The 3D model of the Baja SAE vehicle used in this study is shown in Figure 1A. It was developed based on the geometric specifications listed in Table 2. To reduce computational cost, several geometric details—particularly in the engine bay, underfloor region, and driver compartment—were simplified. Additionally, aerodynamic refinements were implemented on the vehicle’s front and roof areas to improve flow behaviour and streamline continuity.

The computational domain dimensions are shown in Figure 1B and summarized in Table 2, and were selected following established guidelines from previous aerodynamic simulations to avoid influence from far-field recirculation and ensure numerical accuracy.^28,29 A symmetry boundary condition was applied along the lateral plane, which effectively halves the simulation domain when the flow is symmetric, significantly reducing computation time without compromising fidelity.³⁰

A) 3D CAD model of the Baja SAE vehicle; B) Schematic of the computational domain with dimensions in meters.

Figure 2A shows the hybrid mesh generated in the ANSYS meshing module. This mesh consists of tetrahedral elements throughout the domain and prism layers near the vehicle surface, where the turbulent boundary layer is expected ( Figure 2B). The prism layer was configured with an initial height of 0.393 mm, a growth rate of 1.12, and five total layers, resulting in a non-dimensional wall distance (Y⁺) below 5. Prism elements were also applied to the tire surfaces.

To improve resolution around the vehicle and its wake, two box-shaped bodies of influence were added ( Figure 2C), using element sizes of 50 mm near the vehicle and 200 mm in the wake region. These refinements help capture vortical structures at multiple scales and ensure a smooth transition from near-field to far-field mesh densities.

A mesh independence study was conducted using six mesh configurations with total cell counts ranging from 800,000 to 10 million. The drag coefficient (Cd) was used as the convergence criterion, and mesh independence was achieved with approximately 1.16 × 10⁶ elements. Mesh quality was evaluated using the Jacobian determinant, with most elements scoring between 0.7 and 0.95, which is acceptable for accurately resolving boundary layer phenomena. Results of the mesh independence analysis are presented in Figure S3 (see Supplementary Material 3).

In the implemented model, the airflow was assumed to be incompressible (isothermal), Newtonian, and three-dimensional. The working fluid was dry air under standard conditions (T = 25°C, 1 atm), corresponding to a Reynolds number of 6.7 × 10⁵, based on the vehicle’s wheelbase.

The boundary conditions were defined as follows: a uniform inlet velocity of 30 km/h (8.33 m/s) was imposed at the domain entrance ( Figure 1B), while the outlet was set to constant atmospheric pressure. The lateral, upper, and symmetry planes were treated as symmetry boundaries (zero-gradient) to avoid artificially enclosing the wake region and to ensure realistic flow development. The ground, vehicle chassis, and tyres were modelled as stationary no-slip walls.

Simulations were performed using ANSYS FLUENT v19.2³¹ under steady-state conditions. The one-equation Spalart–Allmaras turbulence model³² was employed for the RANS formulation due to its efficiency in external aerodynamic flows at high Reynolds numbers and its relatively low computational cost. The transport equation for the model is expressed as Eq 1:

∂∂t(ρv~)+∂∂xi(ρv~ui)=G+1σ{∂∂xj[(ρv~+μ)∂v~∂xj]+Cb(∂v~∂xj)2}−Y

Equation 1. Transport equation for the modified turbulent kinematic viscosity ν in the Spalart–Allmaras one-equation turbulence model.³²

where G represents the production of turbulent viscosity, Y is its destruction near the wall due to viscous damping and wall-blocking effects, σ and cb are empirical constants, and ν is the molecular viscosity. A second-order spatial discretisation scheme was used, and pressure–velocity coupling was achieved through the COUPLED algorithm. Convergence was considered achieved when the residuals dropped below 1 × 10⁻⁵ within 5000 iterations.

The hybrid RANS-LES turbulence model DES was implemented in this study to obtain more accurate results and improve the visualization of the vorticity iso-surfaces in the near wake of the Baja SAE vehicle. In the DES model, the flow field can be divided into three regions: Euler Region, RANS Region and LES Region. The boundary layer regions are modelled with unsteady RANS (URANS) and the outer detached vortices are captured with LES.^33–35 The LES region and the called grey zones were calculated based on the guidelines reported on.³⁵

The estimation of the LES filter size (ΔLES) was used as a practical guideline to define mesh refinement regions in the wake. This estimation was based on characteristic geometric and flow scales, particularly the vehicle length, and should be interpreted as an approximate criterion rather than a strict determination of turbulence length scales. The estimation of the LES filter size (ΔLES) was used as a practical guideline to define mesh refinement regions in the wake. This estimation was based on characteristic geometric and flow scales and should be interpreted as an approximate criterion rather than a strict determination of turbulence length scales.

In accordance with standard DES/DDES formulations, the filter size Δ is defined based on the local grid resolution, typically as a characteristic cell dimension (e.g., Δ ≈ V1/3, where V is the cell volume), which is equivalent to the representative grid spacing used to govern the transition between RANS and LES regions.

In this study, an initial estimate of Δ was obtained using a characteristic length scale of the vehicle to guide mesh design, resulting in Δ ≈ 23.5 mm. This value was used to define refinement regions in areas where flow separation and vortex formation are expected, ensuring adequate spatial resolution of the wake while maintaining computational feasibility within the DES framework. Based on this criterion, the corresponding cell refinement volume (Δ³ ≈ 1.30 × 10⁻⁵ m³) was defined and used to adapt the mesh in ANSYS Fluent ( Figure 3), resulting in a final mesh of approximately 7 million elements.

The time step for the DES simulations is calculated according to⁹ as ∆t = ∆/Umax = ∆/U∞ = 2.822 × 10⁻³ s, where Umax, is the maximum velocity registered in the simulations, which in this case is the velocity of the incident fluid flow. The total time of analysis was determined as t = 4 Lcar/U∞ = 0.904s and 40 iterations per time step were used, where Lcar is the total length of car model.

Although the Reynolds number of the present study falls within a range where steady RANS approaches are often sufficient for predicting global aerodynamic quantities, the use of DES is motivated by the need to better resolve unsteady flow structures in the wake region. Bluff-body flows, even at moderate Reynolds numbers, exhibit complex flow separation and vortex dynamics that benefit from hybrid turbulence modeling approaches, particularly when the objective is to analyses wake behavior in detail.

For the RANS model, the drag coefficient (Cd) was calculated by averaging the values from the final 100 iterations of the steady-state simulation. The resulting Cd was approximately 1.290, with a standard deviation of 0.005, indicating good convergence stability of the RANS solution. In contrast, the hybrid RANS–LES model was implemented under unsteady-state conditions. The time-averaged Cd, computed from the instantaneous values at each timestep, was 1.249, with a standard deviation of 0.024, as shown in Figure S4 (see Supplementary Material S4). As expected in unsteady simulations, the drag coefficient fluctuates around a mean value^25,37 reflecting the transient nature of the flow. These fluctuations are associated with the resolution of time-dependent turbulent structures, particularly in the wake region, rather than representing a direct measure of predictive accuracy. The DES model captures a broader range of turbulence scales through its spatial filtering mechanism (ΔLES), allowing for a more detailed representation of vortex shedding and flow separation phenomena. Consequently, the comparison between RANS and DES results should be interpreted in terms of their relative capability to resolve flow structures and wake dynamics, rather than as an absolute measure of accuracy in drag prediction.

The aerodynamic behaviour of the Baja SAE vehicle model, as shown in Figure 4, reflects the unique characteristics of a competition-oriented off-road prototype rather than those of a conventional land vehicle. Due to the simplified bodywork and the absence of a front windshield, the flow does not exhibit well-defined aerodynamic features such as coherent recirculation bubbles, separation zones with distinct contours, or consistent vortex formation along roof pillars and between the hood and windshield. Figure 4A presents the velocity field on the symmetry plane using the RANS model. Although flow separation is evident in the near wake, the contours lack definition, revealing two distinct recirculation zones (labelled A and B in Figure 4B). Zone A is elongated in the streamwise direction due to the inertia of flow over the slanted roof, which has an inclination of approximately 5°.³⁷ In contrast, Zone B shows a more compact flow reattachment near the lower rear of the chassis, attributed to the sharp downward change in vehicle geometry. Additionally, the absence of a windshield creates internal recirculation near the driver’s chest and legs (labelled C).

Figure 5A and 5B show the pressure field in the symmetry plane and on the vehicle’s surface under RANS conditions. Notable pressure gradients are observed beneath the chassis and at key stagnation points—on the nose of the fairing, the front of the wheels, and particularly on the flat canvas behind the driver’s seat. The latter acts as a normal surface to the flow, generating a large stagnation region that significantly contributes to drag.

In contrast, the DES model provides a more detailed and realistic depiction of the flow, particularly in the velocity gradients and wake structure ( Figure 4C). This model captures small low-velocity regions near the lower chassis (Zone D), where the boundary layer develops complex flow behaviour not resolvable by RANS due to its time-averaging limitations. Figure 5C shows the corresponding pressure field obtained by the DES model, where enhanced detail is seen in the near wake. Notably, alternating high- and low-pressure zones are observed near the rear roof region, approximately 1 m downstream (Zone D), suggesting alternating vortex structures in the wake.³⁸

Streamline analysis based on the steady-state RANS model is presented in Figure 4D. Two prominent counter-rotating vortices (labelled X and Y) emerge in the near wake, in agreement with vehicle aerodynamics literature by Hucho³⁷ and Ahmed.³⁹ The upper rear flow conforms to the behaviour of a squareback vehicle with a slant angle α = 5°, as expected. The lower rear wake shows slight deviations due to the chassis’ upward inclination but still produces flow dynamics consistent with squareback-type wake structures, particularly in the formation of the Y-vortex that remains attached to the chassis.

It is important to note that streamline visualisation using the transient DES model is not included, as the temporal discretisation inherent to DES captures rapidly evolving multi-scale turbulence in the wake. These dynamic variations disrupt streamline continuity across time steps, making it impractical to depict a representative streamline field in the near wake using this model.

As previously discussed, turbulence models provide a valuable approximation of the flow dynamics around complex geometries, such as a Baja SAE vehicle. Figure 6 presents the longitudinal vorticity contours on the symmetry plane for both the RANS ( Figure 6A) and DES ( Figure 6B) models. In both cases, the near and far wake exhibit similar vortex trajectories and lengths; however, the DES model offers a more detailed representation of vortex structures due to its hybrid formulation. It captures both large-scale and small-scale vortices with greater clarity and spatial resolution.

The RANS model succeeds in identifying the principal vortex structures formed behind the vehicle ( Figure 6C), but it lacks accuracy in resolving their intensity, propagation, and dissipation downstream. This is attributed to the nature of the RANS approach, which models all turbulent scales via statistical averaging, limiting its ability to depict transient or fluctuating phenomena. In contrast, the DES model by blending RANS near walls with LES in detached regions captures a broader spectrum of turbulent scales ( Figure 6D). As a result, the DES simulation reveals a denser and more realistic distribution of vortical structures throughout the wake, particularly in the rotor and downstream zones.

Moreover, the application of the DES model clearly enhances the capture of both micro- and macro-scale vortices along the entire wake region. This improved resolution directly contributes to more accurate predictions of flow field variables, including the vehicle’s drag coefficient and streamline behaviour. The key differences in performance between these turbulence models arise from two fundamental features. First, the RANS model employs a statistical averaging method, decomposing flow variables into mean and fluctuating components, and is applied in a zonal fashion i.e., across the entire computational domain as predefined by the user. Second, the DES model operates as a wall-distance-based method. It dynamically transitions from RANS to LES depending on the distance of the mesh element from the wall and the local grid size, using a spatial filtering mechanism (∆_LES) and requiring mesh adaptation to function effectively.

Figures 6A and 6B show the vortex structures in the near wake, revealing stretching and diffusion behaviour consistent with classical vorticity dynamics. In the RANS approach, small and medium turbulence scales are entirely modelled, so the analysis is limited to averaged large-scale vorticity structures. According to Bernard and Wallace,⁴⁰ the steady-state, averaged vorticity transport equation is expressed as:

Dω¯iDt=ω¯j∂u¯i∂xj+ω′j∂u′i∂xj¯+υ∂2ω¯i∂xj2

Equation 2. Averaged vorticity transport equation.

Here, the left-hand side represents the convection of mean vorticity. The first term on the right-hand side corresponds to stretching due to the mean velocity field, the second term to stretching from turbulent fluctuations, and the third term to viscous diffusion. In RANS models using eddy-viscosity closures (such as Spalart–Allmaras), the fluctuating term is not directly resolved. Instead, the averaged vorticity field is derived from the velocity field obtained via the RANS equations.

This leads to a simplified form of the vorticity transport equation:

Dω¯iDt=ω¯j∂u¯i∂xj+∇×(∇vt×∇u¯)

Equation 3. Vorticity transport equation.

In this form, the two main physical mechanisms that influence the development of the mean vorticity field are stretching and eddy-viscosity-based ω¯ diffusion. The stretching term governs the rotation and amplification of vortical structures as they evolve downstream, while the diffusion term governs their spatial dispersion. This theoretical framework explains observed phenomena such as reconnection and cancellation of averaged vortical structures in the near wake.

The generation and transport of vortex structures in the near and far wake of a vehicle can significantly affect its aerodynamic performance. These vortices, resulting from the interaction between the airflow and solid surfaces, are inherently three-dimensional phenomena. Therefore, visualising their evolution and intensity in 3D during post-processing is essential to identify optimisation strategies for vehicle components such as the chassis, fairing, or other elements influencing aerodynamic efficiency.

One widely used method for vortex visualisation is the Q-criterion, which is derived from the second invariant of the velocity gradient tensor, defined as:

Q=12(‖Ω‖2−‖S‖2)

Equation 4. Mathematical definition of the Q-criterion for vortex visualization.

Where S is the symmetric part of the velocity gradient tensor (the rate of strain), and Ω is the antisymmetric part (the vorticity tensor). A region where Q>0 indicates that the local vorticity magnitude dominates over the strain rate, and therefore represents the presence of a vortex.⁴¹ Compared to planar vorticity iso-contours, the Q-criterion allows for a more detailed and three-dimensional visualisation of flow dynamics.

Figure 7 presents a comparison of vortex structures obtained using the Q-criterion with both RANS (a) and DES (b) turbulence models. In both cases, the main large-scale vortex structures in the near and far wake of the vehicle are consistent with the aerodynamic principles proposed by Hucho.³⁷ These include counter-rotating vortices originating from the vertical uprights that extend from the roof towards the far wake, paired vortices resulting from the interaction between lateral and underbody flows, and small-scale vortices formed around the vehicle’s tires.

The key distinction between the two models lies in their ability to represent the evolution of vortex structures. While the RANS model captures the origin of large-scale vortices through a spatially averaged formulation, the DES model incorporates both spatial and temporal discretization, enabling a more detailed representation of unsteady flow features in the near wake. In particular, DES allows the identification of smaller-scale and secondary vortical structures that are not resolved under steady-state assumptions. Figure 7 further illustrates these differences through Q-criterion isocontours colored by turbulence intensity. Regions of high vorticity are observed around the front fairing, structural struts, and the frontal areas of the wheels locations where flow separation and vortex formation are expected. These features are consistent with the geometric characteristics of the Baja SAE vehicle, including flat frontal surfaces, exposed structural elements, and wheels extending beyond the chassis width, which are typical of off-road vehicle configurations.

The Q-criterion visualizations presented in this study are intended as qualitative indicators of vortex structures. Accordingly, these visualizations are intended to complement the drag coefficient analysis and should not be interpreted as a quantitative characterization of turbulence intensity or wake dynamics. A consistent threshold value was used across all cases; however, no sensitivity analysis of the isovalue was performed. Therefore, the comparison between RANS and DES should be interpreted in terms of general structural differences rather than as a quantitative assessment of vortex intensity.

The key distinction between the two models lies in their ability to resolve the evolution of these vortex structures. While the RANS model captures the origin of large-scale vortices and propagates them through a spatial averaging process, the DES model introduces both spatial and temporal discretisation. This enables more accurate resolution of both the location and evolution of vortical structures in the near wake, and allows for the capture of smaller, secondary vortices that RANS tends to neglect.

Figure 7 further illustrates these phenomena, showing isocontours of the Q-criterion colored by turbulence intensity. High-intensity vortices are observed at the front fairing, the struts, and the frontal areas of the front wheels regions where vortex formation initiates (RANS model in Figure 7A and DES model in Figure 7B). This behaviour is attributed to specific design characteristics of the Baja SAE vehicle: flat metal panels in the front fairing, uncovered structural struts formed from a single pipe frame integrated into the chassis, and wheels that extend beyond the width of the chassis, which is common in high performance of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs).

The materials supporting the findings of this study are available in the Zenodo repository: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17295975.⁴³

These materials include the ANSYS simulation files used to generate the computational results presented in the paper (geometry, mesh, boundary conditions, and solver configuration). No external datasets were used in this study, as all results derive from numerical simulations developed by the authors.

The files are shared under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, allowing reuse and adaptation with proper citation. Due to file size limitations, the complete raw simulation output can be provided upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

• 1.  Maradey Lázaro JG, Ardila Gómez SA, Esteban Villegas HS: Aerodynamics Analysis for Optimization the Design of a Baja SAE Chassis. Dynamics, Vibration, and Control. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; Nov. 2018; Volume 4A. : V04AT06A043. Publisher Full Text
• 2.  Hallbach D, Gordon M: Baja Sae Competitions: Meeting And Interacting With International Students – Experiences Of Student And University Participants. 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Austin, Texas: ASEE Conferences. June 2009; p. 14.268.1–14.268.12. Publisher Full Text
• 3.  Zhang G, Shi W, Zhang D, et al.: A hybrid RANS/LES model for simulating time-dependent cloud cavitating flow around a NACA66 hydrofoil. Sci. China Technol. Sci. 2016; 59(8): 1252–1264. Publisher Full Text
• 4.  Noorbhasha N: Computational analysis for improved design of an SAE BAJA frame structure.Publisher Full Text
• 5.  De Moraes MC, Menezes MÂ: Determination, Validation, and Dynamic Analysis of an Off-Road Chassis. Engineering Design Applications III. Öchsner A, Altenbach H, Editors. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020; vol. 124. : pp. 45–60. Advanced Structured Materials. Publisher Full Text
• 6.  Korostelkin AA, Klyavin OI, Aleshin MV, et al.: Optimization of Frame Mass in Crash Testing of Off-Road Vehicles. Russ. Eng. Res. 2019; 39(12): 1021–1028. Publisher Full Text
• 7.  Diniz DDS, Ferreira AA, De Sousa Silva R, et al.: Computational Analysis of a Concept of Rear Suspension System for Off- Road Vehicle. presented at the 21st SAE Brasil International Congress and Exhibition. Oct. 2012; pp. 2012-36–0425. Publisher Full Text
• 8.  Muruga Lal Jeyan J, Nair KS, Nair KS: Aerodynamics and flow pattern performance evaluation of off road vehicle for various velocity range and angle of incidence. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. Feb. 2020; 1473(1): 012001. Publisher Full Text
• 9.  Delmunde RL, Maceti H, Levada CL, et al.: Analysis of Improvement in Aerodynamics of a Vehicle Type Baja SAE-And the Impact on Performance.2016; 5(11): 306–309.
• 10.  Fuerst Pacheco V, Alves De Miranda D: Aerodynamic Analysis of High Energy Efficiency Vehicles by Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation. Adv. Eng. Forum. Apr. 2019; 32: 41–51. Publisher Full Text
• 11.  Owens AT, Jarmulowicz MD, Jones P: Structural Considerations of a Baja SAE Frame. presented at the Motorsports Engineering Conference & Exposition. Dec. 2006; pp. 2006-01–3626. Publisher Full Text
• 12.  Zhang T, Sun Y, Wang Y, et al.: A Survey of Vehicle Dynamics Modeling Methods for Autonomous Racing: Theoretical Models, Physical/Virtual Platforms, and Perspectives. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. Mar. 2024; 9(3): 4312–4334. Publisher Full Text
• 13.  Franco-Camacho O, Mago-Ramos M, Vallés-Defendine L, et al.: Suspension system design for a vehicle under BAJA SAE parameters. Rev. Ing. UC. Dec. 2020; 27(3): 374–387. Publisher Full Text
• 14.  Zainal MN: Experimental Analysis of Racing Car Chassis for Modal Identification.2018; 7(1): 203–216.
• 15.  Bhardwaj V, Chauhan O, Arora R: Design and Optimization of Steering Assembly for Baja ATV Vehicle. presented at the WCX SAE World Congress Experience. Detroit, Michigan, United States: Apr. 2023; pp. 2023-01–0161. Publisher Full Text
• 16.  FINITE ELEMENT MODAL ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITE HEAVY VEHICLE CHASSIS USING ANSYS. Rasayan J. Chem. 2017. Publisher Full Text
• 17.  Ali Khan A, Nimanshu: Design and Analysis of a 4 Wheel Drive Transmission for BAJA SAE.2023. Unpublished. Publisher Full Text
• 18.  Ravi Kumar L, Prathiesh Lalan RA, Shriram Naibal B, et al.: Design, Modeling and Analysis of Customized Brake Caliper for SAE BAJA Vehicle. presented at the International Conference on Trends in Automotive Parts Systems and Applications. Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore, India: Feb. 2024; 2023-01–5106. Publisher Full Text
• 19.  Silva PMDC, et al.: Design of double stage springs for Baja SAE type vehicles. J. Eng. Exact Sci. Sept. 2023; 9(8): 16665–01e. Publisher Full Text
• 20.  Raju NT: Aerodynamic and Impact Analysis of SAE BAJA Vehicle. Int. J. Sci. Res. Eng. Manag. June 2025; 09(06): 1–9. Publisher Full Text
• 21.  Abu Farajd A: Optimizing a BAJA SAE Buggy with Ansys Mechanical and Ansys Fluent.2025. Reference Source
• 22.  Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W: An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: the finite volume method. 2nd ed.Harlow: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2007. [Nachdr.].
• 23.  Anderson JD: Computational fluid dynamics: the basics with applications. McGraw-Hill series in mechanical engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1995.
• 24.  Tu J, Yeoh GH, Liu C, et al.: Computational fluid dynamics: a practical approach. Oxford Cambridge, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann; Fourth ed.2024. Publisher Full Text
• 25.  Chaouat B: The State of the Art of Hybrid RANS/LES Modeling for the Simulation of Turbulent Flows. Flow Turbul. Combust. Sept. 2017; 99(2): 279–327. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
• 26.  Menter FR, Egorov Y: The Scale-Adaptive Simulation Method for Unsteady Turbulent Flow Predictions. Part 1: Theory and Model Description. Flow Turbul. Combust. July 2010; 85(1): 113–138. Publisher Full Text
• 27.  Spalart PR: Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow. June 2000; 21(3): 252–263. Publisher Full Text
• 28.  Salim SM, Ong KC: Performance of RANS, URANS and LES in the Prediction of Airflow and Pollutant Dispersion. IAENG Transactions on Engineering Technologies. Kim HK, Ao S-I, Rieger BB, editors. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2013; volume 170. : pp. 263–274. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol. 170. Publisher Full Text
• 29.  Qin P, Ricci A, Blocken B: CFD simulation of aerodynamic forces on the DrivAer car model: Impact of computational parameters. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. May 2024; 248: 105711. Publisher Full Text
• 30.  Smith R: Speed Up CFD with Symmetry and Cyclic Conditions.Aug. 04, 2025. Reference Source
• 31.  ANSYS Inc: ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide. Canonsburg, PA, USA: ANSYS Inc.; 2018.
• 32.  Spalart P, Allmaras S: A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, NV, U.S.A.: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Jan. 1992. Publisher Full Text
• 33.  Hasse C, Sohm V, Wetzel M, et al.: Hybrid URANS/LES Turbulence Simulation of Vortex Shedding Behind a Triangular Flameholder. Flow Turbul. Combust. July 2009; 83(1): 1–20. Publisher Full Text
• 34.  Boudreau M, Dumas G, Veilleux J-C: Assessing the Ability of the DDES Turbulence Modeling Approach to Simulate the Wake of a Bluff Body. Aerospace. Aug. 2017; 4(3): 41. Publisher Full Text
• 35.  Basu D, Hamed A, Das K: DES and Hybrid RANS/LES models for unsteady seperated turbulent flow predictions. 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, Nevada: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Jan. 2005. Publisher Full Text
• 36.  Ekman P, Wieser D, Virdung T, et al.: Assessment of hybrid RANS-LES methods for accurate automotive aerodynamic simulations. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. Nov. 2020; 206: 104301. Publisher Full Text
• 37.  Hucho W-H: Aerodynamics of road vehicles: from fluid mechanics to vehicle engineering. 4th ed.Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers; 1998.
• 38.  White FM: Fluid mechanics. 8th ed.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2016.
• 39.  Ahmed SR, Ramm G, Faltin G: Some Salient Features Of The Time-Averaged Ground Vehicle Wake. Presented at the SAE International Congress and Exposition. Feb. 1984; p. 840300. Publisher Full Text
• 40.  Bernard PS: Turbulent flow: analysis, measurement, and prediction. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley; 2002.
• 41.  Hunt JCR: Eddies, Streams, and Convergence Zones in Turbulent Flows. Center for Turbulence Research; 1988.
• 42.  Spalart PR: Detached-Eddy Simulation. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. Jan. 2009; 41(1): 181–202. Publisher Full Text
• 43.  Rodriguez Sarmiento DY, Ardila Gomez SA: Extended Data for “Aerodynamic Performance of a Baja SAE Vehicle Using Hybrid RANS–LES Approach”. Zenodo. 2025. Publisher Full Text

Published: 25 Jul 2026, 14:1199

Published: 12 Jun 2026, 14:1199

Published: 03 Nov 2025, 14:1199

Current Reviewer Status: ?

VERSION 3

PUBLISHED 25 Jul 2026

Revised

Reviewer Report 08 Aug 2026

Luis Fernando Rodriguez, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York, USA 

Approved

VIEWS 0

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 12 Jun 2026

Revised

Reviewer Report 26 Jun 2026

Luis Fernando Rodriguez, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York, USA 

Approved with Reservations

VIEWS 0

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 03 Nov 2025

Reviewer Report 10 Apr 2026

Luis Fernando Rodriguez, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, New York, USA 

Not Approved

VIEWS 0

Reviewer Report 02 Jan 2026

Adit S Misar, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA 

Not Approved

VIEWS 0