sustainability

Project Report
A Study in Options to Improve Aerodynamic Profile
of Heavy-Duty Vehicles in Europe
Adithya Hariram 1, * , Thorsten Koch 2 , Björn Mårdberg 3 and Jan Kyncl 4
1 Supply Network Innovation Centre, Procter & Gamble Services Company NV,
1853 Strombeek-Bever, Belgium
2 Department of Structure Dynamics and Vibration Technology, Fraunhofer-Institute for Structural Durability
and System Reliability LBF, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany; thorsten.koch@lbf.fraunhofer.de
3 Transport Solutions, Volvo GTT Advanced Technology & Research (ATR), 41755 Göteborg, Sweden;
bjorn.mardberg@volvo.com
4 Department of Power Systems Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, 16627 Prague, Czechia;
kyncl@fel.cvut.cz
* Correspondence: hariram.a@pg.com




Received: 25 August 2019; Accepted: 1 October 2019; Published: 6 October 2019


Abstract: In this paper, we present and discuss different aerodynamic solutions available for European
tractor and semi-trailers configurations along with summarizing their impact on the aerodynamic
drag that contributes to the reduction of fuel consumption. Combinations of different aerodynamic
solutions have been presented, and conclusions have been drawn from comparative studies and
experience of the participating partners of Project TRANSFORMERS, but no CFD simulations have
been done for the same solutions. The paper concludes by proposing configurations of aerodynamic
measures for various configurations and how they can be cost-effectively adapted to improve the
efficiency in road freight logistics networks and reduce emission.

Keywords: automotive applications; drag reduction; market research; road transportation; road vehicles;
supply chain management; traction power supplies

1. Introduction
The overall objective of the TRANSFORMERS project is to develop and demonstrate innovative
and energy-efficient trucks and load carriers for long distance transport assignments with an improved
load efficiency leading to an overall 25% less energy consumption on a t·km basis and a lower impact on
the road infrastructure [1]. To achieve this objective, four key innovations would be implemented and
integrated in two demonstrator vehicles. One of the key innovations present in both the demonstrator
vehicles is a mission-based configurable aerodynamic truck-trailer design. This is intended to optimize
the drag coefficient.
In past and on-going projects (e.g., Project CONVENIENT, CO2 RE, ECOCHAMPS, AEROFLEX,
and FALCON), many solutions have been developed and are being considered to improve aerodynamic
performance and reduce the overall drag of tractor-trailer architectures. Solutions considered were for
front and underbody deflectors, side skirts, rear diffusers, or boat tails. Each solution by itself provides
a significant reduction in drag, thus reducing the fuel consumption and CO2 emission. However,
it is not known how the different solutions for semi-trailers and trailers should be combined for building
an adaptable vehicle configuration. Thus, in this article, we present information collected from various
studies and reports from all the publicly funded projects that are on-going or already completed.
We have used this information to analyze and categorize the aerodynamic concepts and their physical
working principles and then integrated their applications in different configurations to evaluate

Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519; doi:10.3390/su11195519 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

 Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 2 of 23
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23

the performance
trailer of a configurable
design. Mission
Mission configurationmission-adaptable
is an important truck-trailer
an important design.
feature because
because Mission
vehicle configuration
efficiency can be
be
trailer
is an
design.
important feature
configuration
because
is
vehicle efficiency can
feature
be configured
vehicle
based on the
efficiency
type
can
of goods
configured
configured based on the type of goods being transported.
based on the type of goods being transported.
being transported.
1.1. Mission
1.1. Mission Efficiency
Efficiency
1.1. Mission Efficiency
Before
Before further
further
Before exploring
furtherexploring aerodynamic
exploring aerodynamic efficiency,
efficiency,
aerodynamic efficiency, it important
it
it is is important
is important to understand
to understand
to understand the energy
the
the energyenergy flow
flow
flow and
and
and how
how
how these
these
these flows
flows impact
impact
flows mission
mission
impact efficiency
efficiency
mission in road
in road
efficiency in road
freight freight operations.
operations.
freight Consider
Consider
operations. atractor–trailer
a 60 tona
Consider 60 ton
60 ton tractor–
tractor–
trailer configuration
configuration
trailer running
running
configuration at the
at theatspeed
running speed of
of 80 of
the speed km/h80 km/h [2].
[2]. Figure
80 km/h Figure 1
1 shows
[2]. Figure shows a
a typical
1 shows typical energy
energyenergy
a typical balance
balancebalance of
of such of
such aa combination.
combination.
a combination.
such

Exampleofofenergy
Figure1.1.Example
Figure energyflow
flow in
in a truck-trailer
truck-trailer configuration
configuration[2].
Figure 1. Example of energy flow in aa truck-trailer configuration [2].
[2].
Technologically, based on the calculations shown above and also observing the trend in efficiency
Technologically, based
based on thethe calculations
calculations shown
shown above
above and
and also
also observing
observing the the trend in in
forTechnologically,
thermodynamic efficiencyon for internal combustion engine shown in Figure 2 [3], a tractor is trend
able to
efficiency for
efficiency for thermodynamic
thermodynamic efficiency
efficiency for
for internal
internal combustion engine
engine shown in Figure 2 [3], a
convert ~44% of the energy contained in its fuel for usecombustion
in forward motion. shown in Figure 2 [3], a
tractor is able to convert ~44% of the energy contained in its fuel
tractor is able to convert ~44% of the energy contained in its fuel for use for use in
in forward
forward motion.
motion.

Figure 2. Evolution of engine efficiency in heavy duty vehicles [3].

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Evolution
Evolution of
of engine
engine efficiency
efficiency in
in heavy
heavy duty
duty vehicles
vehicles [3].
[3].

This is
This is not
not the
the only
only factor;
factor; the
the second
second efficiency
efficiency is
is the
the system
system efficiency
efficiency that
that comes
comes from
from
aerodynamic and frictional resistances that a vehicle needs to overcome to gain motion.
aerodynamic and frictional resistances that a vehicle needs to overcome to gain motion. Keeping Keeping
these efficiencies
these efficiencies in
in mind,
mind, we
we know
know that
that when
when wewe bring
bring the
the analogy
analogy ofof mission
mission efficiency
efficiency [4],
[4], defined
defined
as
as
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 3 of 23

This is not the only factor; the second efficiency is the system efficiency that comes from
aerodynamic and frictional resistances that a vehicle needs to overcome to gain motion. Keeping these
efficiencies in mind, we know that when we bring the analogy of mission efficiency [4], defined as
 
Weight o f Payload Mp  
% ηmission = × ηth × ηsystem × 100 (1)
Gross Weight o f Vehicle (Mv )

and apply it to our trucks, wherein the typical payload weight is roughly 62.5% of the combined weight
i.e. when the truck is loaded to 25 tons, this yields a mission efficiency of less than 20%. For example,

ηth × ηsystem = 0.45 × (1 − 0.38) = 0.279 (27.9%),

(2)
Mp = 25,000 kgs, Mv = 40,000 kgs , ⇒ % ηmission = 17.438%

Putting the above efficiencies into perspective, let us consider an analogy where we are filling
the gas tank to 100 liters. While doing so, we pumped 35–45 liters into the tank and then pumped
55–65 liters onto the ground; you now begin to understand just how much fuel your vehicle can waste.
Only ~50% of the energy from the 35–45 liters that made it into the tank will be required to move
the weight of the vehicle against forces of nature, while only 8–20% of the energy depending on the
payload will actually move the goods to their destination, leading to an overall mission efficiency
of less than 20%, as indicated above. With the knowledge of aerodynamic efficiency, we will try to
understand and improve the system efficiency in tractor-trailer combinations. Today’s trucks have
to be modular to combine different tractors and trailers. Additionally, the load volume of the trailer
is maximized to each country’s regulations. In the last 30 years, the aerodynamics of a vehicle has
become a major focus to reduce fuel consumption and therefore get better transport efficiency.

1.2. Aerodynamic Drag Calculation

Drag is the force of wind or air resistance pushing in the opposite direction to the motion of
the object. The drag coefficient (Cd ) is useful when comparing the aerodynamic efficiency between
different vehicles [5]. It is related to the aerodynamic drag force (Fd ), vehicle speed (V), frontal area (A),
and the density (ρ) and is defined by
F
Cd = 1 d (3)
2 ρAV
The comparison of the drag between specific case and reference case is defined as ∆Cd .
For comparison, we look at the drag co-efficient when the wind is blowing at different angles,
and we call it the yaw angle, which is denoted as ψ. These parameters form the foundation for
understanding the aerodynamic drag of the vehicle.

2. Conventional and Cab over Engine Tractors

A lot of investigations on aerodynamic measures that could be integrated in trucks have been
made in the US and Canada, but the achieved results are not directly transferable to European trucks.
This is mainly due to the different truck designs that have been introduced by different legislation
in the US and the EU [5]. Figure 3 shows the two designs of trucks. In the US, the typical design
of trucks is named Conventional (CONV), and in Europe, it is named Cab over Engine (CoE). US
legislation restricts only the length of the trailer and not of the whole tractor semi-trailer combination,
as in Europe. Therefore, the design of the tractor is very free, typically with a long nose containing the
engine and a sleeping cabin behind the driver cabin. In principle, the tractor height could be much
lower than in European trucks. Here, the driver cabin is very short, to maximize the load volume of
the trailer. Also, the tractor needs to be higher because of the engine is usually under the cabin, and in
some cases, there is a sleeping cabin above the cabin.
 back of the tractor and the wheels of the trailer. In Europe, there are under run protection, tool and
palette boxes, or spare wheels, whereas for US trucks, the gap is empty in most cases.
These differences in design imply that investigated aerodynamic measures have a different
impact on the overall aerodynamics of the vehicle. Similar measures can show a trend, which can be
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 4 of 23
adapted to the European truck, but the amount of drag or fuel reduction will be different (lower or
higher).

Figure 3. Comparison between Conventional (CONV) and Cab over Engine (CoE) trucks [5].
Figure 3. Comparison between Conventional (CONV) and Cab over Engine (CoE) trucks [5].

There are three main areas that influence the aerodynamic behavior of the tractor in different
3. Inquiry about Previously Examined Aerodynamic Measures for Truck and Semi-Trailer
ways. The first one is the front area of the tractor, where the long nose with fender (US) is different
from The following section highlights and summarizes different aerodynamic measures for tractor,
the steep flat front (EU). The CoE design therefore gives fewer opportunities for aerodynamic
semi-trailer and their combinations. As stated in Section 2, the design of Conventional trucks (CONV)
design because of restricted design space. The second area is the gap between the cabin and the trailer.
is different from the Cab over Engine trucks (CoE) found in Europe, and the benefits are not
For EuropeanTherefore,
comparable. trucks, thisthegap is much
results smaller
of previous than in
studies forUS
CONVtrucks,
willand
onlytherefore
be taken the crosswind influences
as suggestions.
are much higher for US trucks. The third area is the gap beneath the trailer between the back of the
tractor
3.1. Caband the wheels of the trailer. In Europe, there are under run protection, tool and palette boxes,
Aerodynamics
or spare wheels,
Figure 4 showswhereas for US trucks,
all aerodynamic the gap
measures is empty
for tractors in most
found duringcases.
the inquiry. Many of these
These differences in design imply that investigated aerodynamic
features have also been shown in “Good Practice Guide 308: Truck Aerodynamic measures have a[6]
Styling” different
from impact
on theand
2001 overall aerodynamics
the “Freight of theAerodynamics
Best Practice: vehicle. Similarfor measures can Road
Road Efficient showFreight
a trend,Operations”
which can[7]be adapted
tofrom
the 2010,
European
wheretruck,
nearly but the amount
the same of drag
values are given.or fuel reduction will be different (lower or higher).
The definitions of these components are as follows:
3. Inquiry
(1) Anabout
air damPreviously
is a smooth Examined
extension ofAerodynamic Measures
the bumper, which forair
directs the Truck and Semi-Trailer
flow around the tractor
instead of along the rough underbody. In most cases, an air dam is already integrated into
The following section highlights and summarizes different aerodynamic measures for tractor,
the bumper [6–9].
semi-trailer and their combinations. As stated in Section 2, the design of Conventional trucks (CONV)
(2) Tractor side panels cover the side gap between the front and rear wheels of the tractor and
is different from the Cab over
reduce turbulences Engine
induced bytrucks (CoE)
the cavity found
and/or thein Europe,
tank [5–8]. and the benefits are not comparable.
Therefore, the results
(3) Active of previous
grill shutters studies
will reduce thefor
air CONV will only
flow through the be taken
rough as suggestions.
engine compartment. An
intelligent connection between the grill shutters and the thermal management system of the
3.1. Cab engine
Aerodynamics
is needed to prevent overheating [9].
(4) The 4cab
Figure side edge
shows radius is important
all aerodynamic to direct
measures the airflow
for tractors fromduring
found the frontthe
around the cab
inquiry. to of these
Many
the sides of the truck. A higher radius is better, but the overall design of the cab has to be
features have also been shown in “Good Practice Guide 308: Truck Aerodynamic Styling” [6] from
considered in detail to get an optimized radius of the different edges [10].
2001 and the “Freight Best Practice: Aerodynamics for Road Efficient Road Freight Operations” [7]
(5) Cab side edge turning vanes are used to direct the air flow around the edges. If the edges of
from 2010,
the where
cab arenearly
alreadythe same
well values
rounded, theare given.effect can turn into a negative one [5,6].
positive
The definitions of these components are
(6) Low drag mirrors as well as the mounting as arms
follows:
and brackets are typically well rounded to
reduce turbulences and direct the airflow in a proper way [5,6].
(1) An air dam is a smooth extension of the bumper, which directs the air flow around the tractor
instead of along the rough underbody. In most cases, an air dam is already integrated into the
bumper [6–9].
(2) Tractor side panels cover the side gap between the front and rear wheels of the tractor and reduce
turbulences induced by the cavity and/or the tank [5–8].
(3) Active grill shutters will reduce the air flow through the rough engine compartment. An intelligent
connection between the grill shutters and the thermal management system of the engine is needed
to prevent overheating [9].
(4) The cab side edge radius is important to direct the airflow from the front around the cab to the
sides of the truck. A higher radius is better, but the overall design of the cab has to be considered
in detail to get an optimized radius of the different edges [10].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 5 of 23

(5) Cab side edge turning vanes are used to direct the air flow around the edges. If the edges of the
cab are already well rounded, the positive effect can turn into a negative one [5,6].
(6) Low drag mirrors as well as the mounting arms and brackets are typically well rounded to reduce
turbulences and direct the airflow in a proper way [5,6].
(7) Side view cameras can reduce drag because they are much smaller than mirrors. In some cases,
the drag increases if the abandoned mirrors supported a better airflow around the edge, so the
overall design of the cab has to be considered in detail.
(8) A cab roof rim can be a rounded sign or some kind of rounded edge to reduce turbulences by
sharp roof edges. Today, the edges are already rounded, and signs are integrated in the fairing or
behind the wind screen (usually used to display the operator’s name) [5,6].
(9) A cab sun visor mainly protects the driver from being blinded. Older tractors with sharp-edged
cab sun visors could have had a positive effect on the drag force. In most cases for today’s tractors,
it is negative [5,6].
(10) A cab roof deflector directs the air flow smoothly to the upper edge of the trailer without
generating turbulences. It needs to be adjusted to the trailer height. Sometimes, it is only a simple,
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23
slightly contoured plate. Today, a small cab roof deflector is integrated into a cab roof fairing to
level the heights of tractor and trailer in some vehicles [5,6].
(7) Side view cameras can reduce drag because they are much smaller than mirrors. In some
(11) A cases,
cab roof fairing
the drag isincreases
a rigid and complex
if the contoured
abandoned wedge
mirrors on the roof
supported top ofairflow
a better the cab around
to directthe
the
airflow from the front of the tractor around trailer. At times,
edge, so the overall design of the cab has to be considered in detail. an additional small cab roof deflector
(8) A cab roof to
is integrated rimadjust
can betheadifferent
roundedheightssign orofsome
the trailer
kind of [5–8].
rounded edge to reduce turbulences
(12) A by cabsharp
roof fairing and collar has some additional
roof edges. Today, the edges are already rounded, rigid parts placed
andtosigns
closeare
theintegrated
gap between the
in the
cabfairing
and the or trailer
behindinthe order
wind to screen
reduce(usually
the dragused
induced by crosswind
to display [5,6]. name) [5,6].
the operator’s
(13)(9)Cab side fairings/extenders direct the airflow from a smaller
A cab sun visor mainly protects the driver from being blinded. Older cab to the broader trailerwith
tractors and sharp-
reduce
theedged
cross cab
windsun effects by could
visors closinghavethe gap
had between
a positive tractor
effectand
on trailer
the drag[5–8].
force. In most cases for
(14) Tractor chassis filler panels smooth
today’s tractors, it is negative [5,6]. out the jagged king pin area behind the cab where the trailer
is connected
(10) A cab rooftodeflector
the tractor. Turbulences
directs induced
the air flow by crosswind
smoothly to the upperand streams
edge offrom the underbody
the trailer without
to generating
the gap between tractor and
turbulences. trailer
It needs to are reduced [5,6].
be adjusted to the trailer height. Sometimes, it is only a
(15) A simple,
smooth slightly
underbody contoured
reducesplate. Today, a small
the turbulences cab roof
induced deflector
by the jaggedisunderbody
integrated into
[11].a cab roof
fairing to level the heights of tractor and trailer in some vehicles [5,6].

Aerodynamicmeasures
Figure4.4.Aerodynamic
Figure measureson
ontractors.
tractors.

When
(11) weroof
A cab lookfairing
at photographs in Figure
is a rigid and 5 ofcontoured
complex tractors from 1999–2001
wedge andtop
on the roof in Table
of the1,cab
wetoobserve
direct
that Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) already include a lot of aerodynamic features
the airflow from the front of the tractor around trailer. At times, an additional small cab roof in
deflector is integrated to adjust the different heights of the trailer [5–8].
(12) A cab roof fairing and collar has some additional rigid parts placed to close the gap between
the cab and the trailer in order to reduce the drag induced by crosswind [5,6].
(13) Cab side fairings/extenders direct the airflow from a smaller cab to the broader trailer and
reduce the cross wind effects by closing the gap between tractor and trailer [5–8].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 6 of 23

their tractors, and many of them can only be fitted later, if the related OEM supplies these parts.
All aerodynamic parts have to fit perfectly to the designated tractor; otherwise, the aerodynamic effect
will be worse.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure5.
Figure 5. Tractors from
fromthe
theyears
years1999–2001.
1999–2001.(a)(a)
DAF, (b)(b)
DAF, Daimler, (c) IVECO,
Daimler, (d) MAN,
(c) IVECO, (e) Scania,
(d) MAN, (f)
(e) Scania,
Volvo.
(f) Volvo.

Table 1. Aerodynamic
Table1. measures used
Aerodynamic measures used by
bystate
stateof
ofthe
theart
arttractors
tractorsaround
aroundthe
theyear
year2000.
2000.

Aerodynamic
Aerodynamic Measure
Measure DAF
DAF Daimler
Daimler IVECO IVECO MAN MAN Scania Volvo Volvo
Scania
C01
C01 Air dam Air dam xx x x x x x x x x x x
C02 Tractor side panels −− −− −− − − x −
C02 Tractor side panels x −
C03 Active grill shutters − − − − − −
C03 Active grill − − − − − −
C04 Cab sideshutters
edge radius x x x x x x
C04
C05Cab
Cabside
sideedge
edgeradius
turning vanes xx −x −x x x x x − x
C05 Cab sideC06edge
Low turning vanes
drag mirrors xx −− x− − x x x x −
C07 Side
C06 Low dragview cameras
mirrors −x −− −x − − − x − x
C07 SideC08viewCabcameras
roof rim −− −− −− − − − − − −
C09 Cab sun visor x− x− x− x − x − x −
C08 Cab roof rim
C10 Cab roof deflector − − − − − −
C09 C11
CabCab
sunroof
visor
fairing xx xx xx x x x x x x
C10 Cab roof deflector − − − − − −
C12 Cab roof fairing with collar x x x x x x
C11 Cab
C13 Cabside
rooffairings/extenders
fairing −x xx xx − x x x x x
C12 CabC14roof
Tractor chassis
fairing withfiller panel
collar −x −x −x − x − x − x
C15 fairings/extenders
C13 Cab side Smooth underside −− −x −x − − − x − x
C14 Tractor chassis filler panel Note: x represents−observed; − represents
− not observed.
− − − −
C15 Smooth underside − − − − − −
Comparing the tractors to state
Note: of the arts
x represents tractors
observed; of 2014 asnot
− represents seen in Figure 6 and Table 2, all OEMs
observed.
implemented a lot more aerodynamic measures, which gives less room for further improvement.
Comparing the tractors to state of the arts tractors of 2014 as seen in Figure 6 and Table 2, all
Improvement can mainly be achieved by adjusting the different measures to each other to get a fully
OEMs implemented a lot more aerodynamic measures, which gives less room for further
optimized tractor. Here, all OEMs undertake a lot of effort to improve their tractors by performing
improvement. Improvement can mainly be achieved by adjusting the different measures to each
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations, performing wind tunnel tests, and track tests.
other to get a fully optimized tractor. Here, all OEMs undertake a lot of effort to improve their tractors
Looking at the tables, some of the aerodynamic features are mutually exclusive and cannot be identified
by performing Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations, performing wind tunnel tests, and
with
track tests. Lookingas
a photograph atreference.
the tables, some of the aerodynamic features are mutually exclusive and cannot
be identified with a photograph as reference.
 Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 7 of 23
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 23

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Stateof
Figure6.6. State
Figure ofthe
theart
arttractors
tractors2014.
2014.(a)
(a)DAF
DAFCF,
CF,(b)
(b)Daimler
DaimlerActros,
Actros,(c)
(c)IVECO
IVECOStralis,
Stralis,(d)
(d)MAN
MAN
TGX, (e) Scania R730, (f) Volvo
TGX, (e) Scania R730, (f) Volvo FH. FH.

Table 2. Current aerodynamic measures used by state-of-the-art tractors in the year 2014.
Table 2. Current aerodynamic measures used by state-of-the-art tractors in the year 2014.
Aerodynamic Measure DAF Daimler IVECO MAN Scania Volvo
Aerodynamic Measure DAF Daimler IVECO MAN Scania Volvo
C01 Air dam x x x x x x
C01 Air dam
C02 Tractor side panels xx x x x x x x x x x x
C02 Tractor side grill
C03 Active panels
shutters −x xx − x − x − x − x
C04 Cab
C03 Active side
grill edge radius
shutters x− xx x − x − x − x −
C04C05
CabCab side
side edgeradius
edge turning vanes xx xx x x x x − x − x
C06 Low drag mirrors x x x x x − x −
C05 Cab side edge turning vanes x x x x
C07 Side view cameras − − − − − −
C06 LowC08 dragCabmirrors
roof rim −x −x − x − x − x − x
C07 SideC09viewCabcameras
sun visor x− x − x − x − x − x −
C08 C10
CabCabroofroof
rimdeflector x− − − − − x − − − x −
C11 Cab roof
C09 Cab sun visor fairing xx x x x x x x x x x x
C12 Cab roof fairing with collar x x− x − x x x
C10 Cab roof deflector x x − x
C13 Cab side fairings/extenders x x x x x x
C11 Cab roof fairing
C14 Tractor chassis filler panel −x − x − x − x − x − x
C12 Cab roof fairing with collar
C15 Smooth underside −x − x − x − x − x − x
C13 Cab side fairings/extenders Note: x representsxobserved; − represents
x x
not observed. x x x
C14 Tractor chassis filler panel − − − − − −
C15 Smooth
Another undersideis introducing new technologies for better improvements. Compared to−
possibility − − − − −

Note:the
Figures 5 and 6 and applying x represents observed;
s-curve concept − represents
[12] as shownnot
in observed.
Figure 7, the old design technology
of tractor aerodynamics seems to be close to its boundary.
Another possibility is introducing new technologies for better improvements. Compared to
FiguresLow performance
5 and improvement
6 and applying needs
the s-curve a lot [12]
concept of engineering
as shown ineffort.
FigureThe boundary
7, the of aerodynamic
old design technology
tractor design is therefore based on several aspects.
of tractor aerodynamics seems to be close to its boundary. Legislation and load efficiency limit the design
space, and within this design space, nearly all possible aerodynamic features have been implemented,
and only optimization improvements with smaller improvements are possible. Looking at the Concept
S-truck by MAN, an overall performance improvement to a drag coefficient of a small van can be
achieved. In order to get on the new s-curve for aerodynamic improvement, the whole transport
chain with vehicle configuration needs to be reconsidered. Hence, new technology that offers bigger
 Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 8 of 23

improvement in aerodynamics is not only a matter for OEMs to work on but also for infrastructure,
Sustainability
legislation,2019, 11, x FOR
transport PEER REVIEW
companies, policies,
and others. 8 of 23

Figure 7. Diagram of the S-curve concept [13].

Low performance improvement needs a lot of engineering effort. The boundary of aerodynamic
tractor design is therefore based on several aspects. Legislation and load efficiency limit the design
space, and within this design space, nearly all possible aerodynamic features have been implemented,
and only optimization improvements with smaller improvements are possible. Looking at the
Concept S-truck by MAN, an overall performance improvement to a drag coefficient of a small van
can be achieved. In order to get on the new s-curve for aerodynamic improvement, the whole
transport chain with vehicle configuration needs to be reconsidered. Hence, new technology that
offers bigger improvement in aerodynamics is not only a matter for OEMs to work on but also for
infrastructure, legislation, transport
Figurecompanies, policies,
7. Diagram of andconcept
the S-curve others. [13].
Figure 7. Diagram of the S-curve concept [13].
3.2.Trailer
3.2. TrailerAerodynamics
Aerodynamics
Low performance improvement needs a lot of engineering effort. The boundary of aerodynamic
Whenwe
When we lookatatFigure
Figure8,8,there
therearearethree
threeareas
areason onthethetrailer
trailerthat
that areofofspecial
specialinterest
interestforfor
tractor design look
is therefore based on several aspects. Legislation and loadare efficiency limit the design
implementingaerodynamic
implementing aerodynamic measures. The first area is in
is front of the
oftrailer, especially the gapthe between
space, and within this designmeasures. Theall
space, nearly first area
possible in front
aerodynamic the trailer,
features haveespecially
been implemented, gap
the
betweentractor and the trailer. The second area is the lower part of the trailer, where under run protection,
and only optimization improvements with smaller improvements are possible. Looking atrun
the tractor and the trailer. The second area is the lower part of the trailer, where under the
tool and palette
protection, tool and boxes, or spare wheels arewheels
attached toattached
the trailer. Also, the bogie
Also, ofthethe trailer is of
Concept S-truck bypalette
MAN, boxes, or spare
an overall performance are
improvement toto
the trailer.
a drag coefficient ofbogie of the
a small van
interest
trailer because
is of interestofbecause
all the roughthe gaps between the wheels, thethe mud wings, and the axles. The third
can be achieved. In orderoftoallget rough
on the gaps
new between
s-curve for wheels,
aerodynamicthe mud wings,
improvement, and the the axles.
whole
area
The is
third the back
area is of
thethe trailer.
back of All
the shown
trailer. measures
All shown can be
measures classified
can beto these three
classified to areas.
these Within
three every
areas.
transport chain with vehicle configuration needs to be reconsidered. Hence, new technology that
area, only one
Within device
onlycanonetypically be installed.
offers every
biggerarea,
improvement device can typically
in aerodynamics is be
notinstalled.
only a matter for OEMs to work on but also for
infrastructure, legislation, transport companies, policies, and others.

3.2. Trailer Aerodynamics

When we look at Figure 8, there are three areas on the trailer that are of special interest for
implementing aerodynamic measures. The first area is in front of the trailer, especially the gap
between the tractor and the trailer. The second area is the lower part of the trailer, where under run
protection, tool and palette boxes, or spare wheels are attached to the trailer. Also, the bogie of the
trailer is of interest because of all
Figure 8. the rough
3 Areas gaps between
of aerodynamic the wheels,
interest the mud wings, and the axles.
for the trailer.
The third area is the back of the trailer. All shown measures can be classified to these three areas.
Figure 8. 3 Areas of aerodynamic interest for the trailer.
WithinFigure
every9 area,
shows onlya rough sketch
one device oftypically
can airflow paths of a truck without any special aerodynamic
be installed.
measures at the trailer. The blue airflow paths
Figure 9 shows a rough sketch of airflow paths of a truckdo not represent streamlines
without any from CFD simulations
special aerodynamic but
serve
measuresfor a better
at the2019,
Sustainability
understanding.
trailer. The
11, x FOR blue
PEER airflow paths do not represent streamlines from CFD
REVIEW 9 ofsimulations
23
but serve for a better understanding.

Figure 8. 3 Areas of aerodynamic interest for the trailer.

Figure Principle
Figure 9.9.Principle airflow
airflow pathspaths of a truck.
of a truck.

Figure
PathPath 9 1shows
follows
1 follows athe
the rough
truck sketch
truck at
at the of Here,
the top.
top. airflow
Here, paths
thethe ofofa the
deflector
deflector truck thewithout
oftractor guides any
tractor the special
airflow
guides aerodynamic
thetoairflow
the to the
measures at
trailer’s the trailer.
leading edge. The
If theblue airflow
deflector is paths
not do
adjusted not
in represent
the right way streamlines
and the from
leading
trailer’s leading edge. If the deflector is not adjusted in the right way and the leading edge of the edgeCFD
of simulations
the
trailerfor
but serve is sharp, thenunderstanding.
a better the airflow will be disturbed by this sharp edge, and the drag will rise. This is
represented in the picture by a red vortex. The air will flow along the trailer roof to the trailing edge
where it will be disturbed again. A big area of wake is located at the back of the trailer (bigger red
vortex), which results in a high drag on the truck.
Path 2 follows the truck at the upper side of the trailer. Here, the side fairing of the tractor guides
the airflow to the trailer side. The gap between modern European tractors and trailers is small, and
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 9 of 23

Figure 9. Principle airflow paths of a truck.

trailer is sharp, then the airflow will be disturbed by this sharp edge, and the drag will rise. This is
represented Pathin1 the picture
follows by a red
the truck vortex.
at the The the
top. Here, air will flowofalong
deflector the trailer
the tractor guides roof
theto the trailing
airflow to the edge
where it willleading
trailer’s be disturbed
edge. If again. A bigisarea
the deflector of wake in
not adjusted is the
located
right at
waytheandback
theofleading
the trailer
edge (bigger
of the red
trailer
vortex), is sharp,
which theninthe
results airflow
a high dragwillonbethe
disturbed
truck. by this sharp edge, and the drag will rise. This is
represented
Path 2 follows in the picture
the truckby at athe
redupper
vortex.side
Theof airthe
will flow along
trailer. Here,thethetrailer
side roof to the
fairing trailing
of the edgeguides
tractor
where it will be disturbed again. A big area of wake is located at the
the airflow to the trailer side. The gap between modern European tractors and trailers is small, back of the trailer (bigger red and
vortex), which results in a high drag on the truck.
only a small disturbance will arise even when crosswinds occur. At the end of the trailer, the trailing
Path 2 follows the truck at the upper side of the trailer. Here, the side fairing of the tractor guides
edge with the wake at the back will also generate a lot of drag.
the airflow to the trailer side. The gap between modern European tractors and trailers is small, and
follows
Patha3small
only the truck
disturbance at arise
will the lower side of
even when the trailer.occur.
crosswinds Modern tractors
At the end of having side
the trailer, thepanels,
trailingso one
can find only very small turbulences induced by the
edge with the wake at the back will also generate a lot of drag. wheels. At the area where the under run protection
and otherPath things are attached,
3 follows the truckslight
at thevortices
lower sideareofgenerated
the trailer.by the rough
Modern equipment.
tractors having side The vortices
panels, so will
get bigger
one canwith findaonly
rising
verycrosswind. This is also
small turbulences validbyforthe
induced the wheels
wheels. Atandthe the
areawheel
wherehouses
the underof the
runtrailer.
At theprotection
end of the andtrailer,
other things are attached,
the airflow combines slight vortices
with a bigare generated
wake area atbythetheback.
rough equipment. The
vortices
Path 4 follows the truck at ground level. Depending on the tractor, the and
will get bigger with a rising crosswind. This is also valid for the wheels the wheel
air flows housesto the
smoothly
of the trailer. At the end of the trailer, the airflow combines with a big wake area
underside of the trailer. Here, it is important that there is no equipment or device underneath the trailer at the back.
Path 4 follows the truck at ground level. Depending on the tractor, the air flows smoothly to the
with an opening to the front and a closed back, because this could work like a brake parachute with
underside of the trailer. Here, it is important that there is no equipment or device underneath the
a lot of drag. Depending on crosswinds, the airflow here will be disturbed a little bit. A lower distance
trailer with an opening to the front and a closed back, because this could work like a brake parachute
to the ground
with a lot ofwould be worthwhile
drag. Depending but givesthe
on crosswinds, the disadvantage
airflow here will beof disturbed
less chassis clearance.
a little Without
bit. A lower
a crosswind,
distance to thethebogie
groundwith the axles
would induces slight
be worthwhile turbulences;
but gives otherwise,
the disadvantage the chassis
of less generated vortex will
clearance.
rise, Without
and so will drag.
a crosswind, the bogie with the axles induces slight turbulences; otherwise, the generated
Figurewill
vortex 10 shows
rise, andallsoaerodynamic
will drag. measures for trailers that are investigated for CoE design within
Figure 10 project.
the Transformers shows all aerodynamic measures for trailers that are investigated for CoE design
within the Transformers project.

Figure 10. Aerodynamic measures on the trailer.

The definition of these components are as follows:

(1) Splitter plate: A splitter plate divides the airflow to the left and right of the trailer and reduces
the main vortices by building smaller local vortices. During crosswind, it closes the gap between
tractor and trailer and hinders the airflow flowing through that gap, building additional vortices
with additional drag. A splitter plate is more effective at bigger gaps between the tractor and trailer.
(2) Vortex trap/stabilizer: The vortex trap or vortex stabilizer is similar to the splitter plate. It produces
several local vortices between the plates that guide the airflow around the trailer. The main vortex
is reduced and therefore so is the drag. Like the splitter plate, it also reduces the crosswind effects
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 10 of 23

by closing the gap between tractor and trailer. A vortex trap is more effective for bigger gaps
between the tractor and trailer (CONV).
(3) Leading edge fairing/air cone: A leading edge fairing or an air cone guides the airflow directly
around the trailer without building smaller local vortices like the splitter plate or the vortex
trap. Depending on the type, it also closes the gap between tractor and trailer and therefore
reduces drag induced by crosswind effects. A leading-edge fairing is more effective for bigger
gaps between tractor and trailer (CONV) but also provides a significant reduction for CoE.
(4) Trailer side panels/side skirts: Side panels, side skirts, or side wings close the gap beneath
the trailer between the back of the tractor and the wheels of the trailer. There are different
configurations for side wings. Short wings typically end before the wheels of the trailer, long
wings typically cover the wheel houses, and fully closed wings cover the wheels too. There are
many different designs that lead to different results.
(5) Wheel-/bogie deflector/smooth underbody: Wheel covers (in front of the trailer wheels), bogie
deflectors, or a smooth underground (fairing) work as moderate side wings. Here, mainly the
wheels of the trailer are covered against crosswind and the airflow underneath the trailer in the
driving direction. The building of vortices underneath the trailer is attenuated. A bogie deflector
is more effective for bigger gaps underneath trailer (CONV).
(6) Rear flaps/extension panels: Rear flaps or extension panels supporting the airflow at the top and
the sides of the trailer merge and reduce the vortex behind the trailer. In the EU, the maximum
length of foldable flaps is restricted to 500 mm behind the trailer.
(7) Roof tapering/lowering: Roof tapering or roof lowering reduces the vortex area behind the
trailer similar to the rear flaps. The main disadvantage of this design is less cargo space in
terms of volume within current legislation. For a standard box trailer to be completely filled, the
cargo must have a density of ≈300 kgs/m3 . In the Transformers project, the trailer design will
be adaptable to the loaded cargo, and height can be adjusted to these needs, which will resolve
these disadvantages.

Table 3 shows the combinations of aerodynamics measures for the vehicle that is evaluated, and
only one effective configuration will be considered to build the prototype.

Table 3. Possible recommended combinations for better aerodynamic profile.

[T03] Leading [T04] Trailer [T05]

[T01] [T06] Rear
[T02] Vortex Edge Side Wheel-/Bogie [T07] Roof
Splitter Flaps/Extension
Trap/Stabilizer Fairing/Air Panels/Side Deflector/Smooth Tapering/-Lowering
Plate Panels
Cone Skirts Underbody
[T01]Splitter Plate x − − + + + +
[T02] Vortex
− x − + + + +
Trap/Stabilizer
[T03] Leading Edge
− − x + + + +
Fairing/Air Cone
[T04] Trailer Side
+ + + x − + +
Panels/Side Skirts
[T05] Wheel-/Bogie
Deflector/Smooth + + + − x + +
Underbody
[T06] Rear
Flaps/Extension + + + + + x +
Panels
[T07] Roof
+ + + + + + x
Tapering/-Lowering
Note: x and + represent observed; − represents not observed.

4. Performance Study on Various Combinations for Aerodynamic Performance and Fuel Efficiency
To evaluate and compare the combination of two or more measures, a combination efficiency
factor is used. It is calculated by
∆C
ηcom = Pn D com (4)
i=0 ∆cD,i
Efficiency
To evaluate and compare the combination of two or more measures, a combination efficiency
factor is used. It is calculated by
∆C
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 η = 11 (4)
of 23
∑ ∆𝑐 ,

If the combination efficiency factor  is equal 1, this combination of measures gives no

If the combination efficiency factor com is equal 1, this combination of measures gives no advantage
advantage or disadvantage in opposition to the sum of the single measures. If it is above 1, this
or disadvantage in opposition to the sum of the single measures. If it is above 1, this combination gives
combination gives an additional advantage to the sum of the single measures. This means an
an additional advantage to the sum of the single measures. This means an additional positive effect
additional positive effect takes place, which needs to be examined in detail. If the efficiency factor is
takes place, which needs to be examined in detail. If the efficiency factor is below 1, this combination
below 1, this combination gives a disadvantage to the sum of the single measures. This means a
gives a disadvantage to the sum of the single measures. This means a negative effect takes place,
negative effect takes place, and the measures are influencing each other. The efficiency factor is only
and the measures are influencing each other. The efficiency factor is only an indicator. Positive and
an indicator. Positive and negative effects need to be investigated in detail to come to a precise
negative effects need to be investigated in detail to come to a precise conclusion.
conclusion.
4.1. Leading Edge Fairing and Rear Flaps [T3 + T6]
4.1. Leading Edge Fairing and Rear Flaps [T3 + T6]
The combination of a leading-edge fairing device and rear flaps has been investigated by carrying
The combination of a leading-edge fairing device and rear flaps has been investigated by
out CFD simulations [14], and in relation to the shown airflow paths in Figure 9, the devices shown in
carrying out CFD simulations [14], and in relation to the shown airflow paths in Figure 9, the devices
Figure 11 greatly influence flow paths 1 and 2. The airflow at the lower side and ground level is not
shown in Figure 11 greatly influence flow paths 1 and 2. The airflow at the lower side and ground
influenced very much by this combination. The gap between the tractor cab and the trailer front is
level is not influenced very much by this combination. The gap between the tractor cab and the trailer
reduced for the top air flow. The drag induced by not optimizing deflector adjustment and sharp edges
front is reduced for the top air flow. The drag induced by not optimizing deflector adjustment and
of the trailer leading edge is lowered, and the robustness of a smooth airflow between the top of the cab
sharp edges of the trailer leading edge is lowered, and the robustness of a smooth airflow between
and the trailer is supported. At the back of the trailer, the complete wake area is reduced by guiding
the top of the cab and the trailer is supported. At the back of the trailer, the complete wake area is
the airflow around the edges at the top and the sides. As the airflow at the top of the trailer stays closer
reduced by guiding the airflow around the edges at the top and the sides. As the airflow at the top of
to the roof induced by the leading-edge fairing, the effect of the upper rear flap is amplified [14] as
the trailer stays closer to the roof induced by the leading-edge fairing, the effect of the upper rear flap
well. This also reduces the drag additional to the single measures.
is amplified [14] as well. This also reduces the drag additional to the single measures.

Figure 11. Combination of leading-edge fairing and rear flaps.

Figure 11. Combination of leading-edge fairing and rear flaps.
The results from the CFD simulation show a drag coefficient difference of CD (ψ = 0◦ ) = −0.053
and ∆C (ψ = 5◦from
TheDresults the CFDfor
) = −0.076 simulation show a drag
the combination coefficient
of this difference
two devices [14]. This (𝜓 = 0∘ ) = −0.053
of 𝐶combination has an
∘
and Δ𝐶 (𝜓factor
efficiency = 5 )of= 1.2
−0.076 for the combination
at zero-degree yaw angle ofandthis
1.0two devices [14].
at five-degree yawThis combination
angle. has an
Both measures
efficiency
complement factor
eachofother
1.2 at zero-degree
very well. The yaw angle
positive andat1.0
effect at five-degree
zero-degree yaw angle.
yaw angle results Both
from measures
the closer
complement
airflow at theeach other
trailer very well. The positive effect at zero-degree yaw angle results from the closer
roof.
airflow at the trailer roof.
4.2. Side Wings and Rear Flaps (T4 + T6)
The combination of side wings and rear flaps has been investigated by CFD simulations and in
track tests [8,14,15]. With respect to the shown airflow paths in Figure 9, the devices shown in Figure 12
influence flow paths 1, 2, and 3 (top, upper side, and lower side) of the truck. The airflow at the ground
level is not influenced very much. At the back of the trailer, the top and upper side flow paths are
influenced, and the complete wake area is reduced by guiding the airflow around the edges at the top
and the upper sides by the rear flaps. This also reduces the drag. The lower side flow path is influenced
by the side wings. Here, turbulence induced by gaps and sharp edges of underrun protection or pallet
boxes is reduced. At crosswind condition, the flow from one side to the other is hindered, and therefore
so are additional vortices induced by the underrun protection, etc. This further reduces the drag.
The results from the CFD simulation with fully closed side wings (wheels are covered) show
a drag coefficient difference CD,rel (ψ = 0◦ ) = −8.2% and ∆CD,rel (ψ = 5◦ ) = −14.5% (interpolated)
for the combination of these two devices [15]. This combination has an efficiency factor of 1.4 at
zero-degree yaw angle and 1.07 at five-degree yaw angle. In this case, the combination seems to be
very good, as the efficiency factor is above 1 for both angles.
further reduces the drag.
The results from the CFD simulation with fully closed side wings (wheels are covered) show a
drag coefficient difference 𝐶 , (𝜓 = 0∘ ) = −8.2% and Δ𝐶 , (𝜓 = 5∘ ) = −14.5% (interpolated) for
the combination of these two devices [15]. This combination has an efficiency factor of 1.4 at zero-
degree yaw2019,
Sustainability angle and 1.07 at five-degree yaw angle. In this case, the combination seems to be12very
11, 5519 of 23
good, as the efficiency factor is above 1 for both angles.

Figure 12. Combination of side wings and rear flaps.

Figure 12. Combination of side wings and rear flaps.
The results from the CFD simulation with uncovered wheels shows a drag coefficient difference
of ∆CThe results ◦ from the CFD simulation with uncovered wheels shows a drag coefficient difference
D (ψ = 0 ) = −0.037 and ∆CD (ψ = 5 ) = −0.153 for the combination of these two devices [14].
◦
(𝜓 ∘) (𝜓 ∘)
In this case, the combination has an efficiency factor offor
of Δ𝐶 = 0 = −0.037 and Δ𝐶 = 5 = −0.153 0.6the combination
at zero degree yaw of these
angletwoanddevices
0.99 at[14].
five
In this case, the combination has an efficiency factor of 0.6 at zero degree
degree yaw angle. This means the combination is only good at crosswind, as the efficiency factor is yaw angle and 0.99 at five
degree
close toyaw
1. Atangle.
a zeroThis
yaw means
angle, thetheefficiency
combination is lowis only
becausegood theatreduction
crosswind, as the
of the rearefficiency factor
flaps on their own is
close to 1. At a zero yaw angle, the efficiency is low because the reduction
is as high as the combination with the side wings. It seems that the positive effect at the lower wake of the rear flaps on their
own is the
area at as high
backas ofthe
the combination
trailer induced withby the
the side wings.isItcompletely
side wings seems thatcompensated
the positive effect
by theatdownwash
the lower
wake
effect of the rear flaps. It is stated that a lower performance of this combination at zero yaw angleby
area at the back of the trailer induced by the side wings is completely compensated mightthe
downwash
be caused byeffect of the rear flaps.
an oversimplified It isofstated
model that regarding
the truck a lower performance
to the airflow ofunderneath
this combination at zero
the truck and
yaw angle might be caused by an oversimplified model of the truck
through the engine compartment [15]. This results in a too optimistic drag coefficient reduction at zero regarding to the airflow
underneath
yaw angles for the the
trucksideand through
wings. the engine
Therefore, the compartment
efficiency factors [15].for
This results
zero yaw in a tooatoptimistic
angles combinationsdrag
coefficient
with side wingsreduction
needat tozero yaw angles
be handled withfor theasside
care, the wings.
evaluationTherefore, the efficiency
of this effect factors for zero
is challenging.
yaw angles at combinations with side wings need to be handled with
When the following configuration was used in test track with a CONV truck, a fuel consumption care, as the evaluation of this
effect is challenging.
reduction of about 8% was measured. However, details on the impact from crosswinds were not
found When
[16]. the following
Nearly the same configuration
results were was used in test
measured in atrack
trackwithtest awith
CONV truck,
a CoE truck a fuel
at a consumption
crosswind of
reduction of about 8% was measured. However, details on the impact
approximately 4 m/s (14.4 km/h) from ESE direction at the RDW test facility in Lelystad [16]. Comparingfrom crosswinds were not
found [16].inNearly
the graph Figurethe same
13 and results
the were measured
knowledge that the test in facility
a track istest with a CoE
orientated in atruck at a crosswind
southwest to northeast of
approximately 4 m/s (14.4 km/h) from ESE direction
direction, this means that the yaw angle is close to 9 at a wind angle β ≈ 67.5 .
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW ◦ at the RDW test facility
◦ in Lelystad
13 of [16].
23
Comparing the graph in Figure 13 and the knowledge that the test facility is orientated in a southwest
to northeast direction, this means that the yaw angle is close to 9° at a wind angle 𝛽 ≈ 67.5∘ .

Figure 13. Drag coefficient reductions of different references. * calculated with CDO = 0.55, ηFCAero = 0.34
Figure 13. Drag coefficient reductions of different references. * calculated with 𝐶 = 0.55, 𝜂 =
and considering wind direction and wind velocity at track tests.
0.34 and considering wind direction and wind velocity at track tests.
Assuming an aerodynamic efficiency of 0.34, an 8% fuel consumption reduction is equal to
Assuming an aerodynamic efficiency of 0.34, an 8% fuel consumption reduction is equal to a
a relative drag coefficient reduction of ∆CD, rel (Ψ ≈ 9◦ ) = −23.5%. With a reference drag coefficient of
relative drag coefficient reduction of 𝐶 , (  9°) = −23.5%. With a reference drag coefficient of
∆CD0 = 0.55, the drag coefficient difference is ∆CD (Ψ = 10◦ ) = −0.129.
𝐶 = 0.55, the drag coefficient difference is 𝐶 ( = 10°) = −0.129.
4.3. Leading Edge Fairing, Side Wings, and Rear Flaps (T3 + T4 + T6)
4.3. Leading Edge Fairing, Side Wings, and Rear Flaps (T3 + T4 + T6)
The combination of a leading-edge fairing device, side wings, and rear flaps is investigated by
The combination of a leading-edge fairing device, side wings, and rear flaps is investigated by
CFD simulations [14]. Referring to Figure 9, the devices shown in Figure 14 are influencing especially
CFD simulations [14]. Referring to Figure 9, the devices shown in Figure 14 are influencing especially
thethe
flow
flowpaths 1, 1,
paths 2, 2,
andand3 3(top,
(top,upper
upperside,
side,and
and lower
lower side) of the
side) of thetruck.
truck.The
Theway
waythe
the devices
devices influence
influence
thethe
airflow has been explained in Sections 4.1 and
airflow has been explained in sections 4.1 and 4.2. 4.2.
The results from the CFD simulation shows a drag coefficient difference of 𝐶 ( = 0°) =
−0.044 and 𝐶 ( = 5°) = −0.177 for the combination of these two devices [14]. This combination
has an efficiency factor of 0.64 at zero degree yaw angle and 0.99 at five degree yaw. Both measures
complement each other well at a yaw angle of five degree. At a yaw angle of zero, the efficiency factor
is low, and the combination of all three devices gives a lower drag coefficient reduction than the
combination of only the leading edge fairing and rear flaps (𝐶 ( = 0°) = −0.053). It seems that
the positive effect at the lower wake area at the back of the trailer induced by the side wings is
partially compensated by the downwash effect of the rear flaps. A lower performance of
combinations with side wings at zero yaw angle is caused by an oversimplified model of the truck
regarding the airflow underneath [8]. This results in a too optimistic drag coefficient reduction at zero
yaw angles2019,
Sustainability for 11,
the5519
side wings. Therefore, the efficiency factors for zero yaw angles at combinations
13 of 23
with side wings need to be handled with care, as the evaluation of this effect is challenging.

Figure 14. Combination of leading edge fairing, side wings and rear flaps.
Figure 14. Combination of leading edge fairing, side wings and rear flaps.
The results from the CFD simulation shows a drag coefficient difference of ∆CD (Ψ = 0◦ ) = −0.044
and ∆CDTapering
4.4. Roof (Ψ = 5◦ )(T7)
= −0.177 for the combination of these two devices [14]. This combination has
an efficiency
Currently,factor
thereofare
0.64
noat zero degree
results yaw measure
from trailer angle and 0.99 at five with
combinations degree yaw.
roof Both measures
tapering available,
complement each other well at a yaw angle of five degree. At a yaw angle of zero, the
but a simplified “tear drop” design has been investigated. These results can be taken into account to efficiency
factor is low, and
get a general the combination
behavior of all with
of combinations threeroof
devices gives[14].
tapering a lower
Thedrag coefficient
simplified “tearreduction than has
drop” design the
combination
a quite similarof only
roof the leading
height edge fairing
reduction at the and
end rear flaps
of the (∆CDbut
trailer, (Ψ the
= 0◦height
) = −0.053).
also hasIt seems
a slopethat the
at the
positive effect at the lower wake area at the back of the trailer induced by the side wings is partially
compensated by the downwash effect of the rear flaps. A lower performance of combinations with
side wings at zero yaw angle is caused by an oversimplified model of the truck regarding the airflow
underneath [8]. This results in a too optimistic drag coefficient reduction at zero yaw angles for the
side wings. Therefore, the efficiency factors for zero yaw angles at combinations with side wings need
to be handled with care, as the evaluation of this effect is challenging.

4.4. Roof Tapering (T7)

Currently, there are no results from trailer measure combinations with roof tapering available, but
a simplified “tear drop” design has been investigated. These results can be taken into account to get
a general behavior
Sustainability of combinations
2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW with roof tapering [14]. The simplified “tear drop” design 14 has a
of 23
quite similar roof height reduction at the end of the trailer, but the height also has a slope at the front of
the trailer,
front of thewhich will
trailer, behave
which willlike a kind
behave of aleading
like kind ofedge fairing.
leading edgeSome upcoming
fairing. effects willeffects
Some upcoming be similar,
will
andsimilar,
be others andwill others
be different.
will beTherefore,
different. these results
Therefore, needresults
these to be handled with
need to be care. with care.
handled

4.5. “Roof
4.5. “Roof Tapering/Tear
Tapering/Tear Drop”
Drop”and
andRear
RearFlaps (T6++ T7)
Flaps(T6 T7)
The combination
The combinationof of a “roof
a “roof tapering/tear
tapering/tear drop”drop”
and rear and rear
flaps flaps is investigated
is investigated by CFD
by CFD simulations
simulations
[14]. [14].
Regarding toRegarding
the shown to the shown
airflow paths airflow
in Figurepaths
9, theindevices
Figure shown
9, the devices shown
in Figure in Figure
15 influence 15
flow
influence flow paths 1 and 2 (top and upper side) of the truck. The way the devices
paths 1 and 2 (top and upper side) of the truck. The way the devices influence the airflow has beeninfluence the
airflow hasinbeen
explained explained
sections 4.2 andin4.4.
Sections 4.2 and 4.4.

Figure
Figure 15.
15. Combination
Combination of
of “roof
“roof tapering/tear
tapering/tear drop”
drop” and rear flaps.

The results
resultsfrom
fromthetheCFD
CFD simulation shows
simulation a drag
shows coefficient
a drag difference
coefficient of ∆CDof
difference (Ψ=𝐶 0(◦) == −0.027
0°) =
and ∆CDand
−0.027 (Ψ =𝐶5 )(= =
◦
5°) =for
−0.047 −0.047
the combination of these twoof
for the combination devices
these [14].
two Compared
devices [14].to only rear flaps,
Compared to
these combination results are worse, which is also shown by the efficiency factor. This combination
only rear flaps, these combination results are worse, which is also shown by the efficiency factor. This has
an efficiency factor
combination has anofefficiency
0.44 at zero degree
factor yawat
of 0.44 angle
zeroand 0.75 yaw
degree at five degree
angle andyaw0.75angle. The
at five reasonyaw
degree for
this is The
angle. the amplified
reason foreffect
this isofthe
guiding the effect
amplified airflowof to the ground
guiding by thetorear
the airflow theflaps.
ground Inbythethe
investigated
rear flaps.
case,
In thethe downwash case,
investigated is too the
strong. This results
downwash in astrong.
is too recirculation into theinundercarriage
This results a recirculation andinto
a rising
the
undercarriage and a rising drag [14]. A similar effect might occur in case of a combination of roof
tapering and rear flaps like it is expected to be done within the Transformers project.

4.6. “Roof Tapering/Tear Drop” and Side Wings [T4 + T7]

The combination of a “roof tapering/tear drop” and side wings is investigated by CFD
 The results from the CFD simulation shows a drag coefficient difference of 𝐶 ( = 0°) =
−0.027 and 𝐶 ( = 5°) = −0.047 for the combination of these two devices [14]. Compared to
only rear flaps, these combination results are worse, which is also shown by the efficiency factor. This
combination
Sustainability 2019,has an efficiency factor of 0.44 at zero degree yaw angle and 0.75 at five degree
11, 5519 yaw
14 of 23
angle. The reason for this is the amplified effect of guiding the airflow to the ground by the rear flaps.
In the investigated case, the downwash is too strong. This results in a recirculation into the
drag [14]. A similar effect might occur in case of a combination of roof tapering and rear flaps like it is
undercarriage and a rising drag [14]. A similar effect might occur in case of a combination of roof
expected to be done within the Transformers project.
tapering and rear flaps like it is expected to be done within the Transformers project.
4.6. “Roof Tapering/Tear Drop” and Side Wings [T4 + T7]
4.6. “Roof Tapering/Tear Drop” and Side Wings [T4 + T7]
The combination of a “roof tapering/tear drop” and side wings is investigated by CFD simulations
The combination of a “roof tapering/tear drop” and side wings is investigated by CFD
in reference [14]. Regarding the airflow paths in Figure 9, the devices shown in Figure 16 influence
simulations in reference [14]. Regarding the airflow paths in Figure 9, the devices shown in Figure 16
flow paths 1 and 3 (top and lower side) of the truck. The way the devices influence the airflow has
influence flow paths 1 and 3 (top and lower side) of the truck. The way the devices influence the
been explained in Sections 4.2 and 4.4.
airflow has been explained in sections 4.2 and 4.4.

Figure 16. Combination of “roof tapering/tear drop” and side wings.

Figure 16. Combination of “roof tapering/tear drop” and side wings.
The results from the CFD simulation show a drag coefficient difference of ∆CD (Ψ = 0◦ ) = −0.039
and ∆C The(Ψresults
= 5◦ ) from the for
= −0.110 CFD
thesimulation
combinationshow of thesea drag coefficient
two devices. Thisdifference
combination 𝐶 an
of has (efficiency
= 0°) =
D
−0.039 and  𝐶 ( = 5°) = −0.110 for the combination of these two devices.
factor of 0.8 at zero degree yaw angle and 1.01 at five degree yaw angle. Both measures complement This combination has
an efficiency factor of 0.8 at zero degree yaw angle and 1.01 at five degree
each other well. Although the efficiency factor is below 1 at a yaw angle of zero degrees, the combination yaw angle. Both
measures
of both devices complement each other
gives a higher dragwell. Although
coefficient the efficiency
reduction than thefactor
singleis devices.
below 1 It at seems
a yaw that
angle theof
zero degrees, the combination of both devices gives a higher drag coefficient
positive effect at the wake area at the back of the trailer is partially compensated by the downwash reduction than the single
devices.
effect of theIt “roof
seemstapering/tear
that the positive
drop”effect
design.at Itthe wake area
is stated that aatlower
the back of the trailer
performance is partially
of combinations
compensated by the downwash effect of the “roof tapering/tear drop”
with side wings at zero yaw angle is caused by an oversimplified model of the truck regarding design. It is stated that a lower
the
performance
Sustainability 2019,of combinations with side wings at zero yaw angle is caused by
airflow underneath the truck [15]. This results in a too optimistic drag coefficient reduction at of
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW an oversimplified 15model23
zero
of the
yaw truckforregarding
angles the airflow
the side wings. underneath
Therefore, the truck
the efficiency [15]. for
factors This results
zero yaw in a tooatoptimistic
angles combinations drag
yaw angles reduction
coefficient at combinations
at zero with
yaw side wings
angles for need
the to be
side handled
wings. with care,
Therefore, the as the evaluation
efficiency factors of this
for zero
with side wings need to be handled with care, as the evaluation of this effect is challenging.
effect is challenging.
4.7. Leading Edge Fairing, “Roof Tapering/Tear Drop,” Side Wings, and Rear Flaps (T3 + T4 + T6 + T7)
4.7. Leading Edge Fairing, “Roof Tapering/Tear Drop,” Side Wings, and Rear Flaps (T3 + T4 + T6 + T7)
The combination of a leading-edge fairing, “roof tapering/tear drop,” side wings, and rear
flapsThe combinationby
is investigated of aCFD
leading-edge
simulationsfairing,
[14]. “roof tapering/tear
Referring drop,”airflow
to the shown side wings,
pathsand
in rear flaps
Figure 9,
is investigated by CFD simulations [14]. Referring to the shown airflow paths in Figure
the devices shown in Figure 17 influence flow paths 1 to 3 (top, upper side, and lower side) of the 9, the devices
shown in Figure
truck. The 17 influence
underneath airflow isflow
not paths 1 to 3very
influenced (top, upper
much. side, and
Influence onlower
airflowside) of theexplained
has been truck. The
in
underneath airflow is not
Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4. influenced very much. Influence on airflow has been explained in sections
4.1, 4.2, and 4.4.

Figure 17. Combination of Leading-edge fairing, “roof tapering/tear drop,” side wings, and rear flaps.
Figure 17. Combination of Leading-edge fairing, “roof tapering/tear drop,” side wings, and rear
The results from the CFD simulation shows aflaps.
drag coefficient difference of ∆C (Ψ = 0◦ ) = −0.044 D
and ∆CD (Ψ = 5◦ ) = −0.177 for the combination of these two devices [14]. This combination has
The results
an efficiency from
factor of the
0.64CFD simulation
at zero degree shows a drag
yaw angle andcoefficient difference
0.99 at five of 𝐶All
degree yaw. (measures
= 0°) =
−0.044 and 
complement 𝐶 (
each = 5°)
other well= during
−0.177crosswind
for the combination
condition. of these two
Although thedevices [14].factor
efficiency This combination
is below 1 at
has an efficiency factor of 0.64 at zero degree yaw angle and 0.99 at five degree yaw.
a yaw angle of zero degrees, the combination of both devices gives a higher drag coefficient All measures
reduction
complement each other well during crosswind condition. Although the efficiency factor is below 1 at
a yaw angle of zero degrees, the combination of both devices gives a higher drag coefficient reduction
than the single devices. It seems that the positive effect at the wake area at the back of the trailer is
partially compensated by the downwash effect of the “roof tapering/tear drop” design. It is seen that
a lower performance of combinations with side wings at zero yaw angle is caused by an
oversimplified model of the truck regarding the airflow underneath the truck [17]. This results in a
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 15 of 23

than the single devices. It seems that the positive effect at the wake area at the back of the trailer is
partially compensated by the downwash effect of the “roof tapering/tear drop” design. It is seen that
a lower performance of combinations with side wings at zero yaw angle is caused by an oversimplified
model of the truck regarding the airflow underneath the truck [17]. This results in a too optimistic drag
coefficient reduction at zero yaw angles for the side wings. Therefore, the efficiency factors for zero
yaw angles at combinations with side wings need to be handled with care, as the evaluation of this
effect is challenging.

4.8. Combination of Cab Roof Deflector and Transformers Roof Tapering

Due to the lack of results for different tractor combinations with a tapered/lowered trailer. The
virtual vehicle competence center (VIF) performs several CFD simulations within the Transformers
project in Work
Sustainability 2019,Package 2. Referring
11, x FOR PEER REVIEW to Figure 18, the performed simulations are: 16 of 23

Figure 18. Results of different cab roof defector–roof tapering combinations.

Figure 18. Results of different cab roof defector–roof tapering combinations.

a) Daimler Actros MP3 2008 tractor without cab roof deflector and a standard trailer with a maximum
a) Daimler Actros MP3 2008 tractor without cab roof deflector and a standard trailer with a
height of 4 m. height of 4 m.
maximum
b) b) Daimler Actros
Daimler MP3MP3
Actros 2008 2008
tractor with low
tractor withcab roof
low cabdeflector and a standard
roof deflector trailer with
and a standard a maximum
trailer with a
height of 4 m.
maximum height of 4 m.
c) c)Daimler Actros
Daimler MP3
Actros MP3 2008
2008tractor
tractorwith
with high cab
cab roof
roofdeflector
deflectorandand a standard
a standard trailer
trailer withwith
a
maximum
a maximum heightofof4 4m.
height m.
d) d) Daimler
Daimler Actros
Actros MP3MP3 20082008 tractor
tractor without
without cabcab
roofroof deflector
deflector andand a lowered
a lowered standard
standard trailer
trailer with
with a maximum
a maximum height ofheight
3.57 m. of 3.57 m.
e) e)Daimler
Daimler Actros
Actros MP3MP320082008 tractor
tractor withwith high
high cabcab
roofroof deflector
deflector andand a tapered
a tapered standard
standard trailer
trailer with
with a height of 4 m at the front and 3.1 m at the back.
a height of 4 m at the front and 3.1 m at the back.
f) Daimler Actros MP3 2008 tractor without cab roof deflector and a tapered standard trailer
f) Daimler Actros MP3 2008 tractor without cab roof deflector and a tapered standard trailer with
with a height of 3.57 m at the front and 3.1 m at the back.
a height of 3.57 m at the front and 3.1 m at the back.
As the main benefit is expected to be given at a yaw angle of zero, all simulations are performed
with a straight frontal airflow of 80 km/h.
Comparing the results to other measures of the trailer the difference in drag coefficient is not
feasible because of changing the frontal area. It can be seen in Figure 13 that the drag coefficient of d)
is worse than b) and c), although the truck height is lower and there is no need for a cab roof deflector.
In principle, the shape and the aerodynamic quality of the truck represented by 𝐶 without a cab
roof deflector are worse than with a cab roof deflector. Normally, it is expected that a lowered truck
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 16 of 23

As the main benefit is expected to be given at a yaw angle of zero, all simulations are performed with
a straight frontal airflow of 80 km/h.
Comparing the results to other measures of the trailer the difference in drag coefficient is not
feasible because of changing the frontal area. It can be seen in Figure 13 that the drag coefficient of d) is
worse than b) and c), although the truck height is lower and there is no need for a cab roof deflector.
In principle, the shape and the aerodynamic quality of the truck represented by CD without a cab
roof deflector are worse than with a cab roof deflector. Normally, it is expected that a lowered truck
will be more aerodynamically efficient than a truck at full height. Looking at the product of the drag
coefficient and projected frontal area, the product for d) is better than for b) and c). This is a result of
the drag calculation. Therefore, it is not only feasible to compare the drag coefficient difference, but it
is also feasible to compare the drag difference that can be compared by the differences of the product of
drag coefficient and projected frontal area.
The reference truck results are the results of simulation c). Here, a typical truck with 4 m height
and an adjusted cab roof deflector is investigated (CD · A = 5.21 m2 ). If the trailer height can be reduced
to the cab height and the deflector can be submerged or removed (d), (CD · A = 4.94 m2 ), the drag can
be reduced by 5.2%. If the trailer height needs to be at a 4 m height at the front and can be tapered to a
height of 3.57 m at the back, and the tractor has an adjusted cab roof deflector (e), (CD · A = 4.72 m2 ),
the drag can be reduced by 9.4%. If the trailer height can be reduced to the cab height at the front
(3.57 m), the deflector can be submerged or removed and the trailer can be tapered to (3.1 m) at the
back(f), (CD · A = 4.08 m2 ), the drag can be reduced by 21.7%. This shows how configurable and
adoptable tractor-trailers can improve system efficiency, thus leading to better mission efficiency.

4.9. Possible Combinations

Table 4 summarizes the results of all promising aerodynamic trailer measures. At the front and
underneath of the trailer, only one single feature can be attached, and the best features are chosen.
These are the leading-edge fairing, which gives the best drag coefficient reduction, especially with the
knowledge that the values for the splitter plate and the vortex trap are more feasible for CONV trucks
and are less effective for CoE trucks.

Table 4. Summary of promising measures and possible combinations.

Average of Different Average of Different

Trailer Area Measure Possible Combinations
References ∆cD (ψ = 0◦ ) References ∆cD (ψ = 5◦ )
[T01] Splitter Plate
> −0.04 (cD ave) < −0.04 (cD ave) [T04]–[T07]
(CONV truck)
Front
[T02] Vortex Trap −0.001 −0.009 [T04]–[T07]
[T03] Leading Edge
−0.007 −0.02 [T04]–[T07]
Fairing
[T04] Side Wings −0.031 −0.074 [T01]–[T03], [T06], [T07]
Underneath
[T05] Bogie Deflector −0.011 −0.051 [T01]–[T03], [T06], [T07]
[T06] Rear Flaps −0.044 −0.072 [T01]–[T05], [T07]
Back
[T07] Roof Tapering −0.063 −0.007 [T01]–[T05], [T07]

Underneath the trailer, the best measure is the side wings against the bogie deflector. At the back
of the trailer, both examined measures can be combined, and the roof tapering becomes a mandatory
measure to realize substantial gains in drag reduction. Therefore, rear flaps are also chosen to further
improve the aerodynamics at the back of the trailer. The result in Table 5 shows the drag coefficient
differences of investigated aerodynamic trailer measure combinations and their efficiency factor
gathered by CFD.
The combination efficiency factor for the chosen combination (leading edge fairing, side wings
and rear flaps) at a yaw angle of 5◦ is 0.99 for the drag coefficient reduction difference, which is a
good value.
 [T01] Splitter
[T03] Measure
LeadingPlate (CONV
Edge truck)
Fairing > −0.04 (cD ave) < −0.04 Combinations
(cD ave) Possible[T04]–[T07]
[T04]–[T07]
Area (ψ−0.007
References = 0°)ΔcD (ψ−0.02
References= 5°)ΔcD
[T04] Side Wings Front −0.031[T03] Leading
[T02] Vortex Edge
TrapFairing
−0.074 −0.007
[T01]–[T03], [T06], [T07] −0.074 −0.02 [T04]–[T07]
[T01] Splitter[T04] Side
Plate Wings
(CONV truck) > −0.04 =−0.001
(ψ −0.031
0°) ave)
(cD (ψ =−0.009
< −0.04 5°) ave)
(cD [T04]–[T07]
[T01]–[T03], [T06], [T07]
[T04]–[T07]
T05] Bogie Deflector Underneath [T01]
−0.011[T03]
[T05]
Splitter
[T04]
Leading Side
Bogie
Plate
Wings
−0.051
Edge Fairing
Deflector
(CONV truck) > −0.04
−0.031
[T01]–[T03],
−0.007
−0.011
(cD [T06],
ave) [T07]
< −0.04
−0.074
−0.02
−0.051
(cD ave)
[T01]–[T03],
[T01]–[T03], [T06],
[T04]–[T07]
[T06],
[T04]–[T07]
[T07]
[T07]
Front
Underneath [T02] Vortex Trap −0.001 −0.009 [T04]–[T07]
[T06] Rear Flaps −0.044 [T05]
[T04]
[T06] Bogie
Side
Rear Deflector
−0.072
Wings
Flaps −0.011
[T01]–[T05],
−0.031
−0.044 [T07] −0.051
−0.074
−0.072 [T01]–[T03],
[T01]–[T03],
[T01]–[T05], [T06],
[T06],
[T07] [T07]
[T07]
Front
Underneath [T03][T02] Vortex
Leading Trap
Edge Fairing −0.001
−0.007 −0.009
−0.02 [T04]–[T07]
[T04]–[T07]
T07] Roof Tapering Back −0.063 [T06] Rear Flaps
−0.007 −0.044 [T07]
[T01]–[T05], −0.072 [T01]–[T05], [T07]
Back [T03] [T05]
[T04]Bogie
[T07]
Leading RoofEdge
Side Deflector
Tapering
Fairing
Wings −0.011
−0.063
−0.007
−0.031 −0.051
−0.007
−0.02
−0.074 [T01]–[T03],
[T01]–[T05],
[T04]–[T07]
[T01]–[T03], [T06],
[T07]
[T06], [T07]
[T07]
n efficiency factorUnderneath
for the chosen [T07]
combination
[T06] Roof
Rear Tapering
(leading
Flaps edge −0.063 side wings
fairing,
−0.044 −0.007
−0.072 [T01]–[T05],[T07]
[T01]–[T05], [T07]
The
Backcombination
Sustainability
Underneath
[T04]
[T05]
2019, 11,efficiency
Side Wings
Bogie
5519 factor for the chosen
Deflector −0.011 combination
−0.031 −0.074
−0.051(leading [T01]–[T03],
edge fairing,
[T01]–[T03], [T06],side
[T06], [T07]wings
[T07] 17 of 23
yaw angle of 5° Thefor
is rear
0.99 combination
theatdrag [T07] efficiency
Roof Tapering
coefficient factor for the chosen
−0.063 combination −0.007 (leading[T01]–[T03],
edge fairing,
[T01]–[T05], side
[T07] wings
[T07]
and flaps) [T05]
a yaw Bogie
[T06] angle
Rear of reduction
Deflector
Flaps 5° is 0.99 fordifference,
−0.011
the
−0.044dragwhich is
coefficient a reduction
−0.051
−0.072 difference, [T06],
[T01]–[T05], which
[T07] is a
andBackrearcombination
The flaps) at [T07]
a[T06]
yaw angle
Rear
Roof Flapsof
efficiency
Tapering 5° isfor
factor 0.99
thefor the drag
chosen
−0.044
−0.063 coefficient
combination −0.072
−0.007 reduction
(leading edge difference,
fairing,[T07]
[T01]–[T05],
[T01]–[T05], which
side
[T07] wingsis a
good value.
Back
good
and The value.
rear flaps)
Table at
combination a yaw
Drag
5. [T07] Roofangle
coefficient of
Tapering
efficiency 5° isfor
factor 0.99
differencesthefor
of the drag
investigated
−0.063
chosen coefficient
combinationaerodynamic
−0.007 reduction
(leading trailer
edge difference,
measure
[T01]–[T05], which
combinations
fairing, [T07]
side wingsis a and
and The
good
rearcombination
value.
their at
flaps) efficiency
efficiency
a yaw factor
factor of
angle 5° isfor
gathered bythe
0.99 chosen
CFD.
for combination
the drag coefficient(leading edge
reduction fairing, side
difference, wings
which is a
and rear flaps)
good value. at a yaw angle of 5° is 0.99 for the drag coefficient reduction difference, which is a
(ψ = 0 )
◦ (ψ = 5◦ )
good value. Combined Measures Chap
∆cD ηcom ∆cD ηcom

Leading edge fairing & Rear Flaps 4.1 −0.053 1.20 −0.076 1.00

4.2 −0.037 0.60 −0.153 0.99

Side Wing & Rear Flaps
4.2 −0.045 1.40 −0.08 1.07
Leading Edge Fairing, Side Wings &
4.3 −0.044 0.64 −0.177 0.99
Rear Flaps

“Tear Drop/Roof Tapering” & Rear Flaps 4.4 −0.027 0.44 −0.047 0.75

“Tear Drop/Roof Tapering” & Side Wings 4.5 −0.039 0.80 −0.110 1.01

“Tear Drop/Roof Tapering”, Leading

4.6 −0.037 0.40 −0.165 0.89
Edge Fairing, Side Wings & Rear Flaps

All reductions from the single measures are well represented by the combination. The combination
efficiency factor is only a theoretical number, and it cannot be concluded that the measures do not
influence each other in a positive or negative way. Nevertheless, this combination also gives the highest
drag coefficient reduction (∆CD (Ψ = 5◦ ) = −0.177) of all examined combinations.
Therefore, the results for the combination of side wings and rear flaps need to be discussed
first. As discussed above, there are two references investigating this combination by CFD simulation.
The results for a zero degree yaw angle are close (−0.037 vs. −0.045), although the efficiency factors are
quite different (0.60 vs. 1.40). One reason for the difference in the efficiency factor might be an under-
or overestimation of one of the single measure results. If a single measure result is underestimated
by an effect that is not obvious, and this effect is not as relevant for the combination as it is for the
single measure, the efficiency factor seems to be better than it is in reality. In CFD simulation, small
differences in the model can provoke effects that can cause large differences in the results. For better
accuracy of the results, a comparison to detailed wind tunnel tests or track tests is needed. Results
from wind tunnel tests are also challenging because of the level of detail of the model. Here, it is also
possible to get over/underestimated results because of a rough detail level. The best accuracy can be
achieved with full scale tests of the designated object. The challenge of track tests is the crosswind.
The velocity of the wind and the wind direction is necessary to determine the yaw angle and rank the
results in the right way. Depending on the region of the test track, in many test cases, crosswind occurs,
which makes it difficult to acquire results for a zero yaw angle. With the lack of more references of
combinations in different detail levels of models for CFD simulations or wind tunnel tests, it is nearly
impossible to say which simulation model (regarding to the aerodynamic measure) will be closer
to reality.

4.10. A summary on Fuel Consumption Reduction Values of Trailer Aerodynamic Measures

As every test track procedure is influenced by indifferent factors during the test a direct comparison
of the fuel consumption reduction between different procedures is not recommended. The values
within Table 6 can be used to consider the principle potential of the aerodynamic measure.
 will be
will be closer
closer to
to reality.
reality.

4.10. A
4.10. A summary
summary on
on Fuel
Fuel Consumption
Consumption Reduction
Reduction Values
Values of
of Trailer
Trailer Aerodynamic
Aerodynamic Measures
Measures
As every
As every test
test track
track procedure
procedure is
is influenced
influenced by
by indifferent
indifferent factors
factors during
during the
the test
test aa direct
direct
comparison of the fuel consumption reduction between different procedures is not
comparison of the fuel consumption reduction between different procedures is not recommended. recommended.
Sustainability
The2019, 11, 5519
values within Table
Table 66 can
can be
be used
used to
to consider
consider the
the principle
principle potential
potential of
of the
the aerodynamic measure. 18 of 23
aerodynamic measure.
The values within

Table 6.
Table 6. Fuel
Fuel consumption
consumption reduction
reduction values
values of
of trailer
trailer aerodynamic
aerodynamic measures
measures at
at various
various track
track tests.
tests.
Table 6. Fuel consumption reduction values of trailer aerodynamic measures at various track tests.
Relative
Relative
Measured Fuel
Relative Measured
Measured Fuel
Aerodynamic Related Picture
Related Picture
Pos Ref. Related Picture Remarks Consumption
Fuel Consumption
Consumption
Measure
Reduction
Reduction
Reduction

Vwind = 4 − 5 m/s (S) at

(T04) Short side
01 [16] RDW circuit in Lelystad −1.42%
wing
with SW-NE orientation.

Vwind = 2 − 5 m/s (SSE/S)

(T04) Full Side
02 [16] at RDW circuit in Lelystad 4.10%
wing
with SW-NE orientation.

Vwind = 2 − 5 m/s (SSE/S) at

(T04) Wabco side
03 [16] RDW circuit in Lelystad 4.01%
wing
with SW-NE orientation.
side wing
side wing
Vwind = 7 − 8 m/s (ESE) at
(T04) Wabco side
04 Sustainability 2019, 11,
[16] RDW circuit in Lelystad 5.05%
wing2019,
Sustainability
Sustainability
Sustainability
Sustainability 2019,
2019,11,
2019,
11,
11,xxxxFOR
11, FOR
xFOR
FOR
FOR PEER
PEER
PEER
PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW
REVIEW 19
19
1919
19 of
of
ofof
of 23
23
2323
23
with SW-NE orientation.

Open cavity,
Vwind = 4 − 5 m/s
(T06) Extension
05 [16] (W/WSW) at RDW circuit in 4.04%
panels
Lelystad with SW-NE
orientation.

Closed cavity,
(T06) Extension Vwind = 3 − 4 m/s (SSE/S)
06 [16] 4.07%
panels at RDW circuit in Lelystad
with SW-NE orientation.

No bottom,
(T06) Extension Vwind = 3 − 5 m/s (SSE/ESE)
07 [16] 3.85%
panels at RDW circuit in Lelystad
with SW-NE orientation.

Inflatable boat tail,

Vwind = 4 − 5 m/s
08 Boat tail [16] (WSW/W) at RDW circuit in 4.03%
Lelystad with SW-NE
orientation.

Open cavity, Vwind = 4 m/s

(T04) + (T06) Side
(ESE) at RDW circuit in
09 wings + extension [16] 8%
Lelystad with SW-NE
panels
orientation.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 19 of 23

Table 6. Cont.

Relative Measured
Aerodynamic
Pos Ref. Related Picture Remarks Fuel Consumption
Measure
Reduction

Vwind = 3 m/s (WSW) at

10 SDR [16] RDW circuit in Lelystad 1.16%
with SW-NE orientation.

No wind or test track data

11 SDR [18] 3.31%
available.

Reference tractor with pallet

12 (T04) Side wings [18] box. No wind or test track 3.55%
data available.

Reference tractor without

(T03) Leading edge
deflector and side
13 fairing/ aircone and [18] 3.3%
fairings/extenders. No wind
(T04) side wings
or test track data available.

5. Opportunities for Configurable Measures

There are three main opportunities for configurable measures with regard to Configurable and
Adaptable Tractor-Semitrailer Configuration. The first one is the cab roof deflector at the truck.
This device gives the best advantage if it is adjusted to the frontal trailer height. Cases a) and b) will
induce 25% or 4% more drag if the cab roof deflector is not present (cab height 3.57 m) or adjusted in
the right way. Lowering the trailer height will be less effective if the cab roof deflector is not adjusted
to this height. Within the Transformers project, Volvo plans to use an adaptable modified cab roof
deflector developed within the Convenient project to adjust the height to the trailer. It is planned to
use information from a sensor that will detect the cargo height inside of the trailer and send a suitable
signal to roof height actuators and to the cab roof deflector. The cab roof deflector is then leveled by
actuators to the trailer height. DAF plans to use a manually adjustable cab roof deflector. With these
two approaches, all typical usage scenarios are covered during the road test phase.
The second opportunity for configurable measures is the trailer roof height and deflection of the
tapering. The Schmitz Cargobull trailer is planned to have two supporting points, at the front and back,
whereas the Van Eck trailer is planned to have four supporting points. The Van Eck trailer therefore
gives more possibilities for shaping the trailer at the back. The best shape regarding aerodynamics
with respect to the cargo height needs to be considered.
The combination of tear drop design (with a tapering/deflection at the back of the trailer) and
rear flaps might provoke a recirculation into the undercarriage and therefore a reduced efficiency [14].
The described effect might also occur within the Configurable and Adaptable Tractor-Semitrailer
Configuration if the airflow at the top of the trailer follows the tapering/deflection to the minimum
height of 3.1 m and the rear flaps (typically optimized to a trailer height of 4 m) bend the airflow too
much around the back of the trailer. Here, it might be feasible to adapt the angle of the rear flaps to the
tapering of the back of the trailer, which is the third opportunity. However, this needs to be verified.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 20 of 23

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

An approach to improve mission efficiency is by reducing the aerodynamic drag in a tractor-trailer
configuration by dealing with overall system efficiency and not by looking at the tractor and trailer in
isolation. Therefore, a basic background of aerodynamics for trucks had been prepared. One main
finding is that the results of aerodynamic measures for reducing the fuel consumption of Conventional
trucks (CONV) typically used in America cannot be compared to the results of Cab over Engine
trucks (CoE) typically used in Europe. The designs are too different, so the amount of improvement
induced by single measures of CONV diverges from CoE trucks. It has to be considered whether
a measure will improve the aerodynamics in a relevant way. Results cannot be transferred from
CONV to CoE trucks. Also, the operating environment influences the drag of a truck during its duty
cycle and therefore its fuel consumption in several ways. Wind has a major influence as it changes
the direction of airflow. Depending on the driving speed and the direction and velocity of the wind,
there is influence on the drag co-efficient not only at the front and back of the truck but also the side of
the trailer, which influence the measure of side wings and roof tapering. As the crosswinds differ from
country to country and also from region to region, different wind averaged drag reductions can be
calculated. To avoid an error-prone recalculation of wind averaged results, only values at specific yaw
angles are used. Other operating environments are factors such as weather conditions (air pressure,
temperature, precipitation) and the route conditions (height above sea level, vertical and horizontal
slope, road condition).
To determine the benefit of aerodynamics, there are three main methods—computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) simulations, wind tunnel tests (WTT), and track tests (TT). Summarized CFD
simulations are useful for assessing aerodynamic effects and qualitative results. For quantitative
results, the investigated model needs to be evaluated by WTT or TT. It is nearly the same with WTT.
WTT are good to assess aerodynamic effects and qualitative results with approximated models.
For quantitative results, the model needs to be evaluated by TT, or a full sized (operational) truck is
needed for the WTT. In comparison to CFD simulations and WTT, at TT, the fuel consumption can
be measured directly, but the environmental conditions cannot be controlled. Here, the conditions
(wind velocity and direction, temperature, air pressure etc.) need to be measured to classify the results
in the right way. To compare different measures, the conditions at the TT need to be similar. Otherwise,
they have to be considered by calculations in the right way.
An aerodynamic expert might also rank all these results from the different methods in the right way
due to his experience, but without this experience, it is challenging to assess the results. In principle,
it is not as easy as it seems to compare different results (drag reduction, drag coefficient reduction,
or fuel consumption reduction) from different determination methods, especially without knowing all
the details. For fuel consumption reduction, one needs to carefully consider different environmental
circumstances during the test that influence the results to a great extent. A recalculation of a fuel
consumption reduction to a drag reduction or drag coefficient reduction is coupled with several
simplified assumptions. A feasible method seems to be to use an efficiency factor of ηFC Aero = 34%.
This means a drag reduction multiplied with this efficiency factor will result in a fuel consumption
reduction. This is only valid for flat highways and flat test tracks with trucks at high speed (≥ 80 km/h).
During the inquiry, it was realized that almost all the shown or mentioned aerodynamic measures
for tractors have already been implemented by most of the OEMs. The improvement in tractor design
is nearly at the maximum, and an overall design of the tractor can deliver little improvement when
done under the conditions set by the current legislation. Here, the parallel optimization of several
parameters is needed, as the aerodynamic effects are very sensitive. Changing a single measure will
not lead to a drag reduction for sure without considering the overall aerodynamics of the tractor.
Focusing on the trailer aerodynamics gives several improvement possibilities. The trailer design
improvement is also challenging because of different design parameters like load volume, cargo/trailer
weight, handling at loading/unloading, robustness, and aerodynamics. As we mentioned earlier,
there are three areas in the trailer (front, underneath, and back) where aerodynamic measures can be
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 21 of 23

integrated, and the most promising measures are selected. These are the leading-edge fairing (front),
which supports the airflow in the transition between the tractor and the trailer; it also improves the
robustness of slightly misaligned cab roof deflectors at different truck velocities. Here, a drag reduction
of 1.3% is assumed at a yaw angle of 0◦ and 3.6% at a yaw angle of 5◦ . The next feature is the side wings
(underneath), which supports a smooth airflow along the trailer side especially at crosswind condition.
Here, an average drag reduction of 5.0% is assumed at a yaw angle of 0◦ and 9% at a yaw angle of 5◦ .
The last one is the rear flaps (back), which supports the airflow merging behind the back of the trailer
and therefore reducing the wake area and the drag. Here, a drag reduction of 5.7% is assumed at a yaw
angle of 0◦ and 8.1% at a yaw angle of 5◦ . The special Transformer trailer roof lowering and tapering in
combination with an adjustable cab roof deflector will give an additional benefit. As the lowering and
tapering depends on the cargo height inside the trailer, the different configurations (full height at front
and back (4 m/4 m), full height at front and lowered to the minimum at the back (4 m/3.1 m), lowered
all to the cab height without cab roof deflector (3.57 m/3.57 m), lowered to the cab height at the front
and to minimum at the back (3.57 m/3.1 m) are averaged to a drag reduction of 9.1% at a yaw angle of
0◦ . At a yaw angle of 5◦ , there are no results available for lowering and tapering the roof. It is expected
that there will be a drag reduction, but the amount cannot be assumed without further information.
Within this report, the attempt was to introduce a combination efficiency factor ηcom that describes
how good the different measures are working together. If the combination efficiency factor is 1, then the
drag reduction of the combined measures is as high as the cumulative result of all single drag reductions,
regardless of the measures influencing each other in a positive or negative way. If the factor is below
1, then the combined measures are influencing each other in a negative way, and if it is above 1 in a
positive way for a factor equal to one, there is no change observed. Figure 19 shows the average results
for the single2019,
Sustainability measures
11, x FORand
PEERthe Transformers roof lowering and tapering and their combinations.
REVIEW 22 of 23

Figure 19. Averaged

Figure19. Averaged drag reductions
reductions from
fromdifferent
differentreferences
referencesand
andtheir
their combinations
combinations assuming
assuming a
a combination
combination efficiency
efficiencyfactor
factorof
of1.1.

In principle, there are three measures identified to be configurable. Beginning at the front of the
truck, the cab roof deflector needs to be adjusted to the height of the trailer, as the trailer roof height
and tapering is adapted to the cargo height inside of the trailer. Both these features have been
implemented in Project Transformers. A sensor will detect the cargo height inside of the trailer and
send a suitable signal to roof height actuators and the cab roof deflector. The third configurable
measure is the rear flaps. Here, it might be feasible to adapt the angle of the rear flaps to the tapering
of the back of the trailer because of a possible backflow of the airflow into the undercarriage, which
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 22 of 23

In principle, there are three measures identified to be configurable. Beginning at the front of the
truck, the cab roof deflector needs to be adjusted to the height of the trailer, as the trailer roof height and
tapering is adapted to the cargo height inside of the trailer. Both these features have been implemented
in Project Transformers. A sensor will detect the cargo height inside of the trailer and send a suitable
signal to roof height actuators and the cab roof deflector. The third configurable measure is the rear
flaps. Here, it might be feasible to adapt the angle of the rear flaps to the tapering of the back of the
trailer because of a possible backflow of the airflow into the undercarriage, which might reduce the
benefit of tapering in combination with the rear flaps. As the designs of the different measures within
the different references are also different, there might be an additional optimization potential if the
trailer aerodynamics is handled like the tractor aerodynamics at wind tunnel testing research centers.
Here, an overall approach is used to optimize aerodynamics and to adapt the different measures to
each other, and has been adapted in the research project during the prototyping phase.

Author Contributions: A.H., T.K. and B.M. conceived and designed the analysis; A.H. and T.K. carried out
literature survey, spoke to expert panel and collected the data; A.H., J.K. and T.K. contributed data or analysis
tools; T.K. performed the analysis; A.H. wrote the paper with inputs from all the authors.
Funding: This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for
research; technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 605170.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the partners of Project TRANSFORMERS for their valuable
inputs towards preparation of the project report.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Elmer, M.; Kyncl, J.; Barbarino, S.; Hariram, A.; Wagner, S. Configurable and adaptable trucks and trailers for
optimal transport efficiency. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference and Expo Transportation Electrification
Asia-Pacific (ITEC Asia-Pacific), Beijing, China, 31 August–3 September 2014. [CrossRef]
2. Nylund, N.-O. Vehicle energy efficiencies. In Proceedings of the IEA EGRD Workshop Mobility: Technology
Priorities and Strategic Urban Planning, Espoo, Finland, 22–23 May 2013.
3. Singh, G. Overview of the DOE Advanced Combustion Engine R&D Program. In Proceedings of the Annual
Merit Review Meeting and Peer Evaluation Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 14–18 May 2012.
4. Reisinger, R.; Emadi, A. Sensible Transportation Electrification: Get rid of inefficient powertrain designs.
IEEE Electrif. Mag. 2013, 1, 6–12. [CrossRef]
5. Hjelm, L.; Bergqvist, B. European Truck Aerodynamics–A Comparison Between Conventional and CoE Truck
Aerodynamics and a Look into Future Trends and Possibilities; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 469–477.
6. SAE China; FISITA. Good practice guide 308, truck aerodynamic styling. In Proceedings of the FISITA 2012
World Automotive Congress; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2001.
7. Freight Best Practice. Aerodynamics for Efficient Road Freight Operations; Freight Best Practice: London, UK, 2007.
8. Schütz, T. Hucho-Aerodynamik des Automobils: Strömungsmechanik, Wärmetechnik, Fahrdynamik, Komfort;
Schütz, T., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013.
9. Iveco, S.p.A. Innovation for the Future, the Future is Here–Transport Concept; Iveco, S.p.A: Torino, Italy, 2008.
10. Bracco, R.; Seccardini, R.; de Somma, M.; Gallardo, G.; Lindgarde, O.; Borjesson, S.; Kessels, J.; Cesari, C.;
Fabio, S. CONVENIENT–Complete vehicle energy saving technologies for heavy trucks. Transp. Res. Procedia
2016, 14, 1041–1050. [CrossRef]
11. Frank, H.D.-I.T. Aerodynamik von schweren Nutzfahrzeugen; VDA: Berlin, Germany, 2012.
12. Foster, R.N. Timing technological transitions. Technol. Soc. 1985, 7, 2–3. [CrossRef]
13. Springer Gabler, Herausgeber. Stichwort: S-Kurven-Konzept. Available online: https://wirtschaftslexikon.
gabler.de/definition/s-kurven-konzept-43411/version-147038 (accessed on 30 June 2019).
14. Lenngren, M.; Håkansson, C. CFD Analysis of Aerodynamic Trailer Devices for Drag Reduction of Heavy
Duty Trucks. Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University, Göteborg, Sweden, 2010.
15. Frasquet, C.P.; Indinger, T. Numerische Untersuchungen zur Aerodynamik von Nutzfahrzeugkombinationen bei
realitätsnahen Fahrbedingungen unter Seitenwindeinfluss; VDA: Berlin, Germany, 2013.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5519 23 of 23

16. Smith, S.; Younessi, K.; Markstaller, M.; Schlesinger, D.; Bhatnagar, B.; Smith, D.; Banceu, B.; Schoon, R.;
Sharma, V.; Kachmarsky, M.; et al. Laughlin and Charlot, Test, Evaluation, and Demonstration of Practical
Devices/Systems to Reduce Aerodynamic Drag of Tractor/Semitrailer Combination Unit Trucks; Truck Manufacturers’
Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
17. Raemdonck, V.G.M.R. Design of Low Drag Bluff Road Vehicles. Ph.D. Thesis, TU Delft, Delft,
The Netherlands, 2012.
18. Wildhagen, M.; Ebert, J.; Beelmann, R. Moeglichkeiten der Verbrauchsoptimierung durch Aerodynamik und weitere
Massnahmen am Trailer/Possibilities to Optimise fuel Consumption by Means of Aerodynamics and Further Measures
on the Trailer; VDI Verlag GmbH: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2012.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).