AERODYNAMIC DRAG REDUCTION OF A TRACTOR TRAILER USING

VORTEX GENERATORS: A COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMIC STUDY

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Mechanical Engineering

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of

the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

Mechanical Engineering

by

Christopher Michael Mugnaini

FALL
2015
 © 2015

Christopher Michael Mugnaini

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii
 AERODYNAMIC DRAG REDUCTION OF A TRACTOR TRAILER USING

VORTEX GENERATORS: A COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMIC STUDY

A Thesis

by

Christopher Michael Mugnaini

Approved by:

__________________________________, Committee Chair

Dongmei Zhou, Ph. D.

__________________________________, Second Reader

Tim Marbach, Ph. D.

____________________________
Date

iii
Student: Christopher Michael Mugnaini

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University

format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to

be awarded for the thesis.

__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________

Akihiko Kumagai Date

Department of Mechanical Engineering

iv
 Abstract

of

AERODYNAMIC DRAG REDUCTION OF A TRACTOR TRAILER USING

VORTEX GENERATORS: A COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMIC STUDY

by

Christopher Michael Mugnaini

Recently, with increasing fuel prices and advancing technology, there has been a market

for making tractor-trailer trucks more aerodynamically efficient. The tractors are being

sold with standard aerodynamic packages but there still exists room for improvement by

creating aerodynamic add-on devices for the trailer. A device that is already being used

in the aeronautical industry to control the flow of air is the vortex generator. There is a

potential for this device to be applied to the trailing edge of the trailer in order to decrease

the base wake region area and decrease the overall drag of the truck. Computational fluid

dynamics was used in order to analyze the effectiveness of multiple types of vortex

generators: wishbone, strake, conventional, delta wing, and aircraft style. SolidWorks

was used to model a Peterbilt Model 579 in 3D and ANSYS Fluent was used to simulate

the flow situation. The wishbone type and the aircraft type generated the greatest

reduction in overall drag of 1.11% and 1.10% respectively in an educational release of

ANSYS, while the aircraft type generated a 4.31% reduction in drag in a research release

v
of ANSYS. These results do not compare to the effectiveness of other trailer devices that

are currently on the market, but show that vortex generators can be used in order to

augment the overall drag reduction when used with other devices.

_______________________, Committee Chair

Dongmei Zhou, Ph. D.

_______________________
Date

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge and thank his wife, Claire, for showing tolerance

while this paper was being written. She was supportive through all the ups and downs.

The author would also like to thank Dr. Dongmei Zhou for her technical expertise and

support.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii

Chapter

1 Background Theory ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Boundary Layer.................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Streamlines ................................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Reynolds Number ...................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Laminar vs. Turbulent ............................................................................................... 5

1.5 Bernoulli Equation .................................................................................................... 6

1.6 Flow Over a Cylinder ................................................................................................ 7

1.7 Drag ........................................................................................................................... 8

1.8 Lift ............................................................................................................................. 9

1.9 Wind Averaged Drag Coefficient ............................................................................. 9

2 Tractor-Trailer Aerodynamics ....................................................................................... 11

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11

viii
 2.2 Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................................... 14

2.3 Experimental Testing of Add-On Devices .............................................................. 16

2.3.1 Wind Tunnel Testing of Second Generation Devices ...................................... 16

2.3.2 Wind Tunnel Testing of Most Known Add-On Devices .................................. 17

2.3.3 Operational Testing of Certain Add-On Devices ............................................. 22

3 Vortex Generators .......................................................................................................... 25

3.1 General Theory........................................................................................................ 25

3.2 Background ............................................................................................................. 27

3.3 Types of Vortex Generators .................................................................................... 29

3.4 Research and Testing .............................................................................................. 31

3.4.4 Wind Tunnel Testing ........................................................................................ 31

3.4.5 Airtabs – Aeroserve Technologies Ltd ............................................................. 32

3.4.6 Vortex Generators on a Sedan .......................................................................... 33

3.4.7 Computational Fluid Dynamics – Tractor-Trailer ............................................ 35

3.4.8 Design Optimization ......................................................................................... 39

4 The Study: Vortex Generator and Tractor-Trailer Geometry ........................................ 42

4.1 Vortex Generator Types .......................................................................................... 43

4.1.9 Airtab ................................................................................................................ 44

ix
 4.1.10 Vortex Strake Device...................................................................................... 45

4.1.11 The Conventional Vortex Generator .............................................................. 45

4.1.12 The Delta-Wing Vortex Generator ................................................................. 46

4.1.13 Small Aircraft Vortex Generators................................................................... 47

4.2 Orientation ............................................................................................................... 48

4.3 The Tractor-Trailer .................................................................................................. 54

5 Computational Fluid Dynamics Study ........................................................................... 57

5.1 Theory ..................................................................................................................... 57

5.2 Import ...................................................................................................................... 58

5.3 Setup ........................................................................................................................ 61

5.4 Solution ................................................................................................................... 63

5.5 Grid Independence/ Convergence ........................................................................... 65

5.6 Results ..................................................................................................................... 68

5.7 Research Release of ANSYS .................................................................................. 70

6 Conclusion and Future Works ....................................................................................... 78

References ......................................................................................................................... 80

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

Table 2.1 - Summary of Drag Reduction from Add-On Device [3] ................................. 17

Table 2.2 - Tractor Device Drag and Fuel Improvements [4] .......................................... 19

Table 2.3 - New Add-On Device Performance [4] ........................................................... 20

Table 2.4 – Improvement in Fuel Economy [6] ................................................................ 24

Table 3.1 - Effectiveness of Vortex Generator Types [14] ............................................... 30

Table 3.2 - Vortex Generators on a Small SUV [15] ........................................................ 32

Table 3.3 - Airtab Vortex Generators [7].......................................................................... 33

Table 3.4 - Results of the drag coefficient for various iterations [5] ................................ 37

Table 3.5 – Total force and fuel improvements [17] ........................................................ 39

Table 5.1 – RANS Turbulence Model Behavior and Usage [26] ..................................... 61

Table 5.2 – Reference Values ........................................................................................... 62

Table 5.3 – CFD Results ................................................................................................... 68

Table 5.4 – Fuel Savings ................................................................................................... 69

Table 5.5 – Improvement in Drag Coefficient .................................................................. 77

Table 5.6 – Fuel Savings ................................................................................................... 77

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

Figure 1.1 – The Boundary Layer ....................................................................................... 3

Figure 1.2 – Separation [1] ................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2.1 – Full Scale Tractor-Trailer in Wind Tunnel [4] ............................................. 12

Figure 2.2 – Pressure Drag Distribution [6]...................................................................... 13

Figure 2.3 – SmartWay Logo [8] ...................................................................................... 15

Figure 2.4 – Vortex Strake Device [4] .............................................................................. 21

Figure 2.5 – Trailer Side Skirt [4] ..................................................................................... 21

Figure 3.1 – Velocity Profile [13] ..................................................................................... 26

Figure 3.2 – Vortex Generators on a Wing [12] ............................................................... 27

Figure 3.3 – Boundary Layer Transition [12] ................................................................... 28

Figure 3.4 – Vortex Generators and Angle of Attack [12] ............................................... 28

Figure 3.5 - Types of Vortex Generators [14] .................................................................. 30

Figure 3.7 – Delta Wing Vortex Generator ...................................................................... 34

Figure 3.8 - Delta Type Vortex Generator (dimensions are in meters) [5] ....................... 35

Figure 4.1 – Airtab [7] ...................................................................................................... 44

Figure 4.2 – Vortex Strake Device [6] .............................................................................. 45

Figure 4.3 – Conventional Vortex Generator ................................................................... 46

Figure 4.4 – Delta Wing Vortex Generator [13] ............................................................... 47

Figure 4.5 – Aircraft Vortex Generator ............................................................................ 48

xii
Figure 4.6 – Airtab Centerline Spacing ............................................................................ 49

Figure 4.7 – Airtab Arrays ................................................................................................ 49

Figure 4.8 – Vortex Strake Devices .................................................................................. 50

Figure 4.9 – Conventional VG Spacing ............................................................................ 51

Figure 4.10 – Counter-rotating conventional VG’s .......................................................... 51

Figure 4.11 – Delta Wing spacing .................................................................................... 52

Figure 4.12 – Counter-rotating delta-wing VG’s .............................................................. 52

Figure 4.13 – Aircraft VG spacing ................................................................................... 53

Figure 4.14 – Counter-rotating aircraft VG’s ................................................................... 53

Figure 4.15 – Isometric View ........................................................................................... 55

Figure 4.16 – Side View ................................................................................................... 55

Figure 4.17 – Rear View ................................................................................................... 56

Figure 5.1 – CFD Geometry Side View............................................................................ 59

Figure 5.2 – CFD Geometry Top View ............................................................................ 59

Figure 5.3 – CFD Named Selections ................................................................................ 60

Figure 5.4 - Mesh .............................................................................................................. 60

Figure 5.5 – Contours of Velocity Magnitude .................................................................. 64

Figure 5.6 – Pathlines Colored by Velocity Magnitude ................................................... 65

Figure 5.7 – Contours of Pressure Coefficient.................................................................. 65

Figure 5.8 – Grid Independence Study ............................................................................. 66

Figure 5.9 – Error .............................................................................................................. 67

xiii
Figure 5.10 – Fine Mesh Using Research Version ........................................................... 71

Figure 5.11 – Contours of Velocity Magnitude, Symmetry ............................................. 73

Figure 5.12 – Contours of Velocity Magnitude, Sup. Plane ............................................. 73

Figure 5.13 – Vectors of Velocity Magnitude, Symmetry................................................ 74

Figure 5.14 – Vectors of Velocity Magnitude, Sup. Plane ............................................... 74

Figure 5.15 – Pathlines of Velocity Magnitude, Symmetry ............................................. 75

Figure 5.16 – Pathlines of Velocity Magnitude, Sup. Plane ............................................. 75

Figure 5.17 – Contours of Pressure, Symmetry ................................................................ 75

Figure 5.18 – Contours of Pressure, Sup. Plane ............................................................... 76

xiv
 1

1 Background Theory

In recent years, due to increasing fuel prices, developing technologies, and

government programs, there has been a need for increasing the fuel efficiency of class 8

tractor-trailer trucks. Inefficiencies exist as a result of friction in the drivetrain, friction at

the road to tire contact, and from the force due to drag. In order to improve the losses

that occur due to the drivetrain, engineering changes need to occur at the manufacturer

level. These improvements are not simple at all and mostly involve improving the

thermodynamic design of the internal combustion engine. In order to improve the rolling

friction of the tires, a low rolling resistance tire must be engineered, which is more

complex than it sounds. The force due to drag is an important aspect that can be focused

on because there is much room for improvement. Devices and fairings can also be

engineered independent of the tractor-trailer manufacturers. Many companies are

developing aerodynamics add-on devices that improve the flow of air at various points

along a tractor-trailer truck. The following research was done in order to showcase what

devices currently exist and how effective they can be. This knowledge can then be

applied to a new add-on device that attempts to control the flow of air in a commonly

overlooked area: the base region behind the trailer. Potential devices include a waving

trailing edge, microgrooves/ riblets, a gurney, and vortex generators. The device that will

be investigated is known as the vortex generator.

 2

In order to fully understand the flow conditions that occur around a tractor-trailer,

it is beneficial to first review the fluid dynamics topics that apply. Fluid mechanics is the

study of liquids and gases, and the forces on them. It can include many topics ranging

from fluid statics, to flow over and through objects. What should be emphasized here is

flow over a surface and the resulting phenomena. Normally, an object, such as a car or

plane, would be moving through a fluid (air); the object having a velocity that is positive

relative to the fluid. However, it can be beneficial to imagine the fluid as moving relative

to the stationary object. The situation can also be further simplified by using an object

such as a sphere, cylinder, or flat plate in order to derive and define certain fluid

dynamics properties [1].

1.1 The Boundary Layer

A certain situation will be examined first. A flat plate is stationary and fixed.

The fluid, which can be any fluid, passes over the top of this flat plate. The fluid starts

from a region where there is no plate, which defines the fluid initial properties. Then the

fluid reaches the plate, which results in an interaction between the solid wall and the

moving fluid. The situation is three dimensional in reality, but will be explained as two

dimensional because the properties of the fluid do not change in the direction

perpendicular to the direction of fluid flow. The most important part of the fluid-wall

interaction is the resulting “no-slip” condition. If a fluid particle is in contact with the

stationary wall, then it too can’t be moving. Since any Newtonian fluid is a viscous

fluid, then the shear stress will be directly proportional to the rate of strain.
 3

𝑑𝑉
𝜏=𝜇 (1)
𝑑𝑦

𝜏 is the shear stress, 𝜇 is the dynamic viscosity, and dV/dy is the rate of strain (change in

velocity with respect to position). This means that the stationary fluid particle will exert

a force on the next fluid particle up, due to this shear stress. As the fluid moves down the

plate, the “no-slip” condition creates a layer within the fluid that has been greatly slowed

down by the wall. This region is referred to as the boundary layer, which is the region

near the surface where the flow velocity changes from the free stream value to zero at the

surface. The thickness of the boundary layer, δ, is the distance from the surface to the

point in the fluid where the flow velocity is 99% of the free stream. This value can be

calculated using other fluid properties that will be covered later on [2].

Figure 1.1 – The Boundary Layer

 4

1.2 Streamlines

When a fluid interacts with an object, the velocity, pressure and position of the

fluid particles will change. In order to track these changes, certain terminology can be

used. Streamlines are the curve that is tangent everywhere to the velocity vector at each

point. Multiple streamlines can be compiled into a flow pattern. A pathline is the line

traced out by a single fluid particle and its path. A streakline is the line that is produced

by dye introduced at a single point within the flow. All of these lines are equal to each

other in steady flow, but are different in unsteady flow. Steady flow does not depend on

time, while unsteady flow does, and is usually a result of vortices that shed off an object

in certain conditions. Steady flow is not to be confused with fully developed flow, which

refers to the point on a surface where the flow condition will remain either laminar or

turbulent [2].

1.3 Reynolds Number

Another important fluid parameter to define this point is the Reynolds number. It is a

dimensionless number that can be calculated using a few important fluid properties:

dynamic viscosity, velocity, density, and the characteristic length.

𝜌𝑉𝐿
𝑅𝑒 = (2)
𝜇

The value of the Reynolds number provides useful information about the flow. At low

Reynolds numbers, the viscous effects are high, and at high Reynolds numbers, kinetic

forces are high. It is also a useful tool for determining how the fluid flow is acting at a

certain point along a surface [1].

 5

1.4 Laminar vs. Turbulent

The free stream condition of the fluid includes constant properties for density,

viscosity, temperature, and pressure in any direction. Once the fluid comes into contact

with the surface, the fluid velocity will change and the velocity distribution will change

as the fluid progresses along the wall. It is also safe to say that the boundary layer

changes as the fluid progresses along the wall. Initially, the velocity distribution looks

almost identical to that of the flow before the surface. But it will eventually develop into

a flow that can be classified as laminar flow. Laminar flow is characterized as being

smooth and steady, and is the initial section of the boundary layer along a flat plate. If

the flow is given a long enough plate, the boundary layer will eventually develop into

being turbulent. Turbulent flow is characterized by intense cross stream mixing, and has

random and chaotic motion. Turbulent eddies transport fluid from the free stream into

the boundary layer, which causes an increased velocity gradient at the surface, a larger

shear stress, and as a result, a larger boundary layer. The region between laminar and

turbulent is known as the transition region. It is the region between the critical point and

the transition point; the critical point being where the boundary layer becomes unstable

(Re=100,000), and the transition point being where the flow becomes fully turbulent.

Since, the boundary layer and shear stress differ from laminar flow to turbulent flow;

equations are included below on how they can be solved for [2]. The equation for

laminar boundary layer thickness:

5𝑥
𝛿= 1/2 (3)
𝑅𝑒𝑥
 6

The turbulent boundary layer thickness:

.16𝑥
𝛿= 1/7 (4)
𝑅𝑒𝑥

The laminar shear stress coefficient:

𝑐𝑓= .664 (5)

1/2
𝑅𝑒𝑥

The turbulent local shear stress coefficient:

𝑐𝑓= .027 (6)

1/7
𝑅𝑒𝑥

1.5 Bernoulli Equation

When referring to flow along a streamline, the pressure, position, and velocity of

the flow at one point can be related to the pressure, position, and velocity of the flow at

another point. The Bernoulli Equation is what does this, and it is shown in equation 7.

P1 V1 2 P2 V2 2
+z1 + = +z2 + (7)
γ 2g γ 2g

This equation can be used in many facets of fluid mechanics. An application of

the equation to fluid dynamics is in the case of flow over a cylinder. In this case, the two

dimensional cross section of a cylinder is stationary and fixed, while a fluid is flowing

over it in the same manner as in the flat plate situation; however, now there is flow to the

top and bottom. Tracking the streamlines of the fluid flow, they are all parallel before

interaction with the cylinder, and begin to deflect around the shape of the cylinder as they

near it. The streamline in the very middle of the cylinder points directly at it with a 90

degree angle, so it comes to a stagnation point. This stagnation point is defined by the
 7

ending of the streamline because of a velocity of zero at that point. If the free stream

velocity is known, then by using the Bernoulli equation, a pressure difference can be

solved for between this stagnation point and the point at the top of the cylinder. This

pressure distribution will become beneficial later, when drag and lift must be derived [2].

1.6 Flow Over a Cylinder

The situation of flow over a cylinder will be examined further. All of the same

fluid dynamics phenomena that have been previously discussed still apply here. A

boundary layer will form and will be either laminar or turbulent at a certain point from

the entrance. However, now because of the sudden change in geometry on the back side

of the cylinder, the flow will only follow this shape for very low Reynolds numbers (less

than 5). As the Reynolds number increases, the flow behind the cylinder will change

drastically. The flow will develop into steady separated flow, to unsteady oscillating

flow, to laminar separated flow, and finally to turbulent separated flow. The importance

of this is that there will be a physical point along the cylinder wall where the fluid

particles will separate from the surface. This flow separation is defined as where fluid

pathlines adjacent to a body deviate from the contour of the body and result in a wake

region behind the object. This condition occurs on bodies where there is a sudden change

in geometry where the fluid flow cannot remain attached. This is very common for bluff

bodies with sharp edges and can greatly increase the drag coefficient due to wake flow, a

separated region, and generated eddies [2].

 8

Figure 1.2 – Separation [1]

1.7 Drag

In any case of fluid flow, there will be a resultant force on the object parallel to

the free stream velocity. This force is called drag. The drag force and the coefficient of

drag can both be solved for by using the following equation. The drag force will increase

as density, velocity, or frontal area of the object increases [2]. The drag coefficient is

solved for in equation 8.

𝐹𝐷
𝐶𝐷 = 𝜌 𝑉2
(8)
0)
𝐴(
2

An object, such as an automobile, is doing work in order to move forward through

the air. The air will create a drag force that opposes the objects motion. This, in turn,

causes the vehicle to have to create more power in order to do the same amount of work.

Drag is an inevitable force that must be minimized in order to maximize the amount of

power that goes into actually moving the vehicle forward [2].

Drag can be divided up into two separate types that add together to give the total

drag. These two types are called form drag and friction drag. Form drag, also called

pressure drag, is the result of a pressure difference between opposite sides of an object.

A good example of this is the case of the flow over a cylinder. In this case, at Reynolds
 9

numbers above 5, the flow is separated behind the cylinder, which creates a wake region

behind it. This wake region is a low pressure zone due to the lack of the fluid within it.

This pressure difference is form drag. Friction drag is a result of the shear stress between

the fluid and an object. Friction drag and form drag total together to give the resulting

drag force [2].

1.8 Lift

Lift is the resultant force perpendicular to the free stream velocity. Lift is a result

of differing pressure on opposite sides of an object. Whenever lift is created, so is drag.

For this reason, lift must be mentioned and not ignored, however will not be very critical

in the analysis of tractor-trailer aerodynamics. The equation for the lift force and lift

coefficient is shown in equation 9 [2].

𝐹𝐿
𝐶𝐿 = 𝜌 𝑉2
(9)
𝐴( 0 )
2

1.9 Wind Averaged Drag Coefficient

When evaluating the effectiveness of a certain aerodynamic device, calculating

the resulting decrease in drag coefficient is what is most important. Realistically while a

truck is traveling on the highway, it will experience wind from a variety of angles. These

angles are effectively yaw angles. Instead of just calculating the drag coefficient at zero

yaw with no wind, the wind averaged drag coefficient can be calculated by taking into

account the average wind speed over an expected range of yaw angle. The wind

averaged drag coefficient is calculated in equation 10.

 10

2
̅𝐶̅̅𝐷̅(𝑉𝑡 ) = 1 ∫2𝜋 𝐶𝐷 (𝜓) [𝑉𝑟 (𝜓)] 𝑑𝜙
2𝜋 0 𝑉𝑡

1 2𝜋 𝑉 2 𝑉
= 2𝜋 ∫0 𝐶𝐷 (𝜓)[1 + ( 𝑉𝑤 ) + 2 ( 𝑉𝑤 ) cos(𝜙)]𝑑𝜙 (10)
𝑡 𝑡

Vw is the mean wind speed for North America, Vt is the speed of the truck relative to the

road, ψ is the yaw angle of the truck, and ϕ is the angle at which the wind is blowing

relative to head on with the truck [3].

 11

2 Tractor-Trailer Aerodynamics

Understanding the history of all tractor-trailer aerodynamics can be beneficial

when applying a new drag reduction device. There are specific reasons why aerodynamic

devices are being produced now and why there are only being applied to certain regions

of the tractor-trailer. The trucking industry and their fleet owners play a huge role in

determining if there is a market for these items. The truck and trailer manufacturers

along with the United States Environmental Protection Agency also play a big role in the

field of tractor-trailer aerodynamics.

2.1 Introduction

A large amount of research and effort was put into truck aerodynamics in the late

1970’s and early 1980’s. This was the result of the rapidly increasing fuel prices of that

time. Researchers focused on cab shaping and creating aerodynamic add-on devices for

the tractor as opposed to add-on devices for the trailer. These aerodynamic add-on

devices included the cab-roof-mounted air deflector and the body fairing [3]. Add-on

devices for the tractor were first more appealing to develop because there were

approximately 3 trailers per tractor, average in North America [4]. Add-on devices

needed only to be purchased for the tractor in order to improve the aerodynamic qualities

of multiple trailers. For this reason, there is a higher return on investment when add-on

devices are purchased for the tractor only. Also, owner/ operators of fleets owned only

the tractors and not the trailers, so there was no need to purchase add-on devices for the
 12

trailers. Trailers are leased or client owned, so there were no incentives for money to be

spent on items that save money for the owners of the tractors [3].

The truck aerodynamic improvements of the late 1970’s are referred to as first-

generation add-on devices, and include: cab shaping, cab-mounted deflectors, trailer front

end fairings, cab side extenders, and body front edge rounding. However, during that

time, research was also conducted on devices such as the tractor-trailer gap seal, trailer

side skirts, and rear boat-tailing. These devices are referred to as second generation add-

on devices and did not gain popularity at the time because of the fact that they are applied

to the trailer. More recently, a need to revisit these devices has emerged because of fuel

prices rapidly increasing once again [3].

Figure 2.1 – Full Scale Tractor-Trailer in Wind Tunnel [4]

At 55 miles per hour, and without any aerodynamic add-on devices, a tractor-

trailer can produce a wind averaged drag coefficient between 0.80 and 1.00. First
 13

generation add-on devices have the potential to decrease the overall drag coefficient from

0.15 up to 0.25. However, second generation devices may only have the potential to

decrease the drag coefficient another 0.03 to 0.10. It is also for this reason that they have

not gained popularity. But, if multiple devices are used simultaneously, then it becomes

a cheap and viable option for reducing the drag coefficient even further, and allowing for

fuel savings [3].

The primary resistance forces for a Class 8 tractor-trailer are: drivetrain losses,

rolling friction, and aerodynamic drag. A Class 8 GVWR is a vehicle above 33,000

pounds [5]. Aerodynamic drag will be of focus here, since simple low-cost devices can

be added to the tractor or trailer in order to decrease this drag. The distribution of these

drag forces are as shown below:

Figure 2.2 – Pressure Drag Distribution [6]

The drag in the target area in the front of the cab can be decreased by shaping of the cab

engine cover. This is really only a parameter that can be changed at the factory and

through careful design by the tractor manufacturer. This is not easily changed through

the use of any add-on device. The drag that occurs in the gap region between the tractor
 14

and trailer can be decreased by adding certain devices that block the cross mixing of the

flow from one side of the vehicle to the other. These devices are not very popular on the

American market yet, with the exception of one device. Airtab vortex generators are a

device that adds momentum to the flow in this region outside the gap so that the flow

does not enter the gap. Airtabs will be analyzed in detail later [7]. The drag that is

caused by the tractor wheels and the trailer bogey can be decreased through the use of

tractor side skirts and trailer side skirts. The drag at the base region of the trailer can be

decreased by a few different devices. The most popular device on the market today is the

boat tail device that consists of large plates that extend out into this region at an angle.

The air flow remains attached to these plates, which results in a smaller low pressure

wake region. A device that can also be effective in this region is the vortex generator;

however they are not currently used by fleet owners [6].

2.2 Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA is a government agency that focuses on creating programs that can

motivate the private sector to make decisions that are beneficial to the environment. In

this case, SmartWay Technology is a set of voluntary programs that allow fleets to create

class 8 tractors and trailers that are more fuel efficient which also generate less pollution.

Certain parameters determine when a tractor or trailer can be certified as SmartWay.

Once they are certified as SmartWay, the fleet owners can have complete confidence that

there will be a return on investment or cost savings on the tractor or trailer. In order to

create a SmartWay tractor it must have idle reduction, clean current engine and
 15

aerodynamics, and low rolling resistance tires. In order to create a SmartWay trailer it

must have low rolling resistance tires, be 53 feet long, and have verified aerodynamic

devices. The fleet owner can install these verified devices on their own in order to

achieve fuel savings and be able to use the SmartWay logo on the side of the vehicle, or

the device manufacturer can have their devices verified so that the device can be placed

on the SmartWay list in order to support sales [8].

Figure 2.3 – SmartWay Logo [8]

In order for an aerodynamic add-on device to be certified as SmartWay, they must

be placed in one of the following fuel savings bins:

1. 1.0%-3.9%

2. 4.0%-4.9%

3. 5.0%-8.9%

4. 9.0% and up.

The fuel savings bins are based on a long haul tractor-trailer being tested in a controlled

manner at 65 miles per hour. These bins are created so that fleet owners can choose a

device from each bin and use them together in order to add cumulatively the fuel savings.

The advantage of an aerodynamic device being SmartWay verified in one of these bins is

that they will be listed on the SwartWay website so that they can be chosen by a fleet in

order to build a SmartWay truck or trailer [8]. SmartWay verifies trailer aerodynamic
 16

devices that are used on a long haul box or refrigerated trailer. The fuel savings are

calculated based on tests that are performed by the manufacturer of the device, and the

testing procedures must adhere to certain guidelines. For example, if the test is being

performed on a test track, the test methods used must be in accordance to SAE J1321

Type II test procedures [9]. Tests are also conducted in a wind tunnel, by coastdown, or

with computational fluid dynamics. However, currently computational fluid dynamics is

only seen as supplemental testing. The manufacturer is responsible for funding all of the

tests and these test protocols can be found online at the SmartWay website. Once the

testing is complete, the Environmental Protection Agency will review the design of the

device and all of the details of the test. If the aerodynamic device is approved as a fuel

saving SmartWay device it will be posted on the SmartWay web page [10].

2.3 Experimental Testing of Add-On Devices

2.3.1 Wind Tunnel Testing of Second Generation Devices

Several wind tunnel tests were done by Kevin R. Cooper at the Aerodynamics

Laboratory, NRC Canada. The fuel consumption of a tractor-trailer was assumed to be

0.38 lb/(hp-hr), and the resulting fuel savings were calculated using the following

equation:

̅̅̅̅
𝜟𝝁(𝟔𝟓) = 𝟒. 𝟑𝟕𝟎 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟕 𝑽𝟐𝒕 (𝑪 𝑫 𝑨) (11)
 17

This equation solves for US gallons per mile, where A is equal to 100 square feet and Vt

is in miles per hour. The effectiveness of the various aerodynamic add-on devices tested

is shown in Table 2.1 below [3].

Change in Drag Annual Saving

Configuration Drag Coefficient Coefficient (US gal.)
Baseline 0.87 -0.147 -3,400
Std. Aero Package 0.723 - -
Aero+front trailer skirts 0.644 0.079 1,825
Aero+front and rear trailer skirts 0.617 0.106 2,500
Aero+gap seal 0.694 0.029 675
Aero+boat tail 0.679 0.044 1,000
All second gen. 0.54 0.183 4,225

Table 2.1 - Summary of Drag Reduction from Add-On Device [3]

The last row shows a drag reduction and fuel savings from second generation add-on

devices alone. This reduction in drag is actually greater than the drag reduction from the

standard first generation aerodynamic package. When the standard aerodynamic package

is used in conjunction with all second generation devices the fuel savings totals to 7,625

gallons per year [3].

2.3.2 Wind Tunnel Testing of Most Known Add-On Devices

Another set of tests were performed by Cooper along with Leuschen [4] of the

National Research Council of Canada on Class-8 tractor-trailers. The research consisted

of three phases overall: the first test was explained above, the second test optimized those

designs, and the third test consisted of all commercially available products and any

possible prototypes that could decrease the drag coefficient of a tractor-trailer. The third
 18

test was performed in the National Research Council wind tunnel in Ottawa, Canada just

as the other tests were. The difference here is that the following aerodynamic add-on

devices were evaluated:

Original Equipment Manufacturer Devices

-roof deflector

-cab side deflectors

-cab side extender extensions

-fender mirrors

-side mirrors

-bug deflector

-deer bumper

-cab and tank skirts

-wrap around splash guards

-hub caps

Drag Reducing Hardware

-Freight Wing NXT leading edge fairing

-Freight Wing belly fairing

-Laydon Composites trailer side skirts

-Transtex Composite folding rear trailer deflector

-Aerovolution inflatable rear trailer fairing

-Labyrinthine tractor-trailer gap seal

 19

-trailer vortex generators

-Manac prototype trailer leading edge fairing

-Francis Cardolle bogey fairings

The truck used was a Volvo VN 660 with a 28 foot trailer and the frontal area was 10.9

square meters. Wind averaged drag coefficients were calculated at a velocity of 29.6

meters/second. The drag force is measured and the drag coefficient is calculated using

equation 8, while the wind averaged drag coefficient is calculated using equation 10. The

results for the original equipment manufacturer devices are summarized below.

Change in Drag Annual fuel

Coefficient savings (L)
OEM side mirrors -0.0156 -938
OEM bug deflector -0.015 -903
OEM fender mirrors -0.0098 -588
Engine cooling inlets blocked 0.0001 6
Sun visor/ roof defelctor 0.0009 54
Hub caps (truck and trailer) 0.002 120
Deer bumper 0.002 120
Wrap-around splash guards 0.0049 292
Prototype roof deflector filler 0.0137 825
Fifth wheel forward 254mm 0.0163 982
OEM tank and cab skirts 0.0265 1596
OEM side extenders 0.0415 2499
OEM roof deflector 0.0717 4318

Table 2.2 - Tractor Device Drag and Fuel Improvements [4]

These results are technically only applicable to this specific tractor model; however the

overall magnitudes relative to each other can be expected in other applications. The
 20

noteworthy result was the deer bumper, which actually caused a reduction in drag for the

tractor-trailer.

The results for the new add-on devices are summarized below.

Change in Drag
Coefficient Annual Fuel (L)
Base Drag Reduction
Transtex Composite folding trailer rear deflector 0.0506 3047
Aerovolution inflatable trailer rear fairing 0.0438 2638
Trailer vortex strakes -0.0195 -1174
Trailer leading edge fairings
Freight Wing Inc. NXT Leading Edge Fairing w/o roof fairing 0.0369 2222
Manac prototype trailer leading edge fairing 0.0335 2017
Freight Wing Inc. NXT Leading Edge Fairing w/ roof fairing 0.0019 -114
Underbody Drag Reduction
Freight Wing Belly Fairing (low rider) 0.0478 2879
Laydon Composites main and rear skirts 0.0391 2355
Laydon Composites main skirts 0.0376 2264
Freight Wing Belly Fairing (low rider) 0.0367 2210
Francis Cardolle trailer bogey fairing 0.0145 873
Francis Cardolle trailer wheel fairings 0.0078 470
Gap Sealing
Laydon Composites Trailer Nose Fairing 0.0135 813
Volvo cab-extender extensions 0.0123 741
Labyrinthine tractor-trailer gap seal 0.0018 108

Table 2.3 - New Add-On Device Performance [4]

The greatest drag reductions were found at the base of the trailer where there is a large

region of separated flow. This region is the most untreated form of drag on a tractor-

trailer, but most of these devices aim at dealing with this problem. The vortex generators

actually increased the overall drag because they did not affect the base pressure, but did

add tare drag on the angle sections themselves. These vortex generators were vortex

strake devices fabricated out of 51mm by 51mm aluminum angle cut to 914mm long. Six
 21

were installed on each side of the trailer at a 30 degree angle from the horizontal. Four

were mounted on the top of the trailer at a 30 degree angle from the trailer centerline.

Figure 2.4 – Vortex Strake Device [4]

As for the trailer side skirts, both brands performed equally, but the rear skirts were

ineffective. The closer the skirt gets to the ground the better, as most of the drag

reduction comes from the fact that the skirts are sheltering the trailer bogey from any

flow.

Figure 2.5 – Trailer Side Skirt [4]

 22

The trailer rear deflector and the inflatable rear fairing were the other most effective

devices. The rest of the tested devices created only a slight decrease in drag or none at

all. The combination of tractor to trailer gap sealing, side extenders, trailer side skirts,

and trailer boat tailing provides a total drag reduction of 0.111. This converts to a fuel

savings of 1,761 US gallons at 62 miles per hour for 81,000 miles a year. If all of the

devices cost $2,200 to install, and the price of gas is assumed to be $3 per gallon, then the

devices will pay themselves off within three months. Taking into account the fact that

three trailers exist for every tractor, then the breakeven point becomes 14 months [4].

2.3.3 Operational Testing of Certain Add-On Devices

Add-on devices, like the ones above, were also tested by Wood and Bauer of

SOLUS Solutions and Technologies [6]. This time the tests were performed using actual

operational data. Three devices were part of the tests: the Cross-flow Vortex Trap

Device, the Vortex Strake Device, and the Undercarriage Flow Device. The one of

particular interest is the vortex strake device since it has been tested by others and is a

form of vortex generator that is applied to the trailing edge of the trailer [6].

The Cross-flow Vortex Trap Device was applied to the tractor-trailer gap region

and is intended to decrease the amount of flow that passes through said gap. The device

consists of six vertical fins that are attached to the front face of the trailer. They run the

entire height of the trailer and create small pocket regions in between each one that allow

vortices to form. These vortices disrupt the flow of air that would otherwise continue on

through the tractor-trailer gap and increase the pressure on the front face of the trailer.
 23

This device is especially effective at greater angle of yaw as the gap is wider in that case

[6].

The undercarriage flow device is attached to the lower surface of the trailer near

the trailer edge. Its purpose is to take the low momentum flow that usually occurs in this

region and transforms it into high momentum flow. It is very similar to the design of

standard trailer side skirts, except that it curves inward toward the rear of the trailer in a

curved fashion [6].

The vortex strake devices, as shown earlier were also tested here. They were

installed on the side and top surfaces of the trailer in the same manner as the other tests.

The vortex strake device creates a limited number of large scale vortices that energize the

flow in the trailer wake. This energized flow results in a stable bluff-base flow and a

higher pressure that acts on the trailing face of the trailer [6].

The experiment was different than a usual SAE Type I or Type II tests because

these devices were placed on operational vehicles. The devices were all placed on

tractor-trailers that were all part of the same fleet. The trailers were all Great Dane model

with a gap dimension of 40 inches. Operational data was recorded daily by the use of the

Cummins Engine INSITE data acquisition and analysis system. The fleet owner made

sure to always use the same fuel in all of the tractors and to verify that the devices were

always functioning properly. The fleet owner however, did not provide any additional

maintenance, did not alter any routes because of the study, and did not allow the devices
 24

to interfere with fleet operations. The test occurred between July 2001 and March 2002

and between July 2002 and March 2003 [6]. The results are as follows:

Device Improvement in Fuel Economy (%)

CVTD 3.5 to 8.3
UFD 0.8 to 3.3
VSD 2.2 to 4.9
TOTAL 6.5 to 16.5

Table 2.4 – Improvement in Fuel Economy [6]

All three devices were on tractor-trailers that totaled over 85,000 miles of use. The

technologies together show an improvement of approximately 10 percent at an average

speed of 47.5 miles per hour. This fuel economy improvement corresponds to a 30

percent decrease in drag coefficient if all the devices are used together. The tests also

proved that none of these devices created a negative impact on the operation of the fleet

[6].

In order to reduce the drag of a tractor-trailer, there are many devices that have

been implemented already. Some of these devices are more effective than others, but

when used together, the devices can save thousands of gallons of fuel every year. The

most effective devices being the aerodynamic fairing on the tractor, trailer side skirts, and

trailer boat tails. The trailer devices were ignored in the past because fleet owners had

little incentives to implement them [3]. Now with the Environmental Protection Agency

SmartWay program fleet owners are being motivated to use them to achieve even more

fuel savings [8].

 25

3 Vortex Generators

With 25 percent of the overall drag being generated at the base of the trailer, there

is a demand to implement a device that decreases the wake region area. At the moment,

boat tail devices create a surface that is angled into the wake region so that the fluid flow

can remain attached and cut down on the low pressure zone behind the trailer [10]. This

may not be the only way to achieve a decrease in the wake region area. A device that can

be effective would be one that creates turbulence in the boundary layer so that the flow

becomes energized. This situation is also seen in the design of golf balls. The dimples

on the surface of a golf ball trip turbulence in the boundary layer which reduces the flow

separation behind it. They cause a change in the critical Reynolds number (transition

from laminar to turbulent boundary layer) [6]. This same concept can potentially be

applied to other bluff objects such as a trailer.

3.1 General Theory

In the case of separated flow, pressure drag can account for the majority of the

drag force [2]. In order to reduce the drag on the object, the wake region behind it must

be reduced. This can be accomplished by streamlining the shape of the object or by using

other mechanical devices: moving skin, vanes, discharging high velocity fluid, suction,

and vortex generators. Vortex generators are ramps or wedges that are placed ahead of

the expected separation point [11]. Vortex generators are small wing shaped plates that

extend perpendicular to the wing surface about an inch. Multiple vortex generators are

mounted down the length of the wing at a specific interval; typically every 6 inches [12].
 26

They are typically the height of the boundary layer and transport momentum from the

free stream fluid back into the boundary layer. The vortex that sheds from the trailing

edge of the vortex generator trips turbulent flow which carries more energy than laminar

flow. This mixing of the boundary layer and free stream fluid can delay separation and

decrease the size of the wake region behind the object. Vortex generators do add a small

amount of drag due to the pressure drag seen at the vortex generator itself, however they

decrease the overall drag of the object far more due to the before mentioned delay of

separation [11].

Vortex generators are commonly used on aircraft wings in order to control the

boundary layer and delay separation. With a boundary layer that remains close to the

surface of the wing, the aircraft becomes more controllable. Vortex generators can also

be applied to automobiles, since the natural shape of an automobile is one that the fluid

flow will not always remain attached. The rear window section of a vehicle is of most

importance. A low pressure region will occur here due to the vehicle height becoming

progressively lower and the flow continues over the rear of the vehicle. This geometry

will create reverse flow acting against the main fluid flow at point C.

Figure 3.1 – Velocity Profile [13]

 27

Point B is the separation point where the pressure gradient and momentum of the

boundary layer are balanced. With the addition of vortex generators, momentum is

mixed from the upper region into the lower region of the boundary layer and the

separation point is moved downstream. Moving the separation point downstream

accomplishes two things: it narrows the low pressure region that causes drag and it raises

the pressure of the flow separation region. These two effects together decrease the

overall drag of the vehicle [13].

3.2 Background

Vortex generators were first used in England in the aeronautical industry and were

invented by Bill Lear. Vortex generators are small add-on devices that were originally

intended to be mounted on the top surface of airplane wings; however they can be applied

to many different aerodynamic designs. They can be used on passenger vehicles, race

cars, buses, trucks, and wind turbines as well [12].

Figure 3.2 – Vortex Generators on a Wing [12]

 28

“Vortex generators are boundary layer control devices.” [12] In the case of an

airplane wing, the fluid boundary layer develops in the same manner as the flat plate

example. It begins as fully laminar flow, and transitions into fully turbulent flow.

Figure 3.3 – Boundary Layer Transition [12]

Laminar flow is good because it does not create much friction drag, however it is bad

because it does not carry much momentum, and as a result will separate as the wing gains

an angle of attack. Separation for a wing is bad because it leads to stall. Stall is the point

where the wing is no longer generating lift. Turbulent flow produces more friction drag,

but carries more resistance to flow separation. Each vortex generator creates a very thin

spinning vortex off the top trailing tip that carries energy and momentum into the

boundary layer. This energy in turn creates turbulence which delays separation, which

allows for a wing that can be moved to a greater angle of attack without stalling [12].

Figure 3.4 – Vortex Generators and Angle of Attack [12]

 29

3.3 Types of Vortex Generators

There are various shapes and designs that can be used in order to generate a

vortex to improve boundary layer conditions. Conventional, vane type, passive vortex

generators with a height, h, that is in the order of the boundary layer thickness, δ, were

first introduced by Taylor in the late 1940’s. These devices are small plates or airfoils

that are mounted normal to the surface and set at an angle, β, to the fluid flow direction.

Conventional vortex generators are in wide use in the airplane industry in order to control

a local flow separation over a relatively short downstream distance. Conventional vortex

generators are cheap and easily installed, and are therefore used very often on the top

surface of wings of aircrafts [14].

A more efficient design was developed by Kuethe in the early 1970’s. These

wave-type vortex generators have a height to boundary layer thickness ratio of 0.27-.42,

and use the Taylor-Goertler instability to generate streamwise vortices within the

boundary layer. This type of vortex generator has a lower height than that of

conventional type, so the amount of parasitic drag is much less. They are generally

smaller in overall size as well, so they can be stored inside slots in wings when not

needed. However, they can be slightly more complex to manufacture than conventional

types. It is because of this increased complexity that leads to the design of

conventionally shaped vortex generators with a height of the low profile type [14].

Vortex generators can be classified into two main categories: Vane-type and

Wheeler. Of the vane-type, the vortex generators can be mounting in either the co-
 30

rotating or counter-rotating orientation. Of the Wheeler type, the vortex generators are

either shaped like wishbones or are two consecutive ramps known as doublets [14].

Figure 3.5 - Types of Vortex Generators [14]

The effectiveness of each type of vortex generator is shown in Effectiveness of Vortex

Generator Types below.

% Reduction in Region of reduction in Region of separation

Separation Region reattachment distance delay
h=0.2 vane VGs 90 56 34
h=0.8 vane VGs 87 56 31
h=0.2 rev. wishbone VGs 80 47 33
h=0.1 doublet VGs 72 46 26
d=0.2 spanwise cylinders 68 41 27
Longitudinal grooves 55 39 16
Elongated arches at 10deg 48 31 17
Viets flappers 36 32 4
LEBU at 10deg 30 20 10
Transverse grooves 25 20 5
Riblets 2 1 1
Heimholtz resonators 2 1 1
Passive porous surfaces -15 -11 -4
Swept grooves -23 -18 -5

Table 3.1 - Effectiveness of Vortex Generator Types [14]

 31

It is shown that vane type vortex generators with a height of 20% of the boundary

layer are the most effective at reducing the separation region. Vane type vortex

generators with a height of 80% of the boundary layer are next, with wishbone type and

doublet type following next [14].

3.4 Research and Testing

3.4.4 Wind Tunnel Testing

Three types of vortex generators were tested in wind tunnel TAD-2 of the

National Aviation University of Ukraine. The wind tunnel has a maximum speed of air

flux of 42 m/sec, and a length, width, and height of 5.54 m, 4 m, and 2.5 m respectively.

The devices were placed on the back edge of the roof of a small sport utility vehicle. The

first vortex generator type was a counter-rotating VG pair 25mm in height. Each VG in

the pair was set at 15 degrees from being parallel to the direction of fluid flow. There

were seven vortex generators and they were placed 36 mm from the rear edge. The

second vortex generator type was prism shaped, with a height of 10 mm. 30 of these

vortex generators were placed 36 mm from the rear edge, with no angle to fluid flow

direction. The third vortex generator type was of Clark type profile and 8 vortex

generators were used from every side of the longitudinal axis. The results of these tests

are shown in the Table 3.2 below [15]:

 32

Change in Drag Base Drag

Type of vortex generators Coefficient Coefficient
On the rear part of the roof, 36mm from
edge, 7 elements, step of 70mm, 15deg 0.25 0.392
angle, h=20mm

Prism VG, rear part of roof, 36mm from -1.24 0.392

edge, 30 elements, no angle

Clark type VG, 8 elements from each side -0.26 0.389

of longitudinal axis

Table 3.2 - Vortex Generators on a Small SUV [15]

3.4.5 Airtabs – Aeroserve Technologies Ltd

A type of vortex generator already exists on the market today that is being used

specifically for reducing the drag on tractor-trailers. The wishbone shaped vortex

generators are known as Airtabs, and are manufactured by Aeroserve Technologies Ltd

out of Ottawa, Canada. “Airtab vortex generators are scientifically shaped ramps that

extend into airstreams and create vortices – whirlwinds of air which help smooth the flow

of air onto surfaces or into the void behind a bluff trailing edge.” [16] Mounting Airtabs

on the trailing edge of the tractor can show an improvement of 2-3.5% in fuel

consumption. Mounting the vortex generators in this location helps energize the flow in

the region between the tractor and trailer. The energized flow resists entering the tractor-

trailer gap. The pressure in this region is then decreased, which decreases the overall

pressure difference for the overall tractor-trailer. Two low mileage DAF tractors with
 33

streamlined trailers were used for the BTAC test on the Motor Industry Research

Association high speed test track. The tractors both had roof fairings and side extenders.

The Airtab Vortex Generators were fitted on the rear edge of the side extenders, and both

trucks completed a run with the vortex generators, and one run without. The results to

the tests are summarized in the Table 3.3 below:

Airtabs
MPG %
Vehicle Without With Improvement Improvement
12 9.05 9.2 0.15 1.6
13 9.25 9.41 0.16 1.7

Table 3.3 - Airtab Vortex Generators [7]

The average speed on the track was 48 miles per hour, instead of 56 or more miles per

hour like on the actual highway. Also, the vortex generator kit was only a partial kit,

without any vortex generators fitted to the top of the tractor or to the trailer. This partial

kit was roughly 67% of a full kit, so the fuel savings could theoretically be 33% greater

than what was seen in the test. Extrapolating out to 56 miles per hour as well gives

theoretical fuel economy improvements of 5.3% for vehicle 13 and 3.1% for vehicle 12.

Taking the average of these two values gives an overall fuel economy improvement of

4.1% [16].

3.4.6 Vortex Generators on a Sedan

Delta wing shaped vortex generators were studied in a wind tunnel and using

computational fluid dynamics on a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII. The velocity was
 34

set to 50 meters per second and six component forces were measured. The optimum

shape and size for the vortex generators were investigated. The flow field in the wind

tunnel was measured by the particle image velocimetry method and using the software

package tools in computational fluid dynamics. The vortex generators are intended to be

mounted on just the roof of the vehicle just above the rear window [13].

The length to height ratio of the delta wing vortex generator is 2. It is mounted

with a yaw angle of 15 degrees with an interval to height ratio of 6. This calculates to

heights tested of 15 mm, 20 mm, and 25 mm. They are all 5 mm thick.

Figure 3.6 – Delta Wing Vortex Generator

In order to mount each vortex generator at a yaw angle of 15 degrees, the air flow was

investigated at the trailing edge of the roof, where they will be mounted. The flow is

aligned with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle at the centerline of the roof and increases

in angle as the measurement increases away from the centerline. For this reason, the

vortex generators are installed at a 15 degree angle at the centerline of the vehicle, but

have no angle towards the left and right edges of the roof [13].
 35

The vortex generators were found to be most effective when installed

immediately upstream of the flow separation point just above the rear window of the

sedan. The optimum height was found to be near the thickness of the boundary layer: 15

to 25 mm. The optimum placement was to arrange them in a row in the lateral direction

100 mm upstream of the roof end at 100 mm intervals. Application of the vortex

generators to the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution showed a 0.006 deduction in the drag

coefficient. By measuring the total pressure, the velocity distribution, and by using

computational fluid dynamics, it can be concluded that the vortex generators create

streamwise vortices that mix higher and lower layers of the boundary layer. This causes

the flow separation point to shift downstream and decrease drag [13].

3.4.7 Computational Fluid Dynamics – Tractor-Trailer

Analysis of vortex generators on a bluff tractor-trailer was done by Chitarth Lav

of Delhi Technological University [5] using computational fluid dynamics. A modified

version of the delta type vortex generator was chosen and its geometry is shown below.

Figure 3.7 - Delta Type Vortex Generator (dimensions are in meters) [5]
 36

The height of the vortex generator is the height of the boundary layer. A simple model of

a class 8 tractor-trailer was done in DS SolidWorks and this model was imported into

ANSYS Workbench V12. The overall length of the tractor-trailer was 8.25 m, with a rear

cab gap of 0.25 m and a height of 1.5 m. The flow domain around the model consisted of

an overall volume of 70 by 30 by 25 meters and the tractor-trailer was given 10 meters

between the front of the tractor and the inlet to the flow domain. Five iterations of the

simulation were performed following the original. With each iteration, more vortex

generators were added to the model or the model geometry was modified. First, the

tractor height was increased by 5cm. Then, three vortex generators were added to the

tractor end. Then, three more vortex generators were added to the trailer end. Then,

three more vortex generators were added to the trailer base end. Last, 1 vortex generator

each was added to the trailer end sides. A standard κ-ε model was used for all the

simulations. This two equation turbulence model allows for the turbulent velocity and

length scales to be determined independently. The model was meshed using a fully

unstructured finite volume method using an independent patch conforming algorithm.

This produced mesh elements that were tetrahedral. The boundary conditions were as

follows: inlet velocity=22.35 m/s along x, outlet pressure=0 Pa (gauge pressure), the

ground was modeled as a moving wall (22.35 m/s along x), and the body was models as a

stationary wall (0 m/s). The result for each iteration is shown below [5].
 37

Drag Change in Drag

Iteration Coefficient Coefficient % Reduction
Original 1.654 - -
Iteration 1 1.588 0.066 3.969
Iteration 2 1.577 0.077 4.625
Iteration 3 1.552 0.102 6.159
Iteration 4 1.519 0.135 8.172
Iteration 5 1.504 0.15 9.074

Table 3.4 - Results of the drag coefficient for various iterations [5]

The vortex generators are effective for reducing drag for the zero yaw condition. The

final combination of 11 vortex generators total gives a reduction of drag coefficient of

9.1% [5].

The effectiveness of vortex generators placed on a tractor-trailer was investigated

using computational fluid dynamics software by [17]. Four types of sub boundary layer

vortex generators were used for the study:

1. Conventional, trailing edge up

2. Conventional, trailing edge down

3. Conventional, counter-rotating

4. Airtabs

A device height of 20 mm was used which is equal to the boundary layer in the

simulation. The conventional vortex generators were 80 mm long and were spaced on 80

mm intervals. They all had an angle of 15 degrees to the flow direction [17].

A simplified CAD model of a tractor-trailer was imported into ANSYS

Workbench. The mirrors, turn signals, small accessories, sleeves, and other small
 38

elements were removed because these objects would create an overly complex finite

element analysis. A symmetrical model was also used so that the computational cost of

the simulation could be reduced. There was a distance of 4000 mm in the air volume

from the front of the cab to the air inlet, and 25,000 mm between the back of the trailer to

the air outlet. The vehicle’s body was then subtracted from the air volume so that a

negative image of the body is created, and a tetrahedral mesh with lineal Lagrange

elements can be applied. A 6mm element edge in the surface vehicle mesh was used,

with a denser discretization in the areas where greater speed gradients are expected. The

wheel pitch, the front of the vehicle, the area between the cab, and the area behind the

trailer are all areas where detachment will occur. After a mesh was generated with a

1000 mm maximum element size and 1.2 growth factor, mesh independency can be

determined. Six meshes were used in the study: 1 million, 5 million, 10 million, 20

million, 30 million, and 40 million elements. It was determined that the mesh is

independent past 10 million elements, so that particular mesh was used for the rest of the

simulation [17].

A kappa- omega turbulence model was chosen with steady state equations, wall

treatment, and non-equilibrated flow. This model was chosen for its robustness,

economy, and reasonable accuracy. An inlet flow velocity of 22 meters/second was used

along with a low turbulent intensity of 0.1%. First order equations were used for the first

300 iterations and second order equations were used for the remaining iterations. The

resulting drag force values are shown in the Table 3.5 below for all the models.
 39

Pressure Viscous Total % % fuel

force (N) force (N) force (N) improvement improve.
Original 1620 89.11 1709 - -
Model 1 1418.14 78.09 1496 12.46 4.98
Model 1 KP lateral VGs 1551.16 86.12 1637 4.2 1.68
Model 1 KP Top VGs 1583.21 88.4 1672 2.19 0.88
Model 1 rear lateral VGs 1562.12 85.4 1648 3.6 1.44
Model 1 rear top VGs 1578.67 89.12 1668 2.42 0.97
Model 2 1680.71 91.73 1772 -3.71 -1.48
Model 3 1658.62 91.84 1750 -2.42 -0.97
Model 4 1466.06 81.45 1548 9.46 3.78

Table 3.5 – Total force and fuel improvements [17]

3.4.8 Design Optimization

The optimum shape for a vortex generator was investigated by Raykowski and

Eastlake of Cessna Aircraft Company [18]. In order to create a good engineering design,

compromises must be made regarding requirements, timeline, and cost effectiveness. In

order to test the different designs of vortex generators, a 1/4 scale Piper Cherokee wing

was used instead of mounting full scale vortex generators to an actual airplane wing for

flight tests. Flight tests would increase the cost of the design in the end, and could prove

possibly dangerous since it is unknown how the wing dynamics will be affected. The

tests were performed in a 36 inch by 52 inch wind tunnel at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical

University. A Reynolds number of 2,800,000 was used along with a fluid velocity of 85

ft/sec. It would be beneficial for the transition point to occur on the same point on the
 40

scaled wing as it does on the actual wing. In order for this to happen, a rough strip was

attached to the top and bottom wing surfaces [18].

The rectangular vortex generators were 0.0115 inches thick and varied in height:

0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 inches. Vortex generators with a 30 degree and a 45 degree sweep to

the leading edge were also tested. Angles of incidence, spanwise row density, and

quantity were varied for each vortex generator type. Lastly, co-rotating configurations

were compared to counter-rotating configurations. Optimization was done in the

following order: wing alone, angle of incidence, geometry, height, row density,

configuration, and quantity. The optimal vortex generator from each test was then used

in the following test. At the end of all the tests, over 40 configurations were used. The

rectangular vortex generator turned out to be the most effective geometry since it is

simple and creates the greatest lift with a shallow angle of incidence. It became apparent

that the vortex generators must all be tall enough to extend past the height of the

boundary layer. Micro vortex generators, with a height of less than half of the boundary

layer thickness, do not create sufficient mixing between high velocity and low velocity

layers. The 0.05 inch and 0.1 inch vortex generators would be classified as micro vortex

generators. For vortex generator spacing, 3 inches was optimal, with effectiveness

decreasing as the spacing measurement increases or decreases away from that dimension.

Placing the vortex generators in a counter-rotating configuration made it so that a smaller

quantity could be used in order to achieve the same result, but this configuration was

more sensitive to spacing [18].

 41

There is already sufficient research that has been done on vortex generators and

some of which has been done on the application of vortex generators to tractor-trailers.

They have existed for decades and are a standard in the aeronautical industry. They show

promising results in any case on being able to change the flow characteristics to a more

preferred condition.
 42

4 The Study: Vortex Generator and Tractor-Trailer Geometry

At this point, using the applicable studies, there are certain vortex generator

designs that could be effective in this case. These will be explained later. Computational

fluid dynamics will be used as a type of study, so a 3 dimensional model must also be

created of a typical tractor-trailer that can provide data for a wide variety of tractor-

trailers. The specific geometry and dimensioning of the chosen vortex generators and

tractor-trailer is to follow.

Vortex generators have been used on passenger jets for decades [12]; however

they have only recently been applied to tractor-trailer vehicles [16]. Certain design

optimization has been done on vortex generators for aircraft but not much has been done

for tractor-trailers [18]. For this reason there is a need for studies to be done on vortex

generators when applied to a tractor-trailer. Airtab vortex generators are generally only

applied to the tractor-trailer gap [16] and vortex strake devices are not necessarily a

proven device [4]. All of the above research should be considered and compiled so that it

can contribute to the said study, and so that the study can help improve the field.

Twenty five percent of the aerodynamic drag on a tractor-trailer occurs in the

trailer base region [6], so there exists potential for vortex generators to be applied at the

trailing edge of the trailer to attempt to decrease the trailer wake region volume.

Different designs should be chosen and studied in order to evaluate their effectiveness.

This can be done in multiple ways: scaled model wind tunnel testing, full scale wind

tunnel testing, track test, operational testing, coastdown testing, or computational fluid
 43

dynamics [8]. Due to the available resources, for this study it has been chosen to use

computational fluid dynamics as the method of analysis. Computational fluid dynamics

has certain limitations and caution must be taken when using it, however if used correctly

it can be a powerful tool [19]. This will be explained later. The software will be used to

calculate the overall reduction in drag for a certain model of tractor-trailer when vortex

generators are applied. These results will be compared to one another and to the data

present in other sources. The results will show which vortex generator design is the most

effective and if it is economically viable to use vortex generators in this application.

4.1 Vortex Generator Types

Airtabs do possess the ability to decrease the overall drag when applied to the tractor-

trailer gap [16], so they will be the first device to be studied. Vortex strake devices have

been shown to increase the overall drag and decrease the overall drag, so they are a

device that needs further study [4]. Conventional style and aircraft style vortex

generators are used very often in the aircraft industry, so it may be possible that they will

also be effective here [14]. Delta type vortex generators are used on passenger vehicles

for the very same reason that they could be effective in this application [13], so they will

also be chosen as a device to be studied. The geometry of each of these devices will be

explained; the chosen devices are listed below:

 44

1. Airtabs

2. Vortex Strake Device

3. Conventional

4. Delta Wing

5. Aircraft

4.1.9 Airtab

An Airtab is a wishbone type vortex generator that is a marketed product by

Aeroserve Technologies Ltd. [7] It is designed specifically for decreasing the

aerodynamic drag on tractor-trailers. Wishbone type vortex generators are shaped the

way that they are so that the device extends out of the boundary layer without any sharp

edges. They are roughly one inch tall, four inches long, and five inches wide. [16]

Figure 4.1 – Airtab [7]

 45

4.1.10 Vortex Strake Device

A vortex strake device is three foot long piece of 90 degree angle steel. It is two

inches tall and 2 inches wide. This vortex generator is a patent pending device and has

already undergone extensive real world tests. The vortex strake device is essentially a

conventional vortex generator that functions because of the extreme length and mounting

angle. Each one on the side of the trailer is mounted at 30 degrees to the longitudinal

axis of the trailer, and each one on the top of trailer is mounted at 30 degrees with the

leading edge inboard. There should be five on each side of the trailer and four on the top.

This vortex generator design produces a limited number of large vortices that energize

the flow behind the trailer [6].

Figure 4.2 – Vortex Strake Device [6]

4.1.11 The Conventional Vortex Generator

The conventional vortex generator is simply a flat plate that extends perpendicular to

the surface that it is mounted to. It can be mounted either parallel to the direction of fluid

flow, or it can have an angle to the said flow. If there is an angle, the vortex generators

can either all share the same angle, which is called co-rotating, or every other vortex

generator can be mounted at an angle equal but opposite, which is called counter-rotating.
 46

This style of vortex generator is relatively large scale in reference to the boundary layer

thickness. They are effective at controlling separation using a localized flow at a short

downstream distance, even though they do create a small amount of drag just because of

their size. [14] This particular vortex generator has a small flange broke at the bottom so

that they can be easily mounted to the surface. It is 1 3/16 inches tall which is near the

height of the boundary layer, 2 3/8 inches long which is two times the height, and 1/16

inches thick. This design is based on the vortex generator design used in [20].

Figure 4.3 – Conventional Vortex Generator

4.1.12 The Delta-Wing Vortex Generator

The next type of vortex generator is known as the delta-wing shaped vortex generator.

This type is shaped the way it is so that it can extend up into the boundary layer without

having as much surface area to create drag. The sharp point is all that is required to shed

the attached flow and create a swirling vortex. The design used is based on the

rectangular vortex generator used in [13] and [18]. It is relatively thick at 3/16 inches,

but follows the same convention as the previous vortex generator where the length is two
 47

times as much as the height. It is recommending that they are installed at 15 degrees to

the air flow direction. [13] Rectangular vortex generators are easy to manufacture and

they provide a substantial tip vortex at a shallow angle of incidence which keeps the

frontal area to a minimum [18].

Figure 4.4 – Delta Wing Vortex Generator [13]

4.1.13 Small Aircraft Vortex Generators

The last type of vortex generator is based on vortex generators that are used on small

aircraft wings. It is slightly shorter than the previous vortex generator types, but is quite

a bit longer. With a height of 1 ¼ inches and a length of 7 1/16 inches, its length to

height ratio is 5.65 instead of 2. It also has a radius to the leading edge and remains to

have a flat top edge like the conventional vortex generator. These vortex generators are

used on aircraft such as the Beech Bonanza, Baron, and Duke, the Cessna 401, 402, 414,

and 421, and the Piper Navajo, Super Cruiser, and Super Cub. They are offered by

numerous different companies, but are for the most part the same design [12].
 48

Figure 4.5 – Aircraft Vortex Generator

4.2 Orientation

Airtabs and Vortex Strake Device both have a specific mounting procedure so

only one orientation exists for each. However, conventional, delta wing, and aircraft

vortex generators each can be mounted in three different orientations.

1. Parallel to flow direction

2. Co-rotating

3. Counter-rotating

The Airtabs are modeled on the trailer per the installation manual [7], which is as

follows: the rows of Airtabs are installed as close to the trailing edge as possible, four

inches on center, with no angle of incidence to the direction of flow. They are installed

on both sides and top of the trailer in this pattern.

 49

Figure 4.6 – Airtab Centerline Spacing

Figure 4.7 – Airtab Arrays

Vortex strake devices are modeled on the trailer in the same manner as [4] and

[6]. Five devices are placed on each side of the trailer, equally spaced, with an angle of

incidence of 30 degrees, leading edge up. Four devices are placed on the top of the

trailer, equally spaced, in a chevron pattern, with an angle of incidence of 30 degrees,

leading edge inboard [6].

 50

Figure 4.8 – Vortex Strake Devices

The conventional vortex generators are modeled on the trailer trailing edge in a

counter-rotating orientation. Each set of two vanes point leading edge toward each other.

Each vane has an angle of incidence to the centerline of 15 degrees. The two vanes are

four inches apart, measured from the trailing edge. Each pair is six inches apart,

measured about the centerlines.

 51

Figure 4.9 – Conventional VG Spacing

Figure 4.10 – Counter-rotating conventional VG’s

The delta type vortex generators are modeled on the trailer trailing edge in a

counter-rotating orientation per [13]. Each set of two vanes point leading edge toward

each other. Each vane has an angle of incidence to the centerline of 15 degrees. The two

vanes are 57 mm apart, measured from the trailing edge. Each pair is 200 mm apart,

measured about the centerlines.

 52

Figure 4.11 – Delta Wing spacing

Figure 4.12 – Counter-rotating delta-wing VG’s

The aircraft vortex generators are modeled on the trailer trailing edge in a

counter-rotating orientation. Each set of two vanes point leading edge toward each other.

Each vane has an angle of incidence to the centerline of 15 degrees. The two vanes are

seven inches apart, measured from the trailing edge. Each pair is 14 inches apart,

measured about the centerlines.

 53

Figure 4.13 – Aircraft VG spacing

Figure 4.14 – Counter-rotating aircraft VG’s

 54

The airtabs and vortex strake device are mounted per manufacturer instructions, while the

other three vortex generator types are mounted in equal orientations regarding angle of

incidence and the fact that they are counter-rotating. The other dimensions differ so that

each type is mounted similarly to other sources where each type is used. This is done so

that each type has the most potential to be effective and simultaneously have results that

are comparable to one another.

4.3 The Tractor-Trailer

The tractor-trailer is modeled using DS SolidWorks. Within SolidWorks the

model accurately represents a Peterbilt On-Highway Model 579 tractor hauling a Great

Dane Champion SE dry freight trailer. This tractor is a sleeper cab equipped with the full

cab aerodynamic package which includes a roof fairing, gap fairing, and side skirts. It is

dimensioned using [21]. The trailer was dimensioned using [22] and [23]. The tractor-

trailer components are named as seen in Figure 4.15 showing the SolidWorks model [24].
 55

Figure 4.15 – Isometric View

Figure 4.16 – Side View

 56

Figure 4.17 – Rear View

Figures 4.15 through 4.17 show the SolidWorks model that was created and the

amount of detail that went into it. The main components like the tractor aerodynamic

fairings, the trailer bogey, and the tires were all included in the model so that the overall

dimensions could be accurate. At this point, there is an adequate balance between high

and low detail. Later, when the model is imported into the computational fluid dynamics

platform, the level of detail will actually have to decrease even more.
 57

5 Computational Fluid Dynamics Study

5.1 Theory

Computational fluid dynamics software packages work by dividing geometry with

a continuous domain into small sections of discrete domain. Flow variables are defined

only at these points and solutions to the governing differential equations are solved at

each of these points. Then all of the information between each point can be found

through interpolation if linear. There are a few different techniques that CFD software

uses to find solutions, but the simplest is the finite difference method where the

differential equations are approximated as algebraic equations based on Taylor series.

Fluent code uses the finite volume method where a control volume is used in order for

mass, energy, and momentum to all be conserved into and out of the cell. Last, ANSYS

uses the finite element method [25].

Computational fluid dynamics software can be a very beneficial tool; however it

must be used correctly. In order to know that the simulation is generating useful data, the

results must be validated and verified. Verification involves analysing the accuracy of

the calculation, while validation involves comparing the variable of interest to the

analytical solution in order to quantify error. In order to verify the results, a grid

independence study must be done. Each value for the variable of interest is plotted

versus the number of grid points, and the mesh is said to be independent once the said

values become unaffected by an increasing grid number. Once the optimal grid number

is found, that is the mesh that should be used for all of the following simulations. In
 58

order to validate the results, a grid convergence study must be done. Error values are

calculated by comparing the CFD solutions to the analytical solution or the CFD solution

at a very fine mesh. These error values are then plotted versus the number of grid points.

If the slope of the line generated matches the order of solution method chosen in the CFD

setup, then the grid is said to be converged. When the grid is converged, then it is known

that the CFD program has reached a resulting value that is a single usable value [25].

The computational fluid dynamics packed being used is ANSYS Workbench 15.0.

The programs that work together within this package are ANSYS Design Modeler,

ANSYS Meshing, and ANSYS Fluent. Design Modeler handles the geometry, Meshing

creates a mesh on said geometry, and Fluent simulates the fluid flow. Fluent is also used

for post processing and to view results in this case [19].

5.2 Import

The SolidWorks model is first imported into Design Modeler as an external

geometry file. This geometry file is a simplified version of the SolidWorks file that is

shown above. The simplification is done to reduce the computational cost. With the

geometry imported, an enclosure is created around the body. This enclosure represents

the fluid volume that surrounds the tractor-trailer. It needs to be large enough so that any

fluid affected by the body can be analyzed with the simulation. The overall length of the

enclosure is approximately 271 feet and 9 inches, the width is approximately 37 feet and

6 inches, and the height is approximately 46 feet and 7 inches. The tractor-trailer body is

placed in a location so that the trailing face of the trailer is 131 feet and 10 inches from
 59

the outlet of the enclosure. Also, only half of the tractor-trailer body is used, symmetric

about a plane that would be half way between the left and right sides of the trailer.

Figure 5.1 – CFD Geometry Side View

Figure 5.2 – CFD Geometry Top View

The tractor-trailer body is subtracted from the air enclosure using a Boolean operation.

This creates a void in the air enclosure where the body is, so that there is no interference

between the body and the air. The named selections are as follows:
 60

Figure 5.3 – CFD Named Selections

The purple text in Figure 5.3 represents a hidden face and the red text represents a visible

face. At this point, a mesh is generated within the enclosure.

Figure 5.4 - Mesh

 61

A CFD physics preference is used along with a Fluent solver preference. Advanced user

size functions are enabled with curvature. A fine relevance center and program

controlled triangular surface mesher is used. For the rest of the mesh parameters, default

settings were used. The minimum size was adjusted in order to give various grid

numbers for each mesh. More mesh details are discussed in section 5.5.

5.3 Setup

A pressure based solver is used, with steady time, and absolute velocity

formulation. For viscous forces a turbulent boundary layer is expected. In order to select

a suitable turbulence model, the following Table 5.1 is used as a reference.

Table 5.1 – RANS Turbulence Model Behavior and Usage [26]

RNG kappa-epsilon is chosen because it most accurately models swirl, vortices, and

transitional flows. All of which are associated with bluff bodies where there is massive
 62

separation and vortex shedding. RNG, or renormalization group, uses a differential

viscosity model to account for low Reynolds number effects. It also uses an analytically

derived formula for turbulent Prandtl/ Schmidt numbers. Kappa-epsilon models in

general are the most widel used tubulence models for industrial applications. They are

robust and accurate and contain submodels to account for compressibility. However, the

epsilon equation contains a term which cannot be calcualted at the wall, so wall functions

must be used. [26] In this case, the solver is set to use non-equilibrium wall functions.

The air is set to be the interior, the body and wall are set as walls, the inlet is a

velocity inlet, the outlet is a pressure outlet, and the remaining surfaces are set as

symmetry. The incoming velocity is 55 miles per hour and is normal to the inlet face.

The outlet is set to have zero gauge pressure. Reference values are computed from the

inlet and are as follows:

Area (m2) 5.26192

Density (kg/m3) 1.225
Enthalpy (j/kg) 0
Length (m) 1
Pressure (pascal) 0
Temperature (k) 288.16
Velocity (m/s) 24.5872
Viscosity (kg/m-s) 1.79E-05
Ratio of Specific Heats 1.4

Table 5.2 – Reference Values

The area used is the frontal area of the tractor-trailer that is projected onto the outlet face.

The inlet velocity, fluid density, and the projected area are used together along with the

drag force in order to calculate the drag coefficient. The drag force is monitored during
 63

the simulation and exported as a result once the simulation has terminated. The

calculation for the drag coefficient is shown below.

𝐹𝐷
𝐶𝐷 = 𝜌 𝑉2
(12)
𝐴( 0)
2

The Reynolds number for this simulation is calculated using equation 2. The density of

air is 1.225 kg/ cubic meter, the viscosity of air is .00001789 kg/m sec, the velocity is

24.5812 meters/ second, and the characteristic length is the width of the truck at 2.5908

meters. This calculates a Reynolds number of 4.36 million.

5.4 Solution

For solution methods, a coupled scheme is used with a least squares cell based

gradient, second order pressure and momentum equations, and first order turbulent

kinetic energy and turbulent dissipation rate equations. A flow courant number of 50 is

used, along with a momentum relaxtion factor of 0.25, a pressure relaxation factor of

0.25, and a turbulent viscosity of 0.8. The turbulent viscosity ratio was limited to 10

million. The program is set to monitor the residuals of the differential equations during

the simulation, along with the drag coefficient of the body at each iteration. The

simulation is run for 500 iterations. Figure 5.5 displays the contours of velocity

magnitude. The maximum velocity magnitudes are shown in red are approximately equal

to 30 meters/ second. This occurs near the top surface of the tractor body and near the

leading top edge of the trailer. The regions of flow unneffected by the tractor-trailer body

remain at the inlet flow velocity of approximately 25 meters/ second. The minumim
 64

velocities occur around the region near the top trailing edge of the trailer and are

approximately equal to 1.8 meters/ second. The large differnence between the maximum

and minimum velocites, combined with the fact that these velocites occur on opposite

ends of the tractor-trailer are the reason that so much drag is generated.

Figure 5.5 – Contours of Velocity Magnitude

The fluid pathlines are shown and are colored according to the velocity magnitude.

Figure 5.6 shows the same result as Figure 5.5; the highest velocity occurring near the top

surface of the tractor body and the lowest velocity occurring near the trailing top edge of

the trailer. Figure 5.6 however shows the vortices that are generated behind the bluff

body that is the trailer.

 65

Figure 5.6 – Pathlines Colored by Velocity Magnitude

Figure 5.7 – Contours of Pressure Coefficient

5.5 Grid Independence/ Convergence

For the grid independence study, five different mesh sizes are used for separate

simulations. The meshes used are as follows: 1 hundred thousand, 2 hundred thousand, 3

hundred thousand, 4 hundred thousand, and 5 hundred thousand grids. The total force is
 66

monitored and the drag coefficient is calculated as explained before. These values for

drag coefficient are plotted versus the corresponding grid numbers in order to determine

mesh independence.

0.9

0.88

0.86

0.84
Drag Coefficeint

0.82

0.8

0.78

0.76

0.74

0.72

0.7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Grid Number (hundred thousands)

Figure 5.8 – Grid Independence Study

The variable of interest becomes less effected by an increasing grid number past 2

hundred thousand, so the simulation that uses a mesh of 2 hundred thousand is used for

all future simulations. Using the same data the drag coefficients for the meshes of 1

hundred thousand, 2 hundred thousand, 3 hundred thousand, and 4 hundred thousand are

compared to the drag coefficient for 5 hundred thousand in order to obtain error values.

These error values are plotted versus the grid numbers for the grid convergence study.
 67

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

1

0.1
Error

0.01

0.001
Grid Number (hundred thousands)

Figure 5.9 – Error

The slope of this line is calculated using the following equation:

𝐺𝑟𝑖𝑑 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟
𝑘 = 𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝐺𝑟𝑖𝑑1 )/𝐿𝑜𝑔(𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟1) (13)
4 2

This equation yields -1/2 for the slope, which matches the order of the solution method

that was selected for the turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent dissipation rate equations.

At this point, the computational fluid dynamics simulation has been verified and

validated. This setup can then be used for the remaining simulations for comparing the

various designs for vortex generators.

 68

5.6 Results

A simulation for each vortex generator type is then carried out which matches the

verified/ validated solution. The results for the following five simulations are shown

below. The drag force is monitored in each case so that the drag coefficient can be

calculated in the same manner as before. These drag coefficients can then be compared

to the original drag coefficient.

Drag Force (N) Drag Coefficient % Improvement

No VG's 838.38547 0.861 -
Airtabs 829.0547 0.851 1.11
Vortex Strake Device 840.5497 0.863 -0.26
Aircraft 829.1275 0.851 1.10
Conventional 833.2827 0.855 0.61
Delta Wing 830.57821 0.853 0.93

Table 5.3 – CFD Results

The drag coefficient is calculated for each device using equation 12. These values are

then compared to the baseline drag coefficient in order to calculate a percent

improvement value. According to these computational fluid dynamic simulations, the

Airtabs decreased the drag for the tractor-trailer the most, with a percent improvement of

1.11. The aircraft vortex generators are in a close second and the delta vortex generators

in third. It was expected that the aircraft type and the conventional type would create a

similar result, as they have a similar design, and are used for similar applications.

However, in this case they did not produce similar results. This could be because the

mounting configurations differed greatly. The conventional vortex generators were a lot

small in size compared to the aircraft type, and the conventional vortex generators were
 69

mounted closer together. It makes sense that the Airtabs provide the greatest

improvement because they are applied to tractor-trailers exclusively. 1.11% also closely

matches the 1.6% fuel mileage improvement seen in [16], even though the Airtabs were

used on the tractor and not the trailer in [16]. The improvement seen in the

computational fluid dynamics study does not come close to the improvements seen in

[17] or [5].

The change in drag coefficient is then calculated for each device and that value is

used to calculate an annual fuel savings using equation 11. It is assumed that this specific

tractor-trailer would be doing 125,000 miles in a year. It is also assumed that a baseline

situation could be created where a tractor-trailer without any devices gets 7 miles to the

gallon. Percent fuel savings are then calculated by comparing the annual fuel savings of

the vehicles with devices to the annual fuel consumption of the vehicle without devices.

Change in Drag Annual Fuel

Coefficient Savings (US Gal) % Fuel Savings
No VG's - - -
Airtabs 0.010 125.202 1.00
Vortex Strake Device -0.002 -29.040 -0.23
Aircraft 0.010 124.225 0.99
Conventional 0.005 68.470 0.55
Delta Wing 0.008 104.759 0.84

Table 5.4 – Fuel Savings

The Airtabs and the aircraft vortex generators are the devices that have potential

to be verified SmartWay devices to be placed in the first fuel savings bin, however at this

point the testing that has been done is not sufficient proof that they can be SmartWay
 70

verified devices. More testing must be done in order to investigate how the drag

coefficient of a class 8 tractor-trailer will be affected when vortex generators are used on

the trailing edge of the trailer.

5.7 Research Release of ANSYS

The results shown in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 were gathered using an educational

version of ANSYS, which is limited to a mesh of 512,000 elements. The solution was

validated and verified, but just for comparison simulations were also run using the

research version of ANSYS. This software release does not have a mesh number limit

and should theoretically model three dimensional flows more realistically. The aircraft

type vortex generators were chosen to be compared to the case without any vortex

generators. This one type was chosen over the Airtabs because a cleaner mesh can be

created around them, and because there is less published data on them being applied to

the base region of a tractor-trailer.

The same enclosure geometry and named selections were used as in the

educational version simulations. However, now the following non default settings were

used when generating a mesh:

1. Advanced User Size Functions

a. On: Fixed

2. Fine Relevance Center

3. Max face size = 1 m

4. Max Size = 1 m
 71

5. Min Edge Length = .001 m

6. Face sizing on the body

a. Element size = .1 m

b. Hard behavior

7. Body Sizing on a body of influence at the rear of the trailer

a. Element size = .05 m

The same mesh settings were used for both the model without the vortex generators and

the model with vortex generators. The mesh now contains approximately 2.5 million

elements for both cases.

Figure 5.10 – Fine Mesh Using Research Version

The same settings for the solution setup and solution were used in the research version as

in the educational version. The main reference values can be seen in Table 5.2. The drag

force was monitored during the simulation and plotted afterwards so that a drag

coefficient could be calculated in both cases.

 72

The following graphics were generated using the results section of ANSYS Fluent

for both the case without vortex generators and the case with small aircraft vortex

generators:

1. Contours of Velocity Magnitude

2. Vectors of Velocity Magnitude

3. Pathlines of Velocity Magnitude

4. Contours of Total Pressure

The range of velocities for contours, vectors, and pathlines of velocity are as follows.

Red is the maximum velocity at 25 meters per second, followed by orange, yellow, and

green. Blue is the minimum velocity at 0 meters per second. Lighter blue indicates a

higher value and darker blue indicates a lower value. The range for contours of pressure

follows the same convention. Red indicates a maximum of 400 Pascal and blue indicates

a minimum of -300 Pascal relative to the velocity inlet. The case without vortex

generators is always shown on the left and the case with vortex generators is shown on

the right. Each type of graphic is shown first on the symmetry plane between the left and

right sides of the trailer and second on a supplementary plane seven feet away from and

parallel to the road.

 73

Figure 5.11 – Contours of Velocity Magnitude, Symmetry

Figure 5.11 shows an obvious decrease in the amount of dark blue that is displayed. This

indicates that the velocities are higher in the wake region, which is what the vortex

generators intend to do. The outline of this low velocity region is also decreased with the

vortex generators. They generate a less rounded shape, and in turn subtract from the

overall volume of the low velocity region.

Figure 5.12 – Contours of Velocity Magnitude, Sup. Plane

Figure 5.12 displays the same reduction in overall low velocity region in the

supplementary plane. This region is much longer in the case without vortex generators,
 74

and also contains more dark blue. A decrease in both the symmetry plane and the

supplementary plane indicate that there is a three dimensional decrease in the low

velocity region behind the trailer with the vortex generators.

Figure 5.13 – Vectors of Velocity Magnitude, Symmetry

Figure 5.14 – Vectors of Velocity Magnitude, Sup. Plane

 75

Figure 5.15 – Pathlines of Velocity Magnitude, Symmetry

Figure 5.16 – Pathlines of Velocity Magnitude, Sup. Plane

Figure 5.17 – Contours of Pressure, Symmetry

 76

In Figure 5.17 and Figure 5.18 the most important total pressure is shown in the region

behind the trailer. A very slight increase in pressure is shown in the symmetry plane

indicated by the shade of blue, while a definite decrease in area is shown in the

supplementary plane. The high pressure zone locally at the vortex generators can even be

seen, however they decrease the overall drag more than they create drag locally.

Figure 5.18 – Contours of Pressure, Sup. Plane

Examining Figure 5.11 through Figure 5.18 results in a discovery of the following

phenomena. Equation 7 can be used to relate velocity to pressure and equation 8 can be

used to relate the area to the amount of drag created. The values for velocity relative to

the inlet showed an increase, which is desirable because the closer the velocity is to the

free stream value, the lower the drag coefficient. The values for total pressure relative to

the inlet showed an increase. An increase in pressure is also desirable because if the

pressure value at the base of the trailer is closer to the pressure value at the front of the

tractor, then less form drag will be generated. An overall reduction in the low pressure/

velocity region volume is seen when the vortex generators are used.
 77

The total drag coefficients and forces for the high element mesh simulations are

shown in Table 5.5. This time there is a greater improvement in drag coefficient. A 4%

improvement is much more promising and shows that there is potentially a greater chance

at vortex generating proving to be effective when applied in reality.

Drag Force (N) Drag Coefficient % Improvement

No VG's 1033.939 1.061 -
Aircraft 989.412 1.016 4.31

Table 5.5 – Improvement in Drag Coefficient

The prospective fuel savings are shown in Table 5.6. The same assumptions are made

here as in Table 5.4. In this case, the vortex generators can potentially save up to 600 US

gallons of fuel per year. This would put vortex generators in the third most effective

EPA SmartWay fuel savings bin, instead of the fourth.

Change in Drag Annual Fuel

Coefficient Savings (US Gal) % Fuel Savings
No VG's - - -
Aircraft 0.046 597.472 4.78

Table 5.6 – Fuel Savings

The results generated by the research version of ANSYS favor the effectiveness of vortex

generators more than the educational version. For this reason, further research in this

field would be beneficial and could eventually lead to the establishment of vortex

generators as a functioning tractor-trailer drag reduction device.

 78

6 Conclusion and Future Works

Vortex generators do create the expected flow condition in the base region of a

tractor-trailer and decrease the overall drag. Each vane creates a spanwise vortex that

enables mixing between the high velocity flow outside of the boundary layer and the low

velocity flow within the boundary layer. This turbulent flow carries more momentum

into the wake region so that there is less separated flow. Even though these add-on

devices perform as expected, their effectiveness did not compare to other devices that are

applied to the same drag source region on the trailer. For this reason, vortex generators

may or may not be chosen to be used in the trucking industry. Vortex generators may be

cheaper to purchase and install. They may also be less intrusive on the maintenance and

performance of the trailer. More research needs to be performed in order to answer these

questions. Also, the results of this computational fluid dynamics study may or may not

match the results from another form of study: track tests, wind tunnel tests, and

operational tests.

If vortex generators do seem to be a viable option for decreasing drag (the results

here suggest that may be the case), then there are many topics to follow that can be

investigated.

1. How will they be manufactured?

2. How will they be installed easily and without disturbing the operation of the

fleet?

3. When does the financial breakeven point occur?

 79

4. How much will it cost to manufacture and how much will they be sold for?

5. What material will they be made of?

6. SmartWay certification

If further research is to be conducted through the use of computational fluid

dynamics, there are certain recommendations that can be given, based on the work that

was performed here. It may seem necessary to create an accurate and detailed model of

the tractor-trailer in 3D; however with the current available technology the computational

fluid dynamics packages can handle only a limited amount of data. It is more important

to create a model that represents all the sharp edges and the general shape of the tractor-

trailer. It is also very important to verify that a mesh is created that correctly divides up

the geometry. It must be kept in mind that once the first simulation runs correctly, and is

verified/ validated, that these setup parameters must be used throughout all simulations.

It would be beneficial to use the research version of ANSYS to test the other vortex

generator designs.

Vortex generators still show great potential to be used as an aerodynamic add-on

device because they are simple, cheap, and can decrease drag in various applications:

aircraft, passenger vehicles, and tractor-trailer trucks.

 80

REFERENCES

[1] J. D. Anderson, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.

[2] C. T. Crowe, D. F. Elger, B. C. Williams and J. A. Roberson, Engineering Fluid

Mechanics, New York: J. Wiley & Sons, 2009.

[3] K. R. Cooper, "Truck Aerodynamics Reborn - Lessons from the Past," in 2003 SAE

International Truck and Bus Meeting and Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas, 2003.

[4] J. Leuschen and K. R. Cooper, "Full-Scale Wind Tunnel Tests of Production and

Prototype, Second Generation Aerodynamic Drag-Reducing Devices for Tractor-

Trailers," SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES, Vols. SAE 06CV-222, 2006.

[5] C. Lav, "Three Dimentional CFD Analysis on Aerodynamic Drag Reduction of a

Bluff Tractor Trailer Body using Vortex Generators," Vols. SAE 2013-01-2458,

2013.

[6] R. M. Wood and S. X. Bauer, "Simple and Low-Cost Aerodynamic Drag Reduction

Devices for Tractor-Trailer Trucks," SAE, no. 2003-01-3377, 2003.

[7] Aeroserve Technologies Ltd, Airtab Installation Instructions, August 2009.

[8] United States Environmental Protection Agency, "USEPA SmartWay Trailer and

Aerodynamic Device Program Policy Manual," vol. 1, no. EPA-420-B-15-021,

February 2015.
 81

[9] United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Interim Test Method for

Verifying Fuel Savings Components for SmartWay," no. EPA-420-F-12-022, May

2012.

[10] United States Environmental Protection Agency, "SmartWay Verified Trailer

Aerodynamic Devices," [Online]. Available:

http://www3.epa.gov/smartway/forpartners/technology.htm. [Accessed 31 10

2015].

[11] S. F. Hoerner, Fluid-Dynamic Drag, Sighard F. Hoerner, 1965.

[12] M. Busch, "Vortex Generators: Band Aids or Magic?," 13 11 1997. [Online].

Available:

https://engineering.purdue.edu/~andrisan/Courses/AAE190_Fall_2001/twnvgs.pdf.

[13] M. Koike, T. Nagayoshi and N. Hamamoto, "Research on Aerodynamic Drag

Reduction by Vortex Generators," Mitsubishi Motors Techincal Review, no. 16,

2004.

[14] J. C. Lin, "Review of research on low-profile vortex generators to control

boundary-layer separation," Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 38, pp. 389-420,

2002.

[15] V. Sirenko, R. Pavlovs'ky and U. S. Rohatgi, "Methods of Reducing Vehicle

Aerodynamic Drag," in ASME 2012 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting,

Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, 2012.

 82

[16] IRTE Institute of Road Transport Engineers, BTAC Brewing Transportation

Advisory Committee, "Airtabs VORTEX GENERATORS TECHINCAL TRIALS

ARTICULATED HGV Tractor-Trailer Gap Tests," IRTE/ BTAC TECHNICAL

TRIALS at MIRA, 2007.

[17] R. Miralbes, "Aerodynamic analysis of some vortex generator improvements for

heavy vehicles," Int. J. Heavy Vehicle Systems, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 355-370, 2012.

[18] K. A. Raykowski and C. N. Eastlake, "DETERMINING AN OPTIMUM VORTEX

GENERATOR CONFIGURATION FOR A PIPER CHEROKEE WING," Cessna

Aircraft Company/ Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

[19] ANSYS, Inc., "ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide," 2015.

[20] D. Such, N. Katzir and G. Hoffmann, "Improved Vortex Generator CFD model for

Engineering Design Applications," in 46th Israel Annual Conference on Aerospace

Sciences 2006, Tel-Aviv - Haifa, 2006.

[21] Peterbilt Motors Corporation, Heavy Duty Body Builder Manual, March 2015 Rev

A.

[22] Great Dane Trailers, "Dry Freight Trailers," 12 06 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.greatdanetrailers.com/champion-se.
 83

[23] McGuire: A Division of Systems, Inc., A guide to Truck Trailers, 2015.

[24] Peterbilt Motors Company, "On Highway - 579," 10 06 2015. [Online]. Available:

http://www.peterbilt.com/products/on-highway/579/.

[25] R. Bhaskaran and L. Collins, "Introduction to CFD Basics," Jan. 2003.

[26] ANSYS Inc., "Modeling Turnulent Flows," 2006.