15.02.2013 Views

Design and Simulation of Two Stroke Engines

Design and Simulation of Two Stroke Engines

Design and Simulation of Two Stroke Engines

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

1.6<br />

>& 1.4 -<br />

LU<br />

Q.<br />

1.2 -<br />

1.0<br />

Chapter 2 • Gas Flow through <strong>Two</strong>-<strong>Stroke</strong> <strong>Engines</strong><br />

MEGAPHONE EXHAUST<br />

0.6<br />

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06<br />

Fig. 2.53 Measured <strong>and</strong> calculated pressures with Mach 0.7 criterion.<br />

The result <strong>of</strong> the computations using the GPB modeling method are shown on the same<br />

figures with the theoretical criterion for flow separation from the walls <strong>of</strong> a diffuser, as debated<br />

in Sec. 2.15.1, differing in each <strong>of</strong> the three figures. Recall from the discussion in that<br />

section, <strong>and</strong> by examining the criterion declared in Eq. 2.15.5, that gas particle flow separation<br />

from the walls <strong>of</strong> a diffuser will induce deterioration <strong>of</strong> the amplitude <strong>of</strong> the reflection <strong>of</strong><br />

a compression wave as it traverses a diffuser. The taper <strong>of</strong> 8° included angle employed here<br />

would be considered in steady gas flow to be sufficiently steep as to give particle flow separation<br />

from the walls. The theory used to produce the computations in Figs. 2.51 to 2.53 was<br />

programmed to record the gas particle velocity at every mesh within the diffuser section. The<br />

Eq. 2.15.3 statement was implemented at every mesh at every time step, except that the computational<br />

switch was set at a Mach number <strong>of</strong> 0.5 when computing the theory shown in Fig.<br />

2.51, at a Mach number <strong>of</strong> 0.6 for the theory plotted in Fig. 2.52, <strong>and</strong> at a Mach number <strong>of</strong> 0.7<br />

for the theory presented in Fig. 2.53. It will be seen that the criterion presented in Eq. 2.15.5<br />

provides the accuracy required. It is also clear that any computational method which cannot<br />

accommodate such a fluid mechanic modification <strong>of</strong> its thermodynamics will inevitably provide<br />

considerable inaccuracy. Total reliance on the momentum equation alone for this calculation<br />

gives a reflected wave amplitude at the pressure transducer <strong>of</strong> 0.5 atm. It is also clear<br />

that flow separation from the walls occurs only at very high Mach numbers. As the criterion<br />

<strong>of</strong> Eq. 2.15.5 is employed for the creation <strong>of</strong> the theory in Figs. 2.43 to 2.45, where the taper<br />

angle is at 12.8° included, it is a reasonable assumption that wall taper angle in unsteady gas<br />

flow is not the most critical factor.<br />

The differences between measurement <strong>and</strong> computation are indicated on each figure. It<br />

can be observed that the GPB finite system modeling gives a very accurate representation <strong>of</strong><br />

the measured events for the reflection <strong>of</strong> compression pressure waves at a tapered pipe ending<br />

at the atmosphere.<br />

2.19.8 A pipe with a gas discontinuity attached to the QUB SP apparatus<br />

The experiment simulates an exhaust process with a straight pipe attached to the cylinder.<br />

Fig. 2.54 shows a straight aluminum pipe <strong>of</strong> 5.913 m <strong>and</strong> 25-mm internal diameter attached to<br />

the port <strong>and</strong> ending at a closed end with no exit to the atmosphere. There are pressure transducers<br />

attached to the pipe at stations 1, 2 <strong>and</strong> 3 at the length locations indicated. However, at<br />

187

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!