## 4 Numerical Results  
In this paragraph, examples of the results provided by T-WorkFlow for the analysis of the flow within a radiator are reported. For this purpose, the two radiator configurations shown in Figure 2 were given as input to the tool. All the results shown in this section are obtained using the \(k-\omega\)[23] as turbulence model. The simulation ends when the steady-state condition, identified by the values of some norm of the residuals of the spatial discretization, is reached. Notice that the dimensional value of the inlet flow rate is not provided for confidentiality reasons. However, the exact value is not essential for the purposes of this paper, as our focus is on demonstrating the capabilities of T-WorkFlow in handling the entire CFD workflow through comparative simulations of two configurations. For this reason, the analysis emphasizes the relative performance of the configurations rather than absolute values. In particular, as mentioned in Section 1, the goal of the present comparison is to assess if Configuration A, which represents a possible geometrical simplification of the \"real\" Configuration B, can be effectively used to provide computational savings without compromising the validity of the numerical results. Ideally, these two configurations should have the same performance. The fluid considered for all the simulations is water at ambient conditions, as Formula 3[3] and Formula 4[2] regulations prescribe using \"simple\" fluids to keep costs down and not dangerous to humans and the environment since they can be dispersed in the event of an accident. Regarding the automated mesh generation with the _snappyHexMesh_ utility, the main results from the OpenFOAM _checkMesh_ command for the mesh diagnostic are provided in Table 2 for the analyzed configurations. As clearly evidenced by Table 2, mesh quality is comparable between the two configurations. As expected, the mesh of Configuration A is characterized by fewer cells than those of Configuration B, i.e., about 13% fewer elements. This is the key factor suggesting that using the geometry of Configuration A instead of Configuration B could result in significant computational savings. This difference in the number of cells is due to the different ways in which the channels are connected to the water tanks in the two configurations, see Figure 2. The more complex junction characterizing Configuration B leads to the extraction of a greater number of features through the _surfaceFeatures_ command, resulting in a higher level of refinement on a greater number of cells than in Configuration A, as clearly evidenced in Figure 10. Moreover, due to the _postProcess_ option of _simpleFoam_, it is possible to obtain the average value at of \(y^{+}\) related to the generated mesh. For the converged solution of Configuration A, this parameter is found to be \(y^{+}_{A}=0.57\), while for Configuration B, \(y^{+}_{B}=0.53\). These results support the validity of the methodology used for the automatic generation of prism layers with _snappyHexMesh_, cf. Section 3.3.2. Another parameter related to mesh quality is \(A_{rt}\), computed according to Equation (10). For both the generated meshes, this  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Configuration A** & **Configuration B** \\ \hline Number of cells & 6,666,090 & 7,655,500 \\ Max cell openness & 8.09 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-16}\) & 7.12 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-16}\) \\ Max aspect ratio & 31.14 & 25.26 \\ Minimum face area [m\({}^{2}\)] & 1.02 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-9}\) & 1.25 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-9}\) \\ Maximum face area [m\({}^{2}\)] & 1.67 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) & 1.65 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-5}\) \\ Min volume [m\({}^{3}\)] & 5.26 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-13}\) & 1.22 \(\times\) 10\({parameter turns out to be \(A_{rt}\approx 99.2\%\), indicating an excellent ability of the automatically generated computational grid to accurately copy the CAD geometry of the radiating ducts.