Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017

2014-01-0615
Published 04/01/2014
Copyright © 2014 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2014-01-0615
saecomveh.saejournals.org

A Computational Investigation of Ground Simulation for a Saloon Car

Sofie Koitrand
Jaguar Land Rover

Lennart Lofdahl and Sven Rehnberg

Chalmers University of Technology

Adrian Gaylard
Jaguar Land Rover

ABSTRACT
Automotive aerodynamics measurements and simulations now routinely use a moving ground and rotating wheels
(MVG&RW), which is more representative of on-road conditions than the fixed ground-fixed wheel (FG&FW) alternative.
This can be understood as a combination of three elements: (a) moving ground (MVG), (b) rotating front wheels (RWF)
and (c) rotating rear wheels (RWR). The interaction of these elements with the flow field has been explored to date by
mainly experimental means.

This paper presents a mainly computational (CFD) investigation of the effect of RWF and RWR, in combination with MVG,
on the flow field around a saloon vehicle. The influence of MVG&RW is presented both in terms of a combined change
from a FG&FW baseline and the incremental effects seen by the addition of each element separately.

For this vehicle, noticeable decrease in both drag and rear lift is shown when adding MVG&RW, whereas front lift shows
little change. The same trends are seen in both CFD and experimental data.

The addition of MVG alone increases both drag and front lift, whereas rear lift decreases significantly. The addition of RWF
alone has little effect on the global results (aside from lift), whereas the addition of RWR alone decreases both drag and
rear lift significantly. Combining the incremental changes produces values that align well to the MVG&RW case, with the
exception of front lift.

This shows similar trends to previously published work, both the noticeable drag decrease due to the addition of
MVG&RW, and the contributions of the individual components.

CITATION: Koitrand, S., Lofdahl, L., Rehnberg, S., and Gaylard, A., "A Computational Investigation of Ground Simulation for a
Saloon Car," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 7(1):2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-0615.

INTRODUCTION moving ground and rotating wheels conditions, as opposed to

fixed ground and fixed wheels. This has been shown, in
To evaluate the aerodynamic design of vehicles, OEMs
previously published research, to yield more on-road like
(Original Equipment Manufacturers) and technical universities
conditions, which not only guarantees a better estimation of
have utilised wind tunnels since early in the 20th century for
integral forces (total drag and lift), but also better simulation of
measurements and simulations of on-road conditions [1]. Wind
local flow fields in the underbody region [3]. There are different
tunnels are a well established tool for the investigation of
ways to implement MVG&RW, but in general it can be broken
vehicle aerodynamic behaviour, but are expensive and time
down into three different elements; front wheel rotation, rear
consuming to use. Relatively recently, Computational Fluid
wheel rotation and a moving ground plane.
Dynamics (CFD) has become a viable complementary tool,
due to improvements in mathematical techniques, physics
This paper discusses the effects that MVG&RW have on the
models and computational power [2]. To improve the
external aerodynamics of a saloon type passenger car (the
simulations, both physically in wind tunnels and
Jaguar XF), and focuses mainly on CFD simulations. Particular
computationally, it has become increasingly popular to add
111
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017
112 Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014)
focus is given to the effect of rear wheel rotation and the
interaction between rear wheel rotation and the base wake of
the vehicle. The CFD data will be compared to experimental
data for the same vehicle, and also to previously published
research, both computational and experimental.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This topic has been researched and commented on previously,
mainly in terms of physical testing but also to some degree by
the use of CFD.
Wickern, Zwicker and Pfadenhauer [4] found that as much as
25 % of the total drag during MVG&RW conditions can be
attributed to the underbody region, indicating the significance
of correctly simulated wheel rotation and ground plane
movement.
During experimental testing Wickern and Lindener [5] found
that a moving ground together with a boundary layer removal
system yields an increase in total drag and a decrease in rear
lift for an Audi sports car. Wheel rotation alone lowered the
overall drag and increased lift, especially front lift. Rear wheel
rotation is reported to decrease the overall lift, whereas front
wheel rotation leads to a lift increase.
By using generic versions of a Volvo sedan and a Volvo
squareback, Elofsson and Bannister [3] performed wind tunnel
testing, after which it was concluded that the most significant
cause of the drag reduction caused by MVG&RW is the
interference effect of the rear wheel and wheel housing wakes
with the base wake. Adding only a MVG was found to increase
drag and front lift slightly, while decreasing rear lift. Front wheel
rotation resulted in a small increase in drag, whereas rear
wheel rotation led to a large drag reduction.
A decrease in global drag with MVG&RW compared to
stationary conditions has also been shown by Landström,
Löfdahl and Walker [2]. Experimental wind tunnel data was
compared with time averaged CFD data, using the MRF
(Multiple Reference Frame) method to simulate rotating
wheels. The CFD simulations broadly confirmed the
experimental results, although there were some discrepancies.
Wäschle [6] found that the interference effects between the
underbody flow and the rear wheel wakes contributed the most
to the changes in drag and lift with MVG&RW and, in
accordance with others, a decrease in total drag with
MVG&RW compared to stationary conditions.
All conclude that MVG&RW ought to be incorporated in
aerodynamic testing and simulation of road vehicles, due to its
large influence on the flow structure and the overall drag.
Several published papers have investigated the accuracy of
Computational Fluid Dynamics, including research performed
with different methods (time-averaged and transient) and
different algorithms (the finite volume method and the Lattice
Boltzmann method). In general, previous research shows good
correlation between CFD and physical testing. This includes
the previously discussed work of Landström, Löfdahl and
Walker [2]. The correlation between CFD analysis and
experimental results considering rotating wheels has also been
investigated by Wäschle, Cyr, Kuthada and Wiedemann, [7]
with good results. The paper compares one steady state solver
(STAR-CD) and one transient solver (PowerFLOW) with
experimental wind tunnel data.
Further work by others has evaluated the prediction of the
Lattice Boltzmann based CFD software Exa PowerFLOW, with
promising results for both drag and lift, [8], [9], [10], [11].
Duncan, Fischer and Kandasamy [8] performed wind tunnel
and CFD investigations on four different vehicle models and
compared the results. The results were found to correlate well
and trends for moving ground effects were very well predicted.
Front and rear lift values from the CFD simulations showed a
trend toward higher lift values than the experimental values,
although still close to perfect correlation.
A good correlation between CFD results and experimental
results has also been shown by Kandasamy, Duncan, Gau,
Maroy et al. [9] with a maximum of 2 % difference in the drag
coefficient, and a maximum of 15 counts difference in the lift
coefficients with a sliding mesh setup to simulate the rotating
wheels. When using MRF or a rotating wall boundary condition
to simulate rotating wheels a 5 % maximum error of the drag
coefficient is instead noted. The lift values of the rotating wall
method show an error of up to 27 counts, whereas those of the
MRF method correlate well with the sliding mesh ones with
values differing up to 13 counts.
By investigating a notchback and a SUV (sports utility vehicle)
model in an open jet wind tunnel and comparing with CFD
results, Fischer, Kuthada, Mercker, Wiedemann, et al. [10]
found that for the notchback the drag coefficient differs by a
few counts, whereas the total lift coefficient is about 20 counts
higher for the CFD simulation for each setup. The front lift
coefficient is between 6 and 7 counts higher for each setup
whereas the rear lift coefficient is consistently about 15 counts
higher for the CFD results with a CAD (computer aided design)
model compared to the wind tunnel results.
Finally, an indication of an absolute difference in the lift
coefficient CL of ±10 counts when comparing CFD results to
experimental results has been shown by Boujo, Nakasato,
Shiozawa, Miyamoto, et al. [11].
Ground simulation and the effect of belt width have also been
commented on before. Dimitriou and Garry [12] performed
research on the use of a narrow belt in wind tunnel testing, and
its effects on the generated aerodynamic forces on a 50 %
scale Formula-1 model. It was discovered that a so-called
“edge effect” was apparent when using a narrow belt which
results in a boundary layer development both above and at the
sides of the belt. The size of the boundary layer was found to
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017

Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014) 113

be significant, and grew larger at the trailing edge. Generally, it
was found that the drag coefficient was reduced with a
narrower belt, the front lift was reduced, and the rear lift
increased.
This paper is based on the Master's thesis work researched
and written by Koitrand and Rehnberg [13], during the spring of
2013 at JLR in Gaydon, UK.
METHODOLOGY
The simulations performed during the investigation have been
prepared using ANSA by BETA CAE Systems and the
simulations have been run using PowerFLOW, a CFD solver
that uses the Lattice Boltzmann method.
the MRF method for the rotating rims while the rest of the
wheels are assigned as rotating walls. The sliding mesh
method was also evaluated as an alternative to the MRF
method. When simulating the moving ground conditions, a
section of the ground plane, 50 metres by 50 metres, was
assigned a sliding wall boundary condition. This method was in
some cases replaced with a narrower “moving belt” for
comparison. In order to capture and investigate the influence of
rotating wheels, both front and rear, and the moving ground
plane, eight different cases were constructed based on
previous work done by Elofsson and Bannister [3]. The
different cases are explained in Table 1.
Table 1. Cases simulated

In order to ensure realistic simulations, and to improve

comparison with physical tests, the CAD models that the
simulations are based on are very detailed in all the relevant
areas exposed to airflow, including the engine bay and the
suspension geometry. The aim is to have a computational
model that to a large degree resembles the actual production
vehicle.

The simulations have been performed using a large

rectangular domain where 0.1 % of the virtual wind tunnel
cross-sectional area is blocked by the vehicle. The vehicle has
a frontal area of 2.33 m2 and a length of 4.96 m. A suction point
has been introduced in the virtual wind tunnel, 13.5 m in front
of the car (measured from the centre of the wheelbase) to
simulate the honeycomb screen at MIRA. The suction point
also specifies where the floor friction will be turned on, and is
hence turned off when simulating a moving ground.

To guarantee that this focus on detail improves the simulation

results, the volume mesh cell size is reduced in areas of
special interest. The volume mesh is divided into eleven
different zones of refinement, where the cell size doubles with
each zone. The smallest cell size is 1.25 mm and is used in
critical regions on the vehicle, whereas the largest cell size of
1250 mm is used far away from the vehicle. All simulations are
performed using a zero yaw onset flow, at a nominal velocity of
100 km/h (28.1 m/s).

The ambition to maintain a high level of detail also extends to

the wheels, which for the cases with stationary wheels are
scanned from physical tyres. This provides a realistic profile
and tread pattern, as well as a realistically deformed shape
where the tyre meets the ground. For the cases with rotating CORRELATION STUDY
wheels the lateral profile of the scanned tyres is revolved
To provide confidence in the CFD results, comparisons with
around an axis through the wheel centre so that an
both MIRA full scale wind tunnel (FSWT) (refer to [14] for
axisymmetric tyre that resembles the scanned tyre is produced.
further information) and Volvo PVT (refer to [15] for further
This tyre is allowed to intersect the ground plane by a few
information) have been performed. MIRA results were
millimetres to simulate the contact patch. No flow is permitted
compared to the baseline case with FG&FW whereas Volvo
between the tyre and the ground. For some cases the
results were compared both to the FG&FW case and the
stationary scanned tyres were exchanged for stationary
MVG&RW case. However, this should not be viewed as an
axisymmetric tyres to investigate the influence of the tyre. The
attempt at formal validation of Volvo PVT, as no particular effort
majority of the cases with rotating wheels are simulated using
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017
114 Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014)
was made to match the boundary conditions of this tunnel. The
Volvo PVT results are provided to give an indication of whether
the CFD simulations were recovering a realistic trend [16].
As can be noted in Figure 1, CFD generally predicts drag quite
well, especially compared to MIRA, with a difference of 4
counts (i.e. ΔCD=0.004). With MVG&RW the drag is under
predicted by 16 counts compared to Volvo PVT. CFD
constantly yields lower front lift, but higher rear lift values,
compared to the wind tunnel results. Interesting to note is the
large over prediction of rear lift by CFD compared to FG&FW at
Volvo PVT.
Figure 1. Difference between CFD data and FSWT data
ELEMENT STUDY
Three studies were performed to validate the use of certain
elements; the use of MRF to simulate rotating wheels rather
than sliding mesh, the simulation of a rolling road (wide belt)
rather than a moving belt (narrow belt), and the use of scanned
tyres versus the use of axisymmetric ones.
MRF vs. Sliding Mesh to Simulate Wheel
Rotation
It has recently been shown that the use of sliding mesh instead
of MRF to simulate wheel rotation gives a better correlation
with wind tunnel testing results, especially in terms of drag [9].
It was also shown that the simulations with sliding mesh were
consistently lower in terms of drag than the experimental
values, whereas the simulations with MRF regions were
consistently higher. Generally, lift predictions were good for
both methods, although a slight lift sensitivity can be noted.
Between the two methods differences in rear lift values of up to
13 counts are presented. It is stated by [9] that with MRF the
local pressure distribution in the wheels is not as accurate as
with the sliding mesh method.
Table 2 shows the difference in drag and lift values between
the two simulation methods, representing the MVG&RW case.
It is noticeable that there is little difference in the drag
predictions made by the two methods, which differs from [9].
The changes in the flow field can be seen when investigating
isosurfaces of Cptot (coefficient of total pressure) less than zero,
indicating areas of large losses and sources of drag. As can be
seen, the pressure distribution close to the rear wheels
changes considerably (Figure 2 and Figure 3), leading to
changed interaction with the base wake. The front wheels on
the other hand are less affected by the change of simulation
method, which can also be noted when studying the vortices
around the front and rear wheels. The vortices are visualised
by identifying regions of the flow where the second invariant of
the velocity tensor, Q, exceeds 3000. As can be seen in Figure
4 and Figure 5, the vortex structures around the front wheels
are similar in the sliding mesh and the MRF simulations,
whereas the ones around the rear wheels differ between the
two methods. A noticeable vortex change can be seen on the
leading lower edge of the rear wheel, where the sliding mesh
simulation (Figure 5) shows several small vortices, whereas in
the MRF simulation (Figure 4) they have merged together to
form a large vortex.
Table 2. MRF vs. sliding mesh for simulating wheel rotation
Figure 2. Isosurfaces representing Cptot ≤ 0 - MRF
Figure 3. Isosurfaces representing Cptot ≤ 0 - sliding mesh
By comparing the difference between the FG&FW case and
the MVG&RW cases simulated with the MRF method and the
sliding mesh method (Table 3) it can be noted that the large
rear lift decrease experienced with the MRF method decreases
with the sliding mesh method. As with [9] this difference is 13
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017
Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014)
counts. This study has been performed with the MRF method
throughout. However, due to its improved correlation with wind
tunnel data, the use of sliding mesh is recommended for future
studies.
Figure 4. Isosurfaces representing Q ≥ 3000 - MRF
Figure 5. Isosurfaces representing Q ≥ 3000 - sliding mesh
Table 3. Results due to MVG&RW (MRF vs. sliding mesh)
Ground Simulation Study
To investigate the influence of belt size the MVG&RW case has
been simulated with both a wide belt (50 m × 50 m) and a
narrow belt (5.3 m × 1 m). For the narrow belt case, the same
settings as the fixed ground are used outside the moving belt.
The results can be found in Table 4 and, as can be seen, the
integral forces show little change with different belt width. The
drag shows the same trend as [12], i.e. the drag decreases
with the narrower belt, but not the lift forces. By investigating
the force development for both setups it has been noted that
the small drag decrease with the narrow belt is occurring
downstream of the rear axle.
Table 4. Results of belt width study
115
The discrepancies in integral values compared to [12] could be
attributed to several different reasons, such as the use of CFD
versus wind tunnel, different boundary conditions, the
differences between a 50 % scale Formula-1 car and a full size
saloon car, and also the different width of the narrow belt.
Finally, it could be attributed to the use of rotating wheels,
which is part of this study but not of [12].
Even though the integral values experience little change with
different belt width, the flow structure changes significantly.
Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the velocity in the x-direction on
the floor for the two different cases, and it is noteworthy how
the flow is retarded along the narrow belt with the boundary
layer development. This is in line with the results by [12] and
can be attributed to the belt edge effects.
This study has been performed with a wide belt throughout to
avoid possible interference effects from the belt.
Figure 6. X-velocity on tunnel floor -Wide belt
Figure 7. X-velocity on tunnel floor - Narrow belt
Tyre Study
To investigate the influence of the tyre tread and the
asymmetrical shape of the scanned tyres used for static
wheels, a tyre study has been undertaken comparing scanned
tyres (Figure 8) and axisymmetric tyres (Figure 9).
The MVG&RWF case had its stationary scanned rear tyres
exchanged for a pair of stationary axisymmetric tyres, and the
MVG&RWR had its stationary front tyres exchanged. The
results can be found in Table 5.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017

116 Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014)

Figure 10. Isosurfaces representing Cptot ≤ 0 - Scanned tyres

Figure 8. Scanned tyre

Figure 11. Isosurfaces representing Cptot ≤ 0 - Axisymmetric tyres

It can be concluded that the tyre tread has more influence

when the tyres are fitted on the rear axle than on the front, due
to the interaction between the rear wheel wakes and the lower
base wake.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION
The study was conducted to investigate the influence of
Figure 9. Axisymmetric tyre rotating wheels and moving ground on the aerodynamic
behaviour of a saloon type car. Both combined change and
Table 5. Results of tyre study incremental change have been investigated and will be
presented in this section. A large interaction between the rear
wheel wakes and the base wake was noticed; consequently
particular attention has been paid to this area.

Combined Change
The effect of applying MVG&RW conditions can be seen in
Figure 12 which shows the difference obtained with CFD
(MVG&RW-FG&FW) and the change recorded during a test at
Volvo PVT. Both methods show a similar reduction in total
drag, which is close to the typical values between 10 and 20
counts, seen from previous wind tunnel research [3]. There is a
minimal change in front lift and a significant reduction of rear lift
The MVG&RWF case shows a fairly significant drag decrease
for the CFD case, compared to the smaller but still noteworthy
of 9 counts, due to the change of tyres, whereas both front and
reduction in the wind tunnel case.
rear lift show little change. The average drag decrease on each
isolated rear wheel with the axisymmetric tyres is 2 counts,
Figure 13 shows the Jaguar XF saloon with FG&FW
indicating that the changed interaction between the rear wheel
conditions, and Figure 14 with MVG&RW conditions. As
wake and the base wake accounts for about 5 counts of drag
mentioned the changes around the front wheels are small,
decrease. This interaction can be noted when comparing
even with the removal of the ground boundary layer when
Figure 10 and Figure 11, showing pressure losses for the case
applying MVG&RW conditions. The rear wheel wakes on the
with scanned tyres and with axisymmetric tyres respectively.
other hand, and perhaps more importantly, the base wake has
The lower base wake becomes smaller and shorter with the
changed significantly both in size and shape. This change in
axisymmetric tyres compared to with the scanned tyres.
the base wake can be used to explain both the reduction of
drag and rear lift. The new shape increases the mass flow
The MVG&RWR case shows a slight difference in front lift due
under the car, but also directs it upwards to a higher degree,
to the tyre change, but hardly any difference at all in drag and
much like a diffuser, increasing the base wake pressure.
rear lift. This is also valid for the simulated flow field, which
shows little change with changed tyres when they are fitted on
the front axle.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017
Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014)
Figure 12. Results due to MVG&RW (CFD and Volvo PVT)
Figure 13. Isosurfaces representing Cptot ≤ 0 - FG&FW
Figure 14. Isosurfaces representing Cptot ≤ 0 - MVG&RW
The changes in the local flow field around the front wheels are
not negligible, and for example [6] discuss the formation of
front wheel vortices, but they are relatively small compared to
the changes in the rear section of the car.
Incremental Change
The decision to investigate wheel rotation and ground
movement in isolation made it possible to increase the
understanding of each individual component's effects, but also
to compare the CFD data to previously published wind tunnel
research.
117
Summary
Figure 15 shows incremental changes from FG&FW
conditions. The change due to RWF and RWR represent mean
values taken from four different cases. The fourth column
shows the summation of the incremental changes due to MVG,
RWF and RWR, and the fifth column shows the combined
change due to the addition of MVG&RW. By comparing the
summation of the incremental changes and the combined
change, it is clear that the drag and rear lift indicate an additive
behaviour for the incremental changes. It can also be noted
that the addition of a MVG has the largest effect on rear lift,
whereas the addition of RWR has the single largest effect on
drag, so large that it counteracts the drag increase due to the
addition of MVG. It is also noticeable that RWF has a small
effect on the overall results.
Figure 15. Incremental change from FG&FW
Results Due to the Addition of a Moving Ground
Figure 16 shows the CFD results due to the addition of a
moving ground, compared to previous published results by [3]
and [5], where [3] investigated a generic Volvo Sedan and [5]
an Audi sports car. It can be seen that the general trends are
more or less the same, with a drag increase and a rear lift
reduction. All cars except the Audi show a front lift increase. It
is also apparent that the CFD simulations tend to generate
higher values for drag as well as lift compared to the FSWT
results, which corresponds to [8] and [10]. The drag increase
can be explained by the increased mass flow exposed to the
rough underside of the car due to the removal of the ground
boundary layer. This increase in mass flow is usually also used
to explain the increase in rear lift since increased mass flow
leads to lower pressure under the car. The changes in front lift
are more varied and seem to depend to a large degree on test
conditions and differences in car design.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017

118 Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014)

The local drag changes can be significant, as commented on

by [3]. Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the local drag (see [17]
for further details) on a plane 450 mm behind the front wheel
centre, for one case without and one with RWF respectively.
The rotation of the front wheels clearly lowers the local drag
just behind the front axle, although the overall drag is
increased.

Figure 16. Results due to MVG (refer to Appendix A for further

information)

Results Due to the Addition of Front Wheel Rotation

When evaluating the effect of rotating front wheels the results Figure 18. Local drag as seen on a plane 450 mm behind the front
are somewhat more scattered than with the other incremental wheel centre - Without RWF
changes. The results from the CFD investigation can be seen
in Figure 17 together with the results from [3] and [5]. It can be
seen that the CFD simulations yield a slight increase in drag,
whereas the wind tunnel tests do not. The previous FSWT
research shows a significant increase in front lift, which is only
partly reflected in the CFD data here. Nothing conclusive can
be said about rear lift either, which again suggests that the
influence of front wheel rotation is not as straightforward to
predict as the effect of rear wheel rotation and moving ground.
This does not, however, mean that the changes are negligible.

Figure 19. Local drag as seen on a plane 450 mm behind the front
wheel centre - With RWF

Results Due to the Addition of Rear Wheel Rotation

The results due to rear wheel rotation from the CFD
simulations, together with the data from [3] and [5], can be
seen in Figure 20. There is a significant decrease in both drag
and rear lift for the XF saloon. The front lift experiences a
decrease for all cases except one. The overall trends correlate
well between different setups and with previous research,
except for the significant decrease in rear lift for the XF saloon,
which is not as large for the wind tunnel cases. This
discrepancy can be attributed to the fact that CFD simulations
tend to generate higher values for rear lift compared to physical
testing, as discussed in the Correlation study.

Figure 17. Results due to RWF (refer to Appendix A for further

information)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017

Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014) 119

that rear wheel rotation might have a dampening effect on

unsteadiness in the base wake (for further information about
standard deviation of Cptot, see Appendix B).

Figure 22. Isosurfaces representing Cptot ≤ 0 - With RWR

Figure 20. Results due to RWR (refer to Appendix A for further

information)
Figure 23. Isosurfaces representing standard deviation of Cptot ≥ 0.075
The large decrease in drag, and also in rear lift, can be
- Without RWR
explained by the changes in the rear wheel wakes and the
base wake, and their mutual interaction. By comparing Figure
21 and Figure 22 it can be seen that rear wheel rotation makes
the rear wheel wake both shorter and narrower, and that the
up-wash is greater. The rear wheel wake interacts with the
base wake, changing both its size and shape, so that the
centre of the wake moves upwards. This again increases the
mass flow under the vehicle, and the change in the base wake
shape increases the base wake pressure and hence reduces
the form drag.
Figure 24. Isosurfaces representing standard deviation of Cptot ≥ 0.075
- With RWR

SUMMARY
This paper presents a mainly computational investigation of the
effect of rotating wheels, in combination with MVG, on the flow
field around a saloon vehicle, and hence is essentially
providing a flow topology hypothesis explaining earlier
experimental research.

Figure 21. Isosurfaces representing Cptot ≤ 0 - Without RWR
Another way to visualise the influence of rotating rear wheels is
to investigate the standard deviation of pressure in the flow
field, to find regions of highly unsteady flow. This can be seen
in Figure 23 and Figure 24, showing isosurfaces of the
standard deviation of pressure with values exceeding 0.075,
for one case without RWR and one with RWR. Adding rear
wheel rotation decreases the level of unsteadiness in the base
wake, and increases it around the rear wheel arch, indicating
This vehicle experiences a noticeable decrease in both drag
and rear lift when adding MVG&RW, whereas front lift shows
little change. The connection between the change in the
integral values and the change in the external flow field
surrounding the vehicle can clearly be seen. The unsteady flow
and the time-mean flow both change significantly when
applying different combinations of MVG&RW.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017

120 Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014)

When adding only a MVG, both drag and front lift increase,
whereas rear lift decreases significantly. The addition of RWF
alone has little effect on the global results (aside from lift),
whereas the addition of RWR alone decreases both drag and
rear lift significantly. Combining the incremental changes
produces values that align well to the MVG&RW case, with the
exception of front lift.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the undertaken research, the following points
summarise the key findings and highlight the most important
results:
• The addition of MVG&RW significantly changes both the
integral forces and the flow field.
• The undertaken research has shown trends similar to both
FSWT results on the XF saloon, and previous research on
the subject.
11. Boujo, E., Nakasato, K., Shiozawa, H., Miyamoto, W. et al.,
“Development of a Prediction Method for Passenger Vehicle
Aerodynamic Lift using CFD,” SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-0801,
2008, doi:10.4271/2008-01-0801.
12. Dimitriou, I. and Garry, K., “Use of a Narrow Belt for Moving
Ground Simulation and its Effects on the Aerodynamic Forces
Generated on a Formula-1 Car,” SAE Technical Paper 2002-01-
3342, 2002, doi:10.4271/2002-01-3342.
13. Koitrand, S. and Rehnberg, S., “A Computational Investigation
of Wheel and Underbody Flow Interaction,” Diploma work -
Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of
Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2013, nr: 2013:24.
14. Newnham, P., Passmore, M., Howell, J., and Baxendale, A., “On
the Optimisation of Road Vehicle Leading Edge Radius in Varying
Levels of Freestream Turbulence,” SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-
1029, 2006, doi:10.4271/2006-01-1029.
15. Sternéus, J., Walker, T., and Bender, T., “Upgrade of the Volvo
Cars Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel,” SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-
1043, 2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-1043.
16. Wall, A., “Simulating the Volvo Cars Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel with
CFD,” Diploma work - Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers
University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2013, nr: 2013:08.
17. Cogotti, A., “A Strategy for Optimum Surveys of Passenger-
Car Flow Fields,” SAE Technical Paper 890374, 1989,
doi:10.4271/890374.

• It has been shown that even though RWF does affect the CONTACT INFORMATION
flow, and MVG has a large influence on the flow behaviour,
skoitran@jaguarlandrover.com
the single most significant change occurs when applying
RWR. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• The sum of the incremental changes in the integral forces is The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the
close to that achieved by the combined change, indicating aerodynamics team at Jaguar Land Rover, Gaydon, UK, and
that these effects are additive. thank Jaguar Land Rover for giving their permission to publish
• The use of standard deviation as a means to understand this paper.
areas of high unsteadiness is promising.
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
CD - Coefficient of drag
REFERENCES
1. VanGordon, C. and Walter, J., “Overview of Wind Tunnel Testing CDl - Coefficient of local drag
for Automotive Development,” SAE Technical Paper 2008-28-0007, CL - Coefficient of lift
2008, doi:10.4271/2008-28-0007.
2. Landström, C., Löfdahl, L., and Walker, T., “Detailed Flow Studies CLF - Coefficient of front lift
in Close Proximity of Rotating Wheels on a Passenger Car,”
SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 2(1):861-874, 2009, CLR - Coefficient of rear lift
doi:10.4271/2009-01-0778.
Cptot - Coefficient of total pressure
3. Elofsson, P. and Bannister, M., “Drag Reduction Mechanisms Due
to Moving Ground and Wheel Rotation in Passenger Cars,” SAE CAD - Computer Aided Design
Technical Paper 2002-01-0531, 2002, doi:10.4271/2002-01-0531.
4. Wickern, G., Zwicker, K., and Pfadenhauer, M., “Rotating Wheels -
OEM - Original Equipment Manufacturer
Their Impact on Wind Tunnel Test Techniques and on Vehicle Drag CFD - Computational Fluid Dynamics
Results,” SAE Technical Paper 970133, 1997, doi:10.4271/970133.
5. Wickern, G. and Lindener, N., “The Audi Aeroacoustic Wind LBM - Lattice Boltzmann Method
Tunnel: Final Design and First Operational Experience,” SAE
Technical Paper 2000-01-0868, 2000, doi:10.4271/2000-01-0868. LBE - Lattice Boltzmann Equation
6. Wäschle, A., “The Influence of Rotating Wheels on Vehicle NS - Navier-Stokes
Aerodynamics - Numerical and Experimental Investigations,” SAE
Technical Paper 2007-01-0107, 2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-0107. RANS - Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
7. Wäschle, A., Cyr, S., Kuthada, T., and Wiedemann, J., “Flow MRF - Multiple Reference Frame
around an Isolated Wheel - Experimental and Numerical
Comparison of Two CFD Codes,” SAE Technical Paper 2004-01- VR - Variable Resolution
0445, 2004, doi:10.4271/2004-01-0445.
8. Duncan, B.D., Fischer, A. and Kandasamy, S., “Validation of FG - Fixed Ground
Lattice-Boltzmann Aerodynamics Simulation for Vehicle Lift
Prediction,” ASME, 2010, FEDSM-ICNMM2010-30891.
MVG - Moving Ground
9. Kandasamy, S., Duncan, B., Gau, H., Maroy, F. et al., FW - Fixed Wheels
“Aerodynamic Performance Assessment of BMW Validation Models
using Computational Fluid Dynamics,” SAE Technical Paper 2012- RW - Rotating Wheels
01-0297, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-0297.
RWF - Rotating Wheels Front
10. Fischer, O., Kuthada, T., Mercker, E., Wiedemann, J. et al., “CFD
Approach to Evaluate Wind-Tunnel and Model Setup Effects on RWR - Rotating Wheels Rear
Aerodynamic Drag and Lift for Detailed Vehicles,” SAE Technical
Paper 2010-01-0760, 2010, doi:10.4271/2010-01-0760. JLR - Jaguar Land Rover
FSWT - Full Scale Wind Tunnel
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017

Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014) 121

APPENDIX
APPENDIX A - TABLES WITH DATA FOR FIGURES
Results Due to the Effect of MVG

Results Due to the Effect of RWF

 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017

122 Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014)

Results Due to the Effect of RWR

APPENDIX B - STANDARD DEVIATION OF Cp tot

In this paper the standard deviation of Cptot is used as a means to investigate the fluctuations in the flow field. Values exceeding 0.075,
corresponding to 75 pressure counts, are investigated using iso surfaces to visualise areas of highly fluctuating flow. Other parameters,
such as standard deviation of velocity could also be used to further understand the flow characteristics. Figure I and Figure II show
standard deviation of Cptot exceeding 0.075 (green) and Q exceeding 3000 (red) in the same plot, and it is noteworthy how well they
correlate in the following areas:

• A-pillar vortex
• Front wheel leading edge vortex
• Rear wheel leading edge vortex (Figure II)
• Vortex trailing from rear wind screen
• Wheel areas and wakes in general, especially up-wash
• Wing mirrors

The way in which standard deviation parameters, indicating fluctuating flow, and vortex structures coincide indicates that the standard
deviation of, for example, pressure is indeed a useful tool to get a fuller and more complete understanding of the transient flow field
around a vehicle.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Cranfield University, Thursday, November 23, 2017

Koitrand et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 1 (May 2014) 123

Figure I. Q≥3000 (red) and standard deviation of Cp≥0.075 (green)

Figure II. Q≥3000 (red) and standard deviation of Cp≥0.075 (green)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the
paper.