CFD Letters 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

CFD Letters
Journal homepage:
https://semarakilmu.com.my/journals/index.php/CFD_Letters/index
ISSN: 2180-1363

Aerodynamic Performance Enhancement of a Heavy Trucks using

Experimental and Computational Investigation
Mohamed B. Farghaly1,*, H. H. Sarhan2, E. S. Abdelghany3

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Fayoum University, 63514, Fayoum, Egypt
2 Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Port Said University, Port Said, Egypt
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Albaha University KSA, on Leave from Institute of Aviation Engineering and
Technology, Giza, Egypt

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: Improving the aerodynamic performance of a heavy vehicles is one of the essential
Received 1 January 2023 issues used in automotive industry to reduce the fuel consumption. In this work,
Received in revised form 3 February 2023 various drag reduction devices were added to improve the vehicle profiles and the
Accepted 2 March 2023 effects of each device were experimentally and computationally investigated. These
Available online 1 August 2023
additional devices are Cap of truck with different angle, Gap device with different
length and Flat Flap with different angle and dimensions. 1/50th scale of a standard
heavy truck were taken to construct the computational and experimental model. The
drag coefficient, contours of turbulence kinetic energy, pressure, velocity, streamlines,
velocity vectors were predicted with and without additional devices. The obtained
results show that these attached devices have a notable impact on the aerodynamic
drag reduction of the heavy vehicles and trucks. Installing all supplementary parts at
Keywords: the same time help to reduce the drag coefficient by about 59 % compared with the
Aerodynamics; Computational fluid truck without any profile’s modifications. Finally, the experimental results show good
dynamics; Drag reduction devices; agreement with the computational results with acceptable percentage error of about
Truck–Cabin profiles; Wind tunnel test 5%.

1. Introduction

The aerodynamic shapes of heavy freight vehicles are inefficient compared with the on-ground
vehicles because of their bluff shape of bodies and larger frontal area. Reducing the aerodynamic
profile drag is considered one of the most important objectives in several automotive development
researches aiming to energy save, reduce the emissions, and hence protecting the environment from
the danger of global warming. In the heavy freight vehicles, improving the aerodynamic efficiency
are one of the most important factors that used to enhance the driving control performance,
decrease the fuel consumption, reduce the carbon emissions of petroleum fuels usage. Also, the
aerodynamically refined shapes are aesthetically attractive and can help to increase the freight
capacity of vehicles. The road vehicles are consumed more than 1.3 trillion litres of diesel and petrol,

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mbs12@fayoum.edu.eg (Mohamed B. Farghaly)

https://doi.org/10.37934/cfdl.15.8.7394

73
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

this is causing a high level of pollution (CO2) due to burning this fossil fuels [1, 2]. The calculation
method of the specific exhaust emissions for a compression ignition (C.I) engine fuelled by palm
biodiesel blend was proposed by Sarwani et al., [3] and the percentage of volumetric emission into
specific emission (g/km) was investigated. The effect of vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) was studied
to reduce consumption of fuel in transportation systems for cold storage trucks [4].
To improve and development the final product, in recent years the industry of heavy truck has
focused mainly on the fuel efficiency due to some important parameters such as increasing
restriction of emissions regulations, fuel price rise, and finally the operational costs optimization of
the heavy trucks. Although the significant growth and development in the aerodynamic shapes of
sport and passenger cars, but the heavy freight vehicles aerodynamic design still needs additional
development to minimize fuel consumption. While the heavy freight vehicles involve just 4% of
vehicles on-road, but they are accountable for over 20% of the transportation fuel consumption and
carbon emissions [5]. The technical report National Research Council of Canada stated that a 20%
reduction in the coefficient of drag can be able to increase about 10% in the fuel efficiency [6]. The
relatively high value of the heavy freight vehicles main body drag coefficient are consider the major
sources of low contributions of fuel economy for these vehicles. The range of main body drag
coefficient are about 0.8 to 1.8 for heavy freight vehicles [7-10], compared to about 0.3 and 0.4 for a
sedan and SUV respectively [11, 12]. Most energy of heavy freight vehicles is utilized to overcoming
the aerodynamic drag of vehicle as accelerate, thus decreasing consumption of fuel of the heavy
freight vehicles can be achieved by modifying the shapes of truck to reduce the air resistance.
An experimental study on a heavy truck was investigated to predict the fuel saving potentials due
to drag reduction, the obtained results indicate that the aerodynamic drag is directly proportional to
the square of the vehicles speed and the aerodynamic drag is considered the main fuel consumption
source at the vehicles cruise speed, also 50% of the heavy truck power is required to overcome the
aerodynamic drag at typical speed of about 90-100 km/h on highway road [13]. The gap effect
between trailer and tractor on a general model of truck was investigated experimentally using wind
tunnel test, the percentage improvement of the aerodynamic performance, economics, handling,
safety of the trucks were determined by Englar & Robert J. [14]. The effect of yaw angles and fairings
on the drag reduction were investigated experimentally on a 1/10th scale model of semi-trailer truck
using wind tunnel testes, the obtained results show that truck front area has most important effect
on truck drag, which reduce the drag by about 26%, using cab roof fairing can be reduce the drag of
truck by about 17%, joint cab roof fairing with tractor-trailer gap can be reduce the drag of truck by
about 25.5% [15].
In past decades several experimental studies in both road test and wind tunnel lab have been
performed to examine the flow behaviour around the heavy tractor-trailer. Recently, due to the
growth of computing performances computational fluid dynamics (CFD) are becoming common for
these simulations. The CFD has computational power available and meshes variety that can be able
to simulate the complex geometry of any vehicle and the greatly transient of the behaviour of flow-
field. To reduce the drag force and the fuel consumption by delay and control the flow separation,
the airfoil of Boeing-737 with modified shape profile was studied numerically by Niknahad & Ali [16]
and the results obtained show a significant decrease in the total drag force and consequently
decrease in fuel consumption. The effect of passive control of flow separation of multi-element airfoil
on the aerodynamic performance characteristics was studied computationally at low Reynolds
number for different angles of attack, the results obtained show that the optimized configurations of
the multi-element airfoil have better performance than the conventional airfoil especially at high-
level of attack angles [17]. Multiple devices have installed on the truck body to decrease the
aerodynamic drag of heavy freight vehicles [18, 19]. For example, a boat-tail plates were used to raise

74
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

the base pressure of trailer for both operation conditions of crosswind and quiescent [20, 21]. Also,
the trailer skirts, the roof extenders, and tractor side were used to decrease the aerodynamic drag
and enhance the consumption of fuel of the heavy trucks [22]. A numerical study on a heavy truck of
40-tons in weight and travelling at 60 mph was investigated to predict the fuel saving potentials due
to drag reduction, the obtained results indicate that the heavy truck consumes around 34L of fuel to
overcome the drag through a 100-mile highway-rod, and under the same operation condition an
average car would consume about four-time less [23]. The effect of adding join devices such as cab
vane corner, deflector, cab/trailer gap, front fairing, back vane, and base flap on heavy vehicle drag
reduction were studied using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis, the obtained results
indicate that using all supplementary devices at their enhanced positions reduce about 41% of
aerodynamic drag comparing to the simple model [24].
A computational simulation was investigated on a full-scale and model of Class-8 trucks equipped
with devices of drag reduction, the obtained results were validated with experimental result and the
effect of unsteady flows on the fuel reduced are also determined by Hyams et al., [25]. The truck-
trailer profile modification was analysed numerically to predict the aerodynamic drag and its effect
on the fuel consumption, shear stress transportation turbulence model (SST) was used, the obtained
results indicate that the modification profiles can be able to reduce the aerodynamic drag around
21%, which reduces the consumption of fuel by about 4L per 100km for truck of diesel-powered [26].
The effect of cabin profiles devices on the aerodynamic drag reduction were investigated
computationally and experimentally on a 1/50th scale model of semi-trailer truck using CFD analysis
and wind tunnel testes, the obtained results indicate that the truck profile modifications have
significant impact on drag reduction and using all drag reduction devices at their optimized positions
and dimensions can be able to reduce the drag by about 36.03 % compared to the standard heavy-
trucks without any modifications [27]. The influence of clearance gap size between trailer and tractor
on the aerodynamic drag were investigated, the obtained results illustrate that the vehicle turning
capacity is strongly affected in case of very small gap while, the vehicle tends to act as two separate
bodies and produce twice drag in case of large gap, and in the case of cross-wind this effect may be
amplified due to the relative yaw of vehicle relating to the free stream direction of wind [28].
Several analyses were investigated on a heavy truck aerodynamics combined with different drag
reducing devices to predict the percentage in drag reduction, the obtained results indicate that using
the side fairings and cab-roof fairings can be able to decrease the drag by about 9-17% [29-31], the
trailer-front fairing can be able to decrease the drag by about 7-10% [32, 33], the side-skirts of both
trailer and tractor can be able to decrease the drag by about 4-6% [34, 35], and the base flaps and
boat-tail can be able to decrease the drag by about 7.5% [36].
A parametric analysis of a large vehicle travelling at speed of about 100km/h was studied by
Khaled et al., [37], the obtained results indicate that the vehicle consumes approximately about 53%
of total fuel to deliver power to overcome aerodynamic drag. The average annual traveling distance
of a heavy vehicle changes between 130000 km to 160000 km, due to such high traveling distance,
any decrease in the aerodynamic drag will result a major fuel savings and decreases of greenhouse
carbon gas emission, [38]. In the recent years various studies on the active devices of drag reduction
such as suction of boundary layer were performed, but the need to provide energy and the
complexity of their operation leads to did not allow to spread these devices in the markets. Another
way that used to decrease the aerodynamic drag of heavy freight truck is platooning, but this
technique needs a major change in the vehicle’s infrastructure and driving behaviour, hence due to
these purposes the platooning is not currently existing [39].
The novelty in this study is no major changes were performed on both infrastructure and body
shape of the truck and the drag reduction devices were installed externally, and these devices are

75
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

simple and can be installed on the existing trucks with minimum cost and maximum benefit of fuel
saving. In this work, various external devices of aerodynamic drag reduction were added to the
existing shape profiles of a heavy truck aiming to improve the truck aerodynamic efficiency,
decreasing the aerodynamic drag and fuel consumption, reduce the emissions, and hence, protecting
the environment from the danger of global warming. The effects of each device on the drag reduction
were experimentally and computationally investigated. These additional devices are Cap of truck
with different angle, Gap device with different length and Flat Flap with different angle and
dimensions. 1/50th scale of a standard heavy truck were taken to construct the computational and
experimental models. The drag coefficient, contours of turbulence kinetic energy, velocity pressure,
velocity vectors and streamlines were predicted with and without additional devices. The
computational model was constructed by ANSYS FLUENT CFD software and the k-ω SST model of
turbulence was used. The computational domain was solved for truck shape without and with
different drag reduction devices and the obtained results are analysis and discussed.

2. Numerical Analysis

In this study, a one-fifty scale detailed model of a standard heavy-trucks is built to predict the
truck drag experimentally and numerically. The aerodynamic impact of various drag reduction
devices that added to the truck shape profile was investigated. These additional devices are the Cap
of the truck with various angle, Gap device with various length and Flat Flap with various angle and
dimensions. The detailed dimensions of the constructed truck model without any modification
devices are illustrate in Figure 1. The computational model is solved using ANSYS FLUENT. The
coefficient of drag, turbulence contours, pressure, temperature, velocity, streamlines, and vectors of
velocity were investigated and discussed.

Fig. 1. Model of standard heavy truck with all dimensions

2.1 Mesh Setting and Boundary Conditions

To increase the calculation accuracy with time saving, the computational domain is modelled with
two domains, one of them is internally and the other is externally as shown in Figure 2. The internal

76
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

domain has a dense and mesh with large nodes number and a small cells size, while the external
domain has relatively less nodes and a large cells size. The boundary conditions are defined using
DESIGN MODULAR program of ANSYS FLUENT. To validate the computational model, the same
conditions of experimental work was selected and used later in wind tunnel test. The Reynolds
number for the velocity inlet boundary (number 1) of about Re = 5.75231x105. The air free stream
temperature, pressure, viscosity, and density are 300K, 101325Pa, μ=1.7894×10 -5kg/m.s, and
ρ=1.225kg/m3, respectively. The pressure outlet (number 2) of about 101325Pa as the environmental
pressure. The truck profile (number 3), the two vertical and horizontal planes around truck are
considered adiabatic (with zero heat flux) and no-slip wall. A segregated-implicit solver of ANSYS
FLUENT is used for velocity varying from 10m/s to 25m/s (Re from 350000 to 650000).
To obtain accurately drag force calculation, grids near the truck body (internal domain) must be
dense enough and computed fields must be large enough to balance accuracy versus calculation time
of the solution. However, excessive fields and grids will cost too much computing resources and slow
computing speed. Using unstructured tetrahedral mesh, rising mesh cells, but it is required
supercomputer and additional time to solve the problem. Several researchers developed different
methods and tools to overcome the described problems above. To construct great quality single and
multi-block structure grid for complicated shape, several grid generation methods were presented
[27, 40]. In the present study, the multi-block unstructured grid method was used to raise grids near
the truck by creating block around the truck domain and making body inflation, as shown in Figure 3.

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Boundary conditions of a computational Fig. 3. Truck computational volume, (a) Mesh face
domain sizing, (b) Multi block volume

2.2 Grid Dependencies Check and Verification

Generally, the numerical solution becomes high precise as more cells are used, but using extra
cells also raises the computer memory and solution time required. The suitable nodes number was
determined by growing the cells number until the overall mesh is sufficiently refine so that additional
refinement does not change results. Firstly, the mesh size effect was investigated to predict the
independency of computational results related to the mesh size and the cells number, by generate
eight kinds of meshes. Figure 4 shows the effect of grid cells number on the drag coefficient at
velocity inlet of about 20 m/s. From this figure it can concluded that, using the CFD domain with cells
number of about 3000000 will be best suitable for reducing the solution time with acceptable
percentage of error. To verify the current numerical model, a similar model of a heavy truck was
developed and examined with same boundary conditions and the computational results were

77
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

compared with experiment measurement data using three turbulence models like enhanced wall
treatment Realizable k–ε, standard k–𝜔 model, and Spalart-Allmaras model. The coefficient of drag
(CD) variation with the Reynolds number was plotted on the same graph with same axes-scale as
shown in Figure 5. The obtained results show that a good agreement of computational results with
the corresponding results of the experimental measurement data. From Figure 5, it is found that the
computational results which obtained using Realizable k– ε model of turbulence have more accuracy
than computational results obtained using k–𝜔 and Spalart-Allmaras models with a maximum
percentage error of about 7.5%.

1.15
0.91
1.05
0.90
0.89 0.95

0.88 0.85

0.87 0.75
CD

0.86
CD
0.65
0.85
0.55
0.84 Numerical study with Realizable k – ε model
0.45
0.83 Numerical study with standard model k–𝜔 model
0.82 0.35
Numerical study with Spalart-Allmaras model
0.81 0.25
Experimental model
0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000
0.15
Grid cells number 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 550000 600000 650000
Reynolds number (Re)

Fig. 4. Coefficient of drag against number of grid Fig. 5. Drag coefficient comparison of the standard
cells at velocity inlet 20 m/s 3D truck for different turbulence models

3. Profile Modification

The drag reduction devices and the truck profile modification were described using several
geometric parameters as shown in Figure 6. These parameters are the front fillet radius ratio (FFRR),
the mid fillet radius ratio (MFRR), the top fillet radius ratio (TFRR), the cab truck angle ratio (CTAR),
the gap length device ratio (GLDR), the flat flap angle ratio (FFAR), the flap length ratio (FLR), and flap
area ratio (FAR) as shown in Figure 6 (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h) respectively.
The parameter description and it is operation range were summarized in Table 1. Finally, at the
air free stream velocity of about 20m/s, the standard truck profiles were tested without and with the
drag reduction modifications devices and then compare between them to investigate the percentage
improvement of drag reduction ratios.

78
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

Fig. 6. Drag reduction devices and the truck profile modification

Table 1
Profile modification parameters description and operation range
Parameter Description Range
FFRR Is the ratio of fillet radius to the height of front cabin (R1/L1) 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.58, 0.8
MFRR Is the ratio of mid fillet radius to the height of front cabin (R 2/L1) 0, 0.2, 0.4
TFRR Is the ratio of top fillet radius to the height of top front cabin 0, 0.2, 0.3, 0.6, 0.8
(R3/L2)
CTAR Is the ratio of cap truck angle over to 180 o (A1/180o) 0.805, 0.833, 0.861, 0.889, 0.916
which added above the truck carbine
GLDR Is the ratio of gap length device over total gap length (Device 0, 0.5, 1
length/L3)
FFAR Is the ratio of flat flap angle over 45o (A2/45o) 0.111, 0.222, 0.333, 0.444, 0.667
FLR Is the ratio of the flat flap length to the total length of truck 0.0478, 0.1196, 0.1914 with FFAR of
(L4/L5) about 0.333
FAR Is the ratio of flap area to the front of container of the truck (flap 0.25, 0.56, 0.75 with constant FLR
area / front area)

79
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

4. Experimental Setup
4.1 Wind Tunnel

To validate the computational results which examined in the previous computational sections,
the aerodynamic characteristics of standard truck model that equipped with different drag reduction
devices were tested. For performed these tests, a standard truck model was manufactured with the
same geometry and dimensions that used in computational model calculations. The coefficient of
drag was measured for different profiles modifications by using open-circuit suction wind tunnel of
the aerodynamics laboratory of the institute of aviation engineering and technology, Egypt, as shown
in Figure 7. The experimental data measured by wind tunnel were compared with numerical results
which obtained from computational solution and the percentage error between them were
determined.

Fig. 7. Truck model inside the test section of wind tunnel of aerodynamics laboratory

4.2 Water Tunnel

The water tunnel is considered an essential device which using to observing any hydrodynamic
behaviour of the submerged bodies in the water flow. It is also used in examination the flow
behaviour over numerous structures and analysing the flow property across boundary layer (i.e., flow
separation, vortex shedding etc.) creates it more valuable additional counterpart facilities. In this
study, low-speed water flow tunnel of the irrigation laboratory of the institute of aviation engineering
and technology, Egypt, was used to visualize the aerodynamic behaviour, vortex formations and
streamlines around the standard heavy truck as shown in Figure 8. This tunnel has speed range of
about 0: 6 m/s and test section dimensions of (WHL) 0.5 x 1 x1.5 meters.

80
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

Fig. 8. Water tunnel experimental setup

5. Results
5.1 Computational Results

The profiles modification of a standard truck with variable dimensions of drag reduction devices
were design using DESIGN MODULAR of ANSYS FLUENT program. The computational domain
meshing was performed, the boundary conditions are defined, and the operation conditions are
setting. The speed of vehicle is assumed to have of about 20m/s (Re = 575321) at ambient air standard
condition. The air temperature, density, static pressure, and the coefficient of viscosity are about
300K, ρ=1.225kg/m3, 101325Pa, and μ=1.7894×10-5kg/m.s respectively. To predict the effect of each
truck profile modifications on the improvement of the aerodynamic drag reduction characteristics,
the pressure, velocity, and turbulence kinetic energy contours were investigated, and the streamlines
were plotted around the truck profile.

5.1.1 Pressure contour

The distribution of pressure contours around the truck body were investigated without and with
using the aerodynamic drag reduction as shown in Figure 9. From Figure 9(a), it is notice that a non-
uniform distribution in pressure across truck body and the areas of high-intensity of pressure
(stagnation points) are located at the front surface of cabin, container, and wheels of truck which
leads to increasing the force of drag on the overall truck body. Figure 9(b) illustrate the variation of
pressure contours in case of truck with drag reduction devices. From Figure 9(b), it is noticing the
distribution of pressure across truck body is more uniform compared to the case of truck without any
devices of drag reduction as shown in Figure 9(a). The areas of high-intensity of pressure (stagnation
points) are located only at the front surface of cabin, and wheels of truck. Also, we can note that the
pressure intensity was decrease at the truck container which leads to decreasing in the overall force
of drag on truck body.

81
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Pressure contour around truck (pa) (a) Without drag reduction devices, (b) With all drag
reduction devices

5.1.2 Velocity contour

The distribution of velocity contours and vectors of velocity around the truck body were
investigated without and with using the aerodynamic drag reduction as shown in Figure 10. From
Figure 10(a), it is notice that the regions that have high-intensity of flow recirculation are located at
front surface of the cabin, above the container, and back the container due to the sharp edges in
these areas which finally leads to increasing the overall force of drag on truck body. Figure 10(b)
illustrate the variation of velocity contours and vectors in case of truck with drag reduction devices.
From Figure 10(b), it is noticing generally the separation intensity was decreased totally around truck
compared to the case of truck without devices of drag reduction as shown in Figure 10(a) which finally
leads to decreasing in the overall force of drag on truck body.

Fig. 10. Velocity contours and vectors around truck (a) Without drag reduction devices (b) With
all drag reduction devices

5.1.3 Turbulence kinetic energy contours

The distribution of turbulence kinetic energy contours around the truck body were investigated
without and with using the aerodynamic drag reduction as shown in Figure 11. From Figure 11(a), it

82
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

is notice that the high turbulence kinetic energy was observed at front of cabin, above the cabin
surface, in the gap between cabin and container, above the container and at rear of container. This
high turbulence causes turbulent eddies formation because of the high gradient of adverse pressure
and the separation of flow that occur near the edges. Figure 11(b) illustrate the variation of
turbulence kinetic energy contours around truck profile in case of truck with drag reduction devices.
From Figure 11(b), it is observed that the flow around truck body was smoothing, the turbulence and
wake formation are decreased because of using the drag reduction devices which finally leads to
decreasing in the overall force of drag on truck body.

(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Turbulence Kinetic Energy around truck (a) Without drag reduction devices (b)
With all drag reduction devices

5.1.4 Streamlines behavior

Here, to predict the strength of vortex formations effect and the critical locations of it, the
distribution of streamlines around the truck body were investigated without and with using the
aerodynamic drag reduction as shown in Figure 12. From Figure 12(a), it is notice that a non-uniform
and random streamlines air flow were observed at front of cabin, above the cabin, in the gap between
cabin and container, above the container and at rear of the container. This behaviour of flow leads
to generate a big recirculation of air flow at these regions. Figure 12(b) illustrate the variation of
turbulence kinetic energy contours around truck profile in case of truck with drag reduction devices.
From Figure 12(b), it is observed that the recirculation is very small, the air flow is more uniform and
aligned to the truck surface. This behaviour of flow leads to decreasing drag coefficient on the overall
truck body.

(a) (b)
Fig. 12. 3D streamlines around truck (a) Without drag reduction devices (b) With all
drag reduction devices

83
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

5.2 Effect of Different Profiles Modification’s on Drag Coefficient Improvement

To investigate the effect of different drag reduction devices on the improvement of the
coefficient of drag of the heavy truck, the coefficient of drag was investigated without and with using
the aerodynamic drag reduction devices. Firstly, for the truck without any modification’s profiles, it
is found the coefficient of drag is about 0.8283.

5.2.1 Effect of front fillet radius ratio of cabin (FFRR)

Figure 13 show the variation of drag coefficient (CD) of a standard truck model for different FFRR.
From this figure, it is notice that the coefficient of drag is decreasing gradually as the FFRR increasing.
The decreasing in coefficient of drag mainly due to decreasing the recirculation in the front of truck.
Generally, this behaviour of flow leads to decreasing coefficient of drag on overall truck body. From
Figure 13, it can conclude that the minimum value of drag coefficient is about 0.7082 which occurs
at FFRR= 0.8 and the percentage improvement is about 17%.

0.85

0.80
CD

0.75

0.70
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
FFRR (Front Fillet Raduis Ratio)

Fig. 13. Drag coefficient (CD) variation with FFRR

5.2.2 Effect of mid fillet radius ratio (MFRR)

Figure 14 illustrate the variation of drag coefficient (CD) of a standard truck model for different
MFRR at constant FFRR = 0.8. From this figure, it is notice that as MFRR increasing the coefficient of
drag is decreasing rapidly until reach to the minimum value and then return to increasing again after
MFRR=0.2. The decreasing in coefficient of drag mainly due to decreasing the recirculation in the
front of truck. Generally, this behaviour of flow leads to decreasing coefficient of drag on overall truck
body. From Figure 14, it can conclude that the minimum value of drag coefficient is about 0.7035
which occurs at MFRR= 0.2 and the percentage improvement is about 18%.

0.710
0.709
0.708
0.707
CD

0.706
0.705
0.704
0.703
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
MFRR(Mid Fillet Radius Ratio)

Fig. 14. Drag coefficient (CD) variation with MFRR at FFRR=0.8

84
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

5.2.3 Effect of top fillet radius ratio (TFRR)

Figure 15 illustrate the variation of drag coefficient (CD) of a standard truck model for different
TFRR at constant FFRR = 0.8 and MFRR = 0.2. From this figure, it is notice that as TFRR increasing the
coefficient of drag is increasing rapidly until reach to the highest value and then return to decreasing
gradually again after TFRR=0.2. The increasing in coefficient of drag mainly due to Coandă effect
that’s increasing recirculation of flow above the container, shown in Figure 16. From Figure 15, it can
conclude that the maximum value of drag coefficient is about 0.85 which occurs at TFRR= 0.2 and
this leads to no improvement in the drag.

0.90
0.85
CD

0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
TFRR (Top Fillet Raduis Ratio) (a) (b)
Fig. 15. Drag coefficient (CD) variation with TFFR Fig. 16. Velocity contours of truck model for FFRR=0.8
for FFRR =0.8 and MFRR =0.2 and MFRR=0.2, (a) TFRR=0.2, (b) TFRR=0.8

5.2.4 Effect of cab truck angle ratio (CTAR)

Figure 17 illustrate the variation of drag coefficient (CD) of a standard truck model for different
CTAR, TFRR at constant FFRR = 0.8 and MFRR = 0.2. From this figure, it is notice that for all vales of
TFRR as CTAR increasing the coefficient of drag is decreasing rapidly until reach to the minimum value
and then return to increasing gradually again. Also, it is observed that the corresponding CTAR value
of the minimum coefficient of drag decreasing with increasing TFRR value. From Figure 17, it can
conclude that the lowest minimum value of drag coefficient is about 0.6488 which occurs at TFRR=
0.2, CTAR = 0.861 (equivalent a cap truck angle of about 155 degrees) and this leads to improvement
in the coefficient of drag by about of 26%. The vectors of velocity and the recirculation behaviours
around truck body for TFRR = 0.2 and different CTAR are shown in Figure 18. From this figure, it is
notice that the low strength of recirculation was obtained at the optimum cap truck angle but if this
is angle is less than or exceeds the optimized value, the strength of recirculation is increasing rapidly,
and a big recirculation appear in above and in front of truck which can cause an increasing in drag as
illustrated in Figure 18(b, a, and c) respectively.

85
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

TFRR=0.2 TFRR=0.3 TFRR=0.6

0.80
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.72
CD 0.70
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.60
0.74 0.79 0.84 0.89 0.94
CTAR (CapTruck Angle Ratio)

Fig. 17. Drag coefficient (CD) variation with CTAR for FFRR =
0.8, MFRR = 0.2, and TFRR [0.2, 0.3, 0.6]

Fig. 18. Velocity vectors in (m/s) of standard truck model at

FFRR=0.8, MFRR=0.2 and for different CTAR

5.2.5 Effect of gap length device ratio (GLDR)

Figure 19 illustrate the variation of drag coefficient (CD) of a standard truck model for different
GLDR at constant FFRR = 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, and CTAR = 0.861. From this figure, it is notice that the drag
coefficient is decreasing gradually as the GLDR increasing. The decreasing in coefficient of drag mainly
due to decreasing the recirculation at the gap between cabin and container. Generally, this behaviour
of flow leads to decreasing coefficient of drag on overall truck body. From Figure 19, it can conclude

86
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

that the minimum value of the coefficient of drag is about 0.6089 which occurs at GLDR = 1 and the
percentage improvement is about 35%.

0.66
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.64
CD
0.63
0.63
0.62
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
GLDR (Gap Length Device Ratio)

Fig. 19. Drag coefficient (CD) variation with GLDR for

FFRR = 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, TFRR 0.2, and CTAR = 0.833

5.2.6 Effect of flat flap angle ratio (FFAR)

Figure 20 illustrate the variation of drag coefficient (CD) of a standard truck model for different
FFAR at constant FFRR = 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, CTAR = 0.861 and GLDR= 1. From this figure, it is notice that
as FFAR increasing the coefficient of drag is decreasing rapidly until reach to the minimum value and
then return to increasing again after FFAR =0.35. Generally, this behaviour of flow leads to decreasing
coefficient of drag on overall truck body. From Figure 20, it can conclude that the minimum value of
drag coefficient is about 0.587 which occurs at FFAR =0.35 and the percentage improvement is about
40%.

0.616
0.614
0.612
0.610
0.608
0.606
CD

0.604
0.602
0.600
0.598
0.596
0.594
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
FFAR (Flat Flap Angle Ratio)

Fig. 20. Drag coefficient (CD) variation with FFAR for

FFRR = 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, TFRR 0.2, CTAR = 0.833, and
GLDR= 1

5.2.7 Effect of flap length ratio [FLR]

Figure 21 illustrate the variation of drag coefficient (CD) of a standard truck model for different
FLR at constant FFRR = 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, CTAR = 0.861, GLDR= 1 and FFAR = 0.35. From this figure, it

87
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

is notice that the coefficient of drag is decreasing gradually to reach the minimum value as the FLR
increasing. This decreasing in the coefficient of drag is mainly due to decreasing the recirculation
behind the truck container with increasing the flap length as shown in Figure 22. Generally, this
behaviour of flow leads to decreasing coefficient of drag on overall truck body. From Fig. 21, it can
conclude that the minimum value of drag coefficient is about 0.5724 which occurs at FLR= 0.1914
and the percentage improvement is about 31%.

0.61
0.60
0.60
0.59
CD

0.59
0.58
0.58
0.57
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
FLR (Flap Length Ratio)

Fig. 21. Drag coefficient (CD) variation with FLR for FFRR =
0.8, MFRR = 0.2, TFRR 0.2, CTAR = 0.833, GLDR= 1, and
FFAR = 0.333

Fig. 22. Velocity vectors in (m/s) of standard truck model at FFRR=0.8, MFRR=0.2, TFRR=0.2,
CTAR=0.833, GLDR=1 and FFAR= 0.333 and for different FLR

5.2.8 Effect of flap area ratio [FAR]

Figure 23 illustrate the variation of drag coefficient (CD) of a standard truck model for different
FAR at constant FFRR = 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, TFRR 0.2, CTAR = 0.861, GLDR= 1, FFAR = 0.35, and
FLR=0.1914. From this figure, it is notice that the coefficient of drag is decreasing gradually as the
FAR increasing. Generally, this behaviour of flow leads to decreasing coefficient of drag on overall
truck body. From Figure 23, it can conclude that the minimum value of the coefficient of drag is about
0.52 which occurs at FLR=0.75 with percentage improvement is about 58%.

88
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

0.56
0.56
0.55
0.55

CD
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.53
0.52
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
FAR

Fig. 23. Drag coefficient (CD) variation with FAR for

FFRR = 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, TFRR 0.2, CTAR = 0.833, GLDR=
1, FFAR = 0.333, and FLR=0.1914

5.3 Experimental Results

5.3.1 Flow visualization of water tunnel

In this study, two standard truck model were manufactured, one of them with all devices of drag
reduction and the other model without any modifications. The coloured water was used to visualize
the flow behaviours around the truck profile using the water tunnel as shown in Figure 24(a). Figure
24(b) illustrate the streamlines and vortex behaviour around the truck without any modifications.
From this figure, it is show that, the vortex with high strength was observed at the front of cabin,
above the cabin, gap between cabin and container, above the container and at rear of container. This
behaviour of flow has compatible with the results of numerical study. Figure 24(c) illustrate the
streamlines and vortex behaviour around the truck equipped with all aerodynamic drag reduction
devices. From this figure, it is note that, the vortex recirculation is very small, the air flow is more
uniform and aligned to surface of truck. This behaviour of flow has compatible with the results of
numerical study and that is finally leads to decreasing the drag coefficient on the overall truck body.

Fig. 24. Water tunnel experimental setup, (a)

Water tunnel, Streamlines and vortex behaviour
of truck model (b) Without any drag reduction
devices, (c) With all drag reduction devices

89
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

5.3.2 Wind tunnel test

To predict the characteristics of drag, the model of truck was fixed in a closed jet test section of
wind tunnel. The tunnel test section has a dimension of about 12 × 12- Inch and length of about 24-
Inch with maximum velocity of about 108 mph. The force balance or table-mounted models was used
to obtain a variety of aerodynamic measured data. The tunnel consisted with four major duct
components. These components are the contraction cone, settling chamber, diffuser test section,
and the fan housing, as shown in Figure 25. The wind tunnel’s three-component sting balance is
mounted on a parallelogram type model positioning system. At same time, the sting balance is used
to measure two forces (drag, lift) and one moment. Finally, the indicated signals by sting balance are
transformed to the inductor panel which convert the volt signals to forces, moment, pressure, and
velocity. The blockage ratio of this model is about 3.5% within the acceptable blockage ratios are 5-
7% in the closed jet test section. The ratio of the boundary layer thickness height at the centre of the
test section compared to height of truck model is about of 0.08 at a velocity of about 20 m/s (R e=
575321). The simplest technique is shown in Figure 26, where the test truck is simply elevated above
the top of boundary layer that builds upon the bottom of wind tunnel’s floor. While this seems like a
rather simple solution, a boundary layer will still build upon the floor of the supporting platform,
although this setup likely results in fewer adverse effects from boundary layer build-up than simply
placing the test truck on the floor of the tunnel. At each tested cases, the measured data was
collected and then averaged to minimizing the additional possible errors in the raw experimental
data. The comparison between numerical results and experimental data for different modifications
profiles and drag reduction devices were summarized in Figure 27. Finally, the experimental results
show that a good agreement with the computational results with acceptable percentage error of
about 5%.

Fig. 25. Wind tunnel main component setup and dimensions Fig. 26. A standard heavy truck test setup

90
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

Numerical data Expermintal data Numerical data Expermintal data

0.90 0.70
0.80 0.65
CD

CD
0.70 0.60
0.60 0.55
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
FFRR (Front Fillet Raduis Ratio) GLDR (Gap Length Device Ratio)

(a) Drag coefficient (CD) variation with FFRR (e) Drag coefficient (CD) variation with GLDR for FFRR
= 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, TFRR 0.2, and CTAR = 0.833
Numerical data Expermintal data Numerical data Expermintal data

0.720 0.62
0.715 0.61
0.710
CD

CD
0.60
0.705
0.700 0.59
0.695 0.58
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
MFRR (Mid Fillet Raduis Ratio) FFAR (Flat Flap Angle Ratio)

(b) Drag coefficient (CD) variation with MFRR at (f) Drag coefficient (CD) variation with FFAR for FFRR
FFRR=0.8 = 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, TFRR 0.2, CTAR = 0.833, and
GLDR= 1
Numerical data Expermintal data Numerical data Expermintal data

0.90 0.61
0.60
0.80 0.59
CD

CD

0.70 0.58
0.57
0.60 0.56
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
TFRR (Top Fillet Raduis Ratio) FLR (Flap Length Ratio)

(c) Drag coefficient (CD) variation with TFFR for (g) Drag coefficient (CD) variation with FLR for FFRR
FFRR =0.8 and MFRR =0.2 = 0.8, MFRR=0.2, TFRR=0.2, CTAR=0.833, GLDR= 1,
and FFAR=0.333
Numerical data (TFRR=0.3) Expermintal data (TFRR=0.3) Numerical data Expermental data
Numerical data (TFRR=0.2) Expermintal data (TFRR=0.2)
0.56
Numerical data (TFRR=0.6) Expermintal data (TFRR=0.6)
0.55
0.80
0.54
CD

0.75
0.53
CD

0.70
0.65 0.52
0.60 0.51
0.72 0.77 0.82 0.87 0.92 0.97 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
CTAR (CapTruck Angle Ratio) Flap Area Ratio [FAR]

(d) Drag coefficient (CD) variation with CTAR for (h) Drag coefficient (CD) variation with FAR for FFRR
FFRR = 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, and TFRR [0.2, 0.3, 0.6] = 0.8, MFRR = 0.2, TFRR 0.2, CTAR = 0.833, GLDR= 1,
FFAR = 0.333, and FLR=0.1914
Fig. 27. Comparison between numerical results and experimental data of standard truck model for different
aerodynamic modifications profiles and drag reduction devices at velocity 20 m/s

91
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

6. Conclusions

Reducing the fuel consumption is considered one of the most significant objectives in several
automotive development researches aiming to energy save, reduce the emissions, and hence,
protecting the environment from the danger of global warming. Improving the aerodynamic
performance and reduce the drag is considered one of the essential issues used in automotive
industry to decrease the consumption of fuel especially in the heavy freight vehicles and trucks. In
this work, various devices of drag reduction were added to improve the profiles of a heavy freight
vehicles and the effects of each device were experimentally and computationally investigated. These
additional devices are the front fillet radius ratio (FFRR), the mid fillet radius ratio (MFRR), the top
fillet radius ratio (TFRR), the cab truck angle ratio (CTAR), the gap length device ratio (GLDR), the flat
flap angle ratio (FFAR), the flap length ratio (FLR), and flap area ratio (FAR). A 1/50 th scale of a
standard heavy truck were taken to construct the computational and experimental model. The drag
coefficient, contours of turbulence kinetic energy, pressure, streamlines, velocity, velocity vectors
were predicted with and without additional devices. In general, it is observed that, these attached
devices have a notable impact on the aerodynamic drag reduction of the heavy vehicles and trucks.
The obtained computational results show that, the front fillet radius and the mid fillet radius have a
significant effect and reduce the drag coefficient by about 17%, 18% respectively. The top fillet radius
profile without cap increases the coefficient of drag due to the Coandă Effect. When the top fillet
radius was utilized combined with cap of truck, the coefficient of drag reduced by about 26%. Adding
gap devices with various lengths reduce the coefficient of drag by about 35%. Adding the flat flap at
rear of truck improve the coefficient of drag by about 40. The flap length and flap area red improve
the coefficient of drag by about 45. Installing all supplementary parts with their optimized positions
at the same time, help to reduce the drag coefficient by about 59 % compared with the truck without
any profile’s modifications. Finally, a model of truck was manufactured and tested in the open-circuit
suction wind tunnel and the experimental results show a good agreement with the computational
results with acceptable percentage error of about 5%.

Acknowledgement
The authors state that this research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References
[1] Odhams, A. M. C., R. L. Roebuck, Y. J. Lee, S. W. Hunt, and D. Cebon. "Factors influencing the energy consumption
of road freight transport." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Science 224, no. 9 (2010): 1995-2010. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544062JMES2004
[2] Williams, Susan E., Stacy Cagle Davis, and Robert Gary Boundy. "Transportation energy data book: Edition 36." No.
ORNL/TM-2017/513. Oak Ridge National Lab.(ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), (2017).
https://doi.org/10.2172/1878695
[3] Sarwani, Muhamad Khairul Ilman, Mas Fawzi, Shahrul Azmir Osman, and Wira Jazair Yahya. "Calculation of Specific
Exhaust Emissions of Compression Ignition Engine Fueled by Palm Biodiesel Blend." Journal of Advanced Research
in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology 27, no. 1 (2022): 92-96. https://doi.org/10.37934/araset.27.1.9296
[4] Issaro, Assadawut, Piyanut Saengsikhiao, Juntakan Taweekun, and Wiriya Thongruang. "The Green Logistics Idea
using Vacuum Insulation Panels (VIPs)." Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences 82,
no. 2 (2021): 72-86. https://doi.org/10.37934/arfmts.82.2.7286
[5] Brogan, James J., Andreas E. Aeppli, Daniel F. Bagan, Austin Brown, Michael J. Fischer, Lance R. Grenzeback, Elaine
McKenzie, Laura Vimmerstedt, Anant D. Vyas, and Erika Witzke. "Freight transportation modal shares: scenarios
for a low-carbon future." No. DOE/GO-102013-3705. (2013). https://doi.org/10.2172/1338446
[6] Tilvaldyev, Shehret. "Review of Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Devices for Heavy Trucks and Buses." Instituto de
Ingeniería y Tecnología (2020).

92
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

[7] Buckley Jr, Frank T., William H. Walston Jr, and Colin H. Marks. "Fuel savings from truck aerodynamic drag reducers
and correlation with wind-tunnel data." Journal of Energy 2, no. 6 (1978): 321-329.
https://doi.org/10.2514/3.62383
[8] Muirhead, Vincent U., and Edwin J. Saltzman. "Reduction of aerodynamic drag and fuel consumption for tractor-
trailer vehicles." Journal of Energy 3, no. 5 (1979): 279-284. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.48005
[9] Cooper, Kevin Russell. "The wind-tunnel simulation of surface vehicles." Journal of wind engineering and industrial
aerodynamics 17, no. 2 (1984): 167-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(84)90055-2
[10] Storms, Bruce, Dale Satran, James Heineck, and Stephen Walker. "A study of reynolds number effects and drag-
reduction concepts on a generic tractor-trailer." In 34th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, (2004): 2251.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-2251
[11] Tsuei, Lun, and Ömer Savaş. "Transient aerodynamics of vehicle platoons during in-line oscillations." Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 89, no. 13 (2001): 1085-1111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
6105(01)00073-3
[12] Howell, Jeff, Chris Sherwin, Martin Passmore, and Geoff Le Good. "Aerodynamic drag of a compact SUV as
measured on-road and in the wind tunnel." SAE Transactions (2002): 583-590. https://doi.org/10.4271/2002-01-
0529
[13] Schoon, Ronald E. "On-road evaluation of devices to reduce heavy truck aerodynamic drag." In SAE 2007
Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress & Exhibition, no. 2007-01-4294. (2007). https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-
01-4294
[14] Englar, Robert J. "Advanced aerodynamic devices to improve the performance, economics, handling and safety of
heavy vehicles." No. 2001-01-2072. SAE Technical Paper (2001). https://doi.org/10.4271/2001-01-2072
[15] Choi, Haecheon, Jungil Lee, and Hyungmin Park. "Aerodynamics of heavy vehicles." Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics 46 (2014): 441-468. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-011212-140616
[16] Niknahad, Ali. "Numerical study and comparison of turbulent parameters of simple, triangular, and circular vortex
generators equipped airfoil model." Journal of Advanced Research in Numerical Heat Transfer 8, no. 1 (2022): 1-18.
[17] Elsafty, Kareem Ahmed Ismail, Atif Mohamed Emad Elsherif, Ahmed Abdelhamid Ibrahim, Omar Sherif Mohamed,
and Ahmed Mohamed Reda Elbaz. "Investigating the Performance of a Novel Multi-Element Airfoil Concept Using
Numerical Analysis." Journal of Advanced Research in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences 97, no. 2 (2022): 126-
145. https://doi.org/10.37934/arfmts.97.2.126145
[18] Ortega, J., K. Salari, A. Brown, and R. Schoon. "Aerodynamic drag reduction of class 8 heavy vehicles: a full-scale
wind tunnel study." No. LLNL-TR-628153. Lawrence Livermore National Lab.(LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States),
(2013). https://doi.org/10.2172/1073121
[19] Choi, Haecheon, Jungil Lee, and Hyungmin Park. "Aerodynamics of heavy vehicles." Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics 46 (2014): 441-468. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-011212-140616
[20] Coon, J. D., and K. D. Visser. "Drag reduction of a tractor-trailer using planar boat tail plates." In The Aerodynamics
of Heavy Vehicles: Trucks, Buses, and Trains, (2004): 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44419-0_24
[21] BROWAND, Fred, Charles RADOVICH, and Mathieu BOIVIN. "Fuel savings by means of flaps attached to the base of
a trailer: Field test results." SAE transactions 114, no. 6 (2005): 1172-1186. https://doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-1016
[22] Cooper, Kevin R. "The wind tunnel testing of heavy trucks to reduce fuel consumption." SAE transactions (1982):
4118-4130. https://doi.org/10.4271/821285
[23] Mohamed-Kassim, Zulfaa, and Antonio Filippone. "Fuel savings on a heavy vehicle via aerodynamic drag
reduction." Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 15, no. 5 (2010): 275-284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.02.010
[24] Mosaddeghi, Farshid, and Majid Oveisi. "Aerodynamic drag reduction of heavy vehicles using append devices by
CFD analysis." Journal of Central South University 22, no. 12 (2015): 4645-4652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-
015-3015-7
[25] Hyams, Daniel G., Kidambi Sreenivas, Ramesh Pankajakshan, D. Stephen Nichols, W. Roger Briley, and David L.
Whitfield. "Computational simulation of model and full scale Class 8 trucks with drag reduction devices." Computers
& Fluids 41, no. 1 (2011): 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2010.09.015
[26] Chilbule, Chaitanya, Awadhesh Upadhyay, and Yagna Mukkamala. "Analyzing the profile modification of truck-
trailer to prune the aerodynamic drag and its repercussion on fuel consumption." Procedia Engineering 97 (2014):
1208-1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.399
[27] AbdelGhany, E. S. "CFD Investigation for Effect of the Aerodynamic Truck - Cabin Profiles and Devices on the Truck
Performance." IJENS (2020): 1-17.
[28] Gilhaus, A. "The influence of cab shape on air drag of trucks." Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 9, no. 1-2 (1981): 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(81)90079-9
[29] Drollinger, R. A. "Heavy duty truck aerodynamics. SAE Tech Pap." (1987). https://doi.org/10.4271/870001

93
CFD Letters
Volume 15, Issue 8 (2023) 73-94

[30] Cooper, Kevin R. "Truck aerodynamics reborn-lessons from the past." SAE transactions (2003): 132-142.
https://doi.org/10.4271/2003-01-3376
[31] Leuschen, Jason, and Kevin R. Cooper. "Summary of full-scale wind tunnel tests of aerodynamic drag-reducing
devices for tractor-trailers." The aerodynamics of heavy vehicles II: trucks, buses, and trains (2009): 451-462.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85070-0_41
[32] Garry, K. P. "Development of container-mounted devices for reducing the aerodynamic drag of commercial
vehicles." Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 9, no. 1-2 (1981): 113-124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(81)90082-9
[33] Watkins, S., J. W. Saunders, and P. H. Hoffmann. "Comparison of road and wind-tunnel drag reductions for
commercial vehicles." Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 49, no. 1-3 (1993): 411-420.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(93)90035-M
[34] Garry, K. P. "A review of commercial vehicle aerodynamic drag reduction techniques." Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Transport Engineering 199, no. 3 (1985): 215-220.
https://doi.org/10.1243/PIME_PROC_1985_199_159_01
[35] Ingram, K. C. "The wind-averaged drag coefficient applied to heavy goods vehicles." In Australian Road Research
Board Symposium, no. Supp. Report 392 (1978).
[36] McCallen, Rose C., Kambiz Salari, Jason M. Ortega, Larry J. DeChant, Basil Hassan, Christopher J. Roy, W. David
Pointer et al. "DOE’s Effort to Reduce Truck Aerodynamic Drag–Joint Experiments and Computations Lead to Smart
Design." In 34th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit (2004): 2249. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-2249
[37] Khaled, Mahmoud, Hicham El Hage, Fabien Harambat, and Hassan Peerhossaini. "Some innovative concepts for car
drag reduction: A parametric analysis of aerodynamic forces on a simplified body." Journal of wind engineering and
industrial aerodynamics 107 (2012): 36-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2012.03.019
[38] Cooper, Kevin R. "Commercial vehicle aerodynamic drag reduction: historical perspective as a guide." In The
Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles: Trucks, Buses, and Trains, (2004): 9-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-
44419-0_2
[39] Schito, Paolo. "Numerical and experimental investigation on vehicles in platoon." SAE International Journal of
Commercial Vehicles 5, no. 2012-01-0175 (2012): 63-71. https://doi.org/10.4271/2012-01-0175
[40] Khalil, Essam E., Osama E. Abdelattif, Eslam S. AbdelGhany, and Gamal A. ElHariri. "Computational Analyses of
Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA653218airfoil." In 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, (2016): 1367.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-1367

94