400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.

org
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES
2007-01-4280
Under-hood Thermal Simulation
of a Class 8 Truck
Clinton L. Lafferty
Volvo Group North America
Ales Alajbegovic and Kevin Horrigan
Exa Corporation
Commercial Vehicle Engineering
Congress and Exhibition
Rosemont, Illinois
October 30-November 1, 2007
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036
For multiple print copies contact:
SAE Customer Service
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2007 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
Copyright 2007 SAE International
ABSTRACT
A validation study was performed comparing the
simulation results of the Lattice-Boltzmann Equation
(LBE) based flow solver, PowerFLOW

, to cooling cell
measurements conducted at Volvo Trucks North
America (VTNA). The experimental conditions were
reproduced in the simulations including dynamometer
cell geometry, fully detailed under-hood, and external
tractor geometry. Interactions between the air flow and
heat exchangers were modeled through a coupled
simulation with the 1D-tool, PowerCOOL, to solve for
engine coolant and charge air temperatures. Predicted
temperatures at the entry and exit plane of the radiator
and charge-air-cooler were compared to thermocouple
measurements. In addition, a detailed flow analysis was
performed to highlight regions of fan shroud loss and
cooling airflow recirculation. This information was then
used to improve cooling performance in a knowledge-
based incremental design process.
INTRODUCTION
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) along with other
virtual design methods can significantly increase
development process efficiency. The benefits of these
tools for design processes in the mainstream automotive
industry are extensively documented through a wide
range of popular and academic literature. Even with
such a proven record for providing a positive impact to
product development, adding these virtual design
methods to an internal process can be difficult. This is
due to the established internal development practices as
well as engineering culture. A key to gaining
acceptance of new methods is continued demonstration
of their capability, accuracy, and associated cost
savings.
Volvos entry into the owner/operator segment of the
Class 8 on-highway truck market in 2004 with VT 880
provided a number of product development challenges,
especially in the area of engine cooling. During the
original 2004 development of the VT 880, flow
simulations gave engineers direction on sizing and
positioning the cooling fan as well as the influence of
downstream obstructions. EPA US07 emission
regulations contributed to additional challenges related
to vehicle cooling.
Meeting these challenges required utilizing well
validated virtual tools; this meant comparing multiple
points of data from a physical prototype test with
corresponding numerical simulations. Correlation
provided that the design method improved final vehicle
performance and reduced the design cycle length.
Previous studies validating computational fluid dynamics
simulations against test data for the heavy-duty on-
highway (Class 8) trucks/tractors were limited. Nobel
and Jain [1] compared CFD simulations using a
commercial software package with test data for radiator
heat rejection, which was within 4%, Charge-Air-Cooler
(CAC) outlet within 9C, and cooling fan air flow
performance with a maximum 5% deviation. Siqueira et
al. [2] discussed results related to the second objective
regarding utilizing qualitative CFD results to enhance the
development process, such as airflow distribution to the
passenger side of the vehicle and observed recirculation
zones within the chassis.
Similar correlation studies in the automotive industry can
be found much earlier. Andra et al. [3] used CFD to
correlate predictions with wind tunnel data for cooling
system mass-flow rates. They determined the influence
of geometry and boundary simplifications on the
resulting air mass-flow rates. Knaus et al. [4] compared
two finite-volume based CFD codes finding that one of
them had a maximum cooling air mass flow deviation of
13% across a wide range of vehicle operating
conditions. Even though the other code was less
accurate; simulations could be completed with 28% less
simulation effort while providing correct trends for the
development process. Fortunato et al. [5] took a novel
approach of linking a LBE and finite-volume CFD codes
utilizing the advantages of each code to shorten time
required to provide results to an underhood thermal
development process. The Lattice-Boltzmann code
possessed strengths in handling multiple CAD surfaces
while the finite-volume code encompassed several
2007-01-4280
Under-hood Thermal Simulation of a Class 8 Truck
Clinton L. Lafferty
Volvo Group North America
Ales Alajbegovic and Kevin Horrigan
Exa Corporation
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
advanced physics models. Calculated versus measured
temperatures were within a maximum deviation of
10C, which was considered satisfactory.
Utilizing a common finite-volume code, Ding et al. [6]
compared the flow results for simplified and full vehicle
models and their influence on vehicle drag. Relative
results were presented for changes in the front grille
meshing processes, effect of ducting on the cooling
system aerodynamic drag contribution, and the influence
of thermal recirculation on vehicle climate performance.
Data comparison showed that the cooling system drag
coefficient was 0.020 compared to wind tunnel
measurements ranging between 0.025 0.030 and that
the air conditioner condenser inlet temperature was 5C
lower than measured in the wind tunnel.
Alajbegovic et al. [7] conducted a validation study of the
Lattice-Boltzmann equation solver coupled with a one-
dimensional (1D) tool, using a similar simulation
approach as in the present study, on a sport utility
vehicle. The predicted radiator top tank temperature was
1C higher than the measured value. Also, Alajbegovic
et al. [8] showed good correlation between the
measured and predicted aerodynamic parameters and
radiator inlet face temperatures.
Previous studies involved one or two key cooling system
performance parameters for model validation. This work
attempts to use multiple parameters for the validation of
the simulation approach for cooling system performance
predictions.
OBJECTIVES
This present work has two major focus areas, both
utilizing CFD methods in the development of a Class 8
truck/tractor cooling system.
1. Perform a model validation to build confidence into
the product development environment by predicting
key cooling performance temperatures within a 1 to
3C target window allowing for both measurement
and computational errors.
2. Demonstrate examples of utilizing in-depth
quantitative and qualitative flow analysis techniques
to improve design concepts during early periods of
vehicle development.
METHODOLOGY
Validation of the simulation model for the Volvo VT 880
centered on three major areas:
1. CFD modeling with LBE CFD solver coupled to a 1D
heat exchanger tool.
2. Collection of operating data at the Volvo Trucks
North America (VTNA) chassis dynamometer cell in
Greensboro, North Carolina.
3. Comparison and discussion of the CFD results and
dynamometer test data.
CFD PROCEDURE
The virtual representation of the geometry included a
detailed vehicle model (Figure 1) as well as a simplified
geometric test cell representation. An LBE CFD solver,
PowerFLOW was utilized to simulate the airflow and
temperature distribution in the entire test cell domain
including the engine compartment and vehicle exterior.
PowerCOOL coupled with the flow field simulation
performed heat exchanger performance calculations of
radiator top and bottom tank temperatures as well as the
charge-air-cooler heat rejection and charge air outlet
temperature.
Figure 1. Overview of the detailed Class 8 tractor model
geometry.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
Mathematical Model
Lattice-Boltzmann Equation (LBE) solvers are
numerically very efficient and robust. The increased
numerical efficiency allows handling of lattices with very
large voxel (or element) counts. Properties of the
Boltzmann equation allow for an improved treatment of
fluid interaction with the wall surface. Surfels, surface
elements, are designed as active elements that interact
with the neighboring lattice elements. The combination
of both large lattices and dynamic surface treatment
allow accurate representation of surfaces without the
need for geometry simplification.
The use of Lattice-Boltzmann equation in fluid flow
simulations was demonstrated by Frisch, Hasslacher,
and Pomeneau [9]. Since then, considerable effort was
invested into the development of a Lattice-Boltzmann
flow solver and several reviews were presented in the
recent past [10, 11]. Turbulence effects are modeled
using a modified k-c model based on the original RNG
formulation [12, 13]. This LBE based description of
turbulent fluctuation carries flow history and upstream
information, and contains high order terms to account for
the nonlinearity of the Reynolds stress [13]. This is
contrasted with typical Navier-Stokes solvers, which
tend to use the conventional linear eddy viscosity based
on the Reynolds stress closure models.
Turbulence and temperature equations are solved on
the same lattice using a modified Lax-Wendroff-like
explicit time marching finite difference scheme.
Simulations presented in this work were performed using
the solver described in the following references [14, 15,
16, 17, and 18].
By using detailed fan blade geometry in combination
with the multiple-reference-frame (MRF) fan model
approach, an accurate prediction of the fan operating
point was made. MRF approaches remove limitations
with momentum source approaches which depend on
the fan performance curves to be taken from similar
vehicle installation and operating conditions (vehicle
restriction points and forward travel speeds). Internal
validation has shown the MRF formulation to predict fan
performance within 5% of measured data.
Input data for the heat exchanger model was obtained
from the cooling package heat exchanger manufacturer,
Figure 2 and Figure 3. Measured thermal characteristics
of the heat exchangers are an important input to the
cooling airflow simulations. The cooling air pressure
drop across heat exchangers such as radiators, charge-
air-coolers or condensers are modeled as porous media
by Darcys Law [19]. Heat transfer between the air and
heat exchangers is governed by the heat transfer
coefficient, a measured parameter. Heat transfer
coefficients are measured as a function of the air and
coolant mass flow rates. The measured values can be
interpolated using the sandwich formula which relates
the heat transfer coefficient, Htc, to the coolant and air
mass flow rates:
1
1 1
a h c
a c
Htc
K D K
m m
o |
=
| | | |
+ +
| |
\ . \ .

(1)
where
a
m is air mass flow rate,
c
m is coolant mass flow
rate, and
a
K ,
c
K ,
h
D , o , | are the interpolation
coefficients that are calculated from the experimental
data using Monte-Carlo interpolation.
The heat transfer between cooling airflow and heat
exchangers was modeled using the 1D-tool,
PowerCOOL [18, 20]. The input parameters for the
radiator and charge-air-cooler operation are shown in
Table 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3. For both components
the internal mass flow rates were provided. A fixed heat
rejection value was given to the radiator and the coolant
inlet temperature and temperature drop were calculated.
CAC heat rejection and charge air outlet temperature
were predicted given a fix inlet temperature.
Figure 2. Normalized heat exchanger cooling air static
pressure drop curves.
Overview of CFD methodology
The CFD methodology can be divided into seven
general steps which are covered in the following
sections:
1) Export of native CAD data to IGES format for
multiple sub-assemblies.
2) Import of IGES files into a commercial surface
meshing and repair software.
a. Manual cleaning and repair of critical
surfaces.
b. Initial surface triangulation for
simplification.
3) Surface wrapping with a commercial tool to
create a manifold surface for non-critical sub-
assemblies.
4) Case or model file setup.
a. Application of boundary and initial
conditions for both engine performance
and test cell environment.
Cooling Air Static Pressure Drop
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Component Massflow / Max. System Massflow
S
t
a
t
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
r
o
p

/

M
a
x
.

S
y
s
t
e
m

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
r
o
p

RAD
CAC
AC COND
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
b. Definition of voxel size regions (VRs).
c. Definition of heat exchangers and other
porous medias.
5) Fully automated discretization (or volume
meshing).
6) Simulation with LBE solver.
7) Data analysis with graphical and text-based
tools.
Geometry Preparation
The IGES files from Pro/E were converted to tessellated
surfaces using a commercially available surface
meshing tool [21]. Surfaces, critical to the accuracy of
the analysis, such as the vehicles hood and cab as well
as the fan blade, fan ring, and fan shroud were prepared
by manual surface meshing techniques. Less critical
surfaces such as the engine and chassis suspension
elements were triangulated, then surface wrapped
(enclosure in a manifold set of surface triangles) using a
commercial software package [22]. Geometry
preparation from raw CAD data to surfaces ready for
CFD simulations was less than 5 man-days.
PowerFLOW only requires that each part/assembly is
closed; the domain can be composed of multiple water
tight surfaces instead of a single water-tight surface that
is required for many finite-volume codes. As a result, the
case file setup time is limited to a single man-day.
Generation of the lattice (or volume mesh) was fully
automated, and required no user intervention after which
the model was directly submitted to a multiple node
Linux cluster for simulation.
a.)
b.)
Figure 3. Normalized a.) radiator and b.) CAC heat
exchanger performance.
Boundary and Operating Conditions
As mentioned earlier the increased level of detail in both
the geometric and mathematical models has reduced
the need for all but the most basic test cell ambient and
vehicle engine operating data which is shown in Table 1.
This data was taken from the chassis dynamometer
tests, since the upfront simulations were completed with
significantly higher engine operating parameters.
Operating Conditions
Engine Speed (RPM) 1200 1600
Ambient Temp (C) Per Test Code
Atm. Pressure (kPa) 99.2
Boundary Conditions
Ram Air Speed (kph) 55 55
Fan Speed (RPM) 1480 1962
Radiator Heat Rej (% of RAD+CAC) 77% 73%
Coolant Flowrate (kg/s) 5.4 7.3
CAC Inlet Temp - Amb (C) 183.8 203.9
CAC Flowrate (kg/s) 0.33 0.48
AC Condenser Heat Rejection (kW) 12 12
Table 1. Operating and boundary conditions for
PowerFLOW CFD model.
Solving Procedure
After preparation of the simulation case, the model was
submitted to a remote computing cluster for automatic
generation of the lattice (discretization) and subsequent
simulation. The discretization occurred on a 4 processor
AIX computer with 50 gigabytes of RAM and resulted in
a lattice with the volume and surface element counts
shown in Table 2.
Lattice Statistics
Number of volume elements (voxels) (M) 81
Number of surface elements (surfels) (M) 17
Memory required for simulation (Gb) 37
Table 2. Lattice size statistics.
The simulation occurred on a 124 processor Linux
cluster with dual core 2.4GHz AMD Opteron processors.
The simulation used initial conditions from the results of
a previous simulation with coarser resolution and
isothermal heat exchangers. This has been shown to
significantly reduce overall simulation time in that it
provides a better starting point for the momentum field of
the fine simulation. The stopping point for the simulation
was determined by monitoring air flow rates through
each heat exchanger, inlet and outlet air temperatures,
as well as coolant temperatures. All key quantities
settled after 120,000 time steps or about 7000 CPU-
hours. Simulations with similar operating conditions on
other trucks generally have a computational expense in
the range of 3000 to 8000 CPU-hours.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
VTNA CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER PROCEDURE
Vehicle cooling system performance testing was
conducted according to a proprietary test procedure [23].
The following quantities were measured:
- Ambient temperature (C)
- Ambient atmospheric pressure (kPa)
- Average front grille temperature (C)
- Average Charge-Air-Cooler (CAC) cooling air inlet
temperature (C)
- Average radiator cooling air inlet temperature (C)
- Average radiator cooling air exit temperature (C)
- Radiator top tank coolant temperature (C)
- Radiator bottom tank coolant temperature (C)
- CAC inlet tank charge air temperature (C)
- CAC outlet tank charge air temperature (C)
- Coolant flow rate (LPM)
- Engine intake (charge air) air mass flow rate (kg/s)
Test Instrumentation and Calibration
Temperature values were measured with Type K
thermocouples, and generic thermocouple coefficients
are utilized. Thermocouples measuring critical cooling
system performance values such as the radiator and
CAC inlet and outlet temperatures are calibrated using
an oil bath.
Coolant flow rates were measured with a turbine style
flow meter, and engine intake air measurements were
gathered with a Venturi-type flow meter. Pressures were
measured using diaphragm-type pressure transducers.
Flow rate and pressure sensors are calibrated at a
standard calibration laboratory.
The average of two thermocouples measurements
(usually within 0.1C) positioned near the tank/coolant
pipe connection point provided radiator top and bottom
tank temperatures. Only single thermocouples were
utilized on the CAC inlet and outlet tanks. To measure
the cooling package inlet temperature, the average of
four thermocouples that were mounted to the back side
of the inlet grille screen was taken. Cooling package
core cooling air inlet and exit temperatures were
measured using the mean of 9 uniformly spaced
thermocouples. The instrumented cooling package is
shown in Figure 4.
Test Procedures
The chassis dynamometer test cell resembles a semi-
closed loop wind tunnel with a single roller configuration
for applying load to the vehicles rear wheels (Figure 5)
and a ram air tunnel capable of simulating varying
forward travel speeds to the front grille of the vehicle.
The facility utilizes an industry standard signal
conditioning, conversion, and data collection system.
Vehicles are generally subjected to multiple operating
conditions; however, only two points were selected for
the analytical model validation: 1200 and 1600 engine
speeds (ERPM) both at full engine load. The 1200
ERPM point represents a worse case scenario; whereas
1600 ERPM represent a more common operating
condition. At each operating point, the vehicle systems
achieved steady state operation and then a series of
measurements were taken over a set period of time. The
average of these measurement periods were reported
as the final test results. Temperature measurement
stability was specified in the internal test procedure [23].
Figure 4. Thermocouple placement on the instrumented
cooling package module.
Figure 5. Layout of VTNA chassis dynamometer test cell.
Test Vehicle
The vehicle chosen for the measurements was the Volvo
VT 880, an on-highway Class 8 tractor (Figure 6). The
vehicle was equipped with a 447 kW brake power (600
Hp) Volvo 16-liter engine, maximized frontal area cooling
package, as well as a vendor fan drive and blade.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
Figure 6. Volvo VT 880.
INITIAL CORRELATION RESULTS
Due to the LBE CFD solvers numerical stability and
available best practices the first time yield (quality of the
results from the first solving attempt) is generally very
high. It usually reaches 100% with exceptions in cases
of input data errors. Results shown in Table 3 represent
the comparison between the measurement data and first
simulation results. Differences between the data and
predictions are calculated as the CFD prediction minus
measured data value (i.e. a negative difference indicates
that the CFD code under-predicted the measured value).
Again, a key goal of this work was to establish
correlation among several variables representing the
entire cooling system instead of focusing just on one or
two parameters.
At first inspection, the model validation results indicate
good agreement with the measured data. However,
those involved in cooling system performance prediction
might be less impressed especially with the top tank
temperature and average radiator cooling air exit
temperatures. Regardless of the debate about sensor
limitations or data dispersion, cooling system component
responsible engineers and project management make
decisions over differences less than 2C.
Initial differences in CFD results and test data
Engine Speed (RPM) 1200 1600
Front Grille Exit Average (C) 0.4 1.0
Avg AC Condenser Temp Rise (C) -3.5 -4.8
Charge Air Out (C) -2.0 -1.4
CAC Heat Rejection (%) 2.6% 2.4%
CAC Cooling Air Inlet Temp Avg (C) -2.0 -2.4
TopTank Temp (C) 4.3 2.9
Radiator Coolant Temp Drop (C) 0.0 0.0
RAD Cooling Air Inlet Temp Avg (C) -0.8 -1.0
RAD Cooling Air Exit Temp Avg (C) 7.9 5.0
Table 3. Differences between CFD predictions and
chassis dynamometer test data.
For the accurate prediction of cooling system
performance parameters, it is essential to determine the
correct cooling air mass flow rate. Extensive validation
of the MRF model showed that it provides accurate
predictions. The remaining issue affecting the mass flow
rate is the resistance of the heat exchangers. The
cooling package module contributes significantly to the
total system resistance [24], and the mathematical
model for the heat exchanger core uses measured data
from the cooling package vendor. A common practice is
to provide data from component wind tunnels, and this
data may not be corrected for empty wind tunnel losses.
Figure 7 shows the difference in corrected and
uncorrected pressure loss curves.
Figure 7. Corrected heat exchanger cooling air static
pressure drop curves.
After correcting the porous media coefficients for both
the radiator and charge-air-cooler, the air flow through
the cooling package increased over four percent.
Radiator top tank prediction improved significantly;
however, charge-air-cooler agreement decreased
slightly. Results are shown in Table 4 for 1200 ERPM
and Table 5 for 1600 ERPM.
Difference
s w/ Org
PM Coeff.
Difference
s w/ Corr.
PM Coeff.
Engine Speed (RPM) 1200 1200
Front Grille Exit Avg (C) 0.4 0.4
Avg AC Condenser Temp
Rise (C) -3.5 -3.6
Charge Air Out (C) -2.0 -2.3
CAC Heat Rejection (%) 2.6% 2.8%
CAC Cooling Air Inlet
Temp Avg (C) -2.0 -2.1
Top Tank Temp (C) 4.3 2.9
Radiator Coolant Temp
Drop (C) 0.0 0.1
Radiator Cooling Air Inlet
Temp Avg (C) -0.8 -1.1
Radiator Cooling Air Exit
Temp Avg (C) 7.9 6.1
Table 4. Differences between CFD predictions and
chassis dynamometer test data at 1200 ERPM, before
and after correcting porous media coefficients.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
Difference
w/ Org PM
Coeff.
Difference
w/ Corr.
PM Coeff.
Engine Speed (RPM) 1600 1600
Front Grille Exit
Average (C) 1.0 1.0
Avg AC Condenser
Temp Rise (C) -4.8 -4.9
Charge Air Out (C) -1.4 -1.9
CAC Heat Rejection
(%) 2.4% 2.7%
CAC Cooling Air Inlet
Temp Avg (C) -2.4 -2.5
Top Tank Temp (C) 2.9 1.2
Radiator Coolant Temp
Drop (C) 0.0 0.0
Radiator Cooling Air
Inlet Temp Avg (C) -1.0 -1.6
Radiator Cooling Air
Exit Temp Avg (C) 5.0 3.1
Table 5. Differences between CFD predictions and
chassis dynamometer test data at 1600 ERPM, before
and after correcting porous media coefficients
DISCUSSION AND FOLLOW-UP ANALYSIS
From a numerical analysts perspective, excellent
agreement exists between the test data and
PowerFLOW results, except for the AC condenser
temperature rise, CAC cooling air inlet temperature, and
radiator cooling air inlet and exit temperatures. Example
sources of error include the thermocouple calibration as
well as error in matching the position of the
thermocouple positions between physical test and
simulation. Figure 8 shows the location of the
thermocouples on the front of the CAC and radiator,
marked with the plus (+) signs.
Measurements were taken utilizing thermocouple grids;
however, each thermocouple wire extended
approximately 10 mm from the grid structure. The final
position during the test could have been slightly different
due final test setup, instrumentation debugging, and for
movement due to vehicle operation. Table 6 and Table 7
show the sensitivity of CFD measurement points varied
10mm around the original position coordinates and the
impact on the difference between the mean for the nine
grid measurement points and mean of CFD
measurement points at 1200 and 1600 ERPM,
respectively.
a.)
b.)
Figure 8. Temperature measurement locations for a.)
radiator and b.) CAC from the CFD model.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
Original
Position Y -10 Y +10 Z +10 Z -10
Engine
Speed 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200
Avg AC
Condense
r Temp
Rise (C)
-3.6 -3.6 -3.6 -5.3 -1.2
CAC
Cooling
Air Inlet
Temp Avg
(C)
-2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -3.2 -0.5
Radiator
Cooling
Air Inlet
Temp Avg
(C)
-1.1 -1.6 -0.6 -0.9 -1.5
Radiator
Cooling
Air Exit
Temp Avg
(C)
6.1 6.2 6.4 5.9 6.3
Table 6. 1200 ERPM thermocouple position sensitivity.
Original
Position Y -10 Y +10 Z +10 Z -10
Engine
Speed 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600
Avg AC
Condenser
Temp Rise
(C)
-4.9 -4.9 -4.9 -6.2 -3.0
CAC
Cooling Air
Inlet Temp
Avg (C)
-2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -3.4 -1.2
Radiator
Cooling Air
Inlet Temp
Avg (C)
-1.6 -2.1 -1.0 -1.3 -1.7
Radiator
Cooling Air
Exit Temp
Avg (C)
3.1 3.2 3.5 3.0 3.2
Table 7. 1600 ERPM thermocouple position sensitivity.
Based on the agreement obtained for other temperature
comparisons, one may argue that the temperature grid
on the CAC inlet face shifted downward 10mm during
the actual test. Agreement between measured and CFD
values for the CAC inlet face improved from -2.1 to -
0.5C at 1200ERPM and from -2.5C to -1.2C at
1600ERPM. Also, note that the CAC inlet face
measurements were sensitive to the temperature
gradient created by the AC condenser. Varying the
temperature measurement grid within the CFD results
showed that the average radiator inlet or outlet
temperatures had little sensitivity to measurement grid
position.
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EVOLUTION USING
SIMULATION RESULTS
Final model correlation is a last step in an analysis cycle.
Just as vehicle programs begin with a few sketches and
end with the market introduction and on-going product
support, virtual simulations have a similar life cycle
which today begins earlier in the vehicle development
process. CFD simulations produce a significant amount
of data and require significantly more resources for their
creation. Utilizing both in-depth quantitative and
qualitative CFD data analysis can increase engineering
efficiency as well as the value of simulations to the
development process. The time spent to do a detailed
analysis of the flow field in the area of interest often
leads to a logical choice for the optimized design.
Examples of in-depth analysis during the initial
development process were a modification to the fan-out-
of-shroud (FOOS) depth as well as recirculation shield
improvements.
A key metric for cooling system performance is a change
in the radiator top tank temperature (assuming fixed
engine heat rejection). Modification 1 to the fan out of
shroud distance increased the top tank temperature by
0.5C, indicating degradation in performance. Analysis
showed that the radiator cooling air flow had decreased
by 1.2% due to changes in the fan operating point.
Utilizing qualitative flow field analysis revealed that
Modification 1 had changed the blade tip flow structure
as shown in Figure 9 in an unfavorable way resulting in
less efficient air handling.
a.)
b.)
Figure 9. a.) Original FOOS position compared to increase
in blade tip flow due to b.) Modification 1 to fan out of
shroud distance.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
While a target for this phenomenon has not been
established, it can now be compared between other
design revisions or other vehicle platforms.
Finally, Figure 10 shows the qualitative particle traces
from an earlier prototype concept and production vehicle
showing cooling air recirculation paths that were
reduced in the final production parts. The red particle
traces on the lower right side of cooling package in
Figure 10a have been reduced in Figure 10b. Previous
testing has shown that reducing recirculation improves
cooling performance.
a.)
b.)
Figure 10. Improvements in recirculation shield from a.)
early prototype concepts to b.) final production release.
CONCLUSIONS
A general methodology was defined utilizing a LBE CFD
solver coupled with a 1D heat exchanger tool. This
approach resulted in radiator top tank temperature
predictions within 5C of measured values while
requiring less than 10 man-days to complete the initial
baseline case and 1 - 2 days for subsequent design
revisions or CFD model improvements.
Initial model validation showed with basic heat
exchanger input data top tank temperature were over-
predicted by 4.3C at 1200 ERPM and 2.9C at
1600ERPM. Charge air outlet temperature was under-
predicted by approximately 2C at both 1200 and 1600
ERPM. Adding corrections to the input data for the
component wind tunnel losses improved the correlation
results. Top tank temperature prediction improved by
1.4C and 1.7C at 1200 and 1600 ERPM, respectively;
however, CAC charge air outlet temperature predictions
were made worse by less than 1C. Agreement was
achieved between simulation and test within the 1 to 3C
target window for the two major factors: radiator top tank
and CAC charge air outlet temperatures. Cooling air
temperature grid sensitivity studies indicated that
additional improvements could be made on the AC
condenser temperature rise (from an under-prediction of
3.6C to 1.2C at 1200ERPM) and CAC cooling air inlet
temperature (from 2.1C to 0.5C CFD under-prediction
at 1200ERPM) by shifting the CFD measurement points
downward (-Z) 10mm. Similar trends were observed at
1600ERPM reaffirming the challenges associated with
measuring individual temperature locations in high
gradient regions.
Finally, the accurate prediction of absolute, quantitative
results allows engineers to make more definitive
decisions; moreover, the use of relative quantitative as
well as qualitative data and 3D results visualization also
led to design improvements during the early phases of
vehicle development while many sub-systems and
engine parameters were not fully defined.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the VTNA Complete Vehicle (CV)
department for providing the test results and practical
background on the chassis dynamometer testing
procedure.
Also, the authors are thankful for help from the physics
and software groups at Exa Corporation responsible for
the development of thermal functionality in the
PowerFLOW code. Development of the hybrid code for
thermal management in PowerFLOW was supported by
the National Science Foundation under the Grant DMI-
0239176.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM
REFERENCES
1. T.P. Nobel and S.K. Jain, Improving Truck
Underhood Thermal Management Through CFD,
SAE 2002-01-1027, Detroit, MI, 2002.
2. C. de la R., Siqueira, P. Vatavuk, M. Jokuszies, and
M. R. Lima, Numerical Simulation of a Truck
Underhood Flow, SAE 2002-01-3453, Sao Paulo,
Brazil, 2002.
3. R. Andra, R., E. Hytopoulos, K. Kumar, and R. Sun.
The Effect of Boundary and Geometry Simplification
on the Numerical Simulation of Front-End Cooling,
SAE 980395, Detroit, MI, 1998.
4. H. Knaus, C. Ottosson, F. Brotz, and W. Kuhnel.
Cooling Module Performance Investigation by
Means of Underhood Simulation, SAE 2005-01-
2013, Toronto, Canada, 2005.
5. F. Fortunato, F. Damiano, L. Di Matteo, and P.
Oliva. Underhood Cooling simulation for the
Development of New Vehicles, SAE 2005-01-2046,
Toronto, Canada, 2005.
6. W. Ding, J. Williams, D. Karanth, and S. Sovani.
CFD Application in Automotive Front-End Design,
SAE 2006-01-0337, SAE, Detroit, MI, 2006.
7. A. Alajbegovic, R. Sengupta, and W. Jansen.
Cooling Airflow Simulation for Passenger Cars
using Detailed Underhood Geometry, SAE 2006-
01-3478, Chicago, IL, 2006.
8. A. Alajbegovic, B. Xu, A. Konstantinov, J. Amodeo,
and W. Jansen, Simulation of Cooling Airflow under
Different Driving Conditions, SAE 2007-01-0766,
Detroit, MI, 2007.
9. U. Frisch, B. Hasslacher, and Y. Pomeneau, Lattice
gas automata for the Navier-Stokes equation,
Physical Review Letters, 56:1505-1508, 1986.
10. S. Chen and G. D. Doolen, Lattice Boltzmann
method for fluid flows, Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics, 30:329-364, 1998.
11. S. Succi, The Lattice Boltzmann Equation for Fluid
Dynamics and Beyond, Series Numerical
Mathematics and Scientific Computation, Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 2001.
12. V. Yakhot, and S.A., Orszag, Renormalization
Group Analysis of Turbulence. I. Basic Theory J.
Sci. Comput., 1(2), 3-51, 1986.
13. V. Yakhot, V., S.A. Orszag, S. Thangam, T. Gatski,
and C. Speziale, Development of turbulence
models for shear flows by a double expansion
technique, Phys. Fluids A, 4 (7), 1510-1520, 1992.
14. H. Chen, S.A. Orzag, I. Staroselsky, and S. Succi,
Expanded Analogy between Boltzmann Kinetic
Theory of Fluid and Turbulence, J. Fluid Mech.,
519: 307-314, 2004.
15. H. Chen, C. Teixeira, and K. Molvig, Realization of
fluid boundary conditions via discrete Boltzmann
dynamics, Int. J. Mod. Phys.C 9, 1281-1292, 1998.
16. H. Chen and& R. Zhang, Lattice Boltzmann
method for simulations of liquid-vapor thermal
flows, Phys. Rev. E67(6)): Art. No.no. 066711 Part
2, 2003.
17. C. M. Teixeria, Incorporating turbulence models into
the lattice-Boltzmann method, Int. J. Modern
Physics C, 9(8):1159-1175, 1998.
18. PowerFLOW Users Guide, Release 4.0, Exa
Corporation, Boston, MA, 2006.
19. D.M. Freed, Lattice Boltzman method ofr for
macroscopic porous media modeling,. Int. J.
Modern Physics C, 9(8):1491-1504, 1998.
20. PowerCOOL Users Guide, Release 4.0, Exa
Corporation, Boston, MA, 2006.
21. ANSA Users Guide, Version 12.0.3, Beta CAE
System S.A., Greece, 2005.
22. PowerWRAP Users Guide, Release 4.0, Exa
Corporation, Boston, MA, 2006.
23. Technical Regulation, Cooling Performance for
North America Applications Test Requirements.
#20730721.
24. J. Willams, D. Karanth, and W. Oler. Cooling Inlet
Aerodynamic Performance and System Resistance,
SAE 2002-01-0256, Detroit, MI, 2002.
CONTACTS
Clinton L. Lafferty
Volvo Group North America
7900 National Service Road
Greensboro, NC 27409 USA
email: clinton.lafferty@volvo.com
Kevin Horrigan
Exa Corporation
3 Burlington Woods Drive
Burlington, MA 01803 USA
email: horrigan@exa.com
Ales Alajbegovic
Exa Corporation
17177 N. Laurel Park Drive
Livonia, MI 48152 USA
email: ales@exa.com
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
It may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means.
Downloaded from SAE International by Bo Feng, Friday, April 05, 2013 06:59:24 PM