Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Experimental and Numerical Validation of a Wind Gust Facility

[+] Author and Article Information
Raffaele Volpe

e-mail: raffaele.volpe@u-bourgogne.fr

Arthur Da Silva, Luis Le Moyne

Laboratoire DRIVE,
Institut Supérieur de l'Automobile
et des Transports,
Université de Bourgogne,
49 rue Mademoiselle Bourgeois,
58000 Nevers, France

Valérie Ferrand

Institut Supérieur de l'Aéronautique
et de l'Espace (ISAE),
Université de Toulouse,
10 avenue Edouard Belin,
31400 Toulouse, France

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received May 21, 2012; final manuscript received December 6, 2012; published online January 18, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Z. C. Zheng.

J. Fluids Eng 135(1), 011106 (Jan 18, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: FE-12-1254; doi: 10.1115/1.4023194 History: Received May 21, 2012; Revised December 06, 2012

The study of a vehicle moving through a lateral wind gust has always been a difficult task due to the difficulties in granting the right similitude. The facility proposed by Ryan and Dominy has been one of the best options to carry it out. In this approach, a double wind tunnel is used to send a lateral moving gust on a stationary model. Using this idea as a starting point, the ISAE has built a dedicated test bench for lateral wind studies on transient conditions. Experimental work has been carried out by means of time-resolved PIV, aiming at studying the unsteady interpenetration of the two flows coming from each wind tunnel. Meanwhile, a 3D CFD model based on URANS was set up, faithfully reproducing the double wind tunnel. Both the experimental and numerical results are compared, and the evolution of the reproduced wind gust is discussed. Conclusions are finally determined about the validity of this kind of test bench for ground vehicle applications.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Hémon, P., and Noger, C., 2004, “Transient Growth of Energy and Aeroelastic Stability of Ground Vehicles,” C. R. Méc., 332, pp. 175–180. [CrossRef]
Baker, C. J., 1986, “A Simplified Analysis of Various Types of Wind Induced Road Vehicle Accidents,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 22, pp. 69–85. [CrossRef]
Hucho, W. H., 1989, Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, pp. 214–234.
Beauvais, F., 1967, “Transient Nature of Wind Gust Effects on an Automobile,” SAE, Technical Paper No. 670608. [CrossRef]
Cairns, R. S., 1994, “Lateral Aerodynamic Characteristics of Motor Vehicles in Transient Crosswinds,” Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK.
Baker, C. J., and Humphreys, N. D., 1996, “Assessment of the Adequacy of Various Wind Tunnel Techniques to Obtain Aerodynamic Data for Ground Vehicles in Cross Winds,” J.Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 60, pp. 49–68. [CrossRef]
Chadwick, A., 1999, “Crosswind Aerodynamics of Sports Utility Vehicles,” Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK.
Garry, K. P. and Cooper, K. R., 1986, “Comparison of Quasi-Static and Dynamic Wind Tunnel Measurements on Simplified Tractor-Trailer Models,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 22, pp. 185–194. [CrossRef]
Chometon, F., Strzelecki, A., Ferrand, V., Dechipre, H., Dufour, P. C., Gohlke, M., and Herbert, V., 2005, “Experimental Study of Unsteady Wakes Behind an Oscillating Car Model,” SAE, Technical Paper No. 2005-01-0604. [CrossRef]
Cooper, R., 1984, “Atmospheric Turbulence With Respect to Moving Ground Vehicles,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 17, pp. 215–238. [CrossRef]
Baker, C. J., 1991, “Ground Vehicles in High Cross Winds—Part II: Unsteady Aerodynamic Forces,” J. Fluids Struct., 5, pp. 91–111. [CrossRef]
Cheli, F., Corradi, R., Diana, G., and Tomasini, G., 2003, “A Numerical-Experimental Approach to Evaluate the Aerodynamic Effects on Rail Vehicle Dynamics,” Proceedings of 18th IAVSD Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks, Atsugi, Japan.
Bearman, P., and Mullarkey, S., 1994, “Aerodynamic Forces on Road Vehicles Due to Steady Side Winds and Gusts,” Proceedings of the RAeS Conference on Vehicle Aerodynamics, Loughborough, UK.
Passmore, M., Richardson, S., and Imam, A., 2001, “An Experimental Study of Unsteady Vehicle Aerodynamics,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part D (J. Automob. Eng.), 215, pp. 779–788. [CrossRef]
Dominy, R., 1991, “A Technique for the Investigation of Transient Aerodynamic Forces on Road Vehicles in Cross Winds,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part D (J. Automob. Eng.), 205, pp. 245–250. [CrossRef]
Ryan, A., 2000, “The Simulation of Transient Cross-Wind Gusts and Their Aerodynamic Influence on Passenger Cars,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Durham, Durham, UK.
Tsubokura, M., Kobayashi, T., Nakashima, T., Nouzawa, T., Nakamura, T., Zhang, H., Onishi, K., and Oshima, N., 2009, “Computational Visualization of Unsteady Flow Around Vehicles Using High Performance Computing,” Comput. Fluids, 38, pp. 981–990. [CrossRef]
Tsubokura, M., Nakashima, T., Kitayama, M., Ikawa, Y., Doh, D. H., and Kobayashi, T., 2010, “Large Eddy Simulation on the Unsteady Aerodynamic Response of a Road Vehicle in Transient Crosswinds,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 31, pp. 1075–1086. [CrossRef]
Favre, T., 2011, “Aerodynamic Simulations of Ground Vehicles in Unsteady Crosswind,” Ph.D. thesis, KTH School of Engineering Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hemida, H., and Krajnovic, S., 2009, “Transient Simulation of the Aerodynamic Response of a Double-Deck Bus in Gusty Winds,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 131(3), p. 031101. [CrossRef]
Dominy, R., and Docton, M., 1994, “Passenger Vehicles in Unsteady Cross Winds,” Proceedings of the RAeS Conference on Vehicle Aerodynamics, Loughborough, UK.
Macklin, A., Garry, K., and Howell, J., 1996, “Comparing Static and Dynamic Testing Techniques for the Crosswind Sensitivity of Road Vehicles,” SAE, Paper No. 960674, pp. 39–45. [CrossRef]
Dantec Dynamics GmbH, 2000, “FlowManager Software and Introduction to PIV Instrumentation,” Publication No. 9040U3625.
Spalart, P. R., and Allmaras, S. R., 1994, “A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” Rech. Aerosp., 1, pp. 5–21.
Menter, F., 1994, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32, pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Fluent Inc., 2006, “FLUENT User's Guide.”
Volpe, R., Ferrand, V., and Da Silva, A., 2011, “Validation d'un banc d'essais reproduisant les rafales de vent sur véhicule terrestre. Caractérisation de l’écoulement par TR-PIV,” Proceedings of 14ème congrès Français de Visualisation et de Traitement d'Images en Mécanique de Fluides–FLUVISU 14, Lille, France.
Baker, C. J., 1991, “Ground Vehicles in High Cross Winds—Part I: Steady Aerodynamic Forces,” J. Fluids Struct., 5, pp. 69–90. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Wind gust generator by use of an auxiliary wind tunnel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

CAD drawing of the ISAE testbench

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Projected side view scheme of a channel of the shutter system: (a) closed shutter configuration, and (b) open shutter configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Opening/closing door sequence scheme

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Velocity vectors imposed by the two wind tunnels: (a) vector composition, and (b) expected time evolution of the longitudinal and transverse component of velocity at a generic point of the measurement zone

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Part of the geometry from Fig. 2 (enlarged side view) with the position of the measurement plane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Three dimensional CFD: geometry and boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Shutter system CFD simplification: (a) shutter boundary conditions, (b) comparison between real and simplified shutters, and (c) an example of the use of shutter boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Unsteady gust; profiles of nondimensional velocity components at five points. A comparison of the TR-PIV data with the CFD models results. (a)–(e) Profile at the homonymous point, and (f) chosen points and measuring field positions.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Scheme explaining the unsteady profile of longitudinal velocity u+ in the test section. The “X” marks the considered point. (a) Pure longitudinal flow, (b) gust arrival, (c) steady gust, and (d) gust passage.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Unsteady gust; TR-PIV measurements versus the Spalart–Allmaras CFD simulations of the yaw angle field. (a) t+ = 3.79, (b) t+ = 7.97, and (c) t+ = 13.5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Unsteady gust; profiles of the yaw angle β at five points. A comparison of the TR-PIV data with the CFD models results. (a)–(e) Profile at the homonymous point, and (f) chosen points and measuring field positions.



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In