Model & approach
- Compare two oil-cooler and shroud geometries
- Assess inlet flow, pressure loss and heat transfer together
- Review the effects of inlet, fin and tube geometry on the design
Project / Thermal management
Geometry comparison for an oil cooler and shroud
Two design variants were compared in terms of airflow, pressure loss and transferable cooling duty.
Engineering question
The cooler geometry had to provide the required heat rejection within the available package space without unnecessarily restricting the air side.
Boundary conditions
- Project-specific heat-rejection target
- Restricted installation space and prescribed connections
- Airflow and liquid-side heat rejection treated as coupled design quantities
Results of the assessment
- The variants produced different inlet-flow patterns and thermal performance.
- The modified geometry was described as a clear improvement in the project account.
- The comparison exposed the trade-off between heat transfer, pressure loss and packaging.
Engineering consequence
The revised cooler and shroud geometry was selected as the basis for detailed development.
Context
Absolute operating data and a measurement comparison are not part of the documented assessment.
Related projects
Off-highwayCFD simulation
Heat-exchanger flow distribution
An unfavorable inlet geometry left large parts of the cooler matrix under-supplied. CFD exposed the recirculation and guided the geometry iterations.
View project
Off-highwayCFD simulation
Early cooling-concept assessment
Airflow, pressure loss and hot-air recirculation were assessed before a prototype of the enclosed machine was built.
View project
Off-highwayCFD simulation
Off-highway cooling system
A full-machine assessment combined inlet and outlet routing, pressure loss, component position and fan demand.
View projectA similar question?