See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267327497

Aerodynamic Simulation of Heavy Trucks with Rotating Wheels

Conference Paper · January 2006

DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-1394

CITATIONS READS
6 125

5 authors, including:

Kidambi Sreenivas Ramesh Pankajakshan

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
83 PUBLICATIONS   334 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   148 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lafayette K. Taylor

99 PUBLICATIONS   629 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Inlets and Fans View project

Propulsor Hull Interactions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kidambi Sreenivas on 23 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Aerodynamic Simulation of Heavy Trucks with Rotating
Wheels

Kidambi Sreenivas*, Ramesh Pankajakshan†, D. Stephen Nichols‡, Brent C.J. Mitchell§, Lafayette K. Taylor** and
David L. Whitfield††
University Of Tennessee SimCenter at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN, 37403, USA.

Aerodynamic simulations were carried out for the Ground Transportation System
model, a 1/8th scale tractor-trailer model, that was tested in the NASA Ames 7’x10’ tunnel.
The computed forces and pressure coefficients are compared to experiment. Detailed
comparisons are also carried out for the wake in the symmetry plane of the model. A DES
version of the two equation k-εε/k-ωω hybrid turbulence model is shown to predict the single
vortex structure observed in the experiment. Simulations are also carried out for an isolated
rotating wheel and the results are compared to experiment data. A theoretically predicted
jet arising at the contact patches was observed computationally with its magnitude matching
the theoretical predictions. Representative simulations were also carried out for a tractor-
trailer model with rotating wheels.

I. Introduction

I N 1997, fuel consumption among Class 8 trucks was 18 billion gallons1. At typical highway speeds, 65% of the
overall output of the engine is used for overcoming aerodynamic drag2. Consequently, a reduction in
aerodynamic drag will result in substantial fuel savings. The main contributors to the aerodynamic drag are the gap
between tractor and trailer, the vehicle underbody and the base flow region of the trailer3. Significant flow
structures exist in these regions and several experimental studies have been carried out to characterize them. One of
the experimental studies used a 1/8th scale Ground Transportation System (GTS) model that consisted of simplified
tractor trailer geometry with a cab-over-engine design and no tractor-trailer gap. This geometry was tested both at
the Texas A&M University Low Speed Wind Tunnel4 as well as the NASA Ames 7’x10’ tunnel5 and extensive data
was collected for validation of computational simulations. Modifications to the GTS geometry to include a tractor
trailer gap were incorporated in tests carried out at USC6 and the influence of the gap on the overall flowfield
assessed. Detailed experimental studies were also carried out on a realistic tractor trailer combination, the Generic
Conventional Model (GCM), in the NASA Ames 7’x10’ tunnel7 as well as the NASA Ames 12’ wind tunnel8.
Computational studies aimed at evaluating the capabilities of current flow solvers for the prediction of heavy vehicle
aerodynamics were carried out by a number of researchers9-13. Salari et al. 9 used the data from the GTS experiments
and showed that with an appropriate choice of turbulence model, the overall drag coefficient could be predicted with
reasonable accuracy. However, one of their key findings was that the details of the flow field, especially in the base
flow region, were not being captured accurately. Pointer9 used a commercial CFD flow solver to study the GCM
model in the 7’x10’ tunnel and the results indicated that the overall drag coefficient could be predicted with
reasonable accuracy. However, no detailed flow field comparisons were presented. Another commercial CFD
solver was used by Maddox et al.11 to simulate the flow around GTS model. They employed a detached eddy
simulation (DES) approach and showed that an improvement in the predicted pressure (especially toward the base of
the model) can be achieved. RANS simulations using the one equation Spalart-Allmaras model and the two
equation Menter k-ω model were reported by Roy et al.12. LES simulations of a truncated GTS model were carried
out by Ortega et al.13.

*
Associate Research Professor, UT SimCenter at Chattanooga, and AIAA Senior Member
†
Associate Research Professor, UT SimCenter at Chattanooga, and AIAA Member
‡
Assistant Research Professor, UT SimCenter at Chattanooga, and AIAA Member
§
Research Associate, UT SimCenter at Chattanooga
**
Research Professor, UT SimCenter at Chattanooga, and AIAA Senior Member
††
Professor and Director, Graduate School of Computational Engineering, and AIAA Fellow

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 One of the shortcomings of the experiments that have been carried out to date is that they do not have rotating
wheels. In fact the experiments on the GTS model were carried out without any wheels, while the GCM model was
mounted on pedestals thereby ensuring that the wheels were not in contact with the ground. In both the GTS and
GCM experiments, a wall boundary layer was also present as the experiments were carried out inside a tunnel and
did not incorporate a moving ground plane. Experimental studies focused on the aerodynamics of isolated rotating
wheels have been carried out by a number of researchers. The earliest published study is by Fackrell14, where a
smooth wheel (no tread) was used with a moving ground plane. Fackrell predicted, theoretically, the presence of a
contact jet at the point of contact between the tire and the ground and proceeded to demonstrate the same
experimentally. Waschle et al.15 studied the aerodynamics of a Formula 1 racing wheel experimentally as well as
computationally while Axon et al.16 carried out experiments to determine the influence of a moving ground plane for
a rotating wheel located inside a wheelhouse cavity. Mears et al.17 used PIV to obtain detailed flowfield data for an
exposed racing wheel. Damiani et al.18 performed unsteady flow simulations of a wheel-wheelhouse configuration.
The present research effort focuses on the structured and unstructured flow solvers that have been developed at
the University of Tennessee SimCenter at Chattanooga. The unstructured flow solver is used to simulate the
flowfield around the GTS model inside the NASA 7’x10’ tunnel while the structured flow solver is used to simulate
the rotating wheel with a moving ground plane. Given the high freestream Mach number that is present in the GTS
experiments, a single parameter based global preconditioned formulation, termed the variable Mach number
formulation, is used, while the flow around the rotating wheel is simulated using an incompressible formulation.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section II contains a brief overview of the governing
equations. The details of the algorithm implemented in the flow solvers are presented in Section III. Results
including detailed comparisons of the flow fields are presented in Section IV and some conclusions are drawn in
Section V.

II. Governing Equations

The governing equations for the variable Mach number formulation are the compressible RANS equations. The
incompressible governing equations are derived from the compressible equations by assuming that the flow is iso-
energetic and by introducing artificial compressibility. The final form of the governing equations can be written as
∂ 1
Q dV + F . nˆ dA = G . nˆ dA (1.1)
∂tΩ ∂Ω Re ∂Ω
where Q = [ p, u , v, w] for the incompressible case and Q = [ ρ , u , v, w, p ] for the variable Mach number case.

In Eq.(1.1), F and G are the inviscid and viscous fluxes respectively and n̂ is the outward pointing unit normal to
the control volume Ω . The specifics of the governing equations, including non-dimensionalizations, for the
incompressible case are in Hyams19 and for the variable Mach number case are in Sreenivas et al.20 and will not be
repeated here.

III. Numerical Approach

The structured and unstructured flow solvers developed as part of this research program have a lot of features in
common. The baseline flow solver in both the cases employs a finite volume, implicit scheme with high resolution
fluxes based on Roe averaging and a Newton subiteration procedure for time accuracy. The linear system at each
time step is solved using a Symmetric Gauss-Seidel algorithm. Some of the similarities and differences between the
structured and unstructured solvers are highlighted below. The interested reader is referred to Sreenivas et al.20 and
Pankajakshan21 for more details.

A. Residual Computation
The structured flow solver utilizes a cell centered formulation while the unstructured solver is based on a node-
centered formulation. Higher order spatial accuracy is achieved using a MUSCL approach for the structured case,
while the unstructured solver uses linear or quadratic reconstruction of the dependent variables to achieve the same
objective. Viscous terms are computed using a central difference approach in the structured case while the
unstructured case uses a directional derivative based approach. The gradients required for the variable
reconstruction in the unstructured case are computed using an unweighted least squares approach while the gradients
for the viscous terms are computed using a weighted least squares approach.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
B. Time Evolution
Both the structured and unstructured flow solvers employ a discrete Newton relaxation approach to solve the
unsteady RANS equations. Newtons’ method can be used to drive the right-hand-side to zero. The flux Jacobians
arising from this linearization can be evaluated using numerical derivatives or the complex Taylor series method.
They can also be replaced by approximations which result in substantial savings in computational time. The
resulting linear system is solved using a Symmetric Gauss Seidel algorithm (point relaxation). For deforming grids,
the Geometric Conservation Law (GCL) has to be satisfied in order to prevent the occurrence of spurious sources in
the solutions. This leads to an additional contribution to the residual.

C. Turbulence Modeling
The turbulence models are implemented in a loosely coupled manner in both the structured and unstructured
flow solvers. The turbulence models available in the structured flow solver are the k-ε model22, the Wilcox
Reynolds Stress model23 and the Launder-Shima Reynolds Stress model24. The unstructured flow solver has the
Spalart-Allmaras model25, the Menter SAS model26, the k-ε/k-ω hybrid model (with and without SST), and the
Wilcox Reynolds Stress model. In addition, DES modes are available for the Spalart-Allmaras27, the Menter SAS
and the k-ε/k-ω hybrid models28. No wall functions or transition models were sued in either solver with integration
being performed to the wall with grids designed to give y+ values less than 1.0. The convective terms appearing in
the turbulence models are discretized to first order spatial accuracy (unstructured) and third order spatial accuracy
(structured).

D. Parallel Implementation
The parallel solution procedure consists of a scalable solution algorithm implemented to run efficiently on grid
subdomains distributed across multiple processes and communicating through MPI. The algorithm has multiple
nested kernels viz. time step, Newton iteration, LU/SGS iteration etc., and the subdomain coupling is at the
innermost level, i.e., in the solution of the linear system. A block-Jacobi type updating of the subdomain boundaries
ensures efficient parallelization with a small incremental cost incurred in terms of sub-iterations required to recover
the convergence rate of the sequential algorithm. Details about the parallel algorithm for block-structured grids can
be found in Pankajakshan21, and for unstructured grids in Hyams19.

IV. Results

A. Rotating Wheel Simulation

The structured incompressible solver was used
for the three-dimensional simulation of an
isolated wheel with both a point contact and a
distorted or “squashed” contact. The case
consists of a smooth rotating racing wheel of
radius 0.246 m in contact with a moving ground
plane placed in an incoming airstream at
14.7m/s. Pressure measurements were made
using holes drilled in the wheel along the
centerline and close to the sidewall. The
simulation was done at a Reynolds number of
250,000 based on wheel diameter using the k-ε
turbulence model. Since the experiment
included a significant amount of support
structures for wheel and since the wheel
geometry itself was not fully quantified, only the
centerline pressures from the simulation were
compared to experiment. It can be seen from
Figure 1 that the steady simulation makes a Figure 1. Comparison of centerline pressure
reasonable prediction of the centerline pressures.
Grid refinement studies indicated that the pressure peak at the contact patch is very sensitive to the grid spacing in
the region and increases with decreasing grid spacing. It is theorized that the wheel acts as a journal bearing and the
actual pressure at the contact point is a function of the wheel weight and support mechanisms. The transition point

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
was not well predicted since the k-ε turbulence model implementation lacks a transition model. The convergence of
two moving viscous boundaries at the forward contact patch results in a jet of air directed into the incoming flow.

Figure 2. Velocity magnitude profile showing Figure 3. Jetting phenomenon at forward contact
agreement with theoretical jet velocity of 0.5 patch

As can be seen in Figure 2, the magnitude of jet velocity was found to be approximately half the freestream velocity
as predicted by Fackrell14. A visual depiction of the jet at the forward contact patch is shown in Figure 3 .

B. Flow past a surface mounted cube in a channel

In an effort to validate the DES modifications to the k-ε/k-ω hybrid turbulence model, the flow past a surface
mounted cube inside a tunnel at a Reynolds number of 40000 (based on cube height) was simulated. Detailed
experimental results for this case are available from Martinuzzi and Tropea29. A representative comparison of the
time-averaged axial velocity profile in the wake of the cube is presented in Figure 4. As can be seen from the figure,
the overall agreement is good.
Using the baseline version of this
model resulted in significant
overshoots. Detailed comparisons
and further validation of the DES
modifications will be presented in
Nichols et al.28.

C. GTS Simulations
The GTS model was tested in
the NASA Ames 7’x10’ tunnel.
In an effort to compare directly
with the experimental data, it was
decided to model the GTS
geometry along with the wind
tunnel. The grids required for this
simulation were generated using a
combination of Gridgen for the
tetrahedral portion of the mesh
and the viscous layer insertion
technique of Karman30 for the
boundary layer portion of the Figure 4. Comparison of axial velocity 0.5 body lengths behind cube
mesh. As required by the DES
mode of the turbulence models,
the grid included the complete
geometry, i.e., no symmetry plane

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
was employed. The unstructured mesh consisted of 7.67 million nodes, 10.8 million tetrahedra, 11.1 million prisms
and 0.21 million hexahedra. The test section Mach number was 0.28 and the Reynolds number based on the trailer
width (12.75 inches) of the GTS was 2.0 million. The GTS model as located in the wind tunnel is shown in Figure
5.

Figure 5. GTS model in NASA 7'x10' tunnel

This case was computed using the variable Mach
version of the unstructured flow solver. The k-
ε/k-ω hybrid turbulence model was used to
simulate the effects of turbulence. The baseline
and DES versions of the turbulence models were
used to ascertain the differences between the two
modes. All simulations presented here were
carried out with a constant CFL of 50.0 for the
first 5000 time steps and then switched to a
constant time step (unsteady) mode. The DES
mode runs were made with a non-dimensional
time step of 0.005 and 0.01 while a time step of
0.005 was used for the baseline simulation. The
DES simulations were carried out for 90000 and
60000 time steps with time steps of 0.005 and
0.01 respectively, while the baseline simulation
was carried out for 15000 time steps. For all of
Figure 6. Comparison of forces with and without DES
the unsteady simulations, three Newton
subiterations were employed. Figure 6 shows the comparison of overall drag for the GTS with and without DES.
The baseline solution has converged to an almost constant drag value while the DES solution exhibits a significant
temporal variation in drag. Furthermore, the time-averaged drag from both cases was within 10% of the
experimental data.
The GTS model was fitted with a significant number of pressure taps and the computed results are compared to
the experimental data in Figure 7. The computed pressure coefficients shown in these plots are time averaged over
the entire unsteady run (60000 time steps; time step = 0.01) for the DES version while they are time averaged over
10000 time steps for the baseline version. As can be seen from this figure, the overall agreement is good. The
baseline turbulence model produced an overall behavior that was very similar to the DES version except for the base
flow region. In the base flow region, the baseline model produces two distinct peaks in the pressure distribution
while the DES version has a much smoother behavior.
In an effort to compare details of the velocity field in the base region with experimental data, the unsteady
solutions were time averaged over 5000 time steps. The averaging was necessary as the PIV results available from
the experiment were time averaged. Since the experimental time period and sampling frequency were not reported,
an arbitrary length of 5000 time steps was chosen for the averaging.. The wake in the symmetry plane was picked
for comparison purposes as the experiment showed a single dominant vortex structure which was not captured by
other researchers using a variety of turbulence models9. Figure 8 shows the comparison of the computed velocity
vectors for the DES version of the turbulence model over a range of time averaging cycles. As can be seen from this
figure, the single vortex is visible throughout the simulation, but its location varies significantly. Consequently, it
was decided to time average the computed solution over the entire simulation and the resulting particle traces are

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
compared to experimental data in Figure 9. Also included in this figure is the baseline solution, which clearly shows
two vortices of almost equal strength, while the DES solution shows a single dominant vortex.

(a) Top (z/w = 0.0) (b) Bottom (z/w = 0.0)

(c) Side (y/w = 0.692) (d) Base (z/w = 0.0)

(e) Base (z/w = 0.2206) (f) Base (z/w = 0.4412)

Figure 7. Comparison of pressure distributions

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(a) 25000 – 30000 time average (b) 35000 – 40000 time average

(c) 45000 – 50000 time average (d) 65000 – 70000 time average

(f) 80000 – 85000 time average

(e) 75000 – 80000 time average

Figure 8. Variation of wake vortex structure over various time averaging cycles

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (a) DES

(b) Baseline

(c) Experiment

Figure 9. Comparison of wake structure

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
D. Truck simulations with rotating wheels
Simulations of a realistic tractor-trailer combination with rotating wheels were carried out. However, a lack of
experimental data prevented a detailed comparison of the effect of rotating wheels on the overall flow field. A
representative figure showing computed particle traces is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Particle traces and wheel surfaces colored by velocity magnitude

V. Conclusion
The predicted pressure coefficients compared well with the experiment for rotating wheel simulations. A
theoretically predicted jet at the forward contact patch was found to exist in the simulation with the jet velocity
matching theoretical predictions as well.
Simulations were carried out for the GTS model using a two equation k-ε/k-ω hybrid turbulence model with and
without DES modifications. Both versions of the model predicted the overall drag within 10% or the experimental
value. A dominant single vortex structure observed in the symmetry plane wake of the GTS was predicted more
successfully by the DES version, while the baseline version predicted a two vortex structure. However, the location
of the vortex in the simulation was slightly downstream of the experimental observation. This could be caused by
transients in the solution process as the physical time that was simulated was less than 2 seconds. The time interval
used for the averaging in the experiment was not available, thereby preventing an assessment of whether the
simulated time was sufficient in order to capture the flow details accurately. It is also possible that the DES model
needs some fine tuning in order to predict the highly unsteady flow that occurs in the wakes of bluff bodies.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the US Department of Energy and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory through UT-
Batelle contract number 4000035270 with Dr. W. Keith Kahl as technical monitor. This support is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors also thank Dr. R.G. Dominy of The University of Durham for his help with information
about the isolated wheel experiment. Thanks are also due to Dr. Rose McCallen, Dr. Jules Routbort and the late Dr.
Sid Diamond for their generous guidance and encouragement.

References
1
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/research/technology_analysis/truck_fuel_use.html
2
McCallen R., Couch, R., Hsu, J., Browand, F., Hammache, M., Leonard, A., Brady, M., Salari, K., Rutledge, W., Ross, J.,
Storms, B., Heineck, J.T., Driver, D., Bell, J., and G. Zilliac, “Progress in Reducing Aerodynamics Drag for Higher Efficiency of
Heavy Duty Trucks( Class 7-8),” SAE Paper 1999-01-2238.
3
Cooper, K.R., “Truck Aerodynamics Reborn – Lessons from the Past,” SAE Paper 2003-01-3376, 2003.
4
Croll, R. H., Gutierrez, W. T., Hassan, B.,Suazo, J. E., and Riggins, A. J., “Experimental Investigation of the Ground
Transportation Systems (GTS) Project for Heavy Vehicle Drag Reduction,” .SAE Paper 960907, February 1996.
5
Storms, B.L., Ross, J.C., Heineck, J.T., Walker, S.M., Driver, D.M. and Zilliac, G.G., “An Experimental Study of the Ground
Transportation System (GTS) Model in the NASA Ames 7-by 10-Ft Wind Tunnel,” NASA/TM-2001-209621, February 2001.
6
Arcas, D., Browand, F., and Hammache, M., “Flow Structure in the Gap Between Two Bluff Bodies,” AIAA Paper 2004-
2250, 34th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, Portland, Oregon, June 2004.
7
Storms, B.L., Satran, D.R., Heineck, J.T., Walker, S.M., and Driver, D.M. “Preliminary Data Release for the Generic
Conventional Model (GCM) in the NASA Ames 7x10 Wind Tunnel,” May 2005.
8
Storms, B.L., Satran, D.R., Heineck, J.T., Walker, S.M., and Driver, D.M. “Preliminary Data Release for the Generic
Conventional Model (GCM) in the NASA Ames 12-ft Wind Tunnel,” May 2005.
9
Salari,K., Ortega, J., and Castellucci, P., “Computational Prediction of Aerodynamic Forces for a Simplified Integrated
Tractor-Trailer Geometry”, AIAA Paper 2004-2253, 34th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, Portland, Oregon, June
2004.
10
Pointer, D.W., “Evaluation of Commercial CFD Code Capabilities for Prediction of Heavy Vehicle Drag Coefficients,”
AIAA Paper 2004-2254, 34th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, Portland, Oregon, June 2004.
11
Maddox, S., Squires, K.D., Wurtzler, K. E., and J.R. Forsythe, “Detached-Eddy Simulation of the Ground Transportation
System,” The Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles: Trucks, Buses and Trains, Springer, 2004, pp 89-104.
12
Roy, C., Payne, J., McWherter-Payne, M., and Salari, K., “RANS Simulations of a Simplified Tractor/Trailer Geometry,”
The Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles: Trucks, Buses and Trains, Springer, 2004, pp 207-218.
13
Ortega, J.M., Dunn, T., McCallen, R., and Salari, K., “Computational Simulation of Heavy Vehicle Trailer Wake,” The
Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles: Trucks, Buses and Trains, Springer, 2004, pp 219-233.
14
Fackrell, J.E., “The Aerodynamics of an Isolated Wheel Rotating in Contact with the Ground,” PhD Thesis, University of
London, 1974.
15
Waschle, A., Cyr, S., Kuthada, T., and J. Wiedemann, “Flow around an Isolated Wheel-Experimental and Numerical
Comparison of Two CFD Codes,” SAE Technical Paper 2004-01-0445, March, 2004.
16
Axon, L., Garry, K. and J. Howell, “The Influence of Ground Condition on the Flow Around a Wheel Located Within a
Wheelhouse Cavity,” SAE Technical Paper 1999-01-0806, March, 1999.
17
Mears, A.P., Crossland, S.C., and Dominy, R.G., “An Investigation into the Flow Field About an Exposed Racing Wheel,”
Vehicle Aerodynamics 2004, SAE 2004-01-0446, 2004.
18
Damiani, F., Iaccarino, G., Kalitzin, G., and B. Khalighi, “Unsteady Flow Simulations of Wheel-Wheelhouse
Configurations,” AIAA Paper 2004-2344, 34th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, Portland, Oregon, July 2004.
19
Hyams, D.G., “An Investigation of Parallel Implicit Solution Algorithms for Incompressible Flows on Unstructured
Topologies,” Ph. D. Dissertation, Mississippi State University, May 2000.
20
Sreenivas, K., Hyams, D. G., Nichols, D. S., Mitchell, B., Taylor, L. K., Briley, W. R., and Whitfield, D. L., “Development
of an Unstructured Parallel Flow Solver for Arbitrary Mach Numbers,” AIAA Paper No. 2005-0325, 43rd Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 2005.
21
Pankajakshan, R., “Parallel Solution of Unsteady Incompressible Viscous Flows using Multiblock Structured Grids,” Ph.D.
Dissertation, Mississippi State University, December 1997.
22
Pankajakshan, R., Remotigue, M. G., Taylor, L. K., Jiang, M., Briley, W. R., and D. L. Whitfield: Validation of Control-
Surface Induced Submarine Maneuvering Simulations Using UNCLE. 24th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka,
Japan, July 8-13, 2002.
23
Wilcox, D.C., Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 2nd ed., KNI, Inc., Anaheim, California, 2000, Chap. 6.
24
Launder, B.E. and Shima, N., “Second-moment closure for the near-wall sublayer: Development and application,” AIAA
Journal, Vol. 27, No. 10, 1989, pp. 1319-1325
25
Spalart, P.R., and Allmaras, S.R., “A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA Paper 92-0439,
January 1992.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 26
Menter, F.R., Kuntz, M., and Bender, R., “A Scale-Adaptive Simulation Model for Turbulent Flow Predictions,”AIAA Paper
2003-0767, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 2003.
27
Spalart, P.R., “Young Person’s Guide to Detached-Eddy Simulation Grids,” NASA/CR-2001-211032, July 2001.
28
Nichols, D.S., Hyams, D.G., Sreenivas, K., Mitchell, B., Taylor, L.K., and Whitfield, D.L., “Aerosol Propagation in an Urban
Environment,” Paper submitted to the AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, San Francisco, July 2006.
29
Martinuzzi, R., and Tropea, C., “The flow around surface-mounted, prismatic obstacles placed in a fully developed channel
flow,” Journal of Fluid Engineering, Vol. 115, p. 85, 1993.
30
Karman, S., “Unstructured Viscous Layer Insertion Using Linear-Elastic Smoothing,” AIAA Paper 2006-0531, 44th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 2006.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

View publication stats