Open Jet Test Section Criteria for Formula 1

John Lacey
Aero Systems Engineering, 358 E Fillmore Ave, St. Paul, MN 55107
1-651-220-1204 ; jlacey@aerosysengr.com

ABSTRACT
The open jet wind tunnel has been used in many applications for automotive
aerodynamic testing. In general, the test section configuration has a length-todiameter ratio (L/d)ts of about 3 and a blockage (ratio of model area to nozzle area) of
10%, with a typical car model that has a length-to-diameter ratio (L/d)m of 3. In
contrast, the typical Formula 1 race car has a (L/d)m of about 4. Application of
previously reported data, along with new test data, have shown that, with 10%
blockage, a Formula 1 model is too long for this conventional test section. In the past,
longer test sections have been avoided due to the complications of open jet pulsing.
A new design for the open jet test section has been shown to allow a longer test
section without pulsing. Testing in that configuration has demonstrated that the test
section has an increased useful length, and models with increased (L/d)m and/or
higher blockage can be tested with improved accuracy. Using this previous
information, and new information (data at even higher blockage) new test section
criteria is presented herein and a configuration applicable to Formula 1 testing is
developed.
NOMENCLATURE
Cd Drag Coefficient
d Hydraulic Diameter
L Length
X (or x) Distance from nozzle exit
Subscripts
avg - Average
m Model
n - Nozzle
ts Test section

1 INTRODUCTION
The conventional open jet wind tunnel for automotive aerodynamic testing has been
more or less standardized with a test section (L/d)ts ~3. This is based on the work
presented in Reference 1 that used a conventional car with an (L/d)m ~3. That
reference noted the inadequacy of shorter test sections, therefore a longer test
section with no pressure gradients would be useful. However, a study of longer test
sections in Reference 2 concluded that longer test sections would have acoustic
resonances.
As mentioned in several references (e.g. Ref. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), the open
jet wind tunnel can be plagued by high-energy acoustic resonances. These
resonances can be only a nuisance to operation or strong enough to damage the
facility. In 1928 pulsations were reduced with the use of a large collector and vents at
the collector throat (see Reference 4). Today, even the most recent designs using
this collector/breather technology have some resonant peaks in the infrasound noise
spectra (see References 9, 11, and 12) which can affect acoustic data as shown in
Reference 7. Configurations that reduce resonances have been presented in
References 3, 6, 7, and 8; however, they utilize active suppression systems with
added complexity and cost.
Even with this technology, the aerodynamic measurements are subject to corrections
due to pressure gradients in the test section and other adjustments, some of which
are discussed in References 1 and 13. These adjustments may be different for
various models. As example, a standard car has an (L/d)m of about 3, whereas a
Formula 1 racer has an (L/d)m of about 4. For models with the same frontal area, the
Formula 1 racecar model will be exposed to a different overall test condition with a
different set of corrections than a standard car.
In addition to the resonance and pressure gradient issues, a typical wind tunnel cost
is over $25,000,000 USD (see Reference 14) or more. Therefore, in addition to
providing a more useful test section, there is a need for a new, lower cost, wind
tunnel configuration suitable for aerodynamic testing.
This paper assembles data from the previous work (References 15,16, and17) along
with new data (taken at higher blockage) and develops a criteria to apply for longer
models. In particular, the concept is more fully developed for the case of a Formula 1
car.
2

BACKGROUND

As mentioned in the INTRODUCTION, the matter of pulsing of open jet, closed-return

wind tunnels has been thoroughly documented in several publications. This
phenomenon is also present in scale facilities as shown, for example, in References
1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Therefore, a model tunnel was built as a low cost method to study
this problem.

3 FACILITY
The test leg of this model facility (shown in Figure 1) has a 3:1 hexcell honeycomb and
two 12-mesh screens (with 0.45 mm wire) mounted at the inlet to the contraction to
smooth the flow. The rectangular nozzle is 89 mm H x 120 mm W and the collector is
108 mm H x 146 mm W giving a collector-to-nozzle area ratio of 1.47. There is no
breather or inlet ramp in the collector; the collector inlet radius is 38 mm. The spacing
between the nozzle exit and collector is variable by placing a spool piece in the back
leg. All tests include a floor of the required length in the test section; however, this is
not shown in Figure 1. The configuration is approximately 1:40 scale compared to a
18.6 sq-m (200-sqft) nozzle full-scale facility.

Figure 1 ASE Model Wind Tunnel

4 TEST RESULTS
When used with the conventional collector as shown in Figure 1, the facility resonated
at several speeds as presented in Figure 2. When tested with a collector having an
inclined inlet the pulsations were eliminated; this is also shown in Figure 2. More
information on that program is included in Reference 15. The United States Patent
and Trademark Office awarded this unique configuration Patent No. 6,748,800 and
an additional patent is pending.

Total SPL 0-1000 Hz - dB

Total sound results

43 to 304 kph
110
105
100
95

L = 350

90
85
80
75
43

58

78

106

143

194

262

Test Speed - kph (log scale)

Total SPL with Proposed Collector @ 224 mm

Total SPL - dB - 0-1kHz

Proposed

18dB / Octave

100
95
90
85
80
75
43

52

62

74

89 106 127 152 182 218 262

Test Speed - kph - (log scale)

Figure 2 Elimination of Pulsing Using Inclined Collector

Further work was done to evaluate this new configuration that avoided the pulsations.
A summary of that work is included as Figure 3. Note the relation of collector angle
and the test section length; the minimum longitudinal length of the sloping collector to
avoid pulsing is about 10% of the test section length. The ellipses indicate the use a
a nozzle extension.(a flow forming section) that appears to assist the inclined
collector to avoid pulsations; the longest extension is of the nozzle hydraulic
diameter. Figure 4 presents the result of the increased length on static pressure; with
the longer test sections the static pressure is virtually constant for a much longer
distance, about 70% of the test section length. The details of that effort can be found
in Reference 16.
Resonance Conditions

Collector Angle - deg

Resonance?

No

Few

Yes

50
40

Non-Resonant

30
20
Resonant

10
0
0

10

Test Section Length - L/Dn

Figure 3 Collector Position for Resonance Conditions

Floor Pressure Distribution

Pressure Coefficient

0.15

Daimler
Chrysler
AAWT
L/D~3

0.1

0.05

34 deg,
L/D=6.4

45 deg,
L/D=8.0

0
0

Distance from Nozzle Exit - X/Dn

Figure 4 Increase of Length of Uniform Static Pressure

In Reference 17, these collector configurations were tested for the effect on the Drag
of MIRA Pickup models. The results are presented herein as Figure 5. The results for
the short test section , i.e. (L/d)ts ~3 with the straight collector are similar to those
seen by others (see References 18 and 19). That is, when the model is close to the
nozzle the measured drag is higher than when the model is close to the collector, and
there is no range of model position that gives constant drag data for more than 10%

blockage. However, with the long test section and the inclined collector, while the
drag near the nozzle and collector is similar to the test section, the drag data is
virtually constant for a significant portion of the test section. Additional data is
presented in Figure 6 where model blockage is increased to 60% and the drag
measurements are virtually the same. Note that this is true when the front of the
model is more than of the nozzle diameter from the nozzle exit and the back of the
model is more than of the collector diameter from the pressure rise. This is in some
agreement with Reference 20.

Drag Coefficient Ratio Cd / Cd avg

MIRA Pickup Model

Closed Symbols - L/dn~8 with 45deg Collector
(Open Symbols - L/dn~3 with Straight Collector)
1.2
Model
10%

1.1
1

15%

Start of
Pressur

0.9

20%

0.8
0

Distance From Nozzle Exit to Front of Model X/dn

Figure 5 Increased Length of Uniform Drag Measurements

MIRA Pickup Model
(Pressure Rise @ x/dn =5.7)

Drag Coefficient Ratio Cd/Cd avg

1.20

REAR
OF
MODEL

FRONT
OF
MODEL

1.15
1.10

Model
Blockage
%
10

1.05

20

1.00

40

0.95

60

0.90
0.85
0.80
0

Distance, Nozzle Exit to Model - x/dn

Figure 6 Nearly Constant Drag Measured up to 60% Blockage

All of these points are summarized in Figure 7; if the model is kept between the solid
lines, the drag measurements have been nearly constant. The resulting limits for
open jet wind tunnels are shown in Figure 8 which confirms the pseudo-standard
condition of 10% blockage with standard cars, i.e. (L/d)m~3, in a conventional open
jet test section with (L/d)ts~3. This figure also presents the situation for models with
longer(L/d)m, e.g. Formula 1 cars; those models require longer test sections, or lower
blockage.

Test Section Length - L/d n

8
7

Useful Test
Region

Front Limit

Rear Limit

0.7*L

1.0*L

2
1
0
0

Test Section Location - X/dn

Figure 7 Concept of Useful Test Section

5 APPLICATION TO FORMULA 1 CARS

Since a typical Formula 1 car has a longer aspect ratio than a conventional car the
situation is analyzed according to Figure 8. The Formula 1 car with (L/d)m~4 for
(L/d)ts=3, requires blockage less than 8%, or, for 10% blockage, a test section with
(L/d)ts>3.3. This assumes that the static pressure is relatively constant, a condition
not found in some open jet wind tunnels.

Maximum Allowable Blockage

60%
50%
Model L/d

40%

3
30%

4
5

20%
10%
0%
0

Test Section Length - L/dn

Figure 8 Relation of Blockage to Length of Test Section

This brings an important new insight to open jet testing. With the longer open jet test
sections (as allowed by the inclined collector to avoid resonance), larger blockage
can be used and either a larger model can be used, or a smaller nozzle is possible.
In the first case, with larger models, more fidelity can be put into the model giving
better data. In the second case, with smaller nozzles, the cost of the facility can be
reduced. That is, the nozzle size determines the size (cost) of several parts of the
facility, specifically the tunnel shell, the fan/motor/drive, and the cooling. If the
blockage is allowed to increase from 10% to 20%, the cost of these items may be
reduced roughly 43% for a full scale facility. In accordance with Figure 8, with 20%
blockage, the test section must have a longer(L/d)ts. For a Formula 1 car with (L/d)m

=4, the test section (L/d)ts must be greater than 4, longer than previous designs, but
well within the above tested range and at far less cost than a facility with 10%
blockage.
Therefore, on the basis of the following Formula 1 car dimensions, the dimensions of
a full scale and half scale open jet test sections are provided in Table 1 for both 10%
and 20% blockage. The plenum area is based on the results presented in Reference
17, 9 times the nozzle area; and the distance from the front of the model to the exit of
the nozzle extension complies with Figure 8, of the nozzle diameter, and the rear of
the model is of the collector diameter in front of the pressure rise (assumed at 70%
of the test section length).
Formula 1 Full Scale Dimensions
Height
0.95 meters
Width
1.8 meters
Frontal Area
1.5 sq meter
Length
5 meters
(L/d)m
4.1
As is noted in Figure 5 and in Figure 6 the baseline data is for a MIRA pickup
configuration. It is possible that models with significantly different shapes (such as
vans or race cars) will have a different set of criteria. However, the defining distances
(much to the surprise of the author) do not relate to model size (as shown in Figure
7). Therefore, it might be possible that various types of vehicles can be tested with
these same criteria. Since minimal effect has been observed on measured drag
(even up to 60% blockage) blockages greater than 20% may also be possible.
Table 1 Proposed Wind Tunnel Test Section Parameters Formlua 1 (L/d)m=4.1
Full Scale

Half Scale

Blockage

10%

20%

10%

20%

Test Section (L/d)ts

3.42

4.19

3.42

4.19

Nozzle Area sqm

15.00

7.50

3.75

1.88

Nozzle Extension m

2.90

2.05

1.45

1.03

Test Section Length m

13.3

11.5

6.62

5.74

Collector Angle deg

20

25

20

25

Plenum Area sqm

135

68

34

17

Distance front of model to nozzle - m

1.94

1.37

0.97

0.69

6 OPTIONAL TEST SECTION FOR COMBINED APPLICATION

The capability of testing at high blockage gives a unique capability to open jet wind
tunnels. The same facility can be used for both full scale testing and sub scale testing
without the costs of a facility designed for 10% blockage of the full scale vehicle. The
blockage conditions are shown in Figure 9. As example, if a wind tunnel is designed
for a full scale vehicle at 40% blockage (at roughly 2/3 of the costs of present full
scale wind tunnels with 10% blockage), a 50% scale model would have 10%
blockage, a very useful test configuration. As mentioned above, the test section
length must be designed for the longer (full scale) model; an example of this dualpurpose test section is shown in Figure 10.
45%
Full Scale Blockage

40%
35%
Model Scale

30%
25%

50%

20%

60%

15%
10%
5%
0%
0%

5%

10%

15%

Scale Blockage

Figure 9 Full Scale Blockage in Scale Tunnels

Figure 10 Demonstration of Dual Purpose Test Section showing either Full Scale (at 40% blockage) or
Half-Scale (at 10% blockage) models in test area

7 CONCLUSION
Recent developments in open jet wind tunnel design have eliminated the pulsing of
the wind tunnel for a wide range of test section configurations. Along with that
development, it has been shown that aerodynamic drag testing can be done in longer
test sections and with higher blockage than previously found possible.
Due to its longer (L/d)m, the Formula 1 race car requires a longer test section than for
typical passenger cars. Based on the test results described herein, the new, longer
open jet test section with the inclined collector is expected to give improved
aerodynamic results for Formula 1 cars. In spite of this requirement for a longer test
section, the new, high blockage, test section design substantially lowers both the

initial cost and the operating costs of open jet wind tunnels for testing Formula 1 race
cars.
REFERENCES
1. Schulz-Hausmann, F., and Vagt, J., Influence of Test-Section Length and
Collector Area on Measurements in 3/4 Open Jet Automotive Wind Tunnels,
SAE 880251, March 1988
2. Arnette, Stephen A., and Buchanan, Tony D., On Low-Frequency Pressure
Pulsations and Static Pressure Distribution in Open Jet Automotive Wind
Tunnels, SAE 1999-01-0813.
3. Ginevsky, A., Self-Oscillation Flow Controls in Free-Jet Wind Tunnels,
AGARD-CP-585, Paper No.27, meeting October 1996, published June 1997
4. Jacobs, E., Investigation of Air Flow in Open-Throat Wind Tunnels, NACA
Report 322, 1929.
5. Holthusen, H. and Kooi, J.W., Model and Full Scale Investigations of the Low
Frequency Vibration Phenomena of the DNW Open Jet, AGARD CP-585,
Paper 26-1, meeting October 1996, published June 1997
6. Wickern, Gerhard, von Hessen, Wilhelm, Wallman, Steffen, Wind Tunnel
Pulsations and their Active Suppression, SAE 2000-01-0869, Mar 2000.
7. Evert, F., and Miehling, H., Active Supporession of Buffeting at the Audi
AAWT: Operational Experiences and Enhancements of the Control Scheme,
SAE 2004-01-0804, March 2004
8. von Heesen, W., and Hoepfer, M., Suppression of Wind Tunnel Buffeting by
Active Control, SAE 2004-01-0805, March 2004
9. Rennie, M., Effect of Jet Length on Pressure Fluctuations in 3/4 Open-Jet
Wind Tunnels, Motor Industry Research Association Vehicle Aerodynamics
2000 Symposium, October 2000.
10. Hucho, Wolf-Heinrich, Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles Fourth Edition, SAE
International, 1998
11. Walter, J., Duell, E., Martindale, B., Arnette, S., Nagle, P., Gulker, W., Wallis,
S., and Williams, J., The Driveability Test Facility Wind Tunnel No. 8, SAE
2002-01-0252.
12. Walter, J., Duell, E., Martindale, B., Arnette, S., Geierman, R., Gleason, M,
and Romberg, G., The DaimlerChrysler Full-Scale Aeroacoustic Wind
Tunnel, SAE 2003-01-0426, Mar 2003.
13. Mercker, E, Wiedemann, J., On the Correction of Interference Effects in Open
Jet Wind Tunnels, SAE 960671, March 1996.
14. Cutler, M,The tunnels of raw speed, Business F1, November, 2003.
15. Lacey, J., A Study of the Pulsations in a 3/4 Open Jet Wind Tunnel, SAE
2002-01-0251, March 2002.
16. Lacey, J., Further Tests of a Non-Resonant Configuration, SAE 2003-010451, March 2003.
17. Lacey, J., Drag Measurements at High Blockage, SAE 2004-01-0671, March
2004
18. SAE, Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles Open Throat Wind Tunnel
Adjustment, Surface Vehicle Information Report, J2071, June 1994.
19. Hoffman, J., Martindale, B., Arnette, S., Williams, J., Wallis, S., Effect of Test
Section Configuration on Aerodynamic Drag Measurements, SAE 2001-010631, March 2001
20. Katzoff, S., Gardner, C., Diesendruck, L., Eisenstadt, B., Linear Theory of
Boundary Effects in Open Jet Wind Tunnels with Finite Jet Lengths, NACA
Technical Report 976, Dec 20, 1948.