Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 67

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001

SURFACE
VEHICLE
INFORMATION
REPORT

ISSUED
JAN93

J2084

Issued

1993-01

AERODYNAMIC TESTING OF ROAD VEHICLESTESTING METHODS AND PROCEDURES

ForewordThis Document has not been changed other than to put it into the new SAE Technical Standards Board
Format.
This report is part of a series of SAE Technical Reports dealing with Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles, which
to date comprises:
SAE HS J1566Aerodynamic Flow Visualization Techniques and Procedures
SAE J1594Vehicle Aerodynamics Terminology
SAE J2071Open-Jet Wind-Tunnel Boundary Interference
SAE J2085Solid-Wall Wind-Tunnel Boundary Interference
SAE J2082Cooling Flow Measurement Techniques
This SAE Information Report has been developed from an earlier SAE Recommended Practice (1) 1 which set out
test procedures for measuring the aerodynamic characteristics of heavy-duty trucks and buses using established
wind-tunnel model testing techniques. The Information Report provides the rationale and the background behind
the recommended test techniques in that Recommended Practice. It also outlines additional techniques that are
useful in wind-tunnel testing, but which have not yet gained the level of acceptance needed for an SAE
recommended practice.
The objective of both the Recommended Practice and the Information Report is to provide guidance for the
engineer tasked with carrying out wind-tunnel testing on a road vehicle, for whatever purpose. Use of the
procedures described should improve the comparability of aerodynamic data taken in different wind-tunnels and
should ensure that good quality data are obtained.
The present Information Report covers a broader range of vehicles than the Recommended Practice (1). In
addition to trucks and buses, which are mostly tested at reduced scale in order to match the sizes of wind-tunnels
commonly available, this report deals with tests on smaller vehicles, such as automobiles, motorcycles, and racing
cars, which are very often tested at full scale.

1. Numbers in parentheses denote references in Section 2.


SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely
voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising therefrom, is the sole responsibility of the user.
SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revised, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and suggestions.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS DOCUMENT: (724) 772-8512 FAX: (724) 776-0243
TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER; (724) 776-4970 FAX: (724) 776-0790
SAE WEB ADDRESS http://www.sae.org
Copyright 1993 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
All rights reserved.

Printed in U.S.A.

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.

Scope........................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.

References................................................................................................................................................ 3

3.

Objectives of Wind-Tunnel Testing ............................................................................................................ 5

4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4

Aerodynamic Requirements of Test Facilities ........................................................................................... 6


Types of Test Section ................................................................................................................................ 6
Ground Simulation .................................................................................................................................... 9
Flow Quality ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Reynolds Number Requirements............................................................................................................ 17

5.
5.1
5.2
5.3

Facility Equipment Requirements ........................................................................................................... 23


Model/Vehicle Installation ....................................................................................................................... 23
Instrumentation ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Data Acquisition ...................................................................................................................................... 29

6.
6.1
6.2

Model/Vehicle Requirements .................................................................................................................. 31


Full-Scale Testing.................................................................................................................................... 31
Small-Scale Testing ................................................................................................................................ 35

7.
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4

Test Methods and Procedures ................................................................................................................ 38


Force Measurements .............................................................................................................................. 38
Surface Pressure Measurements ........................................................................................................... 41
Flow-field Measurements........................................................................................................................ 43
Flow Visualization ................................................................................................................................... 47

8.
8.1
8.2
8.3

Data Reduction, Analysis, and Presentation........................................................................................... 48


Notation and Presentation ...................................................................................................................... 48
Corrections ............................................................................................................................................. 50
Validity/Applicability................................................................................................................................. 53

APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................................................. 55
APPENDIX B.............................................................................................................................................................. 56

-2-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


1.

ScopeThe scope of this SAE Information Report is confined to wind-tunnel testing, although it is recognized
that many aspects of the aerodynamic characteristics of road vehicles can be investigated in other test facilities
(such as water-tanks) or, especially, on the road. For example, coastdown testing is often used to determine
aerodynamic drag (either in isolation or as part of the total resistance), and artificial gust generators are used
to investigate the sensitivity of vehicles to cross-wind gusts.
Also excluded from the present Report are climatic wind-tunnel tests of road vehicles, which are defined in
more detail in Section 3.
The Report covers the aerodynamic requirements of a wind-tunnel for automotive testing, together with the
facility equipment needed and the requirements affecting the test vehicle or model. The test methods and
procedures described here include those for six-component force measurements and measurements of
pressures and velocities both on the vehicle/model surface and in the surrounding flow-field.
Flow visualization techniques are outlined, with reference to the detailed coverage in a related SAE Information
Report (2). In addition, the reduction, analysis, and presentation of wind-tunnel data are considered, with
further references to associated SAE Information Reports (3,4) on corrections to be applied for wind-tunnel
blockage effects. Finally, methods are discussed for the validation of the wind-tunnel data, e.g., by tunnel-toroad correlation studies.
As already indicated, this document has been prepared in conjunction with a number of other SAE Information
Reports and Recommended Practices (15), each of which provides greater detail than is given here on its
particular aspect of automotive aerodynamic testing.

2.

References

2.1

Applicable PublicationsThe following publications form a part of this specification to the extent specified
herein. The latest issue of SAE publications shall apply.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.
13.

SAE J1252SAE Wind-Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses


HS J1566Aerodynamic Flow Visualization Techniques and Procedures
SAE J2071Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles: Open-Jet Wind-Tunnel Boundary Interference
SAE J2085Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles: Solid-Wall Wind-Tunnel Boundary Interference
SAE J1594Vehicle Aerodynamics Terminology
SCHLICHTING, H., Boundary-Layer Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, (1979)
VAN DYKE, M., Higher Order Boundary Layer Theory. Annual Review of Fluid Mech. I, pp 265292
(1969)
WIEDEMANN, J., Some Basic Investigations into the Principles of Ground Simulation Techniques in
Automotive Wind-Tunnels, SAE Paper 890369, Detroit, (1989)
BEESE, E., Untersuchungen zum Einflusse der Reynolds-Zahl auf die Aerodynamischen Beiwerte von
Tragflgelprofilen in Bodennhe, Dissertation, Fakultt fr Maschinenbau, Ruhr- Universitt Bochum,
(1982)
BERNDTSSON, A., ECKERT, W.T. AND MERCKER, E., The Effect of Groundplane Boundary Layer
Control on Automotive Testing in a Wind Tunnel, SAE Paper 880248, Detroit (1988)
CARR, G.W., A Comparison of the Ground-Plane-Suction and Moving-Belt Ground-Representation
Techniques, SAE Paper 880249, Detroit (1988)
HACKETT, J.E. and BOLES, R.A., Moving-Ground Simulation by Targential Blowing, J. Aircraft, Vol.
16, No. 12, Article No. 78-814R, December (1979)
MERCKER, E., and WIEDEMANN, J., Comparison of Different Ground-Simulation Techniques for Use
in Automotive Wind-Tunnels, SAE Paper 900321, Detroit (1990)

-3-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


14. RAE, W. H., Jr., POPE, A., Low Speed Wind-Tunnel Testing, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New
York (1984)
15. PANKHURST, R.C., HOLDER, D.W., Wind-Tunnel Technique, Pitmans, London (1965)
16. HUCHO, W-H., Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles, Butterworths & Co, Cambridge (1987)
17. OWER, E., PANKHURST, R.C., The Measurement of Air Flow, 5th Edition, Pergamon Press, Oxford
(1977)
18. BRITISH STANDARD, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits, Section 2.1 Method Using PitotStatic Tubes, BS1042:Section 2.1:1983, ISO 3966-1977, London (1983)
19. MICHEL, V., FROEBEL, E., Definition and Lowest Possible Levels of Wind-Tunnel Turbulence, WindTunnels and Testing Techniques, AGARD Conference Proceedings 348 (1983)
20. SEIDEL, M., et al, Construction 19761980, Design, Manufacturing and Calibration of the DeutschNiederlndischer Wind kanal DNW, Published by DNW, Emmeloord (1982)
21. KELLY, K.B., PROVENCHER, L.G., SCHENKEL, F.K., The General Motors Engineering Staff
Aerodynamics LaboratoryA Full Scale Automotive Wind-Tunnel, SAE Paper 820371, Detroit (1982)
22. NILSSON, L.U., BERNDTSSON, A., The New Volvo Multi-purpose Automotive Wind-Tunnel, SAE
Paper 870249, Detroit (1987)
23. VAGT, J.D., WOLFF, B., Special Design Features and Their Influence on Flow Quality: Test Results
from Porsche's New Wind-Tunnel, AutoTech 1987, London (1987)
24. SARDOU, M., The Sensitivity of Wind-Tunnel Data to a High-Speed Moving Ground for Different Types
of Road Vehicles, SAE Paper 880246, Detroit (1988)
25. COOPER, K.R., The Effect of Front-Edge Rounding and Rear-Edge Shaping on the Aerodynamics of
Bluff Vehicles in Ground Proximity, SAE Paper 850288, Detroit (1985)
26. GILHAUS, A., The Main Parameters Determining the Aerodynamic Drag of Buses, Proceedings of
Colloquium: Designing with the Wind, CSTB Nantes, June 1981
27. GILHAUS, A., Aerodynamics of Heavy Commercial Vehicles, Short Course: Vehicle Aerodynamics,
von Karman Institute, January 1984
28. BEAUVAIS, F.N., TIGNOR, S.C., TURNER, T.R., Problems of Ground Simulation in Automotive
Aerodynamics, SAE Paper 680121, Detroit (1968)
29. HUCHO, W-H., JANSSEN, L.J., Flow Visualization Technique in Vehicle Aerodynamics, Proceedings
International Symposium on Flow Visualization, Tokyo (1977)
30. THE JAPAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, Visualised Flow, English Edition, Pergamon
Press, Oxford (1988)
31. VE'RET, C., Flow Visualization IV, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Flow
Visualization in Paris, Hemisphere Publishing Corp, New York (1987)
32. GORLIN, S. M., SLEZINGER, I.I., Wind-Tunnels and Their Instrumentation, Jerusalem (1966).
33. COGOTTI, A., Flow Field Surveys behind Three Squareback Car Models using a new "Fourteen-hole"
Probe, SAE Paper 870243
34. PREUSSER, T., POLANSKY, L., GIESECKE, P., Advances in the Development of Wind-Tunnel
Balances Systems for Experimental Automotive Aerodynamics, SAE Paper 890370
35. COGOTTI, A., A Strategy for Optimum Surveys of Passenger Car Flow Fields, SAE 890374.
36. WIEDEMANN, J., Grenzen und Mglichkeiten der Modelltechnik innerhalb der Kraftfahrzeug
Aerodynamik, Symposium No. T-30-905-056-7 "Aerodynamik des Kraftfahrzeugs". Haus der Technik,
Essen, FRG, (1987)
37. WIEDEMANN, J., and EWALD, B., Turbulence Manipulation to Increase Effective Reynolds Numbers
in Vehicle Aerodynamics, AIAA Journal, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 763769, June 1989
38. SCHLICHTING, H., and TRUCKENBRODT, E., Aerodynamics of the Airplane, McGraw-Hill, New York,
(1979)
39. WIEDEMANN, J., Theoretical and Experimental Optimization of the Road-Vehicle Internal Flow, Von
Karman Institute For Fluid Dynamics Lecture Series 1986-05 on Vehicle Aerodynamics, Rhode-St.Genese (Belgium), March 1721, (1986)

-4-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


40. SOJA, H., and WIEDEMANN, J., The Interference Between Exterior and Interior Flow on Road
Vehicles, Societe des Ingenieurs de l'Automobile (S.I.A.), Journe d'tude: Dynamique du Vehicule
Securite Active, June 1617, (1987)
41. BEECK, M.A., and STOFFREGEN, B., Measurement of the Projected Frontal Area of VehiclesA
New Contour-Tracking Laser Device in Comparison to Other Methods, SAE Paper 870246, Detroit,
1987
42. BUCHHEIM, R., et al, Advanced Experimental Techniques and Their Application to Automotive
Aerodynamics, SAE Paper 870244, Detroit, 1987
43. COGOTTI, A., A Two Component Fiber-Optic LDV System for Automotive Aerodynamics Research,
SAE Paper 880252, Detroit, 1988
44. BUCKLEY, F.T., and SEKSCIENSKI, W.S., Comparisons of Effectiveness of Commercially Available
Devices for the Reduction of Aerodynamic Drag on Tractor-Trailers, SAE Paper 750704, Seattle, 1975
45. COOPER, K.R., A Wind-Tunnel Investigation into the Fuel Savings Available for the Aerodynamic Drag
Reduction of Trucks, DME/NAE Quarterly Bulletin No 1976 (3), National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, 1976
46. SAE/RCCC In-Service Fuel Economy Tests, Type 1 and Type 11 Procedures
47. CARR, G.W. and ROSE, M.J., Correlation of Full-Scale Wind-Tunnel and Road Measurements of
Aerodynamic Drag, MIRA Report 1964/5
48. COSTELLI, A., et al, Fiat Research Center Reference Car: Correlation Tests Between Four Full-Scale
European Wind-Tunnels and Road, SAE Paper 810187, Detroit, 1981
49. COOPER, K.R., MASON, W.T., Jr., and BETTES, W.H., Correlation Experience with the SAE WindTunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses, SAE Paper 820375, Detroit, 1982
50. FANGER-VEXLER, S., et al, Full Scale, On-Road Study of the Effects of Automobile Shape on its
Aerodynamic Characteristics, and Comparison with Small-Scale Wind-Tunnel Results, SAE Paper
850287, Detroit, 1985
51. SAUNDERS, J.W., et al, Comparison of On-Road and Wind-Tunnel Tests for Tractor-Trailer
Aerodynamic Devices, and Fuel Savings Predictions, SAE Paper 850286, Detroit, 1985
52. EAKER, G.W., Wind-Tunnel-to-Road Aerodynamic Drag Correlation, SAE Paper 880250, Detroit, 1988
53. IWASE, H., YAMADA, S., and KOGA, H., A New Approach to Measuring Road Load by Chassis
Dynamometer and Wind-Tunnel Tests, SAE Paper 820377, Detroit, 1982
54. HACKETT, J.E., et al, On the Influence of Ground Movement and Wheel Rotation in Tests on Modern
Car Shapes, SAE Paper 870245, Detroit, 1987
55. BUCKLEY, F.T., Jr., An Improved Over-the-Road Test Method for Determining the Fuel Savings Benefit
of a Truck Aerodynamic Drag-Reducing Device, SAE Paper 850285, Detroit, 1985
3.

Objectives of Wind-Tunnel-TestingThe objectives of automotive wind-tunnel testing are many and varied.
Wind-tunnel testing is mainly carried out in the course of the development either of a new vehicle or of a new
variant of an existing vehicle. It then has the objective of meeting specific or implied design targets within such
constraints as styling, packaging, legislation and, of course, cost.
The achievement of vehicle performance and fuel economy targets requires that aerodynamic drag is kept
within certain limits. At the same time, to realize the required standards of vehicle stability, the other five
components of aerodynamic force (i.e., the lift and side forces and the pitching, yawing, and rolling moments)
also need to be limited appropriately. To ensure that the resulting target values are attained, wind-tunnel
measurements of all six components are made, and these measurements may be repeated many times as a
particular vehicle design is gradually refined until all the targets are reached, within the constraints mentioned
previously.

-5-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


The control of operating temperatures of vehicle components within known acceptable levels is another
objective in automotive wind-tunnel testing. In most cases, the necessary development work is covered in a
program of cooling tests, usually in a climatic wind-tunnel, where the temperature of the airstream can be set
within a typical range of from 40 to +50 C (40 to +122 F). These tests involve the measurement of
temperatures at a number of locations on the vehicle, together with the monitoring of certain related
parameters, such as coolant flow rate, fan speed and engine speed, and loading. In some cases, the
effectiveness of component cooling systems may be inferred in a non-climatic wind-tunnel from measurements
of local air velocities or from flow visualization.
The control of air temperature (and humidity) within passenger compartments in vehicles, for reasons of
comfort, provides a further objective for wind-tunnel testing, and this work is also mostly conducted in a climatic
facility, with measurements of temperature and other parameters as in the cooling tests mentioned previously.
Again, some aspects of the associated development work, such as determining the performance
characteristics of the vehicle ventilation system, can be carried out in a non-climatic wind-tunnel, through
velocity and pressure measurements.
Passenger comfort is also affected by aerodynamic noise (or 'wind noise'), and wind-tunnel testing is used in
the development of vehicles to achieve acceptable interior noise levels. Although appropriate techniques for
determining these noise levels in the wind-tunnel are required in order to establish whether targets have been
met, useful development work can be carried out using surface pressure measurements and flow visualization
methods which permit the identification of the regions of flow separation that are the principal source of
external aerodynamic noise.
Other objectives of wind-tunnel testing include the elimination of windshield wiper lift and the prevention of
ingress of dust and exhaust gases, together with the control of wet-road spray and the resulting dirt deposition
on windows and external mirrors. Wiper lift can be either measured directly or inferred from wiping patterns,
and flow visualization techniques can assist in the achievement of the objectives relating to dust and gas
ingress and spray and dirt deposition. Pressure measurements, too, are of assistance in dealing with potential
problems of dust and exhaust gas ingress.
4.

Aerodynamic Requirements of Test Facilities

4.1

Types of Test SectionThe wind-tunnels used in industry and research centers for full-scale automotive
testing are listed in Table 1. The cross-sectional area of the test sections varies between 10 m2 and 90 m2.
Beyond that, innumerable wind-tunnels for small-scale testing are in operation all over the world.
As Figure 1 illustrates, wind-tunnel test sections for automotive testing may be closed, where the entire test
section is bounded by solid walls, or semi-open, where the test section is bounded only by a floor representing
the road. Recent alternatives are vented-wall sections, where the sidewalls and ceiling are slotted or
perforated, representing something between a solid-walled and an open section, or an adaptive wall test
section where the wall and ceiling contours may be adjusted as desired.

-6-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE 1TYPES OF TEST SECTION

-7-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

TABLE 1WIND-TUNNELS FOR FULL-SCALE AUTOMOBILE AERODYNAMICS


AT

LM

Vmax

(m2)

(m)

(km/h)

TS

P
(kW)

BMW

20.0

12.50

160

3.66

BMW

10.0

9.83

250

3.00

Daimler-Benz

32.6

10.00

270

3.53

4 000

DNW

90.25

20.00

220

4.80

12 700

48.0

20.00

400

9.00

12 700

36.0

16.00

540

12.00

12 700

Fiat

30.0

10.50

200

4.00

1 865

FKFS

22.5

9.50

220

4.41

2 500

Ford (Cologne)

24.0/8.6

10.30

182/298

4.80

1 650/1 960

General Motors

56.3

21.3

250

5.00

2 984

St. Cyr (S4)

15.0

10.00

144

sw

5.00

516

St. Cyr (S10)

15.0

10.00

205

sw

7.70

1 000

JARI

12.0

10.00

205

4.06

1 200

Lockheed-Georgia

35.1

13.10

406

7.02

6 700

Mazda

24.0

12.00

230

6.00

1 600

MIRA

34.9

15.24

133

1.45

Mitsubishi

24.0

12.00

216

NAMI

27.0

18.00

180

sw

5.85

1 500

Nippon Soken

17.5/12.0

12.5/8.5

120/200

3.66

1 450

Nissan

28.5/15.0

12.00

190/270

6.43/12.0

2 200

NRC

81.9

22.90

200

6.00

6 700

Pininfarina

11.7

8.00

185

6.50

1 080

Porsche

22.3

12.00

230

sw

6.06

2 200

Toyota

17.5

8.00

200

3.66

1 500

Volkswagen

37.5

10.00

180

4.00

2 600

Volvo

27.1

15.80

200

sw

6.00

2 300

AT

Nozzle Cross section

LM

Length of Test Section

Vmax

Maximum wind Speed

TS

Type of Test Section (o = open, c = closed, sw = slotted wall)

Contraction ratio

Installed Fan Power

1 676

970
2 350

Conditions at the boundaries induce constraints on the air flow about a test body within the test section, which
result in differences in local flow patterns from those that would be obtained in free, unbounded air. The closed
test section forces the free air streamlines closer together and changes their curvature to match the shape of
the wall at the test section boundary. For the semi-open test section, free air streamlines tend to overexpand at
the test section boundary, changing their curvature to balance the surrounding pressure.
Ventilated test section tunnels were developed originally to relieve choking and shock reflection problems
encountered in transonic testing. Only recently have ventilated wall tunnels been considered for low-speed
bluff-body testing. Depending on the open-area ratio of the walls and the angular position of the re-entry flaps,
which are important for short test sections in comparison to the vehicle length and which are installed in the
plenum chamber surrounding the test section, wall interferences may be mostly reduced.

-8-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Another recent development for low-speed testing is the adaptive wall tunnel. The test section walls may be
warped mechanically to conform to free-air streamlines (if known) at the boundaries, providing an interferencefree test section. As mentioned previously, slotted and adaptive wall wind-tunnels for automotive testing have
been in operation only recently. Comparison tests with semi-open and closed test section wind-tunnels have
been executed recently, but results are not yet published. Depending on these results, it has to be decided if
any correction method for residual wall interferences has to be applied to the reduced data.
The theory of the corrections applied to wind-tunnel force and pressure measurements because of the finite
extent of the wind-tunnel stream is complicated and, depending on the complexity of the calculation that can be
tolerated, only a limited degree of accuracy can be attained. Unfortunately, it is often essential to make these
corrections, and a wind-tunnel user should therefore understand them sufficiently well to apply them.
The approximate character of the mathematical model for the correction methods implies that the corrections
must be kept small by making the scale model reasonably small compared with the size of the tunnel or, for fullscale measurements, by selecting a sufficiently large wind-tunnel. If, for instance, the corrections are kept
down to about 10% of the uncorrected reading and the correction method itself is known to be accurate to
about 10%, the accuracy of the final results will be 1%, which will be good enough for most purposes.
However, in cases where the corrections are larger because of an unavoidably large size of the vehicle (e.g.,
trucks or vans), one often has to rely on empirical correction factors, determined through calibration
measurements in larger wind-tunnels. In fact, there are few wind-tunnels (e.g., NRC, DNW) in the world
available where, due to the size of the test section, full-scale truck measurements are possible with confidence
in the rightness of the results. This was verified by blockage tests with scale models. A blockage ratio of about
10% was identified as the upper limit of the applicability of correction procedures.
Generally, corrections are applied to closed test section data, though mostly the corrections are confined to
blockage and horizontal buoyancy effects. Even in DNW's largest test section with a cross-sectional area of
90.25 m2, the blockage corrections can amount to approximately 2.7% of the uncorrected value for normalsized passenger cars and more than 20% for a full-scale truck.
It has been thought for many years that interferences from the boundaries of open test sections are negligible
and corrections of data do not have to be carried out. In fact, the interference effects are much smaller and of
opposite sign compared to those of closed test sections, but, depending on size and position of the vehicle in
the test section, the design and tuning of the different test section components and the surrounding plenum
chamber, considerable interference effects can occur (3).
Details about the different correction methods are given in Section 8.2.
4.2

Ground SimulationConsideration of ground simulation is important because of errors which may result from
the classical set-up of a road vehicle in the test section. In contrast to the situation on the road, where there is
a relative motion V between the vehicle on one side and the air and the ground on the other side, in the usual
experimental set-up of road vehicle aerodynamics both the model and the ground plane are stationary and
facing the oncoming flow at velocity V. Due to the no-slip condition, a shear layer, the so-called Ground Plane
Boundary Layer (GPBL), develops along the ground plane, the thickness of which is dependent on the distance
x from its origin (6).
(Eq. 1)
Equation 1 is an approximation for a 2-d turbulent boundary layer (b.l.) at constant pressure. It can only be
applied to the flow in the empty test section with an impermeable ground plane. Typical values for in fullscale wind-tunnels are on the order of 70 to 160 mm. For the displacement thickness and the momentum
thickness similar relations hold:

-9-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


(Eq. 2)

Because of the steady growth of the GPBL in the streamwise direction, even at zero pressure gradient, there is
a normal boundary-layer-induced flow component e at the outer edge of the b.l. (6,8).

(Eq. 3)

w is a normal transpiration velocity at the ground plane, i.e., positive for blowing and negative for suction. The
displacement velocity e leads to a b.l.-induced vertical flow angle Figure 2.
(Eq. 4)

FIGURE 2DISPLACEMENT VELOCITY AND INDUCED FLOW ANGLE


For the usual case of impermeable walls (w = 0), e and can be evaluated by substituting the differentiation
of Equation 1 as well as Equation 2 into Equations 3 and 4. Typical values at (dU/dx) = 0 and Rex = 4 x 106 are
(e/U) = 0.0017 and = +0.1 degree. The vertical flow angle may lead to significant errors in the evaluation
of the lift coefficient of ground effect racing cars analogous to a pitch angle of the car, because with bodies in
ground effect it is almost entirely the pressure distribution along the lower surface which is affected by a
change in pitch angle (9).
The considerations made so far basically hold for the empty test section of an automotive wind-tunnel. As
soon as the flow field is changed by the presence of a car, the GPBL changes as well. Along the ground plane
there are regions of accelerated and retarded flow, thus Equation 1 and 2 no longer hold. It cannot be
presupposed that the flow along the ground plane underneath a car is of the b.l. type (in the strict asymptotic
sense, see Schlichting (6) or van Dyke (7)). It was shown by Wiedemann (8), with the help of Beese's work (9),
however, that for many cases of practical interest in road vehicle aerodynamics, b.l. theory provides valuable
solutions to the problem of ground simulation.
When reflecting about ground simulation in automotive wind-tunnels, one has to consider:

-10-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


a. The physics (,*,,ve,x) that is to be simulated.
Far in front and far behind a vehicle on the road there is no b.l. at all due to a lack of relative motion
between the air and the road, i.e., ,*,,ve, = 0. When a vehicle is passing by a stationary observer,
he may see very different evolutions of the velocity and the b.l. thickness, depending on the vehicle
shape and angle of attack, i.e., whether the car has positive, zero, or negative lift (8).
b. The simulation techniques which, in principle, are suited to improve ground simulation.
The only technique which, at least in principle, is capable of matching all the on-road b.l. properties (for
straight flow) is the moving belt (Figure 3). However, technical realization is far from trivial. In
essense, problems are due to finite belt dimensions, belt stability (flutter), dynamic pressure calibration
and the sting support (including interference and wheel lift measurement). Furthermore, as with all
ground simulation techniques, correct modelling of side wind effects is impossible.

FIGURE 3MOVING BELT TECHNIQUE


For many applications, however, e.g., principal shape optimizations without special interest in the vehicle's
underside, it is generally sufficient to use a stationary ground board with a scoop to peel off the oncoming b.l.
(Figure 4) or a so-called basic suction, mainly consisting of a porous section in the ground plane upstream of
the model, where a certain portion of the b.l. flow is removed (Figure 5). With both methods the b.l.
thicknesses (,*,) are decreased (8, 11).

FIGURE 4BOUNDARY LAYER CONTROL BY SCOOP

-11-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE 5BOUNDARY LAYER CONTROL BY BASIC SUCTION


If, however, the correct on-road flow angle is required, the growth of the GPBL according to Equation (3) has
to be controlled as well. This can be accomplished by additional distributed blowing and/or suction through a
porous (stationary) ground plane (8, 11) (Figure 6). In theory, the velocity vw of blowing or suction has to be
varied from point to point to match the on-road requirement. In practice, blowing or suction has to be constant,
at least within certain sections of the ground plane. Evaluation of the required vw is extremely difficult due to a
lack of the precise on-road values for ve that are to be simulated. They highly depend on the vehicle
configuration under investigation. In (8), orders of magnitude of vw are given to handle typical flow cases. In
general, vw/U has to be negative (i.e., suction) and on the order Re0.5.

FIGURE 6BOUNDARY LAYER CONTROL BY DISTRIBUTED SUCTION


Ground simulation by tangential blowing uses a thin wall jet of high momentum which is ejected immediately in
front of the vehicle into the b.l of the stationary ground board (Figure 7). Thus, the momentum thickness and
the displacement thickness of the GPBL can be manipulated (10, 12). Unfortunately, in the general case,
matching * or and is conflicting (8, 10). Nevertheless, this is the only simulation technique using a
stationary ground that can model momentum overshoots (negative momentum thickness) in the GPBL. Thus,
recirculation of the on-road b.l, e.g., behind a ground effect sports car, can be simulated (12). Furthermore,
flows of non-boundary-layer character can be simulated, because tangential blowing adds momentum to the
flow. This is not possible by applying suction (13).

-12-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE 7BOUNDARY LAYER CONTROL BY TANGENTIAL BLOWING


When contrasting the simulation potentials with the engineering efforts for construction, use and maintenance
of the different techniques discussed so far, tangential blowing possibly yields the best compromise for fullscale testing. For models smaller than half-scale, either the moving belt technique or a more conventional
method, e.g., scoop or basic suction, should be used, depending on the complexity of the project under
investigation. Thus, the aerodynamicist is in a position to also perform experiments without sting support of the
model.
4.2.1

NOMENCLATURE2
Rex
U
u
v
vw
x
y

4.2.1.1

Subscripts
e
w

4.2.1.2

Reynolds number based on x


streamwise velocity component outside of b.l.
streamwise velocity component in the b.l.
b.l. velocity component normal to the ground plane
normal blowing (positive) or suction (negative) velocity on the wall
streamwise coordinate
coordinate normal to the ground plane
vertical flow angle

edge of b.l.
wall (ground plane)

Abbreviations
b.l.
boundary layer
GPBL ground plane boundary layer

2. For general notation used in this Report, (See section 8.1).

-13-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


4.3

Flow QualityWhen designing a wind-tunnel, the flow quality in the test section is one of the most important
requirements which will control the testing capability and quality. What does flow quality mean? A wind-tunnel
test is a simulated test situation, where air is forced past a test object. This situation in theory does not have
any flow disturbances or unsteadiness of the moving air in the empty test section, simulating zero-wind
conditions on the open road. The only way to minimize flow disturbances, which will always occur, is by careful
design of the complete tunnel circuit. Some of the most significant causes to the flow disturbances are
mentioned under each parameter description.
The flow quality is judged by many parameters. The following parameters give a base for a specification of
wind-tunnel: velocity uniformity, velocity fluctuations, flow angles, turbulence level, static pressure gradient,
boundary layer thickness, temperature uniformity, and noise level. The required specification of the flow
situation will not be met in every position in the test section. A test volume in the test section has to be defined
and within this volume the requirements should be fulfilled. The volume size and location should at least cover
the corner points of the largest model size to be tested. A note should be made regarding the wall boundary
layers and corner effects that will influence the flow quality measurements in the wall proximity.
Flow quality measurements are made with the test section empty. To be able to measure the flow quality
conveniently in a test volume there is a need for a traversing arrangement. The important requirements for a
traversing gear are: insignificant influence on the measured results, a rigid and stiff construction, ability to cover
the complete volume with a high number of grid-points and be able to carry different probes.
One of the main objectives to define flow quality parameters concerns the measurement equipment for the flow
control. The accuracy of the complete measurement system, in each case, should be at least five times better
than the specified requirement for the tunnel.

4.3.1

VELOCITY UNIFORMITYThe spatial flow velocity uniformity across the test section should be defined as the
percentage deviation of local streamwise velocity from the average value (based on time-average
measurements). Equation 5.
(Eq. 5)
where:
V1 = Local streamwise velocity
Vm = Average velocity
The uniformity requirement is specified as the maximum deviation from the average flow velocity in the
measured cross section. A well-designed wind-tunnel could have less than 0.25% in velocity variation in
the test volume. However, many wind-tunnels used satisfactorily for automotive testing have velocity
variations up to 1.0%.
The velocity variations in the flow can be caused by flow separations, poor turning vane design or improperly
adjusted vanes. The velocity uniformity is derived from dynamic pressure measurements with a pitot-static
probe and high-resolution pressure transducer.

4.3.2

VELOCITY FLUCTUATIONSThe flow velocity fluctuations are given in a local position as the variation over
time. This time-dependent unsteady flow should be kept as small as possible. This fluctuation could be
caused by either the fan regulation or flow separations, and the frequency will be different accordingly. A
requirement recommendation could be a maximum of 0.5% velocity fluctuation within any specified time
period over a specified speed range. This variation is measured by a pitot-static probe with a pressure
transducer and a frequency analyzer with recording possibilities.

-14-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


4.3.3

FLOW ANGULARITYThe flow angularity variations can be divided into vertical (pitch) and horizontal (yaw)
variations. The angularity is defined as the maximum local deviation from the defined test section x-axis.
The local angularity is recommended in automobile testing to be less than 0.5 degrees. The pitch angle
deviation is more critical to the vehicle than the yaw angle deviation and should be less than 0.2 degrees.
The pitch angle deviation can affect the vehicle shape optimization with respect to drag and front and rear lift,
while the yaw angle deviation can be accepted by setting the car at an offset angle. Flow angularity is
caused by poor turning vane design, poor honeycomb design, poor or unsuitable nozzle design or
misalignment of the nozzle relative to the test section. To measure the flow angularity many different devices
can be used: the most common are some type of pyramid probe or yaw meter head, both working with the
aid of pressure measurements. Careful calibrations have to be made of the probe and equipment to be
used. One difficult problem is the possible deflection of the probe support and holder during the test, which
has to be controlled.

4.3.4

TURBULENCE LEVELSThe turbulence levels should be measured in the three coordinate directions. The
longitudinal turbulence intensity level is defined in Equation 6.
(Eq. 6)
where:
urms = Longitudinal rms velocity fluctuation
U = Mean test section velocity
Depending on the type of wind-tunnel design, either the longitudinal or the transverse turbulence level will
dominate. A well-designed wind-tunnel with turbulence-reducing measures would have less than 0.5%
turbulence level. The turbulence affects the transition and separation points on the model, and could also
interact with model surface roughness. However, although most tunnel designers strive for a low, repeatable
turbulence level, it should be borne in mind that vehicles mostly operate in traffic conditions that generate
turbulence. In addition, higher levels of turbulence may be of benefit in increasing the effective Reynolds
number, especially in small-scale model tests (see 4.4).
Turbulence is caused by the fan and turning vanes. A flow straightener and fine mesh screens are used for
reduction of turbulence. The measurement of turbulence levels is normally done by hot-wire equipment. To
be able to measure in three directions, angled probes are used and are traversed by a rigid holder and
support. Another measuring technique used involves the turbulence sphere, which will give a critical
Reynolds number. This Reynolds number corresponds to a turbulence factor which leads to a turbulence
level. The turbulence sphere indicates what a rounded model would see.

4.3.5

STATIC PRESSURE VARIATIONThe local static pressure variation is defined as the deviation in pressure
coefficient from a reference pressure, in the longitudinal direction. See Equation 7.
(Eq. 7)
where:
Cp = Pressure coefficient
px = Static pressure value in position x
pref = Reference static pressure
qref = Reference dynamic pressure

-15-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


The static pressure variation should be linear and less than 1% deviation (Cp <0.01) over the maximum
model length. A pressure gradient introduces a buoyancy effect on the model, which should be corrected as
it affects the drag measurements. The pressure variation is mainly caused by the test section wall boundary
layer, which will increase the jet core speed. In open-jet test sections, the opposite effect is found as the jet
expands. The measurement is performed by a pitot-static probe that is carefully moved downstream or a
long static tube supported in the test section. Care must be taken with the alignment of the probe/tube so
that no dynamic pressure will influence the static pressure holes on the pitot-static probe or on the long static
tube.
4.3.6

BOUNDARY LAYER THICKNESSThis requirement consists of two parameters, i.e., the boundary layer
thickness, which corresponds to 99% of the freestream velocity, and the displacement thickness, which is a
derivative from the boundary layer profile. The displacement thickness is defined in Equation 8.
(Eq. 8)
where:
u/U = local velocity divided by the freestream velocity
y = distance from the wall
The requirement for the boundary layer is difficult to set because it will depend on pressure differences due
to boundary layer reducing systems and pressure gradients. A maximum empty-test-section displacement
thickness on the order of 10% of the minimum vehicle ground clearance, measured at its front bumper
location, is recommended (see Reference 1). A normal passenger car has about 150 mm ground clearance,
which then gives a recommendation of * <15 mm for the empty test section measurement. The wind-tunnel
boundary layer is built up in the whole circuit. It will change in size due to the pressure gradients in different
parts of the tunnel circuit. Large boundary layers affect the force measurements on a vehicle. The boundary
layers are mostly measured by pitot probes or hot-wire technique. The hot-wire will give not only the velocity
profile in the boundary layer but also the turbulence structure of the layer.

4.3.7

TEMPERATURE UNIFORMITYThe temperature uniformity is defined as the local temperature deviation from
the mean flow temperature. Good flow quality and a well-designed heat exchanger gives a temperature
deviation less than 1 C across the test section. Temperature gradients can cause problems with tunnels
without insulation by creating temperature boundary layers. The measurement is made by a precision
thermocouple traversed over the test section.

4.3.8

NOISE LEVELSThe test section background noise level will be defined as a single value dB(A) over a
specified frequency range and as decibel values per 1/3 octave band. The goal for any tunnel from the
working and testing point of view would be to have about 80 dB(A) or less at the location normally occupied
by the test vehicle. As noise consists of pressure fluctuations, if the background noise level is too high this
will also be seen in the pressure fluctuation and turbulence measurements. The noise is primarily caused by
the fan and fan motor.
If the tunnel is intended to be used for wind rush tests on vehicles, the level must be low enough not to
interfere with the measurement in the vehicle. This requirement has led to the development of wind-tunnels
(with semi-open-jet test sections) having noise levels down to 60 dB(A) at 100 km/h wind speed.
The measurement of the noise level is very difficult because there is a major problem of reducing the wind
noise generated by the microphone itself. Semi-open jet wind-tunnels can measure the noise level outside
the jet and then correlate it back to the measuring volume in the test section.
NOTEReferences 14 to 23 provide a bibliography to Section 4.3.

-16-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


4.4

Reynolds Number RequirementsA general aerodynamic requirement to ensure reliable wind-tunnel


measurements is that correct Reynolds numbers have to be simulated. In principle, any deviation from the
actual "on-the-road" Reynolds number level may cause misleading test results.
The problem may occur during full size tests if the maximum speed of the wind-tunnel is not sufficiently high.
During scale model tests, almost always special consideration of Reynolds number effects is needed (see
Appendix A).
Whether or not test results based on measurements at lower Reynolds numbers can be extrapolated on to
realistic conditions with a high confidence level depends largely on the shape of the test object.
The aerodynamic coefficients of most standard car shapes are stable over a wide range of Reynolds numbers.
However, particularly sensitive to Reynolds number effects are:
a. Station-wagon-type rear end shapes with an inclined backlight as occurring on estate cars and short
hatchback cars. (The flow over the backlight may be attached or detached depending on the Reynolds
number as illustrated in Figure 8.)

FIGURE 8STATION WAGON FLOWFIELD CHARACTERISTICS


(COURTESY FORD-WERKE AG)
b. Bulbous rear end shapes without defined flow separation lines. (The location of the flow separation
may vary with Reynolds number.)
c. Bluff front end shapes of vehicles with small roundings of the leading edges. (The flow at those edges
may be attached or detached depending on the Reynolds number. Typical effects are illustrated in
Figures 9 and 10, after Gilhaus (26,27).)
d. Shapes creating areas of flow separation with sensitive re-attachment conditions (this includes
protruding details like mirrors, etc.)
e. Ground-effect cars with small leading-edge radii and rear underbody diffuser sections. (Downforces
measured in moving-belt facilities with low belt speed and incorrect Reynolds numbers may be
misleading, according to measurements by Sardou (24).)

-17-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


In the previous cases minor changes in the body contour or in the Reynolds number may cause a switching
effect from one stable flow pattern to another resulting in different aerodynamic coefficients. Whether the
Reynolds number is increased or decreased during the test typically has some influence on the critical
Reynolds number at which the switching off occurs ("hysteresis effect").
It is a well-known fact that the critical Reynolds number is dependent not only on the shape of the test object
but also on the turbulence level and structure of the airflow (this means that also the specific turbulence
characteristics of the wind-tunnel at various wind speeds are to be taken into consideration if sensitive shapes
are tested at lower Reynolds numbers).

-18-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE 9INFLUENCE OF REYNOLDS NUMBER ON DRAG OF BOX-SHAPED VEHICLE


WITH ROUNDED LEADING EDGES (FROM REFERENCE 26)

-19-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE 10CHANGE OF DRAG DISTRIBUTION OF TRAILER/TRACTOR CAUSED BY


REYNOLDS NUMBER EFFECT (FROM REFERENCE 27)

-20-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


With appropriate tuning of the turbulence conditions, critical Reynolds numbers can be reduced significantly.
This may be achieved by increased surface roughness or small vortex generators (tripping wires) close to
critical contours or by specially designed turbulence screens located upstream of the test object. With an
optimized grid the critical Reynolds number can be reduced by half in many cases (37). This opens up
interesting opportunities to work with smaller model sizes.
However, the general applicability of this method still needs further investigation. Up to now the fluid
mechanical effects of tuning the turbulence characteristics are not sufficiently clear to provide exactly
quantified definitions about the possibilities to achieve a reliable simulation of aerodynamic conditions at
predicted higher Reynolds numbers. It seems to be questionable whether the experiences on simple basic
shapes can cover all the complicated aerodynamic interactions which may occur on sensitive actual vehicle
shapes.
A practical approach is to observe the flow patterns in areas known to be critical and control them in a way to
be on the safe side already at lower Reynolds numbers (e.g., either to adopt smaller roundings than required
according to the scale model test to ensure an intended flow separation also at higher full-scale Reynolds
number or to accept larger roundings than are possibly needed in real life to achieve attached flow in a critical
area).
To find out whether the flow conditions in certain areas of the model are likely to be sensitive to Reynolds
number effects it can be helpful to consider the determination of a kind of "local Reynolds number," as
demonstrated by Cooper (25). This means using a characteristic length (possibly also local air speed) which is
relevant for the focused local flow conditions, e.g., the radius of a certain contour, rather than using overall
length, width, height, wheelbase, etc. Only for some simple shapes like spheres, cylinders, and profiles are
overall dimensions aerodynamically relevant parameters at times.
To give an example: aerodynamic tests to investigate commercial vehicles are often executed on rather small
models of 1:5 scale or even smaller, resulting in Reynolds numbers considerably below real-life figures. In
these cases, there is a high risk that the flow conditions at the leading edges of the typical bluff front end
contours are not simulated correctly. It was found that calculating the "local Reynolds number" at the leading
edges using the radius of rounding as a characteristic length can give useful information.
On rounded leading edges, very similar aerodynamic behavior to that known to happen on cylinders in
transverse flow can be observed. At a radius-related Reynolds number somewhat below3 the critical Reynolds
number of cylinders, the flow at the rounded edges switches over from detached to attached conditions
resulting in sharp changes of the aerodynamic forces (Figure 11). An analysis according to the previous
indications may help to "stay on the safe side" during test work.
The analysis of the test conditions should include whether compressibility effects due to high local overspeeds
(e.g., at leading edges with small roundings) are safely avoided.
Summing up the situation the following statements can be made:
a. Working at reduced Reynolds numbers always bears risks. (At high windspeedsMa > 0.25
compressibility effects are also to be taken into consideration.)
b. Aerodynamic tests to give initial directions in early development phases can be made at reduced
Reynolds numbers as most car shapes are not particularly sensitive to the Reynolds number effects.

3. The local overspeed is higher than on cylinders.

-21-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE 11VARIATION OF DRAG COEFFICIENT WITH LOCAL REYNOLDS NUMBER


(COURTESY A. GILHAUS)
c.

For basic aerodynamic evaluations on scale models there are possibilities to "stay on the safe side"
regarding Reynolds number effects by avoiding shapes and features which are likely to be sensitive.
However, the validation of test results based on 1:5 scale or smaller models requires special
experience to prevent possible misinterpretation.
d. There are opportunities to simulate conditions at higher Reynolds numbers by tuning the turbulence (to
some extent), but this field needs further investigation.

-22-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


e. For the present, determination of the exact aerodynamic performance in every detail and final tuning
according to aerodynamic requirements for actual vehicle development programs can be done safely
only at realistic Reynolds numbers.
f. More research work on the fluid mechanical effects of Reynolds number and turbulence characteristics
is desirable with view on improved test methods and also on mathematical modelling (CFD).
5.

Facility Equipment Requirements

5.1

Model/Vehicle InstallationModel or vehicle installation is dependent upon the type of wind-tunnel, balance
and model. The one common factor to observe in installation of a ground vehicle test is to avoid an air gap
under the tires when simulating a tire which should touch the ground. When a gap is unavoidable, the test
engineer should recognize the potential for errors in the data.
The various ways to mount the test vehicle which are considered here are:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Full-size vehicle in fixed-floor tunnel with external balance


Scale model installation on a fixed floor
Scale model installation on a raised ground plane
Truck, bus, or train installation
Mounting on an internal balance
Installation on a moving belt ground plane
Installation of oversized wheelbase vehicle

Variations on the preceding list are possible. For example, it is possible to mount a full-size vehicle on a
cantilevered strut with an internal load cell balance, but it is not a common practice.
In considering each of the previously mentioned cases in detail as follows, it is assumed that force
measurements are required. If this is not so, the need for clearance gaps is generally eliminated.
5.1.1

FULL-SIZE VEHICLE IN A FIXED-FLOOR TUNNEL WITH EXTERNAL BALANCEMany facilities have an external
balance mounted under the test section floor with 4 flush-mounted wheel pads in the floor connected directly
to the balance. The pads are isolated from the floor structure. In such a case the vehicle may be rolled onto
the pads, aligned with the centerlines of the test section and secured in place. Before blocking the vehicle on
the balance it is important to move the car back and forth around the final position and to shake it to avoid
initial frictional forces acting on the tires affecting the repeatability of the test.
Restrain the vehicle from moving, and, if it does move, be able to detect and measure its position relative to
the balance reference point. For low-speed testing (up to about 30 m/s), setting the parking brakes and a
chock (tapered wedge) placed on the pad behind the tires can suffice. For higher-speed testing, straps
wrapped around each tire (or axle) and bolted to the pad may be required to prevent lifting over the chocks.
However, to simulate fully on-the-road suspension setting, the vehicle in the wind-tunnel should be blocked
by the driveline (first gear or parking position of automatic gear box). Using the brakes may falsify the
resultant pitch angle.
After installation of a vehicle with rubber tires and a typical vehicle suspension system, the wind should be
turned on to the maximum planned test speed to settle the suspension joints and allow the vehicle to roll
back against its restraints. Then remeasure the vehicle's position before making data runs. If the vehicle is
blocked by only the driveline, it will be necessary to check its position with the wind on. The position of the
vehicle is important in translating the moments about the balance's resolution center.

-23-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

Check for proper tire pressure and load the passenger compartment and trunk with weights to establish the
proper height and test attitude. Sometimes it may be desired to test with clamped suspension, so the vehicle
does not move significantly on its springs, to prevent changing attitude with air speed. Full-size clay models
or advanced concept show cars are generally made on rigid chassis without springs.
Most wind-tunnels for testing ground vehicles have a turntable in the test section floor which can yaw the
model about the z (vertical) axis. Recommended practice is to center the vehicle's wheelbase and tread on
the center of rotation of the turntable which is usually the balance resolution center. Any deviations of the
position of the vehicle should be noted for translation of the data to the proper axis of rotation.
Before making data runs be sure the fouling system is active to ensure the model on the pads does not touch
the test section floor nor the balance touch the support structure during a test run. Yaw the vehicle through
its range of angles to check for fouling.
Some facilities do not have the convenience of driving or rolling the vehicle into the test section. These
generally have a removable roof and an overhead crane to lower the vehicle into place.
5.1.2

SCALE MODEL INSTALLATION ON A FIXED FLOORReduced-scale models generally have rigid wheels which
can be mounted on four studs protruding through the test section floor to a balance below. In this case, it is
difficult to avoid an air gap under the wheels as each stud and bottom of the wheel cannot touch the floor. Air
flow through this gap will increase in velocity, local pressure under the wheel will decrease, which results in
errors in the measured forces, particularly in the lift direction. Contrary to some belief (28), the smaller the
gap, the greater the errors. It is advisable to install flush pads with an annular gap around the pad, then
mount the wheel in tight contact with the pad.
Static loaded tire deflection should be modelled using flats of the appropriate size on all wheels. The proper
height attitude should be made with space adjustments between the fixed wheels and the model body.
A fouling system alarm is required to alert operating personnel if contact with surrounding structure occurs.

5.1.3

SCALE MODEL INSTALLATION ON A RAISED GROUND PLANESome facilities are equipped with an elevated
ground board to raise the model above the existing boundary layer on the wind-tunnel floor. Mounting a
model to the ground board is similar to mounting to the floor. The model attachment points on the board
would have to pass through the board and connect to the balance below the floor with a windshield around
any exposed struts.
The fundamental problem with using a raised ground board is that there are two parallel flow paths, above
and below the ground board. Any change to the model configuration which changes the flow resistance
through the upper path, such as yawing the model, will divert more flow below the board. Therefore, be sure
that proper corrections are being made to the tunnel speed control or to the data to account for this velocity
shift. Monitoring the velocity at a single point below the board will not always suffice, since the flow shift may
be three-dimensional. (Note that a similar condition can exist for a passive suction slot at the front of the test
section, unless a blower is added to supplement and vary the flow.)

5.1.4

TRUCK, BUS, OR TRAIN MODEL INSTALLATIONUsually a special fixture is required to mount multi-wheeled
vehicles in a facility equipped with only four wheel pads or attachment points to the balance. In some test
sections, a beam can be installed under the floor upon which any number of the wheels can be attached,
either by flush pads or short studs through the floor cover plate. The beam is mounted to the balance below
the floor. With many wheels in tandem, it is not always necessary to attach every wheel, but the gaps which
are needed under the other wheels should be sealed.

-24-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


In the case of a tractor/trailer combination it is recommended that the beam be fabricated in two parts, such
that the forces on either the tractor or the trailer can be determined separately, each one in the presence of
the other, to determine the aerodynamic interference.
5.1.5

MOUNTING TO AN INTERNAL BALANCEIn a wind-tunnel lacking an external balance, it is sometimes required


to insert a small load-cell-type force measuring balance inside the model. A support strut is then required to
suspend the balance (and model) in a fixed position. The geometry of the strut is optional depending upon
the test requirements. The strut usually cannot avoid being exposed to the airstream and since the model is
suspended from the inside by the balance, an air gap under the wheels cannot be avoided.
If the strut is mounted horizontally behind the model, i.e., as a 'sting' support, it will affect the model's wake.
Also, it will have to be fairly massive to prevent the model, cantilevered from its end, from oscillating vertically
(affecting ground clearance) and laterally. A vertical strut down from the roof and into the top of the model
can provide more vertical stiffness, but can cause more interference to the airflow and its wake will affect the
flow over the rear of the model. If this strut is streamline-shaped to decrease its wake, it will have more
interference when the strut and model are set at a yaw angle. Another option is a short strut out of the
bottom of the model to the floor underneath. This is the shortest strut with the least interference, unless the
underbody flow is the main interest of the test. Again, if this strut is a round post, its wake will not change as
the model is yawed.
A more complicated mounting strut which can overcome most of the previous objections is an offset, bottom
support which passes through one or more of the wheels to secure the internal balance to the floor structure
of the test section. Use a hollow wheel and tire as a wind fairing around the strut. A fouling alarm system is
required.

5.1.6

INSTALLATION ON A MOVING-BELT GROUND PLANESpecial considerations must be observed when installing


a model on a moving-belt facility. A sting support mount can be used to hold the model over the belt with the
base of the sting downstream of the belt. The balance could be at either end of the sting, i.e., an internal
balance inside the model or an external balance under the floor at the base of the sting. In the latter case,
the air loads on the sting would have to be measured separately and subtracted from the final data. In either
case, the aerodynamic interference of the strut on the model should be determined. To do so requires the
model to be mounted on a balance while the strut, not touching the model, is in place and then removed.
The difference in model force is due to strut interference.
If the external balance is installed above the test section roof, a vertical strut can be extended down to the top
of the model. This provides a stiff mount vertically to control ride height of the model, but can be flexible in
pitch and roll. In this case the strut can be a symmetric streamline shape for minimum disturbance, yet stiff,
since a model tested with its wheels running on a moving belt should not be yawed (unless the belt can also
be yawed).
A support strut out of the bottom of the model can only be used if the moving belt is split into two halves, one
on each side of the strut. A split belt requires that the two halves be controlled to track together without
danger of ever touching the center strut. It is also necessary to ensure that no air leakage flow occurs along
the edges of the belt under the model.
Recommended practice for testing on a moving-belt ground is to suspend the model at the proper attitude
over the belt so that the forces on the body may be determined. The wheels should be free to spin on
individual axles which are completely free to move vertically from the model. The wheels will rest on the
moving belt and spin at belt speed. Drag and side forces can be measured as part of the body forces, minus
the wind-off rolling resistance at each belt speed. There does not appear to be a practical way to determine
the aerodynamic lift on the wheels with this arrangement.

-25-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Wheels are usually constructed for minimum weight. Even relatively small levels of aerodynamic wheel lift
will therefore have a significant influence on their rolling resistance. However, data reduction uses a fixed
value of zero-lift, wind-off, rolling resistance which is subtracted from the aerodynamic drag measurement.
When fairly wide wheels are used it is possible to get intermittent or total lift-off from the belt.
An alternative way to mount the model wheels, which can eliminate the vibration of the belt-induced motion
being fed into the body force measurements, is to remove the wheels from the body and mount them
separately on cantilevered struts from the wind-tunnel side walls. The wheels are mounted in the proper
relative position to the body but not in contact at the inboard side of the axles. Each of the struts needs to be
gauged to measure bending stresses proportional to the drag as the wheels roll on the moving belt.
With either mounting system, it is very important that the wheels spin freely without wobble or bounce. They
must be free to swing upward if a bump in the belt hits the wheel. Good dynamic balance is required to
minimize vibration. The wheels must roll true so that they do not create a side force or yawing moment on
the model.
Wheels should be made as light as possible. Otherwise, or in addition, some arrangement should be made
to counter-balance the weight of each wheel so as to decrease the contact pressure on the belt. Excessive
pressure can overheat and destroy the belt with friction of the underside sliding against its backing support
plate locally under the wheels. Special consideration should be given to safety when working with a highspeed moving belt and spinning wheels.
INSTALLATION OF OVERSIZED WHEELBASE VEHICLEIn some facilities the wheel pads of the test section floor
can be moved to fit the wheel spacing of most vehicles. However, occasionally the wheel spacing will not fit
entirely on a fixed mounting pad or one with insufficient adjustment. In this case it is recommended that an
extension plate be bolted to the pad with a thin spacer to raise the overhanging portion of the plate clear of
the floor. Even though the plate should be as thin as possible, the plate plus its clearance gap will raise the
vehicle slightly. To compensate, deflate the tire slightly until the body height is lowered to the proper setting.

5.1.7

Another situation may occur in which a large truck cannot fit entirely on the turntable. If the overhanging
wheels are floated on an air cushion platform, the truck can be rotated through a yaw angle range. Drag and
side force measurements can be made if horizontal tare forces are minimized and calibrated over the
complete yaw angle range, but the lift force would be indeterminate since a portion of the weight would be
transferred to the floor through the air cushion. Care must be taken to measure the true yaw angle of the
vehicle under wind-on conditions because of the reduced yaw stiffness with the outermost wheels floating.
5.2

Instrumentation

5.2.1

FORCE MEASUREMENTSThe main requirement of the wind-tunnel test is to measure mean (time-averaged)
coefficients, of all six components, as a function of yaw angle. To make a good measurement, it is necessary
to consider accuracy and repeatability of both dynamic pressure (q) and forces (F). Equation 9.
(Eq. 9)

5.2.1.1

Dynamic-Pressure Measurement SystemThis system has to be just as accurate and repeatable as the
force measurement system (balance). This means that the accuracy of the measured velocity should be
within 0.2%, excluding test-section nonuniformity, and the repeatability should be one order of magnitude
better. Basic calibration with, for example, reference Prandtl-tubes mounted in the empty test section
should be performed.

-26-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


It should also be ensured that no model interference with the q-measurement system occurs. This means
that the pressure taps, for wall static pressures, or Prandtl-tubes should not be mounted in the vicinity of
the model pressure zone. This occurs most often for models that generate large tunnel blockage. To make
sure there is no model interference, a specific test should be performed.
One example of such a test can be to look at the longitudinal pressure gradient around the downstream
part (Pc2) of the q-measurement system when a large model is moved in X-direction in the test section
while maintaining a constant independent tunnel reference dynamic pressure elsewhere in the tunnel
upstream of the model. No changes should occur from the empty test section condition to the largest
blockage in the most upstream position. These requirements normally lead to q-measurement systems
involving either:
a. Measurement of the difference in static pressure between two planes located at or near the upstream
and downstream ends of the contraction (or nozzle), or
b. Measurement of the difference between pitot and static pressures at or near the contraction (or nozzle)
exit.
In either case, a calibration of the system is necessary (with the tunnel empty) to relate the measured
pressure difference to the mean dynamic pressure at the normal location of the model.
Some types of boundary layer control system such as suction or blowing can also have an influence on the
q-measuring system and correction should be made for this.
As air density varies with temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity, these factors should be
measured in the wind-tunnel and the velocity derived from the q-measurement system should
subsequently be corrected for this.
A complete redundant measurement system could be very helpful to find errors and for use as a warning
system for leaks and condensed water in the pressure tubing or pressure sensor faults. A regular method
of checking is desirable.
5.2.1.2

BalanceFor accurate six-component measurements the balance has to satisfy the following
requirements:
a. The balance equipment should not disturb the air flow near the test object. If any structure to support
the test vehicle is influencing the flow, this influence should be measured and eliminated.
b. There should be no influence on the balance equipment from the air flow in the test section or the
balance room and if so this influence should be carefully determined and eliminated. Effects of
temperature and ventilation fluctuations should be covered by careful checkout of the balance behavior
at different conditions. Temperature control in the balance room is preferable.
c. Influences from undesired movements of the test object should be controlled. Flexing of the vehicle
support system or balance could in some cases affect the results of the measurement. Movement of
the test vehicle itself (in the case of production vehicles) and the subsequent movement of the center
of gravity in the X-direction can have an influence on the front/rear lift distribution and the pitching
moment. To control this, a device to measure the relative movement between vehicle and balance and
subsequent calculations could eliminate the whole problem.
d. Hysteresis and friction must be small. This requires much from the balance design itself, but also from
the surrounding equipment.
The most common balance used for six-component measurements is the external type. For specific
purposes internal balances can be used. These often limit the model weight. Some strain-gauge
balances are not protected against overload and have to be treated carefully during model mounting and
configuration changes.

-27-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


External balances vary in design. The most common is the platform balance. In the simplest version, the
forces (three-axis) under each wheel are measured separately and the six components then have to be
calculated. In a development of this, the vehicle stands on a floating platform. This platform could either
be directly supported by load cells or supported by hydrostatic bearings and held in place by levers
connected to the load cells. Forces in each direction (three or four lift forces, two side forces, and drag
force) are measured. Even here calculations have to be made to get the required six components acting
on the model.
The final balance is the pyramidal or virtual center balance. The vehicle is mounted on a frame via a
normal support system. This frame is supported by inclined links whose axes have a common intersection
point (virtual center). As this point coincides with the center of the aerodynamic axis system, the
measured forces directly show the actual forces without any calculations.
The resolution on the coefficients should normally be CD = 0.001, but a good measurement system
could reach CD = 0.0001. This depends of course on the aerodynamic stability of the model used.
All balances have to be properly calibrated on a regular basis and preferably also have a quick-test
arrangement.
The calibration should be performed with classified weights and with combined forces simultaneously. A
good balance can reach an absolute accuracy better than 0.1%.
Yaw angle settings can influence the repeatability of a force measurement. A simple check at the outer
radius of the turntable could help reduce these influences. Accuracy should be on the order of 0.1 degree
or better.
5.2.2

PRESSURE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMThe hardware could consist of multiport mechanical scanners


(Scanivalve) with one transducer per head which can contain up to 48 ports. The other possibility is
electronic scanners, "pressure blocks." These can scan at a much higher rate and therefore perform almost
simultaneous measurements. Normally, pressure blocks have piezoelectric sensors and that means
frequent calibration. For mechanical scanners and for single-port measurements, any type of sensor could
be used but the diaphragm type are most frequently used.
There are absolute pressure transducers, but for normal surface pressure measurement it is advantageous
to use the differential pressure type, where the reference pressure often is the free-stream tunnel static
pressure. Calibration of transducers could be made with a good calibrated secondary standard for most
occasions. With good wind-tunnel equipment, however, goes a primary standard like a dead-weight tester.

5.2.3

TRAVERSING GEAR SYSTEMLocal flow field measurements or flow visualization needs a remotely controlled
traversing gear which is accurate and repeatable within reasonable time.
The traversing gear should be small enough to have negligible influence on the flow field and stiff enough not
to seriously influence the type of probes used for measurement. It should be computer-controlled for good
repeatability of positioning or moving pattern.
Typical measurement equipment includes:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Hot-wire anemometers
Pressure probes (Prandtl tubes, etc.)
Temperature probes
Mechanical probes
Laser-Doppler anemometry (LDA)

-28-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Traversing gears could be of continuous "flying" type. This gives a fast measurement but accuracy can in
specific cases be severely affected, therefore limiting the sensor types that can be used. Discrete point
measurement is more time-consuming but gives more accurate information and more techniques can be
used this way.
5.2.4

FLOW VISUALIZATION EQUIPMENTFlow visualization techniques could be split into three groups:
a. Surface flow visualization
b. Flow field visualizationstreamers
c. Flow field visualizationplanar surveys
These can be split:
a. Surface flow visualization techniques:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Yarn tufts
Fluorescent minitufts
Liquid indicators
Contamination
Sublimation

b. Flow field visualizationstreamers


1.
2.
3.
4.
c.

Tuft single/multiple wand


Oil smoke
Liquid nitrogen/steam
Helium bubbles
Techniques for flow field visualization

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Planar surveys
Tuft gridtransverse plane
Laser lightsheet of smoke
Discrete point flow field survey
Continuous flow field
Kiel probe/LED technique
Kiel probe/computer-generated graphics
7-hole probe/computer-generated graphics

These techniques are very well described in Aerodynamic Flow Visualization Techniques and Procedures,
SAE HS J1566.
References 29 to 35 provide an additional bibliography to Section 5.2.
5.3

Data AcquisitionBefore the advent of modern electrical transducers and computing systems, direct readout of the measured forces and moments from weigh-beams in the balance was the normal procedure in windtunnel testing. Similarly, pressure measurements were usually made by direct reading of the fluid levels in
manometers. In each case, the readings were reduced manually to the required non-dimensional coefficient
form (See section 8.1), using either a mechanical desk-top calculator or a slide-rule. Although these methods
of data acquisition and processing are still possible, of course, they have been superseded by transducers and
computers of such cost-effectiveness that no alternative method would normally be worth considering.

-29-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


5.3.1

FORCE MEASUREMENTSThe loads registered by the balance are converted to electrical signals either by the
use of strain-gauged load cells or, in some older balances, by a rotary position-transducer attached to the
lead-screw driving the balance-weight on each weigh-beam arm. In both cases, the time-averaged values of
the signals are determined by sampling or integrating over a suitable period.
The sampling requirement will depend first on the fluctuations occurring in the load signals. Fluctuations in
force and moment readings may be caused by turbulence or flow unsteadiness in the tunnel airstream or by
the dynamics of separated flow zones on the vehicle. Some force measurement systems have built-in
damping to smooth these fluctuations. The periodicity of the residual fluctuations in the signals will influence
both the required frequency of sampling and the length of the sampling (or integrating) period. The sampling
rate should be at least twice the highest frequency present in the sampled signal in order to calculate an
accurate mean value.
The second factor determining the sampling requirement is the level of repeatability required in the force and
moment data. As in all measurements, it is necessary to ensure that the repeatability of the results is
sufficient to allow the required level of significance of observed changes in the data to be achieved. This may
dictate either increasing the averaging period of the data collection or taking repeat measurements.
Due to the broad range of forces possible with different vehicle configurations, it is not always appropriate to
express the repeatability simply as a percentage. Rather, a tolerance on the coefficient of force (or moment)
should be used, which will vary to some extent with the magnitude of the coefficient.
Typically, a repeatability range of CD = 0.002 or even 0.001 might be required in the case of the drag
coefficient of a car during an aerodynamic development program. While individual changes in CD of this
order have no significant effect on the performance and fuel economy of a vehicle, significant advances are
mostly achieved by the summation of a series of such small improvements. This type of aerodynamic
optimization therefore necessitates extreme repeatability, which in turn requires long averaging periods, e.g.,
from 15 to 60 s.
Since the repeatability of force coefficients depends equally on the repeatability of both balance readings
and dynamic-pressure readings, it is necessary to average the q-signal over a similar period. Indeed, to
minimize fully the effects of fluctuations in the flow and in the corresponding aerodynamic forces, the balance
signals and the q-signal need to be sampled simultaneously, not sequentially.

5.3.2

PRESSURE MEASUREMENTSThe signals from pressure transducers are averaged and then reduced to nondimensional coefficient form in the same way as the force measurements. In this case, however, there is a
third variable, the reference static pressure, to be recorded concurrently with both the local pressure and the
dynamic pressure. Usually, the difference between the local pressure and the reference pressure is
measured directly by means of a differential pressure transducer. It is also usual for several local pressure
measurements to be required in the same run. Hence the use of mechanical or electronic scanning devices
with many pressure ports (e.g., 48) and a single output signal. Since the ports are scanned sequentially, it is
necessary to ensure that the 'dwell' on each port is long enough to allow the measured pressure to stabilize,
while minimizing the time interval between readings from the various ports. When the best compromise
between these requirements has been determined, repeatability of the pressure coefficient data can be
enhanced by repeating the scan of all the ports a number of times and then averaging the results.
The reference static pressure is normally derived from the dynamic-pressure measuring system, which will
include one or more static-pressure holes near the nozzle exit plane (See Section 5.2.1.1). During the tunnel
calibration, with empty test section, the relationship will have been determined between the pressure(s)
measured at this location and the static pressure at the normal vehicle location, which is the required
reference static-pressure. With the vehicle installed, a correction has to be made to this reference pressure
(at least in closed test sections) to allow for blockage effects.

-30-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


6.

Model/Vehicle Requirements

6.1

Full-Scale TestingWith increased emphasis dedicated to aerodynamic aspects during vehicle development
in recent years, more and more manufacturers incorporate full-scale test facilities into their development
centers.
Full-size aerodynamic wind-tunnel tests are executed for research, development, and verification purposes
using:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Production vehicles
Prototypes
Solid models (nonfunctional)
Clay models

The key advantages in comparison to scale models are:


a. Better possibilities to achieve a representative condition of all body and chassis details, gaps, etc.
(necessary for final tuning and judgments during actual development programs).
b. Only possibility to compare the aerodynamic performance of actual vehicles (competitors) with
reasonable accuracy.
c. An increased range of functional aspects can be taken into consideration (cooling airflow, wind noise,
mud deposition, ventilation, subjective rating of comfort in open cars, etc.).
d. Improved accuracy of aerodynamic simulation of on-the-road conditions regarding Reynolds number
effects, boundary layer influence, etc. (This includes also increased measurement signals, forces,
etc.).
e. More reliable test data from flow measurements due to reduced probe size relative to flow field
extension.
f. Easier judgment of appearance acceptability and feasibility of proposed aerodynamic improvement
actions for development engineer and designer.
g. Driving-stability-related aerodynamic forces like lift- and side-force distribution are typically more
sensitive to shortcomings in the aerodynamic simulation than drag forces. Therefore, full-size tests are
particularly important with regard to this aspect of aerodynamic development. (Yaw angles up to about
20 degrees should be observed. Higher yaw angles are of minor importance in real life.)
Of course, a number of disadvantages in relation to scale model investigations are to be faced:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Higher cost for full-size wind-tunnel operation


More expensive models that are more difficult to handle
Preparation work and changes on the model during test exercise may be more time-consuming
Inadequate or unnecessary for many basic evaluations and research purposes
More difficult simulation of effects of relative movement of ground surface

In general, full-size testing on models can only be performed by professional teams with qualified workshop
and modelling support.
Depending on the kind of wind-tunnel model and test objective, specific aspects and implications must be
taken into consideration.

-31-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


6.1.1

PRODUCTION VEHICLESThe main purposes of tests on production vehicles are:


a. Verification of aerodynamic performance
b. Investigation of series differentials, add-on devices (spoilers, covers, tires, sealings, roof racks, mirrors,
etc)
c. Comparison with competitors
d. Refinement of details and facelift actions
Tests on production cars are easy to handle as there is usually little preparation work necessary. It is,
however, important to control some important factors to ensure accurate interpretations:
a. The vehicle attitude has to be observed precisely; minor changes may have significant effects on
aerodynamic forces. On standard vehicles with free-floating suspensions it is advisable to adjust the
ride heights front and rear according to nominal construction figures by appropriate loading. This
avoids complications due to spring settling with age. (Up to now an agreed world-wide standard on
loading conditions to be simulated for quoted aerodynamic figures does not exist. The most oftenused U.S. loading condition conforms to EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) standards used for
emissions and fuel economy testing. The EPA-Standard specifies a loading of 68.1 kg (150 lb) in each
of two front seats, plus 1 x 70 kg on the rear seats. For sports cars with 2 or 3 seats, 2 x 70 kg on the
front seats is used. Full fuel tank is assumed. The most common standard in Europe for passenger
cars is similar to the EPA-Standard except that the loading on the front seats is 2 x 70 kg in all cases.)
b. The tire size and also the tire make has an influence on measured forces. For precise comparisons it
is important to use the same make and specifications (different tire makes at similar nominal
dimensions may change the drag coefficient by more than CD = 0.01 on cars).
c. The adjustment of interior ventilation openings may have a measurable influence on aerodynamic
forces. The most common procedure to achieve comparable conditions is to close the ventilation
openings inside the vehicle.
d. Vehicles with automatic ride-height adjustment, movable spoilers, thermo-controlled cooling airflow,
etc., should be tested at conditions corresponding to the actual operation of the vehicle at the given
wind speed.
e. Further significant items which should be observed with regard to accuracy of meeting specifications
are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

6.1.2

Body gaps and sealings


Brake cooling and engine cooling air intakes
Outside mirrors
Wheel covers
Underbody covers
Front and rear spoilers
Wipers, antennas, mudflaps, etc.

PROTOTYPESThe main purposes of aerodynamic tests on prototypes are:


a. Verification of aerodynamic achievements and shortcomings.
b. Investigations on final tuning actions necessary to fulfill aerodynamic targets (drag, lift, sideforces) and
functional aspects (cooling airflow, interior ventilation, mud deposition, wind nose).
c. Testing of series differentials and add-on parts.

-32-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


The aspects discussed regarding measurement on production cars are, of course, also applicable on
prototypes. Some items should be observed with special care as prototypes generally do not meet
production standards in every respect:
a. Body gaps, particularly at the front end should be measured and, if necessary, be adjusted according
to specifications.
b. Cooling airflow conditions need detailed control regarding air intake size, grilles, airflow ducting,
radiator size and density, and fan shrouds.
c. Fitment and shape of all aero-effective exterior parts (mirrors, covers, spoilers, mouldings, sealings,
wheels, etc.) should be observed.
Most careful handling and interpretation of measurements on prototypes is essential for product
development as in this phase final program decisions are to be made.
NOTEIn many cases driving-stability-related aerodynamic figures (lift coefficients, yawing moment and
side-force coefficients) are even more sensitive to the previously mentioned items than drag
coefficients.
6.1.3

SOLID MODELSThe main purposes of using "nonfunctional" solid full-scale models for aerodynamic testing
are:
a. Determination of the aerodynamic performance of specific design concepts before prototypes are
available.
b. Investigation for various air-management aspects in an early stage of development, for example:
engine cooling, brake cooling, dirt deposition, wind noise, etc.
c. Evaluation of series differentials and add-on devices.
d. Comparative tests requiring perfect repeatability (e.g., tests in different wind-tunnels, calibration
purposes).
e. Development of alternative body concepts with a common basic design (notch, hatch, wagon, van,
etc). In these cases the common body may be solid and the rear-end alternative may be built up in
clay.
There are many ways to build up solid models for aerodynamic testing. The most common practice is to use
fiberglass cast bodies or high-density foam bodies fixed on reinforced existing chassis structures modified as
far as needed. Wheelbase and track may be adjusted by insert structures. Underbody simulation may for
instance be tuned by appropriate foam parts or wooden parts.
A key item is the simulation of the engine compartment and cooling airflow. Cast models with a thin body
shell allow a very realistic simulation in this respect.
Many aspects to be observed during tests on production cars and prototypes are also to be considered when
using "nonfunctional" solid models. Some additional items seem to be worth mentioning:
a. Solid models should be equipped with fixed suspensions allowing adjustable ride height control.
b. Body gaps and openings are typically not simulated in a realistic way. Their effect has to be taken into
account to avoid misinterpretation. Adjustments are to be made according to experience with actual
vehicles (see next paragraph).

-33-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


c.

Engine compartment, wheelhouses, chassis platform and interior should not feature gaps or openings
allowing unrealistic flow paths.
d. For some development purposes it may be helpful to execute certain body sections by clay inserts to
allow fine tuning.
NOTEIt is expected that advances of computational methods (CAE) in design, body engineering and
aerodynamics will cause a trend toward using automatically milled body shells for aerodynamic
testing.
As far as clay models are concerned this is to some extent already state-of-the-art in the car
industry but it will also be applied on solid body shells with a more advanced fabrication
technology.
Successful future application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) will require the opportunity
of quick verification by actual wind-tunnel models using CAE surface definitions.
6.1.4

CLAY MODELSAerodynamic development work in the wind-tunnel on all new car programs typically starts
on models with clay bodies. This allows very flexible modification and fine tuning of all shape parameters
and details.
In the initial phases scale models may be used to reduce cost and workload. At as soon as final design
concepts require consideration, full-scale clay models are required for professional aerodynamic
development work on cars to avoid the shortcomings of scale model investigations (discussed at the
beginning of this section).
Final clay approval of design concepts is usually backed up by aerodynamic figures derived from wind-tunnel
tests on highly detailed clay models. Similarly to the "solid models," clay models are generally built up on
reinforced existing chassis structures modified according to the new specifications. As there is no basic
difference between "solid models" and clay models as far as aerodynamics is concerned (apart from the
flexibility to execute design changes) the comments previously mentioned are also valid for clay models.
A key shortcoming of the clay model wind-tunnel tests is that body gaps are not properly simulated. Due
consideration of this aspect requires experience on actual full-size cars, from which some general
statements can be made:
a. Gaps and openings at the front end have a significant effect on drag and lift and should be simulated
as far as possible. On conventional front-end designs, gaps between bumper and body, headlamp
gaps, and gaps at the leading edge of the hood may cause more than 5% of overall drag. On
advanced front-end designs with small production tolerances, fixed headlamps and sealings at the
leading edge of the hood and between body and bumper, only very small effects are to be expected.
b. The gaps at both sides of the front hood only cause a drag penalty on the order of up to 1% of the
overall drag.
c. The effect of door gaps is close to zero on modern cars due to the sealing actions usually adopted to
avoid wind noise concerns.
d. Tailgate/trunk gaps are negligible on notchback cars but have some effect on fastbacks, and may be
very critical on wagon-type rear ends.
e. On fastback cars the upper tailgate gap at the rear header may increase drag by about 1%.
Depending on the exact position, the gaps at the sides may reduce yaw moment (enhanced windward
side D-pillar flow separation).

-34-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


f.

Station-wagon-type rear ends with an inclined backlight, as occurring on estate cars and compact
cars, may allow two different wake patterns: A low-energy wake flow with flow separation at the trailing
edge of the roof or a wake with strong longitudinal vortices and partly attached flow on the backlight
(Figure 8). In the latter case the inclusion of the upper tailgate gap may have a switching effect by
changing the flow separation conditions towards earlier flow separation, i.e., reduced drag and rear lift.
Drag reductions of more than 5% have been observed.

(As long as flow separation above the backlight and a station-wagon-type wake is intended, the use of
models without tailgate gaps means staying on the safe side. If, however, flow attachment on the backlight is
intended, a clay model simulation without correct tailgate gaps may be misleading.)
6.2
6.2.1

Small-Scale Testing
REQUIREMENTS FOR PHYSICAL SIMILARITYFor many aerodynamic experiments small-scale rather than fullscale testing may be preferred. This is due to lower wind-tunnel running costs and model expenses, earlier
availability of scale models, smaller blockage ratios or the desire to perform moving-belt experiments which
are rather elaborate in full scale.
No particular scale, however, may be considered standard for model tests of road vehicles. The scale must
be chosen in accordance with the requirements of the experiment that is to be performed. Whereas 1/10
scale tests may be helpful to gain some understanding of basic flow structures for a certain geometry, larger
scales are required to represent the full-scale flow in more detail. For development purposes some car
manufacturers do not rely on tests with models smaller than 1/2.5. Other companies mainly prefer quarteror fifth-scale models to cope with all their small-scale activities. These scales are still considerably larger
than typical model scales used in the aircraft industry. The biggest model of the Airbus that has been tested
so far (German-Dutch Wind-tunnel) was of 1/9.5 scale. In other branches of wind-tunnel testing, like civil
engineering, model scales between 1/50 and 1/500 or even smaller are common practice (14).
It is known from experience that most road vehicles are not very sensitive to scale effects (Reynolds number
effects) (36), provided the Reynolds number, based on overall length, is above 3.5 x 106. Typical errors in the
evaluation of the drag coefficient are on the order of 2%. There are cases, however, especially on cars with
slant-back rear ends or with small radii front ends, where considerably larger errors are likely to occur, as
mentioned in Section 3.4 (37)(16). In the case of small radii, the Reynolds number based on the local radius
has to be above the critical Reynolds number of a circular cylinder, i.e., Rer>3x105.
However, one has to take care that the local Mach number does not deviate too much from its corresponding
full-scale value. The effect of compressibility on stagnation pressure, for instance, can be approximated by
Equation 10 (38):
(Eq. 10)
From Equation 10 there results Cpst = 1.0035 for V = 40 m/s (M = 0.118). If V is increased to 75m/s (M =
0.221) for a scale model experiment, the pressure coefficient at the stagnation point is distorted to Cpst =
1.0122, indicating an error on the order of 1%. For a higher but still subsonic Mach number M*, the so-called
critical Mach number, there is a point along the vehicle contour where the local Mach number M exceeds the
value of one. This is illustrated in Figure 12 (38). It relates the critical pressure coefficient Cp* to the critical
free-stream Mach number M*. E.g., it can be seen that at M = 0.7, the local Mach number exceeds one as
soon as the local Cp decreases below 0.8.

-35-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE 12VARIATION OF CRITICAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT WITH CRITICAL MACH NUMBER


If Mach number or wind-tunnel speed limitations do not allow for a sufficient Reynolds number of a scale
model experiment, turbulence manipulation may help. In this case, small-scale turbulence is added to the
free stream by means of screens or honeycombs as explained in 4.4. According to G. I. Taylor's "Statistical
Theory of Turbulence" this will change the position on the model where transition to turbulence occurs. Thus,
when dealing with round-edged bluff bodies (like cars), the pressure drag is decreased and higher Reynolds
numbers than the actual are simulated (37).
6.2.2

REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOMETRIC SIMILARITYTo arrive at physical similarity between small-scale and fullscale flows over a vehicle, geometric similarity has first to be specified. This means that the scale model has
to be built with all the details that may be relevant for physical similarity:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

Accurate modelling of corner radii


Bumpers and mirrors
Wheel design
Details of air intakes
Engine cooling
Underbody and driveline details
Suspension
Exhaust system

-36-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Of course, not all of these requirements have to be met when manufacturing scale models for basic shape
optimizations. These experiments can be performed with reasonable accuracy and at lower costs by using
so-called basic models, generally made from clay or polyurethane foam on a wooden chassis. For detailed
studies, e.g., on the effect of underbody panels on drag and lift, so-called function models are needed.
Generally, they are laminated from epoxy wood and fiberglass, thus having a hollow shell able to take
Scanivalves, radiator simulators and other devices. These models meet the requirements listed previously
and, in addition, provide some functions of the real car which are relevant for a certain study.
For the optimization of underbody panels, for instance, correct simulation of the cooling airflow through the
radiator and correct outlet of the volume flux to the underside is absolutely necessary. This can be achieved
best by using the so-called universal radiator simulator. This device, which can be installed in the engine
compartment of any scale model bigger than 1/5, can simulate any radiator, the data of which (pressure-loss
coefficient vs Reynolds number) is known. Scaling down the full-scale radiator or using a screen would lead
to a highly Reynolds-number-dependent incorrect pressure-loss coefficient which in turn provides an
incorrect volume flux through the engine compartment. With the radiator simulator, these errors are avoided
and, though the details of the radiator flow are not modelled, the interaction with exterior aerodynamics is
correct. Moreover, with the help of a once-for-all calibration, the volume flux can be obtained by a simple
two-pressure difference measurement. Details are given by Wiedemann (36) (39) and Soja and Wiedemann
(40).
Rotating (self-adjusting) wheels are desirable, as well. To provide realistic trim height variation, suspension
should be scaled down correctly, thus assuring the proper position of the axle in relation to the car body for
every combination of trim height and angle of incidence.
For moving-belt tests, which are strongly recommended for underbody optimization, a sting support (from the
rear, the roof or the sides) aiming toward the least flow distortion at the vehicle section under current
investigation, should be an easy-to-realize option. If a moving-belt test with stationary wheels is to be
performed, care has to be taken prevent a venturi effect in the gap between the wheel bottom and the belt.
This can be achieved by milling grooves in the bottom area and applying a Teflon seal able to slide almost
frictionlessly into the wheel, thus increasing the pressure in the gap and approximating the pressure
distribution around a wheel contacting the ground (8).
With such sophisticated scale models, very valuable test results become available at a fairly early stage of
the development process. In many cases this would not be possible by using full-scale models exclusively,
because many parts that are needed like different radiators, underbody panels, etc., may not be available at
early development stages.
6.2.2.1

Nomenclature
Cp
Cpst
M
Rer
U
y

6.2.2.2

pressure coefficient
stagnation pressure coefficient
free-stream Mach number
Reynolds number based on local radius of curvature
free-stream velocity
isentropic exponent

Superscript
* critical conditions (M>1 locally)

-37-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


7.

Test Methods and Procedures

7.1

Force MeasurementsWind-tunnel models are mounted on a force and moment measuring systeman
aerodynamic balancewhich is connected electronically to a data-acquisition computer system. The balance
is usually installed within a rotating turntable to allow the model to be turned through a range of yaw angles
with respect to the wind direction.
Force measurements on a test vehicle in a wind-tunnel require a system of one or more balances arranged to
measure lift, drag, and side force simultaneously, as well as their resultant moments in pitch, roll, and yaw.
Whether the balances are mounted inside the model or external to the model, and whether load cells,
weighbeams, or strain gauges are used, the principle is the same. Pressure of the wind acting on the surface
of the model produces a set of forces which are detected by each of the balances through the mounting struts
or wheel pads in the floor.
a. The lift balance supports the weight of, and continuously weighs, the vehicle. A lift force subtracts from
the force of gravity, while a down force adds to the force of gravity.
b. The drag force pushes the vehicle downstream in the longitudinal direction, a thrust pushes it
upstream. The drag balance measures the unbalanced surface pressure distribution and skin friction
in the drag direction.
c. The side-force balance detects the unbalanced pressures on each side of the model in the lateral
direction.
d. The pitching-moment balance detects the unbalance of the net lift force forward or rearward of the
center of the wheelbase, together with the moment due to any vertical offset of the drag force from the
balance resolution center.
e. The rolling-moment balance measures the unbalance of the net lift force on the right side or left side
wheels, together with the moment due to any vertical offset of the side force from the balance
resolution center.
f. The yawing-moment balance measures the unbalance of the net side force ahead of or behind the
center of the wheelbase, together with the moment due to any lateral offset of the drag force from the
longitudinal axis of the balance.
Measured forces can be expressed in "wind axes" in which the drag force is aligned with the longitudinal axis of
the test section. However, for ground vehicles, a transformation of axes is required to resolve the drag and side
force components into "body axes" in which the drag is aligned with the model centerline and therefore
represents the aerodynamic resistance of motion of the vehicle. All internal balances and most external
balances rotate in yaw with the model and therefore produce data directly into "body axes" coordinates. The lift
force in the vertical direction is not affected by this transformation. Refer to "Low Speed Wind-tunnel Testing"
(14) for the transformation equations.
The moment reference center is placed along the vehicle vertical plane of symmetry with the ground. The
longitudinal location is at the wheelbase midpoint. For tractor/trailers, it is at the centerline of the rear axle of
the tractor.

-38-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Determine if any tares due to mounting struts or pads need to be considered. Forces on any struts, external to
the vehicle and exposed to the airstream must be measured separately and deleted from the vehicle's force
data. Interference effects of the strut's presence on the flow field around the vehicle should also be evaluated.
If the vehicle is mounted on flush pads inserted in the floor, there may be a tendency to ignore corrective tares.
However, the vehicle will exert a pressure gradient on the floor beneath itself. The portion of the pads not
covered by the tires will measure a force of pressure multiplied by the exposed area. The pads should,
therefore, be as small as possible to support the tires. On any excess exposed area, measure the average
pressure to calculate the tare force for each data point taken. Each pad will have a small gap around its
perimeter. The vertical faces of the pad within the gap will also have a pressure due to the vehicle above it.
The differences in the pressures on the front and rear faces will cause a tare force in the drag direction. The
differences of the pressures on each side will cause a side force tare. These tares can be minimized by using
thin pads.
7.1.1

PREPARATIONBefore the vehicle is installed in the test section of the tunnel, the frontal area should be
determined, wheelbase and track measured and front and rear centerlines and wheelbase midpoints marked
on the body. The frontal area is required to nondimensionalize the force data (Equation 11):

(Eq. 11)
Wheelbase length is required to nondimensionalize the moments (Equation 12):
(Eq. 12)
The frontal area is the projected area enclosed within the silhouette of the complete vehicle as viewed
directly from the front (or rear). The open area between the wheels and the underbody should not be
included in the total area. The projected areas of mirrors and roof racks, etc., should be included, but not the
open space between the support bars of the rack and vehicle roof. For convenience in comparing results,
the value of the frontal area used in the data reduction should remain constant and independent of any
aerodynamic modifications made to the vehicle.
Each facility has its own method for measuring the projected area. Most are optical systems of laser or video
scanning, or photographing a shadow from a far-distance light source, on the order of 75 to 100 m away (41).
Accuracy is important when comparing results with other facilities. The test report should define how the
frontal area was measured and provide the numerical value used so that, if required, conversions can be
made to the data later. To correct the data for a change in the value of frontal area, multiply the coefficient of
force by the original area and divide by the new value.
The vehicle is installed with the wheelbase centerlines aligned with the centerlines of the test section and the
model secured to the balance (see 5.1.1). Before the test starts, the wind should be turned on to the
maximum speed to be tested to allow the tires to roll back against their stops and to allow the suspension to
settle. Afterwards, remeasure the position of the model for moment transfer corrections to true centerlines
and for misalignment of zero yaw setting to the tunnel airflow. Small corrections for zero yaw can be made by
rotating the turntable to a new angle aligned with the test section axis. In some cases the tunnel flow may
not be aligned with the geometric axis, or the model may not be symmetric.
The most critical requirement in setting the vehicle in the test section is to establish the height above the floor
and the pitch angle, i.e., the front higher or lower than the rear. Set the height as accurately as possible.
Force measurements will differ between a production vehicle with spring suspension and a model with rigid
mounting due to the small changes in height and pitch over a range of speeds and wind loads in the former
case. If the test vehicle is equipped with an electronically controlled attitude adjusting suspension system,
this should be switched off.

-39-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Ensure that the vehicle is ready for test, with windows tightly closed, interior ventilation system closed, and
radiator cooling inlet grille sealed or opened as desired to determine the losses associated with the internal
cooling flow. External mirrors should be set to the proper angle. Check for any loose parts which could
come off and damage the wind-tunnel.
If the balance is the external type which does not rotate with the model in yaw, a set of static weight tare
measurements must be recorded with the wind off over the yaw range to be tested. These tares are then
subtracted from the wind-on force measurements during the test period.
7.1.2

TEST PLANNINGThe purpose of the test will determine the variables to be evaluated. Preparation of easily
removed and replaced components will speed up the model changes and save costly wind-tunnel time.
Preplanning of the order in which the components are to be tested can also save time. A general rule is to
make only one configuration change for each run. If two are made, there is no way to determine which one
affected the force measurement, or if the two effects cancelled each other.
One baseline configuration of the model should be selected for an occasional rerun to check for data
repeatability. This should be a combination of components which can be reliably duplicated each time. If the
test extends more than one day, plan to repeat the last run of the day the next morning to be sure the data
repeats. If not, determine why.
Select the blockage and buoyancy correction to be applied to the data, if any. Enter the model dimensions
and position coordinates into the data system. Determine if test results are desired for constant velocity or
constant dynamic pressure, q. Most force data is taken at constant q, unless the engineer has a need for
comparing results at a known velocity.

7.1.3

REYNOLDS NUMBER EFFECTSTests should be performed to determine the effects of Reynolds number on
measured forces and moments. The test Reynolds number must be high enough to produce a realistic flow
pattern about the model, and correctly represent the viscous effects (see 4.4). High Reynolds numbers can
be obtained by increasing the airspeed (limited by drive motor power and compressibility effects), increasing
the model size (limited by test section size and model cost) or by increasing the air density with a pressurized
tunnel. Usually, force data is more repeatable, with less scatter, at the higher force levels associated with
high Reynolds numbers.
The initial run will usually be over a range of wind speeds to check for a Reynolds number range in which the
flow characteristics do not change significantly. Force data are reduced to coefficient form and plotted
versus Reynolds number to determine a speed above which the coefficients are essentially constant.
Subsequent testing should be conducted at these speeds if possible.
During the initial run the model should be checked at the maximum speed and yaw angle to make sure of
model integrity. It should also be observed for loose components or panels which deflect under wind load
and which, in effect, change the model shape. For example, the lightweight structures in some race vehicles,
secured with quick-disconnect pins, and sometimes combined with soft tires, frequently exhibit this problem
and therefore require testing over a range of speeds.

7.1.4

CROSS-WIND SIMULATIONThe effect of cross-winds is approximated by yawing the model about a vertical
axis relative to the approaching airstream. The air speed in the tunnel represents the relative air speed
resulting from the vehicle motion and the cross-wind. The yaw angle is the angle between the relative air
flow direction and the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

-40-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Yaw angles up to 20 degrees are commonly tested and higher if desired. Yaw angle increments of 3 to 5
degrees are often used. The purpose of the test will really dictate the yaw range and the increments to be
covered. However, the maximum yaw angle should also be governed by the width of the tunnel test section.
A zero-yaw point should be measured at the beginning and end of each run to establish repeatability.
Sometimes there is hysteresis in the vehicle flow field and the end-of-run zero yaw point may be different.
The measured forces are seldom symmetrical about the yaw angle. Production tolerances are sufficient to
skew the results. Small details such as exhaust routings are seldom symmetrical.
Usually the drag increases as the vehicle is yawed, and the wind-tunnel drive power must be increased to
maintain a constant air speed or dynamic pressure, q. It is recommended that all yaw angle sweeps be
made in the same direction, i.e., from negative to positive angle to maintain constant backlash in the balance
and turntable drive system and the same hysteresis in the flow on the vehicle. In some cases, as the angle
of yaw increases, there may be an area of local flow separation on the surface. If the direction of yaw is
reversed and the yaw angle is decreased, the flow may not reattach until a lower angle is set than the angle
at which it separated. In this region, two alternative stable force values could exist.
A good practice is to measure occasionally a wind-off zero at the end of the run. This is to make sure that
the balance returns to the same reading after the run without mechanical impediment or electronic drift. It is
probably not necessary for every run because it takes a relatively long time for the velocities to reach zero
every time. There is a trade-off between test productivity and the risk of the balance not returning to zero
every time.
7.2

Surface Pressure Measurements

7.2.1

OBJECTIVESurface static pressure measurements are used to determine the local effects of surface
modifications, to assess the contributions of various regions of the body to overall aerodynamic forces, to find
advantageous locations for air intake and exhaust ports, and to allow panel forces to be calculated.

7.2.2

MEASURING EQUIPMENTThe typical equipment for the measurements (Figure 13) is as follows:
a. Pressure taps Orifice taps should be fabricated from good quality metal tubing. The inside diameter
of the orifice tube bored at body surface of a small-scale model (1/5 or 3/8, etc.) should not exceed 0.4
mm (0.016 in).
However, the minimum inside diameter of the orifice tube bored at the body surface of a full-size model
or an actual vehicle should be 1.3 mm (0.05 in).
b. Connecting tube The connecting tube is made of flexible plastic tubing, the inside diameter of which
should be equal to or a little less than the outside diameter of the orifice tap and that of the connector
to the pressure transducer. The tube should be long enough to connect an orifice at the model with the
pressure transducer, even at the maximum yaw angle test.
c. Sealing paint for leakage This is available to seal leakage between an orifice tap, or a pressure
transducer connector and the interface vinyl tube.
d. Pressure transducer A pressure transducer with adequate sensitivity and good repeatability should
be used for the measurement. This may be either an electrical transducer fitted to a multiport scanner
(see 5.2.2) or a Betz-type manometer equipped with a rotary valve.

7.2.3

PREPARATIONSFrom experience or from published data, first of all, the position of each pressure tap on the
body surface of the model should be determined for obtaining reliable data. To do so, orifice taps must
usually be bored more closely on a body surface near a corner or an edge with abruptly changing pressure,
than on a relatively flat surface with steadily changing pressure.

-41-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Next, orifice taps should be press-fitted into holes drilled normal to the body surface. The interface between
the tube and the body hole must be sealed to eliminate leakage. The end of the tap at the body surface must
be dressed smooth and flush with the body surface.
The ends of the taps at the body surface must be deburred after installation and dressing. The diameter of
the deburred chamfer surface at the body surface should be less than two bore inside-diameters.

FIGURE 13INSTALLATION DETAILS OF FLUSH SURFACE PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ORIFICE


7.2.4

MEASUREMENTSAfter setting the test model with the above equipment in the test section of the wind-tunnel,
checking for leakage or an impediment in the vinyl tube should be done, as shown in Figure 14.
Next, at the required wind velocity, the pressure p at each point of the body surface is measured, together
with the static pressure pref and dynamic pressure qref which are normally obtained from measurements in
the nozzle or close to the test section entry (as specified in 5.2.1.1). The pressure coefficient Cp defined as
follows is obtained with use of these values in Equation 13:
(Eq. 13)

-42-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Finally, the Cp values are plotted on a graph for each wind velocity. If unreasonable features are found, these
must be examined by carrying out wind-tunnel tests again.

FIGURE 14CHECKING DEVICE FOR LEAKAGE OR BLOCKAGE


7.3

Flow-field Measurements

7.3.1

OBJECTIVEAerodynamic forces and moments are closely related to flow-field characteristics around a body.
Therefore, measurement of these characteristics with suitable measuring equipment can contribute both to
the development/design of modifications for reducing aerodynamic forces and moments and to analysis of
experimental data on aerodynamic characteristics.

7.3.2

MEASURING EQUIPMENT AND METHODSThere are many types of measuring equipment (probes) for
pressures, velocities, temperature, and turbulence in the flow field, in addition to some methods for flow-field
description (flow visualization methods). Today, the most used ones for routine tests are as follows:
a. Pressure tubes These are composed of three kinds of tube as shown in Figure 15, which are
applied to measurement of pressure and velocities in the flow field, despite some limitations described
in (2).
b. Anemometer At present, useful anemometers for measurement of wind velocity in flow field around
a vehicle are the hot-wire type (Figure 16) and a pitot-static tube (Figure 15c). Miniature vane-type
anemometers may also be used.

-43-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE 15PITOT AND STATIC PRESSURES TUBES

FIGURE 16PITOT AND STATIC PRESSURE TUBES


HOT WIRE ANEMOMETER PROBE
c.

Thermometer The most suitable type for measurement of air temperature in the flow field around a
vehicle is the thermocouple.
d. Other Types Other probes for measurement of wind velocities and pressures in the flow field, e.g.,
mechanical probes (the Kiel tube, multihole probes) and Dornier flug-log (for measurement of local
flow angles) are referred to in (2). Laser doppler anemometry (42) (43) and particle image velocimetry
may also be used, and in the near future ultrasonic anemometers may be used.
The ultrasonic anemometer, the probe of which is shown in Figure 17, has not been used much in
automotive wind-tunnel tests. This anemometer has been more used in atmospheric wind-tunnels
where tests on wind structure near the ground and other tests with respect to air pollution are done. It
is capable of measuring air flow of lower velocity (several cm/s) and turbulence with random frequency
of some 100 Hz.
e. Flow visualization methods Refer to the following 7.4. and to (2).

-44-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


7.3.3

PREPARATIONAs shown previously, many kinds of measuring equipment and flow visualization methods are
now developed. Therefore, once the objective of a wind-tunnel test is determined, it is necessary to choose
the most appropriate types for that objective, considering the specifications, merits or demerits, and so on.
At the next step, the performance or characteristics of the available equipment must be calibrated before
tests.
Finally, the order of the flow-field measurement during a wind-tunnel test should be decided, mainly based on
the test objective, cost benefit, time efficiency and so on.

-45-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE 17ULTRASONIC ANEMOMETER

-46-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


7.3.4

MEASUREMENTSWhen all the preparations are finished, the tunnel is run up to the intended wind velocity.
After re-examining if the indication of a probe is correct, the measurement should be continued to obtain
reliable data to be sent to the data-acquisition system.
If some strange data or trends have occurred, it would be advisable to analyze these by using certain flow
visualization methods.

7.4

Flow VisualizationMaking the flow pattern visible on and around the test vehicle is frequently used as an
adjunct to other types of wind-tunnel testing and can even serve as the primary reason for a wind-tunnel test.
Flow visualization has a variety of purposes; some of the more common ones are the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.

To gain basic understanding of the fluid flows taking place


To identify sources of flow disturbance
To examine the sources and degree of airborne contamination
To provide a diagnostic guide for improvement of aerodynamic qualities

Consistent with the different purposes identified and in response to the wide variation in the types of vehicles
under examination, many different flow visualization techniques are employed. The choice of which method (or
methods) should be employed is determined by the purpose of the test, the flow field characteristics and
whether the flow to be examined is to be on the body surface or in the flow field around the body. The methods
can be grouped into the following three categories:
a. Techniques for surface flow visualization.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Yarn tufts
Fluorescent minitufts (static and rotating surfaces)
Liquid indicatorscontinuous film
Liquid indicatorsdiscrete pointsoil/ink droplets
Contaminationwater spray
Sublimation

b. Techniques for flow field visualizationstreamers


1.
2.
3.
4.
c.

Tuftsingle/multiple wand
Oil smoke
Liquid nitrogen/steam
Helium bubble
Techniques for flow field visualizationplanar surveys

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Tuft gridtransverse plane


Laser lightsheet of smoke/TV camera technique
Discrete point flow field survey
Continuous flow field surveyKiel probe/LED technique
Continuous flow field surveyKiel probe/computer-generated graphics
Continuous flow field surveymultiple-hole probe/computer-generated graphics

In a majority of test situations, visual records of the flow observations are desired. A number of ways can be
used to document these results. The choice of recording medium is again dependent upon the purpose of the
test, the flow field characteristics, and the equipment and facilities available. For example, a flow field with
highly transient flow patterns may well best be documented with videotape or a movie film. Still photography
with a variety of shutter speeds and lighting techniques can also be very effective in a variety of conditions.

-47-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Also, there are a number of the visualization techniques (see previous listing) which generate their own visual
record and need no additional documentation effort.
A comprehensive treatment of the flow visualization techniques currently in common usage is contained in (2).
Each of the techniques presented are detailed from the standpoint of the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

Main features (of the technique and its common usage)


Description (of the technique and procedures)
Equipment (necessary to execute the technique)
Indications and Results
Advantages (or strengths of the technique)
Limitations (or weaknesses of the technique)
References (sources for additional information)
Examples (pictures of the results)

Four of these descriptions from the Information Report (2), for surface tufts and smoke streamers, have been
included, due to their common applicability. These can be found in Appendix B.
8.

Data Reduction, Analysis, and Presentation

8.1

Notation and PresentationThe notation recommended by the SAE is given in full in SAE J1594 and is
summarized as follows in conjunction with Figure 18. Other terminology often used in publications is also
indicated with the SAE terminology on the left.

FIGURE 18STANDARD NOTATION (FROM SAE J1594)

-48-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


CD
CL
CS
CPM
CYM
CRM

Drag coefficient (= D/qA) - CX, CW/CT


Lift coefficient (= L/qA) - Cz, CA
Side force coefficient (= S/qA) - Cy
Pitching moment coefficient (= PM/qA.WB) - Cm, CMy
Yawing moment coefficient (= YM/qA.WB) - Cn, CMz
Rolling moment coefficient (= RM/qA.WB) - Cl, CMx

where:
D
Drag (= -Fx)
L
Lift (= -Fz)
S
Side force (= Fy)
PM Pitching moment (= My)
YM Yawing moment (= Mz)
RM Rolling moment (= Mx)
Dynamic pressure (= 1/2V2)
q

Mass density of air (taken as 1.225 kg/m3 for NOAA U.S. standard atmosphere, at 15 C and 101.325
kPa)
Relative wind velocity
V
A
Projected frontal area
WB Wheelbase4
Also:
CLF
CLR
CSF
CSR

Front-axle lift coefficient (= 0.5CL + CPM)


Rear-axle lift coefficient (= 0.5CL - CPM)
Front-axle side force coefficient (= 0.5CS + CYM)
Rear-axle side force coefficient (= 0.5CS - CYM)

Pitch angle (positive nose-up)


Yaw angle (positive nose to right)
Roll angle (positive right-side down)

and

Apart from and , which are not illustrated, all parameters are positive as shown in Figure 18.
The following additional parameters are defined in SAE J1594:
Pressure coefficient (= (p-p)/q)
Cp
p
Local static pressure
Free-stream static pressure
p

Boundary layer thickness (height above ground surface where the local velocity () is 99% of the free
stream velocity (V) * Displacement thickness)

Momentum thickness
Re/1 Reynolds number per unit Length (=.V/)
VEQ Equivalent velocity (= V)

Viscosity of air (taken as 1.789 x 105 Ns/m2 for NOAA U.S. standard atmosphere)

Scale factor (model dimensional fraction of full-scale vehicle)


For all dimensional quantities, SAE J1594 recommends the use of SI units.

4. For vehicles with more than two axles, a length parameter other than the wheelbase may be used, but should be specified. In some cases,
overall length is used instead of wheelbase.

-49-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


A general definition is given in SAE J1594 for a 'yaw-weighted' (or 'wind-averaged') drag coefficient, which is
often used in truck wind-tunnel data analysis. The parameter is intended to take account of the fact that road
vehicles operate mostly at small to moderate yaw angles, because of the prevalence of cross-wind conditions.
It has particular value in the case of trucks, because of the steep variation of their drag coefficients with yaw
angle.
The 'yaw-weighted' drag coefficient, for a specified vehicle speed (Vv), is defined as in Equation 14:
(Eq. 14)
D is the mean drag force over the range of yaw angles () and relative wind speeds (V) which result from
combining the assumed vehicle speed (Vv) with an assumed variation of ambient wind speed and direction.
The speed of the ambient wind is usually taken as the annual mean wind speed for the geographic region
where the vehicle is expected to operate, and the wind is commonly assumed to approach the vehicle with
equal probability from any direction.
A number of more and less sophisticated variations of this concept have been developed, and some of these
are referenced in this Report (1) (44) (45).
In the presentation of data from automotive wind-tunnel tests, it is recommended that in addition to the
measured data (previously defined) the following information should also be given:
Test section dimensions
Ground board location and dimensions (if used)
Model location on ground board
Model overall dimensions
Model frontal area, as used in reduction of data
Any other dimensions used for data reduction
Photographs of model configurations
Photographs of model installed in wind-tunnel
Description of model modifications
Results of any Reynolds number test
Description of cooling air flow simulation
All test data should be presented in graphical form to the maximum extent practicable, as well as in tabular
form. Methods used for blockage correction and any other adjustments should be defined, and the values of
the resulting increments or factors should be indicated. Such details can usually be included in an appendix in
the test report.
Experimental uncertainty should be estimated for the data presented. Methods to estimate experimental
uncertainty are summarized in (46).
8.2

CorrectionsThe finite extent of the jet in a wind-tunnel is known to produce errors in the aerodynamic forces
and moments and the surface pressure distribution on a vehicle, compared to the values that would be
observed in an unconstrained flow. These effects increase as the vehicle increases in size relative to the
dimensions of the test section.
The interference effects due to the boundary conditions of the wind-tunnel stream on the measured quantities
may be reduced to three main causes:
a. Blockage effects
b. Horizontal buoyancy effects
c. Streamline curvature effects

-50-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


For open-jet tunnels additional effects might occur by the specific tuning of the different test section
components (relative size and design of the contraction and the collector, test section length, vehicle position in
the test section).
8.2.1

BLOCKAGE EFFECTSBlockage effects result from the displacement of fluid in the finite environment of a wind
tunnel stream. In a closed test section the effective cross section is reduced by the frontal area of the
vehicle, and continuity of mass flow requires that the flow speed must increase at the location of the vehicle
compared to the reference speed measured in the unobstructed part of the tunnel upstream of the vehicle.
In an open test section the jet expands in the region of the vehicle, and at the jet boundaries the curvature of
the streamlines is changed in order to balance the ambient pressure. Again, due to continuity requirements,
the speed around the vehicle is now reduced because the effective cross section of the jet is increased.
It is one of the important assumptions of blockage theory that a vehicle behaves within the tunnel as it would
in free air at some speed slightly different from the nominal tunnel velocity.
Effectively, it is assumed that blockage does not change the form of the pressure distribution on the vehicle
but only scales the magnitudes. This concept of invariance of the vehicle pressure field under constraint fails
as separation or reattachment of flow are influenced by the proximity of the wall of a closed test section or the
shear layer of an open test section. Once this has happened no correction procedure will work.
In reality, the blockage effect varies in the streamwise direction. This can easily be recognized by the fact
that blockage is zero upstream of the stagnation point and increases further downstream depending on the
displacement of fluid by the vehicle and its wake.
Nevertheless, it is the purpose of blockage theory to establish means of estimating the overall increment or
decrement of the wind velocity which must be applied to the tunnel speed. It is further necessary to consider
how these factors are used to correct the measured quantities and it is assumed that the vehicle is small
enough for the blockage effects to be additive.
Details of how to apply the different blockage correction methods available may be taken from the SAE
Information Reports for closed test sections (4) and for open test sections (3).
In the first-mentioned SAE Report (4), a comparison is made between eight different wall correction methods
for closed test sections. The choices were made based on the level of use of the methods in industry as well
as on the basic physics embodied in the correction. The spectrum of available wall correction techniques
ranges from simple considerations of vehicle and test section geometry to the application of potential flow
approximations of the vehicle and its wake.
Blockage effects in open-jet wind-tunnels are smaller and opposite in sign compared to the closed test
section. Therefore a correction of the measured data is often disclaimed. Beyond that, open-jet test sections
often reveal an invariance of the measured data with vehicle size to a certain extent. The tolerant behavior of
an open-jet wind-tunnel can occur due to other interference effects which compensate or even overrule
blockage effects. They are caused by the characteristic behavior of a jet and the mode of action of the
following collector.
Depending on the size of the vehicle occupying the test section and the measuring position, the jet might
yield a stagnation point at the collector leading edge at the end of the test section which differs from the
location with an empty test section. Consequently the streamline curvature of the jet is changed with vehicle
size and a pressure gradient is created influencing the drag coefficient. The pressure gradient can be
positive, amplifying the blockage effect, but with larger vehicles, acceleration of flow in the area of the
collector takes place and a negative pressure gradient is created increasing the drag forces. Although the
origins are different, the open-jet tunnel then shows the same trend as experienced in a closed test section.

-51-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Depending on the design of the leading edge of the collector and the surrounding plenum chamber, the
location of stagnation point can be stabilized to a certain extent even when the size of the vehicle is
increased. Also a sufficiently long test section can minimize the problem of interference because the
reaction of the collector on the upstream-positioned vehicle is reduced.
Up to date no theoretical approach has been made in order to compensate for the influence of the different
wind-tunnel components. Only recently some newly designed automotive wind-tunnels have been provided
with an adjustable collector (with flaps the collector cross section can be varied) in order to take care of an
altered pressure gradient when the model is placed inside the test section. But, so far, no procedure has
been established to which extent the collector has to be tuned. Details about this subject can be taken from
(3).
8.2.2

HORIZONTAL BUOYANCY EFFECTSIn the course of the basic calibration of the empty test section of a windtunnel the static pressure distribution in the flow direction is measured. If a static-pressure gradient is
revealed, the increment or decrement of the horizontal forces due to a buoyancy drag force can be removed,
depending on the sign of the gradient, by adding or subtracting the following term as in Equation 15:

(Eq. 15)
where:
dCp/dx is the pressure gradient at the vehicle location, V denotes the volume and A the frontal area of the
vehicle.
Additionally, due to the wake of the vehicle and the related displacement effect, a further, negative, staticpressure gradient over the model is created and consequently the drag is increased. The incremental drag is
a product of the measured drag CD and the factor ew describing the blockage effect of the wake. This drag
increment is commonly termed "wake buoyancy" Equation 16:
(Eq. 16)
where:
C denotes the cross-sectional area of the tunnel.
8.2.3

STREAMLINE CURVATURE EFFECTThe presence of the solid walls of a closed test section or the shear layer
of an open-jet wind-tunnel distorts the normal curvature of the streamlines around the vehicle when
measured in a cross-wind flow. The effect can be ascribed to a change of the induced flow components, that
is to say the circulation around the vehicle is changed. Depending on the yawing moment and the side force
it is found that the angle of attack is changed as well. Both effects are covered in airfoil testing by "streamline
curvature corrections."
For automotive testing these corrections have little practical relevance because usually the gradient of side
force against yaw angle remains rather moderate. But if it comes to detailed side force analysis, corrections
used in aircraft testing should be applied in default of better knowledge and reference is made to the
literature on the subject (14).

-52-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


8.3

Validity/ApplicabilityAt present, aerodynamic data measured in a wind-tunnel are inclined to be applied to


the following:
a. Such aerodynamic values as CD, CL (including CLF and CLR) and CYM have often been used for
encouraging sales of the vehicle. For example, the value of CD has been used to give many customers
both an indication of its being a relatively good fuel-saving vehicle, and an impression of its having
excellent aerodynamically designed styling.
b. The experimental data for a reduced scale model (1/5, 1/4, 3/8, etc.) from the wind-tunnel are available
for estimation of the corresponding data for an actual vehicle running on the road.
c. Wind-tunnel data allow truck or bus users to determine which vehicle and equipment combinations
produce the lowest aerodynamic drag, and to predict fuel savings resulting from improvements in
vehicle and equipment combinations.
As can be seen previously, validity of the aerodynamic values is important. Therefore, the values measured in
most full-scale wind-tunnels have been compared with data from the other wind-tunnels in the world or with
data from road tests, and in some cases 'corrections' are applied according to the published wind-tunnel data.
But, it remains questionable whether the published values for a vehicle strictly are equal to the corresponding
values for the vehicle running on the road. Therefore, many studies on the problem have been carried out.
Some experimental results for the tunnel-to-road correlation are reported in the following papers:
a. Correlation of (MIRA) full-scale wind-tunnel and road measurements of aerodynamic drag (47)
b. Fiat research center reference car: Correlation tests between four full-scale European wind-tunnels
and road (48)
c. Correlation experience with the SAE wind-tunnel test procedure for trucks and buses (49)
d. Full-scale, on-road study of the effects of automobile shape on its aerodynamic characteristics, and
comparison with small-scale wind-tunnel results (50)
e. Comparison of on-road and wind-tunnel tests for tractor-trailer aerodynamic devices, and fuel savings
predictions (51)
f. (GM) wind-tunnel-to-road aerodynamic drag correlation (52)

8.3.1

The principal results from these particular correlation tests are shown as follows:
a. Wind-tunnel CD values are slightly lower than the corresponding road values (CD = 0.006). Also,
agreement between road value results and wind-tunnel values for CL is good, with CLF slightly higher
in the tunnel and CLR slightly lower (48).
b. The coastdown-extracted drag coefficients are compared to the average drag coefficients of all four
tunnels for the trucks (at zero yaw angle). According to the data, the full-scale drag coefficients are
within 0.042 to 0.072 of the average wind-tunnel measurements at zero yaw angle. The full-scale
drag increments due to modifications are always less than those from the wind-tunnel by from 0.011 to
0.047 (49).
c. An average drag coefficient difference between wind-tunnel and coastdown tests of only 0.008 (2%)
with a range from 0.017 to +0.012 (52).

8.3.2

From the previous results and others, the following comments on the tunnel-to-road correlation may be
made:
a. The correlation of values of CD on mass-production passenger cars (except those with smaller ground
clearance) is estimated to be relatively good.
b. The correlation of values of CL and the other aerodynamic coefficients, including CD, of both
passenger cars with smaller ground clearance and trucks, has not yet been studied so much. In
addition to comparison tests on these vehicles, the following aspects of wind-tunnel test technique
should therefore be studied further in the future to obtain good tunnel-to-road correlation data:

-53-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Airflow blockage effect produced by the car


Airflow turbulence level
Airflow angularity, i.e., small pitch and yaw velocity components
Ground simulation and its boundary layer
Wheel rotation

Also the following test equipment or procedures/methods should be improved or developed:


a. To split the total road-load force into its rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag component (53)
b. Appropriate boundary layer control system such as moving belt or improved blowing and suction
systems (54, 13)
c. Slightly modifying current procedures and by adding a chase vehicle for an over-the-road test for trucks
and buses (55)

PREPARED BY THE SAE TESTING METHODS AND


PROCEDURES STANDARDS COMMITTEE

-54-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


APPENDIX A
REYNOLDS NUMBER MATCHING
A.1

Reynolds number is the ratio of inertia forces divided by the viscous forces as in Equation A1:

(Eq. A1)

is air density
V is air velocity
L is a characteristic length
is the kinematic viscosity
where:
If we match Re of a scale model to the Re of its full-scale counterpart, we have matched the viscous and
inviscid flow fields. This match is, in some cases, required to generate data which is representative of the fullscale vehicle. For a re-match consider Equation A2:
(Eq. A2)
For subsonic, incompressible flow, density and kinematic viscosity are the same for model and full-scale,
therefore Equation A3:
(Eq. A3)
or

But
is the inverse of the model scale. This means to simulate 100 kph full-scale with a 1:2.5 scale model, a speed
of 250 kph must be run. (Higher speeds lead to compressibility effects.) In many cases, wind-tunnels do not
have the capability to match Reynolds numbers and variations in Reynolds numbers (Reynolds number
sweeps) are performed to generate a database to extrapolate to full-scale Reynolds numbers.

-55-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


APPENDIX B
EXTRACTS FROM SAE INFORMATION REPORT HS J1566 'AERODYNAMIC FLOW VISUALIZATION
TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES'
B.1

See 1
Figures B1 through B4.

FIGURE B1NEAR SURFACE FLOW VISUALIZATION USING YARN TUFTS

-56-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

-57-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE B2SURFACE FLOW VISUALIZATION OBTAINED BY USING OIL/INK DROPLETS

-58-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

-59-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE B3STREAMLINES IN THE FLOW SHOWN BY A SINGLE TUFT WAND


(PICTURES COURTESY OF CHRYSLER)

-60-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

-61-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

FIGURE B4FLOW FIELD DESCRIPTION USING A SMOKE STREAMER

-62-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93

-63-

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


RationaleThis SAE Information Report has been developed from an earlier SAE Recommended Practice
(1)1 which set out test procedures for measuring the aerodynamic characteristics of heavy-duty trucks
and buses using established wind-tunnel model testing techniques. The Information Report provides the
rationale and the background behind the recommended test techniques in that Recommended Practice.
It also outlines additional techniques that are useful in wind-tunnel testing, but which have not yet gained
the level of acceptance needed for an SAE recommended practice.
The objective of both the Recommended Practice and the Information Report is to provide guidance for
the engineer tasked with carrying out wind-tunnel testing on a road vehicle, for whatever purpose. Use
of the procedures described should improve the comparability of aerodynamic data taken in different
wind-tunnels and should ensure that good quality data are obtained.
The present Information Report covers a broader range of vehicles than the Recommended Practice (1).
In addition to trucks and buses, which are mostly tested at reduced scale in order to match the sizes of
wind-tunnels commonly available, this report deals with tests on smaller vehicles, such as automobiles,
motorcycles, and racing cars, which are very often tested at full scale.
Relationship of SAE Standard to ISO StandardNot applicable.
ApplicationThe scope of this SAE Information Report is confined to wind-tunnel testing, although it is
recognized that many aspects of the aerodynamic characteristics of road vehicles can be investigated in
other test facilities (such as water-tanks) or, especially, on the road. For example, coastdown testing is
often used to determine aerodynamic drag (either in isolation or as part of the total resistance), and
artificial gust generators are used to investigate the sensitivity of vehicles to cross-wind gusts.
Also excluded from the present Report are climatic wind-tunnel tests of road vehicles, which are defined
in more detail in Section 3.
The Report covers the aerodynamic requirements of a wind-tunnel for automotive testing, together with
the facility equipment needed and the requirements affecting the test vehicle or model. The test
methods and procedures described here include those for six-component force measurements and
measurements of pressures and velocities both on the vehicle/model surface and in the surrounding
flow-field.
Flow visualization techniques are outlined, with reference to the detailed coverage in a related SAE
Information Report (2). In addition, the reduction, analysis, and presentation of wind-tunnel data are
considered, with further references to associated SAE Information Reports (3, 4) on corrections to be
applied for wind-tunnel blockage effects. Finally, methods are discussed for the validation of the windtunnel data, e.g., by tunnel-to-road correlation studies.
As already indicated, this document has been prepared in conjunction with a number of other SAE
Information Reports and Recommended Practices (1-5), each of which provides greater detail than is
given here on its particular aspect of automotive aerodynamic testing.
Reference Section
1.
2.
3.
4.

SAE J1252 SAE Wind-Tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses
HS J1566 Aerodynamic Flow Visualization Techniques and Procedures
SAE J2071 Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles: Open-Jet Wind-Tunnel Boundary Interference
SAE J2085 Aerodynamic Testing of Road Vehicles: Solid-Wall Wind-Tunnel Boundary
Interference
5. SAE J1594 Vehicle Aerodynamics Terminology
6. SCHLICHTING, H., Boundary-Layer Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, (1979)

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


7. VAN DYKE, M., Higher Order Boundary Layer Theory. Annual Review of Fluid Mech. I, pp 265292
(1969)
8. WIEDEMANN, J., Some Basic Investigations into the Principles of Ground Simulation Techniques in
Automotive Wind-Tunnels, SAE Paper 890369, Detroit, (1989)
9. BEESE, E., Untersuchungen zum Einflusse der Reynolds-Zahl auf die Aerodynamischen Beiwerte
von Tragflgelprofilen in Bodennhe, Dissertation, Fakultt fr Maschinenbau, Ruhr- Universitt
Bochum, (1982)
10. BERNDTSSON, A., ECKERT, W.T. AND MERCKER, E., The Effect of Groundplane Boundary Layer
Control on Automotive Testing in a Wind Tunnel, SAE Paper 880248, Detroit (1988)
11. CARR, G.W., A Comparison of the Ground-Plane-Suction and Moving-Belt Ground-Representation
Techniques, SAE Paper 880249, Detroit (1988)
12. HACKETT, J.E. and BOLES, R.A., Moving-Ground Simulation by Targential Blowing, J. Aircraft, Vol.
16, No. 12, Article No. 78-814R, December (1979)
13. MERCKER, E., and WIEDEMANN, J., Comparison of Different Ground-Simulation Techniques for
Use in Automotive Wind-Tunnels, SAE Paper 900321, Detroit (1990)
14. RAE, W. H., Jr., POPE, A., Low Speed Wind-Tunnel Testing, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
New York (1984)
15. PANKHURST, R.C., HOLDER, D.W., Wind-Tunnel Technique, Pitmans, London (1965)
16. HUCHO, W-H., Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles, Butterworths & Co, Cambridge (1987)
17. OWER, E., PANKHURST, R.C., The Measurement of Air Flow, 5th Edition, Pergamon Press, Oxford
(1977)
18. BRITISH STANDARD, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits, Section 2.1 Method Using
Pitot-Static Tubes, BS1042: Section 2.1: 1983, ISO 3966-1977, London (1983)
19. MICHEL, V., FROEBEL, E., Definition and Lowest Possible Levels of Wind-Tunnel Turbulence, WindTunnels and Testing Techniques, AGARD Conference Proceedings 348 (1983)
20. SEIDEL, M., et al, Construction 19761980, Design, Manufacturing and Calibration of the DeutschNiederlndischer Wind kanal DNW, Published by DNW, Emmeloord (1982)
21. KELLY, K.B., PROVENCHER, L.G., SCHENKEL, F.K., The General Motors Engineering Staff
Aerodynamics Laboratory A Full Scale Automotive Wind-Tunnel, SAE Paper 820371, Detroit
(1982)
22. NILSSON, L.U., BERNDTSSON, A., The New Volvo Multi-purpose Automotive Wind-Tunnel, SAE
Paper 870249, Detroit (1987)
23. VAGT, J.D., WOLFF, B., Special Design Features and Their Influence on Flow Quality: Test Results
from Porsche's New Wind-Tunnel, AutoTech 1987, London (1987)
24. SARDOU, M., The Sensitivity of Wind-Tunnel Data to a High-Speed Moving Ground for Different
Types of Road Vehicles, SAE Paper 880246, Detroit (1988)
25. COOPER, K.R., The Effect of Front-Edge Rounding and Rear-Edge Shaping on the Aerodynamics
of Bluff Vehicles in Ground Proximity, SAE Paper 850288, Detroit (1985)
26. GILHAUS, A., The Main Parameters Determining the Aerodynamic Drag of Buses, Proceedings of
Colloquium: Designing with the Wind, CSTB Nantes, June 1981
27. GILHAUS, A., Aerodynamics of Heavy Commercial Vehicles, Short Course: Vehicle Aerodynamics,
von Karman Institute, January 1984
28. BEAUVAIS, F.N., TIGNOR, S.C., TURNER, T.R., Problems of Ground Simulation in Automotive
Aerodynamics, SAE Paper 680121, Detroit (1968)
29. HUCHO, W-H., JANSSEN, L.J., Flow Visualization Technique in Vehicle Aerodynamics, Proceedings
International Symposium on Flow Visualization, Tokyo (1977)
30. THE JAPAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, Visualised Flow, English Edition, Pergamon
Press, Oxford (1988)
31. VE'RET, C., Flow Visualization IV, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Flow
Visualization in Paris, Hemisphere Publishing Corp, New York (1987)
32. GORLIN, S. M., SLEZINGER, I.I., Wind-Tunnels and Their Instrumentation, Jerusalem (1966).
33. COGOTTI, A., Flow Field Surveys behind Three Squareback Car Models using a new "Fourteenhole" Probe, SAE Paper 870243

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


34. PREUSSER, T., POLANSKY, L., GIESECKE, P., Advances in the Development of Wind-Tunnel
Balances Systems for Experimental Automotive Aerodynamics, SAE Paper 890370
35. COGOTTI, A., A Strategy for Optimum Surveys of Passenger Car Flow Fields, SAE 890374.
36. WIEDEMANN, J., Grenzen und Mglichkeiten der Modelltechnik innerhalb der Kraftfahrzeug
Aerodynamik, Symposium No. T-30-905-056-7 "Aerodynamik des Kraftfahrzeugs". Haus der
Technik, Essen, FRG, (1987)
37. WIEDEMANN, J., and EWALD, B., Turbulence Manipulation to Increase Effective Reynolds Numbers
in Vehicle Aerodynamics, AIAA Journal, Vol. 27, No.6, pp. 763769, June 1989
38. SCHLICHTING, H., and TRUCKENBRODT, E., Aerodynamics of the Airplane, McGraw-Hill, New
York, (1979)
39. WIEDEMANN, J., Theoretical and Experimental Optimization of the Road-Vehicle Internal Flow, Von
Karman Institute For Fluid Dynamics Lecture Series 1986-05 on Vehicle Aerodynamics, Rhode-St.Genese (Belgium), March 1721, (1986)
40. SOJA, H., and WIEDEMANN, J., The Interference Between Exterior and Interior Flow on Road
Vehicles, Societe des Ingenieurs de l'Automobile (S.I.A.), Journe d'tude: Dynamique du Vehicule
Securite Active, June 1617, (1987)
41. BEECK, M.A., and STOFFREGEN, B., Measurement of the Projected Frontal Area of Vehicles A
New Contour-Tracking Laser Device in Comparision to Other Methods, SAE Paper 870246, Detroit,
1987
42. BUCHHEIM, R., et al, Advanced Experimental Techniques and Their Application to Automotive
Aerodynamics, SAE Paper 870244, Detroit, 1987
43. COGOTTI, A., A Two Component Fiber-Optic LDV System for Automotive Aerodynamics Research,
SAE Paper 880252, Detroit, 1988
44. BUCKLEY, F.T., and SEKSCIENSKI, W.S., Comparisons of Effectiveness of Commercially Available
Devices for the Reduction of Aerodynamic Drag on Tractor-Trailers, SAE Paper 750704, Seattle,
1975
45. COOPER, K.R., A Wind-Tunnel Investigation into the Fuel Savings Available for the Aerodynamic
Drag Reduction of Trucks, DME/NAE Quarterly Bulletin No 1976 (3), National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa, 1976
46. SAE/RCCC In-Service Fuel Economy Tests, Type 1 and Type 11 Procedures
47. CARR, G.W. and ROSE, M.J., Correlation of Full-Scale Wind-Tunnel and Road Measurements of
Aerodynamic Drag, MIRA Report 1964/5
48. COSTELLI, A., et al, Fiat Research Center Reference Car: Correlation Tests Between Four FullScale European Wind-Tunnels and Road, SAE Paper 810187, Detroit, 1981
49. COOPER, K.R., MASON, W.T., Jr., and BETTES, W.H., Correlation Experience with the SAE WindTunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and Buses, SAE Paper 820375, Detroit, 1982
50. FANGER-VEXLER, S., et al, Full Scale, On-Road Study of the Effects of Automobile Shape on its
Aerodynamic Characteristics, and Comparison with Small-Scale Wind-Tunnel Results, SAE Paper
850287, Detroit, 1985
51. SAUNDERS, J.W., et al, Comparison of On-Road and Wind-Tunnel Tests for Tractor-Trailer
Aerodynamic Devices, and Fuel Savings Predictions, SAE Paper 850286, Detroit, 1985
52. EAKER, G.W., Wind-Tunnel-to-Road Aerodynamic Drag Correlation, SAE Paper 880250, Detroit,
1988
53. IWASE, H., YAMADA, S., and KOGA, H., A New Approach to Measuring Road Load by Chassis
Dynamometer and Wind-Tunnel Tests, SAE Paper 820377, Detroit, 1982
54. HACKETT, J.E., et al, On the Influence of Ground Movement and Wheel Rotation in Tests on Modern
Car Shapes, SAE Paper 870245, Detroit, 1987
55. BUCKLEY, F.T., Jr., An Improved Over-the-Road Test Method for Determining the Fuel Savings
Benefit of a Truck Aerodynamic Drag-Reducing Device, SAE Paper 850285, Detroit, 1985

SAE J2084 Issued JAN93


Acknowledgements This Report was prepared by the SAE Standards Committee "Testing Methods
and Procedures". The members of the Committee were:
G. W. Carr (Chairman), MIRA, UK
K. R. Cooper, NRC, Canada
A. M. Gilhaus, Fordwerke AG, Germany
M. E. Gleason, Chrysler Corporation, USA
K. B. Kelly, General Motors Corporation, USA
A. T. McDonald, Purdue University, USA
E. Mercker, DNW, Netherlands
S. Muto, JARI, Japan
L. U. Nilsson, Volvo Car Corporation, Sweden
F. K. Schenkel, General Motors Corporation, USA
S. B. Wallis, Ford Motor Company, USA
J. Wiedemann, Audi AG, Germany
Additional contributions to the work of the Committee were made by A. Berndtsson (Volvo Car
Corporation) and the authors of the SAE J1252, "SAE Wind-tunnel Test Procedure for Trucks and
Buses," published in 1981.
The Committee would like to thank the Companies and Institutions of all its members and contributors for
generously supporting the work of the Committee.
Developed by the SAE Testing Methods and Procedures Standards Committee

Вам также может понравиться