Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018

ARTICLE INFO
Article ID: 06-11-01-0002
Published: 12 Jan 2018
Copyright © 2018
SAE International
doi:10.4271/06-11-01-0002

Experimental Investigation of the

Near Wall Flow Downstream of
a Passenger Car Wheel Arch
Sabine Bonitz, Chalmers University of Technology
Dirk Wieser, TU Berlin (Technical University)
Alexander Broniewicz, Volvo Car Corporation
Lars Larsson and Lennart Lofdahl, Chalmers University of Technology
Christian Nayeri and Christian Paschereit, TU Berlin (Technical University)

Abstract History
Received: 12 Jan 2018
The flow around and downstream of the front wheels of passenger cars is highly complex and e-Available: 01 Mar 2018
characterized by flow structure interactions between the external flow, fluid exiting through the
wheelhouse, flow from the engine bay and the underbody. Citation
In the present paper the near wall flow downstream of the front wheel house is analyzed, Bonitz, S., Wieser, D.,
combining two traditional methods. A tuft visualization method is used to obtain the limiting stream- Broniewicz, A., Larsson, L.
line pattern and information about the near wall flow direction. Additionally, time resolved surface et al., “Experimental
pressure measurements are used to study the pressure distribution and the standard deviation. The Investigation of the Near
propagation of the occurring flow structures is investigated by cross correlations of the pressure Wall Flow Downstream of a
signal and a spectral analysis provides the characteristic frequencies of the investigated flow. Passenger Car Wheel Arch,”
SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars -
It is found that two main flow phenomena can be observed: one originates from flow exiting
Mech. Syst. 11(1):2018,
the upper wheelhouse and a second one resulting from a separation on the lower wheel house
doi:10.4271/06-11-01-0002.
edge. The frequency spectrum reveals a dominant Strouhal number of 0.2. As the observed flow
structures are attributed to the wheel-wheelhouse interaction, a closed wheelhouse configuration
ISSN: 1946-3995
is also investigated and the results confirm that the fluctuations and observed flow structures are e-ISSN: 1946-4002
created by the flow interaction between the wheel, wheelhouse and the rotation of the wheel.

22

22 22
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018
Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018) 23
Introduction
P
assenger vehicles are highly complex bluff bodies,
operating in ground proximity. The flow around such
geometries is characterized by various vortices and
recirculation areas interacting with each other, which results
in complicated flow phenomena. All the occurring structures
have an impact on the performance of a car as they directly
affect stability, noise generation, contamination and drag. In
order to be able to improve today’s vehicle shapes, it is neces-
sary to understand how flow structures affect the performance;
therefore it is of interest to investigate where vortices and sepa-
rations are created and how they develop and interact with the
vehicle and the bulk flow. An area of interest is the flow around
rotating wheels and its interaction with the wheelhouse and the
external flow. The flow passing by the front wheel and through
the wheel house creates swirling structures and separations,
which results in a significant wheel wake.
In the literature various aspects of wheel and wheel-
house aerodynamics are discussed. A general understanding
of wheel rotation physics is established by looking at isolated
wheels as for instance in [1, 2, 3, 4]. Taking the wheel-wheel-
house and underbody flow interaction into account expands
the complexity and flow structure interdependency as shown
in [4, 5, 6, 7]. Additional influencing parameters are the rim
design and tire pattern. These have a significant influence on
the aerodynamic forces and the flow field [3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].
Therefore not only the effect on the overall forces is of interest,
but also the development and physics of the created wheel
wake. Wäschle [3] studied the wheel flow regarding its interac-
tion with the wheel house and occurring structures in more
detail. Based on experimental and numerical methods the
elementary flow topology is discussed and presented in the
close environment of the wheel. Among others a vortex jetting
out at the top of the wheel house is described.
The flow topology downstream of the wheel is rarely
investigated. Bonitz et al. [13] discuss the flow behind a front
wheel regarding its surface streamlines, its surface pressure
and development into the flow field, based on numerical steady
state results. It is shown how the limiting streamlines on the
surface correlate with vortices observed in cross planes along
the downstream direction. However, as the flow downstream
of the wheel is highly unsteady, it is required to know more
about the time dependent behavior of the occurring struc-
tures and how these can be investigated experimentally in
an engineering development process, using the least intrusive
and time consuming methods possible.
The work presented, studies the near wall flow down-
stream of the front wheel arch of a sedan passenger car, eval-
uating experimentally the limiting streamline pattern and
the surface pressure. It is analyzed to what extent the near
wall flow properties can be used to identify occurring flow
structures and how conclusions about their propagation and
interactions can be drawn. To show the influence of the flow
exiting through the wheelhouse, a second configuration is
shown, where the wheel arch is covered to shield the flow
from the wheel.
Experimental Setup
The tests were performed in the Volvo Cars aerodynamic full
scale wind tunnel. It is of closed returned type with a slotted
wall test section which is 6.6 m wide and 4.1 m high. The
maximum fan power is 5 MW and allows a maximum speed
in the test section of 250 km/h. The present test was carried
out at an inlet velocity of 100 km/h and a yaw angle of zero
degrees. For the pressure measurements additional veloci-
ties between 80 km/h and 200 km/h were investigated. The
moving road is simulated, using a five belt system; one belt
under each wheel (called Wheel Drive Unit, WDU) and a
center belt. To remove and modify the boundary layer three
different boundary layer control systems are implemented.
At the test section inlet a suction scope is installed, followed
by a boundary layer suction zone. Behind each WDU and the
center belt a tangential blowing system is installed to “fill in”
the boundary layer. The vehicle is fixed using 4 rigid struts.
The ground clearance is adjusted to trim heights of 665 mm
in the front and 675 mm at the rear. The test object for this
investigation was a Volvo S60 production car (model year
2010). The used vehicle was of notchback type, equipped with
5 spoke rims. The tires used were 17 inch production tires
(215/50 ZR 17). For an additional test, the wheelhouse was
closed with an aluminum cover as shown in Figure 1. Due to
the position of the wheel and the needed distance to be able
to rotate the wheels, the cover had to be mounted introducing
two small steps.
Surface pressure measurements were taken by tubes
connected through holes drilled into the surface. The tubing
connection between measurement point and sensor was less
than 50 mm; this is according to [14] in the range where the
damping can be neglected and a transfer function correc-
tion is not necessary. For the time resolved measurements
15 differential pressure sensors from Sensor techniques were
available. These have a range of +/− 2500 Pa and are calibrated
with an accuracy of +/−5 Pa. The reference pressure was taken
at the wind tunnel nozzle, after the nozzle contraction. For 80
km/h, 160 km/h and 200 km/h, pressure data was recorded
over 60 s with a logging frequency of 1000 Hz. At 100 km/h
measurements over 10 min were taken. Figure 2 shows the
location of 30 measurement points. The captured area was
split up in two individual blocks to measure simultaneously.
Tuft Flow Visualization
Method
As used already for many years, tufts are attached to the
surface of the test object (Figure 1). The flow pattern close to
the surface can then be investigated looking at the angular
direction of the tufts. Unsteady information can be extracted
by recording images, to get, not only qualitative, but also
quantitative information of the limiting streamline pattern
[15, 16, 17, 18]. This method was first applied on wind turbines
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018

24 Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018)

 FIGURE 1   Vehicle side equipped with tufts for the open and  FIGURE 3   Schematic setup of the image acquisition.
closed wheelhouse configuration: (a) Baseline configuration,
(b) with wheelhouse cover.

© SAE International
[15] and later adapted for the use in vehicle applications
in the wind tunnel and on-road [16, 17, 18]. Comparisons
between the limiting streamline pattern obtained by the tufts
and oil paint visualizations showed the good agreement of
these two methods [16, 18].

Tuft Image Acquisition

At an inlet velocity of 100 km/h, pictures were taken with
a frequency of approximately 1 Hz. The exact shutter speed
was not triggered in this case, as the focus was placed on
analyzing the mean properties and standard deviations. The
photos were taken with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II system
Camera and a 70 mm focal length objective. The camera
had a resolution of 35 mega pixel and the exposure time
was 1/800 s to get sharp images of the highly unsteady tuft
movement. For each test around 1000 pictures were taken.
© SAE International

Earlier studies showed that this is a sufficient amount of

instantaneous snapshots in order to get a time averaged
streamline pattern, which correlates well with comparisons
to paint visualizations. These images can then be analyzed
in a data processing step, where the tufts are recognized and
tracked. A detailed description of this method can be found
in [18]. Figure 3 shows the experimental setup for the image
acquisition in the wind tunnel.

 FIGURE 2   Grid of the pressure sensor locations and sensor

identification.
Post Processing
For the analysis of the images, three green reference markers
are used to align all images to each other (see Figure 4). This is
necessary as the camera vibrated slightly, although they were
reduced by shielding of the camera as well as possible. The
red markers of the tufts are identified in each snapshot and
numbered as shown in Figure 4. From these starting points
© SAE International

the tufts are tracked according to their respective position.

For more details see also [18]. The actual direction of each
tuft in the presented image (Figure 4) is represented by the
vector arrows.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018
Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018) 25
 FIGURE 4   Overview of important properties in the tuft
recognition of an image.
© SAE International
Influence of Tuft Thickness
and Length
In order to get a good representation of the limiting streamline
pattern, a tuft has to be chosen which follows the flow best. An
investigation of different properties was not done before. The
main properties are the tuft length and its stiffness. Therefore,
© SAE International
the experiment was carried out with two different tuft lengths
and two different thicknesses, which are shown in Figure 5.
Each tuft was attached to the surface with a red marker in
horizontal direction. Gravity had no significant influence onto
the tuft orientation. The red markers had a diameter of 15 mm
and an estimated thickness of 0.3 mm. The long tufts had a
length of 35 mm and the short ones of 25 mm. The thickness
of the thin tuft was approximately 0.8 mm and approximately
1.6 mm for the thick tuft.
In the following Figure 6 the limiting streamline pattern
for the four different tufts is compared. It shows the time
averaged pattern for the thin long, thick long, thin short
and thick short case. Downstream the wheelhouse the
pattern looks similar for all tuft properties, but around the
wheel house differences are observable. Therefore only the
upstream area is shown in Figure 6. Close to the wheel arch,
the streamline curvature is more pronounced in the cases
 FIGURE 5   Geometric specifications of the used tufts.
© SAE International
 FIGURE 6   Time averaged streamline pattern for different
tuft properties and a direct comparison between long and
short thin tuft streamline pattern.
of the thin tufts. The flow in this area is highly unsteady
and the flow angles vary significantly. This is caused by
the higher stiffness of the thick tuft compared to the thin
tufts. The thick tufts cannot follow the quick changes of the
flow direction which leads to the observed less pronounced
bending. Comparing the streamline pattern of the thin long
and thin short tufts a very similar development is shown.
Figure 6(e) shows a direct comparison of the long and short
thin tuft pattern. Some of the streamlines were deleted for
better visibility. The grey solid lines represent the long thin
and the blue and red dashed ones the short thin pattern. The
blue dashed lines show lines where the limiting streamlines
for both tufts have a good agreement. The red dashed lines
show lines where differences between the two tuft lengths are
observed. Over the top of the wheel house, the streamlines
start to bend down. The long tufts show a stronger down
bend than the short ones, leading to the conclusion that
the long ones capture the downwash better. After bending
down, the streamlines realign with the mean flow direction.
The curvature radii of the calculated streamlines are again
smaller than for the short tufts. Hence, the longer tufts show
a higher sensitivity to changes in flow direction. This can
also be seen looking into the standard deviation of the tufts
in that area (not presented here). For the long thin tufts,
higher deviations of the tuft angle are observed which is
attributed to the higher sensitivity regarding the changes in
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018
26 Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018)
flow direction. Therefore the long thin tufts are considered
to give the best results regarding length and stiffness.
Results and Discussion
First, the limiting streamline pattern and its correlation with
the underlying pressure distribution is discussed. Second,
the unsteady behavior is studied in more detail, looking at
the tuft movement and the time dependent properties of the
surface pressure. Third, the effect of the flow through the rim
and wheelhouse is shown by covering the wheelhouse and
shielding off the flow.
Correlation between Surface
Pressure and Limiting
Streamlines
In Figure 7 the time averaged pressure distribution together
with the limiting streamline pattern obtained from the tuft
movement is presented. The black dots mark the locations
where a pressure measurement was taken. In a previous study
[13], the pressure distribution for a time averaged measure-
ment and a steady state CFD simulation for the investigated
area was also presented. Comparing the different distributions
showed a qualitatively good agreement.
The area behind the front wheel arch is an almost flat
area without any large curvatures. For a fairly flat surface
without any disturbances it is expected to observe a limiting
streamline pattern, well aligned with the mean flow direc-
tion. Figure 7 shows that this is the case for a large part of the
studied region. Especially on the side door, the pattern can
be described as horizontal and aligned with the mean flow.
Around the upper part of the wheel arch bent streamlines can
be observed. The flow over the wheel arch apex is directed
 FIGURE 7   Time averaged pressure distribution, colored by
cp with superimposed limiting streamlines.
© SAE International
downwards and redirected into the mean flow direction again.
At the lower part of the wheel arch, the flow pattern shows
an almost horizontal distribution and is well aligned with the
mean flow direction. This is interesting, as it was expected
that separations at the wheel arch edge, the wheel house flow
and the influence from the wheel rotation create a chaotic
flow region with reverse flow reaching all along the wheel
arch edge. However, a kind of recirculation is only observed
in the upper part.
The arising questions are: First, what are the driving
forces causing the limiting streamlines to bend down along
the upper wheel arch, creating the observed pattern. Second,
how is the pressure distribution created? The only forces
having an affect onto the limiting streamline pattern are
pressure forces and shear forces. The limiting streamline
curvature along the wheelhouse is a reaction to the pressure
distribution. The pressure distribution on the other hand is
influenced, by the geometry, separation areas and vortical
structures. The lowest pressure is observed for sensor 3 (cp
< 0.4). In the downstream direction the surface pressure
increases in general. The acting (horizontal) pressure force
is directed upstream. In the vertical direction a pressure
gradient is mainly acting up to the side door (sensor 1-15).
Further downstream the pressure in the vertical direction
varies only slightly.
According to theory, low pressure drags the stream-
lines towards the pressure minimum. This can be seen
in the resulting bent limiting streamlines around the
low pressure region in Figure 7. The pressure minimum
measured in sensor 3 affects the flow around it and causes
the streamlines coming from the front and over the hood
of the car to bend downwards. With a decreasing pressure
gradient, the force dragging the limiting streamlines out
of the mean flow direction becomes weaker and loses its
influence; hence the streamlines would continue moving
with their current direction. But the limiting streamlines
realign in mean flow direction. The only remaining forces
acting onto the limiting streamlines are the shear forces,
which are directed horizontally downstream (mean flow
direction). These cause the horizontal realignment of the
f low. The lower part, where the streamlines show an in
average horizontal development is not significantly influ-
enced by the discussed pressure minimum. Also as in this
area no other significant lateral pressure gradient is acting,
there is no reason for a vertical deviation of the limiting
streamline pattern.
The pressure distribution and the limiting streamline
pattern lead to the following interpretation. On the upper
wheel house edge a flow condition is present which causes
a downwash. The pattern in this area looks like a part of a
recirculation. It might therefore be that a tornado like flow
structure is jetting out along the upper wheel arch edge which
merges with the mean flow. A similar structure was concluded
by Wäschle [3]. Due to this type of separation a low pressure
footprint is observable in the upper area. The lower part shows
almost horizontal streamlines from the wheel house edge.
This leads to the suggestion, that no dominating swirling
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018

Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018) 27

flow influences this region. But as a lower pressure is present  FIGURE 9   Angular histogram for four selected tufts.
all along the edge, it is seems that a second flow structure is
present which separates at the lower edge of the wheel house
(leading to the low pressure) and travels with the mean flow
direction downstream.

Standard Deviation of the

Tuft Movement
The limiting streamline pattern presented in Figures 6 and 7
already gave an idea of the mean flow directions, but lacks the
information of how unsteady the actual flow is. To quantify
the unsteady movements of the tufts the standard deviation of
the tuft angle is plotted in Figure 8. For the studied flow case,
deviations from the mean flow direction up to 100 degrees can
be observed. The area of high standard deviation is located
between and below tufts A and B.
Comparing the standard deviation of the tuft angle

© SAE International
and the limiting streamlines (Figure 8) shows that the
area of high standard deviation corresponds to the area
where the limiting streamlines go from a downwash direc-
tion to realignment with the mean flow (x-direction). A
more detailed insight into the direction of the flow can be
obtained by looking at the angular distribution of a single
tuft. Therefore the angular histograms for selected tufts A,
B, C, D are investigated.
Figure 9 shows for four different tufts (A, B, C, D) the
distribution of the tuft angles over the image series and how
often a position is taken (radial axis). The tuft identification is
according to Figure 8 and an angle of 0 degrees/360 degrees
corresponds to the mean flow direction. Tuft A is located close
to the wheel arch in an area where a high standard deviation
is observed. The histogram shows that this tuft has direc-
tions between 0 and 360 degrees (relative to the x axis), but
with a slightly more frequent direction between −150 and
−30 degrees. The wide spread of taken positions represents
the result from the standard deviation plot. Additionally
it can be seen that tuft A points partially also in upstream
 FIGURE 8   Standard deviation of the tuft angle and limiting
streamlines.
direction. This shows that this tuft is located in an area where
reversed flow occurs. Moving slightly away from the high
standard deviation area and looking at Tuft B the angular
distribution is mainly between −60 and 30 degrees with a
more dominant direction to approximately −30 degrees. Again
the histogram shows that a reverse flow is still occurring in
this area, but overall the flow is characterized by a slight
downwash as could also be seen by the limiting streamlines.
Further downstream, where Tuft C is located, the flow is still
dominated by fluctuations but mainly aligned in horizontal
direction. Picking a tuft closer to the wheel house apex (Tuft
D) shows that although it is close to the edge where separa-
tion is expected, the fluctuations as indicated by the standard
deviation are smaller compared to the area of Tuft A. The
flow has an overall direction of around −20 degrees, which
corresponds to the downwash trend around the wheel arch.
Recirculation is not observable in this area. The tuft move-
ments showed the areas with highest unsteadiness regarding
the near wall flow direction.
In this region the disturbance is maximal due to different
flow conditions acting simultaneously. This observation
supports the previously presented suggestion of two acting
flow phenomena, which meet, interact and result in the high
standard deviations of the flow direction.

Instantaneous Limiting
Streamlines
© SAE International

As mentioned, the area behind the front wheel arch is highly

unsteady. This is also observable looking at different snap-
shots. Figure 10(a and b) show, that the limiting streamline
patterns change significantly between two images. The time
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018
28 Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018)
 FIGURE 10   Example of two instantaneous limiting
streamline patterns.
© SAE International
averaged plot shows well-ordered, almost straight and parallel
flow downstream of the wheel arch. However, the instanta-
neous limiting streamline patterns show that the flow direc-
tion is not aligned with the mean flow direction throughout
the time series. Also the picture around the wheel arch and
especially the area where high tuft angle standard devia-
tions were observed, changes significantly. Comparing the
different snapshots it is assumed to find dominant structures
over the series of frames. Therefore a Proper Orthogonal
Decomposition (POD) analysis was applied, which allows
extracting dominant features if they exist [19]. For instance if
there would be a vortex street like pattern present in the tuft
movement, a POD could show these structures. The analysis
showed that the tuft pattern does not contain specific flow
states which create characteristic patterns.
Standard Deviation of the
Surface Pressure
The pressure fluctuations may be expected to show a similar
distribution as the tuft angle deviation (Figure 8). As can be
seen in Figure 11 this is not the case. The standard devia-
tion plotted for the pressure shows an area of high unsteadi-
ness starting downstream of the wheelhouse apex, extending
downstream for approx. 500 mm. This area of large standard
 FIGURE 11   Limiting streamline pattern, superimposed with
the standard deviation of the pressure coefficient.
© SAE International
deviation is located higher up, compared to the area of
maximum tuft angle variation shown in Figure 8.
For the time series of a single measurement point, where
a high standard deviation is observed, the temporal pressure
derivative is high. This (temporal) pressure gradient does not
have a direct effect onto the flow direction and therefore the
tuft direction. To change the flow direction, a spatial pressure
gradient is required.
The question is why the pressure standard deviation is
high in the observed area. Wall pressure studies in areas of
separation and reattachment, as for instance done in [20, 21],
show that the maximum fluctuations are observed close to
the reattachment point. Based on the earlier discussions and
explanations it can be concluded that the pressure deviation
peak results from flow structures impinging the wall which
are vortex like of the shape of an out jetting flow as mentioned
before. Along the wheelhouse edge fluctuations are measured,
too. Flow exiting the wheel house and the flow around the
vehicle separate at the wheelhouse edge and seem to reattach
within a short distance again, which results in the fluctuations.
Figure 12 compares the standard deviation distribution
for further three different inlet velocities; 80 km/h, 160 km/h
and 200 km/h.
The distributions are similar to the one for the 100 km/h
case, but it can be noticed, that with an increasing inlet
velocity, the magnitude of the standard deviation decreases.
Comparing the distribution at 80 km/h and 200 km/h, a
difference of approximately 40% is observed in the area where
the spike is located. At higher speeds, the pressure fluctuations
decrease, it is assumed that the vortex exiting the wheel house
is suppressed in its development and decreases therefore the
impingement on the surface.
Cross-Correlation between
Different Sensors
In order to investigate the propagation of occurring struc-
tures, the fluctuations of different pressure sensor signals
are cross-correlated to each other. The numbering of the
sensors is according to Figure 2. The correlation between the
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018

Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018) 29

 FIGURE 12   Comparison of the standard deviation of the  FIGURE 13   Correlation coefficient distribution respective
pressure coefficient downstream the front wheel for different sensor 2 and 15.
inlet velocities.

© SAE International correlation can be found. It shall be closer investigated how

the signal propagates.
Table 1 summarizes the maximal correlation coefficients
and time delays for selected signals respective sensor 1.
From location 1 over location 4 to location 8 (horizontal
direction), the peak correlation between S1 and S4 has a value
of 0.767 at τ = 0.005s. For S1/S8 the peak is found at τ = 0.0013s
and has a value of 0.620. This means that there is a structure
present in location 1 which propagates in horizontal direction;
at location 8 the time delay is the biggest, as the sensor lies
furthest to the right of sensor 1.

 FIGURE 14   Selected cross correlations for sensor 1.

© SAE International

different sensors can be visualized as a distribution colored

by the maximal correlation coefficient. Figure 13(a) shows the
cross correlation distribution respective sensor number 1 and
Figure 13(b) respective sensor 15. Sensors S1-S11 (upper part)
have a correlation to each other. The highest correlations occur
© SAE International

for the upper right signals.

In Figure 14, exemplarily four correlation signals respec-
tive sensor 1are presented. S1/S3 shows a weak correlation,
while it is high for S1/S8 and S1/S10. With signal 15 no
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018
30 Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018)
TABLE 1  Correlation coefficients for signals connected to
sensor 1 at 100 km/h.
Propagation
Sensor τ [ms] Correlation Coefficient Speed [m/s]
© SAE International
S1/S4 5 0.767 20.00
S1/S5 9 0.723 12.44
S1/S8 13 0.620 15.38
S1/S10 14 0.605 16.67
A similar propagation can be found in the diagonal direc-
tion, going from S1 over S5 to S10. Again, a peak (decreasing
in its max. value) can be found which is shifted in time. As it
was shown already in the single signals, only a weak correla-
tion is found for S1/S3.
The propagation direction from sensor 1 onwards is hori-
zontally downstream (with a slight downwash). This path is
also found when looking into the limiting streamline pattern
(Figure 6); these show a flow pattern which correlates to the
discussed signal propagation. This means that looking at the
limiting streamlines can give an insight into how structures
propagate over the surface. Using the time delay and the
distance between measurement point 1 and 10, a propagation
speed of 16.7 m/s is estimated. It has to be noted that due to
the sampling frequency of 1000 Hz a time delay uncertainty of
+/− 0.5 ms has to be taken into account, which leads to propa-
gation speeds between 16.2 m/s and 17.2 m/s. This means that
the observed flow structures are propagating with a velocity
about 2/3 of the free stream velocity (27.8 m/s). It shows that
the phenomena observed by the surface pressure measure-
ments are large scale flow structures which are moving along
the side of the vehicle and expand into the bulk flow.
So far the general flow situation is analyzed. In the following,
selected locations shall be discussed in more detail. According to
the limiting streamline pattern, a strong down bend is observed
passing the areas of location 10 to 11 to 12. Therefore it can be
assumed that similar structures are passing these points. Figure 15
 FIGURE 15   Selected cross correlations for sensor 11.
© SAE International
shows the cross correlations between sensor 11 and 10 (upper left
graph) and sensor 11 and 12 (upper right graph).
Following this argumentation would mean that signal 3 is
weakly correlated to any other signal. This can be seen looking
at the cross correlation signals for sensor 3 (not shown here).
A weak correlation can be found with signal 2 (S3/S2), signal 5
(S3/S5) and signal 6 (S3/S6), where the coefficients are below 0.5.
For signal 7 (S3/S7) the correlation is very low, which indicates
that the signals are not very similar. As the limiting streamline
pattern indicates as well, structures occurring at location 3 are
barely passing by any other measurement location.
Above it was concluded, that the highest standard devia-
tion of the tuft movements can be observed in the area where
the streamlines show a strong down-bend and are realigned
into an almost horizontal flow direction (see Figure 8). This
corresponds to the area where measurement point S12 is
located. In general the correlations are low for most of the
signals. Only for its neighboring sensors (S11 and S13) corre-
lated signals can be found. These are not shifted in time,
meaning that it cannot be assumed that they result from a
vertical moving structure. It is more likely that the signals show
the area where the structures from the lower and upper area
meet and interact with each other. It is therefore suggested, that
the interaction between the out-jetting flow from the wheel-
house and the flow separating at the lower edge lead to the
observed high standard deviation of the tuft angles in Figure 8.
The correlation distribution respective sensor 15 (Figure
13b) showed no connection to the upper sensors (S1-S11).
Looking at the correlation coefficients in Table 2 show that
the signal correlates to S14 and even weaker to signal S13 and
S12. Although the correlation for the lower sensor signals is
not as high as for the upper ones, it can be concluded that a
second phenomenon is observed here. The correlated signals
are lying on the same vertical line. As the sensors show
similar signals it can be concluded that the observed struc-
ture has at least a spatial expansion (in the vertical direction)
of approximately 150 mm, reaching from S12 to S15. The
observed flow structure, occurring in the lower sensors, is
a result of the suggested separation at the lower wheelhouse
edge, travelling downstream.
The signals measured in the further downstream loca-
tions (sensor 16 to 30) show correlations in horizontal
direction and weak correlations to the direct neighboring
vertical sensors. Table 3 summarizes the correlation coeffi-
cients and the resulting propagation speed. The propagation
speed between the lower signals is higher than for the upper
TABLE 2  Correlation coefficients for signals connected
to sensor 15 at 100 km/h.
Sensor τ [ms] Correlation Coefficient
S15/S5 No correlation No correlation
© SAE International
S15/S10 No correlation No correlation
S15/S12 0 ms 0.164
S15/S13 0 ms 0.239
S15/S14 0 ms 0.444
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018

Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018) 31

TABLE 3  Correlation coefficients for the downstream TABLE 5  Dominant frequencies and Strouhal numbers.
propagation at 100 km/h.
St Based St Based on St Based
Propagation on Vehicle Square Root on rim
Sensor τ [ms] Correlation Coefficient Speed [m/s] Characteristic Length of Frontal Diameter

© SAE International
S16/S24 7 0.746 14.29 Velocity Frequency (4.63 m) Area (1.51 m) (0.43 m)
S17/S25 7 0.719 14.29 100 km/h 1.9 Hz 0.32 0.1 0.03
© SAE International

S18/S26 8 0.651 12.5 100 km/h 13.9 Hz 2.36 0.75 0.22

S19/S27 8 0.636 12.5 200 km/h 27.6 Hz 2.30 0.75 0.21
S20/S28 5 0.663 20
S21/S29 5 0.694 20
100 km/h an additional measurement over 10 min was available
(instead of only 1 min).These results show that all 30 signals
TABLE 4  Propagation speed and correlation coefficients for contain the 13.9 Hz peak and its harmonics. Additionally, some
selected signals at 200 km/h. sensors show a dominant frequency of 1.9 Hz. Earlier flow
Propagation investigations in the empty tunnel did not show any dominant
Sensor τ [ms] Correlation Coefficient Speed [m/s] frequencies due to the tunnel or the moving ground system.
S1/S3 2 0.285 50.00 Therefore the observed frequencies can be related to the studied
S1/S4 3 0.785 33.33 flow. Calculating the Strouhal number according to
S1/S5 6 0.725 18.67 fl
S1/S8 8 0.643 25.00 St =
u
S1/S10 9 0.587 27.78
S16/S24 6 0.720 16.67 leads to the values summarized in Table 5. The Strouhal
S17/S25 6 0.720 16.67
numbers are calculated based on three different characteristic
lengths and for two different velocities.
© SAE International

S18/S26 6 0.663 16.67

S19/S27 6 0.650
S20/S28 3 0.689
S21/S29 3 0.718
signals. Interesting is the propagation speed for the middle
pairs (S18/S26 and S19/S27), which is lower than the one for
the signals above and below. This might be due to the upstream
interaction of the described two phenomena. The structure
observed in the upper part (S16/S24 and S17/S25) also deceler-
ated slightly, compared to the propagation speed calculated
between S1 and S10.
Increasing the inlet velocity to 200 km/h seems not to
change the direction of the observed structures, but increase
the propagation speed calculated from the correlation signals.
Table 4 gives an overview of the correlations and propagation.
Dominant Frequencies in the
Pressure Measurements
For the 1 min pressure measurements, the analysis of the
power spectral density for different sensors at a speed of a 100
km/h show, that in all signals apart from signals 3, 8, 9 and
14 dominant frequencies can be found. Frequencies found are
f = 13.9 Hz and its harmonics. Compared to 100 km/h the
dominant frequencies are more distinct at 200 km/h and found
at f = 27.6 Hz and its harmonics. Some sensors do only show one
or two of the dominant frequencies (S8, S10, S14), and there are
sensors which do not show a distinct dominant frequencies at
all (S9 and S11). A clear reason for when and where the frequen-
cies occur and where not could not be found. At a speed of
In a study by Wieser et al. [22], pressure measurements
16.67 among others were taken downstream the rear wheel on
33.33 a scaled DrivAer model. Based on the vehicle length a
33.33 Strouhal number of St = 0.28 was measured. A clear expla-
nation of the origin of this frequency could not be given, but
it is interesting that a similar Strouhal number is found in
this study downstream the front wheel. As the experiments
on the DrivAer were conducted with stationary wheels it
is assumed that the frequency is not related to the wheel
rotation itself.
The predominant frequency of 13.9 Hz, however, is
attributed to the wheel rotation. The Strouhal number
based on the rim diameter is St = 0.2. This is a characteristic
value found for different shedding phenomena behind bluff
bodies. It is assumed that the observed Strouhal number can
be related to a pumping effect from within the wheelhouse
or a flow interaction between the external flow, coming
from the front and over the hood, and the flow exiting the
wheel house. As the frequencies are observed in the upper
and lower sensors they are not related to one specific flow
phenomena. Therefore it is most likely a pumping effect
which is observed.
Conjectured Flow Structure
The analysis of the pressure and tuft data gave evidence of two
occurring flow phenomena in the investigated area. The first
one is a vortex structure exiting at the wheelhouse top. The
second one is related to an edge separation at the lower wheel
house edge which does not give any evidence of a rotational
movement. A sketch of the possible flow situation is shown
in Figure 16.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018
32 Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018)
 FIGURE 16   Conjectured flow structure based on the
pressure and tuft data results.
© SAE International
The dashed lines indicate the limiting streamline
pattern, while the solid ones sketch the 3D flow. In blue the
lower flow is sketched which came from around the front and
out the wheelhouse. The upper flow structure was described
as a vortex like structure, this is visualized by sketches of
conjectured streamlines in different colors leading to a
swirling motion.
Changes in the Flow Field:
Open vs. Closed Wheelhouse
The previous sections showed that the flow downstream of
the wheel house is characterized by high unsteadiness. It
is stated, that observations are related to the flow through
the wheelhouse and to the wheel rotation itself and will be
confirmed by the following results. In a second configuration,
the wheelhouse was closed by an aluminum plate as shown in
Figure 1. The resulting limiting streamline pattern is shown
in Figure 17(a).The dashed line marks the wheelhouse edge.
Compared to Figure 6(a), it can be seen that the downwash
direction around the wheel arch, which was closing the recir-
culation area, is no longer present. The streamlines in general
are horizontally aligned with a slight downwash. The small
bending observed in the lower part results from the step in
the cover plate to enable wheel rotation. Figure 17(b) shows
the standard deviation for the tuft angle for this configura-
tion. Compared to the open wheelhouse case (Figure 8) it is
obvious that the flow is significantly calmer, as the standard
deviation is almost zero in the complete area. Only in the
lower area fluctuations are observable. These result also from
the edge in the aluminum cover as indicated already by the
limiting streamline pattern. The separation created due to
this step causes additional fluctuations influencing the flow
downstream.
 FIGURE 17   Limiting streamline pattern and tuft angle
standard deviation for the closed wheel arch configuration.
© SAE International
Summary and Conclusion
This work showed how surface pressure measurements and
tufts are used to get further insight into the highly unsteady
flow downstream the front wheel arch of a passenger car. Both
methods are perfectly suited to investigate the area without
disturbing the flow neither due to probes nor by contami-
nating the wind tunnel with paint.
The comparison of the time averaged pressure distribution
with the time averaged limiting streamline pattern enabled
the discussion of the connection between pressure distribu-
tion and limiting streamline development. It was discussed
that the limiting streamlines react to the pressure gradient,
which drags them towards the wheel arch edge. Further it
was suggested that two flow phenomena can be observed,
one which is influenced by the low pressure region on the
upper wheel arch edge which causes the streamlines to bend
downwards and one separating at the lower wheel arch edge,
but not being influenced by the upper lower pressure as the
limiting streamlines show an almost horizontal development.
The tuft visualization results delivered also a picture of the
unsteady behavior of the near wall flow. It was shown that the
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018
Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018) 33
highest tuft angle standard deviations occur downstream of the
wheelhouse edge, where the time averaged limiting streamline
pattern is being realigned with the mean flow direction.
Analyzing the standard deviation of the pressures showed
that the area of high fluctuations is observed downstream of the
upper wheel arch edge. The maximal pressure deviation is asso-
ciated with the reattachment of a vortex exiting at the wheel-
house top, impinging on the wall in this area. Fluctuations at
the lower wheelhouse edge are related to the edge separation
and a reattachment shortly after the wheelhouse edge.
The investigation of the correlation signals between
different sensors showed how the structures propagate over
the surface. It was shown that the propagation directions fit
the directions shown by the time averaged limiting streamline
pattern. The propagation speed was found to be approximately
2/3 of the inlet velocity.
Based on the results from the correlation analysis and the
information received from the standard deviations, as well as
the limiting streamline pattern, it can be concluded that two
phenomena are observable in the investigated area. In the
upper half a vortex exits from the upper wheel house edge.
In the lower half the flow condition is related to a flow from
around the vehicle and a small separation at the lower wheel-
house edge continuing horizontally downstream. In the area
of high tuft standard deviation these two phenomena meet and
interact, which results in the observed high tuft fluctuations.
The study of the frequency spectrum showed that
dominant frequencies can be found in the surface flow. The
first one was found at a Strouhal number of St = 0.2, based
on the wheel diameter. This base frequency matches with the
rotation frequency of the wheel and is related to a pumping
effect from the flow out of the wheelhouse. Another dominant
frequency was found at St = 0.03. This frequency was also
reported in literature in connection with a flow investigation
downstream a rear wheel arch. It is assumed that it is related
to the flow separating at the wheel arch geometry, but further
investigation is necessary to identify its origin.
A closed wheel arch configuration visualized the impact
of the wheelhouse flow. Covering the wheelhouse resulted in
reduced fluctuations at the side and in a more aligned flow.
The limiting streamline pattern changed completely, as the
recirculation zone was no longer present. These results showed
that the fluctuations were created by the flow through the
wheelhouse and the wheel rotation.
The presented work gave insight into the near wall flow
downstream a front wheel and showed how a flow picture
based on on-wall signatures can be drawn.
Contact Information
S. Bonitz
Email: sabine.bonitz@chalmers.se
D. Wieser
Email: dirk.wieser@tu-berlin.de
A. Broniewicz
Email: alexander.broniewicz@volvocars.com
L. Larsson
Email: lars.larsson@chalmers.se
L. Löfdahl
Email: lennart.lofdahl@chalmers.se
C. Nayeri
Email: christian.nayeri@tu-berlin.de
C.O. Paschereit
Email: oliver.paschereit@tu-berlin.de
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Swedish Energy Agency and
the Strategic Vehicle Research and Innovation for funding
this project.
Definitions/Abbreviations
cp - pressure coefficient
std cp - standard deviation of the pressure coefficient
τ - propagation speed
f - frequency
St - Strouhal number
l - characteristic length
u - characteristic velocity
References
1. Axon, L., Garry, K., and Howell, J., “An Evaluation of CFD
for Modelling the Flow around Stationary and Rotating
Isolated Wheels,” SAE Technical Paper 980032, 1998,
doi:https://doi.org/10.4271/980032.
2. Schnepf, B., Schütz, T., and Indinger, T., “Further
Investigations on the Flow around a Rotating, Isolated
Wheel with Detailed Tread Pattern,” SAE Int. J. Passeng.
Cars - Mech. Syst. 8(1):261-274, 2015, doi:https://doi.
org/10.4271/2015-01-1554.
3. Wäschle, A., “The Influence of Rotating Wheels on Vehicle
Aerodynamics-Numerical and Experimental Investigations,”
SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-0107, 2007, doi:https://doi.
org/10.4271/2007-01-0107.
4. Dimitriou, I. and Klussmann, S., “Aerodynamic Forces of
Exposed and Enclosed Rotating Wheels as an Example of the
Synergy in the Development of Racing and Passenger Cars,”
SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-0805, 2006, doi:https://doi.
org/10.4271/2006-01-0805.
5. Söderblom, D., “Wheel Housing Aerodynamics of Heavy
Trucks,” Vols. ny ser., nr. 3309, (Göteborg, Chalmers
University of Technology, 2012), ISBN: 9173856282.
6. Landström, C., Löfdahl, L., and Walker, T., “Detailed
Flow Studies in Close Proximity of Rotating Wheels on
a Passenger Car,” SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst.
2(1):861-874, 2009, doi:https://doi.org/10.4271/2009-01-0778.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Friday, August 03, 2018

34 Bonitz et al. / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 11, Issue 1 (January 2018)

7. Wäschle, A., Cyr, S., Kuthada, T., and Wiedemann, J., “Flow
around an Isolated Wheel-Experimental and Numerical
Comparison of Two CFD Codes,” SAE Technical Paper 2004-
01-0445, 2004, doi:https://doi.org/10.4271/2004-01-0445.
8. Landström, C., Walker, T., Christoffersen, L., and Löfdahl,
L., “Influences of Different Front and Rear Wheel Designs
on Aerodynamic Drag of a Sedan Type Passenger Car,”
SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0165, 2011, doi:https://doi.
org/10.4271/2011-01-0165.
9. Landström, Christoffer, Josefsson, L., Walker, T., and
Löfdahl, L., (2011): An Experimental Investigation of Wheel
Design Parameters with Respect to Aerodynamic Drag,” In:
8th FKFS Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 10:5-6, 2011.
10. Landstrom, C., Josefsson, L., Walker, T., and Lofdahl, L.,
“Aerodynamic Effects of Different Tire Models on a Sedan
Type Passenger Car,” SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst.
5(1):136-151, 2012, doi:https://doi.org/10.4271/2012-01-0169.
11. Zhiling, Q. et al., “Wheel Aerodynamic Developments
on Passenger Cars by Module-Based Prototype Rims and
Stationary Rim Shields,” In: FISITA 2010 Automotive
World Congress, 2010, Budapest, Hungary.
12. Hobeika, T., Sebben, S., and Landstrom, C., “Investigation
of the Influence of Tyre Geometry on the Aerodynamics
of Passenger Cars,” SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst.
6(1):316-325, 2013, doi:https://doi.org/10.4271/2013-01-0955.
13. Bonitz, S., Larsson, L., Lofdahl, L., and Broniewicz, A.,
“Structures of Flow Separation on a Passenger Car,” SAE Int.
J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 8(1):177-185, 2015, doi:https://
doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-1529.
14. Sterken, L., “Analysis of the Unsteady Flow Field of a
Passenger Vehicle,” Vol. 3870, (Göteborg, Chalmers
University of Technology, 2015), xiv, 70 s, ISBN: 9175971895.
15. Vey, S., Lang, H.M., Nayeri, C.N., Paschereit, C.O.
et al., “Extracting Quantitative Data from Tuft Flow
Visualizations on Utility Scale Wind Turbines,”
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 524:012011, 2014,
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/524/1/012011.
16. Wieser, D., Lang, H., Nayeri, C., and Paschereit, C.,
“Manipulation of the Aerodynamic Behavior of the DrivAer
Model with Fluidic Oscillators,” SAE Int. J. Passeng.
Cars - Mech. Syst. 8(2):687-702, 2015, doi:https://doi.
org/10.4271/2015-01-1540.
17. Wieser, D., Bonitz, S., Nayeri, C., Christian, O. et al.,
“Quantitative Tuft Flow Visualization on the Volvo S60 under
Realistic Driving Conditions,” 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
San Diego, 2016, doi:10.2514/6.2016-1778.
18. Wieser, D., Bonitz, S., Lofdahl, L., Broniewicz, A. et al.,
“Surface Flow Visualization on a Full-Scale Passenger
Car with Quantitative Tuft Image Processing,” SAE
Technical Paper 2016-01-1582, 2016, doi:https://
doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-1582.
19. Chen, H., Reuss, D.L., and Sick, V., “On the Use and
Interpretation of Proper Orthogonal Decomposition of In-
Cylinder Engine Flows,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 23(8):85302,
2012, doi:10.1088/0957-0233/23/8/085302.
20. Hudy, L.M., Naguib, A.M., and Humphreys, W.M., “Wall-
Pressure-Array Measurements Beneath a Separating/
Reattaching Flow Region,” Physics of Fluids 15(3):706-717,
2003, doi:10.1063/1.1540633.
21. Mabey, D., “Analysis and Correlation of Data on Pressure
Fluctuations in Separated Flow,” Journal of Aircraft 9(9):642-
645, 1972, doi:10.2514/3.59053.
22. Wieser, D., Schmidt, H., Müller, S., Strangfeld, C. et al.,
“Experimental Comparison of the Aerodynamic Behavior
of Fastback and Notchback DrivAer Models,” SAE Int. J.
Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 7(2):682-691, 2014,
doi:https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-0613.

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

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