Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
intakes from many teams were evaluated and placed in Top/Center Feed Intake Concept there was very little
several groups. difference in total pressure loss through 55 packaging
bends whether the bend was placed after the restrictor
The four most prevalent designs found at the Formula or placed within the runners near the engine.
SAE competition, are Top/Center Feed, Side Entry,
Conical-Spline, and other intakes. The Top/Center Feed, Results suggest that the Conical-Spline Intake Concept
Side Entry, and Conical-Spline Intake Concepts were offers the least amount of variation in cylinder to cylinder
evaluated through simulation. Several geometric volumetric efficiency by about an order of magnitude.
variations of the three main concepts were also Because of this, an engine equipped with the Conical-
simulated. Each intake was modeled to make as many Spline Intake Concept is easier to calibrate and has less
aspects as comparable as possible. A goal of the paper acoustic noise content. Using a fuel injection strategy
was to focus on comparing plenum concepts which without individual cylinder compensation the Conical-
required separating the effects of runner length and Spline Intake Concept has only a spread of 13.0 to 13.3
restrictor design from the concepts. The choice of trapped Air-to-Fuel Ratio (AFR) from cylinder-to-cylinder.
plenum layout directly affects the packaging and design In comparison, the Side Entry Intake Concept has, at its
of the runners and restrictor, thus the desire to worst, a spread in trapped AFR of 11.5 to 14.0. The
determine the best suitable intake plenum concept first. Conical-Spline Intake Concept also has diminished half
With differences in engine, exhaust manifold, intake engine order acoustic content and should make muffler
volume and runner length removed from the simulation, design easier as the design can be made to attenuate
it was possible to determine the most desirable overall only a few narrow frequencies rather than a wide
geometry that gave the best volumetric efficiency frequency range.
characteristics.
The Conical-Spline Intake Concept also resulted in the
Each intake concept was simulated using industry lowest loss of total pressure through the restrictor. It
standard engine simulation software by Ricardo. Ricardo was observed that the interaction of the restrictor and
WAVE was first used to model the intake in a full engine Conical-Spline Intake Concept often resulted in the
model. No changes were made to the base engine choked flow potential of the restrictors throat being
model. Each intake concept was then run using a underutilized. In other words, the Conical-Spline Intake
WAVE-VECTIS coupled model. The WAVE simulations Concept at times had the highest volumetric efficiency,
modeled the engine across the entire RPM range, while but also the lowest percent cycle time of the throat being
the coupled models are only run at three RPM points choked. Even at 14,000 RPM, the throat was choked
due to the much higher computational cost. The coupled less then two-thirds of a cycle for all intake concepts.
model simulated the intake manifold using the Ricardo The restrictor ultimately determines peak performance,
VECTIS 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code but at the same time the unsteady nature of the flow
coupled to the rest of engine model simulated by WAVE results in only partial choked engine operation.
in 1D. Thus, in the coupled model, the intake manifold is
represented in 3D, instead of 1D. Previous researchers Packaging in the chassis may ultimately decide the
have found detailed CFD and coupled 1D/3D methods intake concept a team chooses. The basic Conical-
advantageous in designing intake manifolds. [1-6] Spline Intake Concept with straight runners would be
very difficult to manufacture for a conventional inline-four
The use of grid convergence analysis tools and best cylinder engine. The addition of runner bends to the
practice methods indicate that reliable coupled solutions basic Conical-Spline Intake Concept resulted in greater
were achieved. 1D WAVE only solutions consistently cylinder-to-cylinder volumetric efficiency imbalance
over-predicted 1D/3D WAVE-VECTIS solutions in terms above 10,000 RPM. However, its cylinder-to-cylinder
of volumetric efficiency. A steady-state solution was also variation performance at high RPM was better than other
run that showed a large difference between flow intake concepts examined.
characteristics of the steady state and the WAVE-
VECTIS solution. The use of WAVE-VECTIS results to CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
calibrate WAVE resulted in greatly improved agreement
between the two simulation techniques. Normal WAVE FORMULA SAE INTAKE DESIGNS & CONCEPTS
model calibration would involve the collection of Initial research focused on understanding and
empirical flow data to provide more appropriate objectively comparing the wide range of naturally
representation of the actual pressure losses. aspirated intake manifold geometries exhibited on
Formula SAE cars. A simple study was conducted to
WAVE-VECTIS results offered valuable insights into the classify the range of intake manifold geometries used by
internal flow within the intake concepts evaluated. It was teams. The study involved the examination of over 100
possible to locate flow separation by evaluating the Formula SAE teams websites for the latest pictures of a
surface shear stress as well as by looking at the flow teams intake design. It was found that the field of
velocity vectors. Likewise, it was possible to see the Formula SAE competitors intake designs could be
transport of air-fuel mixture through the intake and air classified into three main groups with the rest
stealing from cylinder to cylinder. In the case of the
Licensed to University of Minnesota
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:36:27 AM
representing a small percentage of those sampled. Side Entry Intake Design This intake is characterized
Refer to Table 1. by the placement of the restrictor to the side of the
engine and the main intake plenum volume. The
restrictor feeds into the side of the plenum. The main
Conical-
Top/Center Side Entry Spline Other Top/ flow axis of the restrictor is not symmetric about any of
the ports for this intake layout. Previous researchers
Feed Intake Intake Intake Intake Cent have described it as a nonsymmetrical intake. [7] An
Design Design Design Design example is provided in Figure 2.
er Fe
42% 36% 14% 8% ed In Conical-Spline Intake Design This intake is
characterized by the placement of the runner inlets in a
Table 1. Distribution of Intake Designs take
radial symmetric fashion about the main axis of the
Design This intake is plenum. As the restrictor is in line with the plenum, all
characterized by the placement of the restrictor above the runner inlets are symmetric to the main flow axis of
and in the center of the row of intake valve ports the restrictor. The restrictor is typically in the center of
common to inline four cylinder engines. Thus the main the row of intake valve ports common to inline four-
flow axis of the restrictor for this intake layout is cylinder engines. As a consequence of the runner
symmetric about the two center ports. Some teams use placement and the use of an inline four-cylinder engine,
what appears to be an abrupt diffuser entry into the main the runners have to be curved to mate to the cylinder
intake volume. Although, the abrupt diffuser layout had head ports. Some of the conical plenums have a true
the same classification, it was not modeled. An example conical shape and are merely an extension of the
of a typical Top/Center Feed Intake design is provided in diffuser angle; whereas others have a spline profile that
Figure 1. approaches the conical shape. In this paper the authors
refer to a conical intake with a spline profile as a
Conical-Spline intake. An example of a conical type
intake design is provided in Figure 3.
engineering specifications, whereas a concept is an plenum volume for each intake concept are shown as a
entity that doesnt necessarily conform to all engineering shaded region in Figures 4 through 8.
specifications. Generally in this paper, designs are
physical entities and concepts are merely abstract Each model has an identical restrictor, throttle body
precursors to detailed designs. After evaluating the section, inlet bell mouth, and air box; the size and design
concepts, the best one would be selected for detailed of the intake runners were the same for all three. In all
design and manufacture. The main goal was to compare modeled concepts the runner length was held constant
the conceptual plenum layouts and keep the runners at 115 mm. The intake runner spacing and form were
and restrictor the same. In order to make the concept designed to be used with a Yamaha R6 engine. The
models comparable some tradeoffs had to be made. runners are oval in cross section to match the Yamaha
The base engine model used throughout this paper was R6 ports. This oval cross section runs the entire length
built around a 600cc 4-cylinder Yamaha YZF-R6 engine. of the runner. In addition, the runner has a slight taper.
Runner spacing was also modeled identically between
Assumptions Driven By Competition Rules Wherever the Side Entry and Top/Center Feed intakes.
possible it was decided to make each concept conform
to packaging constraints and the spirit of the rules. To Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the final CAD representations
conform to the rules, no intake could protrude outside of the three main intake concepts that were modeled
the envelope of the car defined by the top of the roll with 1D/3D simulation techniques. Again, the shaded
hoop and the tires. [9] This rule is in place because of regions depict equivalent plenum volumes.
safety concerns with the intake being torn off during a
car rollover. Therefore, a side entry intake typically
incorporates a bend after the restrictor to comply with
this rule, while simultaneously allowing a smooth
transition into the plenum. The Top/Center Feed Intake
would not necessarily require a bend going into the
plenum to meet this packaging rule. However it would
require bent runners, a bend going into the plenum, or a
bending of the plenum itself. As the primary goal was to
compare the plenum layout, the runners were kept the
same; and thus the only option was to put a bend in
before the plenum. This bend is identical to the bend on
the Side Entry intake, which bends through a 55 angle.
A 55 bend angle is the approximate minimum angle that
complies with the safety rule in our typical in-car
installation. Both bends are of a constant and equal
diameter.
Assumptions Driven By Need to Keep Intake Concepts Figure 4. Top/Center Feed Intake Concept
Comparable In the case of a restricted engine, the
total volume after the restrictor throat is of prime
importance for pressure recovery. In general, an
increase in volume after the restrictor throat will tend to
increase volumetric efficiency high in the RPM band. To
make each intake comparable to one another, the
volumes of all plenums were made to be equal within the
geometric confines of each model. However, because
each intake geometry is slightly different, arbitrary
surface boundaries had to be selected to define the
plenum volume.
Since all models used the same restrictor, the exit plane
of the restrictor diffuser defines the beginning of the
plenum volume. Everything after the exit plane of the
diffuser and before the entry to the runners is considered
plenum volume, for the sake of comparability. Since two
intakes have a bend and one does not, the bend must
be included in the total plenum volume. The plane that Figure 5. Side Entry Intake Concept
defines the bottom of the plenum (or the start of the
runners) defines the other boundary of the plenum Assumptions Specific to Conical-Spline Intake Concept
volume. The portions of each intake that are defined as Realistic packaging of the Conical-Spline Intake with
an inline four-cylinder engine would require longer and
Licensed to University of Minnesota
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:36:27 AM
curved intake runners. It was decided not to model the and moving the required bend to the runners. The
longer curved runners in the primary simulation because volume of the bend that was removed was placed in the
of the impact these longer runners would have on the plenum. The plenum is geometrically similar to the base
torque curve, as illustrated later in this paper. Also, the Top/Center Feed Intake Concept model, with only the
consideration of different runner lengths would distract total length of the volume changing. As before, the
the authors from a complete examination of the actual shaded region shows the intake that is considered to be
impact different plenum geometries had on performance. the equivalent volume. Figure 7 shows the Top/Center
Feed Intake Concept with the bend in the runners and
no bend before the plenum.
runners any shorter than 130 to 150 mm and still DESCRIPTION OF 3D METHODS
maintain equal length runners, with this intake design.
But the design can be tested conceptually against other VECTIS THEORY VECTIS solves a set of
concepts without concern for detailed analysis of conservation equations similar to WAVE. The continuity,
physical packaging limitations. energy, momentum, and species transport equations are
formulated using a finite-volume approach. The
conservation equations are solved implicitly using the
following algorithm, Figure 9 with PISO corrector steps.
This results in a linear algebraic system of equations for
each variable which is solved using a Jacobi/Orthomin
with Diagonal Preconditioning method. [14]
DESCRIPTION OF 1D METHODS
u (1)
0
t x
u 2 4 (2)
( u P) Figure 9. VECTIS Solution Algorithm of Conservation
t x x 3 x
Equation with PISO Corrector Step
eT 4 u T (3)
Even though VECTIS uses an implicit solver, it was
ueT Pu u k
t x x 3 x x found from experience that the maximum instantaneous
Courant number generally could not exceed 1.5.
However the authors generally had a target Courant
The engine model consists of a series of small volumes
number of 1.0 or less.
and a finite difference method is used to solve the mass,
energy, and momentum equations. The partial
Limitation of Steady-State VECTIS Solution It was
differential equations are solved on a staggered mesh;
found that a full CFD steady state solution of an intake
mass and energy are solved within the discretized
manifold offers little insight into the design when
volumes and momentum is solved at the boundaries
compared against a fully coupled unsteady solution. For
between discretized volumes. Thermodynamic fluid
comparison, a steady-state solution of the Top/Center
properties are based on the appropriate governing
Feed Intake Concept was completed. The inlet
relations. The time-differencing is based on an explicit
stagnation pressure was set to 100 kPa and the static
technique, as the maximum time-step is governed by the
pressure at the runner outlet was set to 80 kPa. The
Courant condition. [13]
static pressure at the runner outlet was based on
observation of the typical average static pressure of the
Licensed to University of Minnesota
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:36:27 AM
of accuracy by the code authors. r is the ratio of the discontinuities can alter the effective order of the overall
level of grid refinement, and can be thought of as the solution produced by a numerical method.
number of cells in the finer grid divided by the number of
cells in the coarser grid. P is the order of the accuracy
f3 f2
of the numerical solution method used. E represents the ln
relative error in some particular solution quantity and is f2 f1 (6)
p
found by solving equation 5. ln r
f2 f1 (5) The effective order of accuracy of the numerical method
E 100% in the WAVE-VECTIS simulation is approximately 1.5,
f1 using the solution quantity of volumetric efficiency for
cylinder 3 and treating r as a constant equal to 1.6. The
f represents any possible quantity available in a CFD GCI for several engine and flow quantities and are given
solution. For example, in a heat transfer problem in Table 4. Many global quantities of interest produced
f could be the global derived quantity of the Nusselt by an engine simulation code coupled to a CFD code
number of a cooling fin, or in an aerodynamics problem are not going to see significant improvements in solution
the lift coefficient of a wing. The authors chose to look at accuracy with increasing mesh refinement. The absolute
accuracy of these quantities could be considered loosely
several solution quantities. The variable f 2 indicates the coupled to the solution of the CFD grid. For example, the
quantity from the coarser grid and f1 indicates the authors made no effort to arrive at an accurate
quantity from the finer grid. A more detailed description mechanical efficiency number for their engine, so even
of this and other methods can be found in [20-22]. though the error band around mechanical efficiency
could be very tight this should not suggest that the result
Calculated Order of Accuracy and Results Four levels is necessarily close to reality. On the other hand the
of refinement were tested on the side entry intake authors believe a quantity such as volumetric efficiency
concept at 10,000 RPM. Figure 12 illustrates the effect is going to be tightly coupled to changes in grid
grid refinement had on VE of cylinder number 3. Figure refinement, because this particular quantity is heavily
12 shows mesh tests at global cell sizes of 10 mm, 7 dependent on an accurate solution of intake flow
mm, 5 mm, and 5 mm with additional refinement blocks quantities.
in areas with large flow gradients.
In other words, inexperienced users of GCI can get a
false sense of confidence in the solution. With a pure
fluid dynamics problem, the users selection of an
appropriate turbulence model and application of mesh
refinement can result in good GCI or poor accuracy if an
inappropriate model is selected. The engine developer is
faced with a greater reliance on a multitude of models
for such things as friction, combustion, fuel spray
transport, and so forth. These models are not going to
involve solving complete partial differential equations on
the same mesh used to solve the fluid flow problem. As
such, good GCI may not always be synonymous with
good empirical agreement.
Figure 15. Change in Conical-Spline Overall Volumetric Figure 18. Volumetric Efficiency Results for Top/Center
Efficiency Due to Runner Length (125, 200, 250, 325 Feed with Bent Runners Intake Sub Concept: WAVE Vs.
mm) WAVE-VECTIS
Figure 16. Comparison in Overall Volumetric Efficiency Figure 19. Volumetric Efficiency Results for Side Entry
between Conical-Spline Intake Main Concept and Its Intake Concept: WAVE Vs. WAVE-VECTIS
Sub Concept
Figure 17. Volumetric Efficiency Results for Top/Center Figure 20. Volumetric Efficiency Results for Conical-
Feed Intake Concept: WAVE Vs. WAVE-VECTIS Spline Intake Concept: WAVE Vs. WAVE-VECTIS
Licensed to University of Minnesota
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:36:27 AM
CYLINDER-TO-CYLINDER VOLUMETRIC
EFFICIENCY IMBALANCE A statistical quantity known
as the Average Absolute Deviation (AAD) was used to
assess the degree of cylinder-to-cylinder volumetric
efficiency imbalance (Equation 7). This quantity was
found to provide more meaning than the typical standard
deviation even though both are conceptually similar
quantities. The standard deviation uses a squared
difference, which tends to amplify the actual imbalance
as opposed to the AAD.
N
1
AAD xi x (7)
N i 1
Time Of Total
Main Choked Volumetric AAD
RPM Concept Flow % Efficiency % of VE
Side
10,000 Entry 0 98.5 0.036
Conical-
10,000 Spline 0 97.2 0.004
Side
11,500 Entry 23.6 95.4 0.032
Figure 32. Effect of WAVE Discretization on Mach 11,500 Top Feed 31.2 93.4 0.011
Number at Throat for Side Entry Intake at 10,000 RPM
Conical-
11,500 Spline 0 100.5 0.005
Side
14,000 Entry 56.9 91.3 0.021
Conical-
14,000 Spline 47.9 87.7 0.005
Conical
11,500 -Spline 7.4 100.5 0.005
Side
14,000 Entry 18.5 91.3 0.021
Conical
14,000 -Spline 18.2 87.7 0.005
Figure 42. Time-Averaged Surface Shear Stress for Side Figure 44. Conical-Spline with Bent Runners Intake Sub
Entry Intake Concept at 14,000 RPM (0 to 20 N/m^2) Concept at 14,000 RPM Showing Separated Diffuser
Flow at 15 Crankangle degrees
Another way to locate regions of flow separation and
pressure loss that is only available in unsteady CFD Bend Placement for Packaging Due to the need to
engine simulation is to look for times where unfavorable keep any intake design within an envelope around the
pressure gradients and the arrival of pressure pulses car to comply with Formula SAE safety regulations,
can cause the flow to separate. In figures 43 and 44, the some of the intake concepts incorporated bends to
velocity vectors in the diffuser are shown for the Conical- improve packaging. In the case of the Top/Center Feed
Spline with Bent Runner Intake sub-concept at two Intake Concept, two reasonable options to aid packaging
different portions of the engine cycle. were identified as either a bend between the diffuser and
the main plenum volume or bent intake runners. Table 9
describes the bend geometry model used to investigate
the two packaging options. Both options allowed the
intake concept to comply with the Formula SAE
packaging envelope.
Post Diffuser
Feature Bend Bent Runners
Average Cross
Section Diameter 0.0727 m 0.0420 m
Figure 43. Conical-Spline with Bent Runners Intake Sub
Concept at 14,000 RPM Showing Attached Diffuser Flow Bend Angle 55 55
at 615 Crankangle degrees
Table 9. Intake
Package Description of per
Concepts Bend Geometry
Formula Used to
SAE Regulations
Figure 44 illustrates the transient separation caused by
the arrival of an adverse pressure pulse in the diffuser. The two options were evaluated by determining the total
This type of phenomenon cannot be captured with loss coefficient. [24, 25] For the post diffuser bend the
steady-state simulations. loss coefficient Kc , was found by solving equation 8.
P1 P2 1 P2 P1
Kc t t t t (8)
P1 P 1 P P1
t 1 1 t
respectively. The mean pressure values are extracted a function of RPM as losses from friction, separation,
from planes located at the beginning and end of the and shocks are also functions of RPM. It is possible to
bend geometry. In the case of the bent runners where construct pressure loss coefficient maps to further tune
the cross section of the runner decreases slightly along the WAVE results.
the length of the runner, equation 8 is modified in
reference to the downstream conditions as shown in
equation 9.
Pt1 Pt2 Pt 1 Pt 2 1
Kc (9)
Pt2 P2 1 P2 Pt 2
Subscripts
Fs Factor of Safety -