SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

2000-01-0354

Selecting Automotive Diffusers to

Maximise Underbody Downforce
Kevin R. Cooper and J. Syms
National Research Council of Canada

G. Sovran
GM Research, retired

Reprinted From: Vehicle Aerodynamics

(SP1524)

SAE 2000 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 6-9, 2000
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A.

Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.
SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
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. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

2000-01-0354

Selecting Automotive Diffusers to

Maximise Underbody Downforce
Kevin R. Cooper and J. Syms
National Research Council of Canada

G. Sovran
GM Research, retired
Copyright 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT

walled underbody diffusers of two lengths. Both fixed

and moving-ground test conditions were utilised. The
objective was to measure the influence of underbody diffusers on lift and drag and to resolve the associated flow
physics.

Underbody diffusers are used on racing cars to generate

large downforce that will permit them to achieve reduced
lap times through aerodynamically-enhanced traction.
Both the configuration of these cars and their underbody
flows are complex, so the design of optimum underbody
geometries is a formidable task. The objective of the
present study is to generate data and understanding that
will facilitate design through knowledge of the relevant
physics and the application of a numerical analysis that
provides generalised design guidance.

At the relatively large ground clearance typical of passenger cars, drag reduction that is important for fuel economy was achieved under some circumstances. Large
downforce production that is important for race cars was
achieved under many circumstances, particularly at the
small ground clearances typical of that application.
The focus of this paper is on racing-car applications of a
diffuser, and specifically on the effect of diffuser length
and area ratio on downforce generation. An analysis is
performed that permits diffuser measurements from [1] to
be generalised and applied to the identification of optimum underbody geometries.
The previous paper
explored the physics of downforce generation. This
paper extends the understanding gained and applies it to
primarily flat-bottomed, diffuser-equipped racing cars like
contemporary sports-racing prototypes.

The approach taken is one that is traditional in the study

of complex problems: to identify a less-complex but still
relevant sub-problem that has the key elements and flow
physics of the main one, and study it to generate a first
phase of cause-and-effect relationships. In addition to
having immediate utility, it can serve as the foundation
upon which future research activity can be built.
The result of the present study is an analytical model that
will facilitate the selection of optimum length and area
ratio for the underbody diffusers of flat-bottomed racing
cars. While not a universally-applicable design tool, the
guidelines developed should reduce the effort required to
develop underbody configurations that produce large
downforce.

BACKGROUND
The simple, wheel-less model of this investigation is
shown in Figures 1 and 2. It was fitted with diffusers of
either 25% or 75% of its length. The angle of the diverging wall was adjustable from 0 to more than 16. The
diffusers were fitted with partial side plates, and nearly all
the measurements were made at zero pitch angle. Figure 1 presents a photograph of the model on its overhead
sting.

INTRODUCTION
In an initial paper [1], an extensive set of wind tunnel test
results was reported for a simple rectangular-block model
with circular-arc front corners that was fitted with plane-

Figure 1.

View of Model with Long Diffuser Showing

Maximum Diffuser Angle and Partial Side
Plates

A circumferential distribution of surface-pressure taps

was positioned on or near the longitudinal centre plane of
the model at the locations shown in Figure 2. The pressure taps on the vertical rear face were connected
together and averaged pneumatically to give the average
pressure over the full base area. Two other sets of taps
on the roof of the model, marked by the curly parentheses in Figure 2, were averaged in the same fashion.
The model was mounted above a moving-belt system
that was 4.24 times wider and 3.85 times longer than the
model. It was tested over a full matrix of diffuser configurations (2 diffuser lengths, 9 diffuser angles, 22 ride
heights), for both moving-ground and fixed-ground simulations.
In [1], CFD was applied to three of the test configurations
to provide assistance in understanding the measured
data, and for comparison with experiment. The numerical model did not have the partial side plates of the physical model. The code was fully turbulent, and therefore
incapable of computing laminar separation if it were to
occur.

Figure 2.

DOWNFORCE MECHANISMS

where the streamwise-distance-averaged, mean-effective

pressure coefficients (equation (A4)) are defined as,

Lift coefficient data were used in [1] to identify three different downforce mechanisms for the test body: underbody upsweep (body camber), ground interaction and
diffuser pumping. In the present paper, surface-pressure
distributions will be used for the same purpose. These
offer a more detailed picture of the physical mechanisms.

C pi

L
C pl C pu

1 Xi
C p ( x )dx
xi 0

(2)

and the subscripts l and u denote the lower and the

upper surfaces, respectively. The overall length and
height of the body are L and H, respectively (see Figure
B2). Managing lift is a matter of managing the difference

As developed in Appendix A, equation (A5), the lift coefficient of the test body can be expressed as,
CL =

Model Geometry (dimensions in mm)

between C pl and C pu . Since the primary interest of this

study is the underbody flow, a test body of simple overall
configuration was chosen so that the flow over its upper
surface would be relatively insensitive to changes in
underbody geometry and ground clearance. That this

(1)

was the case is demonstrated by Figure 3 for several diffuser wall angles, , and ride heights, (h1/H).

1. 0

P res s ure C o effi ci e n t

With this relative constancy of C pu , equation (1) indicates that the behaviour of CL is essentially determined
by the underbody through C pl . Since downforce is negative lift, it is maximised by making C pl as negative as
possible.
1 .0
P res s ure C o effi ci e n t

=0 .0 0, ( h 1 / H) =0.338

s o lid lin e, s hor t dif f u ser ; C L = -0.004 4

da s he d line, lon g dif f u s er; C L = -0.058

0. 0

s tar t of lo ng
dif f us er

bas e

-1. 0

pres s ur e

s ta rt of s h or t
d if f us er
en d of r a diu s

-2. 0
0 .0

2 00

3 00

4 00

D i sta n ce fro m F ro n t Fa c e , m m

s olid lin e, =0.00, ( h1 / H)=0.338

c ha in -d as h ed line , =9 .6 4, ( h 1/ H)= 0.338

-1 .0

10 0

Figure 4.

das hed lin e, =9.64, ( h 1 / H)=0.06 2

Comparison of the Zero-Diffuser-Angle

Pressure Distributions from the Short and the
Long Diffusers; Ground Moving

-2 .0
0

1 00

20 0

30 0

The general form of the nearly identical pressure distributions is characterised by a strong suction peak at the
front corner, produced by strong streamline curvature in
the flow around its circular-arc geometry. This is followed
by a subsequent pressure relaxation that asymptotes to
the base pressure and is essentially completed by midbody length. The relaxation process has a local reversal
immediately downstream of the front radius that is
thought to be the consequence of a laminar separation
bubble resulting from a strong adverse pressure gradient
in the flow around the second half of the corner.

4 00

D i sta n ce fro m F ro n t F a ce , m m

Figure 3.

Example of Invariance of Upper Surface

Pressure Distribution with Underbody
Variations

As also shown in Appendix A, equation (A6), C pl can be

resolved into two major components,

N
N
C pl = 1 C pf + C pd
L
L

While the two configurations are nominally identical in

geometry, they have a small difference. The hinge at the
diffuser inlet that permits variation of the wall angle protrudes slightly from the otherwise flat underbody surface
and is at a different streamwise location for the two
cases. For the short diffuser, this hinge produces a local
distortion in the pressure immediately downstream of
itself that is clearly evident in Figure 4. It is not present
for the long diffuser which does not have a surface discontinuity at that streamwise location.

(3)

where the component coefficients are defined according

to equation (2). The subscript f designates the underbody surface (L-N) upstream of the diffuser (including the
front radius, but referred to as flat for convenience) and
d the diffuser of length N. The relative weighting of the
two component pressure coefficients is determined by
(N/L), the length of the diffuser relative to that of the body.
Two different diffuser lengths were evaluated in the test
program, a short one of (N/L) = 0.247 and a long one of
(N/L) = 0.752. Figure 4 shows their underbody pressure
distributions for the non-lifting symmetric configurations
having =0, at the relatively large ground clearance of
(h1/H) = 0.338 that is the largest value tested for the long
diffuser.

There is a small difference in the local pressure reversal

just downstream of the front corner. This may also be
hinge related since the long diffuser has a hinge near that
region while the short one does not.
The generation of downforce by a symmetric, non-lifting
body as it is brought close to ground is illustrated in Figure 5 for the short-diffuser configuration. Only data for
the short diffuser are used in the analysis of this paper. It
was tested at 22 ride heights over the range 0.031(h1/
H)0.646. The curves in the Figure are for different ride

heights. The lift coefficient at the largest ride height, (h1/

H)=0.646, is close to zero, and essentially the same as in
free air. Consequently, the corresponding pressure distribution is the baseline from which to assess downforce
production as ride height, (h1/H), is reduced to very small
values (downforce due to ground proximity).

1. 0

P res s ure C o effi ci e n t

= 9.64

1.0
P res s ure C o effi ci e n t

=0 .0 0

(h 1 /H) =0.100

(h 1/H)=0.64 6

0.0

(h 1 /H) =0 .1 00

(h 1 /H) =0.192

(h 1 /H) =0.64 6

0. 0

-1. 0
(h 1 /H) =0 .0 62

-2. 0
0
-1 . 0

20 0

30 0

4 00

D i sta nc e from F ro nt F a ce , m m
(h 1/H)=0.06 2

Figure 6.

-2 . 0
0

10 0

20 0

30 0

4 00

Effect of Ground Proximity with an Underbody

Diffuser; Ground Moving

There are four curves for different ride heights, all for
rear-underbody upsweep of 9.64, all having the same
general shape. As already discussed, at (h1/H)=0.646
the body is essentially in free air. The upsweep produces
a pressure recovery over its length. Since the base pressure is only slightly increased from its value for the symmetric body, producing a small reduction in drag, the
consequence of this pressure-recovery process is a
reduction in the pressure at the beginning of the
upsweep. The pressure relaxation from the front-corner
suction peak must decrease to this level and so a local
maximum is produced in the flat-underbody pressure,
resulting in a downward-concave profile.

D i sta n ce fro m F ro n t F a ce , m m

Figure 5.

1 00

Effect of Ground Proximity on the Underbody

Pressure Distribution with Zero Diffuser
Angle; Ground Moving

The three curves in Figure 5 have similar characteristics,

but noticeable and important differences. The magnitude
of the suction peak at the front corner is only slightly
affected by ride height but the local pressure-reversal
immediately downstream of the leading-edge radius is
significantly reduced as the local underflow is constrained by the approaching impervious ground. However, the major effect is an increase in the distance
required for the pressure to asymptote to the essentially
invariant base pressure. The relaxation process is one of
deceleration, requiring the streamtube to expand with
downstream distance. This increase in area is constrained by the ground as (h 1/H) decreases.

As ride height is reduced, the combination of the upswept

underbody and the flat ground plane forms a diffuser of
asymmetric geometry whose ratio of outlet area to inlet
area (area ratio, AR) becomes increasingly greater than
unity. This generates greater and greater diffuser pressure recovery that, since the base pressure remains
nearly constant, increasingly depresses the pressure at
the diffuser inlet. This results in higher flow velocity over
the upstream flat underbody, lowering the pressure
throughout that region and contributing to increasing
downforce. The diffuser effectively "pumps down" the flat
underbody, producing the large downforce measured at
low ride heights. At very low ride heights the underbody
flow resistance increases due to viscous effects, causing
less flow to enter the underbody so that the downforce
mechanism created by the diffuser is curtailed.

The area between curves at low ride height and that at

(h1/H) =0.646, sensibly out of ground effect, represents
the downforce produced by ground proximity. This identifies the increased distance required for pressure recovery from the suction peak as the major mechanism of
downforce production. The ground-proximity downforce
is a maximum at (h1/H) = 0.062.
The generation of downforce by an underbody diffuser as
a body is brought close to ground is illustrated for the
short-diffuser configuration in Figure 6.

The area between any two (h 1/H) curves in Figure 6 represents the change in downforce produced with the associated change in ride height with a diffuser. However, not
all of the downforce is due to diffuser pumping. As was
seen in Figure 5, changes in ride height alone, even without a diffuser, also produce changes in ground-proximity
downforce. The separation of these two mechanisms is
illustrated in Figure 7.

The more negative this mean-effective pressure coefficient, the greater the downforce. Its evaluation requires
information on the component mean-effective pressure

1 .0

P res s ure C o effi ci e n t

=0.00, (h 1 /H) =0.64 6

coefficients for the diffuser, C pd , and for the flat upstream

g r o u n d p r o xim it y

0 .0

underbody, C pf , in turn requiring a diffuser pressurerecovery map.

DIFFUSER MEAN-EFFECTIVE PRESSURE

COEFFICIENT

-1 .0
dif fu s e r p u m p ing
=0 .0 0, ( h 1 /H) =0.062

The driving force behind the downforce generation process is the diffuser pressure-recovery performance, so
this is the first element of the analysis to be developed.

=9.64 , ( h 1 /H) =0.062

-2 .0
0

1 00

20 0

30 0

4 00

The axial pressure distribution in a subsonic diffuser has

a characteristic non-linear shape that must be established so that its mean-effective pressure coefficient can
be determined. This distribution and an equation for the
mean-effective coefficient are developed in Appendix B
(equation (B18)) for asymmetric, plane-walled, underbody diffusers in inviscid, incompressible, one-dimensional flow. The result is,

D i sta n ce fro m F ro n t F a ce , m m

Figure 7.

Mechanisms of Downforce Generation;

Ground Moving

The top two curves in Figure 7 are for the symmetric

body. The upper curve of this pair is for the free-air condition at (h1/H)=0.646, and the lower one for the value of
(h1/H)=0.062 that produces maximum ground-proximityinduced downforce. The area between the curves represents the downforce due to ground proximity. If the diffuser angle of 9.64 that produces maximum downforce is
introduced at the lower ground clearance, the bottom
curve results. The area between this curve and the one
immediately above it represents the downforce due to diffuser pumping.

C pd = 1

1 Cp

(4)

where C p2 is the pressure coefficient at diffuser exit (see

Figure B2 for geometry),
p p
C p 2 2
q

The downforce mechanism called underbody upsweep

(body camber) that was identified in [1] is not an independent mechanism when a body is close to ground.

(5)

and C p is the overall pressure-recovery coefficient

(equation (B16)),

ANALYTICAL MODEL OF VEHICLE

DOWNFORCE

Cp =

An analytical model of vehicle downforce that permits

examination of the dependence of downforce on diffuser
design will be developed. This requires a diffuser pressure-recovery map in the dominant variables of area-ratio
parameter and non-dimensional length, and a method for
its application. The stated application of this analysis is
to the diffusers of flat-underbody racing cars, where the
diffusers are typically less than one-half of the underbody
length. The analysis will be performed for only the moving-ground boundary condition, since this is the on-track
state.

(Cp2 Cp1 )
(1 C p1 )

(6)

For real flows in which the values of C p2 and C p are

known, it will be assumed that equation (4) suitably
reflects the non-linear behaviour of the pressure distribution in underbody diffusers and, for the purposes of this
paper, provides an adequate approximation of C pd .
It is assumed that C p2 can be best represented by the
area-averaged, base-pressure coefficient that was measured. This was essentially constant at a value of 0.19
for all the configurations tested. That is,

The combination of equation (1) and Figure 3 indicates

that changes in the lift coefficient of the simple body
under consideration are determined by changes in the
mean-effective underbody pressure coefficient. Referring to equation (3), it is seen that this coefficient is comprised of two components that are,

N
Cpl = 1 Cpf + Cpd
L

(1 C p2 )

C p 2 = C pb = 0.19

(7)

The diffuser pressure-recovery coefficient, C p , is a function of diffuser area-ratio parameter, (AR-1), and nondimensional length, (N/h1). Its evaluation for particular
combinations of underbody-diffuser geometry and
ground boundary condition (moving ground, fixed

(3)

For each diffuser length in Figure 8, the underbody pressure distribution was numerically integrated to provide

ground) requires a performance map with these variables. In the next section, two such maps will be
extracted from the experimental data.

C pf and C pd . The ratio of these quantities for each diffuser length is shown in Figure 9.

FLAT-UNDERBODY MEAN-EFFECTIVE
PRESSURE COEFFICIENT
Once diffuser performance has been established, an
expression is required for the mean-effective, flat-underbody pressure coefficient that it induces. The axial pressure distribution of the flat underbody is more
complicated than that of the diffuser. As has been seen
in Figure 6, it is characterised by a strong suction peak as
the underflow curves and accelerates around the front
corner of the body, followed by a downward-concave
pressure-recovery profile that terminates at the diffuser
inlet. As diffuser length increases, the length of the concave distribution decreases, as seen in Figure 8. The
corresponding change in diffuser Cp affects the magnitude of the front-corner suction peak and, more significantly, the pressure level of the concavity.

E ffe cti v e P re ss u re C o e ffi c i en ts

(Fl a t-U nd e rb od y / D i ffu s er) M ea n-

4. 0
(h 1 /H) =0 .0 62, ( A R- 1) =2 .6 7

3. 0

2. 0
y = 3 .61 x + 1.02
R 2 = 0.9 9

1. 0
0. 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

D iffu se r L e ng th F ra c ti on , (N / L )

An analytical description of this pressure distribution and

its integration to directly produce the flat-underbody
mean-effective pressure coefficient is not feasible.
Instead, the approach taken is to seek a correlation

Figure 9.

CFD-Predicted Relationship Between Cpf

and Cpd as a Function of Diffuser Length;
Ground Moving

between C pf and C pd , thereby relating the flat underbody pressures to the diffuser pressure recovery. The
experimental program used only two diffuser lengths, and
this is insufficient for establishing such a correlation.
Recourse has therefore been made to CFD for supplying
suitable information. Computations with moving ground
at (h1/H)=0.062 and (AR-1)=2.67 were made for eight different diffuser lengths over 0.25(N/L)0.75. The results
are shown in Figure 8.

This ratio was also calculated for the experimental data

from the two diffuser lengths studied. For each length,
the ratio of mean-effective pressures was insensitive to
both ride height (h 1/H) and area-ratio parameter
( AR 1) . Consequently, although the data in Figure 9
were derived for a single combination of ride height and
area-ratio parameter, they will be taken as representative
of all combinations of ride height and area-ratio parameter.

U n d erb o d y P re ss u re C o effc i en t

1. 0

The data variation with length in Figure 9 is essentially

linear, and adequately represented by,

( h 1 /H ) =0.06 2, ( A R- 1) =2. 67

0. 0

Cpf / Cpd = 1.02 + 3.61(N / L)

(8)

This correlation indicates that at any given area ratio, as

(N/L) is increased from a small value to improve diffuser

-1. 0

Cp and make its corresponding mean-effective pressure

0 .2 5

-2. 0

0 .5 4
N/ L = 0.75

0.42

coefficient C pd more negative, the mean-effective pres-

0.28

sure coefficient C pf of the flat underbody becomes more

negative even faster. This is the consequence of the
length and pressure level of the downward-concave part
of the pressure distribution along the flat component
being reduced (see Figure 8). Since the downward-concave pressure profile contains the most-positive portion
of the flat-underbody pressures, these changes make the
net value of the flat-underbody component more negative.

0.59 0.48 0.37

-3. 0
0

10 0

2 00

30 0

4 00

D i sta n ce fro m F ro n t F a ce , m m

Figure 8.

CFD Predictions of Underbody Pressure

Distributions; Ground Moving

UNDERBODY MEAN-EFFECTIVE PRESSURE

COEFFICIENT

Numerical values for the three required inputs to equation

(11) will be considered one at a time.
As already discussed in the analytical model for the diffuser mean-effective pressure coefficient and stated in
equation (7), Cp2 is best represented by the area-averaged base-pressure coefficient, which is essentially constant at a value of 0.19.

Using the correlation of equation (8) in equation (3), the

mean-effective pressure coefficient of the whole underbody becomes,

N C pf

C pl = 1
L

C pd

N
C pd + C pd
L

N
N
C pl = 1.02 + 3.59 3.61 C pd

L
L

In conventional diffuser research, a test diffuser is preceded by a constant-area inlet duct along which the pressure gradient is very small. The inlet pressure to the
diffuser is taken as the wall static pressure a short distance upstream of the inlet, where the influence of flow
curvature resulting from the diverging flow at the inlet is
negligible. Even though the underbody flow path preceding the diffuser is of constant height in the present study,
the pressure along it varies significantly. As was seen in
Figure 6, there is a downward-concave pressure profile
immediately upstream of the diffuser. In view of this, it
was decided that the best measure of the inlet static
pressure coefficient, Cp1 , would be obtained by extrapolating the downstream end of this profile to the diffuser
inlet using a quadratic function.

(9)

The term in square brackets in this equation is positive

and has a local maximum of 1.91 at (N/L)=0.50.
Introducing equations (4) and (7) into equation (9) results
in the final expression for the total underbody meaneffective pressure coefficient,
2

1.19
N
N
C pl = 1.02 + 3.59 3.61 1
L
L

1 Cp

(10)

The inlet dynamic head of the diffuser, q1, was not measured, and so has to be inferred. Considering the flow
from far upstream of the body to the diffuser inlet,

As will be shown, if a diffuser map of Cp is available, this

equation will permit an optimum underbody geometry to
be determined. For example, the best geometry irrespective of diffuser length could be found. Alternatively,
the best area ratio and ride height for a given diffuser
length, or the best area ratio for a given ride height and
diffuser length could be found.

o
o
p + q Ploss
p1 + q1 P1o = Po Ploss

giving,
q1

DIFFUSER PRESSURE-RECOVERY
PERFORMANCE

ceed, it is assumed to be zero. With C loss = 0 , the

resulting inlet dynamic pressure coefficient, (q1 / q ) , is
over-estimated and its usage in equation (11) yields,
Cp =

diffuser pressure-recovery coefficient, Cp . In the present

study, a pressure-recovery map is evaluated directly. It is
derived from the pressure distributions measured on the
centre plane of the underbody. Only the short-diffuser
data is used in the development of this map. The longdiffuser data are excluded because the diffuser inlet flow
interacts with the front-corner flow.

(Cp2 C p1 )
(1 Cp1 )

(13)

which produces an under-estimate of Cp . This concession to practicality does not limit the use of the resulting
diffuser map in the search for maximum vehicle downforce. The major objective of the present study is the
determination of optimum diffuser geometry, not the
value of the corresponding maximum downforce coefficient. The procedure that has been described was used
with the measured underbody pressure distributions to
generate the results of Figure 10 for the short diffuser.
For clarity, only five of the nine available diffuser angles
are shown.

The pressure-recovery coefficient can be expressed in

the following form,

(12)

where Closs is the loss coefficient of this flow. Unfortunately, the value of Closs is not known. In order to pro-

In [1], a performance map of diffuser-based downforce

was generated with coordinates of area-ratio parameter,
( AR 1) , and non-dimensional length, (N/h 1), the socalled diffuser plane. This downforce map mimicked the

p p1
q
= C p2 C p1
C p 2
q
1

q1

= (1 Cp1 Closs )

(11)

where the subscripts 1 and 2 designate the diffuser inlet

and outlet, respectively, and the infinity symbol designates a station far upstream of the body.

Short-Diffuser Pressure Recovery

Fixed Ground

2.87 d eg
9.64 d eg
15 .5 9 deg

6 .8 2 deg
1 3.50 de g

Area Ratio Parameter, (AR-1)

P res s ure -R ec o ve ry C o e ffic i en t

0.6

0.4

0.2

Gr o und f ix ed

0.0
0.0

0. 2

0.4

0. 6

0 .3

4
0 .3 5

0.25 0

N o n -di m e n si o n a l R i d e H e i g h t, (h 1 / H )

6.82 d eg
13 .5 0 deg

0. 2

Gro und mo vin g

0. 0
0. 0

0.2

0. 4

0. 6

N o n -d i m e n si on a l R i de H e i gh t, (h 1 /H )

Figure 10. Diffuser Pressure-Recovery Coefficients for

Fixed-Ground and Moving-Ground
Simulations

(N / h1 ) N L H = 2.4 N H

(14)

(AR 1) = N tan

(15)

L H h1

h1

L h1

5
10
15
Non-Dimensional Length, (N/h1)

0 .3

4
0 .3

0. 4

20

0 .3
00

00

50

75
0.41

5
0 .41

0 .3 7 5
0.2 50

The pressure-recovery coefficients for all diffuser angles

were converted to the diffuser plane using the transformations of equations (14) and (15).

0 .3 0 0
0.2 00
0.1 00

Short-Diffuser Pressure Recovery

Moving Ground

0. 4

Area Ratio Parameter, (AR-1)

P res s ure -R ec o ve ry C o e ffic i en t

0. 6
2.87 de g
9.64 de g
15.59 d eg

5
0 .3 7 0.
40 0
0.41 0
0
42
0.
5
0.37
0
0 .3 5

00

0 .3 50
0.3 00
0.200

0.100

5
10
15
Non-Dimensional Length, (N/h1)

20

Figure 11. Diffuser Pressure-Recovery Coefficient Maps

(Based on Data from Figure 10)
The maps for the two ground simulations are similar.
There are, however, significant differences between
them, which can be summarised as:
1. the pressure-recovery contours with the moving
ground are open at the higher non-dimensional
lengths, not closed as with the fixed ground,

The results are plotted in the diffuser pressure-recovery

contour maps of Figure 11.

2. the location of the point of maximum pressure recovery is different, with the maximum occurring at lower
area-ratio parameter and higher non-dimensional
length with the ground moving.
Constant-pressure-recovery-coefficient contours near
maximum pressure recovery for both ground simulations
are compared in Figure 12.
8

For the maps of Figure 11,

N
A = 2.17
h1

be lt f ix ed
be lt mov in g

3. 0

2. 0

1. 0

0. 0
0. 0

5 .0

1 0 .0

1 5. 0

2 0. 0

N o n -D im e n si o na l L e ng th , (N / h 1 )

Figure 12. Comparison of C p = 0.40 PressureRecovery Contours with Fixed and Moving
Ground

MAXIMUM VEHICLE DOWNFORCE

The effect of ground simulation on optimum diffuser performance is primarily caused by differences in diffuser
blockage. Velocity non-uniformity in cross sections of an
internal flow stream represents blockage. Such non-uniformity in the flat-underbody region upstream of the diffuser, due to viscous flow effects, is increased by the
subsequent diffusion process, as described in [1]. The
distortion in the moving-ground velocity profiles is smaller
than with fixed ground because the ground boundary
layer is reduced by ground motion. Consequently, with
moving ground the effective area ratio at any given geometric area ratio is always greater than that with fixed
ground.
Thus, a given pressure recovery can be
achieved at a smaller geometric area ratio with the moving ground, explaining why the pressure-recovery contour
in Figure 12 with the ground moving falls below that with
the ground fixed.

The analysis and rationale that have been presented

suggest a strong correlation between diffuser pressurerecovery coefficient and the lift on the body. That this is
the case is shown in Figure 13.

L ift a nd P re ss u re-R e co v ery

0 . 50

Furthermore, at any given geometric area ratio, greater

values of diffuser length can be tolerated with the ground
moving before blockage in the diffuser reduces the effective area ratio to values for which the pressure recovery is
diminished, closing the contours. Such values of diffuser
length are not reached in the present data with the
ground moving, so the pressure-recovery contours are
open to the right.

0 . 25

p r e s s u r e r e co ve r y

0 . 00
(N/L) = 0.24 7
= 15.59 d e g .

-0 . 25

lif t

-0 . 50
-0 . 75
-1 . 00
0 . 00

0 . 20

0 . 40

0. 6 0

0. 8 0

R i d e H e ig h t, (h 1 / H )

Figure 13. Correlation of Lift Coefficient with Diffuser

Pressure-Recovery Coefficient; Moving
Ground

The pressure distributions on which the diffuser maps are

based were measured only on the centre plane of the
underbody. How well they represent the whole width of
the body depends on the nature of the local flow at the
side edges of the diverging wall and on the ratio of the
width, W, to the height of the diffuser inlet, h 1, that is, on
the aspect ratio of the diffuser inlet, where aspect ratio is
defined as,
W W L N
A
h1 L N h1

(17)

In diffuser research, aspect ratios of about 10 are used in

order to have the internal flow approach two-dimensionality. For the current study, equation (17) indicates that this
value is achieved at (N/h1) =4.61. Most of the measurements in the maps of Figure 11 are in the region of (N/
h1)4.61, where the diffuser aspect ratios are well over
10. However, the presence of only partial side plates permits lateral flow into the diffuser, introducing flow threedimensionality. In spite of this, the analyses of [1]
showed that integration of the centre-line pressure distributions gave sectional lift forces that closely matched the
balance lift measurements. It would appear, perhaps fortuitously, that the centreline pressures are representative
of the average distribution over the full width of the
model.

C oe ffi ci e nts

A rea R ati o P ar am ete r, (A R -1 )

4. 0

Here, the pressure-recovery coefficient and the lift coefficient for the short-diffuser are plotted against ride height
for the moving-ground simulation. When Cp increases
locally, CL becomes locally more negative (more downforce), and when Cp decreases, CL becomes less negative (less downforce). Each change in pressure-recovery
coefficient is mirrored by a reverse change in lift coefficient.

(16)

APPLICATION TO UNDERBODY DIFFUSER

DESIGN

A more detailed correlation is provided by the constantlift-coefficient contours on the diffuser plane ((AR-1) vs.
(N/h1)) presented in Figure 14. The lift contour plots can
be compared to the pressure-recovery plots of Figure 11.
It is seen that the lift contours are similar to the pressurerecovery contours, but have their maximum magnitudes
at lower values of area ratio and length, and are closed at
longer lengths for both ground simulations.
Short-Diffuser Lift Coefficient
Fixed Ground

Area Ratio Parameter, (AR-1)

-0 .4 00
-0 .5 00

-0.6 00

-0 .7 00
-0.

2
-0

750

-0.80 0
0
.8 2

-0

-0 .
.500

60

-0 .4 0 0
-0 .2 0 0

-0.300

5
10
15
Non-Dimensional Length, (N/h1)

Referring to equation (3), it is seen that the mean-effective underbody pressure coefficient, proportional to
underbody downforce coefficient, is comprised of two
components.

N
N

Cpl = 1 Cpf + Cpd

L
L

contributor, both because Cpf is significantly more nega-

C p and make Cpd more negative, there is a twofold benefit to the diffuser component. The flat component, how-

.8
-0

-0
-0 .6 0 0
-0.500
-0.400

tive than Cpd and because (1-N/L) is greater than (N/L).

As (N/L) increases at constant (AR-1) in order to increase

40
-0
.8
2

.80

(3)

When (N/L) is small, the flat component is the greater

00
0 .6

-0 .7 0 0
0
-0 .7 5
-0

20

Short-Diffuser Lift Coefficient

Moving Ground

Area Ratio Parameter, (AR-1)

The preceding analytical model, summarised in equations (6) and (10), offers the opportunity for examining
optimum diffuser design. This requires a diffuser pressure-recovery map as a function of the dominant variables, area-ratio parameter and non-dimensional length.
It will be assumed that the variation of diffuser inflow conditions with decreasing length of the upstream flat underbody (increasing N/L) is sufficiently small that the diffuser
maps of Figure 11 can be applied over a range of diffuser
lengths. A requirement for this assumption to be valid is
that the diffuser entry flow not interact with the flow entering the underbody region. If there is interaction, the entry
conditions to the diffuser are particularly uncertain and
there can be an effect on diffuser pressure recovery.
Consequently, at some diffuser length it is to be expected
that this assumption will fail, although at what length is
uncertain. The long, three-quarter-body-length diffuser
falls into the interaction category, so the upper-length
limit for general applicability of the analytical model is
less than this. For the flat-underbody racing cars that are
the stated application of the analysis, diffusers are typically less than one-half the underbody length, and it will
be assumed that the existing maps of Figure 11 are adequate to at least this length.

75
-0 .
.700

ever, has opposing effects because while Cpf becomes

more negative with Cpd (see equation (8)), its (1-N/L)
weighting decreases. At some diffuser length, C p eventually reaches a maximum and then decreases with further lengthening of the diffuser, and the opposing effects
in the flat component continue. It is likely that these

-0.3 00

5
10
15
Non-Dimensional Length, (N/h1)

20

Figure 14. Contours of Constant Lift Coefficient; Short

Diffuser

physics will produce a minimum in Cpl at some value of

(N/L).

10

diffuser lengths, and both show a minimum. The CFD

curve is flatter, and has its minimum at (N/L)=0.37 (the
shaded circle) instead of at (N/L)=0.46 from the analysis
(unshaded circle). The reasons for the differences are
not known, but the lack of side plates and the absence of
laminar flow in the CFD simulation may be contributors.

The preceding behaviour is captured in equation (10) of

the analytical model.

C pl

1.19
N
N
= 1.02 + 3.59 3.61 1

L
L
1 Cp

(10)

In any event, the differences in the C pl curves do not

detract from the utility of equation (10). Its major contribution is its delineation of the physics of downforce generation.

The analytical model is more useful if the moving-ground,

diffuser map of Figure 11 can be represented by a surface fit. This is outlined in the following, where the variation of Cp in the map has been fitted by,

0. 5

where the coefficients (a,b,c) are functions of (N/h 1) in

the form,
x(N / h1 ) = x 1 +

x2

(19)

1 + x 3 (N / h1 ) x 4

The numerical values of the xi coefficients for the

ground-moving case are:
Table 1. Coefficients for Variation of Cp with (AR-1) and
(N/h1); Moving Ground
x(N/h1)
a
b
c

x1
0.27
-0.20
1.40

x2
1.40
-45.00
3.00

x3
0.75
1.50
0.03

d if f us er p ress ure
re c ov er y, e qn. (18)

0. 0

-0. 5

-1. 0

f r om CFD

an aly tica l mode l eqn . (10)

-1. 5
0 . 00

x4
1.00
3.40
2.50

(h 1 /H)=0 .0 62, (A R- 1) =2.67

pres sure c oefficient

(18)

m e an- e ffec tiv e un derb ody

U nd er bo dy P r e s s ur e C oe ffic ie nts

Cp (( AR 1), (N / h1)) = a( AR 1) exp b( AR 1)c

0 . 25

0 . 50

0. 7 5

D i ffu se r L e n gth F ra cti o n, (N / L )

Figure 15. Typical Dependence of Underbody MeanEffective Pressure Coefficient on Diffuser

Length; Moving Ground

With this input, equations (18) and (19) can be used to

calculate the variation of C p with (N/h1) at various
( AR 1) , and this then used in equation (10) to deter-

Before proceeding further, it is instructive to analyse the

component effects in equation (10) that determine the
minimum in the underbody mean-effective pressure coef-

mine the variation of C pl with (N/L). A typical result for

(h1/H)=0.062 and (AR-1)=2.67 is plotted in Figure 15.
The inclusion of (h1/H) is required for equation (14) which
transforms (N/h1) in the diffuser pressure-recovery map
to (N/L).

ficient C pl . Using the case of ( AR 1) = 2.0 and (h 1/

H)=0.062 for illustration, Figure 16 shows the variation of
the three contributing factors, and their net effect, with (N/
L).

The diffuser map of Figure 11 only extends to a nondimensional length, (N/h 1), of approximately 20. For the
ride height of Figure 15, this transforms to (N/L)=0.52.
Consequently, the curves in Figure 15 calculated from
the analytical model are dotted for (N/L) greater than this
value to indicate that the diffuser map is being extrapolated.

The diffuser pressure-recovery coefficient, C p , is the

driver in the downforce generation process, and it has a
maximum at (N/L)=0.31. The corresponding diffuser
mean-effective pressure coefficient, Cpd , is negative and
has a minimum at the same diffuser length. This is the
second term of the product in equation (10). The quadratic pre-multiplier of that equation has a maximum at
(N/L)=0.50 and it is not explicitly dependent on diffuser

The diffuser pressure-recovery coefficient increases

monotonically with increasing (N/L) up to (N/L)=0.40,
after which it decreases slightly. As suggested to be

performance. The product of the two terms is C pl and it

has a minimum at (N/L)=0.41, which is between the
extrema of its two contributors. This diffuser length for

likely, the analytical model for C pl , equation (10), has a

local minimum corresponding to maximum downforce,
and it occurs at (N/L)=0.46. The predictions of diffuserlength effects from equation (10) are compared with CFD
results in this Figure. The CFD computations were made
for eight different diffuser lengths over 0.25(N/L)0.75.
The two curves are not the same, but are close at small

maximum downforce (most-negative C pl ) is not coincident with that for maximum diffuser pressure recovery,
but is greater than it in this example. The latter seems
contrary to intuition and therefore warrants elaboration.
11

Calculations like those in Figure 17 were made at two

additional ride heights. For each of them, the area ratio
giving the minimum mean-effective underbody pressure
coefficient (maximum downforce) was found and plotted
in Figure 18.

( h 1 /H ) =0. 06 2, ( A R -1 ) =2. 00

A n al y ti c al -M od e l C om p o ne n ts

2. 0
qu adra tic pr e-multiplier, eqn . (10)

The optimum diffuser length changes as ride height and

area ratio vary, but is generally near (N/L)=0.5. The optimum area ratio increases with decreasing ride height.
The magnitude of the maximum downforce (minimum
mean-effective pressure coefficient) increases monotonically with increasing area ratio up to ( AR 1) = 2.02 and
then decreases for larger area ratios.

1. 0
p r es s ure- rec ov e ry c oef ., e qn. (1 8)

dif f use r mea n-ef f ec tiv e

0. 0

pre s su re c oe f., e qn. (4)

-1. 0
u nde rbod y me an-e ff e ctiv e

-0. 2

p r es s ure c oe f ., eqn . (10 )

0 .2

0 .4

0. 6

D iffu se r L e ng th F ra c ti o n, (N / L )

Figure 16. Breakdown of Component Effects in

Underbody, Mean-Effective Pressure
Coefficient; (AR=1)=2.0, (h1/H)=0.062,
Moving Ground
When (N/L) is increased just past the value for which C p

(A R-1) = 7.50

P res su re C oe ffi ci e nt

0. 0

U n d e rb o dy M e an -E ffec ti ve

-2. 0

-0. 4

op t
2.20

5 .0 0

-0. 6
3.50

-0. 8
1.30
2.67

-1. 0
(h 1 /H)= 0.062

-1. 2

is a maximum, C p decreases and C pd becomes less

negative, which is unfavourable for downforce production.
However, the correlation of equation (8) indicates that this

0 . 00

0 . 25

0 . 50

0 . 75

D i ffu se r L e n gth F ra cti o n, (N / L )

is offset by the mean-effective pressure coefficient, Cpf ,

of the flat underbody continuing to become more negative. Initially, this happens at a faster rate than Cpd
becomes less negative, and so the quadratic pre-multiplier continues to increase, which is favourable for downforce production. The net result is that the meaneffective pressure coefficient for the whole underbody,
C pl , continues to become more negative past the length
for maximum diffuser pressure recovery. Eventually,
however, with further increase in (N/L), the unfavourable
reducing negativity of Cpd dominates and C pl passes
through its minimum value and begins to increase (less
downforce).
The results presented in Figure 15 are for only one area
ratio and for only one ride height. The analytical model
can also examine the effect of changes in area ratio and
ride height, as is shown in Figures 17 and 18.

(A R-1 ) = 7.50

P res su re C oe ffi ci e nt

U n d e rb o dy M e an -E ffec ti ve

-0. 2

-0. 4

o p t.
2.02

5.00

-0. 6
3.50

-0. 8
1.30

2.67

-1. 0
(h 1 /H) = 0.100

-1. 2
0 . 00

0 . 25

0 . 50

0 . 75

D i ffu se r L e n g th F ra c tio n , (N /L )

Figure 17 presents the variation of underbody meaneffective pressure coefficient with area ratio and length
for two ride heights. The area-ratio curve of maximum
downforce is shown in bold in each graph. This area ratio
is different for each ride height, but is near ( AR 1) = 2.0
in both cases, and the optimum lengths are only slightly
different.

Figure 17. Effect of Area Ratio on Optimum Diffuser

Geometry for Two Ride Heights; Moving
Ground

12

5. the diffuser pressure-recovery coefficients, C p , are

under-predicted because of the manner in which
their normalising inlet dynamic head q1 is determined.

(h 1 /H), (A R-1 )

P res su re C oe ffi ci e nt

M e an -E ffec ti ve U nd e rb od y

-0 . 2

-0 . 4

0 .1 50, 1 .7 0

6. there are viscous effects included in the region (N/

h1)>10.

-0 . 6
0.100 ,

While it is too optimistic to expect the model to exactly

predict the optimum underbody performance for arbitrary
combinations of diffuser length, area ratio and ride
height, it should give values that are nearly correct.
Therefore, it can serve to narrow the range of diffuser
geometries that need to be evaluated experimentally. It
also offers a technique for generalising diffuser performance measurements so that they can be used in the
vicinity of the experimental domain to evaluate diffuser
design variations that were not tested.

0.2 50, 1.13

2.02

-0 . 8

-1 . 0
0.06 2, 2 .2 0

-1 . 2
0. 0 0

0. 2 5

0. 5 0

0. 7 5

D i ffu se r L e ng th Fr a c ti on , (N / L)

CLOSING REMARKS

Figure 18. Effect of Ride Height on Optimum Diffuser

Geometry; Moving Ground

Underbody diffusers are used on racing cars to generate

large downforce that will permit them to achieve reduced
lap times through aerodynamically-enhanced traction.
Both the configuration of these cars and their underbody
flows are complex, so the design of optimum underbody
geometries is a formidable task. The objective of the
present study is to generate data and an improved understanding of the relevant physics of underbody-diffuserinduced flows. The application of this knowledge through
the numerical analysis presented can provide generalised design guidance that should facilitate effective
underbody design.

DISCUSSION
The analysis and the analytical model that have been
presented capture the underlying physics of the downforce generated by underbody diffusers. The understanding that they provide should be generally useful in
guiding vehicle design. However, the assumptions and
constraints involved need to be clearly appreciated, and
are collected here for easy reference.
The caveats for the analytical model are the following:

The approach taken is one that is traditional in the study

of complex problems: to identify a less-complex but still
relevant sub-problem that has the key elements and flow
physics of the main one, and study it to generate a first
phase of cause-and-effect relationships. In addition to
having immediate utility, it can serve as the foundation
upon which future research activity can be built.

1. It is assumed that the streamwise pressure distribution p(x) in a real diffuser flow between prescribed
inlet and outlet pressures is approximately the same
as for an ideal flow between the same pressures.
2. It is assumed that the underbody front-corner suction
peak of the simple test model is reasonably representative of actual racing cars and that it does not
interact directly with the diffuser flow.

The general objective of the present study is to generate

information that will facilitate the selection of optimum
length and area ratio for the underbody diffusers of flatbottomed racing cars, reducing the experimental effort
required to develop underbody configurations that produce large downforce.

3. It is assumed that the correlation for the ratio of the

mean-effective pressure coefficient of the flat underbody to that of the diffuser, equation (8), derived from
CFD results is adequately representative of experiment.

Specific objectives are to demonstrate that optimum diffuser geometries exist, with the details of the geometries
being a function of regulatory and physical constraints,
and to develop a semi-empirical, mathematical model of
the underbody flow that will permit such optimae to be
predicted. The design problem for any flat underbody
could be to identify the best diffuser subject to no restrictions, or to do so subject to diffuser-length and/or rideheight constraints imposed by a particular set of racing
rules. The approach taken is to model the downforce

The analytical model requires a diffuser pressure-recovery map. The moving-ground map that has been
extracted from the experimental data is, to the authors
knowledge, the first for a diffuser with one wall moving
relative to the other. Although based on data for only the
diffuser length (N/L) = 0.25, it is assumed to be adequate
for determining optimum performance even though:
4. it only extends to a non-dimensional diffuser length
(N/h1) of approximately 20.

13

strong effect on downforce generation, and it is also

known that the introduction of a vortex into a diffuser can
enhance its performance. These techniques are utilised
in racing car design but have not yet been studied in simple geometries like the current one. Their study could
provide topics for future research.

generation of a simple diffuser/body combination and

then, based on measurement, to generalise the experimental diffuser pressure-recovery characteristics as an
input to this model.
The analytical model has predicted the best diffuser
length to be of order one-half the length of the underbody,
or less, thereby demonstrating that effective underbodies
can be produced with relatively short diffusers. Also, it
provides insight into the underbody geometries required
for best downforce production. For example, it shows
that optimum diffuser length reduces as area ratio
decreases and that optimum area ratio increases as ride
height decreases.

REFERENCES
1. K. R. Cooper, T. Bertenyi, G. Dutil, J. Syms, G. Sovran - The Aerodynamic Performance of Automotive
Underbody Diffusers, SAE 980030, International
Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI, USA, Feb.
1998.

The analytical model offers an improved understanding of

the role of the diffuser in downforce generation and can
be applied by other researchers. If the appropriate force
and pressure measurements are made during diffuser
development, they may then be used to search the near
vicinity of the test domain for a better configuration than
those tested.

CONTACT
The first author can be contacted at:
The National Research Council
Building M-2, Montreal Rd.
Ottawa, Ont.
Canada K1A 0R6
Telephone (613) 993-1141, Fax (613) 957-4309
e-mail Kevin.Cooper@nrc.ca.

This first iteration of underbody downforce prediction provides a preview of what may be possible with more information. It was shown in [1] that body pitch angle has a

APPENDIX A: LIFT COEFFICIENT

The distance-averaged, mean-effective pressure coefficient over a streamwise length xi is defined as,

Assuming that the centre-line pressures on the upper

and lower surfaces of the model adequately represent
the average pressures across the width of the body, W, at
all of its cross sections, as was shown in [1], then the
aerodynamic lift on a vehicle equipped with an underbody diffuser is,

C pi

CL =

where pl and pu are the local static pressures on the

lower and upper surfaces, respectively. Reducing the lift
to coefficient form,
CL =

L
q ( WH)

L
W
(p l p )dx
q ( WH) 0

C pl

(A5)

L N
L

1
C pl ( x )dx + C pl ( x )dx
L 0
L N

N
N
C pl = 1 C pf + C pd
L
L

(A2)

(A6)

where the subscript f denotes the total underbody surface of length (L-N) upstream of the diffuser and d
denotes the diffuser of length N.

where pressure coefficient is defined as,

p p
C pi i
q

L
C pl C pu

So,

(A4)

The mean-effective pressure coefficient on the lower surface can be divided into two components, one for the
mostly flat under-body and one for the diffuser,

(p u p )dx

L
L

1
C L = C pl ( x )dx C pu ( x )dx
H o

Introducing this into equation (A2) gives the final lift

expression,

L = pda = p( Wdx ) = W p l ( x )dx p u ( x )dx (A1)

0

1 Xi
C p ( x )dx
xi 0

(A3)

14

APPENDIX B: DIFFUSER MEAN-EFFECTIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENT

Consider an inviscid, incompressible, one-dimensional
flow in a rectilinear diffuser of any wall geometry, as in
Figure B1.

p p1 1 N p( x ) p1

dx
q1
q1 N 0

=
A ( x), p( x ), q( x )
A 1 , p 1 , q1

1
q1

p1N p p1

=
p

N q1

(B6)

The diffuser in the present study is at the rear under-body

of the simple test model and is plane-walled and asymmetric, as sketched in Figure B2.

A 2 ,p 2 ,q2
x

For this diffuser,

A ( x ) h( x )
x

=
= 1 + tan
A 1 h1
h1

1
Figure B1. Two-Dimensional Diffuser

(B7)

and its area ratio is,

Ignoring any losses, the local conditions at any streamwise station x within the diffuser are related to those at
inlet by,

A
AR = 2
A1

h2
N
=
= 1 + tan
h1
h1

p( x ) + q( x ) P o = P1o p1 + q1

(B8)

Thus,
p , q

p( x ) p1
q( x )

= 1

q1

q1

Applying continuity,

ground plane h1, p1, q1

2

q( x) V( x)
A

=
= 1
q
V
A( x)
1 1

x
N

p p1

1
1
= 1
= 1
C p 2
2
q
(A 2 A1 ) AR 2
1

Figure B2. Geometry of an Underbody Diffuser

The integral in equation (B6) can be evaluated using
equations (B3), (B7) and (B8),

(B3)

p p1 1

=
q1 N

Applying equation (B3) at the outlet, station 2, provides

the ideal, diffuser pressure-recovery coefficient,
(B4)

The distance-averaged, mean-effective pressure over a

diffuser of length N is defined as,

h( x ), p( x ), q( x)

(B2)

p( x ) p1
1

= 1
q
(A( x ) / A 1 )2
1

1
1

( A( x) / A 1 ) 2

1
N 0

1
1

[1 + ( x / h1 ) tan ]2

dx

dx

resulting in

1
p( x )dx
N o

h2 , p2 , q2

Substituting this into equation (B1) gives the ideal pressure distribution,

(B1)

p p1
1

= 1

q
AR

(B5)

This mean-effective pressure can be obtained from the

mean-effective value of the pressure coefficient on the
left-hand side of equation (B3) in the following fashion,

(B9)

Using equation (B9) to replace the left-hand side of equation (B6),

1 p p1 (p p ) (p 1 p ) q

=
1
=
AR q1
q
q1

15

(B10)

Define the coefficient of mean-effective pressure over the

length of the diffuser as,

pp

Cp
q

ables C p and C p2 is more useful because these are the

available experimentally-measured quantities.
Area ratio can be eliminated from equation (B14), using
equation (B4),

(B11)

1
= 1 Cp
AR

Using this in (B10),

q
1

1
= C p C p1
q1
AR

while C p1 can be eliminated by recourse to equations

(B12)

(B4) and (B13),

Relating conditions at the diffuser inlet, station 1, to those

far upstream of the model,
p1 p

q
= 1 1

(p p ) (p1 p ) q

C p 2
q

q1

(1 C p1 ) =

= 1 C p1

(1 C p2 )

(1 C p )

(B17)

Substituting equations (B15) and (B16) into equation

(B14) provides the final form of the expression for the
mean-effective diffuser pressure coefficient, where the
subscript d has been added to denote a diffuser value.

(B13)

Using this equation in equation (B12) and solving for C p ,

1
Cp = 1
1 C p1
AR

C p 2 C p1

=
(B16)
1 C p1

leading to,

so
q1

(B15)

(B14)

C pd = 1

This is the desired result. However, for the purposes of

this study, an alternative expression in terms of the vari-

16

(1 Cp2 )
1 Cp

(B18)