312 J. ENERGY VOL. 1,NO.

Reduced Truck Fuel Consumption

through Aerodynamic Design
Louis L. Steers* and Edwin J. Saltzmant
NASA Dry den Flight Research Center, Edwards, Calif.

Full-scale fuel consumption and drag tests were performed on a conventional cab-over-engine tractor-trailer
combination and a version of the same vehicle with significant forebody modifications. The modified con-
figuration had greatly increased radii on all front corners and edges of the tractor and a smooth fairing of the
modified tractor top and sides extending to the trailer. Concurrent highway testing of the two configurations
showed that the modified design used 20% to 24% less fuel than the baseline configuration at 88.5 km/hr (55
mph) with near-calm wind conditions. Coastdown test results showed that the modified configuration reduced
the drag coefficient by 0.43 from the baseline value of 1.17 at 88.5 km/hr (55 mph) in calm wind conditions.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.47945

Nomenclature Large reductions in drag were obtained on the box-shaped

A = cross-sectional reference area used in present in- van by rounding the corners of the forebody. These drag
vestigation, 8.73 m 2 (94 ft 2 ) reductions, in percent, were approximately twice as large as
Ar cross-sectional reference area used by authors of the reductions provided by the best add-on devices tested by
referenced publications DFRC for tractor-trailer combination trucks. These ob-
CD aerodynamic drag coefficient, Da/qA servations led investigators to believe that, if the truck were
D = drag provided with a well-rounded forebody and the gap between
g = acceleration of gravity the tractor and trailer were eliminated, significant drag
q = dynamic pressure, VipV2 reductions could be expected beyond those provided by the
t =time best add-on devices. Therefore, the DFRC decided to modify
V = calibrated velocity a cab-over-engine tractor and trailer for drag and fuel-
W = vehicle weight consumption tests. The tractor was provided with
x = longitudinal gap distance from upper aft surface of significantly increased radii for all forebody corners and
tractor cab to front face of trailer edges, and the gap between the tractor and trailer was faired.
p = air density The tests of this configuration were conducted from the
summer of 1975 to the spring of 1976.
Subscripts In this paper, the drag and fuel-consumption results for the
a = aerodynamic modified configuration are compared with baseline results for
bl = baseline or control configuration a similar, unmodified tractor-trailer unit. In addition, the
m = mechanical drag results are compared with data from related
t = total studies.3'20'21

Test Vehicles
Introduction
The tractor-trailer combination used (Fig. 1) was a cab-
T HE prospects of diminishing supplies of petroleum and
the attendant increase in prices have resulted in increasing
numbers of studies designed to improve the efficiency of
over-engine tractor with a two-axle, smooth-wall trailer. Each
front vertical corner of the trailer van had a radius of 30.5 cm
(12 in.). For all of the testing described herein, the gap
various modes of transportation. With respect to highway distance x was 157 cm (62 in.). The total gross weight of the
vehicles, Refs. 1-15 represent the experimental techniques, test vehicle was approximately 14,545 kg (32,000 Ib). General
studies, and compilations of data on aerodynamic drag specifications of this vehicle are given in Table 1.
available before the fuel crisis of 1973. In the two to
For the drag tests, the baseline vehicle was tested and then
three years following the fuel crisis, numerous additional drag
modified to the low-drag configuration. Thus, because the
studies were conducted in wind tunnels and on the road. 16~29
same vehicle was used for the baseline and low-drag con-
Studies made before the fuel crisis also demonstrated the
influence of nonaerodynamic factors, such as engines,
drivelines, accessories, tires, and operational techniques, on
fuel consumption. 30 " 35 Through improvement of these fac-
tors, impressive savings in fuel were demonstrated. 36~38
Because of its prior experience in the aerodynamic drag of
aircraft, the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC)
began experimentation in early 1973 with the aerodynamic
drag aspects of a box-shaped van. 17 ' 18 ' 25 In 1974, this ex-
perimentation was extended to include an assessment of add- Fig. 1 Tractor-trailer baseline test vehicle.
on drag-reducing devices for tractor-trailer combination
trucks. 19 ' 22 ' 25 ' 28
Received May 2, 1977; revision received July 5, 1977.
Index categories: Aerodynamics; Configuration Design; Con-
servation.
* Aerospace Engineer.
tChief, Performance Aerodynamics Branch. Fig. 2 Baseline and low-drag configurations.
 SEPT.-OCT. 1977 REDUCED TRUCK FUEL CONSUMPTION THROUGH AERODYNAMIC DESIGN 313

Table 1 Vehicle characteristics3

Tractor
Make . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . White Freightliner
T y p e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cab over engine (with sleeper)
No. of axles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Tire size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00-22
Engine
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NTC-350, turbocharged
Displacement, liters (in. 3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14(855)
P o w e r a t 2 1 0 0 r p m , k W ( h p ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 (310)
Transmission
M o d e l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RTO-9513
Trailer
Length, m (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.70(45.0)
Height, m (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.11 (13.5) a) Front view, cooling air inlet door closed
Width, m (ft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.44 (8.0)
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smooth sidewall
No.of a x l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Tire size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00-22
a
The tractor-trailer combination used in this study was one of many that could
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.47945

have been used. Specifications are given herein for completeness only.

figurations, the nonaerodynamic components of drag, which

include the tires, bearings, and driveline, were the same for
both configurations.
For the fuel-consumption tests, which required concurrent
operation of the two configurations, another vehicle of the
same model and manufacturer was obtained. The only dif-
ferences between the vehicles, other than the low-drag
modifications, were that the baseline vehicle had more ac-
cumulated mileage and had aluminum front wheels, whereas
all other wheels were of steel. The baseline and modified low-
drag configurations are shown in Fig. 2.
The low-drag configuration was conceived as a test b) Cab tilted and chin dropped
specimen to demonstrate the potential for reduced drag for a
cab-over-engine tractor-trailer combination with reasonable
modifications to the forebody shape and the elimination of
the cab-to-trailer gap. No modifications were made to the
trailer per se. A front view of the low-drag configuration is
shown in Fig. 3a with the cooling air inlet door closed. When
open, this sliding door allowed cooling air to enter the
radiator. During coastdown drag runs, this door was closed;
during all other operations, it was open. The corner radii of
the modified forebody side and bottom edges were ap-
proximately 61 cm (24 in.). A heavy sheet-metal fairing ex-
tended tangentially from the bottom forebody curve, or chin,
to the front axle.
Figure 3b shows the cab of the low-drag configuration tilted
to permit access to the engine. Five latches similar to those
used on baggage trunks were unbuckled to allow the chin
fairing to be dropped. Additional latches on the sides and top
of the cab fairing then were unbuckled, the tape covering the
sheet metal joints was removed, and the cab was tilted.
Figures 3c and 3d show the low-drag configuration while
turning. Although this test configuration was obviously not
permanent and would require more detailed design for fleet
use, it turned and passed through normal street dips and over
normal humps and bumps easily. The hinged side doors and
the rear part of the top fairing were held against the trailer
sides and top with bungee cord. Rollers permitted smooth
movement of the side doors and the top fairing relative to the
trailer.
The low-drag configuration tested was not highway legal.
The headlights, top-of-cab clearance lights, and horn were d) Tractor turned left
Fig. 3 Low-drag configuration.
covered by the forebody fairing. In addition, the curved test
windshield was made of transparent plastic and did not have
wipers. However, this configuration is considered by the functional for housing the air conditioning, sleeper, dressing
authors to be a practical shape that does not present unusually and storage space, and chemical sanitation facilities.
difficult design problems to be made durable, highway legal,
and convenient. Through the use of lightweight, available Method
materials, the configuration need not cause an inordinate, or Drag Tests
perhaps any, weight penalty. It also is believed that a sub- The drag data were obtained by using the coastdown
stantial portion of the increased volume could be made method under carefully controlled conditions. With this
 314 L.L. STEERS AND E. J. SALTZMAN
method, the aerodynamic drag Da is not measured directly
but is calculated by subtracting the mechanical drag from the
4 I
'total" drag, which is obtained from measured quantities.
The most important advantage of this method is that dif-
ferences in aerodynamic drag between two configurations
having the same running gear can be defined by comparing
the values of "total" drag at a specific velocity. The term
"total drag" as used herein is a convenient misnomer that is
used for the net longitudinal force that can be derived directly
from the deceleration of the vehicle. Total drag is defined by
the equation
AK W effects of velocity on rolling resistance is a median between
D,=D,,,+Da =
Ll g
where the total drag is the sum of the mechanical drag Dm and
the aerodynamic drag Da. Because the manual transmission
was in neutral during each deceleration run, the mechanical
drag consisted of the tractive drag of the tires and bearings
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.47945
and the gear resistance back through the driveline to the
transmission, and the thrust from the rotational inertia of the
wheels and tires.
The test vehicle was accelerated to a speed slightly faster
than the starting velocity for each test, and the manual
transmission then was disengaged. The time required for the
test vehicle to decelerate through a series of preselected
velocity increments of 8.05 km/hr (5 mph) was measured by a
series of stopwatches. All of the stopwatches were started
simultaneously at the starting velocity, and each was stopped
individually at the end of its predesignated velocity interval.
The velocity values were generated by a calibrated, precision
fifth-wheel system and were displayed digitally on the in-
strument panel inside the cab of the test vehicle (Fig. 4). As
indicated in Refs. 25 and 28, results from tests using this
method agree well with results from tests using an ac-
celerometer method and torque measurements. Other ap-
proaches to the coastdown method, which are perhaps more
sophisticated, are given in Refs. 12, 13, 16, and 19.
For the coastdown method used herein, it is necessary to
subtract the tractive drag from the measured total drag and
add the rotational inertia thrust to define the aerodynamic
drag of a specific configuration. The force values assigned to
approximate the tractive portion of the mechanical drag for
the tractor-trailer combination are shown in Fig. 5. The data
point at low speed represents a value measured on the test
vehicle during towing and coastdown tests. The towing tests
utilized a direct-reading spring scale. As mentioned
previously, the baseline drag test vehicle later became the
carrier for the low-drag configuration, and, therefore, both
configurations had the same mechanical (nonaerodynamic)
drag characteristics.
Recorder
control box
Fig. 4 Instrument panel inside cab of tractor-trailer test vehicle.
J. ENERGY
V, mph
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1 1 1 1 1 1 I
, .. 2000 i- o Measured
Tractive _ Reference 5 _ _ _ I400 Tractive
drag, 1000 b' H 200 drag,
N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jo Ib
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
V, km/hr
Fig. 5 Example of variation of tractive drag with velocity.
The curve in Fig. 5 is based on an equation for rolling
resistance from Ref. 5. This equation for approximating the
the test results of Ref. 6, which showed the tire drag force
obtained from road tests to be largely independent of velocity,
and the results of Ref. 39, which showed larger velocity ef-
fects than those from Ref. 5. (Whether the larger velocity
effects shown in Ref. 39 represent rolling over a test drum or
over a flat surface is not certain.)
The thrust caused by the inertia of the tires, wheels,
brakedrums, and hubs was calculated based on the rotary
inertia of these components and the measured deceleration of
the wheels during coastdown. The inertia characteristics were
based on torsion pendulum measurements for the tires and
wheels, which were adjusted for the calculated inertias of the
brakedrums and hubs.
The coastdown tests were performed on a concrete runway
at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The elevation of the
runway was approximately 695 m (2280 ft), which provided
air density values of approximately 92% of standard sea level
values. The runway had an elevation gradient of ap-
proximately 0.125%. The effect of this gradient was
eliminated by averaging successive runs in opposite directions.
The drag data obtained for each configuration were based
on runs made under calm wind conditions. The coastdown
runs for both configurations were performed without airflow
through the radiator because previous experience had shown
that variable positioning of the thermostatically controlled
radiator shutters affected the drag.
For these drag tests, great attention was given to detail
when it helped to control, account for, or eliminate ex-
traneous variables, especially those with regard to winds,
weight, tire presure, or other factors affecting mechanical
drag. Thus, the primary goal, to define the incremental drag
changes associated with configuration changes, was achieved.
The method used to define absolute values for the
aerodynamic drag coefficients, however, was rather
elementary. Other investigators may want to apply one or
more adjustments to these results to allow comparison with
data from other studies on an absolute drag coefficient basis.
The adjustments may include the use of other approximations
for the effects of velocity on tire-rolling drag, the use of a
different reference area, accounting for cooling drag (the
radiator was covered in these tests), and the use of an ap-
proximation for the effects of velocity on coasting driveline
drag. Because of the way in which the previously listed items
were handled in this study, the resulting absolute aerodynamic
drag coefficients may be considered to be upper limit values,
and, consequently, the aerodynamic drag reduction per-
centages presented may be considered to be conservative.
In the present work, driveline drag has not been subtracted
from the total drag because of substantial uncertainty as to
how to obtain a realistic approximation of driveline drag for a
specific coasting condition. These uncertainties are discussed
in the Appendix.
Fuel-Consumption Tests
The fuel-consumption tests were performed on public
highways near Edwards (Fig. 6). The route was approximately
502 km (312 miles) long and consisted primarily of open road
with a small number of towns. There were no severe grades,
and so downshifting below tenth gear was not required. The
 SEPT.-OCT. 1977 REDUCED TRUCK FUEL CONSUMPTION THROUGH AERODYNAMIC DESIGN 315

Ridgecrest

Fig. 8 Comparison of 1200

total drag variation with 1000
velocity for baseline and
low-drag configur-
600
Fig. 6 Route for fuel ations.
400
consumption tests, 502 km 70 80 90
(312 miles). Barstow V, km/hr

function of velocity. These data are the same as those shown

in Refs. 22, 25, 28, and on p. 78 of Ref. 19 for a gap distance x
Victorville
of 157 cm (62 in.). Accelerometer data from an independent
sensor are included in Fig. 7 to provide confirmation of the
fifth-wheel stopwatch technique. However, the accelerometer
was not used for the tests on the low-drag configuration.
The baseline total drag curve from Fig. 7 is shown in Fig. 8
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.47945

V, mph
40 50 60
Fig. 7 Variation of
total drag with velocity
for baseline configur-
ation.
2000
100
V, km/hr
trailing vehicle followed the first vehicle at a distance of !/z
mile or more to prevent the trailing vehicle from being af-
fected by the wake of the first vehicle. Thus, both vehicles
encountered the same conditions, such as wind and traffic.
All of the fuel-consumption tests were performed at a cruising
speed of 88.5 km/hr (55 mph).
Ballast was used to maintain a similar weight for both
vehicles at the start of each run. Both tractors began each test
with the fuel tanks filled to a calibrated position. The fueling
after a test run was delayed until the following morning so
that the temperature of the fuel in the tractors and in the
supply tanks would be the same. The tractors and supply
tanks were housed routinely in the same environment to
eliminate temperature differences. All fueling operations were
done with the two tractors parked on the same level floor. The
amount of fuel required to fill the fuel tanks in each tractor
was determined by weight, which was corrected for day-to-
day temperature differences. Mileage for the fuel-
consumption runs was obtained from the calibrated tractor
and trailer odometers.
During the tests, radio communications were maintained
between the vehicles so that the crews could coordinate
shifting, engine start and stop times, and engine tachometer
readings. The radio also was used to coordinate the opening
and closing of windows and vents.
with the total drag data from the low-drag configuration for
the same vehicle gross weight and tractive drag. The per-
centage of reduction in total drag, which is relatively constant
with respect to velocity, is approximately 28% at velocities of
80.5 km/hr (50 mph) and above, and approximately 26% at
the lowest test velocities. The reduction in total drag force
provided by the low-drag configuration is approximately 1201
N (270 Ib) at 88.5 km/hr (55 mph) and approximately 1365 N
(307 Ib) at 96.5 km/hr (60 mph). This corresponds to a
reduction in power required of approximately 29.5 and 36.6
kW (40 and 49 hp) for the same respective speeds.
A erodynamic Drag
As indicated in the section on drag test methods and in the
Appendix, the definition of the absolute aerodynamic drag
force or the aerodynamic drag coefficient from coastdown
tests is dependent on the definition of the nonaerodynamic
drag components. Fortunately, an incremental change in drag
or drag coefficient can be defined with certainty in the present
experiment because the nonaerodynamic drag components did
not change from one configuration to the other.
With this situation in mind, the authors have taken an
approach that results in ACD values, which are defined with
certainty, and ACD/CDh/ values, which are conservative. This
approach also was used in Refs. 22, 25, and 28. The
aerodynamic drag coefficients and the incremental reduction
in the drag coefficient ACD produced by the low-drag con-
figuration for 88.5 km/hr (55 mph) are summarized in Table
2. The most significant parameter in Table 2 is the ACD of
-0.43. The ACD value and the absolute CD values were
derived from the physical quantities given in Table 3, a cross-
sectional area of 8.73 m 2 (94 ft 2 ), and a dynamic pressure of
340 N/m 2 (7.1 psf). Other investigators may want to
Table 2 Reduction in drag coefficient
AC
D
Configuration C
D AC
D C
D '
bl
percent
Baseline 1.17
Low drag 0.74 -0.43 -37
Table 3 Drag and thrust components

Results and Discussion Tractive drag,

Rotational D,.
Configuration N (Ib) thrust, N (Ib)
Drag N (Ib)
Total Drag
Baseline 1121 (252) 258 (58) 4346 (977)
In Fig. 7, total drag data for the test vehicle before Low drag 1121 (252) 187 (42) 3145 (707)
modification to the low-drag configuration are presented as a
 316 L.L. STEERS AND E. J. SALTZMAN J. ENERGY

recompute drag coefficients for comparison with other test
results, for which their own preferences for reference area,
tractive drag, or driveline drag may be used.
Further experience may provide a more refined definition
of the rolling drag and driveline drag for use under specific
coasting conditions. At that time, the factors necessary to
define aerodynamic drag better in an absolute sense may be
applied with greater confidence.
Comparison with Other Results
Other investigators have conducted tests to evaluate the
drag reductions obtainable by eliminating the gap or in-
creasing the radii of the front corners and edges, or both.
Results of some of the wind-tunnel model tests are reported in
Refs. 3 and 20. Results of full-scale tests of a related concept
referred to as a full-fairing configuration are presented in
Ref. 21.
Although none of the preceding studies represented con-
figurations that could be considered equivalent to the low-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.47945
the baseline value of CD used for the Ref. 20 study, 0.7, may
be too small, as is suggested by the experience of the present
authors and Ref. 24. Considering the significantly smaller
drag reductions provided by the other tests, 3 ' 20 ' 21 it is believed
that the previous studies did not reveal the actual potential for
drag reduction which refinement of the forebody and
elimination of the gap can provide.
Fuel Consumption
As for the fuel-consumption tests described in Refs. 25 and
28, it was necessary to compare the fuel consumption for the
unmodified version of the low-drag configuration test vehicle
with that of a similar baseline control vehicle so that the
effects of differences in engine performance and mechanical
drag could be determined. Two such test runs were made. The
results showed that the fuel consumption of the baseline
control vehicle averaged approximately 1.1 % less than that of
the companion vehicle, which was used later as the carrier for
the low-drag configuration.

drag configuration of the present study, they resemble the Coastdown tests of the baseline control vehicle showed that
present study in concept and are appropriate for comparison. it had a slightly lower total drag than the baseline version of
For the reasons mentioned in the previous section, the data the low-drag configuration carrier vehicle. This difference
comparisons are made on the basis of the reduction in may be due to the greater bearing and gear wear of the control
aerodynamic drag coefficient from the respective cab-over- vehicle, which had approximately 112,000 km (70,000 miles)
engine baseline configurations. The configurations and ACD more use. In any event, the baseline control vehicle had an
values are summarized in Table 4. For the configurations of advantage of approximately 1.1% in lower fuel consumption
Refs. 3 and 21, the large radii did not incorporate all four for the loading and driving conditions of the test course.
forebody corners and edges; thus, the low-drag configuration The results of the fuel-consumption runs are summarized in
of the present tests provided a drag coefficient reduction Table 5. Tests 1 and 2 were made before a baseline control
approximately 21/2 times larger than the reductions obtained vehicle was available. To provide an estimate of the im-
in Refs. 3 and 21. provement in fuel consumption for these tests, the average
The aerodynamically improved configuration of Ref. 20 fuel-consumption values for all baseline vehicle tests made in
had proportionately larger corner and edge radii than the low- similar wind conditions (12 tests for light winds and three tests
drag configuration of the present study. In spite of this ap- for near-calm winds) were used for control values. These
parent advantage for the Ref. 20 configuration, the low-drag values and the corresponding calculated percentage of
configuration provided a drag coefficient reduction ACD of reduction in fuel consumption are noted in the table. The
-0.43, which was 1 Vi times larger than that obtained with the remaining tests included a baseline control vehicle. The values
Ref. 20 configuration. A possible explanation for this is that for the percentage of reduction in fuel consumption with and
without the adjustment for the 1.1 % low-drag configuration
handicap also are shown in Table 5.
Table 4 Comparison of reduction in drag coefficient for low-drag A conservative interpretation of these results indicates that
configuration and related studies the improvement in fuel consumption approaches 20% for
light wind conditions and up to 24% for near-calm wind
Configuration
ACD based on conditions for a cruise speed of 88.5 km/hr (55 mph). It is
Reference well known that the improvements would diminish with in-
Large front radii
Faired creased wind velocities. Examples of this are reported in Refs.
gap Horizontal Vertical 25 and 28.
3 1/8 Yes No Yes -0.16 -0.17 Other factors that affect fuel consumption are the
20 1/20 Yes Yes Yes -0.26 8 -0.28 3
21 Full Yes Top only No -0.16 -0.17
mechanical condition of the engine, the terrain, driving
Present technique, variations in speed, and the vehicle gross weight.
Full Yes Yes Yes -0.43
Results of computer simulations performed by Eric Withjack
From a comparison of CD for the aerodynamically improved model with CD of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Transportation
- 0.7, which was extracted from the literature by the authors of Ref. 20. Systems Center are included in Ref. 28. These simulations

Table 5 Results of fuel-consumption tests

Baseline control vehicle Low drag vehicle Reduction Adjusted

reduction
Average
Winds wind velocity
Test in fuel in fuel
consumption , on route at Edwards ,
Fuel consumption, Fuel consumption, consumption , (qualitative)
Driver Driver km/liter (miles/gal) percent m/sec (knots)
km/liter (miles/ gal) percent

__ 19. 5b __
1 2.25 (5.28) a A 2 . 6 8 (6.31) Light 5.1 (10)
2 2 . 2 6 (5.31) a A 2.86 (6.73) 26. 7b Near calm 1.0 (2)
3 B 2.22 (5.22) A 2 . 6 2 (6.16) 18.0 19.3 Light 2.6 (5)
4 A 2.22 (5.22) B 2.64 (6.20) 18.8 20.1 Light 2.1 (4)
5 B . 2 . 2 4 (5.28) A 2.75 (6.47) 22.5 23.9 Near calm 1.0 (2)
6 A 2.23 (5.24) B 2.77 (6.52) 24.4 25.8 Near calm 2.1 (4)

a
Average values for a baseline vehicle under similar wind conditions.
Calculated from average values for a baseline vehicle.
 SEPT.-OCT. 1977 REDUCED TRUCK FUEL CONSUMPTION THROUGH AERODYNAMIC DESIGN
assess the effect on fuel consumption of variations in drag
coefficient and gross weight for tractor-trailer vehicles.
According to Withjack's simulation, a reduction in the
aerodynamic drag coefficient ACD of 0.43 from an initial
value of 1.17 reduces fuel consumption by 24% for calm
winds and a vehicle gross weight of 14,773 kg (32,500 Ib). This
is in agreement with the fuel-consumption results reported
herein for the baseline control and low-drag configurations.
Withjack's corresponding results for a vehicle gross weight of
31,818 kg (70,000 Ib) show a smaller reduction: 19 to 20%.
These results provide a reasonable approximation of the
reduction that could be expected for an operational ap-
plication for the low-drag concept for open highway driving
in calm conditions, bearing in mind that reductions will be
smaller at lower speeds and for stop-and-go driving. Note that
the fuel-consumption improvements presented herein are
exclusively the result of reduced aerodynamic drag because
more efficient engines, drivelines, accessories, or tires were
not used in this experiment.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.47945
Concluding Remarks
Coastdown drag tests and on-the-road fuel consumption
tests of a baseline version of a cab-over-engine tractor-trailer
combination and a low-drag modified configuration were
made. Although the tests were conducted at various speeds,
the results presented here are for speeds of 88.5 km/hr (55
mph) in calm and nearly calm wind conditions.
The reduction in fuel consumption provided by the low-
drag configuration was approximately 24% for the lightly
loaded test vehicle. Simulator studies have projected these
results to a reduction in fuel consumption of approximately
20% for normally loaded trucks operating under otherwise
similar conditions. These reductions in fuel consumption are
exclusively the result of reduced aerodynamic drag; more
efficient engines, drivelines, accessories, and tires were not
used in this experiment.
The low-drag configuration provided a reduction in total
drag (the sum of aerodynamic and mechanical drag) of ap-
proximately 28% at velocities of 80.5 km/hr (50 mph) and
above. The reduction in the aerodynamic drag coefficient
provided by the low-drag configuration was 0.43 from a
baseline value of 1.17. This reduction is significantly larger
than drag reductions obtained through other attempts to
improve forebody aerodynamics by increasing corner and
edge radii and eliminating the gap. The present results are
considered to be reliable indicators of the actual potential for
reduction of aerodynamic drag, independent of other possible
underbody or base modifications.
Appendix: Uncertainties of Driveline Drag
Driveline drag data obtained from spindown tests are
presented in Ref. 40. In addition, Ref. 6 and the discussion
accompanying Ref. 6 present values of driveline drag intended
for application to coastdown data. There is a significant
difference between the two sets of driveline drag data from
Ref. 6 (approximately a factor of 2 for a tandem-axle hypoid
driveline). The values from the main part of Ref. 6 were
obtained from spindown tests performed with the wheels of
the test vehicle jacked up off the road. It is not clear how the
values presented in the discussion were obtained, but they are
fairly close to unpublished values for a comparable driveline
that was bench-tested by measuring the power required to
drive the system from the axle end of the system at a constant
rotary speed.
One would expect the gear-loading conditions for spindown
tests to be different from those for constant rotary speed tests,
and this difference may be the cause of the twofold difference
noted previously. In any event, the gear loading for a given
system during a coastdown test on a roadway is believed to be
uniquely dependent on the aerodynamic drag, which dictates
the deceleration rate of the driveline, and different from any
of the gear loadings for the results shown in Refs. 6 and 40.
317
Therefore, driveline drag data from Refs. 6 and 40 are not
subtracted from the total drag values reported herein in
calculating aerodynamic drag.
A method that would theoretically account for the proper
driveline drag, bearing drag, tire drag, and rotary inertia
effects during coastdown tests is illustrated on p. 151 of Ref.
21. Unfortunately, the method's requirement for ideally
steady headwinds and tailwinds and a smooth, level, hard test
surface would be very difficult to achieve.
Acknowledgments
The authors want to acknowledge the truck test drivers,
Ralph H. Sparks and Glenn E. Angle, for their dependability
and patient attention to detail. In addition, the authors
acknowledge Steven J. Grier, Paul A. Hutchinson, and Steven
P. Unander for their diligent monitoring, observing, and
record keeping, which was a necessary part of the fuel-
economy tests.
References
'Sherwood, A.W., "Wind Tunnel Test of Trailmobile Trailers,"
Univ. of Maryland, Wind Tunnel Rept., No. 85, June 1953.
2
Schlichting, H., "Aerodynamic Problems of Motor Cars,"
AGARD Rept. 307, Get. 1960.
3
F l y n n , H. and Kyropoulos, P., "Truck Aerodynamics," SAE
Transactions 1962, Vol. 70, 1962, pp. 297-308.
4
Cornish, J . J . , I I I and Fortson, C.B., "Aerodynamic Drag
Characteristics of Forty-Eight Automobiles," Dept. of Aerophysies,
Mississippi State U n i v . , Res. Note 23, June 1964.
5
Hoerner, S.F., "Fluid-Dynamic Drag," published by the author,
1965.
6
Anderson, J.W., Firey, J.C., Ford, P.W., and Kieling, W.C.,
"Truck Drag Components by Road Test Measurement," SAE
Transactions'1965, Vol. 73, 1965, pp. 148-159, 186.
7
Larrabee, E.E., "Small Scale Research in Automobile
Aerodynamics," Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper SAE
660384, June 1966.
8
Gross, D.S. and Sekscienski, W.S., "Some Problems Concerning
Wind Tunnel Testing of Automotive Vehicles," Society of
A u t o m o t i v e Engineers, Paper SAE 660385, June 1966.
9
T u r n e r , T.R., "Wind-Tunnel Investigation of a 3/s-Scale
Automobile Model Over a Moving-Belt Ground Plane," NASA TN
D-4229, Nov. 1967.
1()
Carr, G.W., "The Aerodynamics of Basic Shapes for Road
Vehicles. Part 1Simple Rectangular Bodies," Motor Industry
Research Assn., Rept. 1968/2, Nov. 1967.
" W h i t e , R.G.S., "A Method of Estimating Automobile Drag
Coefficients," Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper SAE 690189,
Jan.1969.
12
White, R.A. and Korst, H.H., "The Determination of Vehicle
Drag Contributions from Coast-Down Tests," Society of Automotive
Engineers, Paper SAE 720099, Jan. 1972.
13
Roussillon, G., Marzin, J., and Bourhis, J., "Contribution to the
Accurate Measurement of Aerodynamic Drag by the Deceleration
Method," Advances in Road Vehicle Aerodynamics 1973, edited by
H.S. Stephens, B H R A Fluid Engineering, Cranfield, England, 1973,
pp. 53-62.
14
Kirsch, J.W., Garg, S.K., and Bettes, W., "Drag Reduction of
Bluff Vehicles With Airvanes," Society of Automotive Engineers,
Paper SAE 730686, 1973.
15
Ritchie, D., "How to Beat the Built-in Headwind," Owner
Operator, May-June 1973, pp. 89-99.
16
Dayman, B., Jr., "Effects of Realistic Tire Rolling Resistance
upon the Determination of Aerodynamic Drag from Road-Vehicle
Coast-Down Tests," Proceedings of the Second AIA A Symposium on
Aerodynamics of Sports and Competition Automobiles, Vol. 16,
Western Periodicals, Los Angeles, Calif., 1975, pp. 229-238.
17
Saltzman, E.J. and Meyer, R . R . , Jr., "Drag Reduction Obtained
by Rounding Vertical Corners on a Box-Shaped Ground Vehicle,"
NASA TM X-56023, March 1974.
i8
Saltzman, E.J., Meyer, R . R . , Jr., and Lux, D.P., "Drag
Reductions Obtained by Modifying a Box-Shaped Ground Vehicle,"
NASA TMX-56027, Oct. 1974/
19
L i s s a m a n , P.B.S., (ed), Proceedings of the Con-
ference/Workshop on Reduction of the Aerodynamic Drag of
Trucks, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1974.
 318 L.L. STEERS AND E.J. SALTZMAN J. ENERGY

20
Bauer, P.T. and Servais, R.A., "An Experimental and
Analytical Investigation of Truck Aerodynamics," Proceedings of the
Conference/Workshop on Reduction of the Aerodynamic Drag of
Trucks, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1974,
pp.2155-61.
Lissaman, P.B.S. and Lambie, J . H . , "Reduction of
Aerodynamic Drag of Large Highway Trucks," Proceedings of the
Conference/Workshop on Reduction of the Aerodynamic Drag of
Trucks, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1974,
pp. 139-151.
22
Montoya, L.C. and Steers, L.L., "Aerodynamic Drag Reduction
Tests on a Full-Scale Tractor-Trailer Combination With Several Add-
On Devices," NASATM X-56028, Dec. 1974.
23
Bauer, P.T. and Servais, R.A., "Criteria for Choosing and
Evaluating Aerodynamic Devices for Reducing Fuel Consumption of
Trucks," Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper SAE 750701, Aug.
1975.
24
Lissaman, P.B.S., "Development of Devices to Reduce the
Aerodynamic Resistance of Trucks," Society of Automotive
Engineers, Paper SAE 750702, Aug. 1975.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.47945
28
Steers, L.L. and Montoya, L.C., "Study of Aerodynamic Drag
Reduction on a Full-Scale Tractor-Trailer," U.S. Dept. of Trans-
portation, Rept. DOT-TSC-OST-76-13, April 1976.
29
Marte, J.E., Weaver, R.W., Kurtz, D.W., and Dayman, B., Jr.,
"A Study of Automotive Aerodynamic Drag," U.S. Dept. of
Transportation, Rept. DOT-TSC-OST-75-28, Sept. 1975.
30
Burke, C.E., Nagler, L.H., Campbell, E.C., Zierer, W.E.,
Welch, H.L., Lundstrom, L.C., Rosier, T.D., and McConnell, W.A.,
"Where Does All the Power Go?" SAE Transactions, Vol. 65, 1957,
pp.713-738.
31
Curtiss, W.W., "Low Power Loss Tires," Society of Automotive
Engineers, Paper SAE 690108, Jan. 1969.
32
Smith, G.L., "Commercial Vehicle Performance and Fuel
Economy," Society of Automotive Engineers, SP-355, Jan. 1970.
33
"Energy and the Automobile," Society of Automotive
Engineers, SP-383, July 1973.
34
Austin, T.C. and Hellman, K.H., "Passenger Car Fuel
EconomyTrends and Influencing Factors," Society of Automotive
Engineers, Paper SAE 730790, 1973.
35
LaPointe, C., "Factors Affecting Vehicle Fuel Economy,"

25
Steers, L.L., Montoya, L.C., and Saltzman, E . J . ,
"Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Tests on a Full-Scale Tractor-Trailer
Combination and a Representative Box-Shaped Ground Vehicle,"
Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper SAE 750703, Aug. 1975.
26
Buckley, F.T., Jr. and Sekscienski, W.S., "Comparisons of
Effectiveness of Commercially Available Devices for the Reduction of
Aerodynamic Drag on Tractor-Trailers," Society of Automotive
Engineers, Paper SAE 750704, Aug. 1975.
27
Mason, W.T., J r . , "Wind Tunnel Development of the
DragfoilerA System for Reducing Tractor-Trailer Aerodynamic
Drag," Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper SAE 750705, Aug.
1975.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Paper SAE 730791, Sept. 1973.
36
"The Mileage Misers," Heavy Duty Trucking, March 1975.
37
"News TrendsNew Truck Burns Much Less Fuel," Machine
Design, Aug. 7, 1975, p. 12.
38
Windsor, J. and Cross, R., "Fuel Economy," Owner Operator,
March-April 1976, pp. 82-90.
39
Davisson, J.A., "Design and Application of Commercial Type
Tires," Society of Automotive Engineers, SP-344, Jan. 1969.
40
Walston, W.H., Jr., Buckley, F.T., Jr., and Marks, C.H., "Test
Procedures for the Evaluation of Aerodynamic Drag on Full-Scale
Vehicles in Windy Enviro[n]ments," Society of Automotive
Engineers, Paper SAE 760106, Feb. 1976.

From the AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series

AERODYNAMICS OF BASE COMBUSTIONv. 40

Edited by S.N.B. Murthy and J.R. Osborn, Purdue University,
A. W. Barrows and J.R. Ward, Ballistics Research Laboratories

It is generally the objective of the designer of a moving vehicle to reduce the base dragthat is, to raise the base pressure to a
value as close as possible to the freestream pressure. The most direct and obvious method of achieving this is to shape the body
appropriatelyfor example, through boattailing or by introducing attachments. However, it is not feasible in all cases to
make such geometrical changes, and then one may consider the possibility of injecting a fluid into the base region to raise the
base pressure. This book is especially devoted to a study of the various aspects of base flow control through injection and
combustion in the base region.
The determination of an optimal scheme of injection and combustion for reducing base drag requires an examination of the
total flowfield, including the effects of Reynolds number and Mach number, and requires also a knowledge of the burning
characteristics of the fuels that may be used for this purpose. The location of injection is also an important parameter,
especially when there is combustion. There is engineering interest both in injection through the base and injection upstream of
the base corner. Combustion upstream of the base corner is commonly referred to as external combustion. This book deals
with both base and external combustion under small and large injection conditions.
The problem of base pressure control through the use of a properly placed combustion source requires background
knowledge of both the fluid mechanics of wakes and base flows and the combustion characteristics of high-energy fuels such
as powdered metals. The first paper in this volume is an extensive review of the fluid-mechanical literature on wakes and base
flows, which may serve as a guide to the reader in his study of this aspect of the base pressure control problem.

522pp., 6x9, illus. $19.00 Mem. $35.00 List

TO ORDER WRITE. Publications Dept . AIAA. 1290 Avenue of the Amencas. New York, N. Y. 10019