Water-Air Intercooling
- Status
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Joined
·
58 Posts
Water spray on CAC
Another related idea - what would happen if one sprayed a mist of water on the outside of the CAC? This would be similar to driving in the rain (BTW, has anyone every overheated their truck while driving in the rain???) Would the evaporation of the water off of the CAC externals pull enough heat? I also know that the heat would have to go somewhere still - like the radiator ....
Maybe a controlled mist that was only active when the ECT went above a certain amount. Obviously carrying a load of water for this would be a big factor ....
-M
Another related idea - what would happen if one sprayed a mist of water on the outside of the CAC? This would be similar to driving in the rain (BTW, has anyone every overheated their truck while driving in the rain???) Would the evaporation of the water off of the CAC externals pull enough heat? I also know that the heat would have to go somewhere still - like the radiator ....
Maybe a controlled mist that was only active when the ECT went above a certain amount. Obviously carrying a load of water for this would be a big factor ....
-M
Joined
·
70 Posts
It's been done already guys. We have tried misting both the rad and the CAC both terminating in overheat. Both ideas are over two years old.
Also, the answer to the other statement is YES people have overheated in the rain, in fact they have overheated in a SNOW STORM.
Good luck with these "new" ideas.
opcorn:
.
Also, the answer to the other statement is YES people have overheated in the rain, in fact they have overheated in a SNOW STORM.
Good luck with these "new" ideas.
opcorn: .
I know the real fix will be to completely swap out the entire stack and water pump with LBZ stuff. I have been told that the LBZ water pump wont fit unless the lly block is drilled. I'm wondering how involved that is to do and would just swapping out the rad and intercooler with lbz one work just as well with out the pump?
Mark
misting (evaporative cooling) works great in dry environments, where an abundance of water can be carried. If I lived in tropical SE, I would not consider it, because it has less value as the air grows moist. Since 100% relative humidy accompanies rain, that would be no value to Latent cooling also.
Back on topic, the liquid cooled CAC has nothing to do with Latent heat cooling expansion, but it is an expansion of a different sort.
1. Big reduction in charge pressure drop
2. Elimination of a massive thermal feedback mechanism (stock CAC)
3. Greatly expanded cooling capacity of the radiator, approx 250,000 BTU/hr.
misting (evaporative cooling) works great in dry environments, where an abundance of water can be carried. If I lived in tropical SE, I would not consider it, because it has less value as the air grows moist. Since 100% relative humidy accompanies rain, that would be no value to Latent cooling also.
Back on topic, the liquid cooled CAC has nothing to do with Latent heat cooling expansion, but it is an expansion of a different sort.
1. Big reduction in charge pressure drop
2. Elimination of a massive thermal feedback mechanism (stock CAC)
3. Greatly expanded cooling capacity of the radiator, approx 250,000 BTU/hr.
The issue would be, where would the cooler for the "cooling liquid" be located? I just dont see this more effective than the current options, as far as improving the heat rejection.
Several of us V2 users have proven that our problems are solved, and it appears the TD-EOC users feel that this isnt an issue any longer either.
Cost effective solutions are available.
FWIW Someone out there and myself worked on an alternate CAC/location, the piping restrictions killed the effectiveness.
Several of us V2 users have proven that our problems are solved, and it appears the TD-EOC users feel that this isnt an issue any longer either.
Cost effective solutions are available.
FWIW Someone out there and myself worked on an alternate CAC/location, the piping restrictions killed the effectiveness.
The concept I am working on (on paper), uses the existing coolant, plus an LTR, spliced into the heater line. A thermostat bypasses the LTR when coolant is cool. That provides another advantage, much quicker warmups in the winter.
The only reason I am looking at it is because the TD-EOC is also a very good LTR.
The biggest problem I see, is there is very little room for the W2A IC. Modern engineering space limitations.
The only reason I am looking at it is because the TD-EOC is also a very good LTR.
The biggest problem I see, is there is very little room for the W2A IC. Modern engineering space limitations.
that the stock fmic out and put the war to air in its place you can get ones that would fit perfectly there and then you run a pair of stack plate collectors on the outside of the condensor, use a carb fuel pump, plumb the whole thing up add glycol and wire in the pump to a ignition source and walah a 110+% effecient intake charger setup... im getting things all ordered to do this very shortly.... i'll post pics when its all done
bartc_2 said:
Putting all that crap back in front of the radiator, defeats the entire reason for this mod in the first place.
The idea is to free up the ambient cooling stream for better system cooling, the vehicles biggest limitation stock.
110%?
Looking forward to your installation pics.
the cooler can be easily located inside the engine bay to free up alot of the air flow to the radiator.. the size of the stack plates is only 8x11in each so they are tinykillerbee said:
the 110% is referring to the efficiency the water to air intercooler has at cooling the charge
and is possible if you have one you can fill with ice.... Otherwise, 100% is the maximum theoretical limit, while still complying with first and second thermodynamic laws. In practicality, under high sustained load conditions, 85% is seldom seen. Not at all trying to discourage you, I just stay grounded to reality.bartc_2 said:
I should also point out that you need around 300,000 BTU/hr of cooling rejection at the LTR(s) (your plate coolers) to maintain a steady state air charge of 50 lb/min under 150 degrees. 2 small oil coolers with low flow would be capable of 100,000 at the very most. Again, just trying to help.:Thumbup: This idea will be fine as a low duration heat sink at the track, but not as a tow rig. I don't know what your plans were, just acknowledging that this thread is in OH section, so I assumed you were looking for towing condition improvement. I don't think your idea will be.
UNLESS, you want to tie it into the trucks cooling system. This puts the vehicle radiator to work for you, in addition to the Low Temp radiators...
I wasn't looking for a new way to use it, but yes, it occurred to me while I was going through the idea of trying to do W2A without the need for a separate pond of water and pump, that this might be a really good idea.DMAXITOL said:
Conventionally, the W2A IC used a separate coolant, separate pump, separate LTR (low temp radiator), an all new and, (and expensive), add-on. And typically it did not serve well the extended work cycle vehicle, like towing, but was a great idea for vehicles that only needed to serve a 30 second dose of cool charge, especially those that could be loaded with ice. Most of the short duration thermal load was absorbed by thermal mass, water/ice in most cases. That mass was slowly cooled during off-peak periods by a small LTR. So, by and large, this is not a good idea for tow vehicles, who have requirements up to 15 minutes of constant peak power at times. They fail miserably compared to the A2A.
So I set out to try to determine how this could be implimented, for an all conditions user. The thermal capacity that air charge cooling requires for these users, is a constant 300,000 BTU/h on a warm day. All of it must be delivered to the atmosphere, and hence all of these systems are limited by the meager LTR's employed in these typical applications.
Then I thought, how could I get the radiator to share the thermal load? "how much more capacity will the radiator inherit by removing the Behr CAC?" I did the numbers, and airflow increased 40%, and rejection capacity by the radiator increased 35%, or 250,000 BTU/h. The TD-EOC, with water, is capable of 150,000 BTU/h, using 220 degree coolant. That is a combined expansion of system capacity of 150,000 BTU/hr (400-250). The air-dam option attachment on the LTR adds another 50-100K BTU/h.
Anyway, that is the starting point: a paper verification that the project may be feasible. But assumes that the Behr is removed, and nothing is added back in the stack. The LTR is mounted below (present TD-EOC location). A thermostat is implimented, so that when the vehicle is cold, coolant is bypassing the LTR. Otherwise the truck would never warm up in the winter. When warm, the thermostat regulates water to the LTR, above 180 degrees. This would actually decrease vehicle warmup time, since the new CAC will be discharging all heat to the coolant, which is all wasted in existing stock design.
By design, the LTR flow must be kept low, but not too high.
The LTR must lower the coolant to near ambient condition, if the flow is too high, this will not happen. If the flow rate is too slow, we will induce boiling in the CAC (Ford EGR phenom) and this could cause pump cavitation. That would cause a very quick and destructive overheat. Evan's would eliminate this potential, however.
I have determined that 5 gpm is a good starting point, that is only 6-8% of pump capacity. The heater-out coolant line seems to be perfectly plumbed for this flow rate. Changes can be made if it is too high, via use of simple washer type restriction.
Some of the constraints
1. LTR must reduce our alloted 5 gpm (31 lb/min) from 200 to 120 (130K BTU/h). hmmm, This is close to what it has been demonstrated to reject
2. IC will have to transfer 250,000 BTU/h to be effective at high loads. That results in 5 gpm coolant going from 120 to 270. hmmm. Doable...maybe
and the radiator will pick up some of the load, as intended. No issue with it's newborn airflow. My main concern is the rise in the new IC. 50/50 coolant will boil readily at 270 degrees with 15 psi cap pressure. Again, alternate coolants, or higher concentration EG, can negate that concern.
If we raise the flow to 7 gpm (45 lb/min), we get a higher coolant temperature out of the LTR, a similar charge temp (130 degrees), but well contained coolant temp in the IC.
These assumptions can be fine tuned, the math is easy.
Q=Mdot x Cp x deltaT x 60min/hr
Mdot=mass flow rate of coolant, (6.2 x gpm)
Cp=coolant specific heat=.9 BTU/lb-F
DeltaT=coolant temp rise (IC) or drop (LTR)
You can do the same energy balance for turbocharged air. It has a Cp of .25, and flows around 50 lb/minute at high rpm and boost. It comes out of the turbo at 500 degrees nominal, at 26 psi of boost. Do the math, and you will see that 300,000 BTU/hr is needed to cool it to 100 degrees, 250K is more relevant to the reality that you will never see 100 degrees.
It becomes clear, charge temp is very well moderated, for extended tow ops. But for track use, the lower charge temps that can be found in the "separate" W2A systems (if only momentarily) does not exist.
So I set out to try to determine how this could be implimented, for an all conditions user. The thermal capacity that air charge cooling requires for these users, is a constant 300,000 BTU/h on a warm day. All of it must be delivered to the atmosphere, and hence all of these systems are limited by the meager LTR's employed in these typical applications.
Then I thought, how could I get the radiator to share the thermal load? "how much more capacity will the radiator inherit by removing the Behr CAC?" I did the numbers, and airflow increased 40%, and rejection capacity by the radiator increased 35%, or 250,000 BTU/h. The TD-EOC, with water, is capable of 150,000 BTU/h, using 220 degree coolant. That is a combined expansion of system capacity of 150,000 BTU/hr (400-250). The air-dam option attachment on the LTR adds another 50-100K BTU/h.
Anyway, that is the starting point: a paper verification that the project may be feasible. But assumes that the Behr is removed, and nothing is added back in the stack. The LTR is mounted below (present TD-EOC location). A thermostat is implimented, so that when the vehicle is cold, coolant is bypassing the LTR. Otherwise the truck would never warm up in the winter. When warm, the thermostat regulates water to the LTR, above 180 degrees. This would actually decrease vehicle warmup time, since the new CAC will be discharging all heat to the coolant, which is all wasted in existing stock design.
By design, the LTR flow must be kept low, but not too high.
The LTR must lower the coolant to near ambient condition, if the flow is too high, this will not happen. If the flow rate is too slow, we will induce boiling in the CAC (Ford EGR phenom) and this could cause pump cavitation. That would cause a very quick and destructive overheat. Evan's would eliminate this potential, however.
I have determined that 5 gpm is a good starting point, that is only 6-8% of pump capacity. The heater-out coolant line seems to be perfectly plumbed for this flow rate. Changes can be made if it is too high, via use of simple washer type restriction.
Some of the constraints
1. LTR must reduce our alloted 5 gpm (31 lb/min) from 200 to 120 (130K BTU/h). hmmm, This is close to what it has been demonstrated to reject
2. IC will have to transfer 250,000 BTU/h to be effective at high loads. That results in 5 gpm coolant going from 120 to 270. hmmm. Doable...maybe
and the radiator will pick up some of the load, as intended. No issue with it's newborn airflow. My main concern is the rise in the new IC. 50/50 coolant will boil readily at 270 degrees with 15 psi cap pressure. Again, alternate coolants, or higher concentration EG, can negate that concern.
If we raise the flow to 7 gpm (45 lb/min), we get a higher coolant temperature out of the LTR, a similar charge temp (130 degrees), but well contained coolant temp in the IC.
These assumptions can be fine tuned, the math is easy.
Q=Mdot x Cp x deltaT x 60min/hr
Mdot=mass flow rate of coolant, (6.2 x gpm)
Cp=coolant specific heat=.9 BTU/lb-F
DeltaT=coolant temp rise (IC) or drop (LTR)
You can do the same energy balance for turbocharged air. It has a Cp of .25, and flows around 50 lb/minute at high rpm and boost. It comes out of the turbo at 500 degrees nominal, at 26 psi of boost. Do the math, and you will see that 300,000 BTU/hr is needed to cool it to 100 degrees, 250K is more relevant to the reality that you will never see 100 degrees.
It becomes clear, charge temp is very well moderated, for extended tow ops. But for track use, the lower charge temps that can be found in the "separate" W2A systems (if only momentarily) does not exist.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
