Jake Owens and Myles White

April 4, 2016

Table Of Contents

1
Aero Package Simulation (7)

Conclusion (14)

Long Haul Trucking Fuel Efficiency Proposal (3)

Equation (1) (5)

Equation (2) (12)

Equation (3) . (12)

Figure 1 (5)

Figure 2 (6)

Figure 3 (7)

Figure 4 (8)

Figure 5 (9)

Figure 6 (10)

Figure 7 (12)

Simulations ... (4)

Velocity Profiles .. (11)

2
 Long Haul Trucking Fuel-Efficiency Proposal

Long Haul Trucking will always need to be ahead of the curve in efficiency and

cost effectiveness in order to stay ahead of their competitors. What better way to be

more efficient and cost effective than with better fuel efficiency. The big question is this:

How can semi trucks be more fuel efficient? The most significant factor to fuel efficiency

is reducing the drag. Why alter the semi itself when the fuel efficiency could be greatly

reduced from alterations to the trailer. Even simple alterations can reduce the drag

enough so that fuel efficiency is increased. This proposal is intended to present the

calculations of a standard semi and trailer model compared to two simple alterations to

the trailer as well as the proposed complete Aero Package, hopefully succeeding in

convincing Long Haul Trucking to integrate the Aero Package into a new trailer design.

The tests were performed on four different models: The base model with no

alterations, a model with back flaps in the rear of the trailer, a model with side skirts on

the trailer, and a model with both the back flaps and the side skirts on the trailer. Tests

performed on Autodesk CFD Pro were simulations testing the drag on the trailer on a

simulated open road in specific conditions. The materials used in the simulation were

Aluminum Alloy 6061 for the solid semi-trailer model and the fluid surrounding the solid

was set to be air at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Conditions included the following: a

rectangular boundary area of approximately 1600 inches by 256 inches by 330 inches,

3
a wind velocity of 65 mph directly facing the front end of the semi, a slip symmetry

condition which simulates a road surface underneath the semi, and standard air

pressure (1 atm) on all other sides of the boundary. A mesh size of 0.5 was used in

order to determine the area of each cross sectional area being analyzed through

iteration. This allows the simulation to produce accurate results which do not require a

nearly infinite amount of iterations to calculate. The model used is a simplified version of

a basic semi and trailer, excluding small details that can negatively affect the simulation

results. Simulation results can sometimes be inaccurate, so hand calculations were

made in order to determine an acceptable range for simulation results. The results of

these calculations as well as the results for each simulation will be highlighted below.

Simualtions

The first simulation performed on a base model of a basic semi truck and trailer

was used as a baseline for comparisons of performance to the altered models. Using

the conditions stated, the test was performed to steady state conditions; the wall

calculator shows resulting forces on the truck in component form. The results show a

strong force in the negative Y direction as the truck was set to be traveling in the

positive Y direction. The wall calculations performed by the simulation are considered

consistent due to the steady state conditions rendered during the test. The velocity

profile shows the Semi and trailer in a steady state condition at 65 mph under 1

atmosphere of pressure:

Figure 1- Velocity/Pressure Profile Base Model

4
The velocity/pressure profile also shows the areas of severe turbulence caused by the

air-flow around the model. The areas underneath and behind the trailer are shown to

have the lowest pressure. The resultant calculations in the negative Y direction were as

follows: 3436, 3377, 3468 newtons. The average value of 3427 Newtons was

determined to be the net force of drag on the semi truck. This is the base value which is

taken to be the average amount of drag exerted on a typical Long Haul Trucking rig.

The magnitude calculated by the simulation fits in the range of the hand calculated drag

range of 2203 newtons to 3635 Newtons, these values were calculated by using the

equation;

Fd= CdV2A (1)

Where F= Force of drag, C= Coefficient of Drag, = density of material, V= velocity, A=

Area. It shows that the value calculated in the simulation is acceptable and accurate for

comparison to a Long Haul Trucking semi-truck.

5
 The next simulation was performed on a model with an addition of back flaps to

rear surface of the trailer. The test was performed in a simulation using the same

conditions as the baseline semi test in order to determine the change influenced by the

back flaps. The back flaps placed on the rear of the trailer are intended to decrease the

impact of the lower pressure pocket created by the windstream behind the semi trailer.

The precise dimensions and placement of these flaps can be seen in the figure below.

The steady state conditions can be seen in the figure below, showing the profile of the

semi model with a side skirt at 65 mph and 1 atm air pressure:

Figure 2- Tail Flap Dimensions

Figure 3- Velocity/Pressure Profile Tail Flap Model

6
 The profile visualizes the drag reduction by showing the reduction in the pressure

difference directly behind the trailer. The wall calculator showed a range of values

including: -3125, -3096, and -3286 Newtons parallel to the Y axis. The average value of

-3169 newtons was taken as the total drag on the semi. Compare this value of -3169 to

the force seen in the baseline test of -3427 and the drag is reduced by a factor of nearly

300 newtons. This is the value which can be equated to the total increase in efficiency

to be implemented to the Long Haul Trucking fleet. Total cost and efficiency calculations

were made in order to compare all three tests to the baseline. Cost comparisons will be

discussed in terms of all four model simulations.

The third simulation was performed on the semi and trailer model with additional

side skirts placed in the gap between the front and rear wheels of the trailer. These side

skirts are place on both sides of the trailer in an attempt to shield the underside of the

trailer from excess wind. The simulations performed on the model used the same

conditions as previous tests in order to compare final results of independent variables.

The precise dimensions and placement of these side skirts as well as the velocity profile

can be seen in the below figures:

7
 Figure 4- Side Skirt Dimensions

Figure 5- Velocity/Pressure Profile Side Skirt Model

As visualized by the velocity profile there is a significant reduction in the pressure

difference underneath the car. Despite the increase in the area of the blue color, the

increase in conformity shows that the pressure differences have been decreased,

reducing drag. The wall calculator displayed values that remained consistent with the

acceptable range; they were however even lower than the values calculated for the

back flaps. The magnitudes calculated for the forces parallel with the Y axis were as

follows: -2784, -2801, and -2767 Newtons for an average value of -2784 Newtons. This

shows the total force of drag on the semi and trailer model with the side skirt addition

has a total drag of 2784 Newtons. The calculated drag compared to that of the baseline

8
simulation 3427 Newtons is approximately 600 Newtons less. Additionally there was a

difference of approximately 300 Newtons between the drag reduction experienced by

the side skirt versus the reduction experienced by the tail flaps.

Based on the previous results, the fourth simulation performed on a model with

the back flaps on the rear surface of the trailer as well as the side skirts underneath was

expected to result in a significant decrease in the drag. The final test was performed

with the same conditions as previous simulations in order to compare the resulting

forces on the model. The same dimensions and layout were used for the back flap and

side skirt in the final test. A velocity profile shows the reduction in pressure differentials

both underneath the trailer as well as behind the trailer. Compared to previous

simulation profiles the profile in Figure 6 also shows the most streamline behind the

trailer:

Figure 6- Velocity/Pressure Profile Aero Package Model

The Y component values calculated for the final model are as follows: -2445, -2657, and

-2550 Newtons, resulting in an average value 2551 Newtons to be taken as the net

force of drag on the model. In comparison to the base model, this is a drag reduction of

9
nearly 900 Newtons; it is far less drag than all three previous simulations. The result, as

expected, is that the back flap and side skirt additions to the trailer decrease the force of

drag most significantly.

Velocity Profiles

The velocity profiles, aforementioned, on page two and five show the areas

higher pressure in red and areas of lower pressure in blue. The high pressure areas are

shown as red, and the low pressure areas are shown as, blue. By comparing the base

model, on page two, to the side skirt model on page, on page five, it is easy to notice

that there is a large amount of high pressure directly in front of the truck, which is

pictured by red coloring in the northwest corner of the diagram. The side skirt model

does not have as much red coloring because of the overall reduced pressure, this

reduction in pressure come from the application of the side skirts, which redirects the

areas of high pressure and causes the truck to travel a lot smoother. Also notice the

increase in low pressure around the back tire; indicated by the blue area around and

under the back of the truck. The diagram on page five shows yellow coloring in front of

the tire and some green behind it. This shows a pressure difference around the tire

which causes a force to pull back on the surface of the tire, as well as a force pulling on

the back surface of the lower semi underneath the trailer.

Figure 7- Cost Efficiency Graph

10
 This is a set of plotted points showing the cost efficiency for each truck, base model,

side skirt model, back flaps model, and combination of the two. The cost were calculated by

using the equation:

= (2)

Or

= 6.6798 (3)

Fd , again, is the force of drag in newtons, s is the distance travelled, c is the cost per unit

volume of gasoline, E is is the energy, per unit volume, used by the truck, and lastly C is the

percent efficiency used by the truck.The second equation came from the first cost efficiency

equation, since s, c, E, and C are all constants they can be calculated together as such.

11
 The first plotted point is set a force 2551 newtons and, Cost $17,040 which is the

calculated plot for the combination. The second plotted point is for just the side skirt which had

an average measured force of 2784 newtons and a cost efficiency of $18,646. The third plot is

for just the back flaps, it has an average measured force of 3169 newtons and a cost efficiency

is $21,225, and the last plotted point is of the base model, it has an average force of 3427

newtons and cost efficiency of $22,880. The difference in cost from the base model to the

combination of the side skirt and the back flaps is $5840 per year, which is a big difference in

cost. Looking at the entire fleet of trucks there is a total potential saving of $584,000. After ten

years of driving with both the side skirt and back flaps it would cost $58,400 less than without

them. The cost of each side skirt assembly is $2200 and $2800 for each back flap. The total

cost to implement an ideal setup for the most fuel-efficient and cost effective Aero Package is

approximately $500,000. This give Long Haul Trucking a payback period of less than a year if it

were to implement the entire Aero Package to a fleet of 100 trucks.

Conclusion

The information above proves that the Aero Package, which is the combination of both

the side skirts and the back flaps, is the most fuel-efficient choice out of all four combinations

mentioned in the report. Comparatively smaller cost savings are seen with either the back flap

or side skirts alone, with cost reductions of approximately $1700 per year for just the back flap

model and approximately $4300 per year for the side skirt model. The model with a combination

gives a cost reduction of up to $5800 per year. This suggested model would render a total cost

of $500,000; a deficit that can be earned back in less than a year with the cost effectiveness of

the new model. Data and testing shows a total percent savings of over 25% the annual cost of

fuel. After the initial payback period of a year, Long Haul Trucking would be able to maintain a

12
consistently lower cost of transportation than it does presently. This is a huge cost reduction

which would give Long Haul Trucking a huge advantage over its competitors.

13