DEDICATION

To Almighty God, family, and my beloved friends

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Many thank to my project supervisor, Dr.Carol Eastwick for her verbally helps and
guidance throughout the entire project. She demonstrates a good model to me with her
passion and knowledge sharing to motivate and assist me to establish the skills I required.
Also, I am very appreciate the warm advises from my personal tutor, Dr. Wei, Sun.
I have no doubt to express my gratitude to family and friends in my homeland for
their spiritually support. Of course, I would like to give thanks to my soul mates who
unceasingly keep me into their prayers in strengthening my soul. Without Him, I am nothing.
Lastly, thank you very much to all my dearest professors and course mates in
University of Nottingham for their teaching, guidance, advises, and helping either directly or
indirectly throughout the academic year.

ABSTRACT

A two-dimensional Luton tractor-trailer based van is used as baseline model to investigate the
drag force exerted on the vehicle using CFD at urban speed. The results verification and
justification has been carried by applying different size of element in the critical zones nearby
the vehicle to avoid diffusion of solution. Investigation of drag force reduction is achievable
by having aerodynamic devices installed on the vehicle. They are two configurations for cab
roof design and three different angles for inward flap at rear end trailer. The simulated results
have reflected that the cab roof feature enable to reduce significant amount of drag. It
becomes a connecting bridge to enclose the exposed region on top of the tractor where flow
separation starts immediately after it passes the front end trailer. However, the results of
features combination are not equal to the sum of their individual result. Each feature has their
distinction function only in the particular location. When the combination is considered, the
features will work distinctively to improve the upstream flow condition before they reach to
downstream feature and consequently, flow separation point may delay further to
downstream. Therefore, combination of features work more effectively than the single
aerodynamic feature in drag reduction.

Contents

Acknowledgement.....ii
Abstract....iii
Chapter One: Introduction and Background
1.1 Background and Context...
..1
1.1.1 Effects of Viscosity.1
1.1.2 Principle of Bernoulli..3
1.1.3Principle of Aerodynamic4
1.2 Problem Statement..6
1.3 Objectives...7
Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction....8
2.2 Bluff Bodies Design...8
2.3 Front End of the Tractor...10
2.4 Underbody Flaps...11
2.5 Vortex Strake Device (VDS) ...12
2.6 Flow Vane s and Rounded Corners of Trailer..13
Chapter Three: Methodology
3.1 Introduction...15
3.2 CAD Model and Testing Domain Preparation..15
3.3
Meshing.18
3.4 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Simulation..19
Chapter Four: Discussion
4.1 Verification on Baseline Model Result.22
4.2 Results of Cab Roof Options25
4.3 Results of Rear Flaps....26
4.4 Result of Optimal Combination....27
4.5 Transient Simulation.....30
Chapter Five: Conclusion and Reccommendation..........34
References...36
Appendix A: Work Schedule..39
Appendix B: Design configurations and its results40
Appendix C: Figures of baseline model for transient solver..50
Appendix D: Figures of optimal model for transient solver...61
Appendix E: Project supervision forms..70
List of figures and tables
Figure 1.1 Character of flow, viscous flow past a flat plate parallel to upstream velocity...2
Figure 1.2 Effect of pressure gradient on boundary layer profile; PI = point of inflection..2

Figure 1.3 Flow field and pressure distribution for a vehicle-shaped body in
two-dimensional flow.3
Figure 1.4 Forces on a body..........4
Figure 1.5 Change of the rear wheel load of a notchback car through lift,
depending on
speed...5
4
Figure 1.6 Drag coefficients of two-dimensional bodies at >10
.............................................6
Figure 1.7 Licensed vehicles by body type: Great Britain, 1994 to 2011........6
Figure 2.1 Typical airflow pattern around a bluff body vehicle.......9
Figure 2.2 Bluff body with sharp edges........9
Figure 2.3 Relationship between shapes of vehicle front and drag coefficient......10
Figure 2.4 Effect of streamlined front ends on the drag coefficient of rectangular
bodies in ground proximity.......11
Figure 2.5 Effectiveness of tractor and trailer side skirts.......12
Figure 2.6 Vortex strake devices........12
Figure 2.7 Effect of vortex strake device behind the trailer.......13
Figure 2.8 Flow vane device......14
Figure 2.9 Flow vane device......14
Figure 2.10 Flow vane device........14
Figure 3.1 Luton box van.......15
Figure 3.2 The virtual testing.........17
Figure 3.3 Meshing Zone.......18
Figure 3.4 Inflation layers......19
Figure 4.1 Velocity field around the baseline model.........24
Figure 4.2 Velocity field behind the vehicle......24
Figure 4.3 Pressure contour of baseline model......24
Figure 4.4 Optimal model......27
Figure 4.5 Velocity field at optimal model........28
Figure 4.6 Wake at rear end trailer.........28
Figure 4.7 Pressure contour at optimal model........29
Figure 4.8 Analysis of wake region at rear end trailer........29
Figure 4.9 Forces for baseline model over the time........
30
Figure 4.10 Forces for baseline model from 4s to 6s..........30
Figure 4.11 Forces for optimal model over time........31
Figure 4.12 Average forces for optimal model from 4s to 6s........32
Table 3.1 Mesh Sizes......19
Table 3.2 Solver type......20
Table 3.3 Simulation model........20
Table 3.4 Types of material........20
Table 3.5 Reference values.........20
Table 3.6 Boundary conditions.......20
Table 3.7 Solution methods........21
Table 4.1 Forces by first order upwind scheme solution........22
Table 4.2 Forces by second order upwind scheme solution.......22
Table 4.3 Standard deviation for both solution methods........23
Table 4.4 Standard deviation at each part.......23
Table 4.5 Results obtained by both cab roof designs..........25
Table 4.6 Results obtained by three geometry flaps.......26

Table 4.7 Results of combination features..........27

Table 4.8 Comparison of result.......28
Table 4.9 Comparison results of baseline model by two different solvers.........31
Table 4.10 Comparison results of optimal model by two different solvers............32

NOMENCLATURE

A Projected Area
CD Coefficient of Drag
CL Coefficient of Lift
CP Coefficient of Pressure
D Drag Force
Df Skin Drag

U Velocity

DP Pressure Drag

U - Free Stream Velocity

L Life Force

W Gravity Force

M Pitching Moment

x Distance in horizontal direction

P Pressure

y Distance in vertical direction

P - Free Stream Pressure

Density of air

Re Reynold Number

w Wall shear stress

T Thrust Force

H Height of vehicle
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
HGVs Heavy goods vehicles
LGVs Light goods vehicles
VSD Vortex strake device
W Width of vehicle