ARTICLE INFO

Article ID: 2018-01-0731

Copyright © 2018 Ford
Motor Co.; Published by
SAE International
doi:10.4271/2018-01-0731

Development and Initial Testing

of a Full-Scale DrivAer Generic
Realistic Wind Tunnel Correlation
and Calibration Model
Taryn James and Neil Lewington, Ford Motor Company, Australia
Lothar Krueger, Manfred Lentzen, Karel Chalupa, and Burkhard Hupertz, Ford Motor Company, Germany
Sudesh Woodiga, Ford Motor Company, USA

Abstract History
Received: 16 May 2018
Wind tunnel testing is conducted to determine the aerodynamic characteristics of a vehicle under Revised: 13 Sep 2018
controlled and well-defined boundary conditions. Differences in wind tunnel facility layout, design, Accepted: 02 Oct 2018
and subsequent onset flow conditions may result in differing aerodynamic conditions being attained e-Available: 20 Dec 2018
for the same test property in different test facilities. Several OEMs develop vehicles in different
regions and utilize local test facilities during the vehicle design process. Understanding the flow Keywords
characteristics and correlations between test facilities is therefore essential to ensure that global Generic Realistic Vehicle,
processes can utilize data obtained in any region. DrivAer, Full Scale, Wind
Typically, automotive facility correlations are derived by evaluating a fleet of production level tunnel, Correlation,
test properties in each facility. Adopting a test fleet approach for facility correlation yields three key Calibration, Moving ground,
Aerodynamic forces,
issues; firstly, there are significant logistics and timing constraints. Secondly, over time the test fleet
Computational fluid
will deteriorate and potentially introduce random errors in the test data. Thirdly, test facility modi-
dynamics (CFD), Surface
fications may require repeat fleet assessments. pressure
This article aims to detail the development of a full-scale generic test property with the ability
to better represent complex flow phenomena associated with road vehicles. Alternate rear-end Citation
geometries, permitting assessment of key flow phenomena associated with differing body styles, James, T., Lewington, N.,
will be assessed using a single rolling chassis in six automotive wind tunnel facilities. Krueger, L., Lentzen, M.
Initial uncorrected results will be presented along with comparisons to the equivalent compu- et al., “Development and
tational assessments for specific configurations. These initial results will then be summarized to Initial Testing of a Full-Scale
show how Ford Motor Company plans to move forward with the experimental data. Finally, planned DrivAer Generic Realistic
future work to ensure continual suitability of the test property as a reliable correlation and calibra- Wind Tunnel Correlation and
tion tool in the automotive industry will be outlined. Calibration Model,” SAE Int.
J. Passeng. Cars – Mech.
Syst. 11(4):353-367, 2018,
doi:10.4271/2018-01-0731.

ISSN: 1946-3995
e-ISSN: 1946-4002

This article is based on and revised or modified from a presentation at WCX18, Detroit, MI, April 10-12, 2018.

353
354 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue
Introduction
A
s the world consciously looks to improved fuel
economy, both environmental and financial factors
are continually driving forward vehicle aerodynamics.
Wind tunnel testing provides an opportunity to deter-
mine the aerodynamic characteristics of a vehicle under
defined and controlled boundary conditions. Differences in
wind tunnel facility layout, design, and therefore onset flow
conditions often result in variance of the measured aerody-
namic characteristics for the same test property in
alternate facilities.
To deliver aggressive aerodynamic targets, vehicle devel-
opment involves data comparison from numerous sources,
including different automotive wind tunnel facilities and
computational simulations. Several OEMs, including Ford
Motor Company, utilize local facilities while developing
vehicle programs in multiple regions. Therefore, the need for
a process that enables high confidence correlations between
automotive wind tunnel facilities is imperative.
Historically, global correlation has required assessment
of a fleet of production level test properties at each facility.
Significant logistics and timing constraints can restrict this
process. Deterioration and required maintenance of the fleet
is costly and over time has the potential to introduce system-
atic errors into the data correlation. Furthermore, any facility
hardware modifications require repeated fleet assessments.
One such fleet correlation assessment was conducted on behalf
of the European Aerodynamic Data Exchange (EADE) by the
Research Institute of Automotive Engineering and Vehicle
Engines Stuttgart (FKFS) [1]. Eleven vehicles, ranging from
coupes to vans, were assessed in 11 European and 4 American
wind tunnel facilities. Corrections were applied to account
for facility hardware influences on the measured forces. These
corrections saw all vehicles within an average standard devia-
tion of two drag counts (CD = 0.002) when comparing wind
tunnel facilities. It was also concluded that component changes
on a vehicle may yield alternative deltas before and
after correction.
Oversimplified generic vehicle models such as the
Ahmed body and SAE model are restricted in their ability to
predict the complicated flow structures particularly in the
underbody and wheel regions. In an effort to reduce the gap
between these generic models and current production
vehicles, the Technische Universität München (TUM), in
conjunction with Audi AG and the BMW, have designed the
DrivAer generic realistic model [2, 3]. The model, based on
two medium-sized production vehicles, has the ability to
replicate multiple body styles. Interchangeable rear ends
provide notchback, fastback, and wagon configurations with
the option of a smooth or detailed underbody incorporating
exhaust system hardware.
The ability of the DrivAer model to better represent the
complex flow phenomena associated with production vehicles
has provided an opportunity to standardize and minimize
random error introduction into the process of automotive test
facility correlation and calibration.
In addition to wind tunnel testing, computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) is widely deployed within the automotive
industry as a complimentary tool to optimize the aerodynamic
characteristics of a vehicle. CFD provides the specific benefit
of enabling the engineer to evaluate many design spaces,
particularly in the early stages of vehicle program develop-
ment. Prior to representative prototypes being available,
analysis is conducted almost exclusively in an analytical envi-
ronment. CFD results therefore provide direction for early
vehicle program decisions. Due to the complex, three-dimen-
sional, nature of airflow around a vehicle, best practice CFD
methods continuously evolve as the body of research
data grows.
The versatility of the DrivAer model’s multiple body style
configurations, smooth or detailed underbody, and the ability
to operate in moving ground facilities provide a detailed suite
of data for automotive test facility correlation and calibration.
It also provides opportunity to validate analytical processes
on a controlled geometry with realistic flow physics. This will
assist in increasing knowledge of the computational processes
used in industry, providing a platform to assist in the advance-
ment of the vehicle design process. For these reasons,
supported by the continually growing body of quality research,
Ford Motor Company has implemented full-scale DrivAer
properties for the correlation and calibration of all its automo-
tive test facilities.
This article focuses on the development of a full-scale
DrivAer property to be deployed as a wind tunnel correlation
and calibration model. Initial uncorrected test results are
presented for assessments in six wind tunnels, as well as
comparisons to computational assessments for specific
configurations.
Experimental Setup
Full-Scale DrivAer Model
Ford Motor Company has used the open-source DrivAer
model geometry to commission three full-scale, closed
cooling, DrivAer generic realistic model properties. Each of
the identical properties is easily configured into three body
style configurations, notchback, fastback, and wagon. The
three properties provide each major aerodynamic test region
of Ford Motor Company a model for correlation and calibra-
tion of automotive wind tunnel test facilities. For the scope of
the current project, a traditional aerodynamic shape vehicle
configuration, without mirrors, was used.
A robust full-scale test property required structural
internal additions. The chassis frame, manufactured from
steel (Figure 1), incorporates fixed axle positions allowing
both ease of transportation and safe mounting of the wheel
geometry in moving ground facilities.
Surrounding the steel frame, a fiberglass top hat and
aluminum reinforced fiberglass underbody provide the struc-
tural integrity to represent the surface geometry defined by
© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue 355

 FIGURE 1   Photograph of the full-scale manufactured  FIGURE 2   Upper and underbody CAD sections to
property’s internal frame. be manufactured from fiberglass.

© Ford Motor Co.

© Ford Motor Co.

TUM and ensure the rigidity required for repeatable use over
 FIGURE 3   Full-scale DrivAer model in each body
time. Figure 2 illustrates each fiberglass section using CAD
style configuration.
images, and Figure 3 shows the full-scale model in each body
style configuration.
Interchangeable rear upper-body style sections allow for
configuration changes to be easily conducted, in situ in a wind
tunnel test section, within 5 minutes, requiring only two
personnel. Changing underbody configurations requires
greater access to the attachment locations and requires a
vehicle lift.
Four underbody attachment points on the steel chassis
frame provide mounting points for installation in moving
ground test facilities. These points are also utilized when
raising the test property off the ground to ensure the protec-
tion of the fiberglass body panels.
For static ground testing, the TUM tire and rim geometry
was replicated in machined high density foam (Ureol) with a
rubber tread band bonded on (Figure 4a). Concerns regarding
the structural integrity of the Ureol wheel design in a ground
simulation (GS) environment lead to the implementation of
a surrogate production rim and pneumatic tire (Figure 4b).
The model is safety rated to 180 kph static ground with the
Ureol tires fitted and 180 kph rolling road with the surrogate
production tires fitted.
© Ford Motor Co.

The full-scale properties have provisions to measure

surface pressure data via 183 pressure taps per configuration
(Figure 5). The pressure tap locations include those outlined
by TUM and additional points defined by Ford Motor
© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
356 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue

 FIGURE 4   Photographs of wheel and tire configurations.  FIGURE 6   Scan results displaying full-scale property
deviation from open-source DrivAer generic realistic
model geometry.

© Ford Motor Co.

Company to provide increased granularity in high interest
areas. The pressure taps provide extensive coverage of the
windscreen, side glass, and front and rear corners to quantify
aerodynamic characteristics at yaw. To capture top hat
rear-end physics and provide validation for critical hatchback
studies, detailed coverage of the C and D pillars and backlight

© Ford Motor Co.

is also included.
The full-scale DrivAer generic realistic model without
mirrors has a frontal area of 2.12 m2, length 4.61 m, width
1.82 m, and height 1.42 m and has the ability to define a front
ride height between 0.613 m and 0.693 m and a rear ride height
between 0.599 and 0.681 m. A nominal ride height of 0.683 m
at the front and 0.679  m at the rear is defined in the
baseline configuration.
Validation of Test Properties
All three test properties were scanned to ensure geometric
conformity to the open-source DrivAer generic realistic
model. The images in Figure 6 depict model scan results and
highlight the areas of greatest deviation from the TUM
defined geometry. Maximum deviations (6 mm) are evident
the right side front door area, and the left side rear door feature
line area. Both locations are parallel to the airflow direction
and are judged to have minimal effect on total projected
frontal area and subsequent force measurements.
To confirm the consistency of the full-scale DrivAer prop-
erties, force measurement tests on all three properties were
conducted in the Ford Aeroacoustic Wind Tunnel (AWT),
Cologne, Germany. AWT is a ¾ open test section-type tunnel,
with a nozzle area of 20 m2 and a working section length of
9.7 m. Aerodynamic forces were measured at the industry
standard speed of 140 km/h [1] and all results are uncorrected.
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the variation in the coefficient
of drag (CD) for each body style with both smooth and detailed
underbodies. The smooth underbody results, Figure 7, show
 FIGURE 7   Smooth underbody coefficient of drag
comparison of test properties from validation testing at AWT.
All results are static ground.

Smooth Underbody Drag Coefficient

 FIGURE 5   Notchback configuration showing visible 0.300
pressure tap locations.
0.250

0.200

0.150
CD

0.100

0.050

0.000
Notchback Fastback Wagon
© Ford Motor Co.

© Ford Motor Co.

Model 1 0.234 0.230 0.274

Model 2 0.233 0.230 0.274
Model 3 0.232 0.229 0.271

© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue 357

 FIGURE 8   Detailed underbody coefficient of drag  FIGURE 10   Detailed underbody front coefficient of lift
comparison of test properties from validation testing at AWT. comparison of the test properties from validation testing at
All results are static ground. AWT. All results are static ground.

Detailed Underbody Drag Coefficient Detailed Underbody Front Li Coefficient

0.300 0.000
-0.010
0.250
-0.020
0.200
-0.030
0.150 -0.040

CLf
CD

-0.050
0.100
-0.060
0.050
-0.070
0.000 -0.080
Notchback Fastback Wagon Notchback Fastback Wagon
© Ford Motor Co.

© Ford Motor Co.

Model 1 0.260 0.261 0.290 Model 1 -0.020 -0.023 -0.063
Model 2 0.260 0.261 0.293 Model 2 -0.009 -0.013 -0.051
Model 3 0.258 0.259 0.290 Model 3 -0.022 -0.027 -0.063

a range of less than three drag counts (CD = 0.003) between
test properties. Hoffman et al. [4] concluded this amount of
variation is common in full-scale vehicle testing and therefore
deemed acceptable. Model 3 consistently measured lowest in
all three top hat configurations. In Figure 8, model 2 records
the highest drag coefficient in the wagon detailed underbody
configuration. The wagon bluff rear end and sharp trailing
edge between the roof and backlight increases the wake region
size of this configuration. It is possible that the near-wake
region continues into the collector entrance imparting addi-
tional blockage effects on the model [1].
Figures 9 to 12 show the front and rear lift results for all
three models. Variance in the measured lift values is typically
double that of the measured drag variance. Model 2
consistently measures lower front lift (CLf ) for both underbody
configurations (Figures 9 and 10). The offset is more
pronounced on the detailed underbody, measuring up to
ΔCLf = 0.014 lower than the other test property models.
Smooth underbody rear lift (CLr) increases consistently
for each body style from model 1 to 3 (Figure 11). Model varia-
tions of the notchback, fastback, and wagon are ΔCLr = 0.015,
ΔCLr = 0.016, and ΔCLr = 0.018, respectively. The rear lift coef-
ficient of the detailed underbody (Figure 12) shows a much
smaller variance in results, ΔCLr = 0.006 at most.
Both underbody configurations, smooth and detailed,
are identical up to the trailing edge of the front wheel arches.
Downstream of this point, the detailed floor mimics a generic
underbody with a level of asymmetry to represent the exhaust

 FIGURE 9   Smooth underbody front coefficient of lift  FIGURE 11   Smooth underbody rear coefficient of lift
comparison of test properties from validation testing at AWT. comparison of the test properties from validation testing at
All results are static ground. AWT. All results are static ground.

Smooth Underbody Front Li Coefficient Smooth Underbody Rear Li Coefficient
0.000 0.120
-0.010 0.100
-0.020 0.080
-0.030 0.060
-0.040 0.040
CLf

CLr

-0.050 0.020
-0.060 0.000
-0.070 -0.020
-0.080 -0.040
Notchback Fastback Wagon Notchback Fastback Wagon
© Ford Motor Co.

© Ford Motor Co.

Model 1 -0.031 -0.036 -0.070 Model 1 0.054 0.079 -0.027

Model 2 -0.026 -0.032 -0.066 Model 2 0.059 0.085 -0.017
Model 3 -0.034 -0.039 -0.073 Model 3 0.069 0.095 -0.009

© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
358 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue

 FIGURE 12   Detailed underbody rear coefficient of lift TABLE 2  Blockage ratio summary of each test facility with
comparison of test properties from validation testing at AWT. the full-scale test property installed.
All results are static ground. Automotive test facility Blockage ratio (%)
AWT 10.6
DTF 11.3
Detailed Underbody Rear Li Coefficient
Monash 16.1

© Ford Motor Co.

0.180
0.160 PVT 7.8
0.140 WSI 12.7
0.120 Tongji 7.9
0.100
CLr

0.080 Tunnel. All of these facilities utilized by Ford Motor Company

0.060 are ¾ open test section, closed-loop tunnels with no GS facilities.
0.040 Three wind tunnel facilities, beyond those of the Ford
0.020 Motor Company, are regularly employed in support of vehicle
0.000
Notchback Fastback Wagon
program and core method development: Volvo (PVT),

© Ford Motor Co.

Model 1 0.132 0.152
Model 2 0.122 0.148
Model 3 0.132 0.154
tunnel. Slight geometric variances and rigidity in the model
floor geometry may contribute to the larger deltas in the
measured vehicle lift values.
A clear step change in rear lift of the wagon configura-
tions is visible in comparison to the notchback and fastback.
This may result from the underbody airflow having less inter-
action with the vortices in the complex wake structure due to
the higher trailing edge of the wagon [2].
Once the consistency of the models had been validated
in the AWT test facility, Ford North America took possession
of model 1, Ford of Australia model 2, with model 3 remaining
in Ford of Europe.
Test Facilities
Currently, Ford Motor Company utilizes three primary auto-
motive wind tunnel test facilities for the development, verifica-
tion, and sign-off of all vehicle programs. The North American,
Drivability Test Facility Wind Tunnel 8 (DTF), and European,
AWT, are both Ford-owned and Ford-operated facilities. In
Asia Pacific, benchmarking, development, and sign-off testing
are conducted at a non-Ford facility, the Monash University
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Wind
0.042
Windshear Rolling Road Wind Tunnel (WSI), and Tongji
0.042
University Aeroacoustic Wind Tunnel. These facilities are
0.048
engaged to permit assessments with GS. Facility constraints
at the Windshear and Tongji wind tunnels limit the respective
yaw envelopes to ±7.5° and ±5°.
Table 1 summarizes the key metrics for the wind tunnel
test facilities discussed in this article; more detailed informa-
tion can be found in references [1, 5-9].
The blockage ratios of each facility, using a full-scale
model reference area of 2.12 m2, are shown in Table 2. Inlet
blockage ratios for the test facilities range between 8% at PVT
and 16% at Monash. Model blockage ratios from the full-scale
testing outlined in the current study are largely higher than
those experienced during DrivAer scale model testing outlined
in [1, 3, 10] where blockage ratios between 5 and 8% are
common. Increased blockage can result in the confinement
and acceleration of airflow. This increases aerodynamic force
interference and lowers static pressure, having a resultant
impact on surface pressure. In addition to an increased
velocity increment due to solid blockage within a test section,
wake blockage also imparts an additional velocity increment
and velocity gradient on the model [1, 11].
At each facility, the model is mounted on a turntable to
allow simulated crosswind force assessments over a range of
angles. Force testing is conducted as per local best practice
procedure with no boundary layer control systems activated
and no blockage or wake closure corrections applied to results.
Ongoing work is planned to employ the two-pressure gradient
blockage correction method proposed by Mercker and

TABLE 1  Summary of the wind tunnels used for full-scale DrivAer testing.
Automotive test Standard q
facility Test section type Nozzle area (m2) Test section length (m) Rolling road system determination
AWT ¾ open jet 20 9.7 Stationary Nozzle method
DTF ¾ open jet 18.7 14.6 Stationary Plenum method
Monash ¾ open jet 13.2 12 Stationary Pitot static tube
© Ford Motor Co.

PVT slotted walls 27.1 15.8 5 belt Nozzle method

WSI ¾ open jet 16.7 14.5 1 belt Plenum method
Tongji ¾ open jet 27 15 5 belt Nozzle method

© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue 359

 FIGURE 13   Notchback, detailed underbody, drag variance  FIGURE 14   Drag coefficient, N_D_woM_wW GESS OFF.
with Reynolds number.

CD N_D_woM_wW GESS OFF

0.280 0.340

0.275

0.270 0.320

0.265
0.300
0.260

CD
CD

0.255
0.280
0.250

0.245
0.260
0.240

0.235

© Ford Motor Co.

6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 0.240
-20 -10 0 10 20
© Ford Motor Co.

Re (x106)
β (degrees)
AWT DTF Monash
PVT WSI Tongji DTF Monash AWT PVT WSI Tongji
PVT GS WSI GS Tongji GS

Cooper [11], in order to account for the influence of facility
geometrical constraints.
Reynolds number sensitivity for the notchback detailed
underbody configuration is shown in Figure 13. Measurements
without ground effect simulation exhibit less dependence on
Re, with typical drag coefficient variance no greater than 5
drag counts, CD = 0.005, across the speed envelope. The inclu-
sion of GS gives rise to the consistent decrease in vehicle drag
as Re increases with a variance of approximately CD = 0.01
across the tested Re range. This trend for decreasing measured
drag with increasing Re is consistent with the reported
findings in [1].
Experimental Results
This section discusses the results of the notchback detailed
underbody configuration in six automotive wind tunnel test
facilities. GS results were also recorded at the facilities
equipped with ground effect simulation systems (GESS). From
this point forward in this article, GESS OFF will refer to static
ground and GESS ON to GS. The following nomenclature
defines the configuration of the DrivAer model in each test,
in line with the definitions defined in [2].
N Notchback
D Detailed underbody
S Smooth underbody
woM Without mirrors
wW With wheels
© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
For example, N_D_woM_wW represents the notchback,
detailed underbody, without mirror, and with
wheels configuration.
Force Data Results
All force measurements have been normalized with the
projected frontal area of 2.12 m2 at yaw angle, β = 0°, and
remain uncorrected.
The measured drag yaw polars for the notchback detailed
underbody variant in each test facility, GESS OFF, for yaw
angles (β) −20° < β < 20° are shown in Figure 14. At β = 0°,
there is a CD = 0.024 spread in the absolute measured drag
values. Monash measures the lowest at CD = 0.253 and PVT
the highest at CD = 0.277. The measured drag forces all exhibit
similar trends with a clear gradient change in the forces above
10°. The higher degree of flattening in the Monash results for
β > 7.5° is attributed to the higher blockage ratio, especially
at high yaw angles.
The asymmetric design for the detailed floor yields a CD
minima not at β = 0. Monash, Tongji, and PVT facilities all
show a local CD minima at slight positive yaw. AWT, DTF,
and WSI demonstrate the opposite, local minima at slight
negative yaw. The influence of the asymmetric underbody is
reflected in the yaw polars for all facilities by the sharper
increase in CD when the vehicle is negatively yawed.
Figure 15 compares CD GESS ON results to GESS OFF
equivalents at the relevant test facilities. All three tunnels
show an almost constant negative drag offset with GESS ON.
PVT has an average offset of ΔCD = −0.017. WSI shows greatest
offset at 0° yaw and tapers off marginally at 7.5° yaw with an
average of ΔCD = 0.028 over the angles tested.
360 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue

 FIGURE 15   Drag coefficient, N_D_woM_wW, GESS ON  FIGURE 16   Front lift coefficient, N_D_woM_wW
comparison to GESS OFF. GESS OFF.

CD N_D_woM_wW CLf N_D_woM_wW GESS OFF

0.340 0.250

0.320 0.200

0.300
0.150

CLf
CD

0.280
0.100

0.260
0.050

0.240
0.000

0.220
© Ford Motor Co.

© Ford Motor Co.

-20 -10 0 10 20 -0.050
β (degrees) -20 -10 0 10 20

PVT WSI Tongji β (degrees)

PVT GS WSI GS Tongji GS Monash AWT PVT WSI Tongji

Due to instabilities in the Tongji rolling road belt system, Compared to the front lift results, the order of rear lift
angles greater than 5° could not be assessed with GESS ON. coefficient, CLr, results (Figure 18) indicate a reversal of the
At positive yaw angles, up to 5°, an average offset of ΔCD = test facility standings in terms of magnitude. PVT, WSI, and
0.027 follows a very similar drag gradient for both GESS ON Tongji show comparable CLr values between 0° < β < 5°. As
and GESS OFF tests. At negative yaw angles, the two sets of with the front lift coefficient, AWT shows a somewhat flatter
results have almost converged at −5°, with GESS ON results trend between −5° < β < 5°. At β = 0°, a range of ΔCLr = 0.031
exhibiting higher yaw gradient. encapsulates the all facilities.
Front lift polars (CLf ) for yaw angles between −20° < β < 20°
are shown in Figure 16. In general, the lift distribution shows
 FIGURE 17   Front lift coefficient, N_D_woM_wW GESS ON
a parabolic shape across the tested yaw angles. AWT and Tongji
comparison to GESS OFF.
exhibit a flatter lift profile at lower yaw angles −5° < β < 5°.
The ranking of CLf magnitude qualitatively follows the CD
trends of the GESS OFF results. PVT results fall on the upper CLf N_D_woM_wW
band of all tunnel results with an average offset of ΔCLf = 0.051
0.250
to Monash between −7.5° < β < 7.5°. Outside of this range, the
delta increases to ΔCLf = 0.081 at β = 20° and ΔCLf = 0.094 at
β = −20°. At β = 0° there is a facility spread of ΔCLf = 0.051; 0.200
Tongji measured the highest value of CLf = 0.019.
With GESS ON (Figure 17), the measured front lift coef- 0.150
ficient drops due to the influence of wheel rotation and GS belt
CLf

increasing the momentum under the vehicle body. At β = 0°,

0.100
the delta between GESS OFF and GESS ON is ΔCLf = −0.026
at PVT, ΔCLf = −0.050 at WSI, and ΔCLf = −0.034 at Tongji.
PVT shows the offset between GESS OFF and GESS ON 0.050
increases with yaw angle.
The yaw envelope tested at Tongji correlates to within 0.000
ΔCLf = 0.003 of PVT results. Asymmetry in the WSI results,
due to underbody design, is visible at all angles; however, this
-0.050
does not become as prominent in the PVT results until yaw
© Ford Motor Co.

-20 -10 0 10 20
is greater in magnitude than β = ±10°. All GESS ON results β (degrees)
exhibit steeper lift gradients at yaw angles between PVT WSI Tongji
−10° < β < 10° when compared to GESS OFF measurements. PVT GS WSI GS Tongji GS

© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue 361

 FIGURE 18   Rear lift coefficient, N_D_woM_wW. β = −10°. It is likely that these two phenomena contribute to
the sudden drop in rear lift at ~β = ±7.5° before continuing to
increase at greater yaw angles. Wieser et al. [10] also concluded
CLr N_D_woM_wW GESS OFF that the vortex originating at the A-pillar had a noticeable
0.300
impact with the flow field at the rear window. WSI exhibits
agreement with the PVT data at the ±7.5° maximum angle
tested. Due to belt instabilities at yaw, Tongji was limited to
0.250
testing at ±5°, and therefore the CLr trend at angles greater than
this cannot be confirmed.
CLr

0.200
Computational Setup
This section compares the previously discussed notchback
0.150 physical wind tunnel test results to two CFD codes, STAR-
CCM+ and PowerFLOW, both using the current best practice
at Ford Motor Company.
© Ford Motor Co.

0.100
-20 -10 0 10 20
STAR-CCM+
β (degrees)
Monash AWT PVT WSI Tongji
CD-Adapco’s STAR-CCM+ finite volume flow solver version
8.02.008 was used for the DrivAer model simulations. The
flow physics are modelled assuming incompressible, turbulent
A relatively consistent CLr offset within the envelope of flow. Turbulence parameters are modelled using Menter’s
−5° < β < 5° can be seen for all facilities between GESS OFF Shear Stress Transport (SST) K-Omega detached eddy simula-
and GESS ON results (Figure 19). A clear inflection is visible tion (DES) model [12]. DES is a hybrid modelling approach
at ±7.5° in the GESS ON PVT results. When looking at the that combines a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
flow field at the rear end of a 25% scale DrivAer model, Wieser approach to model the boundary layers and irrotational flow
et al. [10] found the emergence of two vortices at the base of regions and a large eddy simulation (LES) approach elsewhere.
the vehicle and that the windward C-pillar streamwise vortex DES was chosen due to its superior ability to predict overall
became increasingly evident at yaw angles up to the tested vehicle aerodynamic characteristics and wake flows when
compared to unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
(URANS) approaches, as demonstrated in the work of
 FIGURE 19   Rear lift coefficient, N_D_woM_wW GESS OFF
Carbonne et al. [13] and Ashton and Revell [14].
and GESS ON results.
The advection terms were modelled with a hybrid second-
order upwind/bounded central-differencing convection
CLr N_D_woM_wW
scheme. Velocity-pressure coupling is managed using the
0.300
semi-implicit method for pressure-linked equations (SIMPLE).
A second-order accurate temporal scheme and a time step of
2.5 × 10−4 s were employed to ensure a Courant number below
0.250 1 in the separated flow regions.
Simulations were carried out on Ford’s High-Performance
Computing Cluster in Dearborn and used a total elapsed run
0.200 time of approximately 80 hours on 96 CPUs. Total physical
CLr

simulation time equates to approximately 2.0 s, including a

0.5 s initialization period.
0.150
Star-CCM+ Simulation Setup The STAR-CCM+ domain
is a rectangular cuboid with a velocity inlet located 4.3  L
0.100 upstream and a pressure outlet 8.7 L downstream of the DrivAer
model. The domain total width is 4.8 L and height is 2.0 L. The
road is defined as a nonslip wall and the remaining outer wall
0.050 boundaries, as slip walls. The freestream velocity was constant
© Ford Motor Co.

-20 -10 0 10 20 at 140 kph with a density of 1.217 kg/m3. To simulate GESS
β (degrees) ON, a velocity gradient equivalent to the airspeed is applied to
PVT WSI Tongji the floor surface of the domain and an axial velocity applied to
PVT GS WSI GS Tongji GS
a coordinate system in the center of each wheel.
© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
362 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue

The minimum cell size on the model surface is 2.5 mm in  FIGURE 20   Bands showing spread of GESS OFF and GESS
areas of highest velocity gradient, increasing to a maximum cell ON CD for N_D_woM_wW compared to simulated CFD results.
size of 10 mm on the model. Four prism layers are defined with
a total prism layer height of 3.094  mm to ensure y+ < 25.
Refinement zones were defined to control the cell size in areas of CD N_D_woM_wW
complex airflow; three 10 mm zones, one 20 mm zone, and one 0.34
40 mm zone were implemented. This yields a typical cell count
of 48 × 106 for the notchback detailed underbody configuration.
0.32

PowerFLOW 0.3
EXA’s extended Lattice-Boltzmann solver PowerFLOW

CD
version 4.3b was used to carry out further DrivAer model
0.28
simulations. 3D cells known as “voxels” make up the simula-
tion fluid volume. Where the fluid intersects with the volume
during the discretization process, “surfels” are formed. For 0.26
high Reynolds number, turbulent flows, very large eddy simu-
lations (VLES) directly solve large turbulent structures in the
volume and model the remaining small-scale structures using 0.24
the k-epsilon equations. Eddy viscosity and turbulent Prandtl -20 -10 0 10 20

© Ford Motor Co.

numbers are used to overcome the effects of the unresolved β (degrees)
GESS OFF facilies GESS ON facilies
flow properties on the resolved large turbulent structures.
Star-CCM+ PowerFLOW
Simulations were carried out on Ford’s High-Performance Star-CCM+ GESS ON PowerFLOW GESS ON
Computing Cluster in Dearborn and used a total elapsed run
time of approximately 13 hours on 128 CPUs. Total physical
simulation time equates to approximately 3.5 s.

PowerFLOW Simulation Setup The PowerFLOW

domain is a box shape with dimensions (length × width ×
height) of 30.5 L × 21.1 L × 21.7 L. A velocity inlet upstream
of the model is fixed at 140 kph, and the downstream pressure
outlet is defined at 101325 Pa. The domain floor surface is
defined as a selectable wall; this behaves as a standard wall in  FIGURE 21   Front lift coefficient comparison of CFD
some places and as a frictionless wall elsewhere. The remaining simulation results to wind tunnel bands for GESS OFF and
domain surfaces are defined as frictionless walls. The GESS ON.
freestream density is constant at 1.217 kg/m3. Particles move
one discrete step at each 1.604 × 10−5 s time step. A velocity
gradient applied to the floor and axial velocity at each wheel CLf N_D_woM_wW
allows for simulation of GESS ON. 0.25
Ten areas of refinement, known as variable resolution
(VR) regions, encapsulate the model. The VR region covering 0.2

the volume closest to the model contains the simulation’s

0.15
minimum voxel size of 2.5 mm. Each subsequent VR region
doubles the voxel size until a refinement of 1.28 m is achieved 0.1
in the outer domain. The minimum thickness in each VR
region is two voxels.
CLf

0.05

Computational Results -0.05

Analysis -0.1

-0.15
Figures 20 to 22 depict predicted CFD results for the detailed -20 -10 0 10 20
© Ford Motor Co.

notchback configuration GESS OFF and GESS ON. Wind β (degrees)

tunnel data is presented as bands that encompass data from GESS OFF facilies GESS ON facilies
all test facilities. No corrections have been made to the Star-CCM+ PowerFLOW
Star-CCM+ GESS ON PowerFLOW GESS ON
CFD results.
© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue 363
 FIGURE 22   Rear lift coefficient comparison of CFD
simulation results to wind tunnel bands for both GESS OFF and
GESS ON.
CLr N_D_woM_wW
0.3
0.25
0.2
CLr
0.15
0.1
0.05
-20 -10 0 10
© Ford Motor Co.
β (degrees)
GESS OFF facilies GESS ON facilies
Star-CCM+ PowerFLOW
Star-CCM+ GESS ON PowerFLOW GESS ON
It can be seen in Figure 20 that Star-CCM+ shows a clear
offset between GESS OFF and GESS ON coefficient of drag
results. An offset in the PowerFLOW results is not as evident,
particularly at small angles of yaw. The yaw polars for both
codes are reasonably well aligned and follow suit of with the
physical testing, showing an inflection at β = ±10°. Star-
CCM+ CD results continue to increase after β = ±10° with a
peak at β = 20°. This may be showing the influence of blockage
at yaw due to the wind tunnel-shaped domain. Further inves-
tigation is required to gain a deeper understanding of the
influence of blockage on the Star-CCM+ results at increased
yaw angles.
CFD results using both codes lie predominantly within
the ranges outlined by experimental testing in the automotive
wind tunnel facilities. PowerFLOW typically predicts lower
CD values with GESS OFF than those of Star-CCM+. The
PowerFLOW results align with the lowest band of measured
GESS OFF wind tunnel results.
In a trend not evident in the Star-CCM+ results, at angles
greater in magnitude than β = ±5°, PowerFLOW GESS ON
results measure higher than GESS OFF results. This trend
again reverses at β = ±20°.
Front lift coefficient (CLf ) results (Figure 21) display a clear
offset between the values resulting from both CFD codes to
the measured wind tunnel values. At β = 0°, Star-CCM+ and
PowerFLOW have respective offsets to the median GESS OFF
wind tunnel results of CLf = 0.026 and CLf = 0.060. While
Star-CCM+ shows a clear offset between GESS OFF and GESS
ON results, PowerFLOW has a less consistent offset, being
negligible at β = 0°. The gradients of all CFD results align well
to the automotive facilities highlighted in the graph.
© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
Figure 22 shows a large rear lift coefficient (CLr) offset in
both CFD codes between GESS OFF and GESS ON results.
GESS ON results consistently measure lower than GESS OFF
for both Star-CCM+ and PowerFLOW. Star-CCM+ GESS ON
C Lr values are well below those measured in the wind
tunnel facilities.
Surface Pressure Data Results
Due to facility and hardware availability, a complete set of
surface measurement data is yet to be measured at each auto-
motive wind tunnel test facility. The following results include
data from PVT, Tongji, and Monash wind tunnels. The
presented data has not been corrected and shows the impact
of facility uniqueness (Table 1) on surface pressure results.
The notchback detailed underbody DrivAer model
configuration has 183 pressure tap locations. Forty-six of these
points lie on the centerline, y = 0, of the upper body and 21
on the centerline of the underbody. Further pressure tap loca-
20
tions can largely be grouped into the following: plane at z =
0.15 m, plane at z = 0.5 m, front window, side window, A pillar,
C pillar, and backlight.
Upper-body centerline coefficient of pressure (CP) results
(Figure 23) show GESS ON has negligible impact on the upper-
body pressure distribution. All CP results show equal pressure
traces immediately aft of the front stagnation point. PVT
results show a much larger drop in pressure as the airflow
accelerates over the leading edge of the hood and it immedi-
ately recovers to be within the vicinity of Monash and Tongji.
All facilities show pressure recovery on the hood, increasing
to a local maxima at the base on the front windshield with a
small step change between facilities.
The CP pressure traces exhibit similar characteristics until
the beginning of the interchangeable notchback model section.
At x/L = 0.59 the PVT pressure trace starts to differ from the
other results. Points between x/L = 0.59 and x/L = 0.76 may
be erroneous in the PVT data. The join and subsequent taping
of the junction between the main model body and the inter-
changeable rear-end section require investigation prior to
further testing at PVT.
At the rear of the model Monash and Tongji both show
drops in pressure beginning at x/L = 0.95. This corresponds
to the point prior to the acceleration over the trailing edge of
the decklid. Volvo indicates a drop in CP prior to this location
at x/L = 0.89. Tongji and Monash tunnels display a return to
ambient pressure at the rear of the model, x/L = 1. PVT shows
a lower base pressure at x/L = 1 reflecting the consistently
higher PVT CD values seen in Figures 14 and 15.
Figure 24 displays a surface pressure trace from a GESS
OFF CFD simulation together with the physical wind tunnel
GESS OFF results. The CFD results show a complete surface
trace over the upper body, in comparison to the pressure tap
points as measured on the physical model.
Star-CCM+ and PowerFLOW results show greater CP
minima as the airflow accelerates over local features, such as
the roof intersection with the front and rear windscreens,
which were not captured in the physical tests due to the
364 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue

 FIGURE 23   Coefficient of pressure measured on the upper-body centerline N_D_woM_wW.

1 ND Upperbody CP

0.5

0
CP

-0.5

-1
PVT erroneous region

© Ford Motor Co.

-1.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L
PVT Tongji Monash PVT RR Tongji RR

pressure tap locations. The Star-CCM+ results also suggest
the local maxima on the front windscreen is slightly rearward
of the x/L = 0.3 pressure tap location in this area. Excluding
the possible erroneous points in the Volvo data, the CFD
results closely replicate the CP values measured in the automo-
tive test facilities and are largely within the band covered by
these facilities’ results.
Data from the pressure taps located on the windscreen,
A-pillar, and side glass regions have been used to map the
coefficient of pressure (CP) of the DrivAer model at yaw. Figure
25 shows the pressure footprint on the leeward side at β = 20°.
The Star-CCM+ (Figure 25c) and PowerFLOW (Figure 25d)
results are mapped utilizing zero-order interpolation at the
location of pressure tap to enable a direct comparison to the
wind tunnel measurements at Monash (Figure 25a) and PVT
(Figure 25b). Lower pressure tap spatial density on the front
glass is reflected in the larger pixelated rendering. The wind-
screen area of PVT shows two irregularities not aligned with

 FIGURE 24   Coefficient of pressure measured on the upper-body centerline N_D_woM_wW.

1 ND Upperbody CP

0.5

0
CP

-0.5

-1
© Ford Motor Co.

-1.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
x/L
PVT Tongji Monash Star-CCM+ PowerFLOW

© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue 365

 FIGURE 25   Leeward door pressure loading comparison,  FIGURE 26   A pillar and side glass loads. N_S_woM_wW.
β = 20°, GESS OFF, N_S_woM_wW.

-0.500

-0.450

-0.400
A-Pillar + Sideglass
-0.350

-0.300

Load ΣCPA (m2)

A-Pillar
-0.250
(a). Monash
-0.200

-0.150
Sideglass
-0.100

PVT erroneous region -0.050

© Ford Motor Co.

0.000
0 5 10 15 20
(b) PVT β (degrees)
Monash PVT Star-CCM+ PowerFLOW

load values closely align at smaller yaw angles; however, a large

offset is visible with increased angle. A constant side glass
offset is visible in the Monash results over all angles. Monash
recorded the largest CP values over the upper body as shown
in Figure 24; this together with the previously discussed chal-
lenges at high yaw angles provides an explanation for the offset
(c) Star-CCM+ in door loads. Both CFD codes capture the experimental
trends shown in the wind tunnel data and more closely align
with the PVT results.

Summary and Future

© Ford Motor Co.

(d) PowerFLOW
the other results that are deemed to be spurious measure-
ments. Both predicted and measured data illustrate the
presence of a strong A-pillar vortex via the low pressure foot-
prints on the side glass. CFD predictions are qualitatively
similar in magnitude and location to data measured at PVT.
Monash data illustrates the presence of the A-pillar vortex is
equivalent to that measured at Volvo, albeit with a lower
strength. The higher side glass pressure measured at Monash
is assumed to be the influence of the increased wind tunnel
blockage and reflects the trends shown in the lower drag
measurements depicted in Figure 14.
Door loading was determined by multiplying the
measured CP value with the local area measurement. Figure 26
compares the door loading for two wind tunnel facilities
(Monash, PVT) and the two CFD codes (Star-CCM+,
PowerFLOW) between 0° < β < 20°. Monash A-pillar door
© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
Work
The development of a full-scale representation of the DrivAer
generic realistic vehicle for use as a wind tunnel correlation
and calibration tool has been discussed. Three test properties
were manufactured for deployment in the primary wind
tunnel test facilities employed by Ford in North America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.
Model validation was performed in AWT prior to the
distribution of test properties to each region. Variation in drag
coefficient (CD) was contained within three drag counts
(CD = 0.003) for all body style configurations.
Aerodynamic testing was conducted in Ford Motor
Company’s three primary static ground automotive wind
tunnel test facilities, as well in three additional commercial
facilities with ground effect simulation system capabilities.
The full-scale test property displayed similar trends in all
facilities for drag and lift force measurements. Simulating a
moving road surface and rotating wheels of the vehicle via
ground effect simulation in the test facilities gave rise to lower
366 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue

absolute force measurements. Differences in facility design, F - Fastback

onset flow conditions, and blockage ratio resulted in consider- GESS - Ground effect simulation system
able spread in the test data, particularly higher yaw angles
GS - Ground simulation
greater than 10°.
Each full-scale additional DrivAer generic realistic vehicle L - Model length
model configuration has 183 pressure tap locations with LES - Large eddy simulation
higher concentrations in high velocity gradient areas. The N - Notchback
additional instrumentation provided a larger dataset to enable
OEM - Original equipment manufacturer
CFD validation on a realistic vehicle geometry. The two CFD
codes used both predicted results which replicated the trends PVT - Volvo wind tunnel
of both the measured force and pressure data. q - Dynamic pressure (Pa)
The future outlook for the full-scale DrivAer correlation RANS - Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
and calibration process requires an extended test plan to
account for the unique attributes and hardware differences of Re - Reynolds number
each test facility; this will include two-pressure gradient S - Smooth underbody
blockage correction. SIMPLE - Semi-implicit method for pressure-linked equations
To characterize drag causing mechanisms, higher fidelity SST - Shear stress transport
assessments of wake flow structures are required. This will
be of particular benefit in GS facilities where the interaction St - Static ground
with the additional underbody momentum and the impact TUM - Technische Universität München
on aerodynamic components is still in its infancy on URANS - Unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
production vehicles. VLES - Very large eddy simulation
A Ford Motor Company study into the updated open-
source DrivAer open cooling geometry model, released after VR - Variable resolution
the commencement of the current project, is currently ongoing W - Wagon
and is discussed in Hupertz et al. [15]. The added data points woM - Without mirrors
resulting from results with and without engine bay airflow
WSI - Windshear wind tunnel
are expected to provide greater insight into the dominant flow
mechanisms occurring around typical passenger vehicles with wW - With wheels
differing rear-end geometries. β - Angle of yaw (degrees)

Contact Information References

Taryn James
Ford Motor Company Australia Ltd. 1. EADE, “EADE Correlation Test 2010,” Presented at the
Asia Pacific Development and Design Centre, Campbellfield, EADE Meeting 2011, Italy, Sept. 21, 2011.
Melbourne, Australia
2. Heft, A., Indinger, T., and Adams, N., “Introduction of a New
tjames56@ford.com Realistic Generic Car Model for Aerodynamic
Investigations,” SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-0168, 2012,
doi:10.4271/2012-01-0168.
Definitions/Abbreviations 3. Strangfeld, C., Wieser, D., Schmidt, H., Woszidlo, R. et al.,
AWT - Aeroacoustic Wind Tunnel (Ford of Europe wind tunnel) “Experimental Study of Baseline Flow Characteristics for the
Realistic Car Model DrivAer,” SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-
CAD - Computer-aided design 1251, 2013, doi:10.4271/2013-01-1251.
CAE - Computer-aided engineering 4. Hoffman, J., Martindale, B., Arnette, S., Williams, J. et al.,
CD - Coefficient of drag “Effect of Test Section Configuration on Aerodynamic Drag
CFD - Computational fluid dynamics Measurements,” SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-0631, 2001,
doi:10.4271/2001-01-0631.
CL - Coefficient of lift
5. Walter, J., Duell, E., Martindale, B., Arnette, S. et al., “The
CLf - Coefficient of lift front Driveability Test Facility Wind Tunnel No. 8,” SAE Technical
CLr - Coefficient of lift rear Paper 2002-01-0252, 2002, doi:10.4271/2002-01-0252.
CP - Coefficient of pressure 6. Wordley, S. and Saunders, J., “On-Road Turbulence: Part 2,”
D - Detailed underbody SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 2(1):111-137, 2009,
doi:10.4271/2009-01-0002; Sternéus, J.Walker, T. ,Bender, T. ,
DES - Detached eddy simulation and, “Upgrade of the Volvo Cars Aerodynamic Wind
DTF - Driveability Test Facility Wind Tunnel 8 (Ford North Tunnel,” SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-1043, 2007,
America Wind Tunnel) doi:10.4271/2007-01-1043.
© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; Published by SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 James et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars – Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, 2018, WCX18 Best Papers Special Issue 367

7. 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.
8. Yinzhi, H., Yang, Z., and Wang, Y., “Wind Noise Testing at
Shanghai Automotive Wind Tunnel Center,” in: SAE-China,
FISITA (Eds.), Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 World Automotive
Congress, Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, Vol. 201
(Berlin, Springer), doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33832-8_44.
9. Walter, J., Bordner, J., Nelson, B., and Boram, A., “The Windshear
Rolling Road Wind Tunnel,” SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst.
5(1):265-288, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-0300.
10. Wieser, D., Schmidt, H., Müller, S., Strangfeld, C. et al.,
“Experimental Comparison of the Aerodynamic Behavior of
Fastback and Notchback DrivAer Models,” SAE Int. J.
Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 7(2):682-691, 2014,
doi:10.4271/2014-01-0613.
11. Mercker, E. and Cooper, K., “A Two-Measurement
Correction for the Effects of a Pressure Gradient on
Automotive, Open-Jet, Wind Tunnel Measurements,” SAE
Technical Paper 2006-01-0568, 2006, doi:10.4271/2006-01-
0568.
12. Menter, F.R., “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence
Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA Journal
32(8):1598-1605, 1994, doi:10.2514/3.12149.
13. Carbonne, L., Winkler, N., and Efraimsson, G., “Use of Full
Coupling of Aerodynamics and Vehicle Dynamics for
Numerical Simulation of the Crosswind Stability of Ground
Vehicles,” SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-8148,
doi:10.4271/2016-01-8148.
14. Ashton, N. and Revell, A., “Comparison of RANS
and DES Methods for the DrivAer Automotive Body,”
SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1538, 2015,
doi:10.4271/2015-01-1538.
15. Hupertz, B., Kruger, L., Chalupa, K., Lewington, N. et al.,
“Introduction of a New Open Cooling Version of the
DrivAer Generic Car Model,” 11th FKFS-Conference
“Progress in Vehicle Aerodynamics and Thermal
Management”, Stuttgart, Sept. 26-27, 2017.

© 2018 Ford Motor Co.; All rights reserved. Published by SAE International. 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 the copyright holder(s).

Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. Responsibility for the content of the work lies
solely with the author(s).
Copyright of SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars: Mechanical Systems is the
property of SAE International and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.