1451

An analytical study on heat transfer performance of

radiators with non-uniform airflow distribution
E Y Ng1,2*, P W Johnson1, and S Watkins1
1Vehicle Aerodynamics Group, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia
2Product Design, Australian Automotive Air, Australia

The manuscript was received on 19 July 2004 and was accepted after revision for publication on 24 August 2005.

DOI: 10.1243/095440705X35116

Abstract: Heat exchangers used in modern automobiles usually have a highly non-uniform
air velocity distribution because of the complexity of the engine compartment and underhood
flow fields; hence ineffective use of the core area has been noted. To adequately predict the
heat transfer performance in typical car radiators, a generalized analytical model accounting
for airflow maldistribution was developed using a finite element approach and applying
appropriate heat transfer equations including the e–NTU (effectiveness – number of heat
transfer units) method with the Davenport correlation for the air-side heat transfer coefficient.
The analytical results were verified against a set of experimental data from nine radiators tested
in a wind tunnel and were found to be within +24 and −10 per cent of the experimental
results. By applying the analytical model, several severe non-uniform velocity distributions
were also studied. It was found that the loss of radiator performance caused by airflow
maldistribution, compared with uniform airflow of the same total flowrate, was relatively minor
except under extreme circumstances where the non-uniformity factor was larger than 0.5.
The relatively simple set of equations presented in this paper can be used independently in
spreadsheets or in conjunction with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis, enabling a
full numerical prediction of aerodynamic as well as thermodynamic performance of radiators
to be conducted prior to a prototype being built.

Keywords: radiators, cross-flow heat exchangers, airflow maldistribution, corrugated

louvred fin surfaces, non-uniformity, specific dissipation

1 INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
The cooling airflow is seldom uniformly distributed
across an automotive radiator front face, and con-
sequently the radiator cooling performance may be
impaired [1–3]. The causes of non-uniformity of the
cooling airflow include objects upstream and down-
stream of the radiator, particularly the upstream
bumper and associated crash structure. Figure 1
shows a normalized velocity contour measured at the
radiator front face in a typical passenger car, in
ram-air condition (i.e. no fan operation), at a vehicle
driving speed of 100 km/h. It is evident that the
* Corresponding author: 7 Ellerton Court, Donvale, Victoria, VIC
3111, Australia. email: eton_ng@hotmail.com
vehicle geometry strongly influences the airflow path
entering the radiator (see reference [4]).
There is only limited research published using
analytical approaches in determining the heat transfer
performance of automotive radiators. Analyses of
radiator performance have often been based on
the inadequate assumption that the airflow has a
uniform distribution over the radiator face. An
important deficiency in that assumption is that the
air velocity distribution over the face of a real radiator
in the engine compartment is always highly complex
and non-uniform, and the airflow rate cannot easily
be analytically determined.
Heat exchanger performance can generally be
determined using either one of the following
approaches [5]: the log mean temperature difference

D13604 © IMechE 2005 Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1452 E Y Ng, P W Johnson, and S Watkins
Fig. 1 Normalized airflow velocity contour at the
radiator face at a vehicle speed of 100 km/h.
(Reprinted from Ng [4])
(LMTD) method or the effectiveness–NTU (e-NTU)
method. Selection from these two approaches is often
based on what type of problem is to be solved. Use
of the LMTD method is more convenient in solving
sizing or design problems (e.g. see reference [6]),
whereas for the rating problem (performance pre-
diction) the e-NTU method is more effective (e.g. see
references [7] and [8]).
The work presented in this paper was aimed to
fulfil the following objectives:
(a) to provide a comprehensive literature review
related to air- and coolant-side heat transfer
coefficients applicable to modern automotive
radiators;
(b) to make use of existing heat exchanger theory to
solve radiator cooling problems where the air-
flow distribution is far from uniform;
(c) to illustrate a finite element method, where the
radiator is mathematically treated as a finite
number of small elemental radiators, in order to
provide a more accurate prediction of the heat
transfer capability of the entire radiator with
non-uniform airflow distribution;
(d) to validate this method against a set of experi-
mental data; and
(e) to further the understanding of the influence
of airflow maldistribution on radiator cooling
performance.
The method presented can be carried out with-
out the need for extensive computing resources
and requires only some relatively simple iteration in
a spreadsheet. Together with computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) simulation predicting flow pheno-
mena through radiators, use of the techniques
described in this paper (including sets of governing
equations for heat transfer coefficients and a com-
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
putation procedure) can lead to further understand-
ing of heat transfer characteristics of radiators and a
more accurate prediction of their effectiveness.
2 BACKGROUND TO THE ANALYSIS
Radiators used for vehicle engine cooling are
usually cross-flow type heat exchangers. The airflow
is generally induced by the moving vehicle (ram air)
and/or the cooling fan(s) (fan air).
Radiators with extended surfaces consisting of
multilouvred fins are commonly employed in
modern vehicles. The extended surfaces provide
large enhancement of the heat transfer rate, not
only by providing additional surface area but also
by reducing the thickness of the boundary layer by
inducing a series of flat-plate leading edges, interrupt-
ing the growth of the boundary layer along the fin
surface [9]. Hosoda et al. [10] compared a plate fin
heat exchanger with one with parallel louvres and
found that the air-side heat transfer performance of
the louvred fin structure was 60 per cent higher than
that of the plain plate fin equivalent.
The direction of the coolant tubes can be either
horizontal (coolant flowing horizontally) or vertical
(coolant flowing downward from the top tank to
the bottom tank). According to SAE HS-40 [11], the
horizontal flow type radiator is more commonly used
in passenger vehicles. Coolant tubes are usually based
on a flat (non-circular) tube design. The advantages
over circular tube designs include a higher heat
transfer area per unit of flow area; the wakes of the
tubes cause less reduction of heat transfer in down-
stream regions; the small projected areas of the tubes
minimize profile drag; and provision of a higher fin
efficiency.
For the purposes of increasing the boiling point
of the coolant and preventing corrosion in the cool-
ing systems, coolants are generally a mixture of
water, antifreeze (usually ethylene glycol, or EG), and
possibly various corrosion inhibitors. It is noted that
the use of glycol mixture generally reduces the heat
transfer performance compared with pure water.
The analytical model was developed in this
study specifically for the most common radiator
configuration, which consists of the following features:
(a) air-cooled radiator,
(b) cross-flow configuration,
(c) corrugated louvred fins, and
(d) flat coolant tubes with a horizontal flow structure.
Nevertheless, the model described here, after minor
amendments, can be used to solve the radiator
performance of other specified configurations.
D13604 © IMechE 2005
 Heat transfer performance of radiators 1453

3 METHODOLOGY OF RADIATOR ANALYSIS (d) coolant flowrate, and

(e) basic radiator dimensions (refer to section 3.1).
The primary use for this model was to investigate
how airflow maldistribution affected the radiator 3.1 Definitions of the radiator geometry
performance under known conditions. The outlet
temperatures and the air temperature distribution at With reference to Fig. 2, the basic radiator dimensions
the radiator exit were the aspects to be evaluated. that were required in this model are listed below:
For this reason, it was deemed to be more appro-
Core height (B )
priate to utilize the e-NTU method. In this analysis, H
Core width (B )
several assumptions were made, which are stated in W
Core thickness (B )
Appendix 2. This model is based on the following T
Number of rows of tubes in the core depth
conditions being known:
dimension (N )
r
(a) ambient temperature, Number of coolant tubes in one row (N )
ct
(b) airflow velocity distribution across the radiator, Number of profiles (N )
p
(c) coolant inlet temperature (top tank temperature), Number of fins per metre (N )
f

Fig. 2 Definitions of the radiator dimensions

D13604 © IMechE 2005 Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1454 E Y Ng, P W Johnson, and S Watkins

Louvre pitch (L ) air-side convection, fouling on the air side, wall con-
p
Louvre length (L ) duction, fouling on the coolant side, and coolant-side
l
Fin thickness (F ) convection. In mathematical form
t
Fin height (F )
h
Fin pitch (F ) 1 1 Dx 1
p = +R + +R + (10)
Fin end radius (R ) UA (g hA) f,a (kA) f,c (g hA)
f 0 a w 0 c
Angle of fin (a )
f
Coolant tube length (Y ) It is noted that without the use of extended surfaces
l
Coolant tube cross-section length (Y ) (i.e. prime surface) in the coolant tubes in typical
cl
Coolant tube cross-section width (Y ) radiators, the value of g becomes unity.
cw 0,c
Coolant tube thickness (Y ) For simplicity, the fouling resistances on both
t
Coolant tube pitch (Y ) sides were assumed to be small and not considered
p
Coolant tube end radius (R ) in this analysis. Also, coolant tubes are often made
t
of aluminium or copper, which have large thermal
3.2 Calculation of relevant heat transfer areas conductivity, and the wall thickness is small. There-
Based on the preceding definitions, derivations of fore, the thermal resistance of the wall conduction
various surface areas, which are relevant to heat term (Dx/kA) in comparison to the other two terms
w
transfer, are given below: was treated as negligible. It is noted that this wall
term does not include fin conduction, which is
Fin length, F treated separately in the next section.
l
F −2R With these stated restrictions and combining
F =pR + h f (1)
l f cos a the nomenclature used in this study, equation (10)
f becomes
Radiator core frontal area, A
fr,r
A =B B (2) 1 1 1
fr,r H W = + (11)
Coolant tube frontal area, A UA g h A hA
fr,t fr,r 0,a a a c c
A =Y Y N (3) Under typical operating conditions, the air-side
fr,t cw l ct
Fin frontal heat transfer area, A resistance is dominant (i.e. the controlling resistance).
fr,f Davenport [9] showed that at higher water flowrates,
A =F F N YN (4)
fr,f t l f(per metre) l p the coolant-side thermal resistance contributed only
Fin heat transfer area, A 5 per cent of the total resistance.
f
A =2B F N YN (5) Equation (11) is the equation that governs the heat
f T l f(per metre) l p transfer performance of a cross-flow type radiator.
Total heat transfer area on the air side, A Detailed derivations of the air-side and coolant-side
a
A =A +2N Y N [(Y −2R )+(2pR )] (6) heat transfer coefficients (i.e. h and h ) and their
a c
a f ct l r cl t t governing equations, which involve an extensive
Total heat transfer area on the coolant side, A
c review from the literature, are presented in section 6.
A =[2p(R −Y )+2(Y −2R )]Y N N (7)
c t t cl t l ct r
Total air pass area, A
p,a 4.2 Air-side fin efficiency and total surface
A =A −A −A (8) efficiency
p,a fr,r fr,f fr,t
Total coolant pass area, A Fins attached to the coolant tubes are primarily used
p,c
A =[p(R −Y )2+(Y −2Y )(Y −2R )]N N for increasing the surface area and consequently
p,c t t cw t cl t ct r increasing the heat transfer rate. As temperature
(9) gradients along the fins extending into the air create
conduction resistance, the temperature efficiency of
the surface is reduced. Hence, the air-side heat con-
4 HEAT TRANSFER ANALYSIS
ductance term (hA) must be multiplied by a factor
a
to account for the temperature gradient in the fin.
4.1 Thermal circuit and overall heat transfer
The fin efficiency (g ) is defined as the ratio of the
coefficient f
actual heat transfer rate through the fin base (Q )
f
The overall heat transfer resistance for a radiator divided by the maximum theoretical heat transfer
can be considered to derive from the following terms: rate through the fin base (Q ), corresponding to
f,max

Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering D13604 © IMechE 2005
 Heat transfer performance of radiators 1455

the entire fin surface being at the base temperature radiator on air and coolant sides are typically in
the range of a 20–35 °C rise and a 4–10 °C drop
Q
g= f (12) respectively. Hence
f Q
f,max
C =C and C =C
For a straight fin of uniform cross-section, the fin min a max c
efficiency can be expressed as For a typical automotive radiator it is assumed
tanh(mL) that the approaching air stream is directed into a
g= (13) large number of separate passages with no cross
f mL
mixing when the air is travelling through the radiator.
where L=effective fin length and m=fin efficiency The same assumption is commonly applied to
parameter. For the fins extending from wall to wall coolant flow. Hence, radiators are often considered
F as a type of cross-flow arrangement heat exchanger
L= h with both fluids unmixed [13, 14]. The appropriate
2
e-NTU relationship for this type can be found in
For thin sheet fins (see reference [5]) graphical form in reference [5], and mathematically
in reference [15].
m=
S 2h
kF
a
t
Radiators are typically of a finned-tube con- 5 FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH
struction. Hence, heat transfer takes place in both the
fins and the unfinned (primary) surface at the same To account for the effects of airflow maldistribution,
time. For this reason, the total surface efficiency (g ) a finite element approach was used, which divides
0
is introduced to account for the weighted mean the entire radiator into a number of independent
efficiency of the composite structure consisting of small radiators (cells). The e-NTU method was applied
the fins and the base structure. The total surface to each cell, with the outlet coolant temperature
efficiency can be calculated from of the upstream cell being the inlet temperature of
the downstream cell, in order to determine its heat
A
g =1− f (1−g ) (14) dissipation rate (see Fig. 3). As a coolant horizontal-
0 A f flow radiator was considered, the coolant flow into
a
This equation is based on the assumption that the each cell was equal to the total coolant flow divided
air-side heat transfer coefficient is unchanged by by the number of rows. The heat dissipation of
addition of the fins. the entire radiator was equal to the sum of the heat
dissipation of all cells.
4.3 The e-NTU method This approach may be similar to techniques
used in some commercial software such as KULI,
The radiator effectiveness can be expressed as a
FLOWMASTER and GT-COOL, and also techniques
function of two dimensionless groups, NTU and C ,
r developed in the European project V-THERM, except
for a given flow arrangement (such as counter-flow
that this procedure can be carried out where no
or cross-flow) [5]
extensive computing resources or software packages
e= f (NTU, C , flow arrangement) (15) are available. This enables engineers to perform
r
analysis or performance predictions in house by use
where
of simple manipulations.

P
UA 1 The number of cells, including the number of rows
NTU= fr,r = U dA
C C fr,r (m) and the number of columns (n), is given by the
min min A
user. It is assumed that the coolant flow is uniformly
C=heat capacity rate=ṁ×c distributed through the radiator and equally divided
p
C between the different rows. Given the top tank
C = min temperature (T ) and the coolant mass flow, and
r C ci
max assuming the tanks on both sides of the radiator are
C =ṁ ×c =A r V ×c well insulated, it can be demonstrated that the inlet
a a p,a a a a p,a
C =ṁ ×c =A r V ×c coolant temperature of each cell in the first column
c c p,c c c c p,c is equal to the top tank temperature; i.e.
Under normal driving conditions, SAE J1393 [12]
states that the temperature changes across the T =T (16)
ci ci(i,1)

D13604 © IMechE 2005 Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1456 E Y Ng, P W Johnson, and S Watkins

Fig. 3 Finite element approach

where T refers to the inlet temperature of the cell Because of the complexity of airflow over louvred
ci(i,1)
(i, 1), with i=1, … , m. fins, it is difficult to determine the heat transfer
Except for the cells in the first column, the coolant coefficient from conventional convection heat trans-
inlet temperature of any cell is equal to the tem- fer equations, as the coefficient is a function of both
perature at the exit of the upstream cell in the same fin geometry and flow conditions. Because the heat
row transfer characteristics of the louvres are closely
related to the flow structure around them, the follow-
T =T (17)
co(i,j) ci(i,j+1) ing subsection provides a brief discussion of the flow
with i=1, … , m and j=1, … , (n−1). The value of phenomena occurring in the louvre array.
the bottom tank temperature (T ) is taken as the
co
average value of the summation of the last cells for 6.1.1 Flow structure in louvre fins
all rows
Following Beauvais [17] and Wong and Smith [18],
m who discovered that louvres act to realign the air-
∑ T
co(i,n) flow in a direction parallel to their own planes,
T = i=1 (18) Davenport [9] performed a detailed investigation on
co number of rows
corrugated louvred fin heat exchangers, demon-
Similarly, the coolant mass flowrate of each cell strating that the flow structure within the louvred
becomes array was a function of Reynolds number.
ṁ Figure 4 illustrates a section through a louvre array
ṁ = c (19) in which two possible extreme flow directions are
c(i,j) number of rows
indicated. Davenport found that at low Reynolds
for all (i, j). numbers the flow did not pass through the louvres
but travelled axially through the fins and behaved like
duct flow (duct-directed flow). He explained that the
6 EQUATIONS FOR HEAT TRANSFER developing boundary layers on the louvres became
COEFFICIENTS

6.1 Air side

Airflow over a louvred fin array is complex. Rather
than acting as surface roughness or turbulent
generators, the louvres are used to deflect airflow
from their incident direction and consequently the
flow becomes aligned with the planes of the louvres.
They enhance the heat transfer by providing multiple Fig. 4 Section through louvred fin indicating possible
leading edges, associated with high heat transfer flow directions. (After Achaichia and Cowell
coefficients [16]. [19])

Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering D13604 © IMechE 2005
 Heat transfer performance of radiators
sufficiently thick to block off the gaps between louvres.
This gradually changed to an almost complete align-
ment with the louvres as the Reynolds number was
increased. At high Reynolds numbers, the flow was
directed by the louvres flowing nearly parallel to
them, behaving like flat-plate flow (louvre-directed
flow). Additional studies conducted by Achaichia and
Cowell [19, 20] and Kajino and Hiramatsu [16] agreed
with Davenport’s investigation.
6.1.2 Air-side Reynolds numbers
The flow path over louvres is dependent on Reynolds
numbers for a given louvred fin array. However, it
seems that the characteristic length is rather arbitrary
for louvred fin surfaces. Davenport [21], after testing
32 samples of multilouvred fin surfaces, suggested
that the fin pitch and hydraulic diameter made
no contribution to the correlation of Colburn’s
modulus j factor. He concluded that, although the
hydraulic diameter is relevant to heat transfer in
plain fins, using the louvre-pitch-based Reynolds
number (Re ) is more appropriate to describe the
Lp
heat transfer on louvred fin surfaces. Most of the later
research has been consistent with this finding and
has used Re as a basis – which is the approach
Lp
used here.
6.1.3 Air-side heat transfer coefficient
Publication of the heat transfer performance of the
corrugated louvred fin geometry, which is the basic
structure of modern radiators, has been very limited,
perhaps for commercial reasons. Apart from the
corrugated geometry, there are some other types
of heat exchanger geometry available including: a
flat tube and louvred plate fin [19], a corrugated
louvred fin with a rectangular channel [22], a
corrugated louvred fin with a splitter plate and
rectangular channel [23], and a corrugated louvred
fin with a splitter plate and triangular channel [22].
However, these geometries are not normally used in
automotive applications; thus discussion on them is
outside the scope of this paper.
One of the important studies on extended
heat transfer surface was conducted by Kays and
London [5]. However, those louvre designs are very
different from the multilouvred surfaces, which are
widely used nowadays for automotive radiator cores,
and the data are of little relevance when applied
to modern heat exchangers. Davenport [21], after
testing with louvred fin cores with systematically
varied louvre geometry, presented correlations of
heat transfer and flow friction characteristics. This
is the only set of experimental data published for
D13604 © IMechE 2005
1457
corrugated louvred-fin surfaces found in the publicly
available literature. The correlations are empirical
using a multiple regression technique. The corre-
lation for heat transfer for corrugated louvred fin
surfaces is valid when 100<Re<4000 and the
recommended Colburn modulus j factor correlation
was given as
A B
L 1.1
j=0.249Re−0.42 L0.33 l F0.26 (20)
Lp h F h
h
This correlation is valid for the ratio of the louvre
length to fin height ranging between 0.62 and 0.93,
which is applicable to modern automotive radiators.
The Davenport correlation was reasonably accurate
and easy to apply, and approximately 95 per cent of
the data were correlated within ±6 per cent. The j
curve (i.e. plot of the j factors versus Reynolds
numbers) had a mean gradient of −0.42 from the
regression analysis compared with −0.5 for the classic
theoretical Pohlhausen equation. Also, the values
of the j curve were about 35 per cent below the
Pohlhausen line. Davenport explained that this was
due to the entire heat transfer surface, not all of
which was louvred. This study revealed that the heat
transfer behaviour over louvred fins has a general
similarity with Pohlhansen solutions for flow over a
flat plate, suggesting the existence of laminar bound-
ary layers on the louvres, which is consistent with
the discussions in the previous sections.
Since the Davenport study, questions have arisen
as to whether his correlation is still valid, as the
core structures he tested were noticeably different
from the ones used nowadays in terms of material
and fin geometry. A recent study conducted by Webb
et al. [24] revealed that the correlations are still appli-
cable to current automotive radiator cores. Further-
more, a large number of recent researchers have still
employed Davenport’s experimental data as a base
source to validate their findings, including references
[24] to [27].
Another study conducted by Aoki et al. [28],
who measured the local heat transfer for individual
louvres, also suggested laminar heat transfer being
present on the louvres. A correlation between the
Nussult number and the Reynolds number based on
the louvre pitch was presented in one equation for
different louvre pitches
Nu =0.87Re1/2 Pr1/3 (21)
Lp Lp
Based on the work of Aoki et al., Webb [29]
recommended that the theoretical Pohlhausen
solution for laminar flow over a flat plate with con-
stant heat flux (see reference [30]) can be used to
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1458 E Y Ng, P W Johnson, and S Watkins
predict the heat transfer coefficient on louvres, i.e.
Nu =0.906Re1/2 Pr1/3 (22)
av Lp
Based on the above findings, Sahnoun and
Webb [25] and Dillen and Webb [26] developed
an analytical model and a semi-analytical model
respectively, to predict the heat transfer coefficient
of the corrugated louvred fin geometry. Both of
the models were based on dividing the louvred
fin surface into four regions: the louvred areas, the
plain leading and trailing areas, the plain middle
area, and the end region areas. In their models, the
heat transfer coefficient in the unlouvred regions
is predicted using a fully developed laminar flow
solution, while using the Pohlhansen solution for
laminar flow over a flat plate [equation (22)] to pre-
dict louvred areas. A summation of the heat transfer
coefficients calculated from different regions was
used to determine the heat transfer coefficient of the
entire louvred fin.
Instead of dividing the louvred fin surface into
four regions, an earlier work of Beard and Smith [6]
developed a simple method that approximated the
effects of louvres by calculating the heat transfer
coefficient from a mean of two coefficients obtained
from louvred fin regions and unlouvred fin regions.
Since the proposed benefit of using louvred fins was
to give a series of leading edges to the airflow creating
laminar boundaries, the heat transfer characteristics
of each louvre could be similar to flow over a flat
plate. For that reason, their model was developed
using the theoretical Pohlhausen equation for flow
over a flat plate to predict the heat transfer coefficient
on louvres.
This simple method was shown to be valid as the
calculated results were found to give satisfactorily
close agreement with a series of wind-tunnel test
results with a maximum error of approximately 10
per cent.
6.1.4 Summary of preferred air-side heat transfer
equations
Essentially, there have been only four models avail-
able in the existing literature to predict the heat
transfer coefficient for radiators (corrugated louvred
fin surfaces). Among them, it appears that the
Davenport correlation [equation (20)] is relatively easy
to use without compromising accuracy. Therefore, this
correlation was chosen in this study to determine the
air-side heat transfer coefficient (h ).
a D
6.2 Coolant side
It is emphasized that the dominant thermal resist-
ance is air-side convection and that the modelling
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
is relatively insensitive to water-side heat transfer.
The coolant-side heat transfer coefficient can be
evaluated by applying appropriate well-established
heat transfer equations for flow inside tubes. The
coolant tubes in typical radiators are a flat-oval
shape. Therefore, the hydraulic diameter (D ) is used
h
to substitute for the characteristic physical diameter.
Invalid use of the hydraulic diameter has been found
only when calculating tubes with sections having
very sharp corners (e.g. triangular), which gives
unacceptably large errors.
There has been a large amount of fundamental
work in understanding flow characteristics and heat
transfer in tubes; therefore only several represent-
ative equations are considered here. Starting with
the Reynolds experiments in 1883, it has been
demonstrated that laminar flow becomes unstable as
the velocity of flow increases in a given tube. The
transition from laminar to turbulent flow occurs at a
value of Reynolds number near 2300. The transition
to turbulent flow generally takes place in the range
of Reynolds numbers from about 2300 to 10 000, and
a fully turbulent flow mostly occurs at a Reynolds
number above 10 000. It has also been found that the
transition of the flow is greatly affected by the tube
inlet configuration and surface roughness.
6.2.1 Heat transfer in laminar flow
In the laminar flow regime, the heat transfer flux is
strongly dependent on the thermal boundary con-
dition along the whole length of the tube, while less
dependent in the turbulent flow regime for fluids
with Pr1. The thermal boundary condition refers to
the set of specifications describing temperature con-
ditions and/or the heat transfer rate at the inside wall
of the tube. According to Shah and London [31], the
thermal boundary condition of automotive radiators
can be classified as the constant wall temperature
peripherally as well as axially, since one fluid has a
very much higher capacity rate than the other.
Knudsen and Katz [32] reported an equation
proposed by Hansen in 1943 as representing the
Graetz solution for constant surface temperature,
fully developed laminar flow, and parabolic velocity
distribution. The well-known Hansen equation, which
has been widely used for the mean Nusselt number
over the entire length of the tube, was used in this
study to predict the coolant-side heat transfer
coefficient in the laminar flow regime
A B
0.0668 h,c Re Pr
Y Dh,c c
Nu =3.66+ l (23)
CA B D
c D 2/3
1+0.04 h,c Re Pr
Y D h,c c
l
D13604 © IMechE 2005
 Heat transfer performance of radiators
All properties appearing in the equation are required
to be evaluated at the average value of the mean
temperature. The Hansen equation is valid for the
constant surface temperature condition over the
entire tube length. Considering a sufficiently long
tube, it is noted that the Nusselt number approaches
a value of 3.66, which is the analytical solution for
laminar, fully developed conditions with a constant
surface temperature [30], i.e. Nu =3.66.
c
6.2.2 Heat transfer in turbulent and transition flow
Due to the complicated nature of turbulent flow,
which is transient and possesses highly irregular
fluctuations, and the fact that heat is generally
transferred by convection as well as conduction,
empirical correlations of turbulent heat transfer data
for flow in tubes are often preferred for simplicity.
The correlations have been obtained based on
several dimensionless groups, including the Reynolds
number, Nusselt number, Prandtl number, and
Stanton number.
There were three famous correlations proposed
in the 1930s, which were the Dittus and Boelter
equation [33], the Colburn equation [34], and the
Sieder and Tate equation [35]. Incropera and DeWitt
[36] reported that the use of the above equations,
although they may be easily applied, may lead to
errors as large as 25 per cent. For this reason, these
correlations were not chosen for this study.
Prandtl in 1944 was the first to present an equation
for heat transfer in tubes that was related to the
pressure drop. The equation was in the form of
Nu f /8
= (24)
Re Pr 1+8.7 √ f /8(Pr−1)
where f is the friction factor in the tube. Knowledge
of the friction factor in the tube is required before
applying this equation, and value of the friction
factor can be directly obtained from the Moody
diagram. Alternatively, the friction factor can be
calculated from the following equation for isothermal
flows in smooth tubes [37]
f =[0.79 ln(Re )−1.64]−2 (25)
Dh,c
Since then, the Prandtl equation has been further
improved. From the basic form, a correlation recom-
mended by Petukhov [38] offered better accuracy for
turbulent tube flow. The equation is expressed as
( f /8)Re Pr
Nu = Dh,c (26)
c 1.07+12.7 √ f /8(Pr2/3−1)
This equation predicted experimental data with
an accuracy of 5–6 per cent over the range of
D13604 © IMechE 2005
1459
104<Re <5×106 and 0.5<Pr<2000. Thus this
D
equation h,cwas chosen for this study in the case of
turbulent flow.
Gnielinski [37] modified the Petukhov equation in
order to derive a new equation that is applicable in
the transition flow region (2300<Re<104). It was
noted that in the transition region the Gnielinski
equation satisfactorily reproduced the decrease in the
heat transfer coefficient with decreasing Reynolds
number. Thus, the following equation was employed
in this study
( f /8)(Re −1000)Pr
Nu = D
c 1+12.7 √ fh,c/8(Pr2/3−1)
(27)
This equation is valid for 0.5<Pr<2000 and
2300<Re <104, and was compared with approxi-
D
mately 800h,c experimental data points, with nearly
90 per cent of the data falling within ±20 per cent.
6.2.3 Summary of preferred coolant-side heat
transfer equations
Flow regime Equation used
Laminar (2300>Re ) Hansen equation
Dh
Transition Gnielinski equation
(10 000Re 2300)
D
Turbulent (Re h>10 000) Petukhov equation
Dh
To examine the consistency of these three heat
transfer equations selected to be used in the analytical
model, the heat transfer coefficient was calculated in
different flow regimes ranging from Reynolds number
of 400 to 13 500, as shown in Fig. 5. Discontinuities
were found at the transitions between the regimes
(i.e. at Reynolds numbers of 2300 and 10 000); never-
theless, these discontinuities of the coolant-side
heat transfer coefficient are relatively unimportant,
since the dominant thermal resistance is air-side
convection.
7 EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF THE
ANALYTICAL MODEL
A set of experimental data obtained using the RMIT
University cooling test facility was used to validate
the analytical model.
7.1 Test procedure
The detailed test procedure and equipment can be
found in reference [39], and only a brief description
is provided here. Nine sections of corrugated louvred
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1460 E Y Ng, P W Johnson, and S Watkins

Fig. 5 Coolant heat transfer coefficients in different flow regimes

fin radiator cores with various fin pitch, tube spacing,
and fin width (listed in Table 1) were tested indi-
vidually in a small open-circuit, closed-test-section
wind tunnel with a cross-section of 0.3 m (width)×
0.35 m (high). Air flowed perpendicularly to, and
uniformly through, a section of radiator that was
located in the middle of the 0.8 m long test section.
Airflow velocity of 9.35 m/s was set for each of the
radiators.
To measure the heat dissipation rate of each
radiator, hot water was supplied by an external
heat bench and thermocouples were set at various
locations, including the radiator inlet and outlet,
upstream and downstream of the radiator core. In
addition, the water flowrate was monitored and
recorded via a magnetic flowmeter. The supplied
water was set at 1 l/s and approximately 75 °C. Data
were taken at the equilibrium state.

Table 1 Radiator dimensions, experimental data, and analytical predictions

Radiator sample numbers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unit

B 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 mm

H
B 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 mm
W
B 38 32 32 16 40 66 38 38 32 mm
T
N 2 2 2 1 3 4 2 2 2
r
N 41 35 29 35 33 29 41 41 34
ct
N 42 36 30 36 34 30 42 42 35
p
N 16 16 16 16 16 14 14 18 21 in
f
L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 mm
p
L 5.1 6.7 8.7 6.7 7.2 8.7 5.1 5.1 6.7 mm
l
F 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058 mm
t
F 6.146 7.746 9.746 7.746 8.246 9.746 6.146 6.146 7.746 mm
h
F 1.588 1.588 1.588 1.588 1.588 1.814 1.814 1.411 1.210 mm
p
R 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 mm
f
a 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 degree
f
Y 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 302 mm
l
Y 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 mm
cl
Y 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 mm
cw
Y 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.127 mm
t
Y 8.4 10 12 10 10.5 12 8.4 8.4 10 mm
p
R 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 mm
t
Experimental 556 434 408 282 506 555 510 579 493 W/K
Prediction 509 502 506 347 555 625 489 526 541 W/K
Error −8.6 15.7 24.0 23.0 9.6 12.7 −4.1 −9.1 9.7 %

Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering D13604 © IMechE 2005
 Heat transfer performance of radiators
7.2 Test parameter
The specific dissipation (SD) technique was adopted
in the measurements. This technique is commonly
used within the automotive industry to evaluate the
cooling performance of a vehicle in non-climatic
wind tunnels. The major advantage of using this
technique is that the SD parameter, which relates to
a radiator’s effectiveness, normalized heat transfer
with respect to the driving temperature difference,
was proved to be insensitive to variations of air and
coolant temperatures [14]. SD is defined as the heat
transfer rate of the radiator (Q) divided by the temper-
ature difference between the water and air entering
the radiator (T −T ) (note that this is the maximum
ci ai
temperature difference available to the radiator)
ṁ c (T −T )
SD=e(ṁ c )= c p,c ci co (28)
a p,c T −T
ci ai
where e is the radiator effectiveness
7.3 Experimental versus analytical results
Table 1 shows the experimental data along with those
results calculated under the same test conditions
by the analytical model described previously. The
results indicate that the analytical model provides
predictions of the heat transfer performance of a
range of geometrically different radiators within +24
and −10 per cent. It is also noted that the model
predicts the coolant temperature at the radiator out-
let well (within 1.2 °C), compared to the measured
values.
The predicted values are generally correlated well
with the measured values with an average deviation
of 8.1 per cent and a mean deviation of 12.9 per cent,
but in two cases errors are overpredicted by more than
23 per cent compared to the test data. Since this
modelling is developed based primarily on analytical
derivation, except for the heat transfer coefficients
for air and coolant flow, it is thought that such error
would arise from either or both empirically based
correlations. Davenport’s air-side correlation should
have given fairly accurate predictions according to
previous publications (95 per cent of experimental
data correlated within 6 per cent). When Reynolds
numbers range from 2300 to 10 000, the coolant
flow condition in the tube is transitional, which is
the case here. Applying the Gnielinski equation in
transition flow can lead to a rather large error in
predicting the coolant-side heat transfer coefficient
(see section 6.2.2). On the other hand, good pre-
dictions of coolant outlet temperatures can be
explained because the air-side resistance in the heat
D13604 © IMechE 2005
1461
transfer process in radiators is dominant and the
resultant error on the coolant side becomes minor.
In another study of radiator airflow maldistribution
in a real vehicle, this analytical model can predict
the same trend as the experimental measurements
within 10 per cent for various configurations (see
reference [4]). As this model is developed for use
in predicting radiator performance trends before a
prototype becomes available rather than predicting
absolute values, this achieved accuracy is deemed
to be acceptable. This model also accounts for the
correct cooling airflow distribution in a vehicle,
giving more accurate predictions. It is emphasized
that analytical studies are always a supplement to,
not a substitute for, performance testing in product
development.
8 APPLICATIONS
The model can be used as a general tool (with some
modifications to suit other configurations of heat
exchanger applications) in early radiator design,
before a prototype is built. This can allow engineers
to study the effect of parameter changes, such as fin
pitch or tube sizes. In the early design and develop-
ment phase, an absolute value is not normally
required and the accuracy of this analytical model is
sufficient for the purpose of the initial conceptual
study. Furthermore, this modelling can be done with-
out the need of extensive computing resources and
skills. In this section, two examples are presented to
illustrate the use of the model.
8.1 Effect of airflow maldistribution on heat
transfer performance
To understand the effect of airflow maldistribution on
the heat transfer performance of a radiator, several
severe non-uniform velocity distributions were con-
sidered (see Figs 6 and 7). Four airflow profiles were
artificially simulated, but in each case the average
flow velocity through the radiator was unchanged
and equal to 5 m/s. The coolant inlet temperature,
ambient temperature, and coolant flowrate were all
fixed at 60 °C, 25 °C and 1 l/s respectively.
To quantify the non-uniformity of airflow across
the radiator face, a parameter is needed. Given that
the radiator is segmented into a finite number of
equal-area cells, a non-uniformly factor was defined
as
1 n |V −V |
i= ∑ local,k average (29)
n V
k=1 average
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1462 E Y Ng, P W Johnson, and S Watkins

Fig. 6 Reduction in SD due to airflow maldistribution

Fig. 7 Increase in coolant outlet temperature due to airflow maldistribution

where flow being the same. In a case of a non-uniformity

n=number of cells
V =local velocity
local
V =average velocity through the entire
average
radiator
The finite element method was utilized for a number
of non-uniformity factors and distributions, as shown
in Figs 6 and 7. The figures clearly indicate that the
cooling capacity of a radiator is influenced by non-
uniformity of airflow, despite the total amount of air-
parameter of 0.4 (the typical value for passenger
vehicles is generally less than 0.5), the SD value,
and hence the radiator cooling performance, would
reduce by 8 per cent. An increase of about half a
degree Celsius at the bottom tank would result as a
consequence. Except under extreme circumstances,
it appears that the effect of airflow maldistribution on
SD is relatively minor (less than 10 per cent penalty
in SD for i=0.5). Nevertheless, it is suggested that
the factor of non-uniformity should be realistic in

Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering D13604 © IMechE 2005
 Heat transfer performance of radiators 1463

any radiator performance analysis, in order to pro-
vide accurate calculations of SD as well as radiator
performance.
8.2 Study of the SD parameter
This analytical model has been also used in studying
the effect of sensitivity of coolant flowrates, ambient
temperature drift, and coolant inlet temperature drift
on specific dissipation (SD) [see equation (28)]. This
parameter has been proven to be insensitive to
changes in ambient and coolant temperatures, and
has been used to evaluate a radiator’s effectiveness
in non-climatic type wind tunnels [14], and reflect
changes in cooling airflow [4].
This analytical study reveals that:
1. Coolant flowrates (Fig. 8). When testing at low
coolant flowrates, SD is fairly sensitive to changes
in coolant flow and small fluctuations in coolant
flowrate may cause a considerable variation in SD.
2. Ambient temperature drift (Fig. 9). A drift of about
4 per cent in SD would occur when the ambient
temperature changed from 10 to 40 °C.

Fig. 8 Effect of coolant flowrates on SD. Analytical predictions versus wind-tunnel test data.
(Reprinted from Ng [4])

Fig. 9 Calculated heat rejection rates and SD values at ambient temperatures between 10 and
45 °C in three uniform flow cases. (Reprinted from Ng [4])

D13604 © IMechE 2005 Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1464 E Y Ng, P W Johnson, and S Watkins
Fig. 10 Calculated heat rejection rates and SD values at coolant inlet temperatures between 30
and 120 °C in three uniform flow cases. (Reprinted from Ng [4])
3. Coolant inlet temperature drift (Fig. 10). A 30 °C
change in coolant temperature (from 50 to 80 °C)
results only in a small variation in SD and the
consequent error is less than 1 per cent.
9 CONCLUSIONS
A generalized analytical model was developed based
on applying relevant heat exchanger theory to pre-
dict the heat dissipation rates and to study the effects
of airflow maldistribution on the performance of a
radiator. The model employed the e-NTU method in
combination with the Davenport correlation for the
prediction of the air-side heat transfer coefficient.
According to the flow regime, the coolant-side
heat transfer coefficient was calculated from the
Hansen equation, Gnielinski equation, or Petukhov
equation. The model was validated against a set of
experimental data.
The loss of engine cooling performance caused
by airflow maldistribution, compared with uniform
airflow of the same total flowrate, was found to be
relatively minor – in a typical automobile radiator
airflow cases are less than 10 per cent, or typically
half a degree increase in coolant temperature at the
radiator outlet. Nevertheless, improvement in flow
uniformity, in particular in areas influenced by the
bumper wake, is expected to increase the overall
vehicle energy efficiency since the heat transfer area
can be used more effectively, which can lead to a
reduction in aerodynamic drag.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the Depart-
ment of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
RMIT University, for financial and technical support.
REFERENCES
1 Olson, M. E. Aerodynamic effects of front end
design on automobile engine cooling systems. SAE
technical paper 760188, 1976.
2 Chiou, J. P. The effect of the flow nonuniformity on
the sizing of the engine radiator, SAE technical paper
800035, 1980.
3 Williams, J. An automotive front-end design
approach for improved aerodynamics and cooling.
SAE technical paper 850281, 1985.
4 Ng, E. Y. Vehicle engine cooling systems: assess-
ment and improvement of wind-tunnel based
evaluation methods. PhD Thesis, School of Aero-
space, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
RMIT University, Melbourne, 2002.
5 Kays, W. M. and London, A. L. Compact heat
exchangers, 3rd edition (Reprint edition with
corrections), 1998 (Krieger Publishing Company).
6 Beard, R. A. and Smith, G. J. A method of calculating
the heat dissipation from radiators to cool vehicle
engines. SAE technical paper 710208, 1971.
7 Emmenthal, K. D. and Hucho, W.-H. A rational
approach to automotive radiator systems design.
SAE technical paper 740088, 1974.
8 Eichlseder, W. and Raab, G. Calculation and design
of cooling systems. SAE technical paper 931088,
1993.
D13604 © IMechE 2005
 Heat transfer performance of radiators
9 Davenport, C. J. Heat transfer and fluid flow in
louvred triangular ducts. PhD Thesis, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Coventry (Lanchester)
Polytechnic, 1980.
10 Hosoda, T., Uzuhashi, H., and Kobayashi, N. Louvre
fin type heat exchangers. Heat Transfer – Jap. Res.,
1977, 6(2), 69–77.
11 SAE HS-40 Principles of engine cooling systems,
components and maintenance, 1991 (Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pennsylvania).
12 SAE J1393 On-Highway Truck Cooling Test Code, June
1984 (Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale,
Pennsylvania).
13 Yan, W.-M. and Sheen, P.-J. Heat transfer and friction
characteristics of fin-and-tube heat exchangers. Int.
J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 2000, 43, 1651–1659.
14 Lin, C. Specific dissipation as a technique for
evaluating motor car radiator cooling performance.
PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical and Manu-
facturing Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne,
1999.
15 Holman, J. P. Heat transfer, 7th edition, 1992
(McGraw-Hill, New York).
16 Kajino, M. and Hiramatsu, M. Research and
development of automotive heat exchangers, in
Heat transfer in high technology and power engineer-
ing (Eds W. J. Yang and Y. Mori), 1987, p. 420–432
(Hemisphere, Washington, DC).
17 Beauvais, F. N. An aerodynamic look at automotive
radiators. SAE technical paper 650470, 1965.
18 Wong, L. T. and Smith, M. C. Airflow phenomena
in the louvred-fin heat exchanger. SAE technical
paper 730237, 1973.
19 Achaichia, A. and Cowell, T. A. Heat transfer
and pressure drop characteristics of flat tube and
louvred plate fin surfaces. Expl Thermal and Fluid
Sci., 1988, 1, 147–157.
20 Achaichia, A. and Cowell, T. A. A finite difference
analysis of fully developed periodic laminar flow in
inclined louvre arrays. In Proceedings of the 2nd UK
National Heat Transfer Conference, Glasgow, 1988.
21 Davenport, C. J. Correlations for heat transfer and
flow friction characteristic of louvred fin. AIChE
Symp. Ser., 1983, 79(225), 19–27.
22 Webb, R. L. and Jung, S.-H. Air-side performance
of enhanced brazed aluminium heat exchangers.
ASHRAE Trans., 1992, 98(2), 391–401.
23 Rugh, J. P., Pearson, J. T., and Ramadhyani, S. A
study of a very compact heat exchanger used for
passenger compartment heating in automobiles.
ASME Symp. Ser. HTD, 1992, 201, 15–24.
24 Webb, R. L., Chang, Y.-J., and Wang, C.-C. Heat
transfer and friction correlations for the louvre fin
geometry. Proc. Veh. Thermal Managmt System,
1995, 2, 533–541.
25 Sahnoun, A. and Webb, R. L. Prediction of heat
transfer and friction for the louvre fin geometry.
J. Heat Transfer, 1992, 114, 893–900.
26 Dillen, E. R. and Webb, R. L. Rationally based heat
transfer and friction correlations for the louvre fin
geometry, SAE technical paper 940504, 1994.
D13604 © IMechE 2005
1465
27 Chang, Y.-J. and Wang, C.-C. A generalized heat
transfer correlation for louvre fin geometry. Int.
J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 1997, 40(3), 533–544.
28 Aoki, H., Shinagawa, T., and Suga, K. An experi-
mental study of the local heat tranfer characteristics
in automotive louvred fins. Expl Thermal and Fluid
Sci., 1989, 2, 293–300.
29 Webb, R. L. Principles of enhanced heat transfer,
1994 (Wiley Interscience, New York).
30 Kays, W. M. and Crawford, M. E. Convective heat
and mass transfer, 2nd edition, 1980 (McGraw-Hill,
New York).
31 Shah, R. K. and London, A. L. Laminar flow forced
convection in ducts. Advances in Heat Transfer
(Suppl. 1), 1978.
32 Knudsen, J. G. and Katz, D. L. Fluid Dynamics and
Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill Series in Chemical
Engineering (Ed. S. D. Kirkpatrick), 1958 (McGraw-
Hill, New York).
33 Dittus, F. W. and Boelter, L. M. K. Heat transfer in
automobile radiators of the tabular type. University
of California, Berkeley Publications on Engineering,
1930, 2(13), 443–461.
34 Colburn, A. P. A method of correlating forced con-
vection heat transfer data and a comparison with
fluid friction. Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Engrs, 1955,
29, 174.
35 Sieder, E. N. and Tate, C. E. Heat transfer and
pressure drop of liquids in tubes. Ind. Engng Chem.,
1936, 28, 1429.
36 Incropera, F. P. and DeWitt, D. P. Fundamentals of
heat and mass transfer, 4th edition, 1996 (John
Wiley, New York).
37 Gnielinski, V. New equations for heat and mass
transfer in turbulent pipe and channel flow. Int.
Chem. Engng, 1976, 16(2), 359–367.
38 Petukhov, B. S. Heat transfer and friction in
turbulent pipe flow with variable physical proper-
ties. In Advances in heat transfer (Eds J. P. Hartnett
and T. F. J. Irvine), 1970, 503–564 (Academic Press,
New York).
39 Blatti, A. Drag and heat dissipation from passenger
vehicle radiators. BEng Thesis, Department of
Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT
University, Melbourne, 2002.
APPENDIX 1
Notation
A surface area for heat transfer
A total heat transfer area on the air side
a
A total heat transfer area on the coolant
c
side
A fin heat transfer area
f
A fin frontal heat transfer area
fr,f
A radiator core frontal area
fr,r
Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
1466 E Y Ng, P W Johnson, and S Watkins

A coolant tube frontal area Y coolant tube cross-section width

fr,t cw
A total air pass area Y coolant tube length
p,a l
A total coolant pass area Y coolant tube pitch
p,c p
B core height Y coolant tube thickness
H t
B core thickness
T
B core width a angle of fin
W f
c specific heat capacity e effectiveness
p
C heat capacity rate g fin efficiency
f
D hydraulic diameter g total surface efficiency of an extended fin
h 0
f core friction factor surface
F fin height r density
h
F fin length
l
F fin pitch Subscripts
p
F fin thickness
t a air
h heat transfer coefficient
av average
i non-uniformity parameter
c coolant
j Colburn factor
i inlet
k thermal conductivity
Lp louvre pitch
L effective fin length
max maximum
L louvre height
h min minimum
L louvre length
l o outlet
L louvre pitch
p r ratio
m fin efficiency parameter
w wall
m number of rows
ṁ mass flowrate
n number of columns
n number of cells
N number of coolant tubes in one row
ct APPENDIX 2
N number of fins
f
N number of profiles
p List of assumptions
N number of rows of tubes in the core
r
depth dimension 1. The cooling system operates under steady state
NTU number of heat transfer units conditions, i.e. a constant coolant flowrate and
Nu Nusselt number fluid temperatures at both inlets.
Pr Prandtl number 2. Heat carried by the coolant only transfers to
Q overall heat transfer rate of the the airflow that travels through the radiator. Any
radiator other heat losses to, or heat gains from, the
Q actual heat transfer rate through the fin surroundings are negligible.
f
base 3. There are no phase changes in the fluid streams
Q maximum theoretical heat transfer rate flowing through the radiator.
f,max
through the fin base 4. Longitudinal heat conduction in the fluid and in
Q thermodynamically permitted maximum the wall is negligible.
max
possible heat transfer rate 5. The coolant flowrate in coolant tubes is uniformly
Re Reynolds number distributed through the radiator, with no flow
R fouling resistance maldistribution, flow stratification, flow bypass-
f
R fin end radius ing, or flow leakage occurring.
f
R coolant tube end radius 6. Coolant flow is in a fully developed condition in
t
SD specific dissipation each tube.
St Stanton number 7. Both fluids are considered incompressible flow,
T temperature and unmixed at any cross-section between passes.
U overall heat transfer coefficient The term ‘unmixed’ is defined as each fluid
V velocity through the radiator that behaves as if it was
Dx wall thickness divided into a large number of separate passages
Y coolant tube cross-section length with no lateral mixing.
cl

Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering D13604 © IMechE 2005
 Heat transfer performance of radiators 1467

8. All dimensions are uniform throughout the
radiator and the heat transfer surface area is
consistent and distributed uniformly.
9. There are no heat sources and sinks in the
radiator walls or fluids.
10. Pure water is used as the coolant.
11. The thermal conductivity of the radiator material
is constant.
12. The thermal resistance (fouling) induced by fluid
impurities, rust formation, or other reactions
between the fluids and the material is assumed
to be small.

D13604 © IMechE 2005 Proc. IMechE Vol. 219 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering