Advertisement

The Drag Related Flow Field Characteristics of Trucks and Buses

  • W. T. MasonJr.
  • P. S. Beebe

Abstract

Non-aerodynamic factors are largely responsible for the size and shape of contemporary trucks and buses. The results of wind tunnel experiments with 1/7-scale tractor-trailer and bus models are used to identify major drag producing regions of the flow fields, and to document some of the detailed characteristics. Some modifications of both the forebody and base flow fields are made in order to explore the practical potential for drag reduction. The largest drag reductions are shown to be achievable by changing the forebody flow field. By controlling flow separation from leading edges, either by modifying body contours or by employing add-on devices, apparent minimum drag limits have been identified. The possibility of even lower drag levels within existing constraints is analyzed. At the end, non-zero yaw drag characteristics are briefly discussed.

Keywords

Drag Coefficient Drag Reduction Guide Vane Aerodynamic Drag Corner Rounding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauer, P. T., Servais, R. A. (1974), “An Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Truck Aerodynamics,” Proceedings of the Conference/ Workshop on the Reduction of the Aerodynamic Drag of Trucks, California Institute of Technology, October 10–11, National Science Foundation RANN Document Center, Washington, D.C., pp. 55–61.Google Scholar
  2. Buckley, Jr., F. T., Marks, C. H., Walston, Jr., W H. (1974), “An Assessment of Drag Reduction Techniques Based on Observations of Flow Past Two-Dimensional Tractor-Trailer Models,” Proceedings of the Conference/Workshop on the Reduction of the Aerodynamic Drag of Trucks, California Institute of Technology, October 10–11, National Science Foundation RANN Document Center, Washington, D.C., pp. 15–31.Google Scholar
  3. Carr, G. W. (1967), “The Aerodynamics of Basic Shapes for Road Vehicles, Part 1, Simple Rectangular Bodies,” Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) Report No. I968/2, November.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, K. R. (1976), “Wind Tunnel Investigations of Eight Commercially Available Devices for the Reduction of Aerodynamic Drag on Trucks,” Roads and Transportation Association of Canada National Conference, Quebec City, September.Google Scholar
  5. Fitzgerald, J. M. (1974), “Field Experience Report on Drag Reduction of the Nose Cone,” Proceedings of the Conference/Workshop on the Reduction of the Aerodynamic Drag of Trucks, California Institute of Technology, October 10–11, National Science Foundation RANN Document Center, Washington, D.C., pp. 153–159.Google Scholar
  6. Flynn, H., Kyropoulos, P. (1962), “Truck Aerodynamics,” SAE Transactions, Volume 70, pp. 297–308.Google Scholar
  7. Frey, K. (1933), “Verminderung des Stroemungswiderstandes von Koepern durch Leitflaechen,” Forschung Ing. Wesen, March’April, pp. 67–74.Google Scholar
  8. Hoerner, S. F. (1965), Fluid-Dynamic Drag, published by the author, Brick Town, N.J., p. 3–12 and p. 3–28.Google Scholar
  9. Kirsch, J. W., Garg, S. K., Bettes, W. H. (1973), “Drag Reduction of Bluff Vehicles with Airvanes, ” SAE 730686, Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Kirsch, J. W., Bettes, W. H. (1974), “Feasibility Study of the S3 Air Vane and Other Truck Drag Reduction Devices,” Proceedings of the Conference/Workshop on the Reduction of the Aerodynamic Drag of Trucks, California Institute of Technology, October 10–11, National Science Foundation RANNDocument’Center, Washington, D.C., pp. 89–120.Google Scholar
  11. Lissaman, P.B.S. Lambie, J. H. (1974), “Reduction of Aerodynamic Drag of Large Highway Trucks,” Proceedings of the Conference/Workshop on the Reduction of the Aerodynamic Drag of Trucks, California Institute of Technology, October 10–11, National Science Foundation RANN Document Center, Washington, D.C., pp. 139–151.Google Scholar
  12. Marks, C. H., Buckley, Jr., F. T., Walston, Jr., W. H (1976), “An Evaluation of the Aerodynamic Drag Reductions Produced by Various Cab Roof Fairings and a Gap Seal on Tractor-Trailer Trucks,” SAE 760105, Detroit.Google Scholar
  13. Mason, Jr., W. T., Beebe, P. S. Schenkel, F. K. (1973), “An Aerodynamic Test Facility for Scale-Model Automobiles,” SAE 730238, Detroit.Google Scholar
  14. Mason, Jr., W. T. (1975), “Wind Tunnel Development of the Dragfoiler - A System for Reducing Tractor-Trailer Aerodynamic Drag,” SAE 750705, Seattle.Google Scholar
  15. Moeller, E. (1951), “Luftwiderstandsmessungen am VW-Lieferwagen,” Automobiltechnische Zeitschrift, Volume 53, No. 6, pp. 153–156.Google Scholar
  16. Montoya, L. C., Steers, L. L. (1974), “Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Tests on a Full-Scale Tractor-Trailer Combination with Several Add-on Devices,” Proceedings of the Conference/ Workshop on the Reduction of the Aerodynamic Drag of Trucks, California Institute of Technology, October 10–11, National Science Foundation RANN Document Center, Washington, D.C., pp. 65–88.Google Scholar
  17. Prandtl, L., Tietjens, O. G. (1934), Applied Hydro-and Aeromechanics, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1957, pp. 118–121.Google Scholar
  18. Saunders, W. S. (1966), “Apparatus for Reducing Linear and Lateral Wind Resistance in a Tractor-Trailer Combination Vehicle,” U.S. Patent No. 3, 241, 876.Google Scholar
  19. Schlichting, H. (1960), Boundary Layer Theory, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, p. 34.Google Scholar
  20. Sherwood, A. W. (1953), “Wind Tunnel Test of Trailmobile Trailers,” University of Maryland Wind Tunnel Report No. 85, June.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. T. MasonJr.
    • 1
  • P. S. Beebe
    • 1
  1. 1.General Motors Research LaboratoriesWarrenUSA

Personalised recommendations