1

Numerical analysis of y
fluid flow inside air
intake system
Numerical analysis of fluid
flow inside air intake system
Regis Ataides
Martin Kessler
Marcelo Kruger
Geraldo Severi J r.
Cesareo de La Rosa Siqueira
Walter Zottin
Wagner Trindade
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
2
Agenda
Introduction
Goals
Description of the numerical model
Geometry and mesh
Boundary conditions
Numerical model
Results
Comments
Introduction
Air intake system is responsible for capturing and cleaning
air from vehicles surroundings, before allowing it to be
injected into the engine
In addition, information about the mass flow is extracted
from the flow and sent to the fuel injection system, which
can calibrate the proper mixture to any specific condition. In
order to allow for a reliable reading, the flow must be well
behaved around the Mass Air Flow Sensor (MAFS)
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
3
Goals
Develop a computational model to study the flow inside Air
Intake Systems (AIS)
Two geometries have been evaluated and the second one with two
different honeycombs different honey combs
Evaluate the pressure drop for the entire system and
identify local pressure losses. In addition, identify the flow
pattern around the MAFS
Numerical model - Geometry
Model 1 Model 2
MAFS
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
4
Numerical model Model 2 with Honeycomb
Model 2 HC1
Model 2 - HC2
The honeycomb is placed
right before the MAFS to
reduce the turbulence level
Boundary conditions (Same for all models)
Outlet:
Pressure
Inlet: Mass flow
Filtrating element:
Inertial resistance
Viscous resistance
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
5
Computational Mesh
Extension to
avoid
backflowat
Mesh with around
2,6 million cells for
both Model 1 and 2
backflow at
the outlet
Computational Mesh
Extension
Mesh with
Honeycomb 1
with 3.1 millions
of elements
Mesh with Honeycomb 2
with 4.6 millions of
elements
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
6
Numerical model
Assumptions:
Steady-state flow;
Isothermal; Isothermal;
Incompressible;
Turbulent.
Fluid properties: Air
Density: 1 225 kg/m; Density: 1,225 kg/m;
Viscosity: 1,7894e-05 kg/m/s;
Results Pressure on the walls
Model 1 Model 2
Model 2 HC1 Model 2 - HC2
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
7
Results Pressure drop along the model
Average pressure taken at the following surfaces:
In
Elem-Top
DirtyAirDuct
POut
Elem-Bot
CleanAirDuct
Results Pressure drop
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Mod 1
Mod 2
Mod 2 HC1
Mod 2 HC2
I
n
D
i
r
t
y
A
i
r
D
u
c
t
E
l
e
m
_
t
o
p
E
l
e
m
_
b
o
t
C
l
e
a
n
A
i
r
D
u
c
t
A
f
t
e
r

H
o
n
e
y

C
o
m
b
P
o
u
t
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
8
Results - Uniformity
In order to identify how well behaved is the
flow at the outlet, the following uniformity
i d ill b li d th indexes will be applied there:
- Eccentricity;
- Gamma;
- Velocity ratio;
Results Uniformity Coefficients - Definitions
Eccentricity (): Evaluate how distant from the center the
maximumvelocity point is:
0: At the center (best) 0: At the center (best)
1: In the border (worst)
2 2
y x
+ =
For an ellipsis:
( )
major
mid v
x
L
x x
=
max
2

( )
or
mid v
y
L
y y
min
max
2
=
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
9
Results Uniformity Coefficients - Definitions
Gamma (): Evaluate howuniformis the velocity distribution on
a given surface.
G 1 U if (b t) Gamma =1: Uniform(best)
Gamma =0: Non-uniform(worst)
( ) ( )
total avg
i avg i
A v
A v v
2
1


=
Results Uniformity Coefficients - Definitions
Velocity ratio (v
ratio
): Is the ratio between the maximum
and the average velocity on a surface. Around 1 is
b tt better.
mean
ratio
v
v
v
max
=
mean
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
10
Results Uniformity Coefficients
LDV LJ 1
Uniformity coefficients
LKF
Ecc Gamma Velocity ratio
Model 1
0.74 0.96 1.10
Model 2 0.75 0.97 1.13
Model 2 HC1
0.31 0.93
1.19
Model 2 HC2 0.53 0.93 1.20
Results Velocity vector at the MAFS region
Model 1
Model 2
Model 2 HC1
Model 2 HC2
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
11
Results Turbulence intensity around the Honey Comb
Cut plane before the
Honey Comb
Model 2 HC1
Model 2 HC2
Cut plane after the Honey Comb
Results Turbulence intensity around MAFS region
Model 2
Model 2 HC1
Model 2 HC2
The Honey comb reduces
the turbulence intensity
around MAFS region
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009
12
Results Pathlines
Model 1
Model 2
Model 2 HC1 Model 2 HC2
Comments
Both honeycomb designs reduced the turbulence intensity at the MAFS
region when compared to the model without it;
The pressure drop, on the other hand, increased slightly with the
honeycomb;
The pressure drop curve was affected only at the honeycomb region,
keeping the same behavior in the rest of the domain;
The eccentricity at a cut plane upstream the MAFS changed from 0.31 y p p g
in the first configuration with honeycomb (Model 2 HC1) to 0.53 in the
second (Model 2 HC2).
EASC 2009
4th European Automotive Simulation Conference
Munich, Germany
6-7 July 2009