# AUTO RESEARCH CENTER SCALE MODEL WIND TUNNEL

STUDY USING A SPECIFIC LONG HAUL SLEEPER TRUCK

WHICH WE WILL CALL MODEL “ B ” AND A 2008 WABASH

TRAILER

Test conducted on:

February 9/10 , 201 1

Conducted by:

Auto Research Center

On Behalf of

The Environmental Protection Agency

CONFIGURATION:

Truck model “ B ” with a 2008 53’ Wabash Trailer

Report Release Signature __



# Mike Camosy CEO

Date of Report Release ___ March 2, 2011

Revision

- 54012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 2 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

Table of Contents 2

1.0 Objective , Key Individuals, Distribution list 3

2.0 Approach 3

3.0 Model Configuration 4

4 .0 Test Matrix 5

5 .0 Summary of Results 6

6 .0 Descri ption of Test Vehicle 6

7 .0 Descrip tion of Test Facility 8

8 .0 Test Procedure 1 1

9

. 0 Data Reduction 1 1

10.0 What Are t he Differences Between On

- Road 1 2

And A Wind Tunnel ?

11 .0 Conclusions 1 5

APPENDIX A 2 14012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 3



### 1 .0 OBJECTIVE

The EPA conducted a wind tunnel test at the Auto Research Center (ARC) in Indianapolis,

Indiana. The first objective was to determine the Cd value of the vehicle in different

configurations at the 9 SAE standard yaw points and calculate the wind averaged drag a s per

SAE standards for Class

- 8 trucks and t railer s . The second objective was to report the fuel

economy change of each change over a range of varying road spe e ds. This test was a validation

test and thereby follow ed a standard EPA verification process for each change

.

Key individuals at ARC:

Mike Camosy

– CEO/ Chief Aerodynamicist was present during the test , created the excel

spreadsheet for the raw data and w rote the report

Fritz Marinko

- Director of Business Development coordinated the project and prepared the test

matrix

Paul Cavanagh

– Lead Technician operated the wind tunnel during the test

Winston Bush

– Chief Model Maker prepared the model for the test and made all changes to the

model during the test

Report Distribution List:

ARC

- Mike Camosy, Fritz Marinko

EPA

- Arvon Mitcham, Sam Waltzer

URS

– Tariq Hasan, Bob Specht

2.0 APPROACH

The EPA provided a detailed test matrix. All test items already ex iste d and were manufactured

by ARC

. All items tested were pre

- manufactured and pre

- fit on the model prior to the test date.

The truck model used was a highly detailed scale model of a specific class 8 long haul sleeper

tractor which we will call model “B” with a 2008 Wabash 53 foot Trailer. The models were

detailed 1/8 scale model of these configurations. Every detail of the full scale tractor/trailer that

touches the air was accurately modeled. This model had articulating suspension and rotating

wheels. Every part of this model was adjustable (ie trailer/tractor gap or bogey position). ARC

also provided the rolling road testing facility, model makers, technicians, aerodynamicists and

computer hardware and software for data reduction.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 4



### T h e te st consisted of two phases: 1) Setting the initial base line; 2) Component testing of 1 8

changes to the tractor/trailer . To set the baseline, a reference tractor trailer gap was used with a

California trailer bogey position. All testing was completed at 50 m/s. All tests were conducted

with multiple yawing angles sweeping the model through the following yaw angles (0 deg; 1

deg; 3 deg; 6 deg; 9 deg; 0 deg;

- 1 deg;

- 3 deg;

- 6 deg;

- 9 deg ; 0 deg ). Preceding every

individual test run were two model tares. The first wa s a static weight tare, which removed the

static weight of the model. The second was a rolling tare without wind completed at 5 0 m/s

which removed any mechanical drag imparted on the balance through the rotating wheels. For

the second tare, multiple tare s were recorded for each yaw angle listed in the sequence above for

EACH run.

All aerodynamic forces were measure using an AEROTECH 6 component load cell balance.

This balance provided three forces: Lift, Drag and Side force as well as three moments: Pitc h,

Roll and Yaw moments. The repeatability recorded during our baseline setting was under 0.25%

for fuel economy

.

3.0 MODEL CONFIGURATION

Tractor: Model “ B ” Tractor

Raised Roof Full Sleeper

Hood Mounted Mirrors

Cab Extende rs

Chassis Fairings with Extenders

22.5 Tires

Tractor

– Trailer Gap = 45”

Trailer: 2008 Wabash 53’ Dry Van

Bogey in California Position

King Pin at 36”

Width = 102”

Front Corner Radius = 5”

Landing Gear in Standard Position

Note: Califo rnia bogey position is defined as 40’ from the center of the king pin to the center line

of the rear most bogey axle.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 5



### 4 .0 PROGRESSIVE TEST MATRIX

Run# Description

1 Baseline Configuration

2 Repeat

3 Repeat

4 Baseline

– Static Floor

5 Remove Tra ctor Chassis Fairings

– Rolling Road

6 Remove Tractor Chassis Fairings

– Static Floor

7 Refit Tractor Chassis Fairings; Close Grill

– Rolling Road

8 Refit Tractor Chassis Fairings; Close Grill

– Static Floor

9 Open Grill; Fit 3” Trailer Corner Radii

– Rolling Road

10 Open Grill; Fit 3” Trailer Corner Radii

– Static Road

11 Close Grill

– Rolling Road

12 Close Grill

– Static Floor

13 Day 2 Overnight Repeat (Run 11)

14 Repeat

15 Repeat

16 Open Grill; Trailer Gap = 50”

– Rolling Road

17 Open Gril l; Trailer Gap = 50”

– Static Floor

18 Closed Grill; Trailer Gap = 50”

– Rolling Road

19 Closed Grill; Trailer Gap = 50”

– Static Floor

20 Open Grill; Fit 5” Trailer Corner Radii

– Rolling Road

21 Open Grill; Fit 5” Trailer Corner Radii

– Static Floor

22 Close Grill

– Rolling Road

23 Close Grill

– Static Floor



### Note: R esults for each run can be found in Appendix A.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 6



### 5 .0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The individual results for each yaw angle were measured and put through the SAE recommende d

process for wind averaging. The wind averaged Cd values for the individual speeds were then

cross referenced to a study completed by NASA that related the fuel economy savings for each

percentage change in drag at various speeds. A summa ry of the resul ts are shown in table format

in the appendix which displays t he final fuel savings for each component at various speeds. A

negative value reflects an improvement over the baseline tractor/trailer combination. All values

are given in percent (%) improveme nt.

6 .0 DESCRIPTION OF TEST VEHICLE

The test vehicle used was a 1/8 scale tractor and trailer. The tractor model “ B ” had a sleeper.

The trailer was a 2008 5 3 f oot Wabash trailer. The model had articulating suspension. It also

included pressure taps that were not used for this test. Any part of the tractor/trailer that touched

the air was accurately represented in this model. This model also included internal flow

modeling from the tractor grill into the radiator and then into the engine bay. The bogey was

adjustable for multiple positions. Pictures of the model used are below.

Rivets on Side of Wabash Trailer4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 7 

### Rear Door & Bumper of Wabash Trailer

Starting Bogey Position was California.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 8



## 7 .0 DESCRIPTION OF TEST FACILITY

Wind Tunnel

Type Clos ed single return tunnel with 3/4 open

- jet working section and

moving ground plane

Construction Tubular steel frame with birch plywood skin, 20mm thick, 9 ply,

controlled grain panel

Corner turning vanes Rolled steel vanes welded into assemblies

Air sett ling Two stainless steel settling screens 1800mm apart at the entrance to

the contraction

Mesh screen specification 57.4% open area, 1mm aperture size

Air straightening Honeycomb wall in settling chamber, 75mm thick x 10mm core size

Tunnel volume 1,111 m 3 (39,235 ft 3 )

Surface area 2,147 m2 (23,110 ft2)

Average duct area 13.94 m2 (150 ft2)

Circuit length 75.84 m (249 ft)

Temperature control Water cooled to ± 1° C (1.8° F) by a cooling coil



## Working Section

Type 3/4 open jet contained in a plenum

Len gth Adjustable up to 5.75 m (18.9 ft)

Contraction ratio 4.46:1

Maximum air velocity 50.0 m/s (164.0 ft/s) CDP

Maximum dynamic pressure 1,513 Pa (31.60 lb/in. ) at standard conditions

Nozzle width 2.500 m (7.414 ft)

Nozzle height 2.060 m (6.824 ft)

Pl enum dimensions 10.62 m (34.8 ft) W, 16.46 m (54.0 ft) L, 8.28 m (27.2 ft) H

Plenum NET volume 1,141 m 3 (40,294 ft 3 )

Maximum model scale 50% open wheel, 40% yawed +/

- 8° NASCAR

Maximum model height above

road 330 mm

Strut movement rate 8 mm/sec

Strut m ovement time from

10 mm to 330 mm 39.5 sec

Model support A vibration isolated balance frame surrounds the working section and

supports the model strut. The strut position is fully adjustable to

accommodate model geometry.

Primary boundary

- layer slot 0.05 0 m (0.197 ft) high

Boundary

- layer elimination Three stage fully adjustable system4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 9



## Fan Section

Fan description Fixed geometry single stage axial pusher fan with nine equally

spaced carbon fibre blades

Fan diameter 3.790 m (12.434 ft)

Fan power 373 kW ( 500 hp) variable speed DC motor

Maximum rotational speed 610 rpm

Maximum tip speed 121.1 m/s (397.2 ft/s)

Fan support Fourteen upstream stators with pre

- rotation shrouds, eleven

downstream stators with flow straightening shrouds

Fan mechanical drive Tw o

- piece drive shaft on axis of tunnel through turning vane

Fan section total weight 21,729 kg (48,000 lb.)



## Moving Ground Plane (Rolling Road)

Construction Tubular Steel Frame, concrete filled with Cast Iron Platen

Yaw table 5.18 m diameter

Yaw range + /

- 8.0o

Moving ground length 4.180 m (13.58 ft)

Moving ground width 1.66 m (5.44 ft)

Belt type Ammeraal Flexam with Sandblast Profile

Maximum belt speed 50.0 m/s (164.0 ft/s) CDP

Belt suction 33 individually controlled suction chambers

Platen instrum entation 33 pressure sensors and 71 K

- type thermocouples

Temperature control Water cooled to +/

- 3.0° C (+/

- 5.4° F) with 110 cooling tubes

Steering Hydraulically actuated steering roller controlled using two optical belt

edge sensors and a roller tachomet er



## Data Acquisition and Control

Data acquisition Pi Research Mistral system

Motor control 6 Control Techniques ‘Mentor’ DC drives

Tunnel Control PLC direct to Control Techniques drives

Model balance Aerotech 6

- component internal balance

Model pressu re measurement Two 32 port PSI pressure scanners

Wheel drag balances 4 x single component strain

- gauge load cells

Wing/body panel balances 2 x three component strain

- gauge load cells

Model exhaust simulation Maximum flow 2.1 m 3 /s (75 SCFM)4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 10



## Equipmen t Ratings

Main fan motor 373 kW (500 hp) variable speed air cooled DC motor

Rolling

- road motor 186 kW (250 hp) variable speed air cooled DC motor

Primary boundary

- layer motor 93 kW (125 hp) variable speed air cooled DC motor

Top

- plate boundary

- layer mot or 11 kW (15 hp) variable speed air cooled DC motor

Secondary boundary

- layer motor 22 kW (30 hp) variable speed air cooled DC motor

Belt suction motor 11 kW (15 hp) variable speed air cooled DC motor

Hydraulic power pack 2.5 kW (3.4 hp) AC motor

Road c hiller capacity 281 kW (80 Tons)

Air chiller capacity 440 kW (125 Tons)



### The tunnel is a scale model rolling road tunnel that tests models of vehicles. The model is

mounted to a balance cradle that houses a 6

- component load cell balance. The balance cradle is

attached to a sting that is attached to a steel beamed structure that is mounted on vibration pads 8

feet underground. This mounting allows for the model to be completely isolated from any

building noise. The model’s wheels run on top of our r olling belt that has a surface roughness to

match the average surface roughness of highways and roads. The belt speed matches the wind

speed to +/

- 0.01 m/s.

Within the balance cradle is mounted a vehicle model motion system. The VMMS allows the

vehicl e to automatically yaw, pitch, roll, heave and front wheel steer during a test session. To

maintain the road flatness, a multi

- suction port system is used throughout the platen. To

eliminate any belt edge curl, a pneumatic tensioning system is used to ap ply constant tension to

the belt during a test session. To eliminate the static electricity build up before it gets to the

model and effects test repeatability, a static electricity discharge system is utilized.

To minimize the road boundary layer that bu ilds up in wind tunnels, a four stage boundary layer

suction system is utilized.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 11



### 8 .0 TEST PROCEDURE

8 .1 Pretest Inspection and Warm up

At the beginning of each testing session, the tunnel and its data acquisition systems are run for a

minimum of 30 minu tes to warm up the facility. The balance and laser systems are warmed up

for a minimum of four hours prior to use. The model was inspected for any wheel bearing issues

or suspect/damaged parts that could affect testing. The tunnel and road system were in spected.

The yaw position, heave position and roll position were all measured and maintained.

8 .2 General

Each test series began with a static weight t are of the model. Following the static weight t are , a

rolling wheel tare was taken for each model posi tion that data was to be recorded. The model

position remained the same for all of the runs. The positions were standard road height at yaw

equaling 0, 1

, 3

, 6

, 9, 0,

- 1,

- 3,

- 6,

- 9, 0 degrees. There were three 0 degree points to allow for a

“first to l ast” run match that is used to determine potential belt stretch, or in test model issue.

Positive 9 degrees is yawing the truck 9 degrees to the driver’s left. All rolling wheel t are s were

c ompleted with the belt running 5 0 m/s without any air speed.

Fol lowing the rolling wheel tares, the data sampl ing process took place for all 11 yaw angles

listed above. After all model point’s data samples were measured, the tunnel was shut down and

a change was made to the model. Following a model change, the genera l process would repeat

itself.

9 .0 DATA REDUCTION

All force and moment data measured using an AEROTECH 6 component load cell balance, 124

static pressures and all associated tunnel parameters (ie DC motor information, belt temperature,

wind speeds etc .) were recorded using a PI Mistral system. The data was organized through a

program called PI AERO which utilizes an ACCESS database. PI AERO was used to display

the reduced and raw data into Excel. Using Excel, the data was then summarized for reporting

purposes.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 12



### 10.0 WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ON

- ROAD AND A WIND TUNNEL ?

This is a question that is consistently asked by our new trucking industry partners before they utilize one

of our wind tunnel facilities. It is a fair question that deserves a detailed answer. Currently, the trucking

industry relies on real world testing where the standards for these tests were determined by SAE in the

early 1980s. The standards were developed in an attempt to improve the accuracy of a real world test

as muc h as possible. The SAE standards helped to focus the real world results, but still left large

variances in accuracy due to the impossibility of limiting at least 10 other test critical factors. In a wind

tunnel , we are able to eliminate these 10 variable s and offer a more realistic and true aerodynamic

representation with regards to trucking development. The following top 10 variables of concern with

“real world” testing are as follows:

1) Constant Temperature: It is impossible to conduct “real world” test ing at a constant

temperature. Because of the temperature varying throughout this type of test, the

aerodynamic forces of the vehicle being tested will change. The only way to compensate for

variable temperature during real world testing is to actually m easure and record the ambient

temperature throughout the entire test using an on board data logging system or a chase

vehicle with similar data logging. After the temperature is recorded, the varying temperature

would have to be taken into account through out all the sections of the test through reduction

formulas which would integrate the results (varying with temperature) throughout the whole

test. In the aerodynamic testing community it is common practice to reference all data to a

standard temperature such as “sea level” temperature.

2) Constant Density: Along with varying temperature, varying density will occur throughout the

entire “real world” test. The variable density also has a direct effect on the aerodynamic forces

acting on a semi

- truck through the relationship of D = P d 

### *C d 

### *A where the aerodynamic drag, D,

on a vehicle is equal to the product of the dynamic pressure, P d 

### ; the drag coefficient, C d 

### and the

vehicle’s frontal area, A. The dynamic pressure is equal to one half the product of the densi ty, d,

and the square of the velocity, V as seen in the following equation: P d 

### = 1⁄2*d*V 2 

### . It is obvious

because of this that with the density varying on the day or through a vehicle traveling across

state lines, the forces on the truck during a specific te st will definitely change and be

inconsistent. The only way to eliminate this is to measure the density change locally (on the

truck during the test at every moment it is actually testing) and then to compensate through a

speed variation with the truck. This can only be done accurately through using a computer

system to vary the speed continuously throughout the entire test.

3) Driver Input: The driver input will vary dramatically depending on many different factors. The

only way to eliminate this variable is through elimination of the drive by using a computer

system to maintain control of the truck.

4) Tire Grip/Degradation: Over a test, the tire will degrade due to wear and weight of the vehicle,

along with speeds run during the test. The tire pressures w ill also change throughout the test

which will have an effect on the sidewall stiffness of the tire and ultimately the aerodynamic4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 13

shape of the tire and an associated ride height and roll attitude of the truck itself. In a “real

world” test, this is a var iable that cannot be completely eliminated.

5) Engine: Selecting the size and type of engine will play a role of the fuel economy numbers

based upon the engine’s efficiency and specific fuel consumption. Does the system use a fuel

burn to clean the system? If so, what is the frequency and amount of fuel used? How accurate

is the system? Does it dump the same amount of fuel exactly each time?

6) Cross Winds: Differential cross winds during “real world” testing are a fact of life. Even for

straight line test ing this presents inaccuracies. One way to eliminate this inaccuracy is to mount

a 5 hole probe to the test vehicle. This probe will measure the wind direction at all times while

the vehicle is testing. However, the data must then be used to correct the results over the

whole test through integrating the change in cross wind in parallel with the measured fuel burn.

7) Proper Fuel Measurements: The accuracy of measuring the fuel put into the fuel tank versus

what is left in the tank allows for inaccuracy. Was the tank truly “dry” of fuel to begin with?

Was all the fuel removed from the tank in the end (ie fuel residue left in or on the tank due to

viscosity or gaseous build up) ? Were there any evaporation losses of the fuel?

8) Traffic: Traffic conditions w ill have an effect on the fuel burned during a test. Not only would

traffic affect the driver’s input due to changes associated with the gas pedal; but, traffic can help

or hurt the drag another vehicle sees based upon its positioning around this vehicle. Traffic is a

random variable that can have a significant impact on fuel economy runs over the entire test.

9) Type of Fuel: The type of fuel used will also affect the fuel economy runs for “real world”

testing. Not all diesel mixtures are the same. Also if pumps are used for specific fuel/water

mixtures this will also offer variability. This can play a role throughout “real world” testing.

10) Static Weight Changes: Throughout a “real world” test, the static weight of a truck will change

as it burns fuel an d looses rubber from its tires. This overall reduction in static weight will

reduce the amount of fuel required to move the truck over the road due to a reduction in

mechanical weight. This variability happens throughout the entire test, but also require s an

exact starting fuel amount for all the tests. However, all the other variables will play a role into

how much fuel is burned and during what part of a test this will happen. Therefore, it is feasible

that the static weight changes on the truck (even when one begins with the “exact” amount of

fuel in the beginning) variably throughout the truck’s “real world” testing cycle.

Testing in a scale model , rolling road wind tunnel eliminates all 10 of these “real world” issues. All of our

testing is temper ature controlled to within 2 degrees Fa h r e nhei t . The testing is all completed at a

constant dynamic pressure. We use models and electronically control them so there is no driver input.

The tires we use do not degrade and do not affect the aerodynamic da ta we record. Although we model

an engine, the engine does not burn fuel so it does not influence the aerodynamic data we measure.

The wind generated in our tunnel is a very controlled wind and therefore has no cross wind. For specific

crosswind testing , we yaw our model and scientifically control the angle of cross wind. Since we are

measuring the raw aerodynamic forces acting on the test vehicle, there is no fuel involved in this type of4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 14

testing and therefore, no ability for fuel measurement errors or different types of fuel errors. Our

vehicles are tested individually which eliminates the variable of traffic influencing the aerodynamic

outcome. The static weight of our test vehicles is taken out of the equation through our ability to “tear”

out this weight before the test run.

Although ARC can eliminate all 10 of the main variables that directly influence the outcome of a “real

world” test, ARC is still utilizing a scale model rolling road tunnel. The two areas of question in this

arena are Reynolds and scaling effects. Reynolds number is a number that demonstrates the viscous

effects on an object. For instance, if you take a truck running on the highway at 65 mph and scale it

down to 50%, you would need to test this scale model at a speed greater than 65 mph to maintain the

same kind of effects the air has on this vehicle. The number used to coordinate just how fast you need

to be testing at is called the Reynolds number.

At ARC we test 1/8 scale models. Tests conducted by NASA on the Reynolds nu mber necessary for an

1/8 scale semi

- truck being simulated as a full scale truck running at 65 mph shows that ARC’s tunnel

testing speed of 50 m/s (111.8 mph) is within the acceptable Reynolds number range require for

accurate comparisons to full scale tru cks at 65 mph.

The scaling concern covers two main areas. The first area is accuracy and the second is choking or

separation. With regards to the accuracy of ARC’s modeling, our highly experienced staff grew from the

racing industry. This meant that if our model makers made mistakes on a scale model during a test,

their errors were magnified in the “real world” due to scaling. It also meant that the potential for these

mistakes could literally kill a driver. Therefore, ARC established a culture based around accuracy. This

culture is still driven with the view of accuracy means safety. Therefore, through our maintaining the

same principles we have operated with from our racing heritage, our accuracy is second to none.

With regards to choking or separa tion due to scaling effects, imagine a small tube that has its opening

directly facing the airflow. When scaling this tube down, the actual air molecules that would normally

flow through this tube remain the same size. Therefore, it is possible to scale something down too small

and not allow the air molecules (that are remaining the same size) to flow through this tube (or “choke.”

Because of this, care must be taken in the areas where these types of flows are critical to scaling. Over

the years “rules of thumb” are established to eliminate these issues with regards to scaling. ARC has the

capabilities to eliminate these types of choking or separating effects on its models due to ARC’s

collective experience of scale model testing.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 15



### 11 .0 CONCLUSIONS

For a final analysis, we will examine trends associated with the wind averaged drag coefficient at

65mph. The various wind averaged drag coefficients for other speeds can be found in

APPENDIX A along with all individual run data.

Results Summary

Run # Co nfiguration CdW @ 65

mph Fuel Economy % Change to

Baselines



### 1 Baseline 0.568

2 Repeat 0.569

3 Repeat 0.569 0.01%

4 Static Floor Baseline 0.55 0

5 Remove Tractor Chassis Fairing

- Rolling Road 0.606 3.54%

6 Remove Tractor Chassis Fairing

- Stat ic Floor 0.594 4.36%

7 Refit Tractor Chassis Fairings; Close Grill

- Rolling Road 0.557

- 1.07%

8 Refit Tractor Chassis Fairings; Close Grill

- Static Floor 0.545

- 0.50%

9 Open Grill; Fit 3" Trailer Corner Radius

- Rolling Road 0.569 0.02%

10 Open Grill ; Fit 3" Trailer Corner Radius

- Static Floor 0.551 0.07%

11 Closed Grill

- Rolling Road 0.558

- 0.97%

12 Closed Grill

- Static Floor 0.544

- 0.54%

13 Over Night Repeat (to Run 11) 0.558

14 Repeat 0.559

15 Repeat 0.559

16 Open Grill; Trailer Gap = 5 0"

- Rolling Road 0.578 0.90%

17 Open Grill; Trailer Gap = 50"

- Static Floor 0.558 0.83%

18 Closed Grill

- Rolling Road 0.568

- 0.09%

19 Closed Grill

- Static Floor 0.554 0.37%

20 Open Grill; Fit 5" Trailer Corner Radii

- Rolling Road 0.578 0.88%

21 O pen Grill; Fit 5" Trailer Corner Radii

- Static Floor 0.559 0.92%

22 Closed Grill

- Rolling Road 0.567

- 0.15%

23 Closed Grill

- Static Floor 0.552 0.24%4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 16



### From the results listed above for 65 mph, one can easily see that for some of the changes, rolli ng

road and static floor give similar results. However, looking at the highlighted rows, it is evident

that there are also opposite trends measured between rolling road and static road. Since these

trend reversals are found when cooling is opened or clos ed, this should be examined further.

The above chart clearly indicates the trend reversal discussed above. As we know, closing the

grill off usually offers a fuel economy improvement in most cases. However, in two out of the

four cases above, the sta tic floor results are showing the opposite trend when compare to the

baseline. Another interesting result is that increasing the tractor/trailer gap does reduce the fuel

economy benefit of closing off the grill. A larger tractor/trailer gap allows the ai r flow to further

detach and cause turbulent separation to intensify before the flow gets to the front of the trailer.

One main cause for the static floor difference is that the cooling flow does react with the tractor

tires rotating and the movement of t he tractor over pavement. Without these critical parts, the

proper flow field is missed. This will have a larger effect as you move further rearward on this

vehicle. For example, skirt development will give larger differences due to this fixed floor

con dition. As noted in prior white papers, a flow separation grows off the bottom of the rear of

the tractor with fixed floor testing. With rolling road testing this separation moves to the top of

the rear of the tractor. However, even with this increased turbulent flow on the front trailer face,

we do not see much of a difference between the trailer corner radii for either tractor/trailer gap.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 17



### The results shown above are very small. In fact, the rolling road values are well within error

measurements. The static floor also can claim the same result within error measurement. The

conclusion is that changing the trailer corner radii in this configuration did not show a

measurable difference with either the 45” or 50” tractor/trailer gap.

The largest cha nge in this test came from removing the tractor chassis fairings. In both testing

conditions, rolling road and static floor, the results showed a large decrease in fuel economy by

3.54% and 4.36% respectively. The static floor “over predicting” the rolli ng road result is not

unusual here. It should also be pointed out that if a part is developed without the chassis fairings,

the flow structure would be sufficiently changed in such a manner as to enhance the part being

developed because of the removal of these chassis fairings degredating the flow so much.

Ironically, and probably misleading is that changing the trailer gap from 45” to 50” gives a

similar result between rolling road and static floor, 0.90% and 0.83% respectively. This is only

one gap and therefore, not a lot can be read into this. However, it is the author’s experience that

when testing multiple gaps, one will find that the optimal gap in a rolling road condition will

vary substantially from the optimum found using a static floor.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 18



### Anothe r question raised by the EPA is if multiple yaw angles on both sides of zero yaw are really

necessary. To examine this question, it is important to look at comparison runs instead of just

individual runs. To keep things simple, we will limit our comparis on runs to rolling road versus

static road for a few isolated changes.

Baseline Configuration; 45" Trailer Gap; 5" Trailer Radii

Yaw AOA Rolling Static Delta Delta Refl % Diff Rolling Refl Diff Static Refl Diff



### 0.000 0.531 0.508 0.024

- 2% 0.001 0.001

1.000 0.531 0.511 0.020

- 17%

- 0.002 0.002

3.000 0.552 0.535 0.018 4% 0.008 0.007

6.000 0.604 0.593 

### 0.010 58% 0.005

- 0.001

9.000 0.677 0.669 0.008 75%

- 0.002

- 0.008

0.000 0.531 0.507 0.024

- 1.000 0.533 0.509 0.023

- 3.000 0 .545 0.528 0.017

- 6.000 0.598 0.594 0.004

- 9.000 0.679 0.677 0.002

0.000 0.532 0.510 0.022



### The chart above shows the initial baseline configuration chosen by the EPA and reflected in our

“model configuration” section. The firs t column is the yaw angle. A positive yaw angle is when

the driver’s side is moved to the driver’s left (rear of trailer moved to the right). The “Rolling”

column shows the measured Cd (not wind averaged CdW) with the rolling road. The “Static”

column s hows the measured Cd (not wind averaged CdW) with the static floor. The “Delta”

column represents the rolling road Cd subtracted by the static floor Cd. The “Delta Refl % Diff”

column represents the percentage difference of the “Delta” column in the refl ective yaw angles.

For example, the “Delta” column’s 9.0 yaw result has the “Delta” column’s (

- 9.0) yaw result

subtracted and then this result is divided by the “Delta” column’s 9.0 yaw result. By finally

multiplying the answer by 100, we get the percent age difference between the two “Delta”

column’s results for positive and negative 9.0 degree yaw cases. In this case, the result is 75%.

The “Rolling Refl Diff” column shows the rolling reflective difference for the Cd value in the

“Rolling” column. For positive and negative 9.0 yaw, we get a value of

- 0.002. The “Static Relf

Diff” column shows the static floor reflective difference for the Cd value in the “Static” column.

For positive and negative 9.0 degree yaw cases we see a value of

- .008.

The resu lts post analyzing of the above chart show s that for the 6.0 and 9.0 degree yaw cases,

there is a significant difference between the deltas when comparing the positive yaw cases to the

negative yaw cases.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 19

Removal of Chassis Fairings; Open Grill

Yaw AOA Rolling Static Delta Delta Refl %

Diff Rolling Refl

Diff Static Refl

Diff



### 0.000 0.546 0.526 

### 0.020 12% 0.003 0.000

1.000 0.547 0.531 

### 0.017 11% 0.002 0.001

3.000 0.582 0.581 

### 0.001

- 318% 0.010 0.014

6.000 0.680 0.674 

### 0.006 92% 0.013 0.0 07

9.000 0.773 0.767 

### 0.006 119% 0.010 0.003

0.000 0.543 0.526 

### 0.018

- 1.000 0.545 0.530 

### 0.015

- 3.000 0.572 0.568 

### 0.005

- 6.000 0.667 0.667 

### 0.001

- 9.000 0.762 0.763



### - 0.001

0.000 0.546 0.527 

### 0.019



### Taking a second ex ample, in this case the removal of the tractor’s chassis fairings, we find a

large variance for 3.0, 6.0 and 9.0 degree yaw cases when comparing the positive and negative

yaw results from the “Delta” column. It should also be noted that the reflective dif ferences in the

respective rolling road and static floor runs shows a 10 count s or greater drag difference. Since

the tunnel’s repeatability is well below this at around 2

– 3 counts, these results are significant.

Refit Chassis Fairings; Closed Grill

Yaw AOA Rolling Static Delta Delta Refl %

Diff Rolling Refl Diff Static Refl Diff



### 0.000 0.515 0.504 

### 0.012

- 14% 0.000 0.001

1.000 0.518 0.503 

### 0.016 13% 0.003 0.001

3.000 0.542 0.528 

### 0.014

- 8% 0.009 0.010

6.000 0.600 0.590 

### 0.010 38% 0 .006 0.002

9.000 0.673 0.662 

### 0.011 40% 0.001

- 0.003

0.000 0.516 0.502 

### 0.013

- 1.000 0.515 0.501 

### 0.014

- 3.000 0.533 0.517 

### 0.016

- 6.000 0.594 0.588 

### 0.007

- 9.000 0.672 0.665 

### 0.006

0.000 0.514 0.502 

### 0.0124012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 20



### Examining a third case, where the chassis fairings are refit and the front grill is closed off we still

see a similar trend for 6.0 and 9.0 degree yaw cases.

3" Trailer Radii; Trailer Gap to 50"; Closed Grill

Yaw AOA Rolling Static Delta Delta R efl % Diff Rolling Refl Diff Static Refl Diff



### 0.000 0.523 0.510 

### 0.013 19% 0.002 0.000

1.000 0.528 0.513 

### 0.015 7% 0.005 0.004

3.000 0.551 0.533 

### 0.018

- 3% 0.010 0.011

6.000 0.611 0.600 

### 0.011 35% 0.007 0.003

9.000 0.688 0.676 

### 0.011 30% 0.001

- 0.002

0.00 0 0.521 0.510 

### 0.011

- 1.000 0.523 0.509 

### 0.014

- 3.000 0.540 0.522 

### 0.018

- 6.000 0.604 0.597 

### 0.007

- 9.000 0.687 0.679 

### 0.008

0.000 0.523 0.511 

### 0.012



### Looking at a fourth example where the trailer front corner radii are changed and the grill is

closed, we find a similar trend. These combined examples illustrate the change in forces caused

by the asymmetry of a tractor/trailer. For each tractor/trailer these asymmetries are different and

therefore cause different varianc es on the measure force values at the corresponding positive and

negative yaw angles. This is the reasoning behind the SAE standard requiring the mapping of

both yaw directions. There really is no short cut.4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 21 

# APPENDIX A

Individual Run P ictures if Approved

&

Run Data4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 22 

### FUEL ECONOMY DATA FOLLOWS

MPG = Miles Per Hour

CDW = Wind Average Drag

Del CDw = Difference to Comparison CDW

%CDw = Percentage Difference to Comparision CDW

%F = Percentage Fuel Economy4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 23

Run # Description MPH CDW

Run 1 Initial Baseline Run 75 0.557

70 0.562

65 0.568

60 0.576

55 0.585

50 0.598

Compared To Run #1

- Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 2 Repeat 75 0. 558 0.001 0.12% 0.08%

70 0.563 0.001 0.12% 0.07%

65 0.569 0.001 0.12% 0.06%

60 0.576 0.001 0.11% 0.06%

55 0.586 0.001 0.11% 0.05%

50 0.599 0.001 0.10% 0.04%

Compared To Run #2

- Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 3 Repeat 75 0.558 0.000 0.02% 0.01%

70 0.563 0.000 0.02% 0.01%

65 0.569 0.000 0.01% 0.01%

60 0.576 0.000 0.01% 0.00%

55 0.586 0.000 0.00% 0.00%

50 0.599 0.000

- 0.01% 0.00%4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 24 Comp ared To Run #3

- Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 4 Static Floor 75 0.538

- 0.020

- 3.54%

- 2.36%

70 0.543

- 0.019

- 3.44%

- 1.97%

65 0.550

- 0.019

- 3.32%

- 1.80%

60 0.558

- 0.018

- 3.17%

- 1.58%

55 0.569

- 0.017

- 2.97%

- 1.38%

50 0.582

- 0.016

- 2.72%

- 1.18%

Compared To Run #3

- Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 5 Remove Tractor Chassis Fairing

- Rolling Road 75 0.590 0.032 5.72% 3.81%

70 0.597 0.034 6.09% 3.48%

65 0.606 0.037 6.54% 3.54%

60 0.617 0.041 7.10% 3.55%

55 0.632 0.046 7.81% 3.63%

50 0.651 0.052 8.72% 3.79%

Compared To Run #4

- Static

Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 6 Remove Tractor C hassis Fairing

- Static Floor 75 0.577 0.039 7.31% 4.87%

70 0.585 0.042 7.65% 4.37%

65 0.594 0.044 8.06% 4.36%

60 0.606 0.048 8.58% 4.29%

55 0.621 0.052 9.22% 4.29%

50 0.641 0.058 10.04% 4.37%4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 25 Compared To Run #3

- Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 7 Refit Tractor Chassis Fairings; Close Grill

- Rolling Road 75 0.546

- 0.012

- 2.15%

- 1.43%

70 0.551

- 0.012

- 2.07%

- 1.18%

65 0.557

- 0.011

- 1.98%

- 1.07%

60 0.566

- 0.011

- 1.87%

- 0.94%

55 0.576

- 0.010

- 1.73%

- 0.80%

50 0.589

- 0.009

- 1.55%

- 0.67%

Compared To Run #4

- Static

Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 8 Refit Tractor Chassis Fairings; Close Grill

- Static Floor 75 0.533

- 0.005

- 0.93%

- 0.62%

70 0.538

- 0.005

- 0.92%

- 0.53%

65 0.545

- 0.005

- 0.92%

- 0.50%

60 0.553

- 0.005

- 0.92%

- 0.46%

55 0.563

- 0.005

- 0.92%

- 0.43%

50 0.577

- 0.005

- 0.93%

- 0.40%

Compared To Run #3

- Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW d el CDw % CDw %F

Run 9 Open Grill; Fit 3" Trailer Corner Radii

- Rolling Road 75 0.558 0.000 0.02% 0.01%

70 0.563 0.000 0.03% 0.02%

65 0.569 0.000 0.04% 0.02%

60 0.577 0.000 0.05% 0.03%

55 0.586 0.000 0.07% 0.03%

50 0.599 0.001 0.09% 0.04%4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 26 Compared To Run #4

- Static

Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 10 Open Grill; Fit 3" Trailer Corner Radii

- Static Floor 75 0.539 0.001 0.15% 0.10%

70 0.544 0.001 0.14% 0.08%

65 0.551 0.001 0.13% 0.07%

60 0.5 59 0.001 0.11% 0.06%

55 0.569 0.001 0.09% 0.04%

50 0.583 0.000 0.06% 0.02%

Compared To Run #3

- Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 11 Closed Grill

- Rolling Road 75 0.547

- 0.011

- 1.95%

- 1.30%

70 0.552

- 0.011

- 1.88%

- 1.08%

65 0.558

- 0.010

- 1.80%

- 0.97%

60 0.566

- 0.010

- 1.70%

- 0.85%

55 0.577

- 0.009

- 1.58%

- 0.74%

50 0.590

- 0.009

- 1.42%

- 0.62%

Compared To Run #4

- Static

Baseline

Run # Description MPH CD W del CDw % CDw %F

Run 12 Closed Grill

- Static Floor 75 0.533

- 0.005

- 1.02%

- 0.68%

70 0.538

- 0.005

- 1.01%

- 0.58%

65 0.544

- 0.006

- 1.00%

- 0.54%

60 0.552

- 0.006

- 0.99%

- 0.50%

55 0.563

- 0.006

- 0.99%

- 0.46%

50 0.577

- 0.006

- 0.98%

- 0.43%4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 27 Compared To Run #11

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 13 Day 2 Baseline

- Rolling Road 75 0.547 0.000 0.00% 0.00%

(Overnight Repeat to Run 11) 70 0.552 0.000 0.00% 0.00%

65 0.558 0.000

- 0.01%

- 0.01%

60 0.566 0.000

- 0.02%

- 0.01%

55 0.577 0.000

- 0.03%

- 0.01%

50 0.590 0.000

- 0.04%

- 0.02%

Compared To Run

#13

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 14 Repeat 75 0.547 0.000 0 .08% 0.05%

70 0.553 0.000 0.08% 0.05%

65 0.559 0.000 0.08% 0.05%

60 0.567 0.001 0.09% 0.04%

55 0.577 0.001 0.09% 0.04%

50 0.591 0.001 0.10% 0.04%

Compared To Run

#14 Compared To Run #11

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F del CDw % CDw %F

Run 15 Repeat 75.000 0.547 0.000 0.00% 0.00% 0.000 0.08% 0.05%

70.000 0.553 0.000 0.00% 0.00% 0.000 0.08% 0.05%

65.000 0.559 0.000 0.00% 0.00% 0.000 0.08% 0.04%

60.000 0.567 0.000 0.01% 0.00% 0.000 0.08% 0.04%

55.000 0.577 0.000 0.02% 0.01% 0.000 0.08% 0.04%

50.000 0.591 0.000 0.02% 0.01% 0.000 0.08% 0.04%4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 28 Compared To Run #3

- Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 16 Op en Grille; Trailer gap = 50"

- Rolling

Road 75 0.567 0.009 1.61% 1.07%

70 0.572 0.009 1.63% 0.93%

65 0.578 0.009 1.66% 0.90%

60 0.586 0.010 1.70% 0.85%

55 0.596 0.010 1.74% 0.81%

50 0.609 0.011 1.80% 0.78%

Compared To Ru n #4

- Static

Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 17 Open Grille; Trailer gap = 50"

- Static Floor 75 0.546 0.008 1.49% 0.99%

70 0.552 0.008 1.51% 0.86%

65 0.558 0.008 1.54% 0.83%

60 0.567 0.009 1.57% 0.78%

55 0 .578 0.009 1.60% 0.74%

50 0.592 0.010 1.64% 0.71%

Compared To Run #3

- Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 18 Closed Grille; Trailer gap = 50"

- Rolling

Road 75 0.556

- 0.002

- 0.35%

- 0.24%

70 0.561

- 0.001

- 0.27%

- 0.15%

65 0.568

- 0.001

- 0.16%

- 0.09%

60 0.576 0.000

- 0.03%

- 0.01%

55 0.587 0.001 0.13% 0.06%

50 0.601 0.002 0.34% 0.15%4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 29 Compared To Run #4

- Static

Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 19 Clo sed Grille; Trailer gap = 50"

- Static Floor 75 0.541 0.003 0.63% 0.42%

70 0.547 0.004 0.66% 0.38%

65 0.554 0.004 0.69% 0.37%

60 0.562 0.004 0.72% 0.36%

55 0.573 0.004 0.76% 0.35%

50 0.587 0.005 0.81% 0.35%

Compared To R un #3

- Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 20 Open Grill; Fit 5" Trailer Corner Radii

- Rolling

Road 75 0.567 0.009 1.56% 1.04%

70 0.572 0.009 1.59% 0.91%

65 0.578 0.009 1.62% 0.88%

60 0.586 0.010 1.66% 0.83%

5 5 0.596 0.010 1.71% 0.80%

50 0.609 0.011 1.77% 0.77%

Compared To Run #4

- Static

Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 21 Open Grill; 5" Trailer Corner Radii

- Static Floor 75 0.547 0.009 1.68% 1.12%

70 0.553 0.009 1.69% 0.97%

65 0.559 0.009 1.71% 0.92%

60 0.568 0.010 1.72% 0.86%

55 0.578 0.010 1.74% 0.81%

50 0.593 0.010 1.75% 0.76%4012 Championship Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Tel: 317

- 291

- 8600; Fax: 317

– 291

- 8700 PG. 

### 30 Compared To Run #3

– Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 22 Closed G rill

- Rolling Road 75 0.555

- 0.003

- 0.45%

- 0.30%

70 0.561

- 0.002

- 0.37%

- 0.21%

65 0.567

- 0.002

- 0.27%

- 0.15%

60 0.575

- 0.001

- 0.15%

- 0.08%

55 0.586 0.000

- 0.01% 0.00%

50 0.600 0.001 0.18% 0.08%

Compared To Run #4

- Stat ic

Baseline

Run # Description MPH CDW del CDw % CDw %F

Run 23 Closed Grill

- Static Floor 75 0.540 0.002 0.36% 0.24%

70 0.546 0.002 0.40% 0.23%

65 0.552 0.002 0.44% 0.24%

60 0.561 0.003 0.49% 0.25%

55 0.572 0.003 0.55% 0.26%

50 0.586 0.004 0.62% 0.27%