## 4 Numerical Results
To effectively determine whether Configuration A can be used in place of Configuration B to conduct numerical investigations of radiator operation, we now present the leading performance indicators, i.e., pressure losses and flow distribution within the radiator channels, obtained using T-WorkFlow for both geometries. Figure 12, generated through the open-source ParaView software [30, 31], shows the pressure distribution on the plane longitudinally intersecting the channels and passing through the barycenter of a tank. The pressure contours in Figure 12 suggest that pressure losses across the radiators are larger for Configuration B. The \(\Delta\hat{p}_{in-out}\) values, defined in Section 3.6, confirm this observation, but the difference between \(\Delta\hat{p}_{in-out,A}=1.686\) and \(\Delta\hat{p}_{in-out,B}=1.709\) is actually minimal, i.e., \(\approx 1\%\). Regarding the flow rate distribution within the radiator channels, the plot provided by T-WorkFlow for the converged solution for both radiator configurations is shown in Figure 13. The analysis of this figure reveals a sim  
Figure 12: Pressure distribution on a plane parallel to the Cartesian \(yz\)-plane, passing through the barycenter of a tank. ilar flow rate distribution between the two configurations. This is confirmed by the FlowRate_Standard_Deviation value, automatically evaluated by T-WorkFlow according to Equation (11), i.e., \(Q_{std,A}=4.0\times 10^{-3}\) and \(Q_{std,B}=4.2\times 10^{-3}\). The trend observed in Figure 13 is further corroborated by the distribution of the velocity component associated with mass transport, as shown in Figure 14. This distribution is shown on a plane normal to the axial direction of the ducts, passing through their barycenters. From the analysis of Figure 14, it is clear that the two configurations show an almost identical behavior. Details of the numerical solution in the region of the inlet and outlet tanks are presented hereafter to highlight the different flow behavior where the differences between the geometries occur, see Figure 2. In Figures 15 and 16, the distribution of the velocity vector magnitude is presented, composed solely of the velocity components lying on the yz-plane for both the tanks. As expected, by comparing Figure 15 with Figure 16, the main  
Figure 14: Distribution of the velocity component related to mass transport in the channels on a plane with normal parallel to their axis direction and that passes through their barycenters. Figure 13: Flow rate distribution across the radiant ducts. differences between the two configurations lie in the pronounced recirculation regions at the radiant duct connection with the outlet tank of Configuration B, rather than in the inlet region. Figure 16: Distribution in the outlet tank of the velocity vector module, composed solely of the velocity components lying on the plane parallel to the Cartesian yz-plane and that passes through the barycenter of this tank. Figure 15: Distribution in the inlet tank of the velocity vector module, composed solely of the velocity components lying on the plane parallel to the Cartesian \(yz\)-plane and that passes through the barycenter of this tank. proposed here could provide significant value to automotive companies. In fact, companies can lower costs by using open-source software and reduce the time needed for designers to obtain reliable and standardized CFD results through the customization and streamlining of the process. In this specific case, the tool has been designed in the most general way possible so that any radiator geometry the company wants to analyze can be used as input. Great care was taken to develop a procedure ensuring the generation of computational meshes of comparable quality regardless of the specific radiator configuration. This allows for consistent comparison between numerical results from different geometries, thus enabling even non-expert users to make informed decisions within the tight deadlines typical of the race car design.