Alternative approaches to rear end drag reduction Technical Report Torbjrn Gustavsson

Stockholm 2006 KT ! "epartment o# Aeronautical and $ehicle %ngineering Ro&al 'nstitute o# Technolog& TR'TA(A$% 2006)*2 'SS+ *6,*(-660 .../kth/se

Preface
This paper .as originall& #ormed during m& sta& at KT Startup#actor& in the autumn o# 2000/ The intent o# that sta& .as originall& to make a commercial product out o# the patent ' received the same &ear/ The project turned into research and one result is this paper/ 1or #urther in2uires in the area ' can be reached b& e(mail) torbjorn3vorta#lo./com Sincerel& &ours Torbjrn Gustavsson .../vorta#lo./com Reaching #or the stars4

Acknowledgements
Above all ' .ould like to thank Kim +ouira #or his support during m& sta& at KT Startup#actor&/ Second ' .ould like to thank all m& #riends and #amil&! especiall& m& brother and mother! #or support and #eedback during development o# this project/ ' also .ould like to thank 5ohn 6 7in at +ASA 7angle& Research 6entre .ho is the source o# man& o# the reports ' used as re#erence material/ e has produced an ama8ing amount o# .ork in ver& interesting areas and ' also .ould like to thank him #or providing some o# his material #ree o# charge/ ope#ull& ' .ill get the opportunit& to meet him some da&/ 7ast but not least ' .ould like to thank Tomas 9elin and Arthur Ri88i at the "epartment o# Aerod&namics at KT #or supporting the idea that the subject ' buried m&sel# so deep in could end up in something else than just kno.ledge! that is this report/ :ithout them this .ork .ould never have taken place/

Abstract
This report begins .ith a short introduction to the problem o# aerod&namic drag #or commercial vehicles/ The main subject is a surve& o# di##erent technologies available #or decreasing drag and increasing per#ormance on blunt bodies and di##users/ 'nitiall& the .ork done b& +ASA on the area o# boat(tailing a bus is overvie.ed/ A#ter that the #ocus turns to the 6oanda(e##ect and the possibilit& to use it to improve per#ormance on trailers in the areas o# #uel consumption! breaking and d&namic stabilit&/ ;oat(tail plates #inish up the studies per#ormed on commercial road vehicles/ The interests then turn to alternative! unconventional approaches to reattach #lo. over a back.ard #acing ramp/ ere are the use o# primaril& grooves and vorte< generators surve&ed/ The report ends .ith a closer look on the use o# micro vorte< generators on a 6(*00 aircra#t and the drag reduction created/

Table of Contents
1.NOMENCLATURE AND A RE!"AT"ON#................................................................................................. $ %."NTRODUCT"ON................................................................................................................................................ & '.D"((ERENT TEC)NOLO*"E#....................................................................................................................... + 0/*/;>AT(TA'7'+G///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ? 3.1.1.Controlled boundary layers ................................................................................................................ 12 3.1.2.Aerodynamic boat-tail........................................................................................................................... 23 0/2/GR>>$%S///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 23.2.1.Transverse and swept grooves............................................................................................................... 28 3.2.2.Longitudinal grooves............................................................................................................................. 32 3.2.3.Passive porous sur ace.......................................................................................................................... 33 0/0/$>RT%@ G%+%RAT>RS/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////0= 3.3.1.!ane-type vorte" generators..................................................................................................................3# 3.3.2.$%eeler vorte" generators.....................................................................................................................3& 3.3.3.'lunt body application o !orte" (enerators........................................................................................#1 ,.CONT"NUED -OR........................................................................................................................................ ,$ /.CONCLU#"ON#.................................................................................................................................................,& $.RE(ERENCE#................................................................................................................................................... ,0

1. Nomenclature and abbreviations

3" A BpC a b 6d 6J 61" d dp "h "v eE% # GTR' % l ll 7p m K 2 Re Sre# L H $j $G . < three dimensional angle o# attack in degrees angle to.ard #reestream #lo. boundar& la&er thickness span.ise distance bet.een each geometric c&cle di##erence drop o# pie8ometric pressure over length ll air densit& groove depth groove spacing drag coe##icient D 1"EFGH2 GE2I momentum coe##icient D FmG$jIEF2GSre#I 6omputer 1luid "&namics $G spacing pipe diameter hori8ontal o##set o# boat(tail plates divided b& the .idth o# the trailer vertical o##set o# boat(tail plates divided b& the .idth o# the trailer non(dimensional device length #riction #actor! roughness and Re&nolds number dependent Georgia Tech Research 'nstitute $G height $G length pipe length boat(tail plate length divided b& the .idth o# the trailer air mass #lo. air pressure #reestream d&namic pressure Re&nolds number re#erence(E#ront( area mean velocit& #ree stream velocit& MmEsN isentropic airjet velocit& vorte< generator truck .idth distance

2. Introduction
Aerod&namic drag o# a commercial vehicle is a large part o# the vehicles #uel consumption! according to ucho M*N it can contribute to as much as 60 O o# the vehicles #uel consumption/ So #ar aerod&namic design o# commercial vehicles has concentrated on the #ront end o# the vehicle/ Since it produces most drag it has been the most urgent part to optimise/ This optimisation can easil& be spotted on trucks and tourist coaches/ The rear end con#iguration has up until recentl& been neglected/ Gilhaus M2N ackno.ledge the #act that on tourist coaches the rear end can contribute to as much as 2- O o# the over all drag/ This is the reason to .h& the author has chosen to take a closer look at the di##erent technologies available to reduce rear end drag/ 9uch o# this technolog& has its o##spring in aeroplane aerod&namics and the design o# di##users/ The main #ocus .ill be on tourist coaches since the& have a high average speed o# operation and thus are more a##ected b& the aerod&namic drag/ All results given belo. can o# course be applied to all kind o# vehicles such as trucks and other.ise blunt vehicles moving .ith high average speed/ ;ut the authors e<perience is that the market #or tourist coaches is more openminded/

3. Different technologies
3.1.Boat-tailing
The most common and natural .a& o# reducing rear end drag is boat(tailing! also called rear end tapering/ 't o##ers a technolog& commonl& kno.n! .idel& used and .ith recognised e##ect/ ;ut the practical application o# it is limited due to the #act that it greatl& reduces the com#ort #or the passengers and loading capabilit&! see #igure */ Taking tapering to its drag reduction possibilit& limits is not a realistic possibilit& o# practical reasons but it is still interesting to stud& the results o# such research since it could be used as a benchmark and goal #or other studies/

(1g2re 13 Effects of ta4er1ng t5e rear end of a to2r1st coac5 617.

+asa M0N per#ormed a series o# tests that suggest the use o# a truncated boat(tail/ :ith #ull( scale tests the& achieved a drag coe##icient o# 0/002 .ith a #ull boat(tail F#igure 2I and a drag coe##icient o# 0/00- .ith a truncated boat(tail F#igure 0I this .hen a bus .ithout a boat(tail has a 6d o# 0/==,/ 't can also be compared to a rounded nose section that according to ;levins M=N has 6d o# appro<imatel& 0/6 .hen Re&nolds number is P*0=/

(1g2re %3 (2ll scale tests of a boat8ta1l at Nasa Dr9den. 6'7

(1g2re '3 (2ll scale tests of a tr2ncated boat8ta1l at Nasa Dr9den. 6'7

The truncation o# the boat(tail .as done at the natural point o# separation/ A less curved boat( tail .ould probabl& given larger di##erences bet.een a #ull boat(tail .ith #ull& attached #lo. and a truncated boat(tail Tests .ere per#ormed at speeds ranging up to 26 mEs FQ0/6 kmEhI and corresponding Re&nolds number ranged up to */0G*0-/ That includes the length o# both the vehicle and the boat(tail/ The general description o# vehicle used in tests is described in #igures = and ,/

(1g2re ,3 D1mens1ons of t5e or1g1nal tr2ck w1t5 s:2ared corners 1n meters ;1nc5es<. 6/7

(1g2re /3 D1mens1ons of f2ll and tr2ncated boat8ta1l. 6/7

Tests .ere per#ormed .ith #orebod&! hori8ontal and vertical corners rounded and a #aired and sealed underbod&/ This to avoid separation o# air#lo. at the #ront end o# the vehicle and to ma<imise the e##ect o# the boat(tail con#iguration compared to no boat(tail/ The results o# the test are compressed to #igure 6 and the& indicate that an average o# 02 O drag reduction M,N .as attained .ith the #ull boat(tail compared to a blunt rear end/

*0

(1g2re $3 Aerod9nam1c drag =ers2s =e51cle =eloc1t9 for d1fferent conf1g2rat1ons tested at Nasa Dr9den. 6/7

**

3.1.1. Controlled boundary layers Active separation control s&stem o# rear end #lo. can be per#ormed .ith tangential blo.ing as suggested b& %nglar M6N! M-N among others/ The technolog& is also called the 6oanda %##ect named b& enri 6oanda/ The idea is that a slo. air#lo. that generall& .ould separate over a sur#ace is energi8ed .ith a high(velocit& #lo. and thus the #lo. becomes attached to a curved sur#ace as sho.n b& #igure -/

(1g2re &3 T5e Coanda effect demonstrated on a tra1l1ng edge. 6$7

This can also be balanced .ith the possibilit& to suction o# the boundar& la&er/ These t.o technologies combined give the theoretical reduction o# =0 O in aerod&namic po.er/ The trailer con#iguration simulated at Georgia Tech Research 'nstitute FGTR'I is illustrated in #igure ?/ The main blo.ing slots are placed at each rear corners and one slot at the top leading edge to avoid separation at the #ront end o# the trailer/

(1g2re +3 T5e tra1ler conf1g2rat1on s1m2lated at t5e *eorg1a Tec5 Researc5 "nst1t2te. 6$7

;lo.ing all rear slots could reduce spra& and drag and just blo.ing one slot at the rear control the aerod&namic side #orces and thus give d&namic control to the vehicle/ This could #or instance be used to increase li#t on the trailer and thus reduce rolling resistance and tire .ear/ 'n the opposite .a& it is possible to increase do.n#orce on the trailer and provide breaking assistance .hen needed and improve handling during slipper& conditions/ The e##ect o# .ind gusts could be controlled and managed .ith such a s&stem and reduce the risk o# jack(kni#ing/ As a source o# air#lo. GTR' suggested a second turbo generator/ This to reduce in#luence o# engine per#ormance that other.ise .ould be adverse using bleed o# e<isting turbo pressure or engine e<hausts directl&/ Hsing a secondar& turbo it is necessar& to channel the air #rom the engine compartment to the rear o# the trailer/ 'n the case o# a standard trailer .e assume the length o# - m #or the trailer

*2

and the thickness o# the .alls limit the diameter o# the tubes #rom the e<tra turbo to the rear o# the truck to a diameter o# appro<imatel& 0/* m/ :ith housing #rom the e<tra turbo mounted on the trucks e<haust s&stem it .ould give an overall length o# the tubing o# appro<imatel& *0 m/ ;& assuming airspeed o# 00 mEs in the tubes and a #riction #actor o# 0/00*, F#ig -/2 M?NI and using e2uation -/* #rom 9asse& M?N .e get a pressure drop o#) 2 ll u p C = ll u *!22, 2 0!00*, *0 00 2 = pC = = = 0,*Pa F*I g dp 2 g dp 0!* This does not include losses #rom couplings and bends and similar since the #ormula is used #or Rlong! unobstructed! straight pipesS so the loss can be considered to be even higher/ A lo.er airspeed reduces pressure loss/ Another problem using bleeding o# turbopressure is that the pressure might not be available .hen breaking and turning since the engine is running under lo. revs and not generating #ull pressure/ A solution might be to add another tank o# air under pressure generated b& the compressor to guarantee airsuppl& under all conditions/ 1or .ind(tunnel tests GTR' used a model described b& #igure Q/
2 2

(1g2re 03 *TR" w1nd t2nnel model 1s a gener1c descr14t1on of a tractor8tra1ler conf1g2rat1on. 6$7

The GTR' .ind(tunnel model has a s2uare section area o# 0/?0 m2 F*2Q0 s2/ in/I and the si8e o# the model is a 0/06,(scale model o# a truck that produced a ,/* O .ind(tunnel blockage/ The Re&nolds number based on trailer length .as */QG*06 at H D 0* mEs F-0 mphI or 0/QG*06 at tunnel ma<imum speed/ 1igure *0 sho. the possibilit& in drag reduction #or a 2Q/,(ton F6, 000 poundI *?(.heel tractor(trailer rig .ith a #rontal area o# *0 m2 F*0-/, s2/ #t/I/

*0

(1g2re 1>3 Drag red2ct1ons d2e to blown bo2ndar9 la9ers as s2ggested b9 *TR". T5e 244er c2r=es re4resent1ng total 5orse4ower re:21red at t5e w5eels to o=ercome all forces 4resent. 6$7

At a speed o# 0* mEs F-0 mphI! po.er re2uired to overcome drag and rolling resistance can be reduced b& 2= respectivel& 02 O as suggested b& 1igure *0/ +avier(Stokes e2uation based 6omputational 1luid "&namics anal&sis .as per#ormed at Georgia Tech School o# Aerospace %ngineering/ "i##erences in predicted #lo. are presented in #igures **a and b/

(1g2re 11;a8b<3 C(D 4red1ct1ons of 2nblown and blown bo2ndar9 la9er 4erformed at *eorg1a Tec5 #c5ool of Aeros4ace Eng1neer1ng. T5e reattac5ment of t5e flow clearl9 1nd1cates t5e 4oss1b1l1t9 to red2ce base8drag of c2rrent conf1g2rat1on. 6$7

*=

GTR' manage to sho. through .ind(tunnel test on the model described above that 6d is reduced b& ? O just b& rounding the leading edge o# the trailer/ '# the a#t edges are rounded the drag reduction is o# magnitude - O and that is .ithout blo.ing o# the boundar& la&er/ These simple steps add up to a drag reduction o# *, O .itch clearl& is a simple .a& to reduced #uel consumption/ This is o# course .hen #airing o# the tractor(trailer gap is per#ormed/ :ithout closing o# the gap bet.een the tractor and the trailer the drag increases dramaticall&! especiall& in side(.ind conditions/ As #igure *2 depicts there can be major gains in blo.ing the trailing edges o# a trailer/ The bene#its o# the technolog& is o# course at is best .hen per#ormed on all #our sides/ The tests .ere per#ormed at .ind(tunnel speeds o# 0* mEs F-0 mphI! d&namic pressure o# ? Ka F**/?6 ps#I and Re&nolds number o# 2/,*G*06 based on total length/ At some conditions a ,0 O drag reduction .as measured .hen using blo.n boundar& la&ers/

(1g2re 1%3 Drag red2ct1on w5en blow1ng d1fferent rear tra1l1ng edges at tests 4erformed at *TR". 6&7

"uring some speci#ic conditions! blo.ing over top and bottom slot onl&! drag increased/ This could be! as mentioned earlier! be use#ul .hen breaking the truck/ Some con#igurations .ith blo.n boundar& la&ers and sealed #airing bet.een tractor and trailer sho. such small values o# 6d as some sports cars in the range o# 0/0/ This is then .hen the

*,

tractor still is missing several Srealit& bitsS such as engine cooling intake! mirrors! rough underbod& and bod& component mounting mismatches/ :hen all o# these come into pla& .e can e<pect 6d to rise to SnormalS values once again/ ;ut it is an e<ample o# .hat the technolog& could be able to do in the #uture .hen more care#ul manu#acturing methods and attention to details and aerod&namic drag is deplo&ed/ 9easurements o# li#t varied .ith di##erent slot blo.ing con#igurations as can be seen in #igure *0/ These 2ualities can be used to decrease rolling resistance or increase .heel pressure to reduce breaking distances/

(1g2re 1'3 Tests at *TR" s5ow t5at 1t 1s 4oss1ble to 2se tangent1al blow1ng as a wa9 to 1ncrease or decrease l1ft on t5e tra1ler. 6&7

K/ 1erraresi MQN per#ormed in cooperation .ith Scania A; a series o# 61" tests based on a simple truck model consisting o# a prism .ith rounded edges and .ithout .heels/ 6omparison .as made .ith a .ind(tunnel model based on the Keps con#iguration .ith the $olvo .ind( tunnel as re#erence/ The Keps con#iguration is an aerod&namical ideal truck(trailer combination .ith ,/0 m length! */0 m .idth and 2 m height/

*6

At a simulated velocit& o# ==/= mEs and a re#erence #rontal area o# */0 m2! onl& hal# o# the truck .as modelled due to s&mmetr& reasons! the results suggests a 2Q O reduction in drag .ithout blo.ing the boundar& la&ers as table 2 sho. and the di##erent con#igurations tested is sho.n in #igure *=/ Truck con#iguration ;asic ;oat(tail! lt D 0/,! D *, ;oat(tail! lt D 0/2,! D *, ;oat(tail! lt D 0/*! D *, Round! radius D 0/* m Round! radius D 0/2 m 6d 0/026 0/20 0/2-* 0/2?, 0/2Q0 0/2? Reduction 2Q O *- O *2 O *0 O *= O

Table 13 Res2lt for C(D calc2lat1ons at .T). Red2ct1ons 1n drag are clear and t51s 1s w1t5o2t blow1ng of t5e bo2ndar9 la9ers w5ere lt ? ta1l lengt5 6m7 and ?ta1l angle. 607

(1g2re 1,3 D1fferent conf1g2rat1ons s1m2lated at .T). 607

1igure *, present a reduction in drag #or the rounded section as the radius increase/

(1g2re 1/3 Cd =ers2s rear end ro2nd1ng rad12s. 607

*-

1urther simulations .ere done .ith blo.ing o# the boundar& la&er/ The results are presented in table 2 and suggest a drag reduction o# 2Q O #or boat(tail con#iguration and *- O drag reduction #or a rounded rear end con#iguration/ 6on#iguration ;asic ;oat(tail 6d 0/026 0/2?, 0/2?-! H D 0/= mEs 0/2-,! H D 0/00= mEs 0/2-* 0/2Q*! H D 2 mEs 0/00?! H D 00 mEs 0/20 0/2,! H D 0/= mEs 0/2Q0 0/2-?! H D 0/0= mEs 0/2-! H D 0/0= mEs 0/2?! H D 0/0= mEs 0/2? 0/2-! H D 0/0= mEs

7ength D 0/* m 7ength D 0/2, m 7ength D 0/, m

;asic ;lo.ing ;asic ;lo.ing ;asic ;lo.ing ;asic ;lo.ing upper ;lo.ing upper T lateral Kunctual ;lo.ing ;asic ;lo.ing

Round

Radius D 0/* m

Radius D 0/2 m

Table %3 Res2lt for C(D calc2lat1ons at .T) w5en blow1ng t5e bo2ndar9 la9ers. 607

As be#ore a long boat(tail proves to be the best con#iguration but the most interesting #act is that drag increase .hen blo.ing the boundar& la&er #or that con#iguration/ Suction .as also tested and the results are presented in table 0 .ith a decrease o# 6d o# 2Q O #or boat(tail .ith length o# 0/, m and 2= O #or a rear radius o# 0/* m/ 6on#iguration ;asic ;oat(tail 6d 0/026 0/2?, 0/2?0 0/2-* 0/20/20 0/20 0/2Q0 0/2-! H D 0/0= mEs 0/2=-! K D (2,00 Ka Average 0/2-! K D (2,00 Ka 0/2? 0/2-! H D 0/0= mEs 0/26,! K D (2200 Ka

7ength D 0/* m 7ength D 0/2, m 7ength D 0/, m

Round

Radius D 0/* m

Radius D 0/2 m

;asic Suction ;asic Suction ;asic Suction ;asic Suction upper Suction upper T lateral Koints ;asic Suction upper

Table '3 Res2lt for C(D calc2lat1ons at .T) w5en s2ct1on 1s a44l1ed to t5e bo2ndar9 la9er. 607

The e##ects on the boat(tail Fcompared to no blo.ing or suctionI is as be#ore ver& small and .ill probabl& be balanced out b& the energ& re2uired to propel an& device #or suction or blo.ing o# the boundar& la&er/ 1or the rounded trailing edges blo.ing and suction provide a
*?

clear di##erence in per#ormance/ Since rounding o# the edges is more bene#icial considering spacing #or passengers and load FcargoI it might be interesting to #urther investigate this techni2ue/ ;enjamin 7e Rou< M*0N per#ormed a series o# hal#(scale tests at the 9'RA .ind(tunnel in %ngland/ The tests .ere per#ormed on the K%KS hal#(scale model at air speeds o# 2?/= mEs due to structural limitations o# the model/ The measurements o# the model is) 7ength D ,/0 m :idth D */0 m eight D 2 m

That give a re#erence F#rontalI area o# Sre# D 2/= m2/ The overall con#iguration o# the model is presented in #igure *6 .here the air intake! pump and jet device in pointed out/ Scale is not respected in the dra.ing but should be considered a schematic/ The jet device is closer described in #igure *-/

(1g2re 1$3 O=erall =1ew of t5e test model PEP#. 61>7

*Q

(1g2re 1&3 @et de=1ceAs sect1on w1t5 a ta1l and 4ress2re ta4s. 61>7

The jet device cover the circum#erence o# the a#t o# the truck and the air outlet is just belo. the RSS in #igure *-/ This gives the tangential blo.ing that is investigated/ 'n order to maintain a stead& #lo. the volume be#ore the outlet is large and .ork as a plenum to e2ual out di##erences in pressure/ The tail section is de#ined b& #igure *? and their variations during the tests are accounted #or in table =/

(1g2r 1+3 Ta1l sect1on. L18 (lat eBtens1on of t5e tra1ler to st2d9 t5e effect of t5e locat1on of t5e Cet from t5e t2rn1ng s2rface. R8 Rad12s of t5e ro2nded 4art. 8 Angle of t5e ro2nded 4art. L%8 (lat 4art as a boat8ta1l. 61>7

20

Table ,3 !ar1at1ons of ta1l 4arameters d2r1ng t5e M"RA tests. 61>7

The length and height o# the tail is given b& #ormulas 2 and 0 Ltail = L* + ) sinF I + L2 cosF I F2I * tail = ) F* cosF II + L2 sinF I F0I The #irst aim o# the e<periments .as to determine the best tail con#igurations/ This .as done using a 0 mm slot .ith blo.n and non(blo.n boundar& la&ers to determine .hich con#iguration .as most bene#icial/ 1igure *? sho. the di##erent con#igurations tested and table , present the results/

2*

(1g2re 103 D1fferent ta1l conf1g2rat1ons tested at t5e M"RA w1nd8t2nnel. 61>7 Cd wit%out blowing ;aseline T2 T0 T= T, T6 TT? TQ T'0 T** T *2 T*0 T *= 0!0== 0!0=0!0=6 0!0=0 0!0=* 0!0=, 0!0*2 0!0=0 0!0,0!0,Q 0!0== 0!0=0 0!0=0!0=, Cd wit% ma"imum blowing 0!0=? 0!00? 0!00Q 0!0=0 0!002 0!0=6 0!00* 0!0*= 0!06, 0!0=? 0!0=2 0!0=0!0,0 0!0,2

+ame

,escription

Rounded Rounded Rounded Rounded 9i<ed ;oat(tail ;oat(tail ;oat(tail 9i<ed 9i<ed 9i<ed 9i<ed 9i<ed

/positive or decreasing drag0 (= Q 0 Q (*

Cd -points.

**
26 (? ** 2 (= (0 (-

Table /3 Test res2lts from M"RA w1t5 and w1t5o2t blow1ng of t5e bo2ndar9 la9ers. 61>7

22

't is clearl& seen that con#igurations - and ? are those .ho present the lo.est drag and largest di##erence in 6d/ 6omparison bet.een the tails 0! ** and *2 sho.s that increased length o# 7* is not bene#icial #or drag reduction/ Tail number , sho. that there is no point in e<tending the tail be&ond the point o# separation! on the contrar&! a prolonged tail be&ond that point increase drag/ So it .ould be interesting to #ind the point o# separation and thus optimise tail length/ ;ut all these values are lo. compared to the ones achieved .hen using boat(tails and that con#iguration is to pre#er/ The most bene#icial con#iguration .ould be the *, tail as con#irmed b& other tests at other times and as is sho.n b& table ,/ 1urther investigation o# tail ? .as done since it in an earl& stage sho.ed the highest drag drop/ "i##erent blo. ratios and slot heights .ere tested and the slot height o# * mm seems to be the most e##icient/ This might not directl& be trans#erred to a #ull(scale model so in that case optimal slot height must be #ound/ The po.er savings on this devise .as about 20 O compared to the re#erence values and .as achieved as earlier mentioned .ith tail ? and ma<imum blo.ing/ 3.1.2. Aerodynamic boat-tail An aerod&namic boat(tail! also called boat(tail plates! .as evaluated at +asa Ames Research 6entre M**N/ The con#iguration is described b& #igure 20/ The idea is to trap a vorte< or edd& in the corner bet.een the rear o# the trailer and boat(tail plates/ The dimensions o# the truck is not given in the report M**N but is assumed to be o# standard dimensions/

(1g2re %>3 T5e conf1g2rat1on of aerod9nam1c boat8ta1l com4ared to ord1nar9 r1g1d boat8ta1l. 6117

The edd& turn the #lo. in.ards as it separates #rom the rear o# the trailer and creates a virtual boat(tail and thus increase the base pressure acting on the rear o# the vehicle and reduce the

20

net aerod&namic drag o# the vehicle/ 1igure 2* sho. the aerod&namic boat(tail mounted on the rear end o# the truck/

(1g2re %13 T5e rear end conf1g2rat1on of t5e tra1ler w5en 4erformed w1nd8t2nnel tests accord1ng to Lanser et. al. at t5e Nasa Ames Researc5 Centre. 6117

Table 6 sho. the di##erent geometrical con#igurations tested/

7K 0/0 0/2= 0!2= 0/2= 0/00 0/00 0/00 0/00 0!00 0/06 0/06 0/06 0/06 0/06 0/== 0/== 0/== "$ 0!0 0/0= 0/06 0/*2 0/0= 0!06 0!0Q 0/0= 0/06 0/0= 0!06 0/*2 0/*, 0/0= 0/0= 0/06 0/0Q "h 0!0 0!0= 0/06 0/*2 0!0= 0/06 0/0Q 0/06 0/0Q 0!0= 0!06 0/*2 0/*, 0!06 0/0= 0/06 0/0Q

Table $3 D1fferent conf1g2rat1ons tested at t5e Nasa Ames Researc5 Centre 2s1ng t5e aerod9nam1c boat8 ta1l descr1bed 1n (1g2re %1. All lengt5s and d1stances are normal1sed b9 t5e tra1ler w1dt5. 6117

2=

'n #igure 22 a(b the pressure distribution across the rear doors o# the truck at &a. angles 0 and 6 are presented/ 't clearl& sho.n F#igure 22 bI that the pressure inside the aerod&namic boat(tail has increased/ The ma<imal 6d .as received .hen hori8ontal and vertical o##set F"h! "vI .as 0/06. F. D truck .idthI and 7p D 0/06/

(1g2re %%;a8b<3 Press2re d1str1b2t1on o=er t5e centre of t5e rear doors for t5e basel1ne and o4t1m2m conf1g2rat1on. 6117

6d data .ere obtained at a velocit& o# 2, mEs F,? milesEhourI/ The device consistentl& sho.ed drag reductions in the range o# *0 O but it .as also sensitive to &a. angle as #igure 20 sho./

2,

(1g2re %'3 C5ange 1n drag as a f2nct1on of 9aw angle w5en o4t1m2m aerod9nam1c boat8ta1l 1s mo2nted. CDDref 1s t5e or1g1nal Cd of t5e tr2ck w1t5 no aerod9nam1c de=1se mo2nted at t5e rear. 6117

26

3.2.Grooves
Another technolog& developed b& 5/6/ 7in et/ al/ M*2N but originating in the Soviet Hnion is the use o# transverse and s.ept grooves/ The .ork .as per#ormed on a di##user but should be applicable on other areas too/ Some ,0 O drag reduction has been reported on blu## bodies .ith grooves/ 5/6/ 7in et/ al/ per#ormed their tests at a Re&nolds number o# ,/*G*06 at +ASA 7angle& ,* < -* cm tunnel! that is a lo.(turbulence! subsonic! open(circuit tunnel/ Tests .ere per#ormed at #ree(stream velocit& o# =0/2 mEs/ 1igure 2= describes the test con#iguration used/ A suction slot .as installed in #ront o# the test section to remove an& upstream in#luence on the test section/ The ceiling o# the tunnel above the test section .as adjusted in a .a& to ensure a 8ero pressure gradient/

(1g2re %,3 T5e test conf1g2rat1on at NA#A Langle9 w1nd8t2nnel 4erform1ng test of groo=es o=er a backward8fac1ng ram4. 61%7

The boundar& la&er just ahead o# the separation ramp .as #ull& turbulent and appro<imatel& 0/2, cm in thickness/ The shoulder radius o# the ramp .as 20/0 cm F? in/I and the ramp .as at a 2,U as sho.n b& #igure 2=/ The .idth o# the test section .as to #ull .ind(tunnel .idth o# -* cm/ The #lo. separated at appro<imatel& the midpoint o# the ramp .ithout the grooves/ The grooves .ere placed on the shoulder o# the ramp and di##erent geometries tested are presented in #igure 2,/

2-

3.2.1. Transverse and s e!t grooves

(1g2re %/3 D1fferent test geometr9 at NA#A Langle9 w1nd8t2nnel 4erform1ng tests of groo=es o=er a backward8fac1ng ram4. 61%7

Kressure taps registered the pressure distribution on the ramp and the #loor do.nstream o# the ramp/ The results are presented in #igure 26 and sho. acceleration and a s&mmetric deceleration .hen air #lo.s around a cornerV this is the reason #or the pressure drop on the upstream portion o# the shoulder/

(1g2re %$3 Press2re d1str1b2t1on of t5e backward8fac1ng ram4. 61%7

To illustrate #lo. separation oil #lo. .as used/ Some o# the results are presented in #igures 2and 2?/

2?

(1g2re %&3 O1l flow o=er d1fferent ram4 models were a< 1s t5e reference model and b< t5e model w1t5 trans=erse groo=es. 61%7

(1g2re %+3 O1l flow o=er d1fferent ram4 models w5ere a< 5as long1t2d1nal groo=es and b< 5a=e ,/ degree swe4t groo=es. 61%7

An optimum placement #or transverse grooves proved to be to begin .ith the grooves one boundar&(la&er thickness upstream o# the base model separation line and e<tending one boundar&(la&er thickness do.nstream o# the separation line/ This con#iguration reduced the distance #rom separation to reattachment b& 20 O/ The most e##ective con#iguration proved to have a depth(to(.idth ratio FaEbI o# 2/6-/ Reduction o# depth(to(.idth ratio reduced e##ectiveness o# the device/

2Q

Hsing longitudinal and =, degree s.ept grooves the depth FaI varied along each groove! #rom 8ero depth at the leading edge to about 0/6= cm at the midpoint/ Since the pressure recover& F#igure 26I is not as large using =,(degree grooves as using transverse .e have an adverse result using the =,(degree grooves compared to baseline con#iguration/ This could be e<plained b& the same phenomenon as #or transverse groves .ith depth(to(.idth ratio o# */*=V the distance bet.een the grooves is too small and the air#lo. e<periences it as a closed cavit& and thus there is no reduction in reattachment distance Fthe distance #rom re#erence separation line to ma<imum pressure coe##icientI/ The mechanism associated .ith di##erent improvements in pressure recover& and reduction in reattachment distance is #or the transverse grooves a Rroller bearingS mechanism that can be e<plained in such .a& that the air rolls or rotates in each individual groove/ 1or the longitudinal grooves it could be the techni2ue o# partial Rboat(tailingS/ 5/ 6/ 7in et al M*0N per#ormed another series o# tests that included man& more di##erent methods to improve pressure recover& on a back.ard #acing ramp/ The tests per#ormed at +ASA 7angle& M*0N .ere per#ormed at the same tunnel and same con#iguration as the tests .ith grooves described above M*2N/ The di##erent test con#igurations are illustrated b& #igure 2Q a(d/

00

(1g2re %0 ;a8d<3 *eometr9 of se4arat1on control de=1ces. 61'7

0*

'n contrar& to .hat is said be#ore M*2N it is no. stated M*0N that a correct design o# s.ept grooves probabl& .ill be more e##icient than transversal grooves/ That is #ounded on #act that there is a three(dimensional #lo. generated b& the transversal grooves that is sho.n in #igure 2- and this is .hat generate the bene#icial #lo./ A proper design o# s.ept grooves .ould rein#orce this behaviour and possibl& generate a reduction in reattachment distance/ >ptimum transverse con#iguration described b& #igure 00! .here aEb D 2/6-! reduced the distance to reattachment b& almost ,0 O/

(1g2re '>3 Press2re d1str1b2t1ons for trans=erse groo=es. 61'7

3.2.2. "ongitudinal grooves 1igure 2Q c sho. the di##erent longitudinal grooves that .ere tested/ 1igures 0* sho. the pressure distribution using the di##erent grooves/

(1g2re '13 Press2re d1str1b2t1on for long1t2d1nal groo=es w1t5 %81nc5 s4ac1ng. 61'7

A separation o# ,0!? mm F2 inchesI bet.een each groove proved to be most e##icient spacing that .ere testedV it signi#icantl& reduced the distance to reattachment/ As #igure 0* sho. the

02

short $(grooves proved to be the most e##icient con#iguration under these tests and it reduced the reattachment distance b& 66 O/ :orth mentioning can be that WshortX(! WlongX( and sine( .ave grooves had a shorter reattachment distance than the smaller 8ero(s.eep angle longitudinal grooves mentioned earlier M*2N/ 1or a *00 mm F= inchI distance bet.een the grooves the sine(.ave con#iguration proved to be more e##icient/ 3.2.3. #assive !orous surface This technolog& has its background in drag reduction on trans( and super(sonic .ings/ "rag reduction is achieved b& placing a thin cavit& .ith porous sur#ace .here the shock .ave is located/ The higher pressure behind the shock.ave circulates the air through the cavit& to the lo.er pressure ahead o# the shock/ This e##ects both boundar&(la&er separation and entrop& in a positive .a&/ The techni2ues tested are described in #igure 2Q b/ A #ull& porous sur#ace has little or no positive e##ect on the pressure distribution/ ;ut a non(porous sur#ace separating a porous sur#ace do.nstream and tangential blo.ing slot upstream has some positive on pressure distribution as illustrated b& #igure 02/

(1g2re '%3 Press2re d1str1b2t1on for 4ass1=e tangent1al blow1ng. 61'7

The most bene#icial con#iguration is .hen the 0/? mm F0/002(inchI tangential gap is placed at the baseline separation location Flocation 6 in #igure 02I/ The problems .ith the techni2ue Fpressure driven sel#(bleedingI are probabl& due to insu##icient mass #lo. but the technolog& might have applications #or more severel& separated cases .ith larger adverse pressure gradients/

00

3.3.Vortex generators
$orte< generators have normall& been used to increase lo. speed! high angle per#ormance on aircra#t and to reattach separated #lo. on air#oils/ >n a #lap de#lection o# 0, 7in et/ al/ M*=N managed to reattach the air#lo. completel&/ :heeler vorte< generators have in commercial tests .ithin the trucking industr& M*0N indicated up to *0 O #uel mileage improvement/ :hen per#orming tests at the +ASA 7angle& .ind tunnel M*0N! to be able to measure the drag o# the vorte< generators a balance .as used/ A Kie8oresistive de#lection sensor .as used to convert displacement into drag #orce/ The range o# the balance .as 0 Y ?/Q kKa F0 Y */0 lb#I .ith a resolution o# */, Ka F2/2G*0(= lb#/I The measurement o# the drag .as conducted .ith vorte< generators placed *,2 mm F6 inchesI and *06- mm F=2 inchesI upstream o# the separation ramp described in #igure 2=/ 3.3.1. $ane-ty!e vorte% generators >ne(inch(high vane(t&pe counter rotating vorte< generators as described b& #igure 2Q d .as initiall& tested and it provided attached #lo. directl& do.nstream the generators/ :hen moved #rom , F*6 cmI to *, F=Q cmI upstream o# the baseline separation line the generators maintained their e##icienc&/ 1igure 00 sho. three span.ise pressure distributions at 0! E= and E2 distance a.a& #rom the device centreline/

(1g2re ''3 Press2re d1str1b2t1on for 181nc5851g5 co2nter8rotat1ng =orteB generators at /d 24stream of t5e basel1ne se4arat1on. 61'7

1igure 00 also sho. an improved pressure recover& but also a reduction o# pressure on ramps shoulder region/ This is desirable i# one .ants to increase li#t but result in a pressure drag penalt&/ The reduction in pressure is caused b& increase in local velocit& resulting #rom the redirection o# high momentum air#lo. #rom outer parts o# boundar& la&er/

0=

3.3.2. &heeler vorte% generators The con#iguration .ith :heeler generators is illustrated b& #igure 2Q d/ 1lo. visualisations #or the :heeler vorte< generators sho. that the optimal placement is just ahead o# the hori8ontal tangential location on the shoulder o# the separation ramp/ >il #lo. visualisations indicate that both *2!,( and 0( mm FZ( and *E?( inchI high generators! .hen placed at the optimum location! are e##icient and reduce reattachment distance up to 66 O/ 1igure 0= a and b sho. pressure distributions #or di##erent span.ise location o# pressure taps/ 1igure 0= a #or the *2!, mm high generators and #igure 0= b #or the 0 mm high generators/ The variations are much smaller than #or the vane(t&pe generators and the 0 mm :heeler generators produce virtuall& no di##erence in pressure distribution span.ise/

(1g2re ',;a8b<3 Press2re d1str1b2t1ons for -5eeler =orteB generators. 61'7

0,

Since the :heeler vorte< generators produce less three(dimensional #lo.! indicated b& the lack o# variation in pressure distribution span.ise! it minimise pressure reduction at the shoulder o# the ramp and thus is more bene#icial #or pressure(drag reduction/ The bene#icial behaviour o# the lo. :heeler generators is because the turbulent velocit& pro#ile o# the boundar& la&er as described b& #igure 0,/

(1g2re '/3 Locat1on 5e1g5t to bo2ndar9 la9er 4rof1le. 61'7

At device heights o# 0/2 the local velocit& is over -, O o# the #ree(stream value and #urther increase in height onl& give minor addition to air speed/ 5/6/ 7in summarised the results M*,N in #igure 06 and illustrate the baseline con#iguration separation compared to the con#igurations .ith $G using oil#lo. as sho.n in #igure 0- a(c/

06

(1g2re '$;a8b<3 Relat1=e effect1=eness 1n flow se4arat1on control =ers2s de=1ce categor9. 61/7

0-

(1g2re '&;a8c<3 O1l8flow demonstrat1ng t5e effect of d1fferent conf1g2rat1ons. a< T5e basel1ne conf1g2rat1on. b< >.+ E 851g5 =ane8t94e co2nter8rotat1ng !*s at $ 5 24stream of basel1ne se4arat1on. c< >.% E 851g5 =ane8t94e co2nter8rotat1ng !*s at 1> 5 24stream of bo2ndar9 la9er. 61/7

The most e##ective range using lo.(pro#ile $Gs .ould be at , Y 00 h upstream baseline separation although the vortices could last up to *00 h/ The most e##icient device height seems to be some.here .ithin 0/2 Y 0/, %E since using a device o# 0/* %E or less reduce the e##ectiveness o# the devices/ $ane(t&pe $Gs is pre#erred be#ore :ishbone or :heeler $Gs since #or an e2ual amount o# vorticit& vane(t&pe $Gs produce less drag/ These results coincide .ith the results retrieved b& Kristian Angele M*6N .ho present results that suggest that the vortices are #ull& developed Q ( *0 boundar& la&ers do.nstream o# the $Gs as presented in #igure 0?/ Angele set up an e<periment .ith van(t&pe $Gs using design criteria suggested b& Kearce& and de#ined in table -/ The e<periment .as set up in an adverse pressure gradient FAKGI and turbulent boundar& la&er .as generated b& ro.s o# "&mo(tape as tripping device/ 9easurements .ere conducted at a Re&nolds number o# Q/2G*06Em based on inlet air#lo. o# *= mEs/ 6ounter(rotating vortices .as used since the& are more e##icient than the co(rotating ones #or 2" cases! although 7in M*,N suggest co(rotating $Gs #or 0" cases/ Hsing particle imaging velocit& FK'$I the behaviour o# the vortices behind the $Gs .ere registered at three di##erent locations behind the $Gs) <E% D ,/,! Q and *0! that result in #igures

0?

0? a(#/ The& con#irm the statements that a #ull& energi8ed boundar& la&er takes some *, boundar& la&ers do.nstream the $Gs to #ull& develop/

(1g2re '+;a8f<3 #econdar9 flow com4onents generated b9 !*s 1n t5e 9F84lane ;4er4end1c2lar to t5e general a1rflow d1rect1on<. a8b< BG5 ? /./ c8d< BG5 ? 0 e8f< BG5 ? 1'. v2 and w2 are t5e d1fferent crossflow com4onents 1n t5e 9F84lane. 61$7

l 00 mm

h *0 mm

d 2, mm

*0 mm

*,

Table &3 Def1n1t1on of eB4er1mental set 24 b9 .. Angele. 61$7

7o.(pro#ile $Gs probabl& need a #urther distance to develop since the& interact .ith a smaller part o# the boundar& la&er than the boundar& la&er si8ed $Gs used in the K/ Angele e<periments/

0Q

Another success#ul attempt to use lo.(pro#ile $Gs is presented on the #lo. over a back.ard #acing ramp dominated b& a 0" separated #lo. generated b& t.o large junction vortices Y one over each side(corner o# the ramp/ 1igure 0Q a sho. the large spiral nodes at the ramps side edges and the reverse #lo. at the centre o# the ramp/

(1g2re '0;a8b<3 O1l flow =1s2al1Fat1ons on t5e effect of 2s1ng !*s to red2ce 'D flow o=er a backward8 fac1ng ram4. 61/7

1igure 0Q b sho. ho. lo.(pro#ile $Gs F%E D 0/2! eE% D =! 8E%D=! D 20! airspeed =2/- mEs F*=0 #tEsII e##icientl& reduce the #lo. separation and the #lo. in the centre o# the ramp

=0

maintain attached/ 1urther investigation also suggests that there is no major di##erence in e##ectiveness o# the lo.(pro#ile $Gs .hen placed some.here 20 % upstream o# baseline con#iguration separation/ 3.3.3. 'lunt body a!!lication of $orte% (enerators :/ 6alarese et/ al/ M*-N per#ormed a series o# e<periments on the e##ect o# vorte< generators on total drag o# a *E-2 scale model o# a 6(*00 aircra#t/ The model .as selected because o# its highl& up(s.ept a#terbod& that generate a high adverse pressure gradient and the .ish #rom its operators FHS Air#orceI to reduce its #uel consumption/ Tests .ere per#ormed at Air 1orce 'nstitute o# Technolog&/ Their .ind tunnel is an open return! closed section tunnel .ith a circular test section o# */,2= m F, #t/I in diameter and ,/=?6= m F*? #t/I in length/ The balance is a 0(component .ire balance .ith accurac& .ithin 0/0002 + F0/02 pound/I! =0 pressure taps .ere placed at the bottom and side o# the rear #uselage and on the up(s.ept a#terbod&/ 1or placement see #igure =0/

(1g2re ,>3 #c5emat1c of 4ress2re ta4s. 61&7

;oundar& la&er thickness that .as de#ined b& the #ormula o# a #lat plate in turbulent #lo. as de#ined b& e2uation =/

0/0- "T

( Re)

F=I

The turbulent boundar& la&er begun at the trip.ire illustrated in #igure =0 and the distance to the up(s.eep line #rom this location .as <T D *Q0 mm F-/, inch/I A Re&nolds number o# ,/-?G*0, resulted in a boundar& la&er thickness o# D =/? mm F0/*Q inch/I/

=*

The tests .ere per#ormed at a 9ach number o# 0/*0, F=, mEsI or a d&namic pressure o# ?Q/0 Ka F60 ps#/I/ All tests .ere repeated and the data agreed .ithin 2 O/ The net drag coe##icient #or the 6(*00 .as measured to a 6d o# 0/0, at D 0/ This .as consistent .ith previous data #or that model o# aircra#t/ The t.o placements o# the vorte< generators used in tests .ere *0 upstream o# the a#terbod& up(s.eep line and = upstream the same line as de#ined in #igure =* .ith an angle o# *6 to.ards the #reestream #lo. circum#erentiall& around the #uselage/ The vorte< generators cord .as *0/2 mm F0/= inchI and their span FD device heightI .as */* times the boundar& la&er thickness/ The trailing edges o# the $G .ere spaced .ith a distance o# *,/2 mm F0/6 inchI as illustrated b& #igure =*/

(1g2re ,13 !orteB generators al1gnment and d1mens1ons. 61&7

Another series o# tests .as per#ormed using small #lat stubs .ith a cord o# */0 mm F0/0, inchI! a span o# =/2 mm F0/*6, inchI and a thickness o# 0/0 mm F0/0*2 inchI as de#ined in #igure =* .ith an angle o# *6 to.ards the #reestream #lo./ *6 to 22 pairs .ere used circum#erentiall& around the #uselage and the distance bet.een them .ere , mm F0/2 inchI/ The R#or.ardS location .as ? F0? mmI upstream the a#terbod& up(s.eep line and the Ra#tS location appro<imatel& = F*Q mmI upstream the same line as de#ined in #igure =*/

=2

The usage o# $G resulted in a reduction o# the drag coe##icient o# about *,0 counts as demonstrated b& #igure =2/

(1g2re ,%3 Total drag =ar1at1on w1t5 angle of attack. 61&7

;ut the result #or the SstubsS is even better) a reduction o# 000 counts is obtained as is sho.n in #igure =0/

(1g2re ,'3 Total drag =ar1at1on w1t5 angle of attack. 61&7

=0

The reduction in drag is more e##icient at lo.er angles o# attach and this is bene#icial since this correspond to cruise conditions and this is the condition the aircra#t operates at the most o# the time/ The placement o# both the $G and the stubs in the R#rontS location generated the biggest reductions in drag coe##icient/ This can be e<plained b& the #act that placement o# the $G and stubs on the #or.ard location give the air#lo. enough time to mi< .ith the #reestream #lo. and thus energi8e the boundar& la&er #lo.! dela&ing the separation at the up(s.eep line/ These results are all in line .ith those achieved b& 5/6/ 7in et/ al/ M*,N and sho. the potential o# using sub(boundar& la&er vorte< generators in reducing blu## bod& drag/ The smaller device heights give a smaller device drag but give enough energi8ing o# the boundar& la&er i# care#ull& placed/ ;ased on the results in M*,N and M*6N it eas& to belie# that it is bene#icial to place $Gs as #ar upstream as possible/ ;ut 7in M*,N also sho.s that placement to #ar upstream can increase #lo. separation and drag/ The +aval Sur#ace :ar#are 6entre per#ormed some 61" calculations on the over.ing #airing o# a $(22 aircra#t simulating ten lo.(pro#ile $Gs/ 1igure == a illustrate a cruise angel o# - and light separation/ 'n #igure == b the placement too #ar upstream For too large $GsI o# the $Gs generate increased separation/ ;& moving the generators *0 device heights do.nstream the baseline separation F#igure == cI is eliminated/

==

(1g2re ,,;a8c<3 !eloc1t9 =ectors o=er a !8%% o=erw1ng fa1r1ng. a< no !*s b< 5Gd ? 1 c< 5Gd ? >./ 61$7

=,

). Continued

or*

1urther investigations has been done in the areas o# boundar& la&er control but has not been accounted #or in this report/ An alternative approach that could be used is the use o# sound .aves to control the boundar& la&er separation as suggested b& A/ +ishi8a.a and S/ Takagi M*?N/ >ne o# the most interesting areas .ould be the use o# air jets to #orm vorte< generators as suggested b& / Abe et/ al/ M*QN/ The bene#it .ith that technolog& is that it .ould be possible to control the strength o# the jets and thus control the strength o# the vortices created/ This could translate into di##erent grade o# #lo. attachment at di##erent #lo. situations and most bene#icial o# all is the possibilit& to shut them do.n and in that case the& do not in an& .a& contribute to the overall drag/ The do.nside o# them is the same as #or controlling boundar& la&er .ith blo.ing and suctionV it re2uires additional e2uipment #or generating the air#lo.s and some kind o# control mechanism/ That adds cost and comple<it& to the construction and that is never a good thing in terms o# maintenance and cost/

=6

+. Conclusions
9entionable is that there are measures that are more important to take than changing the air#lo. around the rear o# a vehicle/ Those measures are the rounding o# #ront corners .hich can contribute to as much as ,2O drag reduction M6N and a #ull(length underbod& seal can contribute to as much as *,O drag reduction M6N/ These measures needs to be taken care o# be#ore it is interesting to take a look at rear end #lo./ ;ut .hen at least the #irst measure has been taken care o# it can be bene#icial to take a look at altering rear end air#lo./ ;ased on the results given in M*0N and M*,N ' belie# that the most e##icient .a& to reduce base( drag on blunt bodies Fsuch as busses and trucksI is the use o# $Gs in some .a&/ Kre#erabl& lo.(pro#ile ones to reduce device drag or air(jet $Gs that can be turned on and o# during di##erent conditions/ >ne conclusion that can be made #rom the di##erent reports re#erred to in this .ork is that it is di##icult to receive the same result in .ind(tunnel tests as those received in simulations/ This is o# course e<plained b& the #act that there are Rrealit&(#actorsS included in the results received #rom .ind(tunnel tests/ That is imper#ections in manu#acturing o# the model! leakage and general losses that is not accounted #or in 61" modelling/ Some o# the results are gathered in table ?/ Technolog& ;oat(tailing Aerod&namic boat(tail ;lo.n boundar& la&ers at GTR' 61"! round rear edge 61"! round rear edge! suction o# blCC :ind(tunnel test! boat(tail! blo.ing o# blCC Transversal grooves on a shoulder 7ongitudinal grooves on a shoulder Angled grooves on a shoulder Kassive porous sur#ace 9icro vorte< generators T&pe o# improvement 02 O reduction in 6d/ *0 O reduction in 6d/ ,0 O reduction in 6d/ C *= O reduction in 6d/ 2= O reduction in 6d/ *2 O reduction in 6d/ 20 O shorter distance to reattachment 66 O shorter distance to reattachment +ot conclusive CCC Some improvement 000 counts

Table +3 #2mmar9 of some of t5e res2lts 4resented 1n t5e re4ort. H?com4ared to no aerod9nam1c o4t1m1sat1on at all ? s5ar4 front endD no fa1r1ng. HHbl?bo2ndar9 la9er. HHH? 61%7 s2ggest a /> I drag red2ct1on

5udging #rom these results it seems like blo.ing boundar& la&ers .ould be the most bene#icial .a& to reduce rear end drag/ ;ut in this case! and several others! there is the Rrealit& #actorS to consider as mentioned above in this section! tests per#ormed at GTR' .as per#ormed on an Rideal bod&S and can not be easil& be compared to other results/ Then there is the traditional boat(tailing that come in second/ These results are more reliable since the& are per#ormed on a real vehicle! still it is ideal in man& .a&s but the& give a hint o# .hat kind o# results .e .ant to achieve/ And as ' mentioned earlier the& can be used as a bench mark #or other tests since the& present the most ideal #lo. case Fa #ull boat(tailI but .ith some separation so that result can be some.hat improved/ Results much better than this F#or e<ample the GTR' resultI should be seen upon .ith some scepticism be#ore presented to others/ >r at least thoroughl& e<plained .h& that kind o# result is received/
=-

So in real li#e! .hat seems to be the best technolog& to appl& to &our vehicles[ :ith little or no di##erence in manu#acturing technolog& rounding o# the rear edges seems so #ar to be the best .a& as #or no. to receive smaller contribution to the overall drag/ 'n combination .ith grooves could improve the pressure recover& mechanism at the rear o# blunt vehicles and .ith proper placement and design ' belie# that $Gs in some kind belong to #uture design o# high per#orming commercial vehicles/

=?

,. -eferences
M*N :ol#( einrich uchoV Aerod&namics o# Road $ehicles! 'S;+ 0(-6?0(002Q(M2N Al#ons GilhausV The main parameters determining the aerod&namic drag o# buses! +eue Technologie! 9/A/+/ 9\nchen! 5une *Q?* M0N %d.in 5/ Salt8manV A summar& o# +ASA "r&denXs Truck Aerod&namic Research! SA% Technical Kaper Series! ?2*2?= M=N Robert "/ ;levinsV Applied #luid d&namics handbook! 'S;+ 0(==2(2*2Q6(? M,N Randall 7/ KetersonV "rag reduction b& the addition o# a boat(tail to a bo< shaped vehicle! +ASA 6ontractor Report *60**0! August *Q?* M6N Robert 5/ %nglarV "evelopment o# Kneumatic Aerod&namic "evices to 'mprove the Ker#ormance! %conomics! and Sa#et& o# eav& $ehicles/ SA% Kaper 2000(0*(220?/ 5une *Q( 2*! 2000 M-N Robert 5/ %nglarV Advanced Aerod&namic "evices to 'mprove the Ker#ormance! %conomics! andling and Sa#et& o# eav& $ehicles/ SA% Kaper 200*(0*(20-2/ 9a& *=(*6! 200* M?N ;/S/ 9asse&! 9echanics o# 1luids! si<th edition! 'S;+ 0(=*2(0=(2?0(= MQN Kaola 1erraresiV 6ontrol o# ;oundar& 7a&er 1lo. on Trucks/ 9aster Thesis! Skri#t 200*( *=/ "epartment o# Aeronautics! Ro&al 'nstitute o# Technolog&! S%(*00 == Stockholm! S.eden M*0N ;enjamin 7e Rou<V %<perimental Aerod&namics) Separation 6ontrol on Trailers o# Trucks! A 9aster Thesis at Scania 6$ A;! RTT1 section/ 9a& 2000 M**N :end& R/ 7anser! 5ames 6/ Ross and Andre. %/ Kau#manV Aerod&namic Ker#ormance o# a "rag Reduction "evice on a 1ull(Scale TractorETrailer! SA% KaperQ*2*2, M*2N G/$/ Selb&! 5/6/ 7in and 1/G/ o.ard/ Turbulent #lo. separation control over a back.ard(#acing ramp via transverse and s.ept grooves/ 5ournal o# 1luids %ngineering! 5une *QQ0! $ol/ **2 M*0N 5/ 6/ 7in and 1/ G/ o.ard! Turbulent 1lo. Separation 6ontrol Through Kassive Techni2ues/ +ASA 7angle& Research Research 6enter! ampton! $AV and G/$/ Selb&! >ld "ominion Hniversit&! +or#olk! $A/ A'AA ?Q(0Q-6/ 9arch *0(*6! *Q?Q M*=N S/ Klausme&er! 9/ Kapadakis! 5/ 7inV A 1lo. Khisics Stud& o# $orte< Generators on a 9ulti(%lement Air#oil! A'AA Q6(0,=? M*,N 5ohn 6/ 7inV Revie. o# research on lo.(pro#ile vorte< generators to control boundar&( la&er separation/ Krogress in Aerospace Sciences 0? F2002I 0?Q(=20/ M*6N Kristian AngeleV %<perimental studies o# turbulent boundar& la&er separation and control/ Ro&al 'nstitute o# Technolog&! "epartment o# 9echanics/ Technical report 2000)0?/ 'SS+ 00=?(=6-@ M*-N :/ 6alarese! :/K/ 6risler and G/7/ Gusta#sonV A#terbod& "rag Reduction b& $orte< Generators! 1light "&namics 7aborator&! Air 1orce :right Aeronautical 7aboratories! :right]Katterson Air 1orce base! >hio/ A'AA(?,(00,=/ 5anuar& *=(*-! *Q?,E Reno! +evada M*?N Akira +ishi8a.a! Shohei TakagiV To.ard smart control o# separation around a .ing Y "evelopment o# an Active Separation 6ontrol S&stem! +ational Aerospace 7aborator& o# 5apan! 6ho#u! Tok&o! *?2(?,22 M*QN iro&uki Abe! Takehiko Sega.a! Taka&uki 9atsunuma! iro ^oshidaV 9anagement o# a 7ongitudinal $orte< #or Separation 6ontrol! +ational 'nstitute o# Advanced 'ndustrial Science and Technolog&! 5apan

=Q