WALL INTERFERENCE EFFECTS: ANALYSIS AND CORRECTION FOR AUTOMOTIVE

WIND TUNNELS
Giovanni Lombardi
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Pisa, Italy
Stefano Carmassi
Ferrari S.p.a., Maranello (Modena), Italy

ABSTRACT
The general schemes of wall interference correction procedures are described, and a pre-test
method is applied to a high performance car model, placed in a typical wind tunnel test section.
Results indicate that up to moderate blockage factors (10%) wall interference effects can be
predicted by using a potential flow solver, with suitable modifications to the car wake take into
account. It is also found that the wall interference effects can significantly modify the measured
vertical load and drag. Furthermore, wall interference appears to be dependent on the test
section shape, and to be influenced by the ratio between the car and the test section widths.
1

INTRODUCTION

The interference effect of wind tunnel walls on the flow field around a model is known to be one
of the main sources of error affecting the accuracy of experimental data. Standard correction
methodologies for automotive applications are not available: in fact, the classical correction
criteria were developed for aeronautical applications, where the lift is the most significant
quantity. Furthermore, they are limited to low velocities and non-separated flows, and even in
these conditions their accuracy is not high. With the introduction of ventilated test sections, new
procedures have been devised to extend the classical wall interference methods. However,
because of the complex nature of interference, a satisfactory general analytical solution to this
problem is far from being achieved.
More recently, new correction methods were introduced, based on more complex procedures,
which couple measurements - typically pressure and/or velocity on the wall or in the field - with
numerical calculations. These procedures (the so called post-test procedures) are difficult to
be used in practice because of the uncertainties in the measurement of the wall quantities, and
due to the complexity of the flow calculations.
The above considerations explain why limiting the model dimensions remains the most used
way to avoid unacceptable errors. However, very low blockage factors are in general required to
have small wall interference effects (see, for instance, Ref. 1). On the other hand, the
importance of testing the largest possible model is evident, not only to maximise the Reynolds
number but, especially, to improve the accuracy in the force measurements and of the model
itself, as well stated in Ref. 2. Thus, it is important to have reliable criteria for choosing model
size. Advancing knowledge on this matter, in particular for automotive applications, is the main
purpose of the present research activity.
2

INTERFERENCE EFFECTS AND CORRECTION PROCEDURES

The modification of the aerodynamic characteristics caused by the wind tunnel walls is a quite
complex phenomenon. It is related to the modification of the flow field produced by the presence
of the walls, imposing a boundary condition that corresponds to a flow that is different from the
free air one; a general description of these phenomena can be found in Ref. 3. Clearly, the
boundary condition is different for closed (see, for instance, Ref. 4), open (Ref. 5) or slotted test

sections. Usually, the interference effects are divided in a certain number of terms. This leads to
a simplification in the interference comprehension and evaluation, but it should be taken into
account that these terms are not independent, and, therefore, the higher is the number of the
considered terms, the lower is the accuracy of the correction.
The splitting of the interference effects is normally connected to aeronautical applications (see
Ref. 6 for a complete description). For automotive applications several terms can be
disregarded, and the following ones can be considered as the more significant:
- Horizontal buoyancy, related to a variation of static pressure along the test section when no
model is present, usually caused by the boundary layer evolution along the test section walls.
It may produce a significant effect on the drag force, analogous to a hydrostatic force.
- Solid blockage, related to the modification of the flow caused by the volume of the model,
including a variation in the dynamic pressure. It is usually considered to be dependent on the
blockage factor (the ratio between the cross area of the model and the cross area of the test
section, which is the most important parameter for interference effects). The surface stresses
are larger than in free air for closed test sections, and smaller for open jet test sections.
- Wake blockage, related to the finite dimension of the car wake. It is similar to solid blockage
but more complex to evaluate, due to the influence, on the wake shape, of both the car
shape and the blockage factor.
- Lift dependent blockage, related to the modification of a wing wake produced by the walls.
This term is clearly present only for configurations with wings.
The classical correction criteria (see Ref. 7 for a review) are based on linear models, whose
validity are limited to low velocities and non-separated flows. However, even in these
conditions, the accuracy of these criteria is not high, since they do not account for the physical
tunnel characteristics (i.e. fillets, re-entry doors, etc.).
With the increase in computing capabilities several correction procedures were developed,
typically based on two numerical solutions of the mathematical problem: one in the free air
condition and one for the model inside the test section. These methodologies are usually
classified as pre-test and post-test. The difference is that in the pre-test methods the
boundary conditions are theoretically assigned, while in the post-test procedure they are
measured during the tests. Pre-test methods are theoretically less accurate, and, in any case, it
is difficult to define the boundary conditions for slotted walls, which are used in several wind
tunnels because of the reduction in wall interference they provide.
It is important to note that, while the vertical force and the pitching moment can usually be
corrected with high accuracy, the correction of drag remains a critical aspect. Indeed, the
numerical evaluation of drag is still, nowadays, not sufficiently accurate, even for the last
generation of Navier-Stokes solvers. Moreover, from a practical point of view, wall interference
is only one of the factors that affect drag measurements. Indeed, drag is far more sensitive than
vertical force and pitching moment to other effects (namely, Reynolds number, support
interference, wind tunnel turbulence).
2.1
Pre-test methods
Several methods are available, depending on the numerical approach. Typically, in these
methods the correction is obtained as the difference between the values given by two numerical
simulations: in the first one the flow over the model in free-air conditions is simulated, while, in
the second one, the flow over the model in the test section is considered. The correction is the
difference between the two solutions.
To use the method it is necessary to define the flow solver adopted in the numerical
simulations. The same criteria used in computational aerodynamics are clearly suitable also in
this context. Thus, the choice of the numerical solver will depend on the considered
configuration and flow conditions. The problem of this approach is the necessity to use
theoretical boundary conditions, different for each wind tunnel, and not immediate for open or

slotted walls.
For a wind tunnel with closed walls the boundary condition can be theoretically assigned with a
great accuracy and, therefore, it may indeed be useful to use pre-test methods to correct the
results. Furthermore, pre-test methods are useful tools to define the model scale during the
design phase of an experiment.
2.2
Post-test methods
More recently, new correction methods were introduced (see, for instance, Ref. 8), based on
more complex procedures, which couple measurements - typically pressure and/or velocity on
the wall or in the field - with numerical calculations. These procedures are, however, difficult to
be used in practice because of the uncertainties in the measurement of the wall quantities, and
due to the complexity of the flow calculations.
As in the pre-test methods, the correction is obtained from the difference between the values
given by the flow solution over the model in free-air, and a flow solution in which the boundary
condition values are those measured over the wind tunnel walls.
A post-test method is characterised by three main parts, which define the correction procedure:
- A theory, i. e. the group of hypotheses and concepts that define the method.

- A numerical code: different numerical codes can be applied (naturally when they are
compatible with the theory). As for pre-test methods, the same criteria used in computational
aerodynamics are clearly suitable also in this context. Thus, the choice of the numerical
solver will depend on the considered configuration and flow conditions.
- The wind tunnel instrumentation: experimental data must be provided on a control surface
located near the wind tunnel walls or directly on them. The experimental data can be
pressure, velocity direction or velocity components. The methods are classified as n-array
methods, depending on the number n of measured flow quantities. The number and the
location of the measurement points must be defined, as well as the required accuracy of the
measurements. It seems difficult to find a priori criteria; indeed, the best choice will depend
on many different factors, namely test section geometry, wind tunnel wall type, model
geometry and flow conditions. On the other hand, the correction procedure can be applied
only if this aspect is preliminarily defined, and hence a strategy must be devised to obtain a
suitable compromise between accuracy and cost of the wall measurements.
It is evident that a post-test procedure is very complex, and is usually applied for slotted walls,
when it is difficult to theoretically define the boundary conditions. As an example, the scheme
and the capabilities of a specific post-test correction procedure, suitable also for application in
the automotive field, is described in Refs. 9 and 10.
3

WALLS INTERFERENCE EFFECTS ON A CAR: ANALYSIS BY MEANS OF PRE-TEST

CORRECTION PROCEDURES

Pre-test methods can be used to study the wall interference effects of different car scale
models. In the present section the analysis on a model of the Ferrari 360 Modena, is
presented.
Fig. 1 shows the geometry and the reference system of the test section of the considered wind
tunnel. The test section is considered with closed walls, and the presence of a moving floor is
taken into account. The axis origin corresponds to the axle of the fore wheels. The reference
surface is the cross section area and the reference length is the distance between the wheels
axles.

220 cm

440
160
z
x

U
y

Fig. 1: Test section and Reference system

3.1 Potential flow solver
A first analysis is carried out by means of a potential flow solver. The basic solver, described in
Ref. 11, is based on Morino's formulation, and its capabilities are presented in Ref. 12.
Boundary conditions for closed, open or slotted walls have been implemented in the potential
code, following the method proposed in Ref. 13.
The previously specified flow solver cannot perform the calculations on a car body unless the
flow problem is somehow modified. In fact, for a bluff body an important condition for using a
potential solver is not fulfilled because of the presence of boundary layer separation, producing
a large wake.
For cars like the one under consideration the aerodynamic characteristics are essentially
connected with the pressure field. Furthermore, it must be considered that, in the present
approach, the really interesting quantities are the differences between similar configurations.
Consequently, it is possible to assume, as a basic hypothesis, the flow to be incompressible
and non-rotational ("potential flow"). These assumptions are well suited to evaluate the flow
conditions around aerodynamic bodies moving in the fluid with velocities corresponding to Mach
numbers lower than 0.3 (i.e. lower than about 360 Km/h). Previous investigations at the
University of Pisa, see Ref 14, demonstrated that the pressure acting on the portions of bluff
bodies characterised by a flow that is attached up to their very rearmost parts may be
accurately evaluated, by means of a potential flow code, practically up to the separation region.
This is possible provided that the separation region is positioned only at the rear end of the
body, being practically fixed by the geometry, and the wake is modelled as a closed
continuation of the body and treated as a solid surface with unknown pressure.
Because of the hypothesis of potential flow, the wheels are not considered. This could produce
a different flow behaviour under the car model; in any case, in the present paper the interest is
focused on the sensitivity of the forces to the model dimension, and not to the exact evaluation
of the forces.
During previous works an effort has been made to develop a model for the wake which depends
on the characteristics of the "real" car surface and which allows vertical loads to be predicted
accurately up to the end of the car (see Ref. 15). In any case, it is clear that with a potential flow
it is not possible to evaluate the horizontal buoyancy, essentially related to wall boundary layer:
however, this effect will be taken into account in the next section.

For a comparison purpose, an equivalent (i. e. with the same cross section area) square section
tunnel is also analysed, in order to have indications about the importance of the test section
shape on the wall interference effects.
Simulations with blockage factors (defined as the ratio between the cross area of the model and
the cross area of the test section) from low (1%) to high values (20%) have been run on the
square and rectangular test sections. Zero blockage factor corresponds to the free-air solution
(e.g. only ground effect is simulated), characterised by a cz value of about 0.5. Each blockage
factor is obtained using a different scale for the model.
3.1.1 Symmetric conditions
Fig. 2 show the wall effects, in terms of variation with respect to the free-air condition, on cz, cM,
and cM/cz, (the latter representing the estimation of the application point of the vertical load, in
terms of reference lengths from the point chosen as moment origin, in the present case the
forward wheel axis).

0,4
Cm (square)

0,3

Cm (rectangular)

0,2
0,1
0
-0,1
Cz (square)

-0,2

Cz (rectangular)

-0,3
0

0,05

0,1
Blockage factor

0,15

0,2

a) Vertical force and pitching moment

0,08
0,07

(square)

0,06
- c M/c

- (rectangular)

0,05
0,04
0,03
0,02
0,01
0
0

0,05

0,1
Blockage factor

0,15

0,2

b) Point of application of the vertical force

Fig. 2: Wall interference effects evaluated by a potential flow solver

By analysing Fig. 2 it is evident that the wall interference effects, as expected, increase with the
blockage factor. The effects appear to be relatively small up to a blockage factor of the order of
5%, and are more important for the vertical force than for the estimation of the point of its
application: this is due to the fact that the pressure distribution is modified as regards the values
but not the shape. This behaviour tends to disappear for higher blockage factors, and the
displacement of the point of application becomes significant.
The interference effects are smaller for the rectangular section as compared to the equivalent
square one. This behaviour could be explained by examining the pressure distribution on the
model in the different wind tunnel sections. Basically, the model placed in the rectangular
section feels a reduced down-lift on the rear part, this explains why the vertical force and the
pitch moment are smaller. Physically, this can be explained by considering that, for the same
blockage factor, lateral walls in the square section are "closer" to the model than in the
rectangular one, so that the flow under the model is more "constrained", thus creating a larger
down-lift. This constriction effect is stronger on the rear side of the bottom surface and this
explains why the pitch moment is smaller. These considerations can be extended also to the
free air case; in this case, having no lateral walls at all, there is no rear down-lift created by
"constriction" effects. Therefore, it is clear that also the width parameter wcar/wts (defining the
ratio between the car and the test section widths) is important, and that the rectangular section
is more appropriate for a car shape. As an example, in the present evaluation the width
parameter is 0.18 for a blockage factor of 0.05.
3.1.2 Effect of yaw conditions
If the model is placed with an yaw angle the real blockage factor increases with the yaw angle
itself and, furthermore, the flow is not symmetric. As a general behaviour, an increase in the
wall interference effects is expected. To study this aspect, some evaluations were carried out
with a fixed scale model (corresponding to 5% blockage factor) with different yaw angles. The
wind tunnel section is the rectangular one and yaw angles range up to 15.
By analysing Fig. 3, it is evident that the interference effects are not significant up to yaw angles
of about 5, while a large modification of the wall interference effects appears for higher yaw
angles. Furthermore, the effects appear to be more significant on the point of application of the
vertical force than on the vertical force itself.

0,04

-0,015

0,03

-0,016

0,02

0,02

- c /c

-0,014

-0,02
-0,017

0,01

cZ

-0,04

-0,018

-0,019

5
10
yaw angle (deg)

-0,01

15

a) Vertical force and pitching moment

-0,06

5
10
yaw angle (deg)

15

b) Point of application of the vertical force

Fig. 3: Wall interference effects evaluated by a potential flow solver for yaw conditions

3.2 Navier-Stokes solver

A more accurate correction procedure can be obtained by using a Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes (RANS) equations flow solver. This procedure was applied, in order to highlight the
capabilities and the problems of a solver of this type and to verify the results obtained with the
potential solver. For this purpose, the same previously defined geometry is considered. Some
evaluations carried out with the presence of rotating wheels showed that the wheels do not
significantly modify the wall interference effects.
For the numerical solution of the commercial code FLUENT 6.0 was used. Different turbulence
models are available in the code. In particular a realisable k- model is used in the present
study. The numerical method is based on a Finite-Volume formulation applicable to structured
or unstructured solution-adaptive grids. A second-order spatial accuracy is obtained by a Taylor
series expansion in the evaluation of the variables at the cell faces. Steady solutions are
obtained by time-marching the equations with an explicit, multi-stage, Runge-Kutta scheme with
multigrid convergence acceleration.
Unstructured grids with about 3 millions of cells were used, with a Reynolds number, based on
the total length of the model, of about 4.9x106.
The comparison of the results with those obtained with the potential solver is reported in Fig. 4.

0
Potential flow

-0,05
-0,1
-0,15

RANS
-0,2

0,05

0,1
0,15
Blockage factor
a) Vertical force

0,2

0,05
Potential flow

- c /c

0,04
0,03
0,02
RANS

0,01
0

0,05

0,1
0,15
Blockage factor
b) Point of application of the vertical force

0,2

Fig. 4: Wall interference effects evaluated by RANS solver: Vertical load

Up to moderate blockage factors (about 10%) the wall interference effects are practically the
same in both the evaluations. For higher blockage factors significant differences appear;
however, these blockage factors are generally not used. It is evident that, in these conditions,

the viscous effects become important, and a potential flow solver is not able to give satisfactory
results.
It is important to note that the time required for the two solutions is significantly different. The
computations were carried out on a PENTIUM III 550 MHz XION processor, with 512 MB RAM;
a potential flow solution requires about 5 minutes, while RANS solution about 24 hours.
By analysing the results of the RANS solutions it is also interesting to observe that the
interference effects are, actually, significantly larger than the previous data might suggest. In
fact, by analysing Fig. 5, where the contributions of the upper and lower surfaces are separated,
it is evident that the interference effect on the whole model arises from opposite contributions on
these two surfaces. This is an indication of the high sensitivity that could characterise the
problem under examination.

1,5
upper surface

1
0,5

total

0
-0,5
lower surface

-1
-1,5

0,05

0,1
blockage factor

0,15

0,2

Fig. 5: Wall interference effects evaluated by RANS solver: upper and lower surfaces
Finally, by means of a RANS solution, it is possible to analyse the wall interference effects on
the drag, that are reported in Fig. 6.

0,1
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
0

0,05

0,1
0,15
0,2
blockage factor
Fig. 6: Wall interference effects evaluated by a RANS solver: Drag.

As expected, with the considered test section geometry (closed wall) drag increases with the
dimension of the model. It is important to note that the increase seems to be significant also at
low values of the blockage factor.
3.3 Critical analysis of the results
The wall interference effects obtained with both methods are practically the same up to
moderate blockage factors (about 10%). For higher blockage factors a significant difference
appears; however, these blockage factors are generally not used. In these conditions the
viscous effects become important, and a potential flow solver is not able to give satisfactory
results.
As regards the effects of the wall interference, the results indicate that they can significantly
modify the measured vertical load and drag, and, usually with a lower importance, the position
of the point of application of the vertical load.
The wall interference appears also to be dependent on the shape of the test section, with the
rectangular shape being significantly more appropriate than the square one for a car shape.
Therefore, the width parameter (the ratio between the car and the test section widths) is
important, and must be taken under consideration in the project of the wind tunnel tests.
Nevertheless, the interference effects may actually be significantly larger than the global data
could suggest. Indeed, the interference effect on the model arises from opposite effects on its
upper and lower surfaces. This is an indication of the high sensitivity that could characterise the
problem under examination. Therefore, a great care is necessary in the definition of the scale of
the model, and for this purpose the use of a pre-test method may be a powerful tool.
4

CONCLUSION

The interference effects of wind tunnel walls on the flow field around a car model were analysed
by means of a pre-test correction procedure. Both potential and RANS solvers were adopted in
the procedure.
It is evident that the use of a potential flow solver is attractive, because of its simplicity and low
time requirements. The results suggest that the use of a potential flow solver, by taking the
effects produced by the car wake into account in a correct way, can provide satisfactory results.
Finally, we can observe that the choice of the admissible blockage factor depends on both the
required accuracy and the use of a correction procedure. It is evident that the use of a
correction procedure during the data reduction gives the capability, settled the desired
uncertainty of the measurements, to use significantly larger models, with a consequent increase
of the Reynolds number, the accuracy of the geometry representation and the accuracy in the
force measurements. It is clear that these improvements in the experimental accuracy give a
significantly higher confidence in the results.
5
[1]
[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]

REFERENCES
Lombardi G. and Morelli M., Analysis of Some Interference Effects in a Transonic Wind
Tunnel, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 32, No.3, pp. 501-509, 1995.
Monti R., "Wall Corrections for Airplanes with Lift in Transonic Wind Tunnel Tests", Report
of the AGARD Ad Hoc Committee on Engine - Airplane Interference and Wall Corrections
in Transonic Wind-Tunnel Tests, AGARD AR 36, 1971. .
Cooper K.R., Closed-test-section Wind Tunnel Blockage Corrections for Road Vehicles,
SAE SP-1176, 1996.
Mercker E., Wiedmann J., On the correction of interference effects in open jet wind
tunnels, SAE Paper 960671, 1996.
Carr G.W., Wind Tunnel Blockage Corrections for Road Vehicle, MIRA 1971/4.

[6]
[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]
[11]

[12]

[13]
[14]
[15]

Barlow J. B., Rae W. H. Jr. and Pope A., Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1999.
Kraft E.M., An overview of approaches and issues for wall interference assessment and
correction, NASA CP-2319, 1983.
Lynch F. T., Crites R.C. and Spaid F. W., The crucial role of wall interference, support
interference, and flow field measurements in the development of advanced aircraft
configurations, AGARD CP-535, 1994.
Lombardi G., Salvetti M. V. and Morelli M., Correction of Wall Interference Effects in Wind
Tunnel Experiments, Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements X, Y.
Villacampa Esteve, G. M. Carlomagno and C. A. Brebbia Eds. pp 75-84, 2001.
Lombardi G., Salvetti M. V. and Morelli M., Validation of a Wall Interference Correction
Procedure, 23rd ICAS Congress, paper 140, Toronto, Sept. 2002.
Polito L. and Lombardi G., Calculation of Steady and Unsteady Aerodynamic Loads for
Wing-Body Configurations at Subcritical Speeds, AIDAA Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1,
pp. 209-222, 1983.
Baston A., Lucchesini M., Manfriani L., Polito L. and Lombardi G., Evaluation of Pressure
Distributions on an Aircraft by Two Different Panel Methods and Comparison with
Experimental Measurements, 15th ICAS Congress, pp. 618-628, 1986.
Kemp W.B. Jr., A panel method for interference assessment in slotted wall wind tunnel,
AIAA Paper 88-2573, 1988.
Buresti G. and Lombardo D., Prediction of pressure loads on streamlined bluff bodies
through potential flow solvers, AIDAA Conference Proceedings, Napoli, Sept. 1997.
Lombardi G. and Carmassi S., Application of an Optimization Procedure in the
Aerodynamic Design of High Performance Cars, 4th MIRA International Vehiche
Aerodynamics Conference, October 2002.