The Impact of Vehicle Front End Design on AC Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vehicle front end air flow management affects many aspects of vehicle aero/thermal performances. The HVAC system capacity is greatly driven by the airflow and the air temperature received at the condenser. In this paper, front end design practices are investigated using computer simulation and full vehicle test to evaluate their effects on AC system performance. A full vehicle 3D CFD model is developed and used to predict the airflow and temperature in underhood and around the vehicle body, and specifically the conditions entering the condenser. The condenser inlet airflow and temperature profiles from 3D CFD model are then used as inputs for the 1D AC system model. The 1D AC system model, which includes condenser, compressor, evaporator and TXV (Thermal eXpansion Valve), is developed to observe the critical AC performance indicators such as panel out air temperature and compressor head pressure. Both 3D and 1D simulation models are validated and reasonable correlation with full vehicle tests are achieved. Four design changes to the front end are studied in this paper. They are placement of transmission oil cooler (TOC), sealing design, belly panel design and cooling fan speed. It is found that placing the TOC in front of the superheat area of condenser gives much better performance compared to placing it near the sub-cool region. Sealing around cooling package and opening up belly panel help reduce the temperature of the air entering condenser at idle, at the cost of increasing complexity and aerodynamic detriment, respectively. Finally, the sensitivity of cooling fan speed is investigated to enable the selection of the appropriate fan speed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".