Pressure

Vertical Crossplane at
Outlet Center (a) Total Pressure at 0.74
Vertical Crossplane
Secondary flow moving
toward outlet due to a 0.62
combination of wall effects
Higher-energy flow does
and pressure gradients
not diffuse and remains 0.50
close to the cowl wall
PSI

0.38
Outlet

0.26

Viewing Plane:
0.14
Horizontal Crossplane at
1” Above Cowl Bottom

(b) Total Pressure at

Recirculation region Horizontal Crossplane

Figure 8. Contours of total pressure on (a) a vertical crossplane and (b) a horizontal crossplane show the low energy of the
flow moving towards the carburetor (REF).

14
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Front of Car

Viewing Plane:
Outlet

Vortex structures increase cylinder-

to-cylinder flow variations

Rear of Car

Figure 9. Velocity vectors on the outlet plane show the complex vortex structure entering the carburetor (REF).

(a) Velocity Magnitude Zoom Area

The thinner boundary layer

allows the high-speed, high-
Flow Direction energy flow to stagnate closer
to the cowl entrance instead of
Viewing Plane: at the base of the windshield
Centerline
Since it is closer to the cowl
Velocity entrance, more high energy flow is
captured by the cowl, but the
225
geometry is a poor diffuser
Flow must accelerate to Because of the high velocity, the
180 turn into the carburetor small scoop does decelerate the
flow significantly
High velocity flow cannot (b) Velocity Vectors
135 navigate sharp turn into cowl
mph Flow Direction

90 Because a thin boundary layer

means the high-speed flow is
closer to the wall surface,
more high-speed, high energy
45
flow is captured by the cowl

0
Large recirculation region
forms large blockage at the
inlet, but its size is smaller than
in the REF case

Figure 10. The complex nature of the flow along the centerline plane of the RBL Roush configuration is shown
by (a) contours of velocity magnitude and (b) velocity vectors colored by velocity magnitude.

15
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

The simulation is modified to Flow Direction The thin boundary layer

allows the high-speed, high-
demonstrate the effects of a
thin boundary layer on cowl energy flow to remain close
to the surface
performance
Because the high-energy
Viewing Plane: flow is closer to the cowl
Centerline inlet, more is able to enter
the cowl
Total Static

0.75 0.75 The high energy flow diffuses

More high-energy flow somewhat, especially near the
enters the carburetor scoop
(a) Total Pressure
0.63 0.60

The stagnation region is

0.51 0.45 closer to the cowl inlet
White area because the high-energy
PSI PSI clipped to scale
flow is closer to the surface
and inlet
0.39 0.30
Flow stagnates against
the forward wall
Small scoop area acts as a
0.27 0.15 stagnation region

0.15 0.00

Flow accelerating into the carburetor

(b) Static Pressure causes a localized low-pressure
region at the cowl exit

Figure 11. Contours of (a) total pressure and (b) static pressure along the cowl centerline for the RBL Roush case
highlight the major effects of a thin boundary layer on the hood of the car.

(a) Velocity Magnitude

Zoom Area

Flow Direction Stagnation region is still at the

Viewing Plane: base of the windshield, behind
Centerline the cowl inlet

Velocity High speed flow diffuses better

as the cowl volume increases in
200 comparison to the reference
geometry
Flow must accelerate to Scoop in air box better diffuses the
160 turn into the carburetor flow

(b) Velocity Vectors

120
mph High velocity flowFlow
can Direction
better
navigate turn into cowl
80
A smaller recirculation region
forms allowing larger effective
area
40
Effective area for the flow
entering the cowl is much
0 greater

Figure 12. The complex nature of the flow along the centerline plane of the scoop configuration (SC2) is shown by (a)
contours of velocity magnitude and (b) velocity vectors colored by velocity magnitude.

16
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Flow Direction

Thick boundary layers form over

the hood, separating high-energy
flow from cowl inlet
Viewing Plane:
Centerline
Only a small amount of high-
Total Static energy flow enters cowl

0.74 0.50 High-energy flow eventually

dissipates, allowing low-energy
flow to enter the carburetor
0.62 0.40 (a) Total Pressure

0.50 0.30 Stagnation region is still behind

White area
PSI PSI clipped to scale the cowl inlet, decreasing the
driving potential through the
0.38 0.20 cowl
Flow stagnates against
the forward wall Larger scoop area reduces
0.26 0.10
stagnation region

0.14 0.00

Flow accelerating into the carburetor

(b) Static Pressure causes a localized low-pressure
region at the cowl exit

Figure 13. Contours of (a) total pressure and (b) static pressure along the cowl centerline highlight the major physical
characteristics of the flow in the critical regions of the cowl (SC2).

(a) Velocity Magnitude

Zoom Area

Flow Direction Stagnation region is still at the

Viewing Plane: base of the windshield, behind
Centerline the cowl inlet

Velocity With boundary layer tripped,

flow velocity needs to be
200 diffused more effectively

Flow must accelerate to Scoop design does not decelerate

160 turn into the carburetor flow with tripped boundary layer

(b) Velocity Vectors

120
mph With tripped boundary
Flow Direction
layer,
more high velocity flow
reaches the cowl
80
Large recirculation region
reappears blocking the inlet
40
Effective area for the flow
entering the cowl is once again
0 ~25% of the available area

Flow in recirculation region

pumps upstream toward the
cowl inlet plane again

Figure 14. The complex nature of the flow along the centerline plane of the scoop configuration with tripped boundary
layer is shown by (a) contours of velocity magnitude and (b) velocity vectors colored by velocity magnitude (SC2 RBL).

17
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Flow Direction

Boundary layers are much

thinner allowing high-energy
flow to enter cowl inlet
Viewing Plane:
Centerline
More high-energy flow enters
Total Static cowl

0.74 0.50
Overall the air in the airbox has
higher energy than the case
without a tripped boundary layer
0.62 0.40 (a) Total Pressure

0.50 0.30 Stagnation region is behind the

PSI PSI cowl inlet, decreasing the driving
potential through the cowl
0.38 0.20
Flow stagnates against Stagnation region reappears with
the forward wall increased flow
0.26 0.10

Flow stagnates at base

0.14 0.00 due to sharp curvature

(b) Static Pressure Flow accelerating into the carburetor

causes a localized low-pressure
region at the cowl exit

Figure 15. Contours of (a) total pressure and (b) static pressure along the cowl centerline highlight the major
physical characteristics of the tripped boundary layer flow in the critical regions of the cowl(SC2 RBL).

Note: Because of the complex nature of the 3D model, each

figure will indicate the viewing plane in relation to the geometry

Cowl Inlet
Viewing Plane

Standard Roush
Aircleaner Housing

Suction Surface

Cowl Outlet/Carburetor
Inlet

Figure 16. Cutaway of the exact replica of the Roush cowl configuration shows the interior geometry. A strategically placed
suction surface at -1 PSIG pulls the boundary layer off allowing higher energy air to enter the intake cowl (REF BLS).

18
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

(a) Velocity Magnitude

Zoom area
shown below

Flow Direction Boundary layer suction moves

Viewing Plane: stagnation point into air box
Centerline

Velocity Flow cannot diffuse properly due to

improper geometry
200
Effective flow area is increased
Flow must accelerate to because recirculation region is
160 turn into the carburetor removed

Boundary layer suction helps

120 (b) Velocity Vectors
more high-energy flowDirection
Flow make
mph the sharp turn into air box
80
Large recirculation region seen
in other cases is eliminated
40 allowing more flow through

Dead region at top of air box

does not aid in flow

Figure 17. The extremely complex nature of the flow along the centerline plane of the Roush configuration with suction is
shown by (a) contours of velocity magnitude and (b) velocity vectors colored by velocity magnitude (REF BLS).

Flow Direction

Suction removes boundary layer

that has grown on hood allowing
high-energy air to enter the cowl
Viewing Plane:
Centerline
High-energy flow dissipates, still
Total Static allowing for improved designs

0.90 0.90

(a) Total Pressure Flow stagnates on front

0.62 0.62 walls of air box

Stagnation region is in the cowl

0.50 0.50
inlet for the first time, increasing
PSI PSI the driving potential through the
cowl
0.38 0.38

Small scoop area acts as a

0.26 0.26 stagnation region

0.00 0.00

Flow accelerating into the carburetor

(b) Static Pressure causes a localized low-pressure
Highest stagnation pressure above region at the cowl exit
cowl outlet observed thus far

Figure 18. Contours of (a) total pressure and (b) static pressure along the cowl centerline highlight the major physical
characteristics of the flow in the critical regions of the cowl. Large amount of high energy flow enters the cowl (REF BLS).

19
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Velocity (mph) 200 150 100 50 0

Recirculation region is
Total Press. (PSI) 0.9 0.59 0.44 0.29 0.0 eliminated allowing flow to
make use of entire opening
Front of Car

(a) Velocity Magnitude at Inlet Rear of Car

Side-wall effects reduce the

effective inlet area by about 5 %
Suction surface

Viewing Plane:
Inlet

(b) Total Pressure at Inlet

Total pressure remains high to
this point in the geometry aiding
in higher exit flow rate

Viewing Plane: (c) Total Pressure Below Inlet

1.25” Below Inlet
Cowl Centerline

Figure 19. Contours of (a) velocity magnitude at the inlet, (b) total pressure at the inlet, and (c) total pressure 1.25” below
the cowl inlet show much improved performance compared to the standard Roush design (REF BLS).

More high-energy flow

reaches the carburetor
Cowl Centerline

Viewing Plane: Total Pressure

Vertical Crossplane at
Outlet Center (a) Total Pressure at 0.90
Vertical Crossplane
Secondary flow moving
toward outlet due to a 0.62
combination of wall effects
and pressure gradients
0.50
PSI

0.38

Outlet
0.26

Viewing Plane:
0.00
Horizontal Crossplane at
1” Above Cowl Bottom

(b) Total Pressure at

Horizontal Crossplane

Figure 20. Contours of total pressure on a (a) vertical crossplane and (b) horizontal crossplane show the higher energy flow
moving towards the carburetor (REF BLS).

20
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Front of Car
Viewing Plane:
Outlet

Flow patterns are more uniform with

minimum swirling motion reducing
cylinder-to-cylinder power variations
Rear of Car

Figure 21. Velocity vectors on the outlet plane show relatively uniform flow with minimum amount of undesirable
swirling motion entering the carburetor (REF BLS).

(a) Velocity Magnitude Zoom area

shown below

Flow Direction
Viewing Plane: Low-momentum fluid cannot
Centerline navigate roof line; separation
occurs
Velocity
Non-conformal Interface (NCI)
200
Combined suction and
energized boundary Flow accelerates as it travels up the
160 layer slows air velocity windshield
by more than 100 mph

120 Low-velocity fluid fills the (b) Velocity Vectors

Flow Direction
mph airbox leading to a high static
pressure as seen in Figure 3
80
Suction Surface

40

0 Large recirculation region

arises on roof of car increasing
drag

Point of Separation Non-conformal Interface (NCI)

Figure 22. The extremely complex nature of the flow along the centerline plane of the SC3 configuration with suction and energized
boundary layer is shown by (a) contours of velocity magnitude and (b) velocity vectors colored by velocity magnitude (SC3 BLS RBL).

21
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Flow Direction
Flow separates causing
large losses in total
pressure above the roof

Viewing Plane:
Centerline

Total Static NCI

1.06 0.770 Moderate amounts of total pressure

remain in the cowl.

0.848 0.616
(a) Total Pressure
Separation causes a large
0.636 0.462 area of low-pressure air
above roof reducing
PSI PSI
down force
0.424 0.308

0.212 0.154

High static pressure regions are

0.000 0.000 caused by stagnated flow

Flow accelerating into the carburetor

causes a localized low-pressure
region at the cowl exit
(b) Static Pressure

Figure 23. Contours of (a) total pressure and (b) static pressure along the cowl centerline highlight the major physical
characteristics of the flow in the critical regions. Separated flow is clearly seen (SC3 BLS RBL).

Velocity (mph) 200 150 100 50 0

Total Press. (PSI) 1.06 0.795 0.530 0.265 0.000

Front of Car

(a) Velocity Magnitude at Inlet Rear of Car

Suction surface causing Side-wall effects reduce the

high-velocity flow effective inlet area by about 5 %

Viewing Plane:
Inlet

(b) Total Pressure at Inlet Total pressure remains relatively

constant to this point in the geometry
aiding in higher exit flow rate

(c) Total Pressure Below Inlet

Viewing Plane:
1.25” Below Inlet
Cowl Centerline

Figure 24. Contours of (a) velocity magnitude at the inlet, (b) total pressure at the inlet, and (c) total pressure 1.25” below
the cowl inlet show much improved performance compared to the standard Roush design (SC3 BLS RBL).

22
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Flow is slowed due to high

level of suction and energized
Cowl Centerline boundary layer

Viewing Plane: Total Pressure

Vertical Crossplane at
Outlet Center (a) Total Pressure at 1.06
Vertical Crossplane
Secondary flow moving
toward outlet due to a 0.848
combination of wall effects Very little total pressure
and pressure gradients drop is seen through cowl
0.636
PSI

0.424
Outlet

0.212

Viewing Plane:
Horizontal Crossplane at 0.000
1” Above Cowl Bottom

(b) Total Pressure at

Horizontal Crossplane

Figure 25. Contours of total pressure on a (a) vertical crossplane and (b) horizontal crossplane show the higher energy
flow moving towards the carburetor (SC3 BLS RBL). NOTE: Not to scale.

(a) Velocity Magnitude

Flow is slowed by
nearly 100 mph

Flow Direction
Viewing Plane: Zoom area
Centerline shown below

Velocity Boundary Layer is sucked off

hood allowing high energy air
200 to enter cowl
Flow must accelerate
across bends along cowl
160 bottom
Flow accelerates and separates
as it moves into carburetor
120
Stagnation Region
mph (b) Velocity Vectors

80
Two smaller recirculation regions form
further reducing effective flow area
40

Large recirculation region is

0 eliminated allowing for nearly
all effective area to be used

Flow does not need such a large

scoop surface

Figure 26. The extremely complex nature of the flow along the centerline plane of the Scoop 3 (SC3) configuration with
BLS at -1 PSIG is shown by (a) contours of velocity magnitude and (b) velocity vectors colored by velocity magnitude.

23
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Flow Direction

Suction surface
effectively aids flow in
navigating turn into cowl
Viewing Plane:
Centerline
Much high-energy fluid
Total Static
enters cowl and remains
1.30 1.20 until cowl outlet

1.04 0.96
(a) Total Pressure

0.78 0.72 Stagnation point is nearly

PSI PSI in ideal location
increasing the driving
0.52 0.48 force through the cowl

0.26 0.24
Flow stagnates in bends across
bottom of cowl
0.00 0.00

(b) Static Pressure A desirable high static pressure

Flow stagnates against forward cowl wall region above the outlet is obtained

Figure 27. Contours of (a) total pressure and (b) static pressure along the cowl centerline highlight the major physical
characteristics of the flow in the critical regions (SC3 BLS).

Velocity (mph) 200 150 100 50 0

Total Press. (PSI) 1.300 0.975 0.650 0.325 0.000

Front of Car

(a) Velocity Magnitude at Inlet Rear of Car

Significantly higher velocity air Side-wall effects reduce the

entering cowl effective inlet area by about 5 %

Viewing Plane:
Inlet

(b) Total Pressure at Inlet

More high total pressure air
compared to the free-stream Total pressure remains fairly
constant until this point

(c) Total Pressure Below Inlet

Viewing Plane:
1.25” Below Inlet Higher velocity flow diffuses
Cowl Centerline nicely

Figure 28. Contours of (a) velocity magnitude at the inlet, (b) total pressure at the inlet, and (c) total pressure 1.25”
below the cowl inlet (SC3 BLS).

24
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Saturday, January 27, 2018

Front of Car
Viewing Plane:
Outlet

Nearly uniform flow patterns helping to

reduce cylinder-to-cylinder variations
Rear of Car

Figure 29. Velocity vectors on the outlet plane show fairly uniform motion entering the carburetor (SC3 BLS).

25