EcoModder Forum Effects of Vehicle Shape on Aerodynamic Characteristics

Register Now
 Remember

 02-24-2011, 09:58 AM #1 (permalink) aero guerrilla     Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Warsaw, Poland Posts: 3,522 Svietlana - '05 Peugeot 307 SW Diesel 90 day: 54.1 mpg (US) Theodor - '01 Peugeot 106 90 day: 46.17 mpg (US) Thanks: 1,032 Thanked 615 Times in 386 Posts Effects of Vehicle Shape on Aerodynamic Characteristics As we all know, improving the airflow over one part of a vehicle often effects how air flows over other parts. For example, the hood and windshield angles determine how the air flows over the roof and sides. The following comes from Piechna's book. I haven't seen the original work (cited below), so I don't have the full data. I give only what Piechna wrote. Asago and Takagi ([1]) systematically tested the shape of a sedan, changing 10 different elements of the body. They planned the experiments in such a way that the number of tests could be reduced from 3^10 to only 81. Each of those 81 tests was performed twice. The tests were conducted on a 1:5 scale model in a wind tunnel. The following elements were tested: Narrowing the body at the front and rear, Side window angle (22° and 30°), Length of front bumper, Angle of grille (0°, 12.5°, 25°), Angle of hood/bonnet (5°, 7°, 9°), Angle of windshield (25°, 30°, 35°), Angle of rear window (30°, 35°, 40°, 45°, 50°), Inward angling of rear pillar, Angle of trunk/boot (4°, 8°, 12°), Geometry of rear spoiler. The effect of each of these elements on the drag coefficient was tested, then the propotional change in Cx (Cd) was calculated. Here is an ordering of those effects:46.5% - Angle of hood/bonnet (element #5) 17.0% - Angle of grille (element #4) 11.7% - Narrowing the body at the front and rear (element #1) 11.5% - Angle of rear window (element #7) 3.9% - Inward angling of rear pillar (element #8) 1.9% - Relationship between rear window angle and spoiler 1.7% - Relationship between windshield and rear window angles As the above list shows, the hood/bonnet angle has the largest effect on the drag coefficient Cx of a sedan shaped vehicle. Increasing it from 5° to 9° reduced Cd from 0.52 to 0.47. Changing the rear window angle from 30° to 40° increased Cx from 0.47-0.485 (depends on windshield angle) to 0.51. Here is a drawing of how the drag coefficient Cx depends on windshield and rear window angles (Y-axis is Cx, X-axis is windshield angle, curve 1 has rear window angle of 30°, curve 2 has rear window angle of 35°): The lift force is mostly effected by:Rear spoiler arrangement (element #10) Angle of trunk/boot (element #9) Angle of rear window (element #7) Adding a spoiler decreased the lift coefficient Cz from 0.51-0.52 to 0.43-0.42. A flatter trunk/boot cover (4°) with spoilers gave lower lift coefficient values (0.38-0.39) than a 12° cover (0.45). The lateral force (with inclination gamma = 10°) is mostly effected by:Angle of rear window (element #7) Angle of trunk/boot (element #9) Angle of grille (element #4) Increasing the rear window angle from 30° to 40° increased the lateral force coefficient Cy from 0.42 to 0.49. Increasing the hood/bonnet angle from 5° to 9° increased Cy from 0.44 to 0.47. The coefficient of angular (swerving?) momentum Cm is effected by:Angle of grille (element #4) Angle of rear window (element #7) Increasing grille angle from 0° (vertical) to 25° increased Cm from 0.132 to 0.159. Increasing the rear window angle causes Cm to decrease. The optimal geometry to obtain the lowest aerodynamic drag (Cx = 0.435) is as follows:extended front bumper, swept back grille (25° from vertical), steep hood/bonnet angle (9°), moderate side window angle (22°), pronounced narrowing of body both front and rear, rear pillars angled inwards, flatter windshield angle (25°), almost flat trunk/boot (4°). The optimum for lowest lift is slightly different (shorter front bumper, vertical grille, steep rear window - 40°). As mentioned earlier, this is only a review from Piechna's book. If anyone has access to Asago and Takagi's work, please post more info here. [1] Asago T., Takagi M., Use of a Designed Experiment for Systematically Testing the Effects of Vehicle Shape on Aerodynamic Characteristics, JSAE Review, No.2, April 1987, pp.26-33. __________________ e·co·mod·ding: the art of turning vehicles into what they should be What matters is where you're going, not how fast. "... we humans tend to screw up everything that's good enough as it is...or everything that we're attracted to, we love to go and defile it." - Chris Cornell Piwoslaw's Peugeot 307sw modding thread
 The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Piwoslaw For This Useful Post: Arragonis (02-24-2011), Cd (02-24-2011), euromodder (02-24-2011), KamperBob (02-25-2011), landsailor (02-24-2011), PaleMelanesian (02-24-2011), tasdrouille (02-25-2011)
 Today Popular topics Other popular topics in this forum...
 02-24-2011, 10:36 AM #2 (permalink) Hypermiler     Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 2,280 PaleCivic (retired) - '96 Honda Civic DX Sedan 90 day: 69.2 mpg (US) PaleFit - '09 Honda Fit Sport Team HondaWagons 90 day: 47.93 mpg (US) Thanks: 546 Thanked 401 Times in 263 Posts Really? I'm amazed that the hood angle has that much effect. __________________ 11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
 02-24-2011, 04:43 PM #3 (permalink) The PRC.   Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Elsewhere. Posts: 5,304 Thanks: 285 Thanked 534 Times in 383 Posts I am going to take time to look at this vs Helga, especially that second list. __________________ [I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
Master EcoModder

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 8,475
Thanks: 10,674
Thanked 4,479 Times in 2,494 Posts
at home

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Piwoslaw As we all know, improving the airflow over one part of a vehicle often effects how air flows over other parts. For example, the hood and windshield angles determine how the air flows over the roof and sides. The following comes from Piechna's book. I haven't seen the original work (cited below), so I don't have the full data. I give only what Piechna wrote. Asago and Takagi ([1]) systematically tested the shape of a sedan, changing 10 different elements of the body. They planned the experiments in such a way that the number of tests could be reduced from 3^10 to only 81. Each of those 81 tests was performed twice. The tests were conducted on a 1:5 scale model in a wind tunnel. The following elements were tested: Narrowing the body at the front and rear, Side window angle (22° and 30°), Length of front bumper, Angle of grille (0°, 12.5°, 25°), Angle of hood/bonnet (5°, 7°, 9°), Angle of windshield (25°, 30°, 35°), Angle of rear window (30°, 35°, 40°, 45°, 50°), Inward angling of rear pillar, Angle of trunk/boot (4°, 8°, 12°), Geometry of rear spoiler. The effect of each of these elements on the drag coefficient was tested, then the propotional change in Cx (Cd) was calculated. Here is an ordering of those effects:46.5% - Angle of hood/bonnet (element #5) 17.0% - Angle of grille (element #4) 11.7% - Narrowing the body at the front and rear (element #1) 11.5% - Angle of rear window (element #7) 3.9% - Inward angling of rear pillar (element #8) 1.9% - Relationship between rear window angle and spoiler 1.7% - Relationship between windshield and rear window angles As the above list shows, the hood/bonnet angle has the largest effect on the drag coefficient Cx of a sedan shaped vehicle. Increasing it from 5° to 9° reduced Cd from 0.52 to 0.47. Changing the rear window angle from 30° to 40° increased Cx from 0.47-0.485 (depends on windshield angle) to 0.51. Here is a drawing of how the drag coefficient Cx depends on windshield and rear window angles (Y-axis is Cx, X-axis is windshield angle, curve 1 has rear window angle of 30°, curve 2 has rear window angle of 35°): The lift force is mostly effected by:Rear spoiler arrangement (element #10) Angle of trunk/boot (element #9) Angle of rear window (element #7) Adding a spoiler decreased the lift coefficient Cz from 0.51-0.52 to 0.43-0.42. A flatter trunk/boot cover (4°) with spoilers gave lower lift coefficient values (0.38-0.39) than a 12° cover (0.45). The lateral force (with inclination gamma = 10°) is mostly effected by:Angle of rear window (element #7) Angle of trunk/boot (element #9) Angle of grille (element #4) Increasing the rear window angle from 30° to 40° increased the lateral force coefficient Cy from 0.42 to 0.49. Increasing the hood/bonnet angle from 5° to 9° increased Cy from 0.44 to 0.47. The coefficient of angular (swerving?) momentum Cm is effected by:Angle of grille (element #4) Angle of rear window (element #7) Increasing grille angle from 0° (vertical) to 25° increased Cm from 0.132 to 0.159. Increasing the rear window angle causes Cm to decrease. The optimal geometry to obtain the lowest aerodynamic drag (Cx = 0.435) is as follows:extended front bumper, swept back grille (25° from vertical), steep hood/bonnet angle (9°), moderate side window angle (22°), pronounced narrowing of body both front and rear, rear pillars angled inwards, flatter windshield angle (25°), almost flat trunk/boot (4°). The optimum for lowest lift is slightly different (shorter front bumper, vertical grille, steep rear window - 40°). As mentioned earlier, this is only a review from Piechna's book. If anyone has access to Asago and Takagi's work, please post more info here. [1] Asago T., Takagi M., Use of a Designed Experiment for Systematically Testing the Effects of Vehicle Shape on Aerodynamic Characteristics, JSAE Review, No.2, April 1987, pp.26-33.
I have that work or a similar SAE report at home.All this is in Hucho's book.Hucho did similar testing when at VW in the early 1970s.
Most modern generic cars have embraced the best of these findings to obtain the mpg they enjoy.
In my Sticky on Mod-Data I believe I touch on all these themes.

 02-24-2011, 08:15 PM #5 (permalink) Ultimate Fail     Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Austin,Texas Posts: 3,033 Thanks: 2,258 Thanked 753 Times in 437 Posts I wonder if the grille had rounded edges in this test. __________________ "You don't fail until you give up. You learn, and move on." - Christ " Hypermiling is not going slow, it's driving with more intelligence." - UFO
 02-24-2011, 10:34 PM #6 (permalink) EcoModding Lurker   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 7 La Tortuga - '92 Geo Metro XFI Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts encouragement... Thanks for posting this... for me, this is good encouragement for my project of making a custom fiberglass hood, which will have a steeper angle than the existing stock hood... Yes one of my many lofty projects planned for the year encouragement never the less...
 02-25-2011, 03:39 AM #7 (permalink) aero guerrilla     Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Warsaw, Poland Posts: 3,522 Svietlana - '05 Peugeot 307 SW Diesel 90 day: 54.1 mpg (US) Theodor - '01 Peugeot 106 90 day: 46.17 mpg (US) Thanks: 1,032 Thanked 615 Times in 386 Posts Thanks, Aerohead. I've never had Hucho's work in my hands, so I wasn't aware that he covered this. __________________ e·co·mod·ding: the art of turning vehicles into what they should be What matters is where you're going, not how fast. "... we humans tend to screw up everything that's good enough as it is...or everything that we're attracted to, we love to go and defile it." - Chris Cornell Piwoslaw's Peugeot 307sw modding thread
Master EcoModder

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 8,475
Thanks: 10,674
Thanked 4,479 Times in 2,494 Posts
rehash

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Piwoslaw Thanks, Aerohead. I've never had Hucho's work in my hands, so I wasn't aware that he covered this.
I've not yet dug in to find the paper,but I'm thinking it is circa mid-1980s.
It's kind of a rehash of R.G.S.White's work at MIRA in England,published in 1969.( A Method of Estimating Automobile Drag Coeffiients,SAE Paper# 69018 )
White took a wind tunnel model and ran it through 44 physical body change iterations to qualify the lowest drag capability for 9 major body categories.
If you combined the best of each category,the 'recipe' could yield a car body with Cd as low as 0.24.Not bad for 1969.I'm pretty certain that HONDA used White's work to help create their 178 mpg P-100 in 1972.
There is an image of his table in the Phil Knox's Aerodynamic Photos Album somewhere.

 02-28-2011, 04:36 PM #9 (permalink) Master EcoModder     Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A. Posts: 8,475 Thanks: 10,674 Thanked 4,479 Times in 2,494 Posts documents Piwoslaw,I located the material I was thinking about. The work Hucho cites in his book comes from the work of G.W.Carr of the Motor Industry Research Institute (MIRA),England,who submitted work from the mid-1960s,into the latter 1970s.This material is virtually identical in scope to your material. I also have SAE Paper # 860211,by Alfons M. Gilhaus and Volker E.Renn of Ford Werke AG,K'o'ln,Germany which duplicates the work of Carr and your source. It's funny how researchers appear to operate in a vacuum.
 The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post: Piwoslaw (03-01-2011)
 02-28-2011, 04:47 PM #10 (permalink) The PRC.   Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Elsewhere. Posts: 5,304 Thanks: 285 Thanked 534 Times in 383 Posts Did these guys work in this at all ? Precursor to the Sierra ? __________________ [I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]