Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1663~1670

www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x

DOI 10.1007/s12206-012-0413-8

An innovative experimental on-road testing method and its demonstration on a prototype vehicle
Jos C. Pscoa1,*, Francisco P. Brjo2, Fernando C. Santos1 and Paulo O. Fael1
1

Electromechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Beira Interior, Covilh, 6201-001, Portugal 2 Aerospace Sciences Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Beira Interior, Covilh, 6201-001, Portugal (Manuscript Received July 2, 2011; Revised February 9, 2012; Accepted February 9, 2012)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract
Ground vehicle drag coefficient is herein obtained using an unconventional on-road test in real scale. At low-Re numbers, and as a function of velocity variations, transition introduces changes on the vehicles drag coefficient. Therefore, the drag coefficient must be obtained as a function of velocity. Traditionally, only an average drag coefficient value is usually obtained using the coast down method. To obtain the on-road, velocity dependent, drag coefficients we introduce a new approach. The aerodynamic resistance coefficient is obtained by towing the vehicle with and without an aerodynamic shield, in order to eliminate the rolling resistance component. A detailed description of the method, its associated techniques, and related errors is presented. We conclude that the present experimental procedure is needed when comparing the experimental drag coefficient against computational results, since numerical computations are usually performed in a velocity dependent framework. Further, the same on-road test procedure is herein used to obtain the rolling and aerodynamic drag coefficient for a prototype vehicle working in the transition regime.
Keywords: Ground vehicle; On-road test; Experimental method; Aerodynamics ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction
Generally speaking, for high-performing cars weight reduction and engine efficiency are usually the two most important bottlenecks affecting fuel consumption, considered typically more important than aerodynamic drag reduction. However, a reduction in drag coefficient remains an important matter to tackle when designing these vehicles. Actually, aerodynamic resistance will certainly result on a measurable gain in performance, even if the drive cycle does not comprise highspeed roads. Another consideration, even more important, is that the designer must insure that the aerodynamic performance improvements are transposed to the road conditions and not only achieved on controlled wind tunnel conditions, or in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. The experimental, or numerical, modeling of the flow around ground vehicles is inherently complex, in particular due to boundary layer separation and ground effects [1]. This triggered the need to develop the means to obtain an accurate drag coefficient in ground vehicles [2]. Most often, aerodynamic flow optimization for ground vehicles is usually performed in a wind tunnel, but this approach
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 275 329 763, Fax.: +351 275 329 972 E-mail address: pascoa@ubi.pt Recommended by Editor Yeon June Kang KSME & Springer 2012
*

is associated to a series of similarity and dimensionality problems. Even if we can ensure that the wind tunnel provides controlled and repeatable conditions, it cannot mimic in full the road conditions. Even in the most realistic case, when using a moving floor wind tunnel, the boundary layer is not completely representative of road conditions. The moving belt floor must be synchronized with free stream, and boundary layer suction must be performed in front of the vehicle. This must be carefully matched, which is very difficult and can introduce difficulties in achieving good dynamic similarity conditions. Besides, the vehicle tires must be rotating in order for taking into account the energy losses due to their rotation. Additionally, blockage effects in full-scale tests for these bluff bodies also strongly affect the achievement of similarity conditions. Very often, experimental results obtained in diverse wind tunnels, for the same geometry and at the same Reynolds number, result in a scatter of aerodynamic coefficients by around 5% [3]. Albeit these deficiencies we can still resort to wind tunnel testing in order to improve the aerodynamics of ground vehicles. Considering that the resultant on-road drag coefficient will be slightly different from wind tunnel, but that the performance trends are correlated to the real conditions. This introduces us to the problem of obtaining the drag coefficient from road testing. Track tests are complex, time consuming and introduce problems of controlling the environmental conditions. For this kind of testing, coastdown is the

1664

J. C. Pscoa et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1663~1670

for on-road testing of ground vehicles. We can apply Newtons second law to establish an equation governing ground vehicle dynamics. Let us consider that the traction force is equal to the sum of all resistive forces,
FT = FD (v) + M e dv + Mg sin . dt

(1)

Fig. 1. Graphical representation of the main dynamic forces acting on the vehicle as a function of velocity. Here the aerodynamic drag is a quadratic function. Rolling force comprises a constant, a linear, and a quadratic zone.

The slope of the track, sin , can behave as a resistive or traction effect depending upon the road slope. It can even be eliminated by choosing a flat road. The effective vehicle mass M e comprises the actual mass M and the inertia of the rotating components,
Me = M + I 4 w I gbG fd + . Rr2 Rr2

(2)

most popular technique for studying aerodynamic performance of ground vehicles. The procedure has been continuously improved and was normalized by SAE [4-6]. A basic drawback of the procedure is that it requires very low, or no wind, conditions. Meanwhile, a new procedure was established, this is named J2263, and it improves the classic method by introducing an on-board anemometer. Using this approach it is possible to obtain acceptable results in low to moderate wind conditions, by applying corrections based on the readings obtained from the on-board anemometer. In addition, the J2264 standard complements the J2263 by introducing a chassis dynamometer, to simulate the rolling resistance to be then coupled to a classical coastdown procedure. However, J2264 only applies to two-wheel drive vehicle operation, since it is only based on a single axle electric roll dynamometer.

The inertia includes the inertia of four tires I 4 w and also the inertia of the gearbox I gb , with the corresponding final drive gear ratio being G fd . This later is related to the drivetrain chain for the traction tires. We have also included the tire rolling radius as Rr . We can consider a flat road, were sin = 0 . Then, in order to determine FD (v) we have to find the other two terms in Eq. (1) or, alternatively, eliminate one of them and determine the other one. This is the approach used in the coast-down technique, in which FT is eliminated by making the traction force equal to zero. In the coast-down technique the drag is related to the time rate of change of linear momentum,
FD (v) = M e dv . dt

(3)

2. The non-ergodic nature of the aerodynamic coastdown test

The drag coefficient dependence on velocity, or Reynolds number, is not obtained from results performed using the classic coast-down technique. Actually, the results obtained for aerodynamic drag include bias errors because a timeaveraging procedure is applied on a coastdown test. Usually drag is computed using the first two statistical moments, namely mean average value and variance or rms, by assuming that the statistical skewness (symmetry) and kurtosis are Gaussian. However, the average and variance values can only provide physical significance, regarding the drag values obtained in the coastdown test, if we assume that the flowfield would be ergodic. If the flow could be considered ergodic, then all data statistics can be calculated from a single datatrace by time averaging. That is not the case as can be seen in Fig. 1, since to be ergodic it is required that all data exhibit no time-dependence in the ensemble (data-set) in any of the statistical moments. Then the ensemble average would provide an accurate estimation of the drag value [7]. This conclusion supports the need to develop a new experimental procedure

As an alternative, the drag can also be obtained if we consider a vehicle moving in a steady velocity, thus eliminating M e ( dv dt ) . We get as a result an ordinary algebraic equation FT = FD (v ) . This equation is in the origin of the new method proposed in the present paper. The coastdown test is usually performed by driving the ground vehicle above the maximum velocity, then the traction force is removed. The vehicle coasts freely until it reduces the velocity to a definite specified value, or until zero. By recording the velocity over time we are able to determine the drag characteristics. Since we already pointed out that the time rate of change of momentum is equal to resistive forces. The technique requires that several tests be undertaken for the same conditions, in order to achieve an adequate level of statistical confidence on the results. Diverse approaches have been used to implement the coastdown test, most of them differing in the way measurements are made and, in particular, on the type of variables that are acquired [9]. The coast-down test can be performed by measuring the acceleration, the velocity, or displacement of the vehicle over a certain time. We can use any of the three cinematic variables. The tests made by measuring acceleration have the advantage of reducing the

J. C. Pscoa et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1663~1670

1665

complexity of the analysis procedure, because the acceleration can be readily applied to the differential equation, by using Eq. (1). However, in practice, the low levels of acceleration obtained on a coast-down experiment introduce errors that significantly affect this approach. Another alternative is thus to record velocity, but this introduces the need to differentiate the experimental curve in order to obtain the acceleration over time. In this method the accuracy of the differentiation procedure must be carefully monitored, since this differentiation step is prone to errors. Alternatively, the coastdown method can be performed by measuring the run distance over time. However, in this case the noisy integration procedure must be repeated twice. After decades of experience, experimentalists concluded that the best performance could be obtained with a velocity over time characteristic curve. In this case, the experimental values of several runs are fitted to an adequate analytical function, which can then be differentiated to obtain the acceleration over time. Using the coast-down approach we end up with a function representing resistive drag, see Eq. (3). The drag function comprises the mechanical and aerodynamic drag,
FD (v ) = FM + FA .

Fig. 2. Values of rolling resistance coefficient, as a function of velocity, for typical commercial vehicle tires, adapted from Ref. [10].

(4)

A major problem related to this method is the need to define an adequate analytical function able to interpolate the experimental results, see Fig. 1. This is usually made by fitting a curve to the experimental results, whose general shape is,
mechanical drag FD (v) = A0 + A1v + aerodynamic drag

A2v 2

(5)

The mechanical drag comprises all the forces opposing the movement except the aerodynamic drag. These include tire rolling and drive-train resistance. Other minor losses can be included, such as bearing friction and energy dissipated in the suspension. The tire rolling resistance accounts for 3/4 of the mechanical losses for a typical vehicle [10]. Generally speaking, the resistant torque of a free rolling tire divided by rolling radius is the tire rolling resistance. When the same tire acts in traction there is also slip between the tire and the road. It is usually accepted that the energy is dissipated in the tire by three mechanisms: hysteresis losses due to cyclic tire deformation; slip when in traction mode; and windage aerodynamic losses. However the windage losses are included in the aerodynamic component when performing the coastdown testing. Hysteresis losses are the main tire rolling resistance component, and are strongly dependent upon the normal load, inflation pressure, temperature, speed and road surface material. The vehicles tires are usually made of a reinforced rubber exhibiting the behavior of a viscoelastic material. When they deform a portion of the energy is stored elastically, but the remainder is dissipated as heat due to a cyclic volume deformation of the tire material. However, the rolling resistance is

strongly dependent upon the speed, in particular due to hysteresis. Fig. 2 presents the general shape of the rolling resistance as a function of velocity for commercial tires. We can perceive that above a critical velocity threshold there is a strong increase in rolling resistance. Actually, and for heavyduty trucks, the rolling resistance has only a zero and second order dependence on speed [11]. According to Ref. [8] the temperature and deformation frequency increase with velocity. Thus, temperature introduces a reduction in rolling resistance. However, the deformation frequency has an opposite effect and acts in order to increase rolling resistance. This maintains the rolling resistance almost constant, with only a very smooth increase, see Fig. 1. But, above a certain deformation frequency the hysteresis effect introduces an increase in rolling resistance, since in that case it can no longer be compensated by the temperature increase. In classical coastdown testing, Eq. (5), the quadratic evolution of rolling resistance is usually neglected. Eventually, and at most, only a linear term is included to account for the rolling resistance increase with speed,
FR = Mg ( A0 + A1v) .

(6)

In Ref. [12] Smith et al. introduced a v 2 term in their rolling resistance model. Nevertheless, this v 2 rolling resistance dependence will introduce problems when applying the coastdown testing, since the aerodynamic coefficients are also dependent upon the square of velocity. We can no longer separate the two terms when performing a curve fit for the experimental results [6]. The industry standard procedure for measurement of rolling resistance is depicted in SAE J1269 and ISO 8767. The SAE J1269 standard defines a four point test matrix with diverse load and pressure. Consequently, when applying a coast-down procedure we neglect higher order terms and only account for a linear variation in rolling resistance. Aerodynamic effects are incorporated in a quadratic curve coefficient,
FD (v) = A0 + A1v + A2v 2 ,

(7)

1666

J. C. Pscoa et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1663~1670

FD (v) = M e

dv . dt

(8)

By considering the initial time as zero, we can integrate the differential equation,
t=

(a)

v1

v2

Me dv = A0 + A1v + A2v 2

v1

v2

1 dv . [(v + ) 2 + 2 ]

(9)

The auxiliary variables are

(b)

2 =

A0 A2

A12 2 4 A2

, =

A2 A , = 1 Me 2 A2

(10)

Fig. 3. Towing of a vehicle: (a) constant velocity using an electric motor; (b) constant force using a weight.

and also,

z = v+ .

(11)

Thus, we obtain,
t= 1

z1

z2

dz . z +2
2

(12)

Fig. 4. Method used to obtain the rolling resistance as a function of velocity. The test vehicle is towed by another car at constant velocity.

This can be integrated for 2 > 0 , and will result in an equation for v2 as a function of elapsed time,
v1 + tan( t ) . v2 = 1 + v1 + tan t ( )

(13)

As can be seen in Fig. 1, the total force is the graphical sum of aerodynamic and rolling resistance. However, and conversely to coastdown method, in our new approach we do not need to eliminate the quadratic component in the rolling resistance. The new analytical equation is,
mechanical drag aerodynamic drag 2 FT (v ) = A0 + A1v + A2v + A3v 2 .

(14)

This later equation can be used to generate a curve fitting for the experimental results obtained using the coastdown procedure. In this way we can obtain the mechanical and aerodynamic resistance coefficients of Eq. (5).

The rolling mechanical resistance can be obtained if we introduce a shield in the aerodynamic component. This is represented as,
without shield shield with FT (v) = ( Faero. + Fmech. ) Fmech. .

3. An alternative to coastdown based on vehicle towing at constant velocity

Actually, and in alternative to coastdown, the drag characteristics of a vehicle can be obtained by towing, either at constant force or at constant velocity, see Fig. 3. A classic application of the constant force towing is used to obtain the added mass of a complex body in a towing tank [13]. The constant velocity approach was used to compute the drag characteristics of high-drag devices, such as parachutes [14]. In this technique, the accurate measurement of the vehicle velocity is of great importance. Very small errors in their measurement could shift the data on the velocity axis, resulting in significant errors for the magnitude of the vehicles forces [15]. In the present work, the proposed method is based on a constant velocity method, see Figs. 3 and 4. However, in order to obtain the aerodynamic drag we need to obtain the rolling resistance as a function of force.

(15)

This has the additional advantage of providing us with a graph for the rolling resistance dependence on velocity. Moreover, and with this technique, we can obtain an aerodynamic drag coefficient dependent on velocity Cd (v) . Using the classic coastdown technique we only get a mean drag coefficient Cd . This average drag coefficient is also for an average velocity, between the maximum velocity at which we remove the traction force and the final velocity to which the vehicle coasts. Since the velocity is non-linear, the average velocity is not the mean value between the initial and final velocity. The drag coefficient obtained by this procedure can be used to compare the aerodynamic performance of diverse vehicles, driving between the same speeds. However, for vehicles working in the transitional Reynolds number this method is not applicable, since drag coefficient changes significantly with velocity. Also, and to be able to compare the experiments with CFD

J. C. Pscoa et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1663~1670

1667

(a)

Fig. 6. Graph representing a test run performed for the Eco-marathon vehicle. It is evident the importance of keeping a synchronization between the velocity and force. This allows averaging the force only in the constant velocity plateau.

(b) Fig. 5. Experimental on-road constant velocity test: (a) Towing at constant velocity without shield using a very thin cable. The total resistance is obtained in subsequent tests using a towing vehicle at a distance 10 times the towing vehicle length, to reduce towing vehicle interference; (b) The vehicle is shielded in order to determine the rolling resistance component.

results we do need a velocity dependent drag coefficient, since numerical results are obtained for a specified velocity.

4. Demonstration of the new experimental procedure for an Eco-marathon vehicle

The Eco-marathon vehicle was completely designed, and built, at University of Beira Interior, see Fig. 5. The main purpose of the Shell Eco-marathon competition is to obtain reduced fuel consumption for the vehicle. However, the test vehicle was mainly designed to compete in the aesthetically design competition, also a component of Shell Eco-Marathon competition. This resulted in a less performing vehicle, since more attention was paid to aesthetics at the cost of mechanical and aerodynamic performance reduction. Incidentally, this provided a good test case for aerodynamic performance improvements. 4.1 Data acquisition and instrumentation Besides the test vehicle, the main component of the system set-up for measurements is the shield. This is to be used in the procedure of acquiring the rolling mechanical force as a function of velocity. A load cell was used to acquire the force between the test vehicle and the towing traction vehicle. Two strain-gauges are

mounted together in order to perform temperature compensation. The output signal from strain-gauges is further conditioned using an instrumentation amplifier based on Texas Instruments LM124. The amplified voltage is then feed into one of the analogue channels of a PicoScope board. This later is then connected to a laptop that is carried inside the test vehicle. The 50 Newton load cell was calibrated using dead weights, and the corresponding calibration curve allows one to transfer the acquired amplified voltage into force values defined in Newtons, Y (V ) = 0001022 X ( N ) + 1.5901738 . The precision of the data acquisition chain was checked, the error is less than 2%. A roller was used to provide cable force subdivision, allowing us to measure higher values of force. The second variable to be measured is velocity. Velocity was measured by means of an inductive sensor. Instead of only one, we have used eight magnets equally distributed on the internal surface of the tire. This increased the precision of the velocity measurement. Oscillatory pulsed signals, from the inductive sensor, as it passes by the magnets were acquired by a second analogue input of the PicoScope. This allowed a very fine resolution of velocity with an error of less than 1%. The PicoScope system allowed us to synchronize the velocity and force. This is very important to achieve a good precision in the force measurements, see Fig. 6. Both signals were saved into a laptop carried within the test vehicle. Data files were treated using a Matlab computer code. The code implements the calibration curve for force and translates the pulse width signals, of the inductive transducer, into linear velocity. In this later case, the code scans for the peaks in the inductive voltage and computes the period between consecutive peaks T(t). These are constantly changing in time. Then, by knowing the radius we obtain instantaneous velocity v(t ) = 2 R 8T (t ) . The vehicle is initially accelerated into a pre-defined velocity; the velocity is then maintained constant until the vehicle is decelerated at the end of track. Average velocity and force are computed for the curve plateau. Several velocity plateau values can be used to obtain discrete values for the Cd (v) and Cr (v) . The precision of the method is strongly dependent on the ability of the towing vehicle to maintain constant velocity. In our experiments a vehicle equipped with a special sports gearbox was used to maintain the constant velocity. A longest track length allows ob-

1668

J. C. Pscoa et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1663~1670

Table 1. Results for the rolling and aerodynamic coefficients obtained for the Eco-marathon vehicle. Re 1.46x105 3.66x105 5.66x105 Cr(v) 0.025 0.030 0.041 Cd(v) 0.398 0.433 0.423

The same holds true for the drag coefficient, the obvious conclusion is that we are in the transitional regime where significant changes is aerodynamic drag coefficient take place as a function of Reynolds number. One of the drawbacks of the present approach is related to the need to insure no wind conditions, which can compromise the accuracy of total resultant force. By performing a repeatability test we end up with variations of around 4% in the total force measurement. These can be due to minor wind effects during track testing, and also to minor changes when trying to pursue the same path of the track test. This later is important to ensure repeatability of rolling force coefficients.

5. Conclusions
In the present work we have proposed an alternative approach to the standard on-road coastdown test used in automotive industry and in ground vehicle research. A detailed description of both methods is provided in order to highlight the advantages and drawbacks of each one. A most desirable feature of the present approach is its ability to provide the rolling and aerodynamic drag coefficients as a function of velocity. These values are important if we intend to compare on-road tests to computational results, since these are usually obtained for a predefined velocity. Changes in drag coefficient are mostly noticed in the critical transitional flow regime. Further, the present approach also enables to accurately incorporate the quadratic change in rolling resistance, since this is usually not taken into account in coastdown tests. The new approach was implemented in order to compute the rolling and aerodynamic coefficients for an Eco-marathon vehicle designed and built at University of Beira Interior. The approach successful demonstrated the ability of the method to define the most adequate drive velocity for the vehicle. Since one of the primary goals of Eco-marathon competition is to achieve a reduction in fuel consumption. The definition of the most efficient driving speed, i.e. lower drag and rolling resistance, is very important to achieve good results.

Fig. 7. Results obtained for 13 test runs, each of constant velocity, between 12.24 km/h and 32.4 km/h. A linear and a quadratic curve fitting were attempted. Results are for total force, including the aerodynamic and rolling mechanical components.

taining a longer plateau curve, which will significantly contribute to achieve better precision in the force measurements. 4.2 Results obtained for the Eco-marathon vehicle The Eco-marathon vehicle was tested using the procedure highlighted in the previous sections. The Eco-marathon competition rules impose that the vehicle can not exceed 50 km/h, and should achieve a mean velocity around 25 km/h. Since the vehicle has 3 meters long and 1 meter height, then Re=4.6x105, based on the characteristic vehicle height and at 25 km/h. This means that the flow around the Eco-marathon vehicle is in the critical Reynolds number region, where drag coefficient definitely is not a constant. The only technique able to extract the Cd (v) is the herein proposed method. We already noticed that the coastdown method results in averaged Cd values between the coasting velocities. Fig. 7 presents the results obtained for total force as a function of velocity. This experimental curve is presented in dimensional quantities in order to be able to compare with Fig. 1. For each of the 13, constant velocity, on-road tests we present the average force, and velocity, according to the procedure depicted in Fig. 6. Albeit we have imposed a definite velocity for the vehicle, the final actual test velocity is only obtained in the end from the averaging procedure. In Table 1 we present the results obtained for the rolling coefficient, and drag coefficient, as a function of Reynolds number. Here it is evident that the use of a coastdown approach is not adequate to determine the drag coefficient at these low Re conditions, in particular because it only gives a mean value for the drag coefficient. It is now evident that there is a continuous increase of the rolling coefficient as a function of velocity.

Acknowledgment
This work was supported by CAST-Center for Aerospace Science and Technology, FCT Research Unit N151.

Nomenclature-----------------------------------------------------------------------A Cr Cd FD. FM Fr : Projected frontal vehicle area [m2] F : Rolling coefficient Cr = r Mg Faero. : Drag coefficient Cd = 0.5 v 2 A : Aerodynamic drag [N] : Mechanical forces [N] : Rolling force [N]

J. C. Pscoa et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1663~1670

1669

FT Gfd H I4w Igb Me Re Rr

: Tractive force acting on the vehicle [N] : Drive-train ratio : Vehicle height [m] : Inertia of four tires [m4] : Inertia of the gear-box [m4] : Effective vehicle mass [kg] : Reynolds number Re = : Tire rolling radius [m]
vH

References
[1] M. E. Biancolini, F. Renzi,G. Manieri and M. Urbinati, Evaluation of aerodynamic drag of go kart by means of coast down test and CFD analysis, Associazione Italiana per lAnalisi delle Sollecitazioni (AIAS), XXXVI Convegno Nazionale, Napoli (2007) 1-13. [2] G. Le Good, J. Howell, M. Passmore and A. Cogotti, A comparison of on-road aerodynamic drag measurements with wind tunnel data from Pininfarina and MIRA, Society of Automotive Engineers, Developments in Vehicle Aerodynamics 1998 (SP-1318), SAE paper 980394, 1-9. [3] J. C. Kessler and S. B. Wallis, Aerodynamic test techniques, SAE paper 660464, Society of Automotive Engineers (1966). [4] SAE (2010) Road load measurement and dynamometer simulation using coastdown techniques, SAE J1263, Society of Automotive Engineers. [5] SAE (2008) Road load measurement using onboard anemometry and coastdown techniques, SAE J2263, Society of Automotive Engineers. [6] SAE (1995) Chassis dynamometer simulation of road load using coastdown techniques, SAE J2264, Society of Automotive Engineers. [7] H. Choi, W.-P. Jeon and J. Kim, Control of flow over a bluff body, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 40 (2008) 113-139. [8] M. A. Passmore, S. Richardson and A. Imam, An experimental study of unsteady vehicle aerodynamics, Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 215 (7) (2001) 779-788. [9] P. Newnham, M. A. Passmore, J. Howell and A. Baxendale, On the optimisation of road vehicle leading edge radius in varying levels of freestream turbulence, SAE Transactions: Journal of Passenger Cars - Mechanical Systems, 115 (2006) 994-1003. [10] V. V. Mozharovskii, S. V. Shilko, S. B. Anfinogenov and A. V. Khotko, Determination of resistance to rolling of tires in dependence on operating conditions. part 1. method of multifactorial experiment. Journal of Friction and Wear, 28 (2) (2007) 154-161. [11] R. A. Giannelli, E. K. Nam, K. Helmer, T. Younglove, G. Scora and M. Barth, Heavy-duty diesel vehicle fuel consumption modeling based on road load and power train parameters, SAE Paper 2005-01-3549, Society of Automotive Engineers (2005), DOI 10.4271/2005-01-3549. [12] J. R. Smith, J. C. Tracy and D. S. Potter, Tire rolling resis-

tance - a speed dependent contribution. SAE paper 780255, Society of Automotive Engineers (1978). [13] A. Fernandes and F. Mineiro, Assessment of hydrodynamic properties of bodies with complex shapes, Applied Ocean Research, 29 (2007) 155-166. [14] J. Potvin, G. Peek and B. Brocato, New model of decelerating bluff-body drag, Journal of Aircraft, 40 (2) (2003) 370-377. [15] M. Won, S. S. Kim, B. B. Kang and H. J. Jung, Test bed for vehicle longitudinal control using chassis dynamometer and virtual reality: An application to adaptive cruise control, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 15 (9) (2001) 1248-1256. [16] J. C. Pscoa, N. M. Mendes, F. P. Brjo, F. C. Santos and P. O. Fael, Numerical and experimental real scale modeling of aerodynamic coefficients for an high-performance vehicle, Proc. Congress on Numerical Methods in Engineering 2011, APMTAC - Associao Portuguesa de Mecnica Terica, Aplicada e Computacional & SEMNI - Sociedad Espaola de Mtodos Numricos en Ingeniera, Paper N 270 (2011) 1-10. [17] J. Chua, F. Fuss and A. Subic, Rolling friction of a rugby wheelchair, Procedia Engineering Vol. 2, (2010) 3071-3076. [18] Y.-J. Jang, An investigation of higher-order closures in the computation of the flow around a generic car, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 22 (5) (2008) 1019-1029.

Jos Carlos Pscoa is currently an Assistant Professor at University of Beira Interior in Portugal. He conducts research at the nationally funded Center for Aerospace Sciences and Technology, where he also serves as the secretary of the centers scientific council. His main research interests are numerical and experimental aerodynamics Jos Pscoa holds a doctorate degree in Mechanical Engineering. Since 1997, he has been involved in several research projects. In 2002, he was a visiting academic at RollsRoyce UTC of Loughborough University in UK. Francisco Brjo is a tenured Assistant Professor on the Department of Aerospace Sciences of the University of Beira Interior and a member of the Aeronautics and Astronautics Research Center (AeroG) and of the Associated Laboratory for Energy, Transports and Aeronautics (LAETA). He graduated in Mechanical Engineering (1991) at Coimbra University (Portugal), specialized in Energy (1996) at Beira Interior University (Portugal), and received his PhD in Mechanical Engineering (2004) at Cranfield University (UK). His current research interests include propulsion systems, internal combustion engines, heat transfer and industrial maintenance. Prof. Brjo is member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Portuguese Society of Mechanical Engineers.

1670

J. C. Pscoa et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26 (6) (2012) 1663~1670

Fernando C. Santos is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electromechanical Engineering of the University of Beira Interior and a member of the Industrial Management and Engineering Research Centre and of the Technological Forecasting and Theory Research Group. He graduated in Industrial Production and Management Engineering (1995) at Beira Interior University (Portugal). He received an MSc in Mechanical Engineering at Beira Interior University in 2001 and his PhD in Production Engineering (2009). During this period he was coordinator of more than a dozen of applied research projects in the processes optimization and operations scheduling always in industrial environment.

Paulo Fael is an Assistant Professor on the Department of Electromechanics Engineering of the University of Beira Interior and a member of CAST- Center for Aerospace Sciences and Technology. He graduated in Mechanical Engineering (1983) at Coimbra University (Portugal), and received his PhD in Mechanical Engineering (2007) at Beira Interior University (Portugal). His current research interests include Polymeric Composites, dynamics and structures of vehicles and mechanics of materials.