Fan Modelling For Front End Cooling With CFD: Master'S Thesis

2007:001 CIV
M A S T ER’S T H E SI S
Fan Modelling for Front

End Cooling with CFD
TOBIAS BERG
ANNA WIKSTRÖM
MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAMME

Mechanical Engineering
Luleå University of Technology

Department of Applied Physics and Mechanical Engineering
Division of Fluid Mechanics
2007:001 CIV • ISSN: 1402 - 1617 • ISRN: LTU - EX - - 07/1 - - SE

A BSTRACT
In this thesis, performed at Volvo Cars, some concepts of modelling cooling fans
with Computational Fluid Dynamics are evaluated by comparison with experimental
data. Focus is set on the method Multiple Reference Frame (MRF) but the Body
Force and Mixing Plane Models are also investigated. All measurements were carried
out in Volvo Cars component test rig where pressure jump and air flow rate through a
cooling fan and shroud mounted on a heat exchanger were measured.
In order to make relevant comparisons, a detailed numerical model of the test rig with
fan, shroud and heat exchanger were created. A mesh with high node density, in total
14 million tetrahedral elements, was used and the simulations were carried out with
the standard k-ε turbulence model.
The comparisons were performed for different air flow rates, rotational speeds,
cooling packages, and for setups with open and closed speed flaps. The Multiple
Reference Frame approach reproduces fan performance with good accuracy for most
cases. For these cases measured and computed data differ with less than 3.5% air flow
rate. Moreover, the MRF approach generates good results for open and closed speed
flaps as well as for idle conditions. It also introduces swirl leading to a realistic
prediction of the velocity distribution downstream the fan. The MRF method is well
suited when doing flow simulations within the engine room and is therefore
recommended to use.
Furthermore, improvements concerning the procedure to numerically represent heat

exchangers and the use of the Body Force Model are described.
A CKNOWLEDGEMENT
It has been a privilege to carry out our thesis work at the thermodynamic CFD team
at Volvo Cars. The extraordinary atmosphere has been inspiring and will be
remembered. We would like express our gratitude to the entire CFD group. Most of
all we would like to thank our supervisors Anders Jönson and Tore Bark who have
made our work well defined, challenging and fascinating.
We would also like to thank our supervisor at Luleå University of Technology,

professor Staffan Lundström, for his support.
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
1.1 CURRENT SITUATION .............................................................................................................1
1.2 METHODS FOR FAN PERFORMANCE SIMULATIONS ................................................................1
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................2
1.4 EARLIER WORK .....................................................................................................................3
2 THEORY.......................................................................................................................................4
2.1 FLUID DYNAMICS ..................................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Governing Equations........................................................................................................4
2.1.2 Turbulence........................................................................................................................4
2.2 MULTIPLE REFERENCE FRAME MODEL ..................................................................................6
3 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP..........................................................................................................7
4 NUMERICAL SETUP .................................................................................................................9
4.1 GEOMETRY ............................................................................................................................9
4.2 MESH .....................................................................................................................................9
4.3 SOLVER SETUP .....................................................................................................................11
4.4 RADIATOR............................................................................................................................11
4.5 BODY FORCE MODEL ...........................................................................................................11
4.6 MULTIPLE REFERENCE FRAME ............................................................................................12
5 HEAT EXCHANGER ................................................................................................................13
5.1 PRESENT METHOD ...............................................................................................................13
5.2 UPDATED METHOD ..............................................................................................................15
6 THE BODY FORCE MODEL ..................................................................................................20
6.1 PRESENT METHOD ...............................................................................................................20
6.2 UPDATED METHOD ..............................................................................................................21
6.3 ACCURACY ..........................................................................................................................23
7 MULTIPLE REFERENCE FRAME........................................................................................27
7.1 CLOSED SPEED FLAPS ..........................................................................................................27
7.2 OPEN SPEED FLAPS ..............................................................................................................30
7.3 IDLE .....................................................................................................................................31
8 NUMERICAL ACCURACY .....................................................................................................33
8.1 CONVERGENCE ....................................................................................................................33
8.2 ITERATION DEPENDENCY .....................................................................................................34
9 DISCUSSION..............................................................................................................................37
9.1 FUTURE WORK ....................................................................................................................39
10 CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................................40
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................41
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................................42
SURFACE MESH ..................................................................................................................................42
VOLUME MESH ..................................................................................................................................43
SOLVER SETTING ...............................................................................................................................44
APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................................................46
RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN GENERATING PRESSURE DROP CURVES FOR HEAT EXCHANGERS..........46
RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN GENERATING FAN BLADE CURVES WITH THE BODY FORCE MODEL ......48
APPENDIX C .......................................................................................................................................50
RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN MODELLING THE COOLING FAN WITH MRF...........................................50
APPENDIX D .......................................................................................................................................52
ROTATED BLADE POSITION ................................................................................................................52
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 CURRENT SITUATION
Numerical analyses are generally used as a stage in product development at Volvo
Cars with the aim to predict and verify key parameters and targets. The
thermodynamic CFD team, at the department Environment and TASE, uses numerical
methods to evaluate important cooling features for the vehicles. One of these is the
performance of the front end cooling package together with the cooling fan. Since it
is crucial to maintain desirable temperatures in the heat exchangers, i.e. radiator,
charge air cooler and condenser, for all possible driving conditions, having a reliable
way to predict the cooling performance is of greatest importance.
The temperature of the coolants primarily depends on the amount of air flowing
through the cooling package. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is used to
numerically compute this airflow and the heat transfer from the heat exchangers. To
make this possible it is necessary to have an adequate representation of fan and heat
exchangers in the numerical model. In computations concerning front end air flows,
Volvo is using empirical correlations for pressure change over fan and heat
exchangers rather than resolving them geometrically. For the fan this method is called
Lumped Fan or Body Force Model.
1.2 METHODS FOR FAN PERFORMANCE SIMULATIONS

It is critical to capture the fan performance in order to predict the cooling air flow
rate and the flow distribution correctly. In CFD the following methods for
representing fan characteristics exists.
- Body Force Model (BFM)

In this model the geometry of the fan blades is not included, the fan
characteristics is instead represented as lumped parameters applied on a fan
surface. The parameters implemented are pressure jump in the flow direction
and swirl components, both expressed in relation to the flow rate. In most cases
the swirl component is not included; the fan characteristics are then solely
represented with the pressure jump. This pressure jump is typically obtained
from experimentally generated fan blade curves. Using the Body Force Model
to include fan characteristics in CFD computations does not provide an
accurate prediction of the flow field but can be an adequate method when
computing flow rate through the fan. The accuracy of this model is highly
dependent of the quality of the fan blade curves and the procedure to determine
them. [1], [2]
1
- Multiple Reference Frame Model (MRF)
The MRF-model is a steady state approximation where the fluid zone in the fan
region is modelled in a rotating frame of reference and the surrounding zones
are modelled in a stationary frame. In opposite to the Body Force Model the
MRF-model include the geometry of the fan blades. The fan blades are
modelled stationary but since the fluid domains surrounding them is in a
rotating frame the pressure jump and the swirl components will be given by the
presence of the fan blades as walls without the need of experimental data as an
input. Even though this model clearly is an approximation due to its non time
dependent approach, it can still provide realistic results for many applications.
[1]
- Mixing Plane Model (MPM)

Whereas the MRF method directly translates the properties of the flow at the
interfaces between the rotating and stationary zones, the MPM averages the
properties of the flow circumferentially. This avoids the non-uniformities in
flow field which arises since the fan blades are modelled stationary. For this
method to work the distance between fan blades (rotor) and stability bars
(stator) can not bee too narrow. Errors in the mixing plane model increase as
the spacing between rotor and stator decreases. Moreover if a large amount
backflow occurs at the interfaces the model will have convergence problems.
[1]
- Sliding Mesh Method

Most rotor stator interactions are time-periodic. Hence the flow cannot be
exactly computed using a steady state approximation. To be able to solve
unsteady cases a transient method with sliding meshes can be applied. In the
Sliding Mesh approach the grid is divided into domains that can rotate
independently connected at an interface. This method is the most accurate
numerical representation of a rotor stator interaction but is very time
consuming and computationally demanding which makes it impractical for
industrial applications. [1]
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Today the CFD-team at Volvo, working with under hood flows, is using the Body
Force Method to model the cooling fans. For this method to work with good accuracy
it is critical to know the fan performance at given conditions so that the pressure jump
applied on the fan surface is correctly expressed in relation to the air flow. Volvo has
a method for producing fan blade curves for single fans without evacuations channels
and with closed speed flaps. Double fans and more complex fan designs, with flaps
that open at certain flow rates, demands more assumptions since it is difficult to
determine the fractions of air flowing through fan, evacuation channels and speed
flaps. When the air solely flows through the fan these difficulties does not arise and
the produced fan blade curves are more reliable. To overcome some of these
shortcomings alternative ways to mimic the cooling fan in CFD-simulations are
required.
2
The aim of this thesis work is to better understand and derive the accuracy of the
MRF methodology for cooling fans typically used by Volvo Cars, figure 1. The
accuracy should be investigated by comparing rig measurements with CFD. In order
to perform trustworthy comparisons the numerical model is based on the physical rig.
Focus will be on whether the MRF model provides accurate results with reasonable
modelling and computational effort. If so a step-by-step guide of how to implement
the methodology in simulations concerning under hood flow, should be developed.
Speed
Flaps
Figure 1: Typical design for the cooling fan in a Volvo car
1.4 EARLIER WORK

A discussion whether the MRF-method is well suited for applications like cooling
fans has been in progress since the method was introduced in commercial software.
Many papers are written concerning the matter. In 2001 J. Foss and D. Neal [3]
evaluated the method for two different fans and varying shroud designs. They
demonstrated that the numerical and experimental results differed significantly
depending on the fan/shroud configuration. On the other hand A. Wang and Z. Xiao
[2] 2005 showed excellent agreement between numerical and experimental data for a
large truck fan with two different shroud designs. Internal investigations at Volvo
Cars have also been done on the subject [4]. This investigation, carried out in early
2000, stated that modelling and computational resources were insufficient at that time
for handling such a process.
3
2 THEORY
2.1 FLUID DYNAMICS
2.1.1 Governing Equations
When solving the motion of fluid flow, the governing equations are continuity-,
momentum- and energy equations. Since no heat transfer is included in the problems
only continuity and momentum will be considered.
For incompressible flow the governing equations, continuity (2.1) and momentum
(2.2), can be written as follows. [5]
∂u i
=0 (2.1)
∂xi
∂u i ∂u i u j ∂P ∂ ⎡ ⎛ ∂u i ∂u j ⎞⎤
ρ +ρ =− + ⎢ µ ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎥
⎟⎥
(2.2)
∂t ∂x j ∂xi ∂x j ⎢⎣ ⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎠⎦
where ρ is the density, µ the dynamic viscosity, u the velocity and P the pressure.
2.1.2 Turbulence
Turbulent flow can be solved numerically using DNS (Direct Numerical
Simulation) where the governing equations are solved directly. This method is
however impossible to use on larger problems since it requires immense computer
resources. For engineering application the Reynolds decomposition is mostly used
where the variables are decomposed into a time averaged and a fluctuating
component [6]. (2,3) (2,4).
u i = U i + u i′ (2.3)
p = P + p′ (2.4)
Substituting these decomposed terms into the governing equations for incompressible
flow gives the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations (RANS)
∂U i
=0 (2.5)
∂xi
∂U i ∂U i ∂ ∂ ⎡ ∂U i ⎤
ρ + ρU j =− P+ ⎢µ − u i′u ′j ⎥ (2.6)
∂t ∂x j ∂xi ∂x j ⎣⎢ ∂x j ⎦⎥
4
Decomposing the variables in Navier-Stokes equation yields an additional term, ui′u′j
to the momentum equation. This term is called the Reynolds stress tensor. The system
of equations has more unknown variables than equations to solve and is therefore not
closed. The Boussinesq hypothesis relates the Reynolds stresses to the mean flow
velocity gradients and can be expressed as in (2.7)
⎛ ∂u ∂u j ⎞ 2
− ρ u i′u ′j = µ t ⎜ i + ⎟ − ρδ ij k (2.7)
⎜ ∂x ⎟ 3
⎝ j ∂xi ⎠
where δ ij is the Kronecker delta and k the turbulent kinetic energy, which is defined
as
1
k= u i′u i′ (2.8)
2
For the computations performed in this thesis work, the standard k-ε turbulence
model was used. In the k-ε model the turbulent viscosity ( µt ) is achieved by solving
two transport equations, one for the turbulent kinetic energy (k) and one for the
turbulent dissipation rate (ε).
k2
µt = Cµ ρ (2.9)
ε
The two transport equations are:
∂k ∂k ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂k ⎤ ⎛ ∂U i ∂U j ⎞ ∂U i
+U j = ⎢⎜⎜ µ + ⎟⎟ ⎥ + µ t ⎜⎜ + ⎟
⎟ ∂x
−ε (2.10)
∂t ∂x j ∂x j ⎢⎣⎝ σk ⎠ ∂x j ⎥⎦ ⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎠ j
∂ε ∂ε ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂ε ⎤
+U j = ⎢⎜⎜ µ + ⎟⎟ ⎥+
∂t ∂x j ∂x j ⎣⎢⎝ σε ⎠ ∂x j ⎦⎥
(2.11)
ε ⎛ ∂U i ∂U j ⎞ ∂Ui ε2
Cε 1 µ t ⎜ + ⎟ − Cε 2
k ⎜⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎟ ∂x
⎠ j k
The constants σ k , σ ε , Cε 1 , Cε 2 , Cµ are empirical.
5
2.2 MULTIPLE REFERENCE FRAME MODEL
The steady state approximation MRF, allows individual cell zones to rotate or
translate with different speeds. This is achieved by dividing the domain into separate
zones where the flow is solved in stationary or rotating coordinate systems.
To transform the fluid velocities from stationary to rotating frames, the following
relation is used [1].
r r r
u r = u − vr (2.12)
r r r
where vr = ω × r (2.13)
r r r
u r is the velocity relative to the rotating frame, u is the absolute velocity and v r the
r r
whirl velocity (due to the moving frame). ω is the angular velocity and r is the
position vector to the rotating frame.
Solving the equations of motion in the rotating reference frame results in additional
acceleration terms in the momentum equation [1].
∂ρ r
+ ∇ ⋅ ρu r = 0 (2.14)
∂t
∂ r r r r r r
ρu + ∇ ⋅ ( ρu r u) + ρ (ω × u ) = −∇p + ∇τ + F (2.15)
∂t
Where τ is the viscous stress
The Coriolis and centripetal accelerations are included in the momentum equation
r r
with the term (ω × u ) .
6
3 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The experimental part of the work was carried out in Volvo’s component test rig
designed for testing cooling packages and fans. The rig is a small wind tunnel where
the measurement chamber has the dimensions 6 x 3.5 x 2.3 [m], figure 2. It consists
of a pressure chamber and a measurement chamber connected through a duct which
size can be altered to suite different cooling packages. The rig regulates the air flow
so that either flow rate or static pressure is controlled in the pressure chamber. Air
temperature and rotational speed of the cooling fan can also be controlled. In the
pressure chamber, static pressure is measured at three positions on the walls whereas
the pressure at the rig outlet is assumed to be atmospheric. The pressure difference
between the outlet and the inlet of the rig is directly related to the properties of the
components mounted at the duct. A denser radiator therefore generates a higher
pressure in the pressure chamber than a less dense one for the same air flow rate. This
pressure difference together with air flow rate has been the parameters used when
comparing numerical and experimental data.
Figure 2: Numerical model of Volvo’s component test rig. The inlet and outlet are
marked with arrows pointing in the flow direction. Fan and cooling package are
mounted at the duct connecting pressure and measurement chamber.
The sampling frequency is 10 Hz and every measurement was carried out for at least
120 seconds. Hence the effects of fluctuations in the system are minimized. Figure 3
shows the results from two independent measurements with identical setups, since
similar results were achieved the tests were considered repeatable.
7
400
200
0
Pressure Difference [Pa]
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
-200
20 RPS First Test

-400
30 RPS First Test
40 RPS First Test
-600 50 RPS First Test
20 RPS Second Test
30 RPS Second Test
-800 40 RPS Second Test
50 RPS Second Test
-1000
Mass Flow Rate [kg/s]
Figure 3: Pressure difference between rig inlet and outlet for repeated measurements
with fan mounted on one radiator. Four different rotational speeds and three mass
flow rates were used.
The cooling fan used in this project is manufactured by Bosch and is utilized in the
turbo models of Volvo S40 and V50. This type of fan is driven by a constant voltage
and the rotational speed is controlled by a PWM-signal (Pulse-Width Modulation),
i.e. a square-topped signal sent to the fan control unit regulating the rotational speed.
The fan was mounted on a cooling package containing one or two radiators
manufactured by Behr. When using two radiators they were joined by a wooden
frame resulting in a 5 cm gap between them. For all experimental setups measures
were taken to minimize the leakage and it was therefore assumed to be negligible.
8
4 NUMERICAL SETUP
4.1 GEOMETRY
Since all CFD-simulations were to be compared with experimental data a model of
the rig was created in ANSA. This model can be seen in figure 2 and was used as a
base for all simulations done in this thesis work. In addition to the rig, radiator, fan
shroud, and fan with and without blades were modelled. The fan without blades was
used in the BFM approach while the fan with blades was used for the MRF approach.
Figure 4 shows the difference between these setups. The radiator was represented as a
rectangular box with the same dimensions as the core, i.e. the part of the physical
radiator where air flows.
A B
Figure 4: A) The fan shroud and fan surface used in the BFM approach. B) The fan
shroud and fan geometry used in the MRF approach
4.2 MESH
In ANSA a surface mesh was created with varying element sizes. A finer mesh was
generated in areas where the geometry has a large influence on the flow and where
large velocity or pressure gradients were assumed to occur. This was mainly where
the air flows into the measurement chamber, around the fan and in the small gap
between the blade-ring and the fan shroud where backflow was expected. For other
areas the element length was set as recommended in Volvo’s Computation Procedure
document [7]. The final surface mesh was the result of early investigations
concerning the node density required for resolving the flow through rig, fan and
radiator. Figure 5 shows the grid on the fan blades with leading and trailing edges.
For details about the surface mesh see appendix A.
9
A B
Figure 5: A) The fan geometry with corresponding surface mesh. B) Enlargement of

a fan blade illustrating the refined surface mesh at the leading and trailing edges.
From the surface mesh a volume mesh was made using TGrid. This mesh consists of
tetrahedral elements except in the radiator where prisms were applied. The porous
media representing the permeability is best modelled using prismatic layers in the
heat exchanger core. Where tetrahedrals were used the element size was controlled so
that the flow field could be resolved sufficiently, for element sizes see appendix A.
Figure 6 A,B,C illustrate cross sections of the numerical model with corresponding
grid.
B C
Figure 6: A) The volume elements at a cross section of the rig illustrating the high
node density around and after the fan. B,C) Enlargements of the cross section in A
showing the volume mesh through the cooling package and fan. The dark area in C is
the gap between fan blade ring and shroud where a high node density was used to
resolve the expected backflow.
10
4.3 SOLVER SETUP
Table 1 shows the primarily setting used for all simulations, for more details see
appendix A. The working temperature was set to 20˚C and the corresponding density
and viscosity are presented below. As solver and post processor Fluent version 6.2.16
and EnSight version 8.0.4 were used respectively.
Boundary conditions
Inlet Mass flow inlet or Pressure inlet
Outlet Pressure outlet
Turbulence settings
Turbulence model Standard k-ε
Near wall treatment Standard wall function
Air properties
Density 1.204 [kg/m3]
Dynamic viscosity 1.81 *106 [kg/ms]
Table 1: Settings used in all simulations.
4.4 RADIATOR
The pressure drop over the radiator is numerically represented as a porous media
where the pressure drop is defined as a function of velocity, dP(v). This function is
obtained from tests in the component test rig and is specific for each type of radiator.
The pressure drop is numerically calculated individually for each cell and depends on
the present air velocity in the cell.
When simulating two radiators the same geometry as for one radiator is used. This
means that the denser cooling package (two heat exchangers) is solely represented
with another pressure drop function. Effects due to the gap between the two radiators,
e.g. not identical velocity distribution through the radiators, are neglected.
4.5 BODY FORCE MODEL

As mentioned earlier the geometry of the fan blades is not considered in the BFM
approach, instead the fan performance is described as a pressure jump applied on a
disc, figure 4 A. This disc was created at the same position as the blades in the MRF
model and has the shape of a circular plate with a hole for the hub in its centre. The
outer radius of the disc was set to the same as the radius of the blades. On this fan
surface (disc) the pressure jump was applied as a second order polynomial where
pressure depends on air velocity. The average velocity normal to the fan-surface was
used to determine the magnitude of the pressure jump applied on the surface.
11
4.6 MULTIPLE REFERENCE FRAME
When using the MRF model it is necessary to define the region that should be
modelled in a rotating frame of reference. The MRF region is best defined so that it
includes rotating parts (rotor) and is extended to where a mixed out flow field exists.
It can also include stationary parts (stator) if circumferentially symmetric [1]. In this
case were non symmetric stators, i.e. shroud and stability bars, exists near the rotor it
was not possible to extend the MRF region as recommended. The rotating zone was
therefore defined so that it included fan blades and the inside of the blade-ring, figure
7.
A B Fan shroud
Blade ring
Fan blade
MRF region
Hub
Stability bars
Radiator
.
Figure 7: A) The MRF region can here be seen as a grey surface. The volume
enclosed by the MRF region is modelled in a rotating frame of reference. B) A cross
section illustrating the MRF region.
As seen in the figure the MRF-zone does not cover the entire fan, moving boundary
conditions were therefore applied on hub and outer blade-ring. No moving B.Cs were
needed for the rotating parts included in the MRF region since they by default are
assumed to be moving with the rotating frame. The downstream hub connected to the
stability bars is partly included in the MRF-zone but since it is fixed it was given a
stationary boundary condition
12
5 HEAT EXCHANGER
In order to determine the accuracy of different methods for simulating fan
performance in CFD it has been necessary to evaluate the quality of Volvo’s present
technique for modelling heat exchangers. Since the cooling fan never appears as a
single element but always together with a cooling package, it was necessary to
identify the inaccuracies corresponding to the heat exchangers for determining the
quality of the fan models.
5.1 PRESENT METHOD

To obtain the pressure drop over a non working radiator, the heat exchanger is
tested in the component test rig. The pressure difference of the rig is then measured
for different airflows. This difference in pressure is mainly but not solely due to the
resistance of the radiator. Contractions and expansions of the airflow when passing
through the rig also contributes to the pressure drop. By subtracting the dynamic
pressure ( 0.5 ⋅ ρ V 2 ) at the radiator outlet the losses caused by the rig is compensated
for, hence the remaining pressure difference is assigned the resistance of the radiator.
This pressure difference is then expressed in relation to the air velocity giving a
pressure drop function dP(v).
When modelling the heat exchanger in Fluent the pressure drop function is divided
with the thickness of the heat exchanger giving a function expressing the pressure
drop per unit length. As seen in figure 8 this function is defined as a polynomial of
second order starting at (0,0).
2
dP/dx = Av + Bv
Measured pressure drop

dP/dx curve
dP/dx [Pa/m]
v [m/s]
Figure 8: Typical measured pressure drop for a radiator with corresponding second
order dP/dx polynomial.
13
The polynomial experimentally achieved for a radiator will be on the form
dP
= Av 2 + Bv (5.1)
dx
Fluent defines the pressure drop for porous media by adding the following source
term to the momentum equation. [1]
⎛µ 1 ⎞
∇P = S i = − ⎜ vi + C 2 ρ v mag vi ⎟ (5.2)
⎝α 2 ⎠
If only dP/dx is concerned the equation is reduced to
dP ⎛ µ 1 ⎞
= ⎜ v x + C 2 ρ v x2 ⎟ (5.3)
dx ⎝ α 2 ⎠
Where 1/α is the viscous resistance and C2 is the inertial resistance. These coefficients
are given by comparing the first and second order terms in the empirical polynomial
(5.1) with the corresponding terms in (5.3).
For the case in figure 8 the Fluent input values will than be
2A 1 B
C2 = and =
ρ α µ
14
5.2 UPDATED METHOD
The present method used to determine the pressure drop function for heat
exchangers generates pressure drop correlations with reasonably good accuracy. A
few improvements of this procedure to develop dP/dx curves did however increase
the accuracy when modelling radiators with CFD.
The improvements done were:
- Making sure that the measured pressure difference was density-corrected. The
humidity of the air in the test rig varies with the ambience while the
computations are performed with dry air, this results in density differences.
Since the pressure drop through the radiator is directly related to the density of
the air it is of importance that the effects from the humidity are compensated
for. This was done by dividing the measured dP with the present wet air
density and multiplying it with the dry air density.
- Subtracting numerically computed inlet- and outlet losses instead of the

dynamic pressure at the radiator outlet when compensating for rig losses. The
computed losses where achieved from CFD simulations with different mass
flow rates. Pressure drop in total pressure was computed from mass flow inlet
to a plane 0.1 mm before the radiator and from a plane 0.1 mm after the
radiator to the pressure outlet. These losses are compared with the dynamic
pressure at the radiator outlet in figure 9 and table 2.
60
50
Inlet + Exit Losses Corrected Method
Pressure Losses, Total Pressure [Pa]
Losses, Present Method

Inlet Losses Corrected Method
40
Exit Losses Corrected Method
30
20
10
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Volume Flow Rate [m3/s]
Figure 9: Rig losses computed with present and corrected method.
15
Inlet losses Exit losses Inlet + Exit Dyn. Pressure
Air flow rate
corr. Method corr.method corr. method Present method
[m3/s] [Pa] [Pa] [Pa] [Pa]
0,5 0,8 2,5 3,4 2,5
1 3,2 10,1 13,3 10,2
1,5 7,2 22,4 29,6 22,9
2 12,8 40,0 52,8 40,7
Table 2: Numerical values of the rig losses presented in figure 9.
- Changing the curve approximation for the empirical dP/dx polynomial so that
it is not bound to intercept (0,0). This gives a curve on the form dP/dx =
Av2+Bv+C which has a better agreement to measured data, especially at low
flow rates where the curve approximation with forced interception differs
significantly from the experimental data. Using a second order polynomial to
represent the pressure drop for all Re is not optimal since the relation is
different for laminar and turbulent flows. For laminar flows, i.e. low flow rates,
the relation is linear while it is quadratic for turbulent flows. This behaviour is
not adequately represented with a single second order polynomial but the
accuracy is improved by not forcing the curve to intercept (0,0). Since Fluent’s
definition of porous media assumes an empirical pressure drop function on the
form dP/dx = Av2+Bv the constant C needs to be compensated for. This can be
done either by adding an over pressure to the rig outlet boundary or by
excluding C in the computations and take that into account when analyzing the
results. This is possible since the absence of C in the expression for dP/dx
leads to a constant under prediction of the pressure drop over the radiator
independent of velocity. The velocity distribution over the radiator will
therefore not change when having a constant air mass flow through the rig. For
computations done in this thesis work the constant C was excluded and
compensated for by adding the corresponding pressure drop through the
radiator, i.e. C*dx, to the pressure difference in the rig. Using a dP/dx curve
that does not intercept (0,0) increases the accuracy of the numerical
representation of the heat exchanger but the compensation of C is difficult to
implement in under hood flow simulations.
16
Resulting dP/dx curves from the present and the updated (corrected) method are
plotted in figure 10.
40000
35000
dP/dx Curve Present Method

30000 dP/dx Curve Corrected Method
25000
dP/dx [Pa/m]
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00
V [m/s]
Figure 10: dP/dx curves for one radiator generated with present and corrected
method.
Figure 11 shows computed and experimental data for the pressure difference between
rig inlet and outlet at varying air flows with one radiator mounted at the duct.
500
Measured data
Fluent, present method
400
Fluent, corrected method
300
200
100
0
0,3 0,5 0,7 0,9 1,1 1,3 1,5 1,7 1,9 2,1
Figure 11: Comparisons of pressure difference in the rig between measured and
computed data for one radiator. Results from simulations using both present and
corrected dP/dx curves are shown.
17
Present Method, One Radiator
dP rig, dP rig,
VFR dP diff dP J VFR VFR diff VFR diff
computed measured
[m3/s] [Pa] [Pa] [Pa] [m3/s] [m3/s] %
0,5 68,2 60,5 7.7 0,543 0,043 8,7
1 178,3 167,9 10,3 1,040 0,040 4,0
1,5 330,0 315,6 14,4 1,543 0,043 2,8
2 523,9 503,4 20,5 2,049 0,049 2,4
Updated Method, One Radiator
dP rig, dP rig,
VFR dP diff dP J VFR VFR diff VFR diff
computed measured
[m3/s] [Pa] [Pa] [Pa] [m3/s] [m3/s] %
0,5 60,7 60,5 0,2 0,501 0,001 0,2
1 173.8 167,9 5,8 1,023 0,023 2,3
1,5 323,6 315,6 8,0 1,524 0,024 1,6
2 510.9 503,4 7,4 2.018 0,018 0,9
Table 3: Numerical values of the results shown in figure 11.
In Table 3 the accuracy of the methods to model heat exchangers is presented in

percentage Volume Flow Rate. Difference in flow rate is easier to transfer to a real
car case than relative pressure since air flow rate is a key parameter for cooling
performance. The percentage VFR values are calculated from the “measured data”
curve as follows.
Example 1: The computed dP for the present method at VFR 1.5 m3/s is
330,0 Pa. On the ”measured data” curve in figure 11, 330,0 Pa
gives 1.543 kg/s. The error expressed in % VFR is then
100*(1.543-1.5)/1.5=2.8 %
It is clear that the improvements presented above bring the CFD results closer to the
measured data. The inaccuracy of the updated procedure is as shown in table 3, below
2.3% this should be compared with the results achieved by the present method, where
the inaccuracies reaches almost 9%. This improvement primarily arises since the
pressure drop curve approximated to the measured pressure differences is not forced
to intercept (0,0). Moreover, including the inlet losses decreases the inaccuracies
significantly at higher flow rates.
The updated procedure for modelling heat exchangers was therefore used when
investigating how to predict fan performance. For this investigation two different
cooling packages were used, one was containing a single radiator and one two
radiators. Different cooling packages were used since it was of interest to evaluate if
changes upstream influence the prediction of fan performance. The dP/dx curves for
the cooling packages are illustrated in figure 12. See appendix B for detailed
recommendations concerning this procedure.
18
90000
80000
dP/dx Curve Corrected Method 2 Radiators

70000
dP/dx Curve Corrected Method 1 Radiator
60000
dP/dx [Pa/m]
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00
V [m/s]
Figure 12: dP/dx curves for one and two radiators computed with the corrected
method.
The losses presented in figure 9 are computed for one radiator, corresponding losses
for two radiators were also computed showing that the increased resistance in the heat
exchanger did not affect the losses, table 4.
Inlet losses Exit losses Inlet losses Exit losses

Air flow rate
corr. Method corr.method corr. Method corr.method
[m3/s] One Rad [Pa] One Rad [Pa] Two Rad [Pa] Two Rad [Pa]
0,5 0,84 2,53 0,83 2,52
1 3,24 10,07 3,20 10,05
1,5 7,22 22,41 7,10 22,33
2 12,76 40,04 12,53 39,56
Table 4 Numerical values of the rig losses for one and two radiators in the duct.
Table 4 shows that the losses upstream the heat exchanger in the component test rig
are significant and should therefore be taken into account. This was also stated in an
internal investigation 2001 where similar losses were computed.
19
6 THE BODY FORCE MODEL
To be able to recommend a method for numerical representation of the cooling fan
in under hood simulations performed at Volvo cars it was of interest to evaluate the
accuracy of the presently used method, BFM.
6.1 PRESENT METHOD

Similar to the method for determining the pressure drop through heat exchangers,
experimental data are used when generating fan blade curves. This is done by
examining the fan performance in the component test rig for different air flow rates.
The fan is mounted on a cooling package and the pressure difference in the rig is
measured for different “fan-steps”. In this case it was of interest to generate fan blade
curves for constant rotational speed instead of for a specific PWM signal. The
pressure difference between rig inlet and outlet is a result of a pressure jump over the
fan blades and pressure drops due to contractions/expansions in the rig and over
radiator and fan shroud. Since the desired fan blade curves solely describes the
pressure jump over the fan blades, all pressure drops mentioned above needs to be
defined and subtracted from the measured dP. This is normally done as follows
- The pressure loss over the radiator is estimated from the pressure drop curve
(figure 8) by using the average air velocity over the radiator for each air flow.
Hence, the non uniform velocity distribution through the radiator because of
fan and shroud is not taken into consideration.
- The pressure loss due to contractions in the fan shroud is determined from
CFD computations where air flow through radiator and shroud is simulated.
This is done for three different flow rates and the pressure drop in total
pressure over the shroud and hub is calculated. From these computed values a
second order polynomial is fitted and used to estimate the loss for other flow
rates.
- The other losses in the rig are estimated by calculating the dynamic pressure at
the shroud exit.
The fan blade curves are then generated by subtracting these losses from the
measured pressure difference corresponding to each rotational speed for the cooling
fan. The subtracted losses are all expressed as functions of air flow rate and are
shown in figure 13. Using fan blade curves where the effects from shroud and hub are
subtracted avoids that these losses are considered twice.
20
6.2 UPDATED METHOD
The present method described includes a few approximations that can be improved
to get a more accurate fan blade curve from the measured data.
The improvements done were:
- It is possible to estimate the pressure loss over the radiator from the pressure
drop curves derived from experiments using only a radiator. However, when
mounting radiator together with the fan, non-uniformities in oncoming air
velocity field is introduced due to imprints of fan hub and fan shroud, figure 18
A. To ensure that these effects are taken into account, the updated method
states that the pressure loss from rig inlet to radiator exit should be calculated
from CFD computations. Hence, the effect on the pressure drop originating
from the non uniform velocity distribution through the radiator is considered,
see appendix B detailed recommendations.
- The losses from the shroud exit to the rig outlet were also computed from CFD
simulations instead of estimated with the dynamic pressure at the shroud exit.
This method considers losses due to stability bars and control box more
carefully, appendix B.
Regarding the estimation of pressure drop over the fan shroud the present method was
considered sufficiently accurate and no improvements were therefore done. The
losses computed with the updated (corrected) method are compared with the same
losses for the present method in the figures 13.
21
1200
A
1000
Radiator losses, corrected method
Radiator losses, present method
Pressure drop radiator [Pa]
800
600
400
200
0
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00
B 800,0
700,0
Fan shroud losses CFD

Pressere drop, fan shroud and exit [Pa]
600,0 Shroud exit losses CFD

Exit losses present method
500,0
400,0
300,0
200,0
100,0
0,0
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00
Figure 13: A) Pressure drop over one radiator computed with present and corrected
method. B) Remaining losses in the rig according to present and corrected methods.
The fan shroud losses curve represents both present and updated method.
It is clear that the adjustments done in the updated method results in considerable
changes of the shroud exit losses and pressure drop over the radiator compared to the
calculated losses in the present method. These differences will have a large effect on
the fan blade curves produced as can bee seen in figure 14. Since a smaller amount of
losses are assigned the fan blades with the updated method than in the present method
the fan blade curves will describe a more efficient fan with the improved procedure.
22
500
400
300
Pressure Jump over Fan Blades [Pa]
200
100
0
0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00 16,00
-100
-200
50 rps present method
-300 50 rps corrected method
20 rps corrected method
-400 20 rps present method
-500
Velocity over Fan [m/s]
Figure 14: Fan blade curves for 20 and 50 rps generated with the present and the
corrected methods for the same setup.
6.3 ACCURACY
To investigate the accuracy of the BFM approach and evaluate the influences of the
improvements done in the updated procedure, CFD-computations using the derived
fan blade curves were compared with experimental data. The measured and simulated
pressure drop is presented as functions of flow rate with constant RPS in the figure
below. As can be seen, the updated method reproduces the experimental values with
excellent precision.
400
200
0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6
-200
-400 20 RPS BFM Corrected

50 RPS BFM Corrected
20 RPS Measured
-600
50 RPS Measured
50 RPS BFM Present
20 RPS BFM Present
-800
computed data for the complete fan and one radiator. Results from simulations using
both present and corrected fan blade curves are shown.
23
In figure 15 the comparison between measured and computed data is shown for a
setup with closed speed flaps. It is also very interesting to compare the two methods
with experiments when the speed flaps are open. This is shown in the table below.
BFM Present Method, Open Flaps
dP rig, dP rig,
MFR RPS dP diff dP J MFR MFR diff MFR diff
computed measured
[kg/s] [Pa] [Pa] [Pa] [kg/s] [kg/s] %
1.5 50 450 336 115 1.67 0.17 11
1.0 20 305 262 44 1,08 0,08 8
BFM Corrected Method, Open Flaps
dP rig, dP rig,
computed measured
1.5 50 345 336 9 1,515 0,015 0.98
1.0 20 259 262 -3 0,994 -0,006 -0.61
Table 5: Comparisons of pressure difference in the rig between measured and

computed data for one radiator and fan with open speed flaps. The “MFR diff” in
percentage is computed similar to the “VFR diff” in example 1.
The changes done in the updated procedure improves the agreement between CFD-
computations and measured data remarkably, not only for closed flaps (fig 15) but
also for the case with open speed flaps. (table 5). Note that the error in flow
prediction at MFR 1.5 kg/s was decreased from 11% to 1% by using the updated
method.
The figure below illustrates the results from simulations where the same updated fan
blade curves as above were used to simulate a setup with the fan mounted with two
radiators.
24
400
200
0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6
-200
-400

-600
50 RPS Measured
20 RPS Measured
-800
-1000
computed data for fan and two radiators. These simulations uses fan blade curves
generated from a setup with one radiator.
Figure 16 shows that fan blade curves generated from an experimental setup where
the fan is mounted on one radiator can not be used with the same accuracy for setups
with other cooling packages. The velocity distribution through the cooling package is
dependent on the shroud and fan design but does also vary with the resistance in the
cooling package. The efficiency of the fan blades appears to be dependent on the
velocity distribution why it is important to use the right cooling packages when
generating fan blade curves. Figure 17 shows fan blade curves for 20 and 50 RPS
produced when the fan is mounted on one and two radiators.
500
400
Pressure Jump over Fan Blades [Pa]
300
200
100
0
0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00
-100 50 rps 2 Radiators

50 rps 1 Radiator
20 rps 1 Radiator
-200
20 rps 2 Radiators
-300
Velocity over Fan [m/s]
Figure 17: Fan blade curves for 20 and 50 rps generated with cooling packages
containing one and two radiators using the corrected method.
25
The only difference when producing the new fan blade curves in figure 17 was that
two radiators instead of one were used when performing the experiment in the
component rig as well as when computing the losses with CFD. The reason that the
fan blade curves differs is most likely due to the difference in velocity distribution at
the radiator outlets, shown in figure 18. The fan blade curves produced with the setup
of two radiators describes a more efficient fan. Using these curves as inputs to the
computations illustrated in figure 16 eliminates the differences and provides results
with the same precision as the presented for one radiator in figure 15. However, there
are reasons to believe that the simplification done when modelling two radiators with
the same geometry as one, i.e. only changing the pressure drop function, may increase
the computed pressure drop through the heat exchangers. Since the cooling package
containing two radiators was modelled having only one core it was assumed that the
velocity distribution through the two radiators would be the same despite the gap
between them. When only the radiators are simulated in the rig, this assumption is
adequate but when fan and shroud are added to the setup this assumption introduces
uncertainties to the results since it is possible that the velocity distribution is not equal
through the two radiators. The gap between the heat exchangers allows a more
smeared out velocity distribution which results in a smaller pressure drop through the
cooling package. If the two radiators would have been modelled separately, different
distributions for the heat exchangers would have been possible resulting in a
decreased pressure drop. The over predicted pressure drop has now instead been
assigned the fan blades who appear more effective, contributing to the difference for
the fan blade curves in figure 17.
Figure 18: Velocity distribution at the radiator outlet from simulations with MFR 0,5
kg/s for one (A) and two (B) radiators.
It is difficult to estimate the accuracy of the BFM-model when implemented in

Volvo’s under hood flow simulations. For these more complex cases there are plenty
of parts in front of the heat exchangers that will affect the velocity distribution. If the
efficiency of the fan is dependent of the velocity distribution of incoming air flow the
fan blade curves generated in the test rig are not suitable for under hood flow
simulations. This since the BFM-model will not consider changes of the incoming air
flow in terms of increased/decreased fan efficiency. Future work is needed on matter.
26
7 MULTIPLE REFERENCE FRAME
In order to get a thorough understanding of the accuracy when simulating fan
performance with the MRF-method, a number of comparisons between simulated and
experimental data have been made. Air flow rates, fan velocities (rps) and cooling
packages were varied to cover most of the operating conditions for a real cooling fan.
Moreover, setups with both open and closed speed flaps and cases corresponding to
idle conditions have been evaluated. To investigate whether different fan blade
positions, in relation to the stability bars, influenced the results, simulations were
carried out with the blades in two positions with an angular difference of 30˚,
Appendix D. The blade position was shown having almost no effect on the results
why only computations with one blade position are presented.
7.1 CLOSED SPEED FLAPS

The method of evaluation was again to compare the measured and computed
pressure differences between rig inlet and outlet. The experiments were performed
with the cooling fan operating at 20, 30, 40 and 50 rps for six different air flow rates
from 0.25 to 1.5 kg/s. Measurements and CFD-computations were carried out for the
fan mounted with one and two radiators. The results from the measurements and the
CFD-computations for the setup with one radiator are shown together in figure 19 and
table 6
400
200
0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6
-200
-400 50 RPS Measured

40 RPS Measured
30 RPS Measured
-600 20 RPS Measured
50 RPS Fluent MRF
40 RPS Fluent MRF
-800
30 RPS Fluent MRF
20 RPS Fluent MRF
-1000
Figure 19: Comparisons of static pressure difference in the rig between measured
and computed data for fan and one radiator.
27
dP rig, dP rig, MFR
MFR RPS dP diff dP J MFR MFR diff
computed measured diff
30 703 756 -52,6 1,45 -0,050 -3,3
1.5 40 611 653 -42,2 1,46 -0,040 -2,6
50 478 521 -42,6 1,46 -0,039 -2,6
20 341 367 -25,5 0,97 -0,034 -3,4
30 274 297 -22,6 0,97 -0,030 -3,0
1.0 40 175 189 -14,3 0,98 -0,019 -1,9
50 56 51 5,2 1,01 0,007 0,7
20 61 64 -2,7 0,49 -0,006 -1,2
30 -4 -11 7,4 0,52 0,016 3,2
0.5 40 -98 -121 23,7 0,55 0,049 9,8
50 -219 -250 30,9 0,57 0,068 13,6
Table 6: Comparison of measured and computed dP for a setup of one radiator and
fan with closed speed flaps.
In Table 6 the accuracy of the MRF-approach is presented in percentage Mass Flow

Rate. This value is calculated from the equations corresponding to the measured data
for each rps, figure 19.
Example 2: The computed dP for 50 rps at MFR 1.5 kg/s is 478 Pa. On the
”50 rps measured” curve in figure 19, 478 Pa gives 1.46 kg/s.
The error expressed in % MFR is then 100*(1.46-1.5)/1.5=-2.6
%
Since it is crucial to be able to predict the air flow rate through the cooling package in
under hood simulations, the accuracy of the MRF approach was chosen to be
expressed in percentage mass flow rate. The difference in measured and computed
pressure at MFR 1.5 kg/s and 50 rps is 42.6 Pa. This difference is assumed to be
analogous with -2.6 % difference in flow rate.
28
Comparisons carried out for the setup with two radiators are presented below.
400
200
0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6
-200
-400
50 RPS Measured
40 RPS Measured
-600
30 RPS Measured
20 RPS Measured
-800 50 RPS Fluent
40 RPS Fluent
-1000 20 RPS Fluent
30 RPS Fluent
-1200
computed data for fan and two radiators.
dP rig, dP rig,
computed measured
30 1034 1013 21,3 1,52 0,016 1,1
1.5 40 947 912 35,8 1,53 0,027 1,8
50 822 780 42,3 1,53 0,032 2,1
20 516 506 9,2 1,01 0,010 1,0
30 452 444 7,8 1,01 0,008 0,8
1.0
40 358 341 17,5 1,02 0,018 1,8
50 242 208 34,7 1,04 0,035 3,5
20 116 119 -2,5 0,50 -0,004 -0,8
30 53 44 8,6 0,51 0,014 2,7
0.5
40 -41 -62 20,6 0,53 0,032 6,4
50 -156 -187 31,7 0,55 0,050 10,1
Table 7: Comparison of measured and computed dP for a setup of two radiators and
fan with closed speed flaps.
As seen in table 6 and 7 the difference between measured and computed data is below
3.5% MFR for all cases except for those with low flow rate and high rotational speed.
It is clear that the MRF method predicts fan performance with good accuracy. For
MFR 0.5 kg/s and rotational speed 40 and 50 rps where the computations differs more
than 3.5% from measured data, the absolute difference in flow rate is not significantly
large. If investigating the accuracy in terms of pressure difference in the rig, the
computed pressures for the mentioned cases (MFR 0.5kg/s) are closer to measured
values than corresponding computations for MFR 1.5kg/s. The main reason that the
errors in %MFR are noteworthy is because of the low flow rate they are related to.
Expressing inaccuracies in percentage pressure is difficult since there is no functional
29
reference to compare with. However, absolute pressure discrepancies are still an
important parameter used when evaluating the accuracies, which can be seen in figure
19 and 20. As discussed in section 6.3 the method of modelling two heat exchangers
with one core is believed to introduce an over prediction of the pressure drop through
the heat exchangers. This error explains some of the difference in the relation
between measured and computed data for the setups with one and two heat
exchangers.
7.2 OPEN SPEED FLAPS

The speed flaps open at a specific over pressure in the shroud and are therefore
only active when the fan and shroud prevents the flow. Comparisons between
experimental and computed data with open flaps are for that reason only of interest
for certain operating conditions. In order to get a good overview of the results the
mass flow rate are kept constant instead of the rotational speed in the plot below.
1200
Open flaps MFR=1.5 Measured
Open flaps MFR=1.5 Fluent
1000
Closed flaps MFR=1.5 Fluent
Closed flaps MFR=1.5 Measured
Open flaps MFR=1.0 Fluent
Open flaps MFR=1.0 Measured
800
Closed flaps MFR=1.0 Fluent
Closed flaps MFR=1.0 Measured
600
400
200
0
10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0 55,0
RPS
Figure 21: Comparisons of measured and computed pressure differences in the rig
for one radiator and fan with open speed flaps. The broken lines are the
corresponding results for the same setup with closed flaps.
dP rig, dP rig,
computed measured
30 497 522 -25 1,46 -0,04 -2,36
1.5 40 420 433 -13 1,48 -0,02 -1,18
50 321 336 -15 1,47 -0,03 -1,77
20 250 262 -12 0,98 -0,02 -2,17
1.0 30 194 202 -8 0,99 -0,01 -1,48
Table 8: Comparison of measured and computed pressure difference for a setup with
one radiator and fan with open speed flaps.
30
The accuracy of the MRF approach for a setup with open speed flaps is very good
throughout all comparisons. The differences between measured and computed values
are below 2.4% mass flow rate. The comparison was also carried out for the setup
with two radiators having the same agreement with measured data as the setup with
one heat exchanger, see table 9.
dP rig, dP rig,
computed measured
30 799 779 20 1,52 0,02 1.27
1.5 40 728 705 23 1,52 0,02 1,44
50 629 596 33 1,53 0,03 2.08
20 411 401 10 1.01 0,01 1.32
1.0 30 357 348 9 1.01 0,01 1,27
Table 9: Comparison of measured and computed pressure difference for a setup with
two radiators and fan with open speed flaps.
7.3 IDLE
All evaluations carried out for open and closed flaps were performed so that
pressure differences were measured when mass flow rate and rotational speed were
held constant. To represent idle conditions, where only the fan itself drives the
airflow, it was desired to measure the mass flow rate for varying rotational speeds
with a zero pressure at the rig inlet and outlet. Hence the fan performance is
expressed in air flow rate in figure 22.
1,0
0,9 Measured data

Fluent MRF
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
RPS
Figure 22: Comparisons of mass flow rate in the rig between measured and
computed data for one radiator and fan with closed speed flaps. For this idle setup
the air flow rate was achieved by the cooling fan.
31
MFR, MFR,
RPS MFR diff MFR diff
computed measured
[kg/s] [kg/s] [kg/s] %
49,0 0,892 0,905 -0,013 -1,40
39,7 0,707 0,722 -0,016 -2,17
30,0 0,509 0,508 0,001 0,20
19,1 0,319 0,306 0,014 4,46
Table 10: Comparison of measured and computed air flow rate for a setup of one
radiator and fan with closed speed flaps.
The corresponding flow rates achieved at 20, 30, 40 and 50 rps for the idle condition
coincides with the simulated results in figure 19; the relation between pressure
difference and air flow rate is independent of which variable that is held constant.
Expected flow rate for idle could therefore be determined by solving for which MFR
the dP is equal to zero for the curves in figure 19.
Comparing the results for idle (figure 22) and closed speed flaps (figure 19) clarifies
the differences in accuracy expressed in percentage MFR for the two cases, table 10
and 6. The superior accuracy for idle appears since the agreement between measured
and computed data is very good for pressures close to zero in figure 19. The overall
accuracy of the MRF method is best illustrated in figure 19 since it includes many
operating conditions for the cooling fan.
The table below illustrates the idle results for the setup with two radiators. Again the
increased error for the higher flow rates partly originates from the simplifications
done when modelling two radiators.
MFR, MFR,
RPS MFR diff MFR diff
computed measured
[kg/s] [kg/s] [kg/s] %
50,6 0,736 0,779 -0,043 -5,46
40,6 0,571 0,605 -0,034 -5,55
29,0 0,399 0,401 -0,002 -0,56
19,8 0,280 0,274 0,007 2,36
Table 11: Comparison of measured and computed air flow rate for a setup of two
radiators and fan with closed speed flaps.
32
8 NUMERICAL ACCURACY
To determine whether the simulations were sufficiently converged, residuals for the
governing equations were considered and the stability of total pressure at monitored
points was studied.
8.1 CONVERGENCE
According to Volvo’s internal recommendations all residuals should be below 10-3,
this was achieved except for the continuity equation (conservation of mass) which
normally declined to around 2*10-2. The convergence issues for the continuity
equation were probably due to large volumes of air flowing with low speed in the
measurement chamber. This was confirmed by an investigation showing that large
residuals appeared in the outer regions of the measurement chamber. As a
complement to the residuals, monitoring of total pressure was used when studying the
convergence. The total pressure at the rig inlet and the fan-surface (for the BFM
model) was expected to be stable for the simulation to be converged. Figure 23 shows
a typical residual plot and figure 24 the development of total pressure at the rig inlet,
the plots are from a MRF simulation with flow rate 1.5 kg/s and a rotational speed of
40 rps.
Figure 23: Residual plot for a MRF simulation with flow rate 1.5 kg/s and rotational
speed 40 rps.
33
Figure 24: Total pressure at the rig inlet for a MRF simulation with flow rate 1.5
kg/s and rotational speed 40 rps.
As seen in figure 24 the total pressure at the rig inlet is relatively stable after 1300
iterations, the MRF simulations for air flow rate equal to 1.5 kg/s with varying
rotational speed was therefore performed with 1500 iterations. Similar convergence
studies were performed for all cases.
8.2 ITERATION DEPENDENCY

Since the Multiple Reference Frame approach is a steady state approximation,
using MRF assumes that a steady state solution can be achieved. To monitor total
pressure and check the stability does only partly show if a steady state solution has
been achieved, another way to investigate the iteration dependency is to plot the
velocity distribution in the rig at different numbers of iterations, Figure 25 A,B,C
shows the velocity magnitude plots at 3500, 4000 and 5000 iterations for MRF
simulations with flow rate 0.5 kg/s and rotational speed of 40 rps.
34
(a) It 3500
(b) It 4000
(c) It 5000
Figure 25: Computed velocity distributions at a cross section in the rig achieved at
3500, 4000 and 5000 iterations for a MRF simulation with flow rate 0.5 kg/s and
rotational speed 40 rps.
As seen above the velocity field changes with number of iterations, this indicates
difficulties finding a steady state solution. However, flow rate and pressure difference
between rig inlet and outlet are stable. Since the fan performance is evaluated
regarding these two parameters the velocity variations were neglected and the
solution was considered converged. The figure below shows an iteration dependency
study for the idle case with a rotational speed of 40 rps.
35
(a) It 3500
(b) It 4000
(c) It 4500
Figure 26: Computed velocity distributions at a cross section in the rig achieved at
3500, 4000 and 4500 iterations for a MRF simulation at idle conditions and with
rotational speed 40 rps
For the idle case presented above, the velocity field is less iteration dependent. The
difficulty in finding a steady state solution therefore varies with the configurations.
However, the stability of flow rate and the pressure difference together with the
residuals have been checked for all simulations.
36
9 DISCUSSION
In the introduction the Mixing Plane Model (MPM) was mentioned as an
alternative method for simulating fan performance. No results using that method are
presented in this report. Nonetheless work was carried out using the MPM approach.
To represent the cooling fans typically used by Volvo Cars with the MPM approach
was however not a passable way since convergence could not be achieved. This
problem originated from a significant backflow occurring at the interface between
rotor and stator. The space between rotor and stator is critical for the MPM approach,
for the setup investigated the distance was too small and the approach was therefore
not suitable. The support team at Ansys Fluent also advised against the use of the
MPM approach for simulating cooling fans.
The updated method concerning the numerical representation of heat exchangers

comprised new suggestions on how to approximate a pressure drop curve to measured
data. This curve was generated as a second order polynomial with a constant, i.e. not
forced to intercept (0,0). This improvement gave a better approximation to the
experimental data and increased the accuracy of the numerical model of the radiator.
Hence the error corresponding to the numerical representation of the radiator
decreased and could be neglected. This made it easier to analyze the accuracy when
numerically predicting fan performance. However, since the constant needed to be
compensated for the improvement is not recommended for under hood simulations.
Representing the cooling fan with the Body Force Model requires carefully generated
fan blade curves where both experiments and simulations are needed. With the
improvements presented in section 6.2 this model produces accurate results
concerning pressure jump and flow rate. In section 6.3 it was shown that the accuracy
of the fan blade curves is dependent on changes of the incoming flow distribution. It
is therefore uncertain how accurate a fan blade curve generated in the component test
rig is when used in under hood simulations. Moreover, using the BFM approach
without defined swirl components results in a non-realistic velocity distribution
downstream the fan as illustrated in figure 27 A. This jet like velocity field and its
consequences in under hood flow simulations adds uncertainties to the accuracy of
the BFM approach.
In figure 27 B, the velocity distribution achieved with the MRF approach is shown
and by comparing it with corresponding velocity field achieved with the BFM
approach the differences can clearly be visualised. The resulting velocity field
attained with MRF displays that the pressure and velocity in all directions are taken
into account, i.e. that swirl is included. This difference in velocity fields for the BFM
and the MRF models do not affect the computed pressure difference in the rig used to
evaluate the accuracies of these approaches. However, it would most likely have
effect in the under hood flow computations.
37
A
Figure 27: A) Computed velocity distribution at a cross section in the rig achieved
with the BFM approach. B) Corresponding velocity field achieved with the MRF
approach.
For the MRF method to work, no tests with a physical fan in the component test rig
are required. This makes it possible to do more accurate computations of under hood
flows in an early stage of product development. On the other hand, the geometry of
the fan blades needs to be known and included in the model demanding additional
modelling work and larger models. Also, detailed knowledge of the expected
rotational speed is needed. However, having a reliable model contributes more to
product development then the cost of the additional work needed.
38
9.1 FUTURE WORK
The results from the computations using Multiple Reference Frame are achieved
with a mesh having a generally high node density, for details see appendix A. No
thorough investigation has been done on whether a reduction in node density provides
results with the same accuracy. Before implementing the MRF methodology in under
hood simulations it is suggested that a more detailed recommendation concerning
element sizes is developed.
As mentioned in section 5.2 the measured pressure drop through the heat exchanger is
not optimally approximated with a second order polynomial forced to intercept (0,0).
A second order polynomial with a constant, i.e. not forced to intercept (0,0) gives a
better agreement with measured data but is not possible to implement in Fluent with
the present definition of porous media. Finding a way to implement this new curve
approximation could increase the accuracy especially for low flow rates. However, it
is uncertain whether the constant in the pressure drop curve for the heat exchanger is
due to rig phenomena or the heat exchanger. This should be considered before
implementing a constant in the definition of porous media used for heat exchangers in
under hood flow computations.
If the use of the BFM approach is continued it should be more carefully investigated
whether the fan blade curves are affected of changes upstream. Results pointing in
that direction is presented in this report but it could not be determined without doubt
since the numerical model of the cooling package with two heat exchangers included
uncertainties. If the fan blade curves are dependent of the cooling package they are
most certainly also affected of the front end design, further work of its dependency is
therefore recommended.
The evaluation of the MRF approach has focused on a single fan but since the use of
double fans increases it is recommended to investigate the accuracy of the MRF
approach even for these fans.
39
10 CONCLUSIONS
When generating pressure drop correlations for heat exchangers it is important to
consider the inlet losses in the component test rig. Since these are independent of
resistance and geometry of the heat exchangers, the losses computed in this report can
be used. This improvement is therefore easy to apply in projects. Regarding the outlet
losses, the present estimation using the dynamic pressure gives adequate results.
Furthermore compensation from wet to dry air density is recommended before using
the experimental data to produce the pressure drop curves.
If modelling the cooling fan with the BFM approach, it is highly recommended to
compute all pressure losses numerically when producing the fan blade curves. This is
due to the added pressure drop over the heat exchangers because of the non-uniform
flow field. This should be done by setting up a numerical model of the component rig
including the heat exchanger, fan shroud and hub. From this model, functions relating
air flow rate with pressure drops through heat exchanger, fan shroud and downstream
the fan shroud can be achieved. By computing the losses this way the accuracy is
dramatically increased, both for closed and open speed flaps. Even with these
improvements the accuracy of the BFM approach is uncertain since the fan blade
curves appear to be dependent on the cooling package and the upstream geometry.
The steady state approximation Multiple Reference Frame has been shown to predict
the performance of the cooling fan with good accuracy. It reproduces experimental
data for open and closed speed flaps and with different cooling packages with less
than 3.5% error flow rate for the majority of the cases. The exceptions are for the
cases with low flow rate and high rotational speed where even a small absolute error
results in a high error expressed in percentage flow rate. The MRF approach is well
suited for under hood simulations since it takes upstream design into account and
produces a realistic velocity field downstream the fan.
40
R EFERENCES
[1] Fluent 6.2 User’s guide, Fluent Inc., 2005
[2] A. Wang et al., Evaluation of the Multiple Reference Frame (MRF) Model in a
Truck Fan Simulation, SAE Technical Paper, Toronto, Canada, 2005.
[3] J. Foss et al., Evaluating CFD Models of Axial Fans by Comparisons with
Phase-Averaged Experimental Data, SAE Technical Paper, Tennessee, USA,
2001.
[4] A. Jerhamre, A. Jönson, Development and Validation of Coolant Temperature

and Cooling Air Flow CFD Simulations at Volvo Cars, Volvo internal report,
Göteborg, Sweden, 2004.
[5] P. K. Kundu, I. M. Cohen, Fluid Mechanics, 3rd edition, Elsevier Academic

Press, San Diego, USA, 2004, ISBN 0-12-178253-0.
[6] J. H. Ferziger, M. Peric, Computational Methods for Fluid Dymanics, 3rd

edition, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2002, ISBN 3-540-42074-6.
[7] A. Jerhamre, Computation Procedure, Volvo internal report, Göteborg,

Sweden, 2002.
41
A PPENDIX A
SURFACE MESH
The following table lists the element lengths used for the surface mesh. The
surfaces are listed in order from inlet to outlet. Total number of surface elements was
1.13*106.
Surface mm
Mass flow inlet 150

Wall pressure chamber 140-150
Refinement "box", upstream radiator 10
Radiator 4
Fan shroud 1-5
Fan blades 1-5
Control box 5
Hub 5
Stability bars 4
MRF region 1-4
Outer blade ring 1
Gap between blade ring and shroud 1
Refinement "cone", downstream radiator 10-25
Measurement chamber 130-200
Pressure outlet 30
Table 12: Details about the surface mesh
42
VOLUME MESH
The total number volume elements were 14.25*106 and they were distributed
throughout the rig (from inlet to outlet) as listed below. The maximum element
volume defined for each element zone is also listed.
Element Zone Number of elements Maximum volume size
Pressure chamber 1,93E+05 1,00E+06
Refinement before rad 2 7,57E+05 500
Refinement before rad 1 3,65E+05 15
Rad 2,10E+05 Prisms (height=4mm)
After rad 5,71E+05 15
MRF 1,38E+06 10
Tip clear 2,13E+06 1
Control box 1,17E+04 15
Refinement shroud exit 3,03E+06 15
Refinement after fan 1 2,66E+06 500
Refinement after fan 2 1,93E+06 4000
Measurement chamber 8,81E+05 1,00E+06
Measurement chamber 2 1,32E+05 5,00E+05

Table 13: Details about the volume mesh
43
SOLVER SETTING
The computational settings used in this project are presented in the tables below. If
not specified, default settings were used.
Fluid Properties
Material air
Density 1.204 [kg/m3]
Viscosity 1.81e-05 [kg/m-s]
Boundary Conditions
Inlet Boundary Condition
Type Mass Flow Inlet
Direction Specification Method Normal to Boundary
Gauge Pressure 0
Reference Frame Absolute
Turbulence Specification Method Intensity and Length Scale
Turbulence Intensity 1
Turbulence Length Scale 0.3
Outlet Boundary Condition
Type Pressure Outlet
Gauge Pressure 0
Backflow Direction Specification Method Normal to Boundary
Turbulence Specification Method Intensity and Length Scale
Backflow Turbulence Intensity 1
Backflow Turbulence Length Scale 0.3
Fluid Radiator
Type Fluid, Porous Zone
Direction-1 Vector (1,0,0)
Direction-2 Vector (0,1,0)
Viscous Resistance Constant
Inertial Resistance Constant
Hub and Stability Bars
Type Wall
Wall Motion Moving Wall
Motion Absolute
Speed [rad/s] 0
Rotation-Axis Origin
X 0.0732582
Y -0.02915685
Z 0.012007
Rotation-Axis Direction (1,0,0)
44
MRF Region
Fluid MRF
Type Fluid
Motion Type Moving Reference Frame
X 0.0732582
Y -0.02915685
Z 0.012007
Rotational Velocity [rad/s] Varying
MRF Interface
Type Interior
Outer Fan Blade Ring, Fan Blades
Type Wall
Wall Motion Moving Wall
Motion Absolute, Rotational
Speed [rad/s] Varying
X 0.0732582
Y -0.02915685
Z 0.012007
Viscous Model
Model k-ε
k-ε model Standard
Near Wall Treatment Standard Wall Functions
Model Constants Default
Discretization
Pressure Standard
Momentum Second Order Upwind
Turbulence Kinetic Energy First Order Upwind
Turbulence Dissipation Rate First Order Upwind
Table 14: Computational settings.
45
A PPENDIX B
RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN GENERATING PRESSURE
DROP CURVES FOR HEAT EXCHANGERS.
A couple of improvements in the procedure to obtain pressure drop curves have
been developed during this thesis work. Recommendations of how to implement
these are listed below.
1. To compensate for humidity, divide the pressure difference, obtained from

experiments, with the wet air density measured during the test. Multiply the
result with the dry air density for the “demand temperature” defined in the
test. This compensates for differences in pressure drop through the heat
exchanger due to the humidity. See example 3
2. In order to define the pressure drop corresponding to the heat exchanger more
accurate the inlet losses in the test rig should be taken into account. Since the
inlet losses are independent of heat exchanger a polynomial, approximated to
the data in table 4, can be used for compensation. See example 3. The
polynomial is P=3.1316*(VFR)2+0.1166*(VFR) where VFR = volume flow
rate [m3/s].
Example 3: The compensated pressure difference shown in the table below is

calculated as follows.
Compensated pressure difference= Pressure difference rig/ Wet air
density* Dry air density- Inlet losses
For flow rate = 0.25 m3/s the compensated pressure difference is given
by: 43.6/1.167*1.204-0.2=44.8 Pa
46
Volume flow Pressure Wet air Dry air Compensated
rate difference rig density density Inlet losses pressure difference
m³/s Pa kg/m³ kg/m³ Pa Pa
0,25 43,6 1,167 1,204 0,2 44,8
0,50 120,3 1,163 1,204 0,8 123,7
0,75 223,9 1,165 1,204 1,9 229,5
1,00 342,7 1,162 1,204 3,3 351,8
1,25 484,5 1,161 1,204 5,1 497,5
1,52 656,7 1,165 1,204 7,4 671,4
1,75 853,9 1,166 1,204 9,8 871,9
2,00 1036,9 1,168 1,204 12,8 1055,7
2,25 1239,5 1,170 1,204 16,1 1258,9
2,50 1459,7 1,173 1,204 19,9 1478,5
2,75 1699,6 1,176 1,204 24,0 1715,9
3,00 1971,4 1,180 1,204 28,6 1982,7
Table 15: The compensation, concerning density and inlet losses, of measured
pressure difference.
3. The outlet losses can either be computed using CFD or be estimated by the
dynamic pressure at the heat exchanger outlet. This estimation is as shown in
figure 9 sufficiently accurate. The compensated pressure differences from
table 15 can therefore be used as input in an internal document where the
pressure drop curve, used as Fluent input, is generated. In this document the
dynamic pressure at the heat exchanger outlet is subtracted.
47
RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN GENERATING FAN
BLADE CURVES WITH THE BODY FORCE MODEL
When using the BFM approach to model the cooling fan in CFD it has been shown
important to estimate the losses accurately. In order to achieve this, the following
steps are recommended.
1. To be able to generate the fan blade curve accurately it is necessary to use a

numerical model of the test rig. This numerical model should include the fan
shroud, hub and cooling package. Furthermore a fan surface, on which the fan
blade curve will be applied, should be created having the same radius and
position as the absent fan blades. Moreover a circular surface at the shroud
exit, upstream of stability bars should be modelled before generating the
volume mesh.
2. It is important that the cooling package used for generating fan blade curves is
similar with the one that will be used together with the fan later on. This since
the velocity distribution at the outlet of the heat exchanger closest to the fan
has been shown to affect the efficiency of the fan blades.
3. Three simulations with different air flow rates and without pressure jump
applied on the fan surface need to be carried out. Air flow rates of 1, 2 and 3
m3/s are suggested. To be able to compute the losses accurately a plane 0.1
mm downstream the radiator outlet, with the same dimensions, should be
generated. The losses are to be computed as follows:
a. The inlet losses and pressure drop over the cooling package is
calculated as one pressure drop in total pressure. This is done by
taking the total pressure difference, expressed as mass weighted
average, from the mass flow inlet to the surface 0.1 mm downstream
the heat exchanger. By doing this for the three flow rates, a polynomial
describing the relation between pressure drop and flow rate can be
obtained.
b. The pressure drop over the fan shroud is generated as in a) but

between the surfaces 0.1 mm downstream the radiator and at the
shroud outlet.
c. The exit losses, between the shroud exit surface and the rig outlet, are
determined as in a) and b).
48
CFD simulations
MFRAIR FrAIR dP shroud dP exit dP inlet and rad
3
kg/s m /s Pa Pa Pa
1,0 0,83 29,5 88,48 175,45
2,0 1,66 99,1 331,48 551,79
3,0 2,49 207,9 728,62 1129,88
Table 16: The computed losses in the rig with cooling package, fan
shroud and hub.
The polynomials approximated to the losses in table 16 can be seen in figure 13 A, B.
4. The computed losses and the experimental data should than be inserted in an
internal document that generates fan blade curves.
49
A PPENDIX C
RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN MODELLING THE
COOLING FAN WITH MRF
When using the multiple reference frame in Fluent there are a number of setup
steps to go through, both concerning the geometry, mesh creation, boundary
conditions and solver settings.
- Geometry
It is necessary to define the rotating fluid zone (MRF zone) when creating the
geometry and the surface mesh of the fan. The MRF region should if possible
include all rotating parts, such as fan blades and blade ring. It is however often
limited space between the blade ring and shroud why it can be suitable to
exclude the outer surface of the blade ring. This outer surface can be set to
rotate by applying a rotating boundary condition. See figure 7 for an example.
The MRF region can include stationary parts if circumferentially symmetric.
- Boundary Conditions
o MRF surface: The surface that distinguishes the MRF region from the
stationary surrounding should be set to Interior as long as it is not a
wall.
o MRF fluid: Set the motion type to Moving Reference Frame and define
the rotational axis origin, the rotational axis and the rotational velocity.
o Walls included in the MRF region: If rotating with the same speed as
the fluid zone, define the wall as Moving Wall with the motion set to
Relative to Adjacent Cell Zone and Rotational, define the Rotation-
Axis Origin, Rotation-Axis Direction and set the speed to zero. If
rotating with different speed, set the motion to Absolute and Rotational,
define the Rotation-Axis Origin, Rotation-Axis Direction and set the
speed to an absolute value, e.g. 314,6 rad/s or 0 if stationary. Note that
if a wall inside the MRF region is set to stationary, it will rotate as
adjacent cell zone.
o Walls excluded from the MRF region: If rotating, define an absolute

velocity as above. If stationary, keep the default settings of Stationary
Wall.
50
- Solver Settings
The Realizable k-ε turbulence model is not recommended when using the MRF
approach, [1]. The absolute velocity formulation, in the Define-Models-Solver
menu, is preferred to the relative velocity formulation when most of the fluid
domain is not rotating.
- Solution Strategies
If it is problematic to obtain a converged solution it could help to either
increase the rotational speed of the MRF region gradually or reduce the under-
relaxation factors for the velocities.
51
A PPENDIX D
ROTATED BLADE POSITION
In section 7 it was mentioned that a different blade position has been used to
investigate whether it affects the computed fan performance. A different position was
tested since the approximations used in the MRF approach introduce non-realistic
rotor stator interactions. The blades were rotated 30˚, placing a fan blade behind the
control box, which would change the rotor stator interaction significantly. It did not
however influence the computed pressure difference in the rig considerably, why only
one blade position was used in the evaluation of the MRF model. In the figure below
the results of the two blade positions are presented.
A B
Figure 28: A) shows the rotated blade position and B) the blade position used
throughout the project.
600
500
Pressure difference [Pa]
400
300
200
Measured data
100 Fluent MRF
Fluent MRF rotated
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
RPS
Figure 29: Comparison of computed pressure difference in the rig for setups with two
different blade positions, with two heat exchangers and MFR 1 [kg/s].
52
dP rig, dP rig, dP rig, computed,
Rps measured computed rotated
[Pa] [Pa] [Pa]
20 506.48 515.65 518.27
50 207.53 242.25 236.27
Table 17: Numerical values of the compared results in figure 28.
53

Fan Modelling For Front End Cooling With CFD: Master'S Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fan Modelling For Front End Cooling With CFD: Master'S Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fan Modelling For Front End Cooling With CFD: Master'S Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2007:001 CIV

Fan Modelling for Front

MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAMME

Luleå University of Technology

2007:001 CIV • ISSN: 1402 - 1617 • ISRN: LTU - EX - - 07/1 - - SE

Furthermore, improvements concerning the procedure to numerically represent heat

We would also like to thank our supervisor at Luleå University of Technology,

1.2 METHODS FOR FAN PERFORMANCE SIMULATIONS

- Body Force Model (BFM)

- Mixing Plane Model (MPM)

- Sliding Mesh Method

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Figure 1: Typical design for the cooling fan in a Volvo car

1.4 EARLIER WORK

The two transport equations are:

The constants σ k , σ ε , Cε 1 , Cε 2 , Cµ are empirical.

Where τ is the viscous stress

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5

20 RPS First Test

Figure 5: A) The fan geometry with corresponding surface mesh. B) Enlargement of

Table 1: Settings used in all simulations.

4.5 BODY FORCE MODEL

5.1 PRESENT METHOD

Measured pressure drop

The improvements done were:

- Subtracting numerically computed inlet- and outlet losses instead of the

Losses, Present Method

Figure 9: Rig losses computed with present and corrected method.

dP/dx Curve Present Method

Table 3: Numerical values of the results shown in figure 11.

In Table 3 the accuracy of the methods to model heat exchangers is presented in

dP/dx Curve Corrected Method 2 Radiators

Inlet losses Exit losses Inlet losses Exit losses

6.1 PRESENT METHOD

The improvements done were:

Fan shroud losses CFD

600,0 Shroud exit losses CFD

-400 20 RPS BFM Corrected

BFM Present Method, Open Flaps

BFM Corrected Method, Open Flaps

Table 5: Comparisons of pressure difference in the rig between measured and

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6

50 RPS BFM Corrected

-100 50 rps 2 Radiators

It is difficult to estimate the accuracy of the BFM-model when implemented in

7.1 CLOSED SPEED FLAPS

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6

-400 50 RPS Measured

In Table 6 the accuracy of the MRF-approach is presented in percentage Mass Flow

7.2 OPEN SPEED FLAPS

0,9 Measured data

8.2 ITERATION DEPENDENCY

The updated method concerning the numerical representation of heat exchangers

[4] A. Jerhamre, A. Jönson, Development and Validation of Coolant Temperature

[5] P. K. Kundu, I. M. Cohen, Fluid Mechanics, 3rd edition, Elsevier Academic

[6] J. H. Ferziger, M. Peric, Computational Methods for Fluid Dymanics, 3rd

[7] A. Jerhamre, Computation Procedure, Volvo internal report, Göteborg,

Mass flow inlet 150