Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

2012-01-2045
Published 09/24/2012
Copyright © 2012 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2012-01-2045
saecomveh.saejournals.org

A Review of Reynolds Number Effects on the Aerodynamics of

Commercial Ground Vehicles
Richard Wood
SOLUS-Solutions and Technologies LLC

ABSTRACT
A review of Reynolds number scaling and high Reynolds number simulation for commercial ground vehicles is
presented. The supporting data was extracted from published wind tunnel tests, coastdown tests and computational studies
for complete vehicles and vehicle components. For complex vehicles the data suggest that the use of forced transition for
higher Reynolds number simulation is a viable test technique however various component specific schemes may be
required to replicate the aerodynamics of a full-scale vehicle. The Reynolds number sensitivity of; boundary layer
transition control, surface curvature effects, bluff base flows, wheel/tire aerodynamics, and complete vehicle aerodynamics
is presented. The data show that the width-based transcritical Reynolds number for commercial vehicles is between 1 and 3
million with the averaged values for edge radius, wheels and full vehicle data sets between 1.6 and 1.8 million. A
minimum width-based transcritical Reynolds number value of 3 million is recommended for simulating the aerodynamics
of full-scale commercial vehicles operating at a width-based Reynolds number greater than 3 million. If the dominant
aerodynamic and fluid dynamic features of the vehicle are well established the minimum width-based transcritical
Reynolds number value that may be used is 2 million. To ensure an accurate simulation of full-scale vehicles operating
below the 3 million transcritical value future studies should be performed at the vehicle full-scale Reynolds number.

CITATION: Wood, R., "A Review of Reynolds Number Effects on the Aerodynamics of Commercial Ground Vehicles,"
SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 5(2):2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-2045.
____________________________________

INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade there has been a growing acceptance
of aerodynamic drag reduction as a viable fuel economy
improvement technology for commercial vehicle.
Aerodynamic vehicle shaping and aftermarket drag reduction
technologies appear regularly on light, medium and heavy
trucks and trailers. Supporting this growing interest is the
increased use of aerodynamic testing and computational tools
by all sectors of the industry. Typically commercial vehicle
wind tunnel test use scale models with vehicle boundary
layers that fail to represent the critical characteristics found
on a full-scale vehicle. Computational studies of
representative vehicles may also fail to accurately represent
the critical boundary layer characteristics found on a full-
scale vehicle. Additionally full-scale coast down testing used
to obtain high-speed aerodynamic data are performed over a
broad range of test speeds without an understanding of the
change in the off-body and on-body flow conditions.
For aerodynamic technology to mature it is critical that
the use of all tools is based on the governing fundamental
aerodynamic and fluid dynamic criteria. In aerodynamics the
most critical criteria is Reynolds number which guides
vehicle design principles and governs the use of testing and
analysis tools. A review of the literature [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57,
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104,
105, 106, 107] indicates that despite the rapid increase in the
use of aerodynamic technology the industry has not fully
embraced Reynolds number scaling and simulation methods
as a critical testing or analysis criteria. A factor affecting the
slow adoption may be the 0.7 ×106 minimum Reynolds
number claimed in SAE J1252 Recommended Practice [105].
Though SAE J1252 does not provide a reference for the
minimum Reynolds number value it is most likely based on
legacy data sets from the 1960s and 1970s. These data sets
are for aerodynamically sharp-edged (i.e. small edge radii)
bluff body vehicles that are known to have aerodynamic
forces and moments that vary little with Reynolds number,
see Anderson [2], Buckley [13, 15], Cooper [20, 23] and
Watkins [92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97].

628
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012)
The continued acceptance of the 0.7 ×106 minimum
Reynolds number value is surprising given that the validity of
this value has been challenged by leading ground-vehicle
aerodynamicists beginning in 1978. In 1978 Hucho [50]
raised the initial concern, in 1981 Gilhaus [42] suggested a
minimum width based Reynolds number value of 1.6 million,
Cooper suggest 1.0 million in 1982 [20] and then 2.0 million
in 1985 [25], Drollinger supported a value between 1 and 2
million in 1987 [33], and Olson offered 1.7 in 1992 [64].
Storms in 2004 [84] executed a sub-scale model study in a
NASA pressure wind tunnel that was able to obtain full scale
Reynolds number data on a 0.125 scale model. Storms test
data clearly suggest that the minimum width-based Reynolds
number is greater than 1 million and may be as large as 3
million. These differences in the recommended minimum
Reynolds number may be attributed to differences in the test
facility, the characteristics of the specific vehicle in question
or may be dictated by a specific component on the vehicle.
To address each of these possible factors the current study
used a large data sample for the full vehicle as well as several
vehicle components that have the potential to impact the
behavior of the total vehicle. The study reviewed the
available literature to develop an understanding of Reynolds
number scaling and simulation methods on the aerodynamics
of the total vehicle, leading edge radius, bluff base and tires/
wheels. The information presented in this paper has been
extracted from published works and where available accepted
correlation parameters and summary data plots are presented.
The evaluation of complete vehicles made use of references
6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 33,
36, 37, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 64, 70, 73, 74, 77, 80,
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100. Edge
shaping analysis is based on the work of Copper [25] in
addition to references 1, 3, 7, 16, 32, 42, 50, 54, 55, 63, 64,
65, 66, 72, 76, 78, 90, 101, 103. Bluff base evaluations
focused on boattail effects as documented in references 11,
12, 17, 25, 35, 36, 39, 47, 61, 62, 67, 68, 84, 90. The
investigation of wheel aerodynamics is based on references 4,
5, 19, 31, 38, 46, 53, 57, 58, 59, 71, 80, 88, 92, 98, 102. In
support each of these vehicle and component studies a review
of boundary layer forced transition effects made use of
references 2, 8, 10, 14, 25, 26, 28, 34, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, 60,
75, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 99.
DISCUSSION
Reynolds number (Re) is the most critical parameter for
the aerodynamic study and design of commercial vehicles [8,
9, 49]. However the supporting data and information guiding
the application of Reynolds number scaling criteria for
ground vehicles is limited compared to that available to the
aircraft and watercraft communities. The Reynolds number
data used in this study was extracted from a published wind
tunnel tests, coastdown tests, and computational studies for
complete vehicles and vehicle components. To provide
context, the data analysis presented is compared to relevant
629
SAE Recommended Practices [104, 105, 106, 107]. The
remaining sections of the paper will discuss the Reynolds
sensitivity of boundary layer transition control, curvature
effects, bluff base flows, wheels and complete vehicle. The
final section of this paper summarizes the Reynolds number
data into a single chart to define a width based transcritical
Re value for commercial vehicles.
Background
Reynolds number is used in aerodynamic studies to
characterize critical on-body and off-body flow features such
as the vehicle boundary layer state, boundary layer thickness,
flow separation, flow expansion, shear layer stability and
flow reattachment. Each of these fluid dynamic
characteristics plays an important role in guiding both
experimental as well as computational studies. Specific
aerodynamic design and analysis areas of interest are wind
tunnel testing, coast down testing [107], computational
design, advanced surface shaping, flow control technology
and time dependent atmospheric effects.
The first step in understanding the impact of Reynolds
number in vehicle design is the determination of the
minimum test Reynolds number for wind tunnel testing [20,
42, 50], also known as the transcritical Reynolds number
[69], see figure 1. The terminology of Roshko [69] is used to
describe the relevant Re regions. Figure 1 shows
representative variations in CD with Re for a simple bluff
body (sphere), see upper graph, and a typical bluff body
vehicle, see lower graph. The variation in CD with Re for a
bluff body has the following characterisitics; 1) the highest
drag occurs at subcritical Re values where the boundary layer
and all separations are laminar, 2) the start of the abrupt drag
reduction is noted as the critical Re (Recr) and coincides with
the start of boundary layer transition from laminar to
turbulent, 3) the transitional range of Re covering the large
variations in drag reflects the progression in the extent of the
boundary layer transition from laminar to turbulent, and 4)
transcritical Re (Retr) is the point at which a majority of the
boundary layer has transitioned to turbulent flow on the body
and the drag level becomes invariant with further increase in
Re. It is important to note that the drag level in the
transcritical range may exhibit small variations, with
increasing Re, due to changes in boundary layer state, flow
separations, and flow reattachment.
Vehicle aerodynamic design and/or analysis studies
should be performed at Re values in which the vehicle
aerodynamics as well as on-body and off-body flow
conditions match those of the full-scale vehicle under
operational conditions. This may require the representative
Re to be greater or less than the transcritical Re value, this
point is graphically depicted in figure 2 [32]. Presented in
figure 2 is a portion of the data obtained by Delaney [32]
which show variations in CD with Re for two-dimensional
cylinders of different edge radii. Depending on the
operational speed of a full-scale vehicle (see shaded vertical
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
630 Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012)
bar) the representative Re value may be either in the
subcritical range (sharp edge bluff body upper curve),
transitional range (middle curve) or transcritical range
(smooth bluff body lower curve). Note the transcritical Re for
the sharp edge bluff body (upper curve) would occur at a Re
value that is greater than shown on the figure. These data
show that the transcritical Re may vary over a broad Re range
for small changes to these simple shapes.
Figure 1. Representation of the variation in CD with Re
for a sphere and a typical bluff vehicle.
Figure 2. Variation in CD with Rel due to edge radius for
2D cylinders.
Forced Transtion
The on-body flow, off-body flow and the aerodynamics of
a vehicle can change significantly with changes in Re. The
Re for a specific vehicle will vary with a change in the
velocity of the air stream (or vehicle speed) and/or by a
change the density of the air (fluid) passing over the vehicle
surface. It is known that the critical and transcritical Re can
occur at lower values by forcing boundary layer (BL)
transition with the use of either roughness elements placed on
the surface of the body [8, 10, 25, 26, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, 60,
89] or by introducing turbulence into the air-flow upstream of
the body [2, 14, 28, 34, 75, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99].
Representative forced boundary layer transition test results,
showing the impact of forced transition on the CD, are shown
in figures 3 and 4 for generic vehicle components and in
figure 5 for a combination vehicle.
The chart shown in figure 3 is from a report by Cooper
[25]. The test program investigated leading edge radius
effects on generic bluff body models over a broad Re range
for both free BL transition and the use of grit roughness
elements to force BL transition. Test data is for non-
dimensional radius values (η=r/A.5) of 0.025, 0.050 and
0.063. The data for η =0.063 show that the use of grit reduces
the critical and transcritical Re values by 50%. In contrast,
the forced transition data for the relative sharp edge body (η
=0.025) varies little from the free transition data indicating
that the sharp edge body is insensitive to Re over the test
range.
Figure 3. Effect of boundary layer transition on ReA
dependent CD for 3D cylinders.
An alternate approach to surface roughness is to increase
the free stream turbulence. The increased free stream
turbulence structures interact with the BL flow to promote
early transition. Shown in figure 4 is a plot from a boattail
study by Morel [61] in which free stream turbulence was used
to successfully force early BL transition. The data show that
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012)
the change in BL transition location impacts both the drag
levels and the slant angle at which the base flow separation
occurs.
Figure 4. Effect of boundary layer transition on Boattail
angle dependent CD for a simple bluff body.
The two previous examples of forced BL transition were
for simple bluff body shapes at zero yaw angle. Shown in
figure 5 is a data plot by Cooper [29] for two combination
vehicles over a range of yaw angles. Results are presented for
free transition and three levels of free stream turbulence.
Compared to the free transition data the forced transition data
show significant changes in the CD level and the variation in
CD with yaw angle for each free stream turbulence level for
the two combination vehicles.
Figure 5. Effect of boundary layer transition on Yaw
angle dependent CD for two combination vehicles.
631
The data presented in figures 3, 4 and 5 highlights the
benefit and complexity of using forced transition techniques
to simulate higher Reynolds number flow conditions.
Successful use of forced transition requires an understanding
of the desired boundary layer conditions as well as the
expected aerodynamic characteristics at higher Reynolds
number conditions. The data also suggest that the use of
forced transition [10, 45] on complex vehicle shapes with
multiple components may require the use of multiple forced
transition treatment scheme on a subscale vehicle in order to
obtain results that are consistent with full scale Reynolds
number conditions. Although the commercial vehicle
industry does not routinely use forced boundary layer
transition to replicate higher Reynolds number flows it is
suggested that future test programs develop and implement
these methods in order to correct current limitation of
existing facilities.
Radius of Curvature
Aircraft design technology and edge shaping techniques
found their way into ground vehicle design beginning in the
1930s [65]. However associated with any edge shaping there
is an increase in the complexity of the aerodynamics of the
vehicle resulting in greater sensitivity of the drag force to
both the Re and the direction of the onset flow (yaw angle).
Edge shaping on commercial ground vehicles has historically
used fixed radius shaping on the side edge of the tractor,
trailer, and freight box. Recent design trends show an
increase in the use of complex three-dimensional shaping
where changes in the local radii of curvature will become the
figure of merit in the evaluation BL transition and Re
sensitivity. The importance of this parameter will continue to
increase as the front of trucks and trailers adopt more
complex shaping strategies in the design process.
The work by Cooper [25] serves as the basis for this
portion of the paper. A number of additional papers [1, 3, 7,
16, 25, 32, 42, 50, 54, 55, 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, 76, 78, 90, 101,
103] were reviewed and their findings were evaluated in the
context of the Cooper summary charts [25]. Of note is the
work by Buckley [16], Delaney [32], Gilhaus [42], Hucho
[50], Lindsey [55], Pawlowski [65] and Polhamus [66].
One of the earliest data sets and one that is often cited is
the 1930 paper by Pawlowski [65], based on the thesis by
Frank Wyszynski, see figure 6. The plot of figure 6 is
constructed by plotting the Pawlowski data as a function of
Re based on the edge radius. The plot indicates that the
critical Re (Recr,r) value for the bodies with an edge radius is
less 0.05 × 106 while the Recr,r value for the sharp edge body
is greater than .25 × 106. The CD data for bodies with radius
values 0.167, 0.250, and 0.333 is in the transcritical Re range.
In contrast the data for the 0.083 radius body indicate it is in
the transitional Re range. A review of the full data set suggest
that the transcritical Re (Retr,r) value would occur above
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

632 Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012)

0.125 × 106, corresponding to a width based Retr,A of 1.5 ×

106.

Figure 8. Coopers front edge radius design boundaries,

figure 25 of reference 25.

Figure 6. Variation in CD with Rer and edge radius for

3D cylinders.

Figure 9. Comparison of front edge radius data sets with

Coopers design boundaries, figure 25 of reference 25.

The sample of the edge radius test data of Cooper [25] is

presented in figures 7 and a summary of the data is shown in
figure 8. The data of figure 7 show a variation in CD with
Figure 7. Variation in CD with Rer and edge radius for ReA for several blunt edge bluff bodies. As discussed
3D cylinders. previously for figure 3 the edge radius data is presented as a
non-dimensional radius value (η =r/A.5). The data of figure 7
show that increasing edge radius reduces both the Recr,A and
Retr,A values proportionally to the change in radius value.
Cooper extracted the Recr,r and Recr,A values from the data of
reference 25 and presents these values as front edge radius
design boundaries, see figure 8. The vertical design boundary
on the left of the figure show that the Recr,r value is .13 × 106
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012)
for moderate edge radius values typically found on
commercial vehicles. On the right side of the figure is the
companion Recr,A design boundary. To further evaluate the
design boundaries presented in figure 8 several additional
data sources [42, 63, 65, 72, 90] were analyzed and plotted
against the Cooper design boundaries in figure 9. Note, a 6-
inch radius front edge on a full scale trailer (η = 0.063) would
have Recr,w value of approximately 2.0 × 106.
Boattail Aerodynamics
Figure 10. Effect of Reynolds number on optimum
Boattail angle.
The trailing edges and bluff bases of commercial vehicles
can vary considerably resulting in large variations in
separation patterns and base flows making the study of drag
trends a challenge. To simplify this analysis boattail data sets
were selected for evaluating this focus area. However, the
correlation of boattail aerodynamics with Re is not as straight
forward as the analysis presented in the previous section.
Boattail aerodynamics is influenced by the boundary layer
condition and thickness, vehicle base area, turning angle and
wake characteristics. To support this analysis a number of
relevant papers [11, 12, 17, 20, 25, 26, 30, 35, 36, 39, 47, 61,
62, 67, 68, 77, 84, 86, 90] were reviewed. Data from the
subject references showed inconsistent trends with Rew, as
represented by the data shown in figure 10 [11]. Figure 10
shows results from three subscale wind tunnel tests for Rew
values of 1.5, 2.3 and 5.0 million in which the drag reduction
and optimum boattail angle vary randomly with Rew. The
observed variation is not surprising given that boattail
performance requires that the flow transitioning from the
upstream portion of the vehicle onto the angled boattail must
remain attached. The ability of the flow to negotiate the
expansion onto the boattail surface is a function of the
boundary layer state, thickness of the boundary layer and the
633
base area size compared to the boundary layer thickness. The
relationship between boundary layer thickness and the size of
the base area determines the extent that corner flow will
introduce three dimensional flow features that may interfere
with the optimal boattail flow characteristics.
Figure 11. Effect of boundary layer thickness on Boattail
drag reduction.
Based on the above arguments, boundary layer
characteristics were chosen as the correlation parameter for
boattail performance. This approach is supported by the work
of Hoerner [47] who suggest a relationship between vehicle
base drag, forebody drag and boundary layer transition. The
data analysis focused on vehicles with forward body sections
that have minimal pressure gradient, such as a box trailer [17,
20, 25, 30, 35, 62, 67, 77, 86]. This allowed the use of flat
plate analysis of boundary layer transition and boundary layer
thickness estimates. Presented in figure 11 are analysis results
showing the variation in the fractional change in CD with
increasing non-dimensional boundary layer thickness. The
non-dimensional boundary layer thickness parameter (δA) is
the ratio of boundary layer thickness, immediately upstream
of the boattail, to the square root of the base area. The
boundary layer thickness calculation is for a flat plate BL and
assumes a BL transition Re (Reblt,x) value of 1 million. Note;
all data presented are for conditions in which BL transition
occurred within the first 30% of the test article length.
Results are presented for sub-scale wind tunnel test, full-scale
wind tunnel test, and coast down tests [107]. Figure 11 show
that boattail performance decreases with increasing δA. Noted
on the figure are values of δA for a 53-foot trailer at speeds of
60 and 15 mph, representing full scale Re values of 4.6 and
1.2 million respectively. These reference conditions indicate
boattail effectiveness will reduce by 50% during a typical
coastdown test or for a subscale wind tunnel test compared to
full scale Reynolds number testing. These data highlight the
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
634 Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012)
challenge associated with low Reynolds number base drag
studies that require full scale modeling of both the BL state
and BL thickness. Also shown are reference points for 42 and
26-foot trailers at 60mph. These data show that the thinner
boundary layer, due to the shorter vehicle length, could
increase the drag reduction benefit of a boattail.
Wheel/Tire Aerodynamics
The variation in wheel/tire CD with Re was viewed as a
parameter of interest due to the exposure of commercial
vehicle wheel/tire to the free stream flow resulting in
potentially large drag values. Unfortunately the body of
relevant data for this component is limited to isolated wheel/
tire studies (without the presence of a vehicle) [4, 5, 19, 31,
38, 46, 53, 57, 58, 59, 71, 80, 88, 92, 98, 102]. A majority of
these data is for large-scale isolated wheel/tire test articles
where full-scale Re sensitivities have been defined. The
published data show that the variation in drag with Re is
equivalent for static and rotating wheels. For the current
investigation the original test Re values have been converted
to Re values based on the width of a typical commercial
vehicle. Presented in figure 12 is representative data from
Cogotti [19] showing the variation in CD with Rew for two
isolated wheel/tire configurations. These data show a Retr,w
of approximately 2 million, consistent with the edge radius
data presented previously.
Figure 12. Variation in CD with Reynolds number for
two isolated wheels geometries.
Vehicle Aerodynamics
Aerodynamic similarity requires the matching of
Reynolds number and geometric details for the test article
compared to the operational conditions for the full-scale
vehicle. In practice this is extremely difficult for wind tunnel
testing, computational studies as well as coastdown testing
[107]. Although Reynolds number can be matched in
computational work there is typically little information
known about the state of the boundary layer on the full-scale
reference vehicle to allow an accurate simulation of relevant
flow features in the computational analysis. Coast down
testing has a different challenge due the variation is Reynolds
number during the test run which alters base flows. separation
characteristics and will impact the CD values resulting in an
increase in the data uncertainty. An overarching challenge in
defining the Reynolds sensitivity for a complete vehicle is
accounting for the differences in Reynolds sensitivity for the
various components of the vehicle. To address the large
variation in Reynolds sensitivity for complete vehicles an
extensive review of the literature [6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 33, 36, 37, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49,
50, 51, 52, 56, 64, 70, 73, 74, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86,
87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100] was conducted to determine
an appropriate transcritical Reynolds number value.
Figure 13. Effect of Reynolds number on Yaw angle
dependent CD for a combination vehicles.
In addition to the variation in Reynolds number sensitivity
for each vehicle component this class of vehicle has a
significant Reynolds number sensitivity with changes in yaw
angle. An example of the yaw sensitivity is clearly seen in the
Storms data [84] shown in figure 13. The oval shaded regions
on the right side of the figure highlight the increasing
increment in CD due to increasing Rew for yaw angle of 0, 5
and 10 degrees. A detailed analysis of the data is presented in
figure 14 where the fractional change in ΔCD, with Rew is
shown for the three yaw angles. The figure shows that
increasing Rew from 0.5 to 6.4 million results in a 4%
reduction in CD at 0° yaw, 7% reduction in CD at 5° yaw, and
11% reduction in CD at 10° yaw. Associated with the drag
reduction is an increase in the transcritical Re value with
increasing yaw angle. The Retr,w value varies from 3×106 at 0
degrees yaw to 5×106 at 10 degrees yaw. These observations
underscore the importance that Retr,w for wind tunnel test or
computational study should be determined at the maximum
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012) 635

Figure 14. Variation in CD with Reynolds number for two combination vehicles.

Figure 15. Summary of vehicle and vehicle components transcritical Re values.

yaw angle for the investigation. Of equal importance to the
change in CD is understanding the change in boundary layer
conditions and off-body flows with changing Rew. The data
may also be used to define the minimum test velocity, based
on expected wind conditions, for a coastdown test [107].
Transcritical Reynolds Number Summary
The previous sections of the paper outlined and discussed
the critical Reynolds number trends associated with
commercial bluff base vehicles and their components. This
section will summarize and discuss these data in the context
of establishing a commercial vehicle Retr,w value (i.e.
minimum test Reynolds number). Test and analysis studies
below this value would introduce significant variations in the
aerodynamics and flow field characteristics of the subject
vehicle and these results could not be used to represent the
vehicle behavior at Re values greater than the Retr,w value.
Note, the data values presented in figure 15 are conservative
Retr,w values. For example, the Retr,w value shown in figure
15 is 3 million for the Storms 2004 [84] data despite the fact
figure 14 show that the Retr,w value varied from a low of 3
million at 0° yaw angle to a high of 5 million at 10° yaw
angle.
Shown in figure 15 are the width based transcritical
Reynolds number calculated from the vehicle, edge radius,
and wheel reference data sets. Also presented is the average
of the Retr,w values for each of the three data sources (see
dashed lines). In addition three reference boundaries are
indicated on the figure; the 1979 “SAE J1252 Min. Value”
[105], a “Transitional” Re boundary and a “Transcritical” Re
boundary (see solid lines in figure 15). A minimum Retr,w
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
636 Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012)
value of 3 million is recommended (Transcritical Boundary)
for simulating the aerodynamics of commercial vehicle
operating at a width-based Reynolds number greater than 3
million. For these same vehicles, a test/analysis Retr,w value
as low as 2 million (Transitional Boundary) may be used if
the dominant aerodynamic and fluid dynamic features of the
vehicle are well established. The chart show that all Retr,w
values fall between 1 and 3 million with the averaged values
for edge radius, wheels, and full vehicle sets in the range of
1.6 to 1.8 million. It is encouraging to note that these data
support the findings of Hucho [50], Gilhaus [42], Cooper [20,
25], Drollinger [33], Olson [64] and others. It is discouraging
that the study was unable to determine the source for the 0.7
million value suggested within the 1979 SAE J1252
document [105].
As noted previously there are large variations in the
aerodynamic forces for Reynolds numbers below the
transcritical value. To ensure an accurate simulation of full-
scale vehicles operating below the 3 million transcritical
value future test/analysis studies should be performed at full-
scale Reynolds numbers.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The variations in Reynolds sensitivity with boundary
layer transition control, surface curvature effects, bluff base
flows, wheels and complete vehicle have been reviewed and
summarized. For complex vehicles the data suggest that the
use of forced transition is a viable test method but the
technique may require unique treatment schemes for specific
vehicle components in order to obtain results that are
consistent with a full scale vehicle. Although the commercial
vehicle industry does not routinely use forced boundary layer
transition to replicate higher Reynolds number flows it is
suggested that future test programs develop and implement
these methods in order to correct current limitations of
existing facilities.
The study of bluff base flows focused on boattails,
however a direct correlation of changes in boattail drag as a
function of Reynolds number could not be established. In this
study a non-dimensional boundary layer thickness parameter
(δA) was found to correlate the boattail data sets. Analysis of
this data showed that boattail effectiveness varies inversely
with the non-dimensional boundary layer thickness
parameter. The data show that base drag studies, such as
boattail design, require full scale matching of both the BL
state and BL thickness.
The data review of edge radius effects support the
findings of previous researchers and showed that a 6-inch
radius front edge on a full scale trailer would have Retr,w
value of approximately 2 million. Wheel data show a Retr,w
of approximately 2 million.
The Retr,w value for full vehicles was shown to vary
significantly with yaw angle with a minimum Retr,w value of
3 million. These observations underscore the importance that
the Retr,w for wind tunnel testing or computational studies
should be determined at the maximum yaw angle for the
investigation.
A summary of all data show that Retr,w for commercial
vehicles fell between 1 and 3 million with the averaged
values for edge radius, wheels and full vehicle data sets
between 1.6 and 1.8 million. A minimum Retr,w value of 3
million is recommended for simulating the aerodynamics of
commercial vehicle operating at a width-based Reynolds
number greater than 3 million. A Retr,w value as low as 2
million may be used if the dominant aerodynamic and fluid
dynamic features of the vehicle are well established. To
ensure an accurate aerodynamic simulation of full-scale
vehicles operating below the 3 million transcritical value
future test/analysis studies should be performed at the full-
scale Reynolds number. These findings support those of
Hucho [50], Gilhaus [42], Cooper [20, 25], Drollinger [33],
Olson [64] and others. The study results do not support the
minimum Re value of 0.7 million value suggested within the
SAE J1252 document [105].
REFERENCES
1. Alam, F., Watkins, S., Zimmer, G., and Humphris, C., “Effects of
Vehicle A-pillar Shape on Local Mean and Time-Varying Flow
Properties,” SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-1086, 2001, doi:
10.4271/2001-01-1086.
2. Anderson, J., Firey, J., Ford, P., and Kieling, W., “Truck Drag
Components by Road Test Measurement,” SAE Technical Paper
640794, 1964, doi: 10.4271/640794.
3. Arcas, D., Browand, F., and Hammache, M., “Flow Structure in the Gap
Between Two Bluff Bodies,” AIAA 2004-2250, 2004.
4. Axon, L., “The Aerodynamic Characteristics of Automobile Wheels -
CFD Prediction and Wind Tunnel Experiment,” PhD thesis, Cranfield
University, 1999.
5. Axon, L., Garry, K., and Howell, J., “The Influence of Ground
Condition on the Flow Around a Wheel Located Within a Wheelhouse
Cavity,” SAE Technical Paper 1999-01-0806, 1999, doi:
10.4271/1999-01-0806.
6. Baker, C. J. and Humphreys, N. D., “Assessment of the Adequacy of
Various Wind Tunnel Techniques to Obtain Aerodynamic Data for
Ground Vehicles in Cross Winds,” Journal of Wind Engr. And Ind.
Aerodynamics 60 (1996) 49-68, 1996.
7. Barlow, J. B., Guterres, R., and Ranzenbach, R., “Rectangular Bodies
with Radiused Edges in Ground Effect,” AIAA-99-3153, 1999
8. Barlow, J. B., Rae, W. H.Jr. and Pope, A., “Low-Speed Wind Tunnel
Testing,” 3rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 1984.
9. Barnard, R. H., “Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design,” 2nd Edition.
MechAero Publishing, 2001.
10. Braslow, A. L., Harris, R. V., and Hicks, R. M., “Use of Grit-Type
Boundary-Layer Trips on Wind Tunnel Models,” NASA TN D-3579,
1966
11. Final Report, Part I- Experimental Measurement of the Flowfield of
Heavy Trucks,” DE-AC 26-98EE50512
12. Broward, F., Radovich, C., and Boivin, M., “Fuel Saving by Means of
Flaps Attached to the Base of a Trailer: Field Test Results,”
13. Buckley, F. T., Walston, W. H., and Marks, C. H., “Fuel Savings from
Truck Aerodynamic Drag Reducers and Correlation with Wind-Tunnel
Data,” J. Energy, Vol 2, No. 6, 1978.
14. Buckley, F., Marks, C., and Walston, W., “Analysis of Coast-Down
Data to Assess Aerodynamic Drag Reduction on Full-Scale Tractor-
Trailer Trucks in Windy Environments,” SAE Technical Paper 760850,
1976, doi: 10.4271/760850.
15. Buckley, F. T. and Marks, C. H., “Feasibility of Active Boundary-
Layer-Control Methods for Reducing Aerodynamic on Tractor Trailer
Trucks,” Journal of Ind. Aerodynamics, 4(1979) 133-148.
16. Buckley, F. and Sekscienski, W., “Comparisons of Effectiveness of
Commercially Available Devices for the Reduction of Aerodynamic
Drag on Tractor-Trailers,” SAE Technical Paper 750704, 1975, doi:
10.4271/750704.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017
Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012)
17. Buresti, G., Fedeli, R., and Ferraresi, A., “Influence of Afterbody
Rounding on the Pressure Drag of an Axisymmetric Bluff Body”.
Jouranl of Wind Engr. and Ind. Aerodynamics, 69-71 (1997) 179-188.
18. Burgin, K., Adey, P. C. and Beatham, J. P., “Wind Tunnel Tests on
Road Vehicle Models Using a Moving Belt Simulation of Ground
Effect,” Journal of Wind Engr. and Ind. Aerodynamics, 22 (1986)
227-236.
19. Cogotti, A., “Aerodynamic Characteristics of Car Wheels”. International
Journal of Vehicle Design, SP 3, 1983, pp. 173-196
20. Cooper, K., “The Wind Tunnel Testing of Heavy Trucks to Reduce Fuel
Consumption,” SAE Technical Paper 821285, 1982, doi:
10.4271/821285.
21. Cooper, K., “Truck Aerodynamics Reborn - Lessons from the Past,”
SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-3376, 2003, doi:10.4271/2003-01-3376.
22. Cooper, K. R., “The Wind Tunnel Simulation of Surface Vehicles,”
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics Vol. 17,
1984, p. 167-198.
23. Cooper, K., Gerhardt, H., Whitbread, R., Garry, K., and Carr, G., “A
Comparison of Aerodynamic Drag Measurements on Model Trucks in
Closed-Jet and Open-Jet Wind Tunnels,” Motor Industries Research
Association, Nuneaton (Gt. Britain), Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 22 (1986) 299-316
24. Cooper, K., Mason, W., and Bettes, W., “Correlation Experience with
the SAE Wind Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses,” SAE
Technical Paper 820375, 1982, doi: 10.4271/820375.
25. Cooper, K., “The Effect of Front-Edge Rounding and Rear-Edge
Shaping on the Aerodynamic Drag of Bluff Vehicles in Ground
Proximity,” SAE Technical Paper 850288, 1985, doi: 10.4271/850288.
26. Cooper, K. R., “Bluff-Body Aerodynamics as Applied to Vehicles,”
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics Vol. 49,
1993, p. 1-22.
27. Cooper, K. and Leuschen, J., “Model and Full-Scale Wind Tunnel Tests
of Second-Generation Aerodynamic Fuel Saving Devices for Tractor-
Trailers,” SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-3512, 2005, doi:
10.4271/2005-01-3512.
28. Cooper, K. R., “The Wind Tunnel Simulation of Wind Turbulence for
Surface Vehicle Testing,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics Vol. 38, 1991, p. 71-81.
29. Cooper, K. R. and Campbell, W. F., “An Examination of the Effects of
Wind Turbulence on the Aerodynamic Drag of Vehicles.: Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 9, 1981, pp.
167-180.
30. Croll, R., Gutierrez, W., Hassan, B., Suazo, J. et al., “Experimental
Investigation of the Ground Transportation Systems (GTS) Project for
Heavy Vehicle Drag Reduction,” SAE Technical Paper 960907, 1996,
doi: 10.4271/960907.
31. Damiani, F., Iaccarino, G., Kalitzin, G. and Khalighi, B., “Unsteady
Flow Simulations of Wheel-Wheelhouse Configurations,” AIAA
2004-2344, 2004.
32. Delaney, N. K., and Sorensen, N E., “Low-Speed Drag of Cylinders of
Various Shapes,” NACA TN 3038, 1953.
33. Drollinger, R., “Heavy Truck Aerodynamics,” SAE Technical Paper
870001, 1987, doi:10.4271/870001.
34. Dryden, H. L., Schubauer, G. B., Mock, W. C. and Skranstad, H. K.,
“Measurements of intensity and Scale of Wind Tunnel Turbulence and
Their Relation to the Critical Reynolds Number of Spheres,” NACA
Rpt. No. 581
35. El-Alti, M., Chernoray, V., Jahanmiri, M. and Davidson, L.,
“Experimental and Computational Studies of Active Flow Control on a
Model Truck-Trailer,” 2011 Proc. of the Int. Conf on Experimental
Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 2, pp. 60-615, 2011
36. Englar, R., “Advanced Aerodynamic Devices to Improve the
Performance, Economics, Handling and Safety of Heavy Vehicles,”
SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-2072, 2001, doi:10.4271/2001-01-2072.
37. Flynn, H. and Kyropoulos, P., “Truck Aerodynamics,” SAE Technical
Paper 620531, 1962, doi: 10.4271/620531.
38. Fackrell, J. E. and Harvey, J. K., “The Aerodynamics of an Isolated
Road Wheel,” In Proc. of AIAA 2nd Symposium on Aerodynamics and
Competition Automobiles, volume 16, pages 119-125, Los Angeles,
CA, 1974.
39. Funderburk, R. and Carper, H., “Wind Tunnel Investigation of an
Inflatable Aerodynamic Boattail for Tractor-Trailers,” SAE Technical
Paper 960908, 1996, doi: 10.4271/960908.
40. Gad-el-Hak, M. and Bushnell, D., “Status and Outlook of Flow
Separation Control,” AIAA-91-0037, Jan 1991.
41. Gemba, K., “Measurement of Boundary Layer on a Flat Plate,” CA.
State Univ., Long Beach, Mar. 25, 2007.
42. Gilhaus, A., “The Influence of Cab Shape on Air Drag of Trucks,”
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics Vol. 9, 1981,
p. 77-87.
43. Grunwald, K.J., “Aerodynamic Characteristics of Vehicle Bodies at
Crosswind Conditions in Ground Proximity,” NASA Tech. Note
D-5935, 1970.
637
44. Croll, R., Gutierrez, W., Hassan, B., Suazo, J. et al., “Experimental
Investigation of the Ground Transportation Systems (GTS) Project for
Heavy Vehicle Drag Reduction,” SAE Technical Paper 960907, 1996,
doi: 10.4271/960907.
45. Hammache, M., Michaelian, M., and Browand, F., “Aerodynamic
Forces on Truck Models, Including Two Trucks in Tandem,” SAE
Technical Paper 2002-01-0530, 2002, doi:10.4271/2002-01-0530.
46. Hinson, M., “Measurement of the Lift Produced by an Isolated, Rotating
Formula One Wheel Using a New Pressure Measurement System,”
Master's Thesis, Cranfield University. 1999.
47. Hoerner, S. F., “Fluid-Dynamic Drag: Practical Information on
Aerodynamic Drag and Hydrodynamic Resistance,” 1965
48. Hoffman, J., Martindale, B., Arnette, S., Williams, J. et al., “Effect of
Test Section Configuration on Aerodynamic Drag Measurements,” SAE
Technical Paper 2001-01-0631, 2001, doi:10.4271/2001-01-0631.
49. Hucho, W., “Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles,” 4th Edition 1998
50. Hucho, W., Janssen, L., and Emmelmann, H., “The Optimization of
Body Details-A Method for Reducing the Areodynamic Drag of Road
Vehicles,” SAE Technical Paper 760185, 1976, doi: 10.4271/760185.
51. Kim, M. S. and Geropp, D., “Experimental Investigation of the Ground
Effect on the Flow Around Some Two-Dimensional Bluff Bodies with
Moving Belt Technique,” Journal of Wind Engr. And Ind.
Aerodynamics. 74-76 (1998) 511-519.
52. Kirsch, J., Garg, S., and Bettes, W., “Drag Reduction of Bluff Vehicles
With Airvanes,” SAE Technical Paper 730686, 1973, doi:
10.4271/730686.
53. Knowles, R. D., “Monoposto Racecar Wheel Aerodynamics:
Investigation of Near Wake Structure & Support-Sting Interference,”
PhD Thesis, Cranfield University, 2005.
54. Krajnovic, S. and Davidson, L., “Numerical Study of the Flow Around a
Bus-Shaped Body,” ASME Transactions, Vol. 125, pp. 500, May 2003
55. Lindsey, W. F., “Drag of Cylinders of Simple Shapes,” NACA Rpt No.
619. 1937.
56. McCallen, R. C., “DOE's Effort to reduce Truck Aerodynamic Drag-
Joint Experiments and Computations lead to Smart Designs,” AIAA
2004-2249. 34th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit. June
28 - July 1, 2004. Portland OR.
57. McManus, J and Zhang, X., “A Computational Study of the Flow
Around an Isolated Wheel in Contact with the Ground,” ASME 2006,
Vol. 128, pp. 520-530.
58. Mears, A., Dominy, R., and Sims-Williams, D., “The Air Flow About an
Exposed Racing Wheel,” SAE Technical Paper 2002-01-3290, 2002,
doi:10.4271/2002-01-3290.
59. Mears, A., Crossland, S., and Dominy, R., “An Investigation into the
Flow-Field About an Exposed Racing Wheel,” SAE Technical Paper
2004-01-0446, 2004, doi:10.4271/2004-01-0446.
60. Metz, L. and Sensenbrenner, K., “The Influence of Roughness Elements
on Laminar to Turbulent Boundary Layer Transition as Applied to Scale
Model Testing of Automobiles,” SAE Technical Paper 730233, 1973,
doi: 10.4271/730233.
61. Morel, T., “Aerodynamic Drag of Bluff Shapes: Characteristics of Hatch
Back Cars,” General Motors Research Laboratories Report GMR-2581,
1977.
62. Muirhead, V. U. and Saltzman, E. J., “Reduction of Aerodynamic Drag
and Fuel Consumption for Tractor Trailer Vehicles”, AIAA journal of
Energy, Vol. 3,No. 5, pp. 279-284, Sept.-Oct. 1979.
63. Newnham, P., Passmore, M., Howell, J., and Baxendale, A., “On the
Optimisation of Road Vehicle Leading Edge Radius in Varying Levels
of Freestream Turbulence,” SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-1029, 2006,
doi:10.4271/2006-01-1029.
64. Olson, M. and Schaub, U., “Aerodynamics of Trucks in Wind Tunnels:
The Importance of Replicating Model Form, Model Detail, Cooling
System and Test Conditions,” SAE Technical Paper 920345, 1992, doi:
10.4271/920345.
65. Pawlowski, F.W., “Wind Resistance of Automobiles,” SAE (Detroit), J.,
27 (1930).
66. Polhamus, E. C., “Effect of Flow Incidence and Reynolds Number on
Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of Several Noncircular
Cylinders with Applications to Directional Stability ad Spinning,”
NACA TN 4176. Jan. 1958.
67. Peterson, R. L., “Drag Reduction Obtained by the Addition of a Boattail
to a Box Shaped Vehicle,” NASA CR 163113, 1981.
68. Reubush, D. E. and Putnam, L. E., “An Experiment al and Analytical
Investigation of the Effect on Isolated Boattail Drag of Varying
Reynolds Number Up To 120 × 106,” NASA TN D-8210, 1976.
69. Roshko, A. “Experiments on the flow past a circular cylinder at very
high Reynolds number.” J. Fluid Mech. Vol. 10, pp. 345-356, 1961.
70. Roy, C. J., Payne, J. and McWherter-Payne, M., “RANS Simulations of
a Simplified Tractor/Trailer Geometry,” J of Fluids Engr., ASME Vol.
128, pp. 1083, Sept 2006
71. Rymiszewski, A. J., “Improving Wheeled Vehicle Water Speed by
Means of Wheel Shielding,” US Army Report No. 8088, 1963.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

638 Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012)

72. Sakuma, Y, and Ido, A., “Wind Tunnel Experiments on Reducing 99. Wiedmann, J and Ewald, B., “Turbulence Manipulation to Increase
Separated Flow Region Around Front Ends of Vehicles on Meter-Guage Effective Reynolds Number in Vehicle,”
Railway Lines,” QR of RTRI, Vol. 50, No. 1, Feb 2009 100. Wong, H. Y., Cox, R. N. and Rajan, A., “Drag Reduction of Trailer-
73. Sardou, M., “Reynolds Effect and Moving Ground Effect Tested in a Tractor Configuration by Aerodynamic Means,”
Quarter Scale Wind Tunnel Over a High Speed Moving Belt,” Journal 101. Zanacic, A. and Long, K. R., “Drag and Wake Characteristics of Three
of Wind Engr. and Ind. Aerodynamics, 22(1986) 245-270. Dimensional Bluff Bodies with Varying Radii of Curvature,” AIAA
74. Sardou, M., “Moving Ground and Reynolds Effect on Tractor-Trailer,” 2009-3612. 27th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference. June 22-25,
SAE Technical Paper 870707, 1987, doi: 10.4271/870707. 2009, San Antonio TX.
75. Saunders, J., Watkins, S., Hoffmann, P., and Buckley, F., “Comparison 102. Zhang, X., Toet, W. and Zerihan, J., “Ground Effect Aerodynamics of
of On-Road and Wind-Tunnel Tests for Tractor-Trailer Aerodynamic Race Cars,” ASME 2006, Vol. 59, pp. 33-48.
Devices, and Fuel Savings Predictions,” SAE Technical Paper 850286, 103. ESDU, Wind Engineering. Vol. 26. Fluid Forces and Moments on
1985, doi: 10.4271/850286. Rectangular Blocks, Eng. Sci. Data Unit (London), Item 71016, 1971.
76. Schewe, G., “Reynolds Number Effects in Flow Around More-or-Less 104. SAE International Surface Vehicle Information Report, “Aerodynamic
Bluff Bodies,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Testing of Road Vehicles - Open Throat Wind Tunnel Adjustment,”
Aerodynamics Vol. 89, 2001, p. 1267-1289. SAE Standard J2071, Issue March 1990.
77. Schoon, R. and Pan, F., “Practical Devices for Heavy Truck 105. SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, “SAE Wind
Aerodynamic Drag Reduction,” SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-1781, Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses,” SAE Standard J1252,
2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-1781. Rev. July 2012.
78. Sheridan, A. E. and Grier, S. J., “Drag Reduction Obtained by 106. SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, “Road Load
Modifying a Standard Truck,” NASA TM 72846, 1978. Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation Using Coastdown
79. Skea, A., Bullen, P., and Qiao, J., “CFD Simulations and Experimental Techniques,” SAE Standard J1263, Issued June 1979.
Measurements of the Flow Over a Rotating Wheel in a Wheel Arch,” 107. SAE International Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, “Fuel
SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-0487, 2000, doi:10.4271/2000-01-0487. Consumption Test Procedure - Type II,” SAE Standard J1321, Rev. Feb.
80. Smith, G., “Commercial Vehicle Performance and Fuel Economy,” SAE 2012.
Technical Paper 700194, 1970, doi: 10.4271/700194.
81. Sovran, G., Morel, T., Mason, W.T., eds., “Aerodynamic Drag
Mechanisms of Bluff Bodies and Road Vehicles,” NewYork: Plenum, CONTACT INFORMATION
1978
82. Steers, L., Montoya, L., and Saltzman, E., “Aerodynamic Drag Richard Wood
Reduction Tests on a Full-Scale Tractor-Trailer Combination and a SOLUS-Solutions and Technologies LLC
Representative Box-Shaped Ground Vehicle,” SAE Technical Paper
750703, 1975, doi: 10.4271/750703. 754 Suffolk Lane
83. Storms, B. and Ross, J., “Aerodynamic Drag Reduction of the Virginia Beach, VA 23452
Underbody of a Class-8 Tractor-Trailer,” SAE Technical Paper
2006-01-3532, 2006, doi:10.4271/2006-01-3532. www.solusinc.com
84. Storms, B. L., Satran, D. R., Heineck, J. T. and Walker, S. M., “A Study Richard.wood@solusinc.com
of Reynolds Number Effects and Drag Reduction Concepts on a Generic
Tractor Trailer,” AIAA 2004-2251. 2004. 757-486-3570
85. Storms, B., Satran, D., Heineck, J., and Walker, S., “Detailed
Experimental Results of Drag-Reduction Concepts on a Generic
Tractor-Trailer,” SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-3525, 2005, doi:
10.4271/2005-01-3525. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
86. Sulitka, M. and Nozicka, J., “Aerodynamic Devices to Reduce the Base-
and Underbody Drag of Semitrailer Unit. The author would like to recognize the support of Sandra
87. Sumantran, V. and Sovran, G., “Vehicle Aerodynamics,” Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA, PT-49, 1996. Wood and Melissa Wood in developing the paper.
88. Tamas, R. and Tamas, L., “The Effect of Wheels and Wheelhouses on
the Aerodynamic Forces Acting on Passenger Cars”. Budapest
University,
89. Van Raemdonck, G. M. R. and van Tooren, M. J. L., “Time Averaged DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
Phenomenological Investigation of a Wake Behind a Bluff Body,”
BBAA VI International Colloquium on Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics and A - reference area
Applications. Milano Italy July 20-24, 2008.
90. Veldhuis, L. and Henneman, B., “Experimental and Numerical Study of A - reference area
Leading Edge Separation on Blunt Bodies,” SAE Technical Paper
2007-01-4291, 2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-4291. AB - base area
91. Wacker, T., “A Preliminary Study of Configuration Effects on the Drag
of a Tractor-Trailer Combination,” Thesis- The University of British BL - boundary layer
Columbia, October 1985.
92. Wäschle, A., Cyr, S., Kuthada, T., and Wiedemann, J., “Flow around an CD - coastdown
Isolated Wheel - Experimental and Numerical Comparison of Two CFD
Codes,” SAE Technical Paper 2004-01-0445, 2004, doi: CD - coefficient of drag
10.4271/2004-01-0445.
93. Watkins, S, Saunders, J. W. and Gibson, K., “Tri-Axle Tipper Trucks - CD,ref - coefficient of drag, reference value
Some New and Simple Devices as Aerodynamic Means of Saving Fuel -
ΔCD - change in coefficient of drag
Road and Tunnel Tests,” 9th Australian Fluid Dynamics Conference,
Dec 1986. ΔCD,avg - wind averaged coefficient of drag
94. Watkins, S. and Cooper, K., “The Unsteady Wind Environment of Road
Vehicles, Part Two: Effects on Vehicle Development and Simulation of L - length
Turbulence,” SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-1237, 2007, doi:
10.4271/2007-01-1237. NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Agency
95. Watkins, S., Hoffman, P. H. and Saunders, J. W., “Comparison of On-
Road and Wind-Tunnel Tests for Rigid Truck Aerodynamic Devices,” r - radius of curvature
9th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, Auckland, December
8-12, 1988. Re - Reynolds number
96. Watkins, S., Saunders, J. W. and Hoffman, P. H., “Comparison of Road
and Wind-Tunnel Drag Reductions for Commercial Vehicles. Journal of ReA - Reynolds number based on A.5
Wind Engr. And Ind. Aerodynamics. 49 (1993) 411-420.
97. Watkins, S., “Wind Tunnel Modeling of Vehicle Aerodynamics: With Reblt,x - Boundary layer transition Reynolds number based
Emphasis on Turbulent Wind Effects in Commercial Vehicle Drag,”
Thesis Mech Engr, Victorian U of Tech, Nov 1990 on length (x)
98. Whitbread, L., “Measurement of the Lift Distribution on a Rotating
Wheel,” Master's Thesis, Cranfield University. 2000. Recr,x - Critical Reynolds number based on length (x)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Embraer S/A, Sunday, December 03, 2017

Wood / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 5, Issue 2(October 2012) 639

Rel - Reynolds number based on model/vehicle length

Rer - Reynolds number based on radius (r)
Ret - Transition Reynolds number
Retr,x - Transcritical Reynolds number based on length (x)
Rew - Reynolds number based on model/vehicle width (w)
SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers
U - Free Stream Velocity
w - width
WT - wind tunnel
δ - boundary layer thickness
δA - boundary layer thickness parameter (δ / (AB).5)
η - non-dimensional edge radius, r/A.5