Numerical simulation of inert and reactive flows by the Finite Element Method

Pitfalls for Accurate Steady-State Port Flow Simulations

“…Some studies [9,10,11,14,16,18] included intake port, valve, and cylinder; one study [17] included extra "bell mouth," and one study [12] proposed "complete computation domain," including the inlet duct, manifold, plenum, and ports and partially included adjacent ports, valves, and the cylinder to replicate the actual engine.…”

“…Examples of comparison between measured and calculated steady-state discharge coefficient and/or flow rate at different valve lifts included: straight port versus swirl port [9]; axisymmetric inlet port/valve [10]; two direct inlet port of a four-valve gasoline engine [10]; one curved inlet port [11]; port 1 versus port 2 of a diesel engine [12]; intake port of a four-valve gasoline engine [13]; vertical port of a small gasoline engine [14]; intake ports of a heavy-duty diesel engine [15]; intake port of a single cylinder, four-stroke, and air-cooled gasoline engine [16]; effect of different pressure across the inlet port and valve [17,18]; effect of turbulence model [13,17]; and effect of different CFD software [17].…”

“…Although many articles related to steady-state intake port fiow simulation are available [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18], many numerical details that affect solution accuracy were not presented or discussed. This report is an attempt to address the issue, in particular, effects of flow box orientation, upstream/downstream-plenum shape and size, and details of mesh topology.…”