Simulation, Experimentation, and Collaborative Analysis of Adjacent Heat Exchange Modules in A Vehicular Cooling System
Simulation, Experimentation, and Collaborative Analysis of Adjacent Heat Exchange Modules in A Vehicular Cooling System
Simulation, Experimentation, and Collaborative Analysis of Adjacent Heat Exchange Modules in A Vehicular Cooling System
417
( Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Monash University-Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia)
E-mail: huangyuqi@zju.edu.cn
Received Jan. 30, 2013; Revision accepted Apr. 18, 2013; Crosschecked May 16, 2013
Abstract: A cooling system consisting of several heat exchange modules is a necessary part of an automobile, and its performance has a direct effect on a vehicles energy consumption. Heat exchangers, such as a charged air cooler (CAC), radiator, oil
cooler, or condenser have different structures and can be arranged in various orders, and each combination may produce different
effects because of interactions among them. In this study, we aimed to explore the principles governing interactions among adjacent heat exchangers in a cooling system, using numerical simulation and experimental technology. 3D models with different
combinations were developed, compared, and analyzed comprehensively. A wind tunnel test platform was constructed to validate
the computational results. We found that the heat dissipation of the modules was affected slightly by their relative position (the
rules basically comply with the field synergy principle), but was independent of the modules spacing within a certain distance
range. The heat dissipation of one module could be effectively improved by restructuring, but with a penalty of higher resistance.
However, the negative effect on the downstream module was much less than expected. The results indicated that the intensity of
heat transfer depends not only on the average temperature difference between cold and hot mediums, but also on the temperature
distribution.
Key words: Collaborative analysis, Heat exchangers, Field synergy principle, Computational fluid dynamics (CFD), Wind tunnel
doi:10.1631/jzus.A1300038
Document code: A
CLC number: TK172
1 Introduction
A cooling system is an important auxiliary system to ensure the operational stability of a vehicle. It
consists of several modules including a charged air
cooler (CAC), radiator, oil cooler, and condenser. All
heat exchanger modules are cooled successively by air,
the only cooling medium. With the growing demands
for fuel economy, automobile safety and comfort,
engine compartments have become more and more
crowded. The shape and size of a cooling system are
severely limited. Thus, with a single module already
designed for high efficiency, the spacing and position
*
Project (No. 51206141) supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China
Zhejiang University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
418
Huang et al. / J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 2013 14(6):417-426
2 Methodology
2.1 Simulation description
The main research objects in this study were a
typical radiator (830 mm624 mm102 mm) and
CAC (800 mm605 mm162 mm) from a certain
engineering vehicle.
The CAC was a kind of plate-fin heat exchanger
with serrated fins on the hot-side and wavy fins on the
cold-side. It was arranged in front of the radiator because of its more critical cooling requirement. The
radiator was a traditional tube-fin heat exchanger
composed of flat tubes and wavy fins. 3D models were
established on the basis of actual production (Fig. 1).
Ambient air, as the cooling medium, flows through the
CAC and radiator in turn. The space between the
modules cores is about 35 mm. The height and width
of the channels are consistent with those of the actual
products. In considering the restricted computational
capability, the fins are omitted and simplified as a
porous medium. The channels are meshed with
hexahedral cells. The water and air tanks are meshed
with unstructured tetrahedral mesh. We identified a
cell size from 0.5 mm to 3 mm after a gridindependent test. About 8.3 million mixture elements
were generated for the models.
According to the actual testing conditions, the
models were analyzed as four cases. The hot air mass
flow rates were kept at 1240 kg/h in all cases, and the
cooling air velocity was adjusted from 4 m/s to 10 m/s.
The standard k- turbulence model with shear
flow corrections was used to deal with high-speed
turbulent flow problems. The second-order upwind
difference scheme was adopted for the momentum,
energy and turbulence equations. The turbulence kinetic energy, k and its dissipation rate, , were obtained
from the following transport equations:
( k ) ( kui )
t
xi
k
t
k x j
Gk ,
x j
(1)
419
Huang et al. / J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 2013 14(6):417-426
x j
( ) ( ui )
t
xi
x j
t C k 2 / .
(2)
where and are the density and viscosity, respectively, and t is the transport time. Gk represents the
generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the
mean velocity gradients, calculated by
C1 Gk k C2 2 k ,
u u
ui i j
x
j xi
Gk t /
x j
(4)
(3)
The k and are coupled to the governing equations via the relation:
(a)
0.309
Fp
Fh
0.3703
Fp
b
0.25
Ld
L
0.1152
, (5)
0.389
Ld
Dc
0.396
Fh
Dc
0.113
Dc
0.21
, (6)
where is the fin thickness, and Dc is the hydrodynamic diameter of the fin.
According to the definition of friction factor f:
(b)
(c)
f D (P Pi Pe )2 Vc2 Ld .
(7)
P 2 Vc2 Ld f / D Pi Pe ,
(8)
Then,
420
Huang et al. / J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 2013 14(6):417-426
Outflow
1 2 3
5 6 7 8 9
10
Inflow
11
M 2
8 9
P T
10
V4
14
13
P 11
T 12
4
V
6 7
P T
9 10 11
T P
Inlet
Outlet
421
Huang et al. / J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 2013 14(6):417-426
Sensor
Flow totalizer
Differential pressure transmitter
Differential pressure transmitter
Pressure sensor
Differential pressure transmitter
Pressure sensor
Differential pressure transmitter
Range (kPa)
0300
20
02.5
0300
0100
0600
0200
Precision (%)
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
3 Results
3.1 Numerical results analysis
(b)
(c)
422
Huang et al. / J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 2013 14(6):417-426
-189
-86
16
X (mm)
119
222
Temperature (K)
360
355
350
345
340
(b)
335
-290
-189
-86
16
X (mm)
119
222
To validate the numerical simulations, the computational results were compared to the test results
(Figs. 9 and 10). The computational and test results
display similar trends. When the cooling air flow rate
was increased, the pressure drop increased too, accompanied by an enhancement of heat exchange. Thus,
the temperature differences of hot air and water were
both enlarged.
423
Huang et al. / J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 2013 14(6):417-426
1400
50
P (Pa)
P (Pa)
30
20
Test
10
0
Test
1200
40
Case
1000
800
600
400
Simulation
(a)
1
Simulation
200
0
(b)
1
Case
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
T (K)
T (K)
Test
Simulation
(a)
1
Case
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Test
Case
Simulation
(b)
4
From these comparisons we found that the simulated temperatures deviated from the test results
more than did the flow resistances. This is probably
because: (1) the porous parameters were converted
from the empirical equations of the friction factor,
thus inaccuracies in anticipating heat exchange could
not be corrected; (2) the porous model in FLUENT 13
may not be accurate in processing the energy equation,
thereby giving poor results. However, in general, the
simulated and measured results matched well in their
trends. The data error was acceptable and could be
corrected by parameters. Thus, the simulation model
could be effectively used in further studies.
3.3 Collaborative analysis
(9)
424
Huang et al. / J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 2013 14(6):417-426
0.995
0.27
1.2
1.1
0.25
1.0
0.23
0.9
Radiator (model O)
Radiator (model A)
Radiator (model B)
CAC (model O)
CAC (model A)
CAC (Model B)
0.8
0.7
1
Case
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.15
Y (mm)
X (mm)
Y (mm)
(b)
X (mm)
Y
(mm)
Y/mm
(c)
X (mm)
0.990
0.985
1.3
0.6
Model O
Model A
Model B
0.29
Qhot air (x105 J/s)
1.4
0.980
0.975
0.970
7
8
v (m/s)
10
11
425
Huang et al. / J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 2013 14(6):417-426
4 Conclusions
Fig. 14 Velocity distribution of the middle section in the CAC and the temperature distribution inside and
behind the CAC
(a) Model E; (b) Model F
1.2
15
0.27
14
0.25
1.1
0.23
1.0
Radiator (model O)
Radiator (model E)
Radiator (model F)
CAC (model O)
CAC (model E)
CAC (model F)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.29
Case
0.21
0.19
1.3
1.4
Model F
13
12
11
10
0.17
0.15
Model E
Case
426
Huang et al. / J Zhejiang Univ-Sci A (Appl Phys & Eng) 2013 14(6):417-426
Acknowledgements
Dong, J.Q., 2007. Research on Air Side Flow and Heat Transfer
Character of Vehicle Cooling Systems. PhD Thesis,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China (in
Chinese).
Dong, J.Q., Chen, J.P., Chen, Z.J., Zhang, W.F., Zhou, Y.M.,
Dong, J.Q., Chen, J.P., Chen, Z.J., Zhou, Y.M., Zhang, W.F.,
2007b. Heat transfer and pressure drop correlations for
the wavy fin and flat tube heat exchangers. Applied
Thermal Engineering, 27(2-3):2066-2073. [doi:10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2006.11.012]
Guo, Z.Y., Huang, S.Y., 2004. Field Synergy Principle and New
Technique of Heat Transfer Enhancement. China Electric
Power Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).
Huang, Y.Q., 2010. The Flow and Heat Transfer Coupling
Analysis and Construction Modification of Vehicular
Cooling Models based on Field Synergy Principle. PhD
Thesis, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Juan, T., 2008. Investigation and Assessment of Factors Affecting the Under-hood Cooling Air Flow Using CFD.
SAE Technical Paper, 2008-01-2658. [doi:10.4271/200801-2658]
Kim, H.J., Kim, C.J., 2008. A numerical analysis for the cooling
module related to automobile air-conditioning system.
Applied Thermal Engineering, 28(14-15):1896-1905.
[doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.12.002]