Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2004-01-0672

Assessment of Closed-Wall Wind Tunnel

Blockage using CFD
Zhigang Yang and Max Schenkel
General Motors Corporation

Reprinted From: Vehicle Aerodynamics 2004

(SP-1874)

2004 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 8-11, 2004

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-772-4891
Tel: 724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISBN 0-7680-1319-4
Copyright © 2004 SAE International

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.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
Assessment of Closed-Wall Wind Tunnel Blockage
Using CFD
Copyright © 2004 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Effects of the wind tunnel blockage in a closed-
wall wind tunnel were investigated using
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Flow over
three generic vehicle models representing a
passenger sedan, a sports utility vehicle (SUV),
and a pickup truck was solved. The models
were placed in a baseline virtual wind tunnel as
well as four additional virtual wind tunnels, each
with different size cross-sections, providing
different levels of wind tunnel blockage. For
each vehicle model, the CFD analysis produced
an aerodynamic drag coefficient for the vehicle
at the blockage free condition as well as the
blockage effect increment for the baseline wind
tunnel. A CFD based blockage correction
method is proposed. Comparisons of this
method to some existing blockage correction
methods for closed-wall wind tunnel are also
presented.
INTRODUCTION
Because of the difficulties of directly measuring
the aerodynamic drag of an automotive vehicle
moving on the road and achieving a controlled
environment for that measurement, the wind
tunnel has become the main tool for measuring
vehicle aerodynamics in a laboratory
environment. Many wind tunnels have been built
by automakers worldwide, due to the increasing
importance of vehicle aerodynamics to fuel
consumption and vehicle aero-acoustics to
passenger comfort. While most of the wind
tunnels built before the 1990s were mainly for
vehicle aerodynamics measurements, the more
recently built wind tunnels are designed for both
the vehicle aerodynamic and the vehicle aero-
2004-01-0672
Zhigang Yang and Max Schenkel
General Motors Corporation
acoustic measurements. A growing list of these
aerodynamic and aero-acoustic wind tunnels
can be found in [1, 2], for example.
The wind tunnel is an ideal tool for aerodynamic
development in the vehicle development
process. Wind tunnel testing has the
advantages of being able to completely
represent the vehicle geometry, being able to
make small changes in vehicle clay models
rapidly, and being able to measure accurately
the changes in vehicle aerodynamic drag
associated with the small changes, typically with
an accuracy of 0.001 to 0.002 in drag
coefficient. In order to achieve such accuracy,
and to be assured of its correlation to the vehicle
aerodynamic drag that the same vehicle has on
a level road, it is crucial to make sure that the
vehicle in the wind tunnel test experiences an
environment that is as close as possible to that
experienced by the vehicle on the road, and to
apply corrections to account for the differences
in environments. For example, it is important to
have proper control of the boundary layer on the
wind tunnel floor, reduction or elimination of the
pressure gradient in the wind tunnel test section,
and consideration of the wind tunnel blockage
effects.
When considering the corrections needed to
account for test environment differences
between the wind tunnel and the road, blockage
correction deserves special attention, since it is
often the biggest of all the corrections. The
fundamental physical reason for the blockage
effect is due to the fact that for a vehicle in the
ambient environment, the airflow passing over
and around the vehicle can move freely above
the vehicle and sideways; for a vehicle in a wind
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
tunnel, on the other hand, the airflow passing
over and around the vehicle is constrained by
the top and side walls of the wind tunnel, giving
rise to the wind tunnel blockage effect. Wind
tunnel blockage effect exists in both the wind
tunnel of the open-jet type and the wind tunnel
of the closed-wall type. A great deal of research
has been conducted on the blockage correction
methods for each of these two types of wind
tunnels, as evidenced by the listing of
publications in [3,4]. This paper represents our
recent work on the blockage correction for wind
tunnels of the closed-wall type.
Due to the development of computer hardware
and computational technologies, computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) has emerged to become
another avenue to determine the vehicle
aerodynamic drag. CFD for flow over a road
vehicle, which requires a three dimensional
solution of the Reynolds averaged Navier-
Stokes (RANS) equations over a vehicle
geometry as done in [5], began to appear in the
late 1980s. A great deal of experience has been
accumulated since then, and CFD is now
routinely used for vehicle aerodynamics and
thermal management in the vehicle development
process.
Flow over a road vehicle is very complex due to
the fact that the vehicle geometry is complex,
intrinsically three dimensional, and is of the bluff
body type. As a result, CFD technology for flow
over a road vehicle is still evolving. The
accuracy of the CFD analysis is constrained by
the sophistication of the turbulence model, the
accuracy of the numerical scheme, the total
number of the numerical cells and the
distribution of these cells, and the robustness of
the CFD code. Currently, a well-controlled CFD
analysis is accurate to within 6-8% for the
predicted vehicle aerodynamic drag coefficient
for cars, and somewhat less accurate for trucks.
It should be pointed out that in our experience,
CFD results consistently over-predict the drag
coefficient rather than oscillate about the test
data. Due to this consistency, incremental
changes in vehicle drag coefficient due to
changes in vehicle geometry and/or operating
conditions can be predicted much more
accurately by CFD analysis, typically with an
accuracy of 0.002-0.003, as long as the flow
structure, such as the type and onset location of
flow separation, does not change. Due to this
improved accuracy of CFD analysis in capturing
the incremental drag coefficient, CFD has
become a viable tool for vehicle aerodynamic
development.
It should be recognized that both the wind tunnel
test and the CFD analysis approaches have
strengths and weaknesses for simulating the on-
road environment. It is possible to combine the
strengths of the wind tunnel test approach and
the CFD analysis approach in the vehicle
aerodynamic development process. An example
of the synergy was reported in [6], in which CFD
was used to develop corrections that account for
the effects of wind tunnel test section static
pressure gradients on the measured
aerodynamic drag. Another example of the
synergy between the wind tunnel test approach
and the CFD analysis approach, which is the
topic of the present paper, is the use of CFD to
assess and develop blockage corrections for
wind tunnel of the closed-wall type. The
correction is necessary in order to extrapolate
the wind tunnel test results to the vehicle on a
level road for which there is no blockage
The structure of the paper is as follows: The
analysis approach used in this study is
presented first. In particular, the construction of
a number of virtual wind tunnels, each with a
different cross section size and each having a
different level of wind tunnel blockage, will be
described. Also described is the meshing
strategy in order to isolate the blockage effect in
the numerical analysis. Next, computational
results for the aerodynamic drag coefficient for
three generic models of three different types of
vehicles (passenger sedan, SUV, and pickup
truck) in these virtual wind tunnels will be
shown. The following section examines the
issue of blockage correction. The CFD results
are used to obtain the aerodynamic drag
coefficients for these vehicle models in the
blockage free conditions. The difference
between the blockage free results and the
results with blockage give the amount of drag
increments due to the blockage effect. A CFD
based blockage correction method is then
presented. This section also compares some
existing blockage corrections to CFD results
obtained in the present study. Discussions and
conclusions of the present study are presented
in the last section of the paper.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

METHOD OF ANALYSIS indicated by the numerical results. The length of

In the computational analysis conducted in the
present study to assess the wind tunnel
blockage effect, a number of virtual wind tunnels
were constructed. They are the baseline virtual
wind tunnel for which the blockage effect is to be
found, and four additional virtual wind tunnels
with increasing size. The baseline virtual wind
tunnel is 23m in length, 10.4m in width, and
5.4m in height, and is shown in figure 1. These
dimensions correspond to the test section
dimensions of the General Motors’
Aerodynamics Laboratory (GMAL) [7].
the virtual wind tunnels was adjusted in
proportion to an overall length scale of the wind
tunnel. In the present study, the factor of
proportionality was based on the ratio of the
square root of the cross section area of a virtual
wind tunnel over the square root of the cross
section of the baseline virtual wind tunnel. The
length for each of the virtual wind tunnels is
given in table 1 as well.

Figure 2: Cross sections of virtual wind tunnels

Table 1: Dimensions of virtual wind tunnels

Figure 1: Baseline virtual wind tunnel
Height Width Area Length
(m) (m) (m2) (m)

In addition to the baseline virtual wind tunnel, WT 5.4 10.4 56.16 21.34
four more virtual wind tunnels with increasing (Baseline)
size were constructed in the present study. The
cross sections of these four virtual wind tunnels’ WT (P1) 8.67 10.4 90.17 27.04
test sections are shown in figure 2, along with
the baseline virtual wind tunnel. The WT (P2) 12.26 14.7 180.2 38.23
corresponding dimensions of the cross sections
of the virtual wind tunnels are given in table 1. WT (P3) 17.34 20.8 360.6 54.07
The four additional virtual wind tunnels are
designated as WT-P1 to WT-P4, respectively. It
should be noted that GMAL was constructed to WT (P4) 24.52 29.42 721.3 76.48
carry out aerodynamic tests for vehicles at
yawed as well as zero-yaw conditions. As a
result the W/H (width/height) ratio of its test
section is quite large (close to 2.0). Since in the Three generic vehicle math models representing
present study we are only interested in the three types of automotive vehicles were chosen
blockage effect on the vehicle aerodynamic drag for this study. They are the GM Car 3 [8] as a
for the vehicle at zero-yaw condition, a more generic model for a passenger sedan, the
modest W/H ratio of 1.2 was used for the four Ahmed body [9] with zero degrees of declination
virtual wind tunnels. For the virtual wind tunnels angle as a generic model for a sports utility
from WT-P2 to WT-P4, each has a cross section vehicle (SUV), and the GM R&D pickup truck
area that is nominally twice that of the previous [10] as a generic model for the pickup truck.
one. The largest virtual wind tunnel (WT-P4) These models were modified slightly from their
was chosen such that the blockage effect for original form before they were used in the
this wind tunnel would be nearly negligible, as
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

present study. First, the model supports were

removed from both the Car 3 and the Ahmed
body models, to bring the model configuration
closer to the actual vehicle. Second, while the
models in their original forms are scale models,
the models used in the present study were
scaled up to the full-scale model size. For
example, the Car 3 model was scaled up by a
factor of 10, the Ahmed model was scaled up by
a factor of 4, and the GM R&D pickup truck
model was scaled up by a factor of 12. The
resulting full-scale dimensions of these models Figure 4: Sports utility vehicle model
are given in table 2. It is noted the Ahmed body
has a rather low model height because the
model does not have wheels and its support
was removed for this study. The rationale for
scaling up these models is that the result of this
analysis will be more relevant to the full-scale
test at GMAL. In addition, using the full-scale
models removes any uncertainties associated
with the Reynolds number effects. The resulting
models used in the present analysis are
illustrated in figures 3 through 5, respectively.

Table 2: Model dimensions Figure 5: Pickup truck model

Sedan SUV Pickup truck

Length (m) 4.737 4.176 5.204 In the present study, each of the three types of
vehicle models was then placed in each of the
Height (m) 1.435 1.152 1.776 five virtual wind tunnels for aerodynamic
computations. In the analysis, the vehicle
Width (m) 1.772 1.556 1.986 component surfaces were discretized with
triangle mesh elements. The size of the triangles
varied with the component in question. In this
Frontal area 2.047 1.793 2.809
numerical study, a typical surface mesh element
(m2)
has a size of 10-15mm. The surfaces of the
virtual wind tunnels were discretized with mainly
rectangular mesh elements. Cells of mixed cell
type were used to discretize the fluid in the
computational domain. Cells of prismatic layers
were created just off the vehicle surfaces (with
the exception of the underbody and the wheels
for the Car 3 model and the GM R & D pickup
truck model) in order to better resolve the
boundary layers over the vehicle surfaces. Next
to these prismatic cells, tetra cells were
generated in the computational domain within a
Cartesian box enclosing the vehicle model. Hex
cells were used to discretize the fluid in the
Figure 3: Passenger car model
remaining part of the computational domain. It is
observed that the tetra cells were the primary
contributor to the total cell count, while the hex
cells were the primary occupier of the
computational domain. The use of cells of mixed
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
cell type combines the strengths of each cell
type: the boundary layers that are important for
vehicle aerodynamic calculations are resolved;
the triangle/tetra mesh structure for
surface/volume meshes in the box enclosing the
vehicle allows fast and easy representation of
complex geometries often found in an
automobile; while the use of the hex cells in the
far field part of the computational domain
improves both the numerical stability and the
numerical accuracy. In the grid generation
process, care was taken to ensure that for a
given vehicle model in different virtual wind
tunnels, the inner portion of the computational
domain was discretized with exactly the same
cells while the outer portion was discretized with
hex cells. Creating cells in this way would filter
out any uncertainties associated with grid
structure in this study of the blockage effect.
In the present study, cells of mixed cell type
were generated using the commercial software
TGrid [11]. The number of the resulting cells
generated by TGrid, upon which the
conservation laws of fluid dynamics are to be
applied, is strongly dependent on the size of the
surface elements representing the vehicle
model, the size of the surface meshes
representing the boundary of the computational
domain, and the size of the computational
domain itself. For the cases analyzed in the
present study, the cell count varied from 2.5
million cells to more than 6 million cells. Due to
grid adaptations (to be discussed later), close to
1 million cells were added in the solution
process to the original cell count, resulting in a
final cell count in the range of 3.5 million to more
than 7 million.
The commercial CFD code Fluent [12] was used
for the current analysis. The code is a finite
volume based code using an unstructured grid
system. The cell structure of mixed cell type
described above can thus be directly used by
this CFD code. The turbulent flow field was
solved in the framework of the Reynolds
Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations. The
realizable k-ε two-equation eddy viscosity
transport model [13] was used in the present
study. It is noted that this turbulence model was
found to perform well for steady state
aerodynamic calculations of road vehicles, and
has been recommended by Fluent Inc. as the
turbulence model of choice for vehicle external
aerodynamic studies [14].
The boundary conditions for the computations
were set as follows. At the inlet of the virtual
wind tunnel, the incoming velocity was set to
22m/s (50mph), a turbulence level of Tu = 1%
and a turbulent eddy viscosity ratio of 20 were
set for the turbulence field. At the exit of the
virtual wind tunnel, the pressure outflow
condition was specified. Inviscid wall conditions
were applied at the virtual wind tunnel side/top
walls and the floor. At the vehicle surfaces,
velocity was set to zero and the wall-functions
approach [15] was used to model the turbulence
field, specifically, the non-equilibrium wall-
functions formulation available in Fluent was
used.
NUMERICAL RESULTS
Each of the three generic vehicle models
(sedan, SUV, and pickup truck) was placed in
each of the five virtual wind tunnels for vehicle
external aerodynamics calculations. Thus, there
were a total of fifteen cases of numerical
calculations. In each case, the numerical
analysis was first run using the first order
scheme for its numerical stability properties.
After a few hundred iterations, the numerical
scheme was switched to the second order
scheme for better numerical accuracy. Grid
adaptations were carried out a few times based
on the variations of the gradient of the total
pressure, the variations of the gradient of the
static pressure, and the y+ values on vehicle
surfaces. The grid adaptation based on the
variations of the gradient of the total pressure
adds cells in the vehicle wake region; the grid
adaptation based on the variations of the
gradient of static pressure adds cells in the
stagnation point region and some additional
cells in the vehicle wake region; and the grid
adaptation based on the y+ value adds cells in
regions near the vehicle surfaces.
During the solution process, both the equation
residuals and the global aerodynamic quantities
such as the drag coefficient and the lift
coefficient were tracked. The numerical solution
was deemed converged when there was more
than a four orders of magnitude reduction in
residuals and when the global aerodynamic
quantities such as the drag coefficient did not
show any change with any further grid
adaptation. In the cases calculated, these global
aerodynamic quantities either reached a
constant value or oscillated about a constant
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
value with a small amplitude of 0.001 to 0.003.
At the end of the computation, y+ values at the
vehicle surfaces were also checked to confirm
that they fell into a range for which the wall-
functions are valid and thus the turbulent wall
boundary conditions used in the analysis and
the numerical results of the analysis based on
these boundary conditions are consistent with
each other. In the cases studied, the wall y+
values were in the range of 50 to 160, and wall-
functions were indeed valid.
The focus of the computational study was to find
the closed-wall wind tunnel blockage effect on
vehicle aerodynamic drag. To pin down the
causality, computations for each vehicle model
in different virtual wind tunnels were carried out
with the same set of governing equations,
boundary conditions, and surface meshes
representing the vehicle component surfaces.
The resulting drag coefficients for the fifteen
cases are summarized in table 3.
Table 3: Drag coefficients
Sedan SUV
WT 0.238 0.285
(Baseline)
WT (P1) 0.232 0.276
WT (P2) 0.228 0.269
WT (P3) 0.226 0.266
WT (P4) 0.226 0.266
From the results shown in table 3, it is seen that
for a given vehicle model, the aerodynamic drag
coefficient becomes smaller as the virtual wind
tunnel becomes bigger, consistent with
decreasing blockage effects, as one would have
expected. It is noted that the same trend holds
for all three types of vehicle models. It is also
seen that for a given virtual wind tunnel, the
numerical analysis shows that a sedan has a
lower drag than that of an SUV, and an SUV has
a lower drag than that of a pickup truck. Such a
drag variation between vehicle types is in line
with the existing data from the wind tunnel tests.
WIND TUNNEL BLOCKAGE
As mentioned in the introduction section, the
wind tunnel blockage effect arises because of
the constraining effect of the solid walls of the
wind tunnel on the airflow passing over and
around the vehicle, an effect that is absent for
the airflow passing over and around the vehicle
on a level road. As described in [4] and [16], for
example, the blockage effect can be subdivided
into two components: the solid blockage and the
wake blockage. The former is the constraining
effect of the wind tunnel walls on the airflow that
is being displaced by the vehicle and the closed
separation zone that the vehicle generates. The
latter is the constraining effect of the wind tunnel
walls on the vehicle wake which has a natural
tendency to spread due its the viscous effect.
Both blockage components contribute to the
wind tunnel blockage effect, and it is their
combined effects that need to be accounted for
in a blockage correction.
Pickup
truck The constraining effect of the wind tunnel on the
airflow can be illustrated by the reciprocal effect
0.396 of the constrained airflow on the wind tunnel
walls, which is the perspective of the pressure
signature method [17] for the blockage
0.382 correction. In the present numerical study, the
pressure signature on the wind tunnel walls is a
part of the numerical solution and is readily
0.370 available. For example, figure 6 shows the
pressure coefficient distribution on the ceiling
0.366 and the side walls of the baseline virtual wind
tunnel when the pickup truck model is placed in
the virtual wind tunnel. The constraining effect is
0.364
clearly present, given the variations in pressure
coefficient, which varies from –0.08 to 0.02.
Figure 6: Pressure signature on WT-Baseline
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
While figure 6 shows the global distribution of
the pressure coefficient on the wind tunnel walls,
the pressure signature can be further illustrated
by figure 7, which shows the pressure coefficient
distribution on the symmetry lines of the wind
tunnel ceilings. Pressure signatures for both the
baseline virtual wind tunnel and the largest
virtual wind tunnel, WT-P4, are shown in figure
7. While the pressure coefficient varies between
–0.08 to 0.02 on the ceiling of the baseline
virtual wind tunnel, the pressure coefficient is
basically constant on the ceiling of WT-P4.
Pressure Coefficient
0.04
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
X (m)
Figure 7: Pressure signature on ceilings
For automotive aerodynamic testing in a wind
tunnel, the issue of blockage correction is both
important and difficult. Without a proper
correction method to account for blockage
effects, test results will not reflect the vehicle
aerodynamic performance on the road, and test
results from different wind tunnels will not be
able to be compared. [It should be pointed out
that the wind tunnel test can still be used to
guide the vehicle aerodynamic development,
based on incremental results.] Yet, the
correction is difficult to achieve, due mainly to
the bluff body nature of the automobile vehicles.
A number of correction methods have been
proposed and can be found in [4]. Recent
entries for the blockage correction are given in
[18-20]. These correction methods are based
mainly on potential flow theory and/or empirical
correlations. The following sub-section presents
the results of our work on a CFD-based
blockage correction method.
CFD-BASED BLOCKAGE CORRECTION
The first step in developing a CFD-based
correction for the blockage effect is to find the
vehicle drag coefficient at the blockage free
condition. To do so, the CFD results for each of
the three vehicle models in the five virtual wind
tunnels reported in the previous section are
presented against the wind tunnel blockage
ratio, which is defined as
φ = A/S (1),
WT-P4L where A is the vehicle frontal area, and S is the
GMAL4 cross section area of the wind tunnel. The
resulting blockage ratio is thus dependent on
both the wind tunnel and the vehicle model
tested.
25 It is then assumed that for sufficiently small
blockage ratios, the aerodynamic drag for a
given vehicle is a function of the blockage ratio
only. Such an assumption means that the details
of the wind tunnel section are not very important
when the blockage ratio is sufficiently small.
Such an assumption is valid as long as the
aspect ratio of the wind tunnel cross section is
not deviating too far from 1 and the blockage
ratio is small enough. Since the above functional
dependence is applied to a given vehicle over
different virtual wind tunnels rather than over
different vehicles, the vehicle specific
information is retained. The vehicle specific
information is expected to appear in the
functional relationship in the form of vehicle
aerodynamic properties, drag coefficient, for
example. For sufficiently small blockage ratios,
the functional relationship is, by taking the
leading terms in a Taylor series expansion,
CD(φ) = CD(0) + c φ (2),
where CD(φ) is the aerodynamic drag coefficient
at any wind tunnel with sufficiently small
blockage ratio, and CD(0) is the aerodynamic
drag coefficient for the vehicle at the blockage
free condition. The term cφ is then the blockage
correction at this given level of blockage ratio.
Equation (2), together with the computed
numerical results, can be used to find the
blockage free drag coefficient for each of the
three vehicle models in the present study. The
CFD results for Car 3 in WT-P3 and WT-P4 are
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
considered first. The blockage ratios for Car 3 in
WT-P3 and WT-P4 are 0.0056 and 0.0028,
respectively. They can be easily found since
both the vehicle frontal area and the cross
section area of the virtual wind tunnels are
available, as given in table 1 and table 2, and
they are sufficiently small for equation (2) to be
valid. The computed aerodynamic drag
coefficients for Car 3 in WT-P3 and WT-P4 are
given in table 3. This information, upon using
equation (2), is sufficient to find CD(0) for Car 3.
Similar exercises were also carried out for the
SUV model and the pickup truck model. The
resulting blockage free drag coefficients are
given in table 4. Also given in table 4 are the
aerodynamic drag coefficients for these models
in the baseline virtual wind tunnel. The third row
of table 3 is an entry defined as
∆CD(CFD) =
CD(WT-Baseline) - CD(0)
This term gives the difference between the
aerodynamic drag coefficient in the baseline
virtual wind tunnel that has a blockage effect
and the aerodynamic drag coefficient that is
blockage free. Thus, this term gives the
blockage effect for each of the three vehicle
models placed in the baseline virtual wind
tunnel. The word CFD is used to indicate that
this blockage effect is completely based on the
CFD approach.
Table 4: Blockage effect
Sedan SUV
CD(0) 0.226 0.266
CD(WT-Baseline) 0.238 0.285
∆CD(CFD) 0.012 0.019
With the blockage effect thus found, the CFD-
based blockage correction method on the wind
tunnel test result is proposed to be
CD(0, exp) = CD(exp) - ∆CD(CFD)
In equation (4), the left hand side is the desired
drag coefficient that is free from the wind tunnel
blockage effects. On the right hand side,
CD(exp) is the aerodynamic drag coefficient
obtained from the wind tunnel test. In this case,
it is assumed that the test is done in GMAL as
reflected in the choice of the baseline virtual
wind tunnel. ∆CD(CFD) is the CFD-based
blockage correction as given in equation (3) and
table 4. By proposing the blockage correction as
given in equation (4), it is assumed that the
blockage effect can be accurately captured in
CFD. Such an assumption is reasonable since
based on past experience, CFD is quite
accurate in capturing incremental drag
coefficient due to changes in either vehicle
geometry or its surroundings.
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CORRECTIONS
As mentioned previously, there are a number of
(3). proposed blockage correction methods, as
documented in [4]. These correction methods
can be classified into two groups. Following the
naming convention used in [4], the blockage
correction methods in the first group are the
continuity method [21], the area ratio method
[22], Maskell’s correction [23], the wall proximity
method [24], Mercker’s method [25], and Thom
and Herriot method [26-27], respectively. The
blockage correction methods in the second
group are the pressure signature method [17]
and the velocity ratio method [28]. The blockage
corrections in the first group are given in terms
of vehicle geometry, wind tunnel geometry, and
(in some cases) the vehicle aerodynamic
properties. Since these information is readily
Pickup available, the application of these correction
truck methods is very straightforward. This is the
strongest point for the correction methods in the
0.362 first group. In comparison, the correction
methods in the second group are more involved,
0.396 requiring information at the wind tunnel ceiling,
and some post-test processing is needed before
0.034 they can be used. The strength of the correction
methods in the second group is that they contain
more flow physics and tend to be more
accurate.
Evaluation of these correction methods against
the available test data was given in [4]. The test
data included both the scale-model test and the
full-scale test. The general finding in [4] is that
(4). while none of the correction methods gives a
good blockage correction for all cases,
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

Mercker’s method, the velocity ratio method, and
the pressure signature method are better than
the other correction methods in overall
performance. Reference [4] also pointed out the
need for a more complete database for the
assessment of the blockage correction methods.
The blockage correction methods in the first
group were evaluated against the blockage
correction results generated by the CFD
approach, and are reported in this sub-section.
These correction methods were applied to each
of the three generic vehicle models in the
baseline virtual wind tunnel (which corresponds
to the test section of GMAL, as commented
previously.) These corrections are simple in
form and easy to use. The worked examples for
using these corrections, presented in the
appendix part of [4], provided a helpful guideline
for their application to this comparison. The
results are given in table 5. Also shown in table
5, for the purpose of comparison are the
blockage effects obtained via the CFD approach.
Table 5: Blockage corrections
as the upper limit for the correction method to be
valid.
From the results shown in table 5, it is seen that
all the correction methods give the right trend for
the corrections among the three types of
vehicles, i.e., the blockage correction for the
pickup model is larger than that of the SUV
model, which itself is larger than that of the
sedan model. This trend is in agreement with
the blockage correction trend developed in CFD.
The reason for such a trend is that the SUV
model has a larger aerodynamic drag than the
sedan model, while the pickup truck model has
both the larger aerodynamic drag and a larger
blockage ratio. The area ratio method, Maskell’s
method, and Thom and Herriot method give
corrections consistently lower than the CFD
method, while the wall proximity method gives
consistently larger corrections. The comparisons
further show that for the sedan model, Mercker’s
method gives the best match to CFD predictions,
while the continuity method provides the best
agreement to CFD for the SUV model and the
pickup truck model.

Sedan SUV Pickup DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

truck
CFD has been used to assess the wind tunnel
Continuity 0.017 0.018 0.039 blockage effects of three types of vehicle
models (sedan, SUV, and pickup truck.) By
Area ratio 0.004 0.004 0.010 solving the flow field over the vehicle in both the
baseline virtual wind tunnel and two larger
Maskell 0.005 0.006 0.019 virtual wind tunnels, the drag coefficient for the
blockage free condition as well as the
Wall proximity 0.028 0.046 0.067 incremental drag coefficient due to the blockage
effect can be found. A CFD-based blockage
correction method is then proposed by
Mercker 0.011 0.012 0.026
assuming that the blockage effect can be fully
captured via CFD.
T&H 0.007 0.009 0.015
To use the CFD-based correction method, CFD
∆CD (CFD) 0.012 0.019 0.034 solutions for the same vehicle model need to be
solved three times, in three virtual wind tunnels.
The first virtual wind tunnel corresponds to the
real wind tunnel for which the test is carried out.
In the above table, T & H indicates the Thom The remaining two virtual wind tunnels are
and Herriot method. In finding the blockage auxiliary virtual wind tunnels (designated as WT-
correction for the wall proximity method, the van P3 and WT-P4 in the present study) introduced
correction derivatives were used for the pickup in order to find the drag coefficient at the
truck model, since specific derivatives for pickup blockage free conditions. It is essential to
trucks were not available. In addition, the height construct the mesh in such a way that the
ratio (model height/wind tunnel height) was baseline wind tunnel and the larger virtual wind
truncated at 0.3 in the calculations of the tunnels share the same mesh for the common
correction derivatives, since 0.3 was indicated part and hex mesh be used for the remaining
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018
portion of the computational domain, so that the
grid effect is filtered out in the numerical study. It
should be pointed out that in CFD analysis of
vehicle external aerodynamics, most time is
spent on creating the vehicle model. Once the
vehicle is created, only a small increment of time
and effort is needed in order to run the same
model in two larger virtual wind tunnels.
In this study, the baseline virtual wind tunnel
was taken as the test section of GMAL. Thus,
these results on blockage correction would be
directly relevant for aerodynamic test at GMAL.
With a modification of the baseline virtual wind
tunnel, the same methodology can be used to
find blockage corrections for other wind tunnels
of closed-wall type as well. Given that GMAL is
the largest dedicated automotive aerodynamic
wind tunnel, the blockage effect is only expected
to be bigger for other closed test section wind
tunnels.
Two questions deserve further investigation.
The first concerns the boundary condition on the
wind tunnel floor. In the numerical calculations,
inviscid wall boundary conditions were used to
model both the side/top walls and the floor of the
virtual wind tunnels. Inviscid wall conditions
were often applied to the side and top walls due
to the fact that the effect of these walls on the
flow field near the vehicle is potential in nature.
For a typical CFD analysis, the floor is normally
treated as a viscous wall. In this study focusing
on the blockage effect, however, the floor was
treated as an inviscid wall. The treatment was
based on the consideration that the effect of the
turbulent boundary layer of the wind tunnel floor
should be rather similar for the cases with and
without the wind tunnel blockage. Since we are
interested in the blockage correction, which is
the difference between the two cases, the floor
could be treated as an inviscid wall. However,
further evidence is needed to confirm this
assumption.
The second question concerns the effects of the
cooling flow and underbody components on the
blockage correction. In the present study, none
of the three generic vehicle models has cooling
flow and all have a flush underbody. To apply
the blockage correction to test data on real
vehicles, the effects of the cooling flow and
underbody components need to be assessed.
When the cooling flow and the underbody
components are included, the blockage effect
could be increased due to the possibility that the
local flow structure over an underbody
component or an under-hood component may
change from sub-critical to super-critical or vice
versa, or the possibility that a flow separation
point is moved. It should be pointed out that the
existing correction methods would have
difficulties in capturing these effects, since all
existing correction methods assume that the
flow structures with and without blockage are
the same. In the CFD-based approach,
however, the assessment of the blockage effect
can be carried out in the same way as for the
three generic vehicle models in the present
paper. Currently, an effort is underway for such
an assessment.
The methodology of this paper reflects
observations that the wind tunnel test approach
is more accurate in evaluating the vehicle
aerodynamic drag, and the CFD approach is
less constraining in terms of the operating
conditions of the virtual wind tunnel. An
improved approach can thus be found by
combining both the experimental approach and
the CFD analysis approach in vehicle
aerodynamic development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Z. Y. would like to thank Mr. Ron Schoon, his
manager, for his support during this project. The
vehicle surface models were kindly provided by
Cheng Qian, Jim Johnson, and Songwei Zhang
of General Motors. Informative discussions with
Paul Beebe, Greg Fadler, Frank Meinert, and
Bob Niemiec are gratefully acknowledged. The
authors would like to thank Dr. J. Wiedemann,
the session chairman, and the other reviewers,
whose comments improved the quality of the
paper.
REFERENCES
1. Hucho, W.-H., “Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles”,
2nd ed., SAE Inc, p695, 1998
2. Duell, E., Walter, J., Arnette, S., and Yen, J.,
“Recent advances in large-scale aeroacoustic
wind tunnels”, AIAA 2002-2503, 2002.
3. SAE Standard, “Aerodynamic testing of road
vehicles: open jet wind tunnel boundary
interference”, SAE J2071, 1990.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of British Columbia, Wednesday, August 01, 2018

4. SAE Standard, “Aerodynamic testing of road 24. Bettes, W.H. and Kelly, K.B., “The influence of
vehicles: closed-test-section wind tunnel wind tunnel solid boundaries on automotive test
boundary interference”, SAE J2085, 1993. data,” SAE-741031, 1974
5. Han, T., “Computational analysis of three- 25. Mercker, E., “A blockage correction for closed
dimensional turbulent flow around a bluff body section automobile wind tunnels using the MIRA
in ground proximity”, AIAA J., Vol. 27, No. 9., blockage model,” J. Wind Engineering and
1989. Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 22, 1985.
6. Yang, Z. Schenkel, F.K., and Fadler, G., 26. Thom, A., “Blockage corrections in a closed high
“Corrections for the pressure gradient effect on speed tunnel,” ARC R&M 2033, 1943.
vehicle aerodynamic drag”, SAE-2003-01-0935, 27. Herriot, J.C., “Blockage corrections for three-
2003. dimensional flow closed-throat wind tunnels with
7. Kelly, K.B., Provencher, L.G., and Schenkel, F.K., considerations of the effect of compressibility,”
“The General Motors engineering staff NACA TR 995, 1950.
aerodynamics laboratory – a full-scale automotive 28. Hensel, R.W., “Rectangular wind tunnel
wind tunnel”, SAE-820371, 1982. corrections using the velocity ratio model,” NACA
8. Khalight, B., private communications TN 2372, 1951.
9. Ahmed, S.R., Ramm, G., and Falting, G., “Some
salient features of the time averaged ground
vehicle wake,” SAE-840300, 1984. CONTACT
10. Al-Gami, A.M., Bernal, L.P., and Khalighi, B.,
“Experimental investigation of the near wake of a
For information regarding this paper, please
pick-up truck,” SAE-2003-01-0651, 2003.
11. TGrid 3.4, Fluent Inc., 2002. contact:
12. Fluent 6.0, Fluent Inc., 2002. Zhigang Yang
13. Shih, T.H., Liou, W.W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z., and General Motors Corporation
Zhu, J., “A new k-e eddy viscosity model for high Phone: 586-986-4287
Reynolds number turbulent flows – model
E-mail: Zhigang.Yang@gm.com
development and validation”, Computer and
Fluids, Vol. 24, 1995
14. Fluent presentations, Fluent Automotive User
Meetings, 2002. TERMINOLOGY
15. Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B., “The numerical
computation of turbulent flows”, Computational A vehicle frontal area
Methods in Appl. Mech. & Engineering, Vol. 3,
1974
S wind tunnel cross section area
16. Hucho, W.-H., “Aerodynamics of road vehicle”, φ blockage ratio (defined as A/S)
2nd ed., SAE Inc, p674-678, 1998 CD drag coefficient
17. Hackett, J.E. and Wilsden, D.J., “Estimation of CD(0) blockage free drag coefficient
wind tunnel blockage from wall pressure ∆CD change of drag coefficient due to the
signatures: A review of recent work at Lockheed- blockage effect
Georgia,” AIAA Paper 78-828, 1978.
18. Cooper, K.R., Mercker, E., Wiedemann, J.,
“Improved blockage corrections for bluff bodies in
closed and open wind tunnels,” 10th International
Conference on Wind Effects on Buildings and
Structures, Sweden, June 1999.
19. Wickern, G., “On the application of classical wind
tunnel corrections for automotive bodies,” SAE-
2001-01-0633, 2001.
20. Cooper, K.R. and Mokry, M., “Further
development of the IAR two-variable boundary-
interference correction method for low-speed
wind tunnel data,” 40th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, USA, 14-17
Jan., 2002.
21. Carr, G.W., “Wind tunnel blockage correction for
road vehicles,” MIRA Report, 1971/4, UK, 1971.
22. Pope, A. and Harper, J.J., “Low speed wind
tunnel test,” John Wiley & Sons, 1966.
23. Maskell, E.C.., “A theory of the blockage effect on
bluff bodies and stalled wings in a closed wind
tunnels,” ARC R&M 3649, 1963.,