University of Washington

Formula SAE
2013-2014
Team 25

Composites, Manufacturing R&D Technical Team

Radiator Ducting, an Overview
Author: Kelsey Calvert

1 Project Definition
1.1 Preface
The cooling duct and fan shroud directly interface with the radiator, and aid in the
cooling and airflow of the engine cooling system. These two pieces of equipment are
extremely important for the integrity of our cars, considering the temperature (95+
degrees) of our competition locations. Without the cooling duct and fan shroud, we
will be unable to effectively cool the radiator, and by extension the engine. Loss of
cooling may result in overheating, loss of performance, or possibly even
disqualification in the competition. Improvement of the cooling design will result in
improved aerodynamics, air flow and cooling of the radiator, and a possible reduction
in weight.
The cooling duct consists of an elongated, twisted, rectangular tube, with one end
(the intake) being smaller than the exhaust. This is done in order to decrease the
pressure and velocity of air before it reaches the radiator. The fan shroud also
interfaces with the radiator, housing a fan that will aid in the cooling and airflow
through the radiator.
This year, we experience a unique problem within the cooling system; a new
mounting location. Typically, the UW team has kept the radiator mounted to the top
back of the chassis. This allows for shorter cooling lines, and a more aerodynamic
profile. This year, decisions were made outside of my control to place the radiator on
the left side of the chassis. Reasons for this decision mainly revolve around a lower
center of gravity for the car. Challenges that arise from this decision mainly rest on
airflow and potential FSAE rule violations. Specific issues will be brought up in later
sections.

Last updated October 10, 2011

1.2 Functional
1.2.1 Requirements
The cooling duct and fan shroud must provide and dissipate ample airflow to allow
for efficient cooling of the radiator. As a result, airflow is a large consideration in
design, and is an essential aspect of the system.
Considering that the cooling duct and fan shroud interface with the radiator and by
extension the chassis, both devices will by extension encounter forces that the
chassis and radiator both encounter individually. In short form, these forces include
vibration, drag, and shearing, with specific focus on the system that connects the
duct to the radiator.

1.2.2 Opportunities
In the past, the fan shroud has performed extremely well with little reason to deviate
significantly from the design. For the most part there have been no significant
concerns as to the integrity of this parts performance. As a result, I will have the
ability to borrow heavily from previous designs and mold manufacturing, saving
immense time in manufacturing and analysis. For example, the method for
manufacturing the fan mounting flange performed so well in the past, that I foresee
no reason to deviate from this technique.

1.2.3 Assumptions
Through analysis and data gathering, the final decision has been made to utilize a
200mm diameter fan this year, as opposed to the 6 fan chosen for last years
design. The reason for the switch from US Customary to SI units is resultant from a
switch in manufacturers, from North American company Spal, to the German
company EBMpapst.
In addition, I received final dimensions and angles for the radiator mounting by the
Engine team 11.5x14 with a 21 degree mounting angle below the left horizontal. I
have designed according to these constraints, and will assume that they will be the
final dimensions. Engine team assures me that these dimensions will be unchanged,
but I have designed with some leeway (~+/- 5 degrees).

1.2.4 Constraints
Ideally and without time or resource constraints, I would hope to create the front
cooling duct via a machined mold, creating a seamless and more aerodynamic shape.
However, such construction would require a large mold, and with that a large enough
machine that could perform such a job. In addition, I cannot justify the time spent
versus aerodynamic return. Computational Fluid Dynamics (within Ansys FLUENT)
were performed in the consideration of mold manufacturing versus aerodynamic
performance. For clarification, the design would simply deviate between rounded or
sharp corners. Very little difference was seen between the two shapes, with the
exception of minor flow separation in the sharp corners. For the scope of this
engineering project, and the focus on macro details as opposed to micro flow, it is
decided to continue with the sharp corner manufacturing design.

1.3 Physical
1.3.1 Requirements
Both the fan shroud and duct must be structurally sound, as defects in the
manufacturing may reduce efficiency, and may even result in disqualification from
the competition. FSAE rules state that all components and aspects of the vehicle
must stay within the designated roll-zone. That is, a zone which extends from the
rear to front wheel track, up to the main roll hoop, and down to the front roll hoop
near the nosecone. As a result of mounting to a side mounting radiator, I have taken
care to ensure that my design stays within the roll envelope and does not encroach
on any SAE competition rules.
Both items will be made of 2-ply composite, with the fan shroud being molded while
the cooling duct constructed of flat sheets. 4-ply composite joints will be added to
the inside of the cooling duct for structural integrity, and care will be taken to reduce
possible flow disruption.
I will be using four 6061 Aluminum brackets and #6 fasteners to secure the ducting
to the radiator. These brackets must be able to support the ducting (~1.5 lbs), as
well as a small worst case load of approximately 5lbs

1.3.2 Assumptions
I am designing under the assumption that the parts will be made of 2 ply Toray T700
carbon fiber, as all my weight and fastening calculations have been done under this
material assumption.

1.3.3 Constraints
As mentioned previously, the radiator is being mounted on the side of the vehicle. As
a result I must fit within the side-packaging, as well as out of the way of the wheel
clear zones. As a result, my options for design and manufacturing have and continue
to be limited, and I must consider less aerodynamic shapes and orientations in
order to stay within the required boundaries.

2 Research
The biggest question that has resulted from my design is which duct to exhaust ratio
should be used. Toward the end of my design, I performed CFD to decide between a
1:4, 1:3 or 1:2 ratio. Inevitably, due to the nature of a curving duct, there will be
flow-separation. As a result of this, it is difficult to model accurately. I ran 500
iterations of ANSYS fluent for each duct ratio, and of all three, no residuals
converged. However, they remained in the 1e-03 range while fluctuating as a sine
wave, which even then is a fairly converged result. For future teams and designs, I
would highly recommend heavy experimentation with Fluent to determine the best
solution method to result in a converged result. Toward the end of design period, I
began experimenting with transient time solution methods utilizing more equations,
such as Detached Eddy (DES), but due to time constraints, I could not gain any
strong results from such methods. Transient solutions would be ideal, as it shows the
movement of the air rather than a static snapshot. All solutions were done using Kepsilon (2 eq), and it is my hope that in coming years, we as a team can become
more confident in which solution settings we use.

3 Design Synthesis
This year we saw large changes in the cooling systems of the cars. Most notably, the
radiator will be placed on the left side, rather than the top where it was for T24. As a
result, I could only reuse and/or reference select portions of the T24 ducting, as
most had to be designed and built from the ground up.
The radiator will be mounted on the left side of the car, towards the back at a 21
degree angle. My ducting was designed to incorporate such mounting, and is also
designed to interface with the chassis at a distance of 0.25-0.35. The fan shroud will
be 7 inches in length, containing a 200mm fan, and will be molded with 2 axis of
symmetry.

4 Final Specification

Figure 1: Iso view of duct in full-car context

Figure 2: Side view of duct in dull car context

Figure 3: Top view, showing ducting clearances

Figure 4: Isometric view of ducting assembly

Figure 5: Isometric view of duct flow analysis

Figure 6: Isometric view of shroud and fan

Figure 7: Isometric view of mounting bracket