Drag Reduction on a Bluff Body

ME 332-Fluid Mechanics
Spring 2016

Brenna Bolton
Sarah Egbert
Jonathan Katt
Lindsay Nault
Ricky Simon
Section 2
Tuesday 11:20-2:10
Instructor: Yen Nguyen

Abstract
Since the drag force on a bluff body can be quite large, a strategy to reduce the drag on
the bluff body is to attach a second object to the front of the bluff. In this experiment, four disks
of different diameters and three different shapes were tested at three different distances from the
cylindrical bluff body. The original motivation behind this was to provide a simple model of the
cab-trailer combination in a semitrailer. The goal of this experiment is to determine how
different sized shapes at different lengths away from the bluff affect the possible drag reduction.
The main result from this experiment is that the six inch diameter disk at one inch in front of the
bluff body creates the smallest amount of drag force.

Nomenclature
A Cross-Sectional Area
CD Drag Coefficient
D Diameter
FD Drag Force
mp Calibration Constant of Pressure Transducer
patm Atmospheric Pressure
pT Tap Pressure
prec Receiver Pressure
r Radius
V Velocity
Density of Air

Table of Contents
Introduction..5
Experimental Setup..7
Results..9
Conclusion.19
References..20
Appendix21

Introduction
Drag on a bluff body is a very common occurrence that many people experience daily in
a variety of real world applications, one of the most common is simply driving to work. Simply
following behind another vehicle parallel to the stream-wise flow direction can have huge effects
on the following cars drag forces. These drag force reductions can be incredibly large and play
an integral part in fuel efficiency for vehicles. In order to simulate these drag forces experienced
by vehicles students will place varying objects in front of the bluff body. Pressures will be
collected at various points on the face of the bluff body in order to determine which size and
geometries are best suited for drag force reduction. Different size disks of two, three, four and
six inch diameters will be placed at different distances from the bluff body in order to measure
their variable effects. Along with the different size disks students will determine the different
effects of variable three inch diameter geometries that include a long six inch cone, a smaller two
inch long cone as well as a hemisphere. These different drag reducers will be moved to different
distances of one, three and six inches in front of the bluff body to also determine the most
efficient distances for the placements of the drag reducers.
In order to accurately measure the drag reductions on the bluff body, students will utilize
knowledge of both drag forces and drag coefficients of varying sizes and geometries. Free stream
velocities of the air in the wind tunnel must be calculated using the pressure differentials as
shown in Equation 1. Following the calculation of free stream velocities a value for drag force on

Equation 1

the bluff body must be obtained. In previous labs forces were evaluated using linear momentum
analysis. This equation for fluids can be analyzed using Newton's 2nd Law which states that sum
of all forces must equal the time rate of change of the momentum. However this lab will instead
utilize the relationship between forces and pressures to determine overall drag forces on the bluff
body. This relationship includes the summation of 13 different iterations located at different
radial points on the bluff body as shown by Equation 2. For this specific lab changes in radius

Equation 2

are 6.5 mm larger for each separate iteration with the initial pressure reading coming from a
distance 13 mm from the center of the circular bluff body. Pressures are to be found in Pascals in
order to find overall drag force values in Newtons.
Following overall drag force and free stream calculations students then were able to
calculate the drag coefficients of the varying drag reducers using Equation 3. The relationship
between the drag coefficients determined which sizes and geometries enabled the largest
amounts of drag reduction on the bluff body.

Equation 3

Experimental Setup
This experiment, Drag Reduction on a Buff Body, required the use of a Foss, Larson, and
Learst unit. The FLL uses a flow system that ejects air at steady speed over the body that is being

Figure 1: Schematic of the Experimental Setup

tested. Figure 1 shows the setup of the experiment; D1 represents an 8 diameter cylinder and D2
represents the four interchangeable disks (6, 4, 3, 2 diameter) and three different shapes (Big
cone, smaller cone, and hemisphere) these disks and shapes help to obtain the drag force. The air
velocity, U, will blow across D1 and D2 and help find the drag force. In the first case of the
experiment, only the cylinder D2 was used, this was to act as a control state which would show

Shape 1

Shape 2

Figure 2: Photographs of the three additional shapes tested in front of the bluff cylinder.

Shape 3

the maximum drag force.

To obtain data for this experiment, force and pressure transducers were used in
conjunction with Equation 2 to calculate the drag force. With the maximum drag force
determined with no disks in front of the cylinder, the four disks were then employed to reduce
the drag on the body. These disks as well as the other three shapes determined the minimum drag
and also the cases that lie between the maximum and minimum drag force.
The variable G shown in Figure 1 is the gap distance between the disk D1 and the
cylinder D2, this gap distance was changed from one inch to three inches to 6 inches for each
geometry mounted in front of the cylinder. The combinations of different distances and disk
sizes help to show the amount of drag reduction between the two.
The first step in the experiment was to look at the top of the box to record the mp value
marked on the top of the transducer. Once that is recorded, connect the plenum pressure tube to
the positive port on the transducer and turn the FFL unit on. Record the number displayed. This
process is also used the find the initial pressure of the system. Once these are recorded, the
pressure tube must be connected to the first pressure tap on the bluff cylinder.
To begin this experiment several trials were tested, each disk and shape were tested at the
three gap distances. The pressures were tested by using 13 pressure taps on the face of the pluff
cylinder, the first at a distance 1.3 cm from the center of the cylinder and each subsequent tap 6.5
millimeters further along the radius of the cylinder. Due to the fact the scannivalve was used in
another group experiment, the tube from the transducer had to be manually switched between all
the pressure taps. This process is very similar to the scannivalve where the pressure taps are
connected to a single pressure transducer that records and graphs the data on the computer.

Results
Prior to the use of any drag reducers students measured the pressure variations across the bluff
body alone. A drag force of 0.72 Newtons was recorded without the existence of a drag reducer
in front of the bluff body. It was found that pressures on the taps located closest to the center
were the highest followed by a steady decline in pressure as the taps moved closest to the
perimeter of the bluff body, this can be observed in Figure 3. Pressures most likely decrease
towards the perimeter due to an increase in velocity while pressure is maximum towards the
center due to a nearly stagnant velocity. It was determined that the strange outlying pressure at
71.5 mm in Figure 3 was most likely caused due to human error or faulty equipment during the

Figure 3: Pressure curves on the bluff cylinder with nothing attached.

experiment because other data points seemed to follow a similar decreasing trend. This pressure
measurement without the existence of a drag reducer was used as a control experiment so that
students could determine the amount of drag reduction from the varying size and shape
cylindrical objects to be used in later experiments.

Figure 4 shows the pressure distributions caused by the two inch diameter disk in front of
the bluff body. When the disk is one inch in front of the bluff it acts very similar as to when the
disk is three inches in front of the bluff. The overall drag force when the disk is one inch in front
of the body is 0.731 N which is only slightly smaller than when the disk is three inches in front
of the bluff (0.759 N). When the disk is six inches in front of the bluff body one can see that
there is a big pressure decrease by looking at the red curve in Figure 4. From this figure one can
see that when the disk is six inches in front of the bluff body it reduces the drag force the most,
the overall drag force in this case was found to be 0.496 N.

Figure 4: Pressure Curves on the bluff cylinder with the two inch disk attached.

The different pressure curves caused by the three inch diameter disk in front of the bluff
cylinder are shown in Figure 5. This figure is very similar to Figure 4, which refers to the two
inch diameter disk. When the disk is one inch or three inches in front of the bluff body the
pressures act very similarly, they slowly increase the further away the pressure tap is located
from the center of the bluff cylinder. The overall drag force when the disk is one inch in front of
10

Figure 5: Pressure curves on the bluff cylinder with the three inch disk attached.

the bluff body was 0.708 N, and when the disk was three inches in front of the bluff body the
overall drag force was 0.760 N. Also, similar to the two inch diameter disk, the three inch
diameter disk has the lowest pressure when the disk is six inches in front of the bluff body. The
overall drag force when the disk is six inches in front of the bluff body was 0.429 N. The three
inch diameter disk has the smallest drag force when it is six inches in front of the bluff body.
When using the four inch diameter disk, the results show that a distance of six inches
away from the cylinder performs the best, followed by the one inch distance with the three inch
distance performing least admirably. The four inch diameter and six inch distance configuration
produced a drag force of FD = 0.234 Newtons (Table 1) and a drag coefficient CD = 1.679, both
easily the best figures in the four inch diameter group. The three inch distance resulted in a drag
force of FD = 0.612 Newtons and a drag coefficient CD = 4.392, and the one inch distance gave a
drag force of FD = 0.596 Newtons and a drag coefficient CD = 4.278. Clearly the six inch
distance is the best position for the four inch disk. The results of the six inch distance also
represent dramatic improvements over the control case with no disk or shape mounted in front of
the cylinder. The pressure curves of Pascals versus radius in millimeters are shown in Figure 6.
Upon examination, it is clear that the six inch distance configuration produces the lowest
11

Figure 6: Pressure curves on the bluff cylinder with the four inch disk attached.

pressure measurements across the entire cylinder. The three inch and one inch distance
configurations both result in noticeably higher pressure curves. All three curves of pressure
measurements trend upwards as the radius increases. The four inch cylinder at six inches from
the cylinder actually results in the lowest pressure curve of any configuration of disk, shape, or
distance.
The results of this experiment when using a disk six inches in diameter are unlike any
other results that were obtained. For some undetermined reason, all notable data points collected
using the six inch disk were negative, whereas these points for every other disk or shape were
positive. As shown in Table 1, the drag force measurements for the one inch, three inch, and six
inch distance configurations were FD = -0.137, -0.463, and -0.299 Newtons, respectively. The
drag forces for the same configurations were CD = -0.983, -3.318, and -2.149. Figure 7shows the
pressure curves calculated from the readings of the pressure taps. Once again, these curves are
negative where the curves of all other configurations are positive. There is a clear hierarchy in
the pressure curves from the one inch distance to the six inch distance to the three inch distance,

12

however it is unclear which curve is the optimal result because of the abnormal nature of the data
It is difficult to compare these results to any other results within this experiment because of the
fact that they are negative and the reason for this is unknown. One theory is that the large
diameter disk causes the air flow to wrap around and actually travel in the direction opposite the
original flow, from cylinder towards disk. This pulling action on the pressure taps could result
in negative values.

Figure 7: Pressure curves on the bluff cylinder with the six inch disk attached.

A tapered cone was the first shape used as a possible drag reducer for the bluff body. This
cone featured a length of around six inches as well as a diameter of three inches. Force reduction
was measured at three different distances from the bluff body, one, three and six inches. It was
determined based on Figure 8 that the pressure distributions on the bluff body decrease with
increasing distance from the bluff body. At a distance of one and three inches the cone had little
to no effect on the bluff body with drag forces measuring nearly equal to the bluff body without a

13

separate body in front of it. However when the six inch cone was moved outward to a distance of
six inches drag on the bluff body was reduced by around 20 percent. A reduction of 20 percent is
a significant amount of drag reduction however it is minimal when compared with the other sizes
and geometries which exhibited drag reductions up to around 300 percent. This streamlined cone
geometry offers little to no drag reduction until it is moved outward from the bluff body so that it
can successfully disrupt air currents in front of the bluff body. This occurs because of the long
streamlined geometry of the cone. Flow around the six inch cone is primarily laminar and
therefore is hardly effective in disrupting airflows around the bluff body. Therefore this
streamlined cone shows results that are very similar to a situation lacking a drag reducer in front
of the bluff body. Longer more slender geometries are more trivial for use at extremely high
speeds where they act extremely aerodynamic. For this reason most high speed military jet
planes use a long cone geometry. However the relatively low free stream velocity observed in
this experiment makes the long slender cone fairly useless. A more blunt hemisphere or parabola

Figure 8: Pressure curves on the bluff cylinder with Shape 1: Long Cone attached.

14

geometry surely would create more drag reduction on the bluff body. Figure 9 shows the
relationship of drag forces for varying geometries at low speeds. Pressures at the varying taps
remain relatively constant regardless of the radial distance but there are some trends visible.
Figure 8 first shows a slight increase in pressures around the 39 or 45 mm tap at all variable gap
distances. The cones radius is 38.1 mm therefore this pressure change occurs because at this
radial distance the taps are no longer in the streamlined shadow of the drag reducing cone.
Pressures then drop towards the perimeter of the bluff body because at these locations the flow
begins to become more streamlined and does not result in near stagnant velocities. Prior to
experimentation students expected slightly better drag reduction results for this long cone
geometry. A long streamlined cone is very unsuccessful in regards to drag reduction at distances
close to the bluff body and becomes shows slight drag reduction on the bluff body at longer
distances of six inches. Further experimentation may be necessary in order to determine the ideal

Figure 9: Percent of flat face drag for various nose shapes (Scott).

15

gap distance of the six inch cone for maximum drag reduction.
The next shape tested was a smaller cone referred to as Shape 2. This cone is about one
third the height of the tapered cone tested previously, with a three inch diameter (see Figure 2).
Just as with the cone before, the drag reduction was measured at one, three, and six inches away
from the buff body cylinder. The forces that were found for this body at one, three, and six
inches were FD = 5.2, 3.93, and 2.9 Newtons respectively. The drag coefficient, CD, at these
distances was calculated to be 4.88, 5.53, and 2.94. With all of this information it is safe to say
the drag is minimized with shape 2 six inches away from the bluff cylinder. This result is
illustrated by Figure 10, which shows the pressure distribution across the cylinder for each of the
three distances the small cone was mounted in front of the bluff cylinder. While the curves
generally resemble each other, the curve for the six inch distance clearly shows the lowest
pressures.

Figure 10: Pressure curves on the bluff cylinder with Shape 2: Small Cone attached.

The third shape that was used to reduce drag was a circular hemisphere that was three
inches in diameter. Force reduction was measured at three different distances from the bluff

16

body, one, three and six inches. It was determined that the drag force on the bluff body decreases
with increasing distance from the bluff body. The cone did not have a large change in drag force
from the figure without a body in front of it. When the hemisphere was moved to a distance of
six inches, the pressure was reduced by 10 Pascals. This reduction is significant of drag
reduction, however not as much as other shapes have yielded. The average drag force for the
hemisphere for a distance of one, three, and six inches was FD = -5.8, -4.8, and -2.88,
respectively, and the average drag coefficients for the same were CD = 0.722, 0.764, and 0.507.
Due to these values, six inches has the least amount of drag. The hemisphere does not reduce
drag significantly until it is moved a further distance away. Flow around this hemisphere is
mostly laminar and so it is not very efficient at stopping drag force along the bluff body and is
very similar to no drag reducer in front of the bluff body, like the six inch cone. Figure 11,
showing the pressure curves resulting from using the hemisphere, is very similar to Figure 4
which describes the two inch diameter disk. When the disk is one inch or three inches in front of

Figure 11: Pressure curves on the bluff cylinder when Shape 3: Hemisphere is attached.

17

the bluff body the pressures act very similar and slowly increase the further away the cylinder tap
is from the center of the bluff. Also like the two inch diameter disk, shape three has the lowest
pressure when the disk is six inches in front of the bluff body. Shape three has the smallest drag
force when it is six inches in front of the bluff body.

18

Conclusions
After testing four different sized disks of two, three, four, and six inches, as well as three
different three inch diameter geometries that include a long six inch cone, a smaller two inch
long cone, and a hemisphere, it was found that larger diameter drag reducers are more efficient
and allow for more drag reduction on the bluff body. These work more efficiently when placed
further (six inches) from the bluff body as opposed to one inch and 3 inches. The radius vs.
pressure graphs also show that the six inch diameter three inch distance has the least amount of
drag. The goal of this experiment is to determine how different sized shapes at different lengths
away from the bluff affect the possible drag reduction. The main results from this experiment is
that the six inch diameter disk one inch in front of the bluff body creates the smallest amount of
drag force. These results can be useful in reducing drag pressure on aircrafts and vehicles, to
allow for more speed and more efficiency.

19

References
Department of Mechanical Engineering at Michigan State University, Fluid Mechanics
Laboratory ME 332 Laboratory Handouts Spring 2016, 1995.
Scott, Jeff. Rocket Nose Cones and altitude. Aerospace web.org. 11/23/2003. 4/19/2016. Web.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0151.shtml

20

Appendix

Table 1: Drag Force in Newtons on the Bluff Cylinder with

all Combinations of Geometries Attached

Drag Force
(Newtons)
Disk Diameter
None
3"
2"
4"
6"
Shape 1
Shape 2
Shape 3

N/A
0.72102

Distance from Cylinder

1"
3"
0.70771
0.73189
0.59647
-0.13707
0.74580
0.67969
0.72227

0.76024
0.75934
0.61240
-0.46266
0.77549
0.77129
0.76417

6"
0.42943
0.49643
0.23406
-0.29957
0.57408
0.40926
0.50768

Table 2: Drag Coefficiant on the Bluff Cylinder with all Combinations of

Geometries Attached

Drag Coefficient
Disk Diameter
None
3"
2"
4"
6"
Shape 1
Shape 2
Shape 3

N/A
5.1715

Distance from Cylinder

1"
3"
5.0761
5.2495
4.2782
-0.9831
5.3493
4.8751
5.1805

21

5.4529
5.4464
4.3925
-3.3184
5.5623
5.5321
5.4811

6"
3.0801
3.5607
1.6788
-2.1487
4.1176
2.9355
3.6414

Table 3: Pressure in Pascals at every Pressure Tap for each Geometric Configuration
Mounted in front of the Bluff Cylinder.

22