Jump to content
HybridZ
MONZTER

Turbo Intake Plenum

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

rev4.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!! :hail::cheers:]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

 

pressure_test_3_rev_4.JPG

 

velocity_test_3_rev_4.JPG

 

pressure_test_7_rev_4.JPG

 

velocity_test_7_rev_4.JPG

 

pressure_test_9_rev_4.JPG

 

velocity_test_9_rev_4.JPG

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

test409.jpg

 

 

This image is in no way mathematically correct, as it was done in 5 minutes using Adobe Illustrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

test409.jpg

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

 

test409_copy534.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...