Daeron Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 ......but now I'm really curious as to how those HKS Plenums would test out...and how HKS came up with the designs they did when they put them into production! My guess? Pact With Satan!!!:flamedevi:flamedevi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Careless Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Great CFD stuff! I was wondering if it is at all possible (with size limitations and other restrictions in order) if you would be able to have 3 tubes leading into the plenum, rather than one. and instead, to separate the air easier and focus a stream on each pair of cylinders, you could use a collector to split the air amongst the pairs of cylinders. this would make it a lot bigger but would probably focus air exactly where you want it to go for each pair, no? I'm assuming weight and space are of most concern. It looks like that TINY bend that you have before the plenum is creating a swirl. Perhaps instead of one large channel to spread the air, 3 smaller channels and a larger inlet would focus air without the use of 3 different tubes i typed above. Larger inlet, obviously because there would have to be some material in between each channel to separate them. If you have ALOT of room, you could even put cooling channels to pump a heat extracting liquid through them. That's getting carried away though, but it could easily be left open if you were not to use them because they recirc to the other side anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 I am thinking something like this. I have asked TurboBlueStreak to have a look at it and hopefully we can get some new results. I am hoping the diverters will even out the flow, slowing down some of the turbulence. The bumps at the top I am hoping will stop the flow from cycling around and around. Well see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughdogz Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Perhaps this question is more for TurboBlueStreak, but I heard that the CosmosWorks CFD in SolidWorks only handles laminar flow and not turbulent. I wonder if this is this true... [Edit: I hope it didn't sound like I was saying that the analysis is not valid...in fact this is one of my all-time favorite threads and project. Keep posting more!! ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proxlamus© Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 damn im impressed with all this research! tell me your considering a small production run?! excellent use of diverters and the bumps to stop the swirl. You may also consider using various sizes and angles of airfoils to manipulate the velocity and pressure in problem spots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbobluestreak Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 hughdogz Cosmos can do turbulent flow but you need to define the flow so I've selected laminar flow because I fell that the flow entering the intake is mostly laminar from the intercooler pipes. I'll be finishing the flow results tonight for Monzter. tbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted January 26, 2008 Author Share Posted January 26, 2008 I'll be finishing the flow results tonight for Monzter. tbs All right!! a new update coming soon. Anybody want to guess if the new plenum design with the flow diverters and bumps is better or worse for the swirl and distribution of air?? I'm obviously hoping for better, but how much is my question? Thanks TBS Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlderThanMe Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I'm predicting higher intake pressure on cylinders #1,3, and 5... Higher pressure on #5 is also bad since that would raise the problematic temperatures more... I am wondering if (a) vortex generator(s) could be used (like what was tested in the aero forum) to counteract the three vorticies in the plenum. The first flow divider makes me think it will help the lower pressure area by cylinders #1 and 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHO-Z Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I did a quick calc and you are in turbulent flow not laminer. Turbulent flow is with a Reynolds Number above 2000 assuming that the intake on the manifold is 3" Dia. @ 3000 RPM a 280 would have a Reynolds number (Re): Re = 65232.07. I do not think this will effect the modeling of the air flow. This is one interesting POST overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbobluestreak Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 SHO-Z I've selected laminer flow in all of the tests I've done. Monzter email sent I'll let you share the info with everyone. tbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted January 26, 2008 Author Share Posted January 26, 2008 All right. the answers are in. Looks like an improvement in reducing 2 of the 3 vortices. The flow looks to be more even through the runners. The flow diverters seem to better even up the distribution of air. The bumps in the top seemed helped runners 2-6 with the vortices, but the first bump seem to be helping create the vortex in runner 1. So anybody want to post some sketches on there ideas to help get this thing perfect? Here are the results: Some new videos: http://album.hybridz.org/data/500/velocity_test9a_rev4.avi http://album.hybridz.org/data/500/velocity_test9b_rev4.avi http://album.hybridz.org/data/500/velocity_test9c_rev4.avi Thanks again for everybody's help. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffer949 Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 ok im not great at this stuff but to me it looks like you are causing that vortex on runner 1 cause you have a ramp to start the vortex then you have the bump to turn the air again and then it fallows the curve of the plenum and then the cycle starts over again... so im thinking you either need to change the angle of your ramp... maybe make it smaller... put holes in it ... change the angle, some thing along those lines. another thing im thinking is to completely change the flow and move or maybe even ad another ramp but put it on the outside the plenum thus changing the vertical cyclone into maybe a more twisting motion that might get the air into the first runner better. cause right now it seems to just be swirling around the outside of it and not wanting to go down the hole lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4xwellmurd3r Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I also agree. I don't know much about plenum design and such, but it seems like the initial ramp going from the inlet to runner 1, combined with the bump, is causing a small circular area for the air to create a vortex. you have to change that initial angle to get rid of the first vortex I think. It looks like the flowdivertiers and bumps helped a lot. if it weren't for that first vortex it looks like all the runners would be getting pretty equal flow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimZ Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 What if you just moved the first diverter forward a bit so that it is pointing more towards the middle of the #1 runner? It looks like it's currently working in combination with the first bump to create the swirl around #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONZTER Posted January 26, 2008 Author Share Posted January 26, 2008 What if you just moved the first diverter forward a bit so that it is pointing more towards the middle of the #1 runner? It looks like it's currently working in combination with the first bump to create the swirl around #1. Already finished moving the diverter forward to the middle. Looks like it will stop the vortex from going counter-clockwise, and help it flow more linear. Good idea Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daeron Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 What if you just moved the first diverter forward a bit so that it is pointing more towards the middle of the #1 runner? It looks like it's currently working in combination with the first bump to create the swirl around #1. that was exactly my thought when I first saw the diverters and "bumps" were lined up with each other. Obviously the flow analysis shows that it works fine with the other two pairs, and you are already on this track. Other than that, all I have to say is WOW. again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktm Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Tim,I PM'ed TurboBlueStreak who did the CFD work. Here is what he had to say: "Jeff as your question of how the cfd was run I ran the cfd with pressure openings. the runners were environmental and the inlet was 25psi. I'm going to review all my information and see if I can run the test in a better way. Hopefully we won't see extreme pressures or supersonic flow. " I am glad I read the whole thread first before posting my comment. I was wondering what the modeling assumptions were when I saw the runners appearing to dump to atmosphere/environemental. I will caveat my comment by saying that I do not know intake design. However, I am very familiar with fluid flow systems. Right now, as modeled, it appeaers as though the runners are the only restrictions in the system. However, if the intake valves/ports on the head flow less than the runners, you will develop backpressure or your flow velocity will decreased, etc. The modeling is great for helping to visualize the airflow in the intake, but I would caution using the raw data. Would it be possible to model a restriction at the runner outlet that would simulate the valve? Beyond the valve would be environmental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Careless Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 would the following design work to improve flow to pairs of cylinders rather than creating 4 separate pathways, singling out the first and last cylinders as per the CFD test of the latest design? This image is in no way mathematically correct, as it was done in 5 minutes using Adobe Illustrator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimZ Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 would the following design work to improve flow to pairs of cylinders rather than creating 4 separate pathways, singling out the first and last cylinders as per the CFD test of the latest design? This image is in no way mathematically correct, as it was done in 5 minutes using Adobe Illustrator. If you look back a page or two, this is what the current design was trying to prevent. There were three distinct vortices, the lowest pressure of them was on cyls 1 and 2. The current design was a deliberate attempt to break those up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Careless Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 If you look back a page or two, this is what the current design was trying to prevent. There were three distinct vortices, the lowest pressure of them was on cyls 1 and 2. The current design was a deliberate attempt to break those up. I saw that, but I was wondering whether or not focusing the actual vortices along a set path would make them even out a bit more across each pair of cylinders. What about adding 3 more small diffusers, 1 in between each separation? here's a revision: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.