0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Controls, Diagnostics, and Instrumentation

Pitfalls for Accurate Steady-State Port Flow Simulations

[+] Author and Article Information
Xiaofeng Yang

e-mail: xiaofeng.yang@gm.com

Tang-Wei Kuo

GM R&D,
30500 Mound Road,
Warren, MI 48090

Contributed by the Power Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power. Manuscript received November 27, 2012; final manuscript received January 17, 2013; published online May 20, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 135(6), 061601 (May 20, 2013) (7 pages) Paper No: GTP-12-1454; doi: 10.1115/1.4023492 History: Received November 27, 2012; Revised January 17, 2013

Steady-state port flow simulations were carried out with a commercial three-dimensional (3D) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code using Cartesian mesh with cut cells to study the prediction accuracy. The accuracy is assessed by comparing predicted and measured mass-flow rate and swirl and tumble torques at various valve lifts using different boundary condition setup and mesh topology relative to port orientation. The measured data are taken from standard steady-state flow bench tests of a production intake port. The predicted mass-flow rates agree to within 1% with the measured data between the intermediate and high valve lifts. At low valve lifts, slight overprediction in mass-flow rate can be observed. The predicted swirl and tumble torques are within 25% of the flow bench measurements. Several meshing parameters were examined in this study. These include: inlet plenum shape and outlet plenum/extension size, embedded sphere with varying minimum mesh size, finer meshes on port and valve surface, orientation of valve, and port centerline relative to the mesh lines. For all model orientations examined, only the mesh topology with the valve axis aligned closely with the mesh lines can capture the mass-flow rate drop for very high valve lifts due to flow separation. This study further demonstrated that it is possible to perform 3D CFD flow analyses to adequately simulate steady-state flow bench tests.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Hardware configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Model A with the port-cylinder model with cylindrical plenum in inlet and outlet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Flow bench models with different treatment in inlet and outlet plenums

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Local mesh refinements near valve surface and seat

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of measured and calculated mass-flow rates as a function of valve lift for flow bench models A–G (see online figure for color)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Measured and calculated swirl torque for flow bench models A, B, and C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Measured and calculated tumble torque for flow bench models A, B, and C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of volume-integrated TKE for flow bench models A, B, and C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Model C with the intake valve axis aligned with the mesh lines

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of measured and predicted mass-flow rates as a function of valve lift for the geometries of model C with (a) cylinder axis and (b) intake valve axis aligned with the mesh lines

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Mass-flow rate histories at different valve lifts for model C with the intake valve axis aligned with the mesh lines (see online figure for color)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of velocity magnitude contours at different valve lifts for model C with the intake valve axis aligned with the mesh lines (see online figure for color)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Predicted flow fields at 5000 and 10,000 cycles, respectively, for model C with the intake valve axis aligned with the mesh lines at a valve lift of 14 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Mesh arrangement with embedding sphere and minimum mesh size of 0.25 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Calculated mass-flow rate and the corresponding errors as a function of rotational angle around the Z axis for different valve lift using mesh topology of Fig. 14

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Predicted mass-flow rate and relative errors with variation in rotational angle around the X axis for different valve lift using mesh topology of Fig. 14

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Predicted mass-flow rate and relative errors with variation in rotational angle around the Y axis for different valve lift using mesh topology of Fig. 13

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In