Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
1007/s12206-021-0620-2
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
Original Article
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0620-2
Keywords:
· NACA 0009
· NACA 0012
· Drag reduction
· Truck-trailer
· Flow visualization
Correspondence to:
Mehmet Seyhan
mehmetseyhan@ktu.edu.tr
Citation:
Seyhan, M., Sarioglu, M. (2021). Investi-
gation of drag reduction performance of
half NACA 0009 and 0012 airfoils placed
over a trailer on the flow around truck-
trailer. Journal of Mechanical Science and
Technology 35 (7) (2021) 2971~2979.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-021-0620-2
Received January 23rd, 2021
Revised April 4th, 2021
Accepted April 6th, 2021
† Recommended by Editor
Yang Na
© The Korean Society of Mechanical
Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH
Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021
DOI 10.
Investigation of drag reduction
performance of half NACA 0009 and 0012
airfoils placed over a trailer on the flow
around truck-trailer
Mehmet Seyhan and Mustafa Sarioglu
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon 61080, Turkey
Abstract The drag reduction performance of a half airfoil attached to a trailer and the roof
fairing at different positions was experimentally investigated in a wind tunnel. Half airfoils have
NACA 0009 and NACA 0012 cross-section and the roof fairing position is changed from -4.5
mm to +4.5 mm. Smoke wire and surface oil flow visualization were also performed to elucidate
the flow characteristic around the truck-trailer with drag reduction devices. While the drag re-
duction rate of the truck trailer with half airfoil is up to 10 % higher than that of alone truck-trailer
at all Reynolds number ranges, drag reduction of the truck trailer with the half airfoil and the
roof fairing was exceeded 30 % as compared to the alone truck trailer. Drag coefficient results
indicated that the half NACA 0009 and NACA 0012 airfoil has an almost similar trend at the
zero-roof fairing position. Laminar separation bubble formation was observed on the surface of
roof fairing with the help of surface oil flow visualization.
1. Introduction
A bluff body has a pressure and a friction drag because of its shape. A bus, train, car, truck
trailer and so forth can be given as an example of bluff bodies. Among them, especially truck-
trailers play a key role in freight transportation all over the world. Flow around the truck trailer as
a bluff body has separation, reattachment, unstable vortex shedding and a wide wake region at
the rear of that because of large flow separation [1, 2]. These flow characteristics cause a sig-
nificant aerodynamic drag. In the literature, the aerodynamic drag reduction methods including
an active and a passive flow control method were implemented by researchers [3]. Among the
passive flow control methods, roof fairing [4, 5], side skirt [6], boat tail [7, 8] and gap fairing [4]
are commonly drawn attention to decrease the drag coefficient of the truck trailer. This will help
to reduce fuel consumption and exhaust gas emission and enhance the driving stability of
heavy vehicles.
In the study of Kim et al. [7], they experimentally investigated the drag reduction effects of si-
nusoidal boat tails on the flow around a truck-trailer model. Maximum drag reduction is ob-
tained as 18.9 % for the sinusoidal boat tail at a yaw angle of 7°. Mohammadikalakoo et al. [3]
examined the drag reduction performance of the tunnel at the rear sides of Ahmed body. The
tunnel blows flow from sidewalls of the Ahmet body to the rear side of that to achieve a nar-
rower wake zone which leads to the drag reduction. They obtained maximum drag reduction by
5.07 % for the case of Ahmed body slant angle of 35°. To improve the aerodynamic interaction
between truck and trailer, drag reduction performance of the cab extender between truck and
trailer is investigated by McArthur et al. [9], Salati et. [10, 11] and Kim et al. [12]. McArthur et al.
[9] showed that drag reduction is obtained with closed gap between truck and trailer. Salati et al.
[10] achieved drag reduction over 10 % in their numerical studies by using simple drag-
reduction devices such as airbag, fin, boat tail and front-rear trailer. Salati et al. [11] used the
front-rear trailer drag device model that studied in the previous work of Salati et al. [10]. Their
results showed a good agreement with numerical results and obtained 9.5 % drag reduction
2971
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
with the combination of front and rear devices. Kim et al. [12]
utilized the gap fairing between truck and trailer and obtained
17.6 % reduction. In the studies of Kim et al. [4, 5, 13] used the
same truck-trailer model, they designed the roof fairing inspir-
ing from the sea lion and modified cap roof fairings as drag
reduction device placed on the forebody, respectively. Modified
roof fairing and bio-inspired roof fairings provided 18.6 % and
22.4 % drag reduction. In another study by Kim et al. [4], their
results indicate that the maximum drag reduction of the roof
fairing and gap fairing between truck and trailer was 17.5 %.
Side skirts drag reduction performance for the truck-trailer was
evaluated by Hwang et al. [14] in the wind tunnel. The maxi-
mum drag reduction is 5.3 % with the case of a flap-type side
skirts. In terms of practical applicability to a truck trailer,
Landman et al. [6] suggested six different drag reduction de-
vices that are practical skirt, extended skirt, full skirt gap fairing,
boat tail and full combination with former devices. The maxi-
mum reduction is obtained as 31.3 % with the combination of
full skirt, gap fairing and boat tail.
A laminar separation bubble (LSB) is formed because of a
robust adverse pressure gradient that causes laminar bound-
ary separation on the surface of the body. This laminar separa-
tion rapidly transits to the turbulent boundary layer with a turbu-
lent reattachment. The region between laminar separation and
turbulent reattachment is called a laminar separation bubble
[15, 16]. In the studies of Yi et al. [17], Sinha and Sinha [18]
and Veluri et al. [19], the surface oil flow visualization method
was applied to determine the flow structure around the vehicle
models. Yi et al. [17] found that there are four different flow
regime changing the slant angle of the boat tail between 0° and
40° with the help of the surface oil flow visualization. Veluri et al.
[19] investigated the simplified truck-trailer model and observed
the LSB formation and symmetric flow pattern on the front
sides of the truck.
The idea of airfoil models and shape optimizations on auto-
mobile or truck has been discussed in the Refs. [20-23]. Bayin-
dirli [20] used NACA 2415 airfoil as a vortex generator on the
flow around a minibus model and achieved a 10.94 % drag
reduction. Hsinung et al. [21], Norwazan et al. [22] and Buljac
et al. [23] investigated the airfoil-shaped rear spoiler on the flow
around a passenger car and their results indicated that flow
structure around the car improved with the airfoil-shaped rear
spoiler. Don-Bur company developed an aerodynamic teardrop
shape trailer [24] and patented it with titled “trailer or container
with curved roof” and patent no. “GB 2 443 035 A”. The devel-
oped design of the company improved the aerodynamic char-
acteristics of the truck-trailer but reduce the load-carrying ca-
pacity by changing the trailer shape. Although there have been
significant changes in truck designs from the past to the pre-
sent, all of the trailers used for load carrying have continued to
be produced in a rectangular shape in order not to reduce the
maximum load-carrying area. This situation causes the drag
coefficient of the truck to be high. Therefore, this study pre-
sents a new insight into passive flow control methods with the
half airfoil located over the trailer. Also, the airfoil/wing design
2972
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0620-2
Fig. 1. Force measurement setup in the wind tunnel.
chosen with a chord length that placed along truck-trailer is a
compromise two desirable characteristics. One of them is
thickness means low drag, the second one is being symmetri-
cal airfoil whose aerodynamic properties studied considerably
in the Refs. [25, 26].
The aim of the present study is to experimentally investigate
the drag reduction performance of a half airfoil placed over the
trailer on the flow around the truck-trailer. In this work, force
measurements, smoke wire and oil flow visualizations are per-
formed for different NACA airfoil profiles and wide Reynolds
number ranges.
2. Experimental setup
2.1 Force measurement setup
Force measurements were carried out in a wind tunnel
showing in Fig. 1. This tunnel located in the Mechanical Engi-
neering Department of Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University has
a test section of 570 mm x 570 mm, with a divergence angle of
0.3° from inlet to outlet, and length of 1 m. The ratio of the tun-
nel construction cone is 6:1. Maximum free stream velocity in
the test section is 20 m/s. The motor of the wind tunnel is 4 kW.
A six-component ATI Gamma DAQ F/T model load cell is used
to measure drag force acting on a truck-trailer model. Fx and y
and Fz are measured up to 32 N and 100 N, respectively. As
shown in Fig. 1, the test model is placed on a flat plate 6 mm
above the inner sub-base surface of the wind tunnel. Force
measurement experiments were carried out at Re = 6.6x104,
1.2x105, 1.6x105, 2x105, 2.4x105, 2.9x105, 3.2x105, 3.6x105,
4x105, 4.5x105 and 5.5x105. The turbulent intensity of this tun-
nel is nearly 0.5 % in these Reynolds number ranges. Experi-
mental uncertainty for force measurements is calculated as
4.5 %. 1/32 scale commercial Scania truck-trailer model shown
in Fig. 2(b) was used to obtain an acceptable blockage ratio.
The maximum blockage ratio is 3.68 %. As suggested by West
and Apelt [27] and Kim et al. [5], the blockage ratio must be
lower than 6 %. Therefore, this value is acceptable for the pre-
sent study. The blockage ratio can be defined as the ratio of
the frontal area of the model to the test section. The frontal
area of the test model is 110.39 cm2.
Drag coefficient (CD) acting on the truck-trailer is defined as;
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. (a) Experimental setup for smoke wire flow visualization methods;
(b) isometric view of the test model.
2 FD
CD = . (1)
ρ AV 2
Here, FD is the drag force measured with the load cell, ρ is
the air density, V is the free stream velocity and A is the frontal
area of the test model. The drag reduction percentage rate
(DR) is calculated with the following equation;
⎛ C − CD ⎞ 1.6x105. Liquid paraffin is dropped on the resistance wire and
DR = ⎜ D _ ATT ⎟ x100 .
⎜ C D _ ATT ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Here, CD_ATT is the drag coefficient of the alone truck trailer
(ATT) while CD is the drag coefficient of the other models in-
cluding ATT with half airfoil and/or roof fairing. If DR value is
positive, this means drag reduces as compared to the alone
truck trailer. If DR value is negative, this means that there is a
drag increase as compared to the ATT.
2.2 Flow visualization measurement setup
Smoke flow visualization and oil flow visualization were exe-
cuted in a wind tunnel. This tunnel located in Mechanical Engi-
neering Department of Karadeniz Technical University has a
test section of 570 mm x 570 mm, with a divergence angle of
0.3° from inlet to outlet to provide constant static pressure
along the test chamber, and length of 1.2 m. The ratio of the
tunnel construction cone is 6:1. The turbulent intensity is lower
than 0.5 %. The velocity of the tunnel is varied from 0 to 50 m/s
by adjusting with a frequency inverter. Surface oil flow visuali-
zation experiments are carried out to better understand separa-
tion points and flow structures around the truck-trailer at Re =
4.5x105.
The surface of the half airfoil and the spoiler are painted mat
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0620-2
(a) (b)
(c)
Fig. 3. Isometric views of (a) NACA 0009; (b) NACA 0012; (c) roof fairing.
black to take better quality pictures. For the surface oil flow and
smoke wire flow visualization, the test model was placed on a
flat plate showing in Fig. 2. The length of the flat plate is 80 cm.
This plate also has a 60 degree chamfered front edge to pro-
vide a uniform flow pattern. The test model placed at the mid
position of the flat plate. The test model is far 10 cm from the
front edge of the flat plate. A mixture of titanium dioxide, oleic
acid and kerosene with a ratio of 1:5:7 is used, as similarly
reported in the study of Sudhakar et al. [28]. This mixture was
uniformly applied to the surface of the model by means of a
brush. The visualization experiment was continued in the wind
tunnel until the movement of the oil pigments had stopped. It
took a time between 20 and 25 minutes. Subsequently, the
flow structure obtained over the model is photographed. The
smoke wire flow visualization method consists of a resistance
wire, a DC power supply, liquid paraffin, a lamp, a weight and a
camera. This visualization experiment is performed at Re =
(2) then held like dew grains at regular intervals. The paraffin par-
ticles which held on the resistance wire are vaporized when
applied the DC voltage. The weight attached to the resistance
wire from the bottom of the wind tunnel is used to keep the wire
stretched. The intense light source helps to observe the flow
structure (streamlines) around the model formed by the paraffin.
Simultaneously, the flow structure obtained is photographed by
means of the camera.
2.3 Design of half airfoil
In this study, different types of the half NACA airfoil profiles
were used to provide a better flow structure around the truck-
trailer model. Fig. 3 shows the designs of the half NACA airfoil
profiles and roof fairing (RF), respectively. NACA 0009 and
NACA 0012 airfoil types have symmetrical geometry and dif-
ferent thickness. NACA 0009 and NACA 0012 airfoils are
symmetrical and chosen due to zero lift and low drag at zero
angle of attack in contrast to cambered asymmetric airfoils
such as NACA 2412. Chord lengths of these airfoils are 38 cm.
All models were manufactured with Zortrax M200 3D printer.
ABS filament was used in the production of the models.
Some of the dominant drag zones are marked in Fig. 2, as
similarly illustrated by Wood and Bauer [29]. Flow around the
truck-trailer is intended to improve the flow structure in target
2973
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
(a)
(b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 4. Schematic view of (a) alone truck-trailer (ATT); (b) ATT with NACA
00xx; (c) ATT with roof fairing at +4.5 mm position and NACA 00xx; (d) ATT
with roof fairing at zero position.
zone 2 (shown in Fig. 2) using the half airfoil models given in
Fig. 3. These airfoil models provide a narrower wake region
behind the truck-trailer model. To create a streamlined flow
structure between the trailer and the separation point at the
edge of the truck, the roof fairing is designed. This design will
help to decrease undesired drag without reducing the maxi-
mum load-carrying area of the trailer.
3. Results
In this study, aerodynamic forces acting on the truck-trailer
model having half airfoil and roof fairing were measured with
the help of the load cell in the range of 6.6x104 ≤ Re ≤ 5.5x105.
Surface oil flow visualization and smoke wire flow visualization
experiments were carried out at Re = 4x105 and 1.6x105, re-
spectively. The results obtained in the experiments are given in
the following subsections for each half airfoil model separately.
3.1 Force measurement results
Schematic views of different model types used in the ex-
periments are given in Fig. 4. ATT, NACA 00xx and
RF0_NACA 00xx denote, respectively, alone truck-trailer,
truck-trailer with NACA 00xx and truck-trailer with roof fairing at
zero position. Here, “xx” in the NACA 00xx expression is varied
as 09 and 12 which express the thickness of the airfoil as xx %
of the chord. As shown in Fig. 4(d), the zero position of the roof
fairing is aligned to the top of the trailer and the other positions,
which are +4.5, +2.5, -4.5 and -2.5, are adjusted according to
the accepted reference position.
Fig. 5 shows the variation of the drag coefficient (CD) of the
2974
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0620-2
1.1
CD
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
NACA0009
0.4 RF0_NACA0009
0.3 RF+2.5_NACA0009
RF+4.5_NACA0009
0.2
RF-2.5_NACA0009
0.1 RF-4.5_NACA0009
Alone Truck-trailer (ATT)
0.0
50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000
Re
Fig. 5. Variation of drag coefficient as a function of Reynolds number for
truck-trailer with/without half of NACA 0009 airfoil and roof fairing.
truck-trailer with/without half of NACA 0009 airfoil and roof
fairing. Drag coefficient acting on the alone truck-trailer (ATT)
model is nearly constant while the Reynolds number is greater
than 1.2x105. This is ascribed to stable flow structure around
the model even with geometrical change by using roof fairing
and the half of NACA 0009 airfoil. Therefore, the Reynolds
number is independent after 1.2x105. Drag coefficients of
NACA 0009, RF0_NACA 0009, RF+2.5_NACA 0009 and RF-
2.5_NACA 0009 are lower than those of the alone truck-trailer
at all Reynolds number ranges. Even if the truck-trailer with half
airfoil (NACA 0009) provides drag reduction between 3 % and
7 %, there is no significant effect of the half airfoil without roof
fairing on the drag reduction as compared to the alone truck-
trailer. Roof fairings at +2.5 mm and -2.5 mm positions show
nearly similar trend after Re = 1.2x105. Drag coefficients of
RF+2.5_NACA 0009 and RF-2.5_NACA 0009 are obtained as
an average of 0.63. Drag coefficients of RF+4.5_NACA 0009
and RF-4.5_NACA 0009 decrease with increasing Reynolds
number. For this case, drag coefficients are higher than those
of the ATT before Re = 1.2x105. The lowest drag coefficient
was obtained at the RF0_NACA 0009 case as about 0.5 at all
Reynolds number ranges.
At Reynolds independence region, DR for RF0_NACA 0009
is varied between 27 % and 34 %. The combination of the roof
fairing at zero position and NACA 0009 provided a maximum
reduction. The minimum drag reduction is obtained with the
half NACA 0009 at the range of 3 %-7.5 %. Although
RF+4.5_NACA 0009 and RF-4.5_NACA 0009 provided nega-
tive drag reduction (this means that drag increases as compare
to the reference model) for low Reynolds numbers, they also
have a significant drag reduction for high Reynolds numbers.
DR of RF+4.5_NACA 0009 from Re = 1.2x105 to 5.5x105 in-
creases from -50 % to +30 %.
Drag coefficient variations of the ATT, NACA 0012,
RF0_NACA 0012, RF+2.5_NACA 0012, RF+4.5_NACA 0012,
RF-2.5_NACA 0012 and RF-4.5_NACA 0012 were given as a
function of Reynolds number in Fig. 6. After Re = 2x105, CD of
all models is lower than that of the reference model that is
alone truck-trailer. While the drag coefficient of the ATT is av-
erage 0.76, the values of CD of both the ATT having roof fairing
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
1.0
0.9
0.8
CD
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 NACA 0012
RF0_NACA0012
0.3
RF+2.5_NACA0012
0.2 RF+4.5_NACA0012
RF-2.5_NACA0012
0.1 RF-4.5_NACA0012
Alone Truck-trailer
0.0
50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 550000
Re
Fig. 6. Variation of drag coefficient as a function of Reynolds number for
truck-trailer with/without half of NACA 0012 airfoil and roof fairing.
at zero position and the half NACA 0012 airfoil (RF0_NACA
0012) are average 0.51. As it was in RF0_NACA 0009,
RF0_NACA 0012 also provided the highest drag reduction as
compared to the other models at all Reynolds number ranges.
The minimum drag coefficient is obtained as an average of
0.7 with NACA 0012 (ATT with NACA 0012 half airfoil). Drag
coefficient variations of RF+4.5_NACA 0012 and RF-
4.5_NACA 0012 show a similar trend. Their drag coefficient
significantly decreases with increasing Reynolds number from
6.6x104 to 5.5x105. These marked variations could be attrib-
uted to changing flow structure with Reynolds number due to
highest and lowest roof fairing positions. The values of CD of
RF+2.5_NACA 0012 and RF-2.5_NACA 0012 are average
0.65 and 0.61, respectively. The maximum drag reduction rate
was obtained with RF0_NACA 0012, as an average of 33 %
over a wide range of Reynolds numbers. While drag reduction
rates of the RF+4.5_NACA 0012 at Re = 1.2x105 and 1.6x105
are -14.3 % and -14.9 %, respectively, the DR of
RF+4.5_NACA 0012 increases from 21.7 % at Re = 2x105 to
29.6 % at Re = 5.5x105. There are 13.7 % and 19.9 % drag
reduction with RF+2.5_NACA 0012 and RF-2.5_NACA 0012 at
Re = 5.5x105.
According to the drag reduction rates, although NACA 0012
half airfoil is less effective, the roof fairing together with the
NACA 0012 half airfoil provides a significant improvement. DR
of ATT with the NACA 0012 half airfoil is achieved as 7.3 % at
Re = 5.5x105. Present results indicate that the NACA 0012 half
airfoil together with the roof fairing at different positions signifi-
cantly improves the drag reduction rate.
3.2 Smoke wire flow visualization
The smoke wire flow visualization method was used to inves-
tigate the evolution of the flow structure around the truck-trailer
with/without roof fairing and/or half airfoil section. This experi-
ment was performed at Re = 1.6x105 because there is no sig-
nificant difference in the flow structure according to the force
measurement results. The smoke wire flow visualizations, be-
longing to the alone truck trailer and, the ATT together with the
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0620-2
(a)
(b) (c)
(d) (e)
Fig. 7. Flow visualization around: (a) alone truck-trailer; (b) ATT with a half
NACA 0009 airfoil; (c) ATT with roof fairing and a half NACA 0009 airfoil;
(d) ATT with a half NACA 0012 airfoil; (e) ATT with roof fairing and a half
NACA 0012 airfoil.
NACA 0009 half airfoil and, the ATT with roof fairing at zero
position together with the NACA 0009 half airfoil are given in
Figs. 7(a)-(c), respectively. The red arrow in the images indi-
cates the stagnation point of the truck trailer. At this point, the
flow is divided into two streams and directed upside and down-
side directions. In Fig. 7(a), the incoming flow is separated from
the edge of the truck indicated by the blue arrow and then the
separated flow reattached and again separates from the lead-
ing edge of the trailer shown in green arrow.
For the case of the NACA 0009 half airfoil shown in Fig. 7(b),
the flow separation is clearly seen on the edge of the truck,
indicated by the blue arrow. This separated flow immediately
reattached on the leading edge of NACA 0009 half airfoil. Ac-
cording to these results, the alone truck trailer has a little wider
wake region than that of the ATT with NACA 0009. The drag
force results given in Fig. 5 support this picture because of
improvement in target zone 2 indicated wake region. In Fig.
7(c), the streamlines of incoming flow follow the surface of the
roof fairing and the half NACA 0009 airfoil and this causes a
narrower wake region. This case supported by the force meas-
urement results leads to the lowest drag coefficient than other
models. As indicated by Wood and Bauer [29], there are three
major drag zones including the front side of the truck, the gap
between truck and trailer (target zone 1), and the rear of the
truck trailer (target zone 2). The desired improvement effects in
the flow structure around the truck trailer in target zone 1 and 2
were achieved with a combination of the roof fairing at zero
position and the NACA 0009 half airfoil.
Figs. 7(a), (d) and (e) show the smoke wire flow visualiza-
tions of the alone truck trailer, the ATT together with half NACA
0012 airfoil, and the ATT with roof fairing at zero position to-
gether with half NACA 0012 airfoil, respectively.
As shown in Figs. 7(a) and (b), there is a flow separation
2975
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
(a)
(b) (c)
(d) (e)
Fig. 8. Surface oil flow visualizations for (a) RF-4.5_NACA 0009; (b) RF-
2.5_NACA 0009; (c) RF0_NACA 0009; (d) RF+2.5_NACA 0009; (e)
RF+4.5_NACA 0009.
over the edge of the truck stated by the blue arrow. The wake
of the combination of the ATT with the half NACA 0012 is
smaller than that of the alone ATT. In Figs. 7(c) and (e), similar
flow patterns, that are narrower wake and more streamlined,
are obtained with the half airfoil of different thickness and roof
fairing. Then, a narrower wake region and a flow following the
surface of roof fairing with half NACA 0012 airfoil cause a
smaller drag coefficient to be obtained as in Fig. 7. Flow meas-
urement results indicate that desired flow pattern around the
truck-trailer is obtained with the help of the half airfoil models
(NACA 0009 and NACA 0012) and roof fairing at zero position.
These results have good coherence with force measurement
results given in Figs. 5 and 6.
3.3 Oil flow visualization
The surface oil flow visualization method is employed to elu-
cidate the flow structure on the surface of the roof fairing with
half airfoil at Re = 4.5x105. Surface oil flow visualization results
for the truck-trailer with roof fairing at different positions to-
gether half NACA 0009 airfoil are presented in Figs. 8(a)-(e).
The yellow and red curves in these figures show the flow sepa-
ration positions and turbulent reattachment positions from the
roof fairing, respectively. As shown in Fig. 8, a laminar bound-
ary layer separated from the roof fairing surface rapidly transits
to the turbulent flow, and then the flow reattaches to this sur-
face. The obtained region between laminar separation and
turbulent reattachment point is called a laminar separation
bubble (LSB) [15, 30]. Here it is clearly seen that the position of
the roof fairing changes the shape and position of the flow
separation and reattachment curve. In these figures, the flow
separation due to the adverse pressure gradient is clearly seen
with the accumulation of oil, and the flow attachment is under-
2976
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0620-2
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e)
Fig. 9. Surface oil flow visualizations for (a) RF-4.5_NACA 0012; (b) RF-
2.5_NACA 0012; (c) RF0_NACA 0012; (d) RF+2.5_NACA 0012; (e)
RF+4.5_NACA 0012.
stood due to the cessation of this accumulation. In the case of
the RF0_NACA 0009 model, the flow separates from the roof
fairing as indicated by the yellow curve. After that, turbulent
reattachment occurs and continues by sweeping the oil parti-
cles over the roof fairing surface. This reattachment also
sweeps the oil particles on the surface of half NACA 0009 air-
foil. Oil pigments of RF0_NACA 0009 and RF+2.5_NACA 0009
start to sweep from the leading edge of the half NACA 0009
airfoil.
While the LSB region for Figs. 8(c)-(e), is near to end of the
roof fairing, LSB for Figs. 8(a) and (b) is close to the middle of
the roof fairing. This result of the surface oil flow visualization
supports the results of the smoke wire flow visualization for
RF0_NACA 0009. Therefore, in both visualization methods, it
can be seen how the flow follows the surface of the roof fairing
and half NACA 0009 airfoil. After the laminar separation bubble
formation, the flow follows the surface of the half NACA 0009
airfoil for RF-2.5_NACA 0009, RF0_NACA 0009, RF+2.5_
NACA 0009 and RF+4.5_NACA 0009.
Figs. 9(a)-(e) show surface oil flow visualizations for RF-
4.5_NACA 0012, RF-2.5_NACA 0012, RF0_NACA 0012,
RF+2.5_NACA 0012, and RF+4.5_NACA 0012, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 9, the variation of the roof fairing position from
-4.5 mm to +4.5 mm significantly changes the shape of the flow
separation curve and the flow separation point. While the posi-
tion of the roof fairing increases from 0 to 4.5, the flow separa-
tion point moves towards the end of the roof fairing. When the
roof fairing position decreases from 0 to -4.5, a large LSB zone
is obtained by moving flow separation points towards the root
of the roof fairing.
The shape of the flow separation curve indicates that there is
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021 DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0620-2

a 3-dimensional flow structure around the roof fairing. The flow Table 1. Comparison of the drag coefficient and the drag reduction per-
separation over the roof fairing is significantly postponed to- formance of added devices on the truck-trailer in this study with the study of
Kim et al. [4, 5, 13], Hwang et al. [14], and Cooper [35].
wards the end of roof fairing and a narrower LSB zone is ob-
tained for the case of RF-2.5_NACA 0012, RF0_NACA 0012, Drag reduction devices CD Drag reduction (%)
and RF+2.5_NACA 0012. Moreover, this flow follows the sur- Alone truck trailer 0.777
face of the half NACA 0012 airfoil by sweeping the oil pigments. Present study Roof fairing at 0 position and 29.3
The drag coefficient, shown in Fig. 6, decreased accordingly. 0.549
the half NACA 0009
As shown in Fig. 9(a), the widest laminar separation bubble Alone truck trailer 0.777
zone and again the flow separation at the leading edge of half Present study Roof fairing at 0 position and 31.26
NACA 0012 airfoil lead to a higher drag coefficient than the 0.534
the half NACA 0012
other cases. Reference model 0.703
Kim et al. [4] 22.4
Advanced bio-inspired CRF 0.542
4. Discussion Reference model 0.684
Kim et al. [5] Extended aero cab roof 17.4
Development of the drag reduction devices including roof 0.565
fairing and gap fairing
fairing, side skirt, boat tail, etc., for the truck-trailer has vital
Reference model 0.707
importance to reduce the fuel consumption. In available studies
Kim et al. [13] Modified cab roof fairing 18.6
discussed in the first section were tackled about different drag 0.596
(CRF)
reduction devices such as gap fairing [4, 11], roof fairing [13],
Hwang et al. Reference model 0.709
side skirt [6, 14], boat tail [8]. To improve the target zone 2 5.3
[14] Side skirt model 0.671
indicating the rear of the truck trailer, many different drag re-
duction methods were employed for the rear slant angle of the Reference model 0.817
Ahmet body [31], active flow control device on the rear of the Cooper [35] Roof fairing, side extenders 16.9
0.69
trailer [32, 33], blowing at the rear [34], boat tail [8, 17]. In a and skirt
similar way to these studies, the half airfoil models that are
NACA 0009 and NACA 0012 were designed as a new drag 0.8
CD
reduction device placed on the trailer to reduce drag coefficient 0.7
and enhance the flow pattern in this study. This model was
0.6
chosen with the object of obtaining a streamlined body form by
improving target zone 2 shown in Fig. 2. Since the incoming 0.5
flow should be convenient to the leading edge of the half airfoil,
0.4
this airfoil will not be sufficient alone. Therefore, it was com-
bined with the roof fairing. As shown in Figs. 5 and 6, the most 0.3

convenient roof fairing position is determined as zero position 0.2

to obtain suitable incoming flow to the leading edge of the half ATT
airfoil. Accordingly, the effect of half airfoil thickness in zero roof 0.1 RF0_NACA0009
RF0_NACA0012
fairing position is compared in Fig. 10. In this plot, it is seen that 0.0
the thickness of the half airfoil that is NACA 0009 and NACA 5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
5x 0x 5x 0x 5x 0x 5x 0x 5x
0012 does not have a great effect on the drag coefficient of the 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5.
Re
truck-trailer with the roof fairing at zero position, although half
NACA 0009 and NACA 0012 airfoil reduce the drag as a per- Fig. 10. Comparison of the drag coefficient for the ATT, RF0_NACA 0009
and RF0_NACA 0012.
cent of 29.3 % and 31.6 % as compared to the alone truck
trailer, respectively. Smoke wire flow visualization results indi-
cate the improvement in target zone 1 and 2 strongly support present study were compared to that of the study of Kim et al.
to drag reduction performance of the half airfoil with the roof [4, 5, 13], Hwang et al. [14] and Cooper [35] in Table 1. Al-
fairing at zero position. though it is not very appropriate to compare the present study
Yi et al. [17] researched the effect of the slant angle of the with the given studies in Table 1 because of different truck
boat tail by doing oil flow visualization. They observed the trailer models and experimental parameters, it can be a rea-
laminar separation bubble formation at the leading and trailing sonable comparison to give an idea. Kim et al. [4, 5, 13] inves-
edge of the boat tail for different slant angles of it. This laminar tigated the bio-inspired roof fairing from a sea lion, extended
separation bubble formation was also, observed by the present aero cab roof fairing with gap fairing, and modified roof fairing,
study for the case of roof fairing at different the position. respectively. 22.4 % drag reduction with bio-inspired roof fair-
The location of the LSB on the surface of the roof fairing is ing and 18.6 % drag reduction with modified roof fairing was
changed with increasing roof fairing position from -4.5 mm to obtained with the study of Kim et al. [4, 13] who used a similar
+4.5 mm. Drag reduction rate and the drag coefficient of the truck trailer model as a reference model. In the other study of

2977
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
Kim et al. [5], roof fairing and gap fairing placed between the
truck and the trailer provided a 17.4 % drag reduction.
As a result, although the tuck-trailer models and added de-
vices given, in Table 1, were different from each other, they put
forth similar results for the same purposes. While the drag re-
duction devices, roof fairing as well as side skirt and gap fairing
provide drag reduction between 16.9 % and 22.4 %, the roof
fairing with half NACA 0009 and 0012 airfoil in the current
study provided drag reduction 29.3 % and 31.26 %. 6 % and
9.5 % drag reduction were achieved with the boat tail by
Cooper [36] and Leuschen and Cooper [37], respectively. At
Re = 5.5x105, DR effect of the half NACA 0009 and 0012 with-
out the roof fairing is obtained as 6.4 % and 7.3 %, respectively.
Both the boat tail and half airfoil lead to a drag reduction that is
lower than 10 % by improving the flow pattern in target zone 2.
The improvements are achieved in target zone 1 with the roof
fairing and target zone 2 with the half airfoil. In addition, with
the combination of half airfoil and roof fairing, it is obtained
startlingly a reduction in the drag coefficient of more than 30 %.
5. Conclusions
A study was performed on how the aerodynamics of the
truck-trailer is affected by the half airfoil and roof fairing. The
effects of the half NACA 0009 and 0012 airfoil and the roof
fairing having spoiler positions of -4.5 mm, -2.5 mm, 0 mm,
+2.5 mm, and +4.5 mm over the aerodynamic characteristics
have been evaluated by performing the force measurements,
surface oil flow visualization and smoke wire flow visualization
in the wind tunnel. Some important conclusions from the
measurements are listed below.
1) The truck trailer with the roof fairing at zero position and
the half NACA 0012 airfoil reduces the drag coefficient by
31.26 % considerably. The optimum roof fairing position has
been determined as zero because of greater drag reduction
than the other positions. RF0_NACA 0009 model has also
reduced the drag coefficient by 29.3 %.
2) The shape and location of LSB on the surface of the roof
fairing positions increasing from -4.5 mm to +4.5 mm are sig-
nificantly changed.
3) Drag coefficient variations of the half NACA 0009 and
NACA 0012 airfoil with the roof fairing at zero position show a
close trend to each other. The maximum drag reduction is ob-
tained with the RF0_NACA 0009 and RF0_NACA 0012 as
compared to the alone truck trailer.
4) The flow visualization and the drag coefficient results re-
vealed that the roof fairing and the half airfoil enhance the flow
structure at the target zone 1 and 2 by decreasing the drag and
provided a narrower wake at the rear of the truck trailer.
5) Smoke flow visualization results support the oil flow visu-
alization results by providing a streamlined flow structure
around the truck-trailer. RF0_NACA 0009 and RF0_NACA
0012 models indicated a small LSB on the roof fairing, a nar-
rower wake with a lower drag coefficient.
6) Truck-trailer having the combination of a roof fairing at
2978
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0620-2
zero position and NACA 0012 or NACA 0009 half airfoil signifi-
cantly reduces the drag by postponing the flow separation from
the roof fairing to close to the trailing edge of the half airfoil.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support
of this work by the Scientific Research Projects Unit of
Karadeniz Technical University with the contract number of
2007.112.003.2. The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. Yahya
Erkan Akansu for allowing the use of wind tunnel located at
Mechanical Engineering Department of Niğde Omer Halisdemir
University.
Nomenclature-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A : Frontal area of the truck-trailer
CD : Drag coefficient
CD_ATT : Drag coefficient of the alone truck-trailer
CRF : Cab roof fairing
DC : Direct current
DR : Drag reduction rate
FD : Drag force
ρ : Density of the air
LSB : Laminar separation bubble
Re : Reynolds number
RF : Roof fairing
V : Free stream velocity
References
[1] H. Choi, W. Jeon and J. Kim, Control of flow over a bluff body,
Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech., 40 (2008) 113-139.
[2] W. Hucho and G. Sovran, Aerodynamics of road vehicles,
Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech., 25 (1993) 485-537.
[3] B. Mohammadikalakoo, P. Schito and M. Mani, Passive flow
control on Ahmed body by rear linking tunnels, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn., 205 (2020) 104330.
[4] J. J. Kim, J. Kim and S. J. Lee, Substantial drag reduction of a
tractor-trailer vehicle using gap fairings, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn., 171 (2017) 93-100.
[5] J. J. Kim et al., Salient drag reduction of a heavy vehicle using
modified cab-roof fairings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 164
(2017) 138-151.
[6] D. Landman et al., Understanding practical limits to heavy
truck drag reduction, SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh., 2 (2) (2009).
[7] J. J. Kim, E. J. Lee and S. J. Lee, Wind tunnel tests on drag
reduction of heavy vehicles using sinusoidal boat tails, J. Mech.
Sci. Technol., 34 (1) (2020) 201-208.
[8] A. Altaf, A. A. Omar and W. Asrar, Passive drag reduction of
square back road vehicles, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 134
(2014) 30-43.
[9] D. McArthur et al., An experimental characterisation of the
wake of a detailed heavy vehicle in cross-wind, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn., 175 (2018) 364-375.
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 35 (7) 2021
[10] L. Salati, F. Cheli and P. Schito, Heavy truck drag reduction
obtained from devices installed on the trailer, SAE Int. J.
Commer. Veh., 8 (2015) 747-760.
[11] L. Salati et al., Wind tunnel experiment on a heavy truck
equipped with front-rear trailer device, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn., 171 (2017) 101-109.
[12] J. J. Kim et al., Considerable drag reduction and fuel saving of
a tractor-trailer using additive aerodynamic devices, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 191 (2019) 54-62.
[13] J. J. Kim, J. Hong and S. J. Lee, Bio-inspired cab-roof fairing
of heavy vehicles for enhancing drag reduction and driving
stability, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 131 (2017) 868-879.
[14] B. G. Hwang et al., Reduction of drag in heavy vehicles with
two different types of advanced side skirts, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn., 155 (2016) 36-46.
[15] B. K. Sreejith and A. Sathyabhama, Experimental and
numerical study of laminar separation bubble formation on low
Reynolds number airfoil with leading-edge tubercles, J.
Brazilian Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng., 42 (4) (2020) 1-15.
[16] S. Sudhakar, N. Karthikeyan and P. Suriyanarayanan,
Experimental studies on the effect of leading-edge tubercles on
laminar separation bubble, AIAA J., 57 (12) (2019) 5197-5207.
[17] W. Yi, W. SaGong and H.-C. Choi, Drag reduction of a three-
dimensional car model using passive control device, Proc.
KSME Conf. (2007) 2868-2872.
[18] S. K. Sinha and S. L. Sinha, Improving automotive fuel
efficiency with deturbulator tape, SAE Technical Paper 2007-
01-3458 (2007).
[19] S. Veluri et al., Preliminary rans simulations and experimental
study of a simplified tractor/trailer geometry, AIAA Appl.
Aerodyn. Conf. (2006) 3857.
[20] B. Cihan, Numerical drag reduction of a ground vehicle by
NACA2415 airfoil structured vortex generator and spoiler, Int. J.
Automot. Technol., 20 (5) (2019) 943-948.
[21] C. H. Tsai et al., Computational aero-acoustic analysis of a
passenger car with a rear spoiler, Appl. Math. Model., 33 (9)
(2009) 3661-3673.
[22] A. R. Norwazan et al., Experimental and numerical analysis of
lift and drag force of sedan car spoiler, Appl. Mech. Mater., 165
(2012) 43-47.
[23] A. Buljac et al., Automobile aerodynamics influenced by
airfoil-shaped rear wing, Int. J. Automot. Tech., 17 (3) (2016)
377-385.
[24] The Don-Bur Aerodynamic TeardropTM, https://donbur.co.uk/
gb-en/products/aerodynamic-teardrop-trailer.php (accessed on
April 5th, 2021).
[25] J. Winslow et al., Basic understanding of airfoil characteristics
at low Reynolds numbers (104-105), J. Aircr., 55 (3) (2018)
1050-1061.
[26] T. Ohtake, Y. Nakae and T. Motohashi, Nonlinearity of the
aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 0012 aerofoil at low
Reynolds numbers, Japan Soc. Aeronaut. Sp. Sci., 55 (644)
(2007) 439-445.
[27] G. S. West and C. J. Apelt, The effects of tunnel blockage and
aspect ratio on the mean flow past a circular cylinder with
DOI 10.1007/s12206-021-0620-2
Reynolds numbers between 104 and 105, J. Fluid Mech., 114
(1982) 361-377.
[28] S. Sudhakar, N. Karthikeyan and L. Venkatakrishnan,
Influence of leading edge tubercles on aerodynamic
characteristics of a high aspect-ratio UAV, Aerosp. Sci.
Technol., 69 (2017) 281-289.
[29] R. M. Wood and S. X. S. Bauer, Simple and low-cost
aerodynamic drag reduction devices for tractor-trailer trucks,
SAE Trans. (2010) 143-160.
[30] R. Sosa and G. Artana, Steady control of laminar separation
over airfoils with plasma sheet actuators, J. Electrostat., 64 (7-
9) (2006) 604-610.
[31] T. Tunay, B. Sahin and V. Ozbolat, Effects of rear slant
angles on the flow characteristics of Ahmed body, Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci., 57 (2014) 165-176.
[32] A. Seifert et al., Large Trucks Drag Reduction Using Active
Flow Control, Springer, Berlin (2009) 115-133.
[33] A. Seifert, T. Shtendel and D. Dolgopyat, From lab to full scale
active flow control drag reduction: how to bridge the gap?, J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 147 (2015) 262-272.
[34] J. Howell, A. Sheppard and A. Blakemore, Aerodynamic drag
reduction for a simple bluff body using base bleed, SAE Trans.,
112 (2003) 1085-1091.
[35] K. R. Cooper, Commercial Vehicle Aerodynamic Drag Reduction:
Historical Perspective as a Guide, Springer (2004) 9-28.
[36] K. R. Cooper, Truck aerodynamics reborn - lessons from the
past, SAE Trans. (2003) 132-142.
[37] J. Leuschen and K. R. Cooper, Full-scale wind tunnel tests of
production and prototype, second-generation aerodynamic
drag-reducing devices for tractor-trailers, SAE Tech. Pap.
(2006) 3456.
Mehmet Seyhan received his B.Sc.
degree and M.Sc. degree in Mechanical
Engineering from Niğde University in
2013 and 2015, respectively. He is
currently a Ph.D. student at Karadeniz
Technical University, where he also
works as research assistant. His re-
search interests include plasma actua-
tors for flow control, PEM fuel cells and flow control applica-
tions.
Mustafa Sarioglu is a Mechanical Engi-
neer. He graduated from the Department
of Mechanical Engineering, the Faculty
of Engineering and Architecture, Kara-
deniz University in 1984. He received his
M.Sc. degree and Ph.D. degree from the
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
the Faculty of Engineering, Karadeniz
Technical University in 1991 and 1997, respectively. His re-
search interests include passive flow control. He is currently an
Associated Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department
of Karadeniz Technical University.
2979