ΔP = 18.6 kPa → optimised 13.1 kPa 31% loss T-junction 0.35 kg/s 80°C · W-G 50/50 7.8M CELLS · 10 PRISM LAYERS · k-ω SST
Automotive · CFD · Thermal Management

Pressure Drop Prediction in EV Battery & ICE Coolant Transfer Assembly

Steady-state CFD with k-ω SST turbulence model on a 7.8M-cell mesh identified the dominant loss contributors in an automotive coolant loop. Four targeted geometry changes reduced total pressure drop by 30% — from 18.6 kPa to 13.1 kPa — cutting pumping power from 132 W to under 95 W.

k-ω SST 7.8M Cells −30% ΔP 10 Prism Layers EV Thermal Management ICE Cooling Loop Water-Glycol 50/50 T-junction manifold
Scope a similar study All Case Studies

Project Snapshot

ApplicationEV battery + ICE coolant loop
SectorAutomotive · Thermal
Assembly length1.2 m
Pipe diameter18–22 mm
Bends6
Working fluidWater-glycol 50/50
Fluid temperature65–90 °C
Inlet mass flow0.35 kg/s
Turbulence modelk-ω SST
Mesh cells7.8 M · y⁺ 30–80
Baseline ΔP18.6 kPa · 132 W
Optimised ΔP13.1 kPa · −30%

30% pressure drop reduction. Pumping power back below target.

All four optimisation changes validated — geometry ready for production
18.6 kPa
Baseline pressure drop
+39% above pump sizing target
T-junction manifold dominant
132 W pump power required
13.1 kPa
Optimised pressure drop
−30% from baseline
Four geometry changes
Pump power target restored
31%
T-junction contribution
Largest single loss source
Fillet addition: −12%
Identified pre-tooling
−37 W
Pump power saving
132 W → 95 W baseline target
Direct EV range impact
No diameter penalty

A coolant loop 39% over pump power budget — before a single part was made.

The client's thermal system team had sized the coolant pump for a 95 W budget at a nominal flow rate of 0.35 kg/s through a 1.2 m assembly. Early pressure estimates based on straight-pipe correlations came in 39% over target — but without CFD, there was no way to know which of the six bends, the T-junction manifold, or the area transitions was driving the overrun, or what to change.

Committing to tooling without resolving this would have locked in a larger, heavier pump — a direct energy and cost penalty in both EV and ICE configurations. The objective was to quantify each loss contributor, identify which geometry changes offered the best reduction per unit complexity, and deliver a simulation-validated design recommendation before any metal was cut.

Straight-pipe correlations are not adequate for an assembly with six bends and a T-junction manifold at variable diameter. They predict friction — they cannot see recirculation zones, separation at mitre entrances, or the asymmetric flow split that drives secondary losses downstream.

Steady-state k-ω SST. 7.8 million cells. Temperature-dependent properties.

SIMFORGE built a steady-state incompressible CFD model in ANSYS Fluent. The geometry — three pipe diameters (18, 20, 22 mm), six bends, one T-junction manifold, and four area transitions — was meshed with a polyhedral core and 10 structured prism layers at all walls to resolve the near-wall velocity gradient accurately at the target y⁺ of 30–80.

Turbulence closure: k-ω SST, selected for its well-documented superiority over k-ε in flows with adverse pressure gradient and moderate flow curvature — the dominant physics in bend-and-junction assemblies. Working fluid properties (density, viscosity, thermal conductivity) were modelled as temperature-dependent polynomials calibrated to the 50/50 water-glycol mixture at 65–90 °C.

Loss attribution was performed by integrating static pressure over control volumes isolating each feature class — pipe segments, individual bends, the T-junction, and each area change — giving a direct, actionable contribution breakdown.

Assembly specification

A 1.2 m coolant transfer assembly connecting the pump outlet to the battery thermal plate and ICE radiator circuit, with six mitre-entry bends and a T-junction manifold splitting flow between the two circuits.

Geometry featureValue
Total assembly length1.2 m
Pipe inner diameter18–22 mm (three sections)
Number of bends6 — mitre entry, R/D ≈ 1.5
Junction typeT-junction manifold
Area changes4 — abrupt transitions
Working fluidWater-glycol 50/50
Operating temperature65–90 °C
Mesh parameterValue
Total cell count7.8 M
Cell typePolyhedral core + prism layers
Prism layers10 — growth ratio 1.2
y⁺ target30–80
Refinement zonesBends, junction, area changes
Turbulence modelk-ω SST
Convergence criterionResiduals < 10⁻⁵ · ΔP monitor

Simulation setup

BoundaryConditionValue
InletMass flow rate0.35 kg/s
OutletGauge pressure0 Pa
Fluid temperatureUniform80 °C
Pipe wallsNo-slip, adiabatic
Fluid propertiesTemperature-dependent polynomialW-G 50/50 @ 65–90 °C

Where the 18.6 kPa goes

Pressure loss was integrated over isolated control volumes for each feature class. The T-junction manifold and bends together account for 59% of total loss — both are geometry-driven and directly addressable without changing pipe routing or flow rate.

Four geometry changes. −30% pressure drop.

Each modification was assessed independently in the CFD model to isolate its contribution, then combined in a single optimised geometry for final validation. No pipe re-routing required — all changes are local to the bend radii, junction fillet, and transition profiles.

ConfigurationΔPPump powerReduction
Baseline18.6 kPa132 W
Increased bend radius only15.3 kPa109 W−18%
+ Junction fillet13.5 kPa96 W−27%
+ Smooth transitions12.7 kPa90 W−32%
Full optimised (+ diameter)13.1 kPa93 W−30%

Key findings

01

T-junction is the single biggest opportunity

At 31% of total loss, the T-junction manifold is far more significant than the six bends combined (28%). A fillet radius of just 5 mm at the branch entry eliminates the separation bubble responsible for 85% of the junction loss — a sub-£50 tooling change in a cast housing.

02

Straight-pipe correlations are structurally misleading

Standard Darcy-Weisbach estimates predicted 28% of total loss from pipe friction. CFD shows it is actually 32% — close, but the more important error is the 31% T-junction loss that correlations do not model at all. Early design sizing based on correlations alone was guaranteed to miss the pump budget.

03

Diameter increase alone does not close the budget

A 2 mm diameter increase (18→20 mm) reduces friction loss by 10% but adds packaging volume and weight. CFD showed that adding the junction fillet and bend radius changes first brings pump power to 96 W — within budget — without touching the diameter. Diameter increase becomes an optional reserve margin, not a first-resort fix.

04

Secondary flows in bends drive downstream redistribution

Dean vortices in each bend create a distorted velocity profile that persists 5–8 diameters downstream. This means the T-junction, positioned immediately after a bend, sees a non-uniform inlet profile that amplifies separation. Increasing bend radius reduces both the local bend loss and the downstream junction loss — a multiplicative effect that linear superposition of correlations cannot capture.

Project deliverables

DeliverableFormat
CFD simulation report — methodology, results, loss attribution, design recommendationsPDF / DOCX
Pressure and velocity contour plots — baseline & optimisedPNG · CFD-Post
Loss contribution breakdown — per feature classExcel + PDF
Optimisation summary — ΔP vs geometry change matrixExcel + PDF
Mesh and solver settings file.cas / .dat (Fluent)
Geometry-ready CAD with recommended changes annotatedSTEP + PDF redline

Tools used

ToolUsage
ANSYS FluentSteady-state CFD solver, k-ω SST
ANSYS Meshing / Fluent MeshingPolyhedral core + prism layer generation
SpaceClaim / CATIACAD geometry prep, transition smoothing
CFD-PostPost-processing, loss integration, contour plots
PythonAutomated control-volume pressure integration, report generation
Scope a project

A cooling loop over budget.
A pump to right-size. Tell us the assembly.

From EV battery thermal management to ICE cooling circuits and industrial heat exchangers — if it flows, we can size it, optimise it, and deliver a fixed-fee CFD report with actionable geometry recommendations before your tooling decision.

Scope a CFD study Automotive capabilities

Initial response · 24 h  ·  NDA available  ·  Fixed-fee proposal within 48 h