MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125412854 · doi:10.4271/2021-01-0943

New Results from the Evaluation of Drag Reduction Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles

2021· article· en· W3125412854 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fenella de Souza, Arash Raeesi, Marc Belzile, Cheryl Caffrey, Andreas Schmitt

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in Mobility · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsTransport CanadaNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDragAerodynamicsAerodynamic dragWind tunnelReduction (mathematics)Fuel efficiencyMarine engineeringEngineeringAutomotive engineeringComputer scienceAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Aerodynamic technologies for light-duty vehicles were evaluated through full-scale testing in a large low-blockage closed-circuit wind tunnel equipped with a rolling road, wheel rollers, boundary-layer suction and a system to generate road-representative turbulent flow. This work was part of a multi-year, multi-vehicle study commissioned by Transport Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, and carried out in cooperation with the US EPA, to support the evaluation of light-duty-vehicle greenhouse-gas-emission regulations. A 2016 paper reported drag-reduction measurements for technologies such as active grille shutters, production and custom underbody treatments, air dams, ride height control and combinations of these. This paper describes an extension to that work and addresses vehicle aerodynamics in three ways. First, whole vehicle body-shaping changes were evaluated by adding older or newer generation models, representing distinct body style redesigns, of select vehicles of different classes from the 2016 study. Second, newer vehicles were added to represent the market application of advanced aerodynamics in terms of body shaping and drag-reduction technologies. Third, drag reduction over a range of yaw angles is reported for new technologies such as side-mirror removal (for replacement with camera systems) and air curtains. This paper focuses specifically on drag measurements, complementing a 2019 paper which focused on relating mean surface, wake and underbody pressure measurements to aerodynamic drag for a selection of the test vehicles.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The most effective redesign of a vehicle was found to reduce the wind-averaged drag area by 9% compared to the previous model. The best commercial or idealized applications of the top performing technologies, namely ride height control, underbody panels and active grille shutters, provided wind-averaged drag area reductions in the 6% to 8% range. Idealized technologies performed better than their commercial counterparts. The best applications of other technologies like side mirror removal and OEM air dams were in the range of 3% to 5% reduction in wind-averaged drag area. All OEM air curtains performed better when combined with ride height reduction but still only reduced wind-averaged drag area by around 1% in the best case. The complete range of results, yaw effects and comparison with previously published results are presented and discussed in this paper.</div></div>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in MobilitySame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207