This document evaluates different air cooling configurations and innovations for vehicle engines. It summarizes: 1) An internal fuel heater vortex triangle design that improves heat transfer within the compressed air duct with minimal pressure drop or packaging compromises. 2) Analysis of five different cooler configurations showing configuration 4 requires the least cooling air flow to reject heat. 3) Innovations discussed include vortex generators, surface roughness modifications, and self-optimizing flow angles to enhance downforce and heat transfer.

1. Evaluation of Air Cooling
Requirements for Various
Cooler Configurations and
Innovations
HAND OUTS
Pierre Salmon
School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL
Dr. Laszlo Konozsy: laszlo.konozsy@cranfield.ac.uk
Pierre Salmon: pierresalmon41@gmail.com
www.motorsport.cranfield.ac.uk
CAC Analysis
Fuel Heater Vortex Triangle
• Internal to Compressed air duct yields low pressure drop and no packaging
compromises. Spiral allows for fuel churning and improved heat transfer.
0
100
200
300
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
4
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Car Velocity [km/h]
Cooling Map CAC 4
Engine Speed [RPM]
CoolingAchieved[kW]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
HeatRejection[kW]
Engine Speed [RPM]
CAC Heat Rejection Requirement
Configuration 1
Configuration 2
Configuration 3
Configuration 4
Configuration 5
1 2 3
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Track Position [m]
HeatRejection[kW]
Heat Rejection along Spa
Carburettor Fuel Heating
Turbulence Intensity
Surface Roughness
Vortex Generators
5.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.50E+06
2.00E+06
2.50E+06
3.00E+06
3.50E+06
4.00E+06
4.50E+06
5.00E+06
5.50E+06
2.50E-05 3.50E-05 4.50E-05 5.50E-05 6.50E-05 7.50E-05
Pressure[Pa]
Volume [m3]
PV - Diagram - Compression Stroke
25
40
60
80
100
∆𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔=
𝑀𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝
× 𝐿𝐻𝑉
𝑀 𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑐𝑦𝑙
× 𝐶 𝑝
𝑁𝑒𝑡𝑡 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 [𝐾] =
𝑚 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 × 𝑈𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 − 𝑚 𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑝 × 𝐿𝐻𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝑚 𝑡𝑜𝑡 × 𝐶 𝑝 𝑡𝑜𝑡
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=15378
• Robust performance in
transitional region.
• Downforce and Heat
Transfer enhanced by:
• Configuration 4 requires 0.30 kg/s less cooling air mass flow
rate than Configuration 1 to reject the required 37.8 kW.
• Total required air mass flow rate 1.395 kg/s.
• CAC Efficiency increase of 9.67% yields 10.89 K
lower inlet temperature.
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
550000
600000
650000
4000 9000 14000
Power[W]
Engine Speed [rpm]
Power
1.05/inf
Carburettor
Only
inf/1.05
Injectors
Only
• Reduces inlet area by 3.87 %.
• Reduces required air mass flow by 0.054 kg/s.
• Lack of In cylinder Lambda control
between combustion cycles.
• Possible fuel entrainment and
condensation in CAC.
• 2014 Technical Regulations:
 Article 5.10.2: One Injector per
cylinder.
 Article 5.14.2: No spraying of
substance into intake air.
• Lack of In cylinder Lambda control
between combustion cycles.
• Possible fuel entrainment and
condensation in CAC.
• 2014 Technical Regulations:
 Article 6.5.2: Fuel Temperature.
 Article 6.5.3: Decrease Fuel
Temperature before injection.
• Reduces required air mass flow by 0.126 kg/s.
• Reduced inlet air temperature by 7.073 K.
• Self Optimising Flow Angles.
• Drag/Heat Transfer
Optimisation.
• Passive = Legal aerodynamic
surface actuation.
1. Slow Corner
2. Fast Straight
3. Y-250 Vortex Dependant
• Current : 1 W/Pa
• Target : 3.8 W/Pa
• Requires Fins and full CFD
analysis with optimisation.
• Increased Heat Transfer through boundary layer disruption and centrifugal
forces on higher momentum core streamlines. 11.6g CAC weight increase.
• Current Efficiency 0.058 W/Pa, Target Efficiency > 0.066 W/Pa
TDMSA LS0413