Analyzing the Drag Coefficient of a Model Semi Truck

Nate Green
Ben Hoffman
Nathan Breneman
Joshua Keller

Introduction
Rose Experiments Inc. has hired our group to determine the drag coefficient of a model-semi
truck. Full scale semi-trucks are commonly used for transporting goods across the country. Since large
amounts of these trucks are used every day, the smallest decrease in the drag force on a truck can cause
a large amount of savings in fuel. One way to decrease the drag force on the semi-truck is to decrease
the drag coefficient of the vehicle. The purpose of this experiment is to measure the drag coefficient of a
less expensive scale model semi-truck using a wind tunnel and a number of sensors. A scaled model and
a full sized model will have approximately the same drag coefficient. Based on this information, Rose
Experiments Inc. can decide whether or not to put the full scale semi-truck into production.

System and Model

For the primary experiment, the physical model consisted of the model truck inside a wind
tunnel. The free body diagram of the truck inside the wind tunnel with the drag force acting on the truck
is shown below in figure (1).

Figure 1. Free body diagram of truck in the wind tunnel

The data reduction equation for this model was derived using the following equation,
1

= 2 ,

(1)

where is the Drag force in Newtons, is the drag coefficient, is the largest frontal cross-sectional
area in 2 , and is the velocity of the air in the wind tunnel in /.
Equation (1) is then rewritten, solving for .

(2)

= 2 ,

(3)

= 1
2

The equation for dynamic pressure is as follows,

1
2

where is the dynamic pressure recorded in pascals. Equation (3) is substituted into equation (2),

(4)

For the wind tunnel used in this particular experiment, the dynamic pressure was determined by
measuring the two heights of the manometer fluids. The equation for dynamic pressure in terms of the
recorded heights is as follows,

= (2 1 ),

(5)

where is the gauge fluid density, 1 is the height of the fluid in the first manometer, and 2 is the
height of fluid in the second manometer.
An auxiliary experiment was required to solve for the static friction coefficients of two surfaces.
The physical model for this experiment consisted of the model truck on an inclined surface. The free
body diagram of the truck, represented as a block with mass, , located on a surface inclined at an
angle with gravity and normal forces acting on the truck. The diagram is shown below in figure 2.

Figure 2. Free body diagram of truck on inclined surface.

The frictional force,, is denoted by the equation below,

(6)

Where is the static coefficient of friction between the truck and the surface and is the force acting on
the truck normal to the plane.
Summing the forces acting on the block in the direction normal to the plane of the incline and equating
the summation to zero yields the following equation,

= ,

(7)

where is the mass of the truck, is the acceleration due to gravity, and is the slope angle of the
surface.
Substituting equation (7) into equation (6) arrives at the following equation,

= .

(8)

Summing the forces in the direction tangent to the plane and setting it equal to zero arrives at the
following equation,

= .

(9)

= .

(10)

Equation (9) is then solved for ,

The equation relating frictional force and static coefficient of friction on a flat surface is as follows,

= .

(11)

Substituting equation (10) into equation (11) yields the following,

= .

(12)

The area of the truck was calculated by measuring the length and width of the cross sectional area and
using the following equation to calculate the area,

(13)

In the wind tunnel, the moment of slip occurs when the drag force, ,is equal to or greater than the
frictional force, . Substituting equation (12) and (13) into equation (4) results our final DRE,

(2 1 )

(13)

Apparatus and Methods

The primary experiment was conducted in an open-loop wind tunnel. The scale model semitruck was placed in a designated spot on surface 1, a 0.25 inch thick polycarbonate plate attached to a
base, such that the front of the truck was facing perpendicular to the oncoming wind stream. The
polycarbonate plate was cut to create a beveled edge on the front face to minimize the disturbance of
the wind due to the drag on the plate. The knob that controls the air velocity was turned to the lowest
possible setting (completely counterclockwise), and the wind tunnel was turned on using the switch
above the knob. The air velocity in the wind tunnel was slowly increased until the semi tuck began to
slip. At the moment of slipping, the height of the fluids in the furthermost right tubes of the wind tunnel
manometer were recorded, and the difference was calculated. The dynamic pressure was then
determined by using equation 5. For alternate measurements, a sheet of Teflon was fastened to the
base of the wind tunnel, and the dynamic pressure was determined using the same method. The Teflon
sheet was labeled as sheet 2.

Figure 3. Diagram of open loop wind tunnel.

Figure 4. Manometer reading 1 and 2

To ensure a more accurate random uncertainty value for the dynamic pressure, six trials were
taken using each surface in the wind tunnel. These twelve trials were listed, randomized using code, and
were further separated to make sure no repeated measurements were taken. A set time of at least two
hours was waited between taking measurements of the same sheet, as to let the pressure and
temperature of the surroundings change. With these precautions, no repeated measurements were
taken and the data recorded was purely random.
An auxiliary experiment was conducted to find the coefficient of static friction between the
semi-trucks wheels and the two different surfaces. The base was removed from the wind tunnel and
placed on a level table. The truck was placed on the plate in the same location as where it was in the
wind tunnel. A digital protractor was placed on the plate and parallel to the truck, and was zeroed. The
base was slowly rotated by the axis perpendicular to the face of the truck until the truck began to slip. At
the moment the truck slipped, the angle of the base was recorded off of the digital protractor. This
process was repeated six times to ensure a more accurate value of the coefficient of static friction. The
Teflon sheet was then placed on the base, and the process was again repeated six times, this time
placing the truck on the sheet.

Figure 5. Diagram of auxiliary experiment.

In order to calculate the normal force exerted from the base onto the truck, the mass of the
truck was measured. Only one value was taken for the mass of the truck, which was measured using a
digital scale and recorded.
The area of the largest cross section of the truck also was measured to calculate the drag
coefficient of the truck. The length of the truck was measured by pinching the ends of a pair of calipers
around the largest width of the truck. The width was found by pinching the ends of the calipers from the
tallest part of the truck and the surface beneath it. Then the distance from the bottom surface to the
bottom of the wheels was measured, and added to the width.

Data and Analysis

The average static coefficient of friction was found by plugging each of the values for per
surface into equation (10) and averaging the results. For surface 1, the value for was 0.954 0.114.
The mass of the truck was determined to be 239 g, and the normal force of the plate on the
truck was calculated to be 2.34 0.01 N using equation (7), where the angle was approximately zero.
The drag force required to move the truck on each surface was calculated using equation (6). The drag
force on the truck for surface 1 was 2.24 0.27 N. The width and height of truck were measured as
59.70 mm and 67.33 mm respectively. Using equation (13), the cross-sectional area of the truck was
4.02 103 0.00 103 m2 .

From the data gathered during the wind tunnel testing, the dynamic pressure was calculated for
both surfaces using the fluid heights in the manometer. In the first trial taken with surface 1, the value
for 1 was 2.65 in and the value for 2 was 5.95 in. The value for the gauge fluid density, , was
recorded from the manometer as 826

. The dynamic pressure was then found as 757.4 Pa by using

3

equation (5). Finally, the dynamic pressure, area, and drag force were all plugged into equation (2), and
the drag coefficient for the first trial of surface 1 was determined to be 0.819.

Results and Discussion

In this experiment, 6 trials were taken on each surface to determine a value for the static
coefficient of friction. The average for each sheet was calculated and stored in Table 1.

Table 1. Static friction coefficient for surface 1 and 2.

The average drag force required to move the truck on each surface was also calculated and stored in
Table 2.

Table 2. Drag force that would cause slipping on respective surfaces.

The average dynamic pressure for each sheet is shown in table 3.

Table 3. Calculated average dynamic pressure for surface 1 and 2.

From all of the values above, the average drag coefficient was calculated separately for each surface.

Table 4. Calculated drag coefficients for surface 1 and 2.

According to Engineering Toolbox, the expected Drag Coefficient of a Semi-Truck is 0.8 to 1.0. This
supports the experiments result; the uncertainty ranges of the drag coefficient for both surfaces fall
into the expected value range. Because of this, the result obtained in this experiment is not
unbelievable, and can be deemed credible.

Conclusions
The drag coefficient of the model truck was determined to be 0.74 0.12 when surface 1 was
used and 0.69 0.23 when surface 2 was used. This is a good estimate of the drag coefficient of a semi
truck that Rose Experiments Inc. might use because the truck used in the experiment is a scaled model
of what the real semi truck would be. Based on these results, Rose Experiments Inc. can now decide
whether or not to spend the necessary money and resources to construct a full scale model of the semi
truck used in this experiment.

References

Batchelor, G.K. (1967). An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521-66396-2.

Drag Coefficient. Drag Coefficient. Engineering Toolbox, n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/drag-coefficient-d_627.html>.

Layton, Richard A. Rose-Hulman Institute of technology. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.

N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <http://moodle.rosehulman.edu/pluginfile.php/540416/mod_resource/content/1/randomize_test_seq.m>.

Chhetri, Sumit. Why Is Normal Force on a Banked Curve Different from Normal Force on an
Inclined Plane? Quora, Quora, 6 Apr. 2015. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <https://www.quora.com/Whyis-normal-force-on-a-banked-curve-different-from-normal-force-on-an-inclined-plane>.

Appendices
Appendix A. Testing Sequence

Table A-1.. Manometer height reading at moment of slip.

Table A-2. Weight and size measurements of the model truck.

Table A-3. Surface angle at moment of slip.

Appendix B. Uncertainty Analysis

To solve for the uncertainties in the experiment, a standard uncertainty analysis was executed. The
uncertainty of the final resultant, , is calculated by,

= , 2 + , 2 .

, 2

(B-1)

The systematic uncertainty of is represented by the uncertainty in the measurands and their partial
derivatives as shown below.
, 2

=(

2
2
2
) 2 + ( ) 2 + ( ) 2

(B-2)

The partial derivatives with respect to the variables from equation 4 yields,

(B-3)

(B-4)

(B-5)

Since the Drag Force had to be calculated with equation 11, uncertainty in the drag force consists of two
measurands and yields,
2

=(

2
) 2

+(

2
) 2 .

(B-6)

The partial derivatives of equation 11 give,

(B-7)
(B-8)

In the experiment, was calculated through another experiment with multiple trials. Therefore, the
uncertainty in has not only a systematic, but also a random uncertainty that yields,
, 2

= , 2 + , 2 .

(B-9)

The systematic uncertainty of was calculated using the digital protractors readability and accuracy,
giving,
, 2

= , 2 + , 2 .

(B-10)

data was gathered through multiple measurements so the appropriate calculation for the random
uncertainty is,
, 2

(B-11)

where is the test statistic on a 95% confidence interval, is the number of trials, and is the standard
deviation of . The uncertainty of was determined based on the readability of the scale and accuracy
of the scale with the equation,
2

= , 2 + , 2 .

(B-12)

The uncertainty of Dynamic Pressure was determined with the same method as the Drag Force, but with
equation 5 instead yielding,
2

=(

2
) 2 2
2

+(

2
) 1 2 .
1

(B-13)

The partial derivatives of equation 5 yield,

=
2

=
1

(B-14)
(B-15)

The only uncertainty in the measurands 2 and 1 were in the manometers readability, thus giving,
2 2

= , 2

(B-16)

1 2

= , 2 .

(B-17)

The uncertainty of the Area of the truck is given by,

2

= ( )2 2 + (

) 2 .

(B-16)

From taking partial derivatives of equation 13, the following is derived;

(B-17)

= .

(B-18)

The readability in the caliper was the only uncertainty for length and width, giving,
2

= , 2

= , 2 .

(B-19)

(B-20)

Finally, since multiple measurements were made, the measurement for consisted of a random
uncertainty,
, 2

(B-21)

where is the test statistic on a 95% confidence interval, is the number of trials, and is the
standard deviation of .This uncertainty process was used to calculate the Drag Coefficient on each
surface.

Sensors Used

Table B-1. Uncertainties in the measurand due to sensors.