energies

Article
Scavenging Ports’ Optimal Design of a Two-Stroke
Small Aeroengine Based on the
Benson/Bradham Model
Yuan Qiao, Xucheng Duan, Kaisheng Huang * , Yizhou Song and Jianan Qian
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Department of Automotive Engineering, Tsinghua
University, Beijing 100084, China; qiao-y17@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (Y.Q.); daekeylab@gmail.com (X.D.);
songyz17@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (Y.S.); qjn366369@tsinghua.edu.cn (J.Q.)
* Correspondence: huangks@tsinghua.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-138-0123-7852




Received: 27 September 2018; Accepted: 11 October 2018; Published: 12 October 2018


Abstract: The two-stroke engine is a common power source for small and medium-sized unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAV), which has wide civil and military applications. To improve the engine
performance, we chose a prototype two-stroke small areoengine, and optimized the geometric
parameters of the scavenging ports by performing one-dimensional (1D) and three-dimensional
(3D) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) coupling simulations. The prototype engine is tested on a
dynamometer to measure in-cylinder pressure curves, as a reference for subsequent simulations. A GT
Power simulation model is established and validated against experimental data to provide initial
conditions and boundary conditions for the subsequent AVL FIRE simulations. Four parameters
are considered as optimal design factors in this research: Tilt angle of the central scavenging port,
tilt angle of lateral scavenging ports, slip angle of lateral scavenging ports, and width ratio of the
central scavenging port. An evaluation objective function based on the Benson/Bradham model
is selected as the optimization goal. Two different operating conditions, including the take-off and
cruise of the UAV are considered. The results include: (1) Orthogonal experiments are analyzed,
and the significance of parameters are discussed; (2) the best factors combination is concluded,
followed by simulation verification; (3) results before and after optimization are compared in details,
including specific scavenging indexes (delivery ratio, trapping efficiency, scavenging efficiency, etc.),
conventional performance indicators, and the sectional views of gas composition distribution inside
the cylinder.

Keywords: two-stroke engine; scavenging ports; optimal design; Benson/Bradham model

1. Introduction
In the context of the information age of the 21st century, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
technology has gradually matured with the rapid development of microelectronics technology and
communication technology. Compared with manned aircrafts, UAVs are small in size, light in weight,
undemanding in runway requirements, low in manufacturing and use cost, and can also reduce
casualties on the battlefield. Therefore, UAVs are widespread in both military and civilian applications.
Besides, small and medium-sized UAVs (maximum take-off weights of 10 to 1000 kg) are particularly
popular because of good overall performance and usage convenience [1]. Pressured by increasingly
stringent emission regulations, crankcase scavenged two-stroke engines are scarcely applied in the
automotive industry [2]. However, benefitting from its significant advantages in simple structure,
few accessories, and high power density, the two-stroke engine is universally selected as the power
source of small and medium-sized UAVs. In Europe and the United States, several companies specialize

Energies 2018, 11, 2739; doi:10.3390/en11102739 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 2739 2 of 26

in producing two-stroke light-duty engines for small and medium-sized UAVs, such as 3 W, Gobler
Hirth, and Limbach in Germany, Wilksch in the UK, Zanzottera in Italy, and XRDi and DeltaHawk in
the US [3].
Different from conventional four-stroke engines equipped with sophisticated valve timing
systems, two-stroke engines generally employ the opening and closing of piston-motion-controlled
scavenging ports as the way of pumping and exhausting. The comparatively simple scavenging system
shows its superiority in engine design and manufacturing, but significant drawbacks also emerge in
volumetric efficiency and in-cylinder gas flow control [4,5]. The potential of two-stroke engines has
become more and more subject to increasing research work trying to optimize the gas motion during
the scavenging process. The gas motion is notably dependent on the specific design of scavenging
ports. Therefore, the latter is consequently selected as the research focus of this paper.
A major problem in constructing the two-stroke engine model is to describe the corresponding
scavenging process. Since the first two-stroke engine at the end of 19th century by Sir Dugald Clerk,
various different scavenging systems have been designed and pertinent scavenging models have been
successively developed and optimized by tracking studies to draw conclusions about the quality of
scavenging process. Merker and Gerstle summarized a tremendous number of scavenging models
and proposed a comprehensive evaluation of existing models [6]. They classified existing models
into three categories. Precision, mathematical expenditure, the structure of the formula, and the
difficulty of empirical parameter calibration were all taken into account to obtain the assessment results.
Ma et al. applied a relatively simple perfect displacement model and perfect mixing model in the
simulation modeling method and experimental investigation on the uniflow scavenging system of an
opposed-piston folded-cranktrain diesel engine [7]. Based on the single-zone Benson model, Brynych
et al. proposed a way of generalizing the scavenging curves to lower the time cost of three-dimensional
(3D) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and accelerated the procedure of engine
optimization substantially [8]. Mattarelli et al. chose main scavenging coefficients (charging efficiency,
scavenging efficiency, trapping efficiency, delivery ratio, etc.) as port design criteria for two-stroke loop
scavenged engines and performed a series of multi-cycle 3D CFD simulations to validate the optimum
configuration obtained from the previous parametric analysis [9]. The final results demonstrated the
excellent efficiency of the scavenging process. Similarly, to fulfill the potential of boosted uniflow
scavenged direct injection gasoline (BUSDIG), disparate layout schemes of scavenging ports were
designed and corresponding parameters were varied to investigate their impacts on the scavenging
performance and the in-cylinder gas motion [10–12].
In the current studies, burgeoning one-dimensional (1D)/3D simulation technologies conspire to
play an important role in providing researchers with essential and powerful tools for rapid prototyping,
massive data processing, and visualization analysis [13]. Regarding the optimization of the scavenging
systems of two-stroke engines, simulation techniques also show promising potential and have
yielded many fruitful research achievements [14–16]. Cui et al. conducted a detailed CFD analysis
of the scavenging process in a steady-state scavenging flow test and adopted the proper orthogonal
decomposition (POD) method in search of the cause of precession phenomenon found in the high
swirl model [17]. Xie et al. performed the numerical simulation of an Opposed-Piston 2-Stroke Diesel
Engine (OP2S) and compared the results of in-cylinder gas motion with those of a uniflow-scavenged
two-stroke engine using CFD engine models [18]. Zang et al. investigated the scavenging process of
Linear Internal Combustion Engine-Linear Generator Integrated System (LICELGIS) and implemented
a steady-state verification test to further explore the motion characteristics of LICELGIS [19].
Mattarelli et al. reported a CFD study on a two-stroke Opposed Piston High Speed Direct Injection
Diesel Engine (OPHSDI) and analyzed the influence of the offset between the crankshafts by performing
3D CFD simulations [20]. Li et al. investigated the influences of intake ports and pent-roof structures on
the flow characteristics of a poppet-valved two-stroke gasoline engine to minimize the short-circuiting
of the intake charge [21]. He et al. emphasized the significant effects of exhaust back pressure,
porting timing, and intake port layout on the scavenging quality and trapped air mass in cylinder
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 3 of 26

by transient CFD simulation, including blow-down and scavenging [22]. Zhou et al. performed the
thermodynamic simulation of a self-balanced opposed-piston folded-cranktrain two-stroke engine
for UAVs to improve engine performance indicators, including power density, fuel compatibility,
fuel economy, and durability in a harsh environment [23].
The scavenging process is the key for in-cylinder gas motion and the mixing of fresh air
and injected fuel, which has remarkable influence on the in-cylinder combustion process and,
eventually, on the engine performance. However, relevant two-stroke engine scavenging system
optimization schemes proposed in previous studies were scarcely targeted from the perspective of
scavenging models. Instead of considering comparatively sophisticated scavenging models, such as
the Dang/Wallace model and Benson/Bradham model, previous researchers usually employed
conventional scavenging evaluation indexes (charging efficiency, scavenging efficiency, trapping
efficiency, deliver ratio, etc.) as the evaluation criteria of scavenging ports’ optimal design [6]. For the
deeper investigation of the scavenging process, a two-stroke small aeroengine is selected as the
prototype. Afterwards, the geometric structure of the prototype engine is parameterized. An objective
function based on the more comprehensive Benson/Bradham model is established in this paper.
To guarantee the consistency and compatibility between 1D and 3D boundary conditions, a 1D/3D
coupling numerical simulation architecture is set up and validated against the prototype experimental
data. Commonly, 3D CFD simulation is a time-consuming process on the condition that all the possible
combinations of geometric parameters need to be traversed. By varying the parameters, the number
of investigated cases amounted to 1352 along with dramatically increasing the time expenditure [9].
To minimize the time cost of determining the most effective geometric parameters configuration,
the orthogonal experimental design (OED) method is employed to reduce the 3D CFD simulation
amount. Additionally, optimization results are validated by performing dedicated 3D CFD simulations.
The objective function value, scavenging indexes (delivery ratio, trapping efficiency, scavenging efficiency,
etc.), conventional performance indexes, including the indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) and
indicated specific fuel consumption (ISFC), and the sectional views of gas composition distribution inside
the cylinder are all taken into consideration when comparing results before and after the optimization.

2. Scavenging System Modeling

2.1. Scavenging Model Selection

Quantitative evaluation indexes are needed to describe the quality of the scavenging process of a
two-stroke engine. Corresponding mathematical models abstracted from an actual scavenging process
can serve for this purpose and reflect how much fresh charge can be delivered and trapped in the
cylinder through specific model parameters [24,25]. To establish the scavenging model, several mass
parameters are defined as follows: mi is the mass of delivered fresh charge through all scavenging
ports; m f C is the mass of delivered fresh charge retained in the cylinder; mleak is the mass of delivered
fresh charge leaking out of the cylinder (i.e., mi is the sum of the m f C and mleak , the latter is the
so-called ”short circuit loss part”); mbg is the mass of residual burned gas retained in the cylinder;
m all is the mass of all trapped cylinder charge (i.e., m all is the sum of the m f C and mbg ); and m0 is equal
to the product of the cylinder volume and ambient density and is the so-called “reference mass” [26].
Based on these definitions, some conventional scavenging indexes can be introduced:
The delivery ratio:

mi mass of delivered fresh charge through all scavenging ports

λS = = (1)
m0 cylinder volume × ambient density

The scavenging efficiency:

mfC mfC mass of delivered fresh charge retained in cylinder

ηS = = = (2)
m all m f C + mbg mass of all trapped cylinder charge
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 4 of 26

The trapping efficiency:

mfC mass of delivered fresh charge retained in cylinder

ηT = = (3)
mi mass of delivered fresh charge through all scavenging ports

The charging efficiency:

mfC mass of delivered fresh charge retained in cylinder

ηC = = (4)
m0 cylinder volume × ambient density

Considering that throttle opening of a small areoengine is relatively wide under medium and
high load operation conditions, the intake pressure is approximately equal to the ambient pressure,
which makes m all nearly the same as m0 . Coincidentally, the “reference mass” in simulation analysis is
normally defined as the mass of all trapped cylinder charge (i.e., m all ), which makes ηS equal to ηC .
Consequently, we make no distinction between the scavenging efficiency and the charging efficiency
in the following content in case of over parameterization [27]:

η S ≈ ηC = λ S × η T (5)
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 28
Scavenging efficiency, ηS , is of vital importance toward the gas exchange quality of the scavenging
process because ηS indicates 𝜂to= 𝑚what =
mass of delivered fresh charge retained in cylinder
extent the residual burned gases in the(3) cylinder have been
𝑚 mass of delivered fresh charge through all scavenging ports
replaced with fresh mixture after the
The charging efficiency:
end of the scavenging process [28]. The higher the ηS value,
the more sufficient the fresh charge 𝑚intake and the greater
mass of delivered fresh the improvements
charge retained in cylinder of power performance
𝜂 = = (4)
𝑚 cylinder volume × ambient density
enhancement. In addition, the trapping efficiency, ηT , plays a pivotal role in reflecting what fraction
Considering that throttle opening of a small areoengine is relatively wide under medium and
of the fresh charge supplied
high load operationto the cylinder
conditions, the intakeis retained
pressure in theequal
is approximately cylinder.
to the ambientThis attribute is important
pressure,
which makes 𝑚 nearly the same as 𝑚 . Coincidentally, the “reference mass” in simulation
especially for a port fuel injection (PFI) engine, because the short circuit loss of fresh mixture can lead
analysis is normally defined as the mass of all trapped cylinder charge (i.e., 𝑚 ), which makes 𝜂
to a significant deterioration
equal to 𝜂 . in fuel economy
Consequently, we make no and emission
distinction betweencharacteristics.
the scavenging efficiency Inand terms
the of the relationship
charging efficiency in the following content in case of over parameterization [27]:
between these scavenging evaluation indexes, the higher the delivery ratio, λS , the more mass flow
𝜂 ≈𝜂 =𝜆 ×𝜂 (5)
entering the cylinder, which means both m and mleak increase.
Scavenging efficiency, 𝜂 , is fofC vital importance
Under that circumstance, the decrease
toward the gas exchange quality of the
of ηT and the increase of ηS process
scavenging because 𝜂 simultaneously.
will happen indicates to what extent the The trade-off
residual burned gasesrelationship
in the cylinder between η and η
T S
have been replaced with fresh mixture after the end of the scavenging process [28]. The higher the
makes trouble for balancing power performance and fuel consumption
𝜂 value, the more sufficient the fresh charge intake and the greater the improvements in the optimization process of
of power
performance enhancement. In addition, the trapping efficiency, 𝜂 , plays a pivotal role in reflecting
the two-stroke engine scavenging system. That is precisely the reason why appropriate scavenging
what fraction of the fresh charge supplied to the cylinder is retained in the cylinder. This attribute is
models are needed for integrative
important especially foroptimal
a port fuel design.
injection (PFI) engine, because the short circuit loss of fresh
mixture can lead to a significant deterioration in fuel economy and emission characteristics. In terms
The applicationof of the simplest
the relationship single-zone
between these single-phase
scavenging evaluation model
indexes, the higher is the
the delivery most
ratio, 𝜆 , extensive among
the more mass flow entering the cylinder, which means both 𝑚 and 𝑚 increase. Under that
previous studies [29]. The single-zone concept denotes that the cylinder
circumstance, the decrease of 𝜂 and the increase of 𝜂 will happen simultaneously. The trade-off
volume is occupied by only
one zone throughout relationship between 𝜂 and
the scavenging 𝜂 makeswhile
process trouble the single-phase
for balancing concept
power performance and means
fuel the scavenging
consumption in the optimization process of the two-stroke engine scavenging system. That is
process is not divided intothedistinct
precisely reason why phases. This category
appropriate scavenging is classified
models are needed for integrativeinto
optimaltwo
design.ideal models: Perfect
The application of the simplest single-zone single-phase model is the most extensive among
mixing model and perfect displacement model. The former is based on
previous studies [29]. The single-zone concept denotes that the cylinder volume is occupied by only
the assumption that fresh
charge introduced into thethroughout
one zone cylinder per unit
the scavenging time
process isthe
while instantly
single-phase mixed
concept meanswith residuals. On the contrary,
the scavenging
process is not divided into distinct phases. This category is classified into two ideal models: Perfect
the latter is based onmixing
assumptions,
model and perfectincluding no mixing
displacement model. The former is between
based on the fresh
assumptioncharge
that freshand burned gas and
charge introduced into the cylinder per unit time is instantly mixed with residuals. On the contrary,
no direct loss of fresh charge into the exhaust port [6]. Figure 1 presents
the latter is based on assumptions, including no mixing between fresh charge and burned gas and no
an illustration of these
two concepts. direct loss of fresh charge into the exhaust port [6]. Figure 1 presents an illustration of these two
concepts.

(a) (b)
Figure 1. (a) Perfect mixing model; (b) perfect displacement model.
Figure 1. (a) Perfect mixing model; (b) perfect displacement model.
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 5 of 26

Corresponding equations are given as follows [30]:

ηS = 1 − e − λ S for the perfect mixing model (6)

(
λS for λS ≤ 1
ηS = for the perfect displacement model (7)
1 for λS > 1

Because these two ideal models are inherently deficient in accurate prediction about the trend
behavior of two-stroke engines, detailed investigations of the scavenging process are improbable [31].
For further improvements, the single-zone Benson model was proposed and regarded as a combination
of the above-mentioned two ideal models [32]. By integrating them, the single-zone Benson model
assumes that the whole scavenging process can be divided into two phases: The perfect displacement
model acts in the first phase and the perfect mixing model acts in the second phase [6]. A critical
variable, the “displacement ratio”, is defined as follows:

Vbg
x= (8)
Vall

where Vbg is the instant burned gas volume in the cylinder, and Vall is the whole cylinder volume.
After some rearrangements of the above-mentioned models, scavenging parameters can be given [31]:
(
λS for λS ≤ x
ηS = (9)
1 − (1 − x ) e x − λ S for λS > x
(
0 for λS ≤ x
β= (10)
1 − (1 − x ) e x − λ S for λS > x

where β is the mass fraction of fresh charge in exhaust gas and represents the exhaust gas purity.
The lower the β value, the less fresh charge leaking out of the cylinder.
It can be concluded that x is the two-phase demarcation point. The larger the x value, the closer
the scavenging process is to the perfect displacement model, and vice versa, the closer to the perfect
mixing model. Therefore, the larger the x value, the better the scavenging consequence. In practical
applications, x needs to be determined by experimental data fitting.
Based on the existing single-zone Benson model, the Benson/Bradham model considers the
short circuit loss of fresh charge and broadens into a multi-zone multi-phase scavenging model.
The phase/zone concept of the Benson/Bradham model is shown in Figure 2. By additionally
introducing a key parameter, the short-circuiting fraction, y, while following the pre-established
two-phase assumption, the Benson/Bradham model significantly reduces the insufficiency of
the scavenging models above. The explicit functional relation of scavenging parameters can be
determined by:
for λS ≤ 1−x y
(
(1 − y ) λ S
ηS = (11)
1 − (1 − x )e x−(1−y)λS for λS > 1−x y

for λS ≤ 1−x y
(
y
β= (12)
1 − (1 − x )(1 − y)e x−(1−y)λS for λS > 1−x y

It can be derived that the Benson/Bradham model will be reduced to a single-zone Benson model
when y is 0. With an appropriate parameter variation of the displacement ratio, x, and short-circuiting
fraction, y, every scavenging system can be approximated [32]. The closer x is to 1 and the closer
y is to 0, the better the quality of the whole scavenging process, and eventually the better working
performance of the two-stroke engine. Figure 3 displays a set of different parameter configuration
variation curves as a demonstration of the Benson/Bradham model equations.
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 6 of 26

Compared with general scavenging process indicators, the Benson/Bradham model provides a
more comprehensive method
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR for the scavenging process and subsequent scavenging system6 optimal
PEER REVIEW of 28
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 28
design. However, little attention has been paid to this significant aspect concerning the application
of a precise
of a more more precise Benson/Bradham
Benson/Bradham model
model ininthe
theoptimizing
optimizing process.
process. Therefore,
Therefore,thethe
key parameters,
key parameters,
of a more precise Benson/Bradham model in the optimizing process. Therefore, the key parameters,
𝑥 of
x and𝑥y, and 𝑦,Benson/Bradham
of the Benson/Bradham model are employed to construct an objective functionand
andserve
serve
and 𝑦, of the Benson/Bradham model are employed to construct an objective function and serve as a
the model are employed to construct an objective function
as a
port optimalport optimal design criteria for the scavenging system of the two-stroke small areoengine.
as a port design
optimalcriteria for thefor
design criteria scavenging system
the scavenging of the
system two-stroke
of the small
two-stroke smallareoengine.
areoengine.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Phase/zone concept of the Benson/Bradham model: (a) Phase I; (b) Phase II.
Figure
Figure 2. Phase/zone
2. Phase/zone conceptofofthe
concept theBenson/Bradham
Benson/Bradham model:
model:(a) (a)
Phase I; (b)I;Phase
Phase II. II.
(b) Phase

3. Scavenging
FigureFigure efficiency-delivery
3. Scavenging ratio
efficiency-delivery relationship
ratio relationshipof
of the
the Benson/Bradham model.
Benson/Bradham model.
Figure 3. Scavenging efficiency-delivery ratio relationship of the Benson/Bradham model.
2.2. 1D GT Power Simulation Model
2.2. 1D GT Power Simulation Model
2.2. 1D GT Power Simulation Model
Appropriate boundary
Appropriate boundary conditions
conditions and initial
and initialconditions
conditions are are indispensable prerequisites
indispensable prerequisites for for
3D 3D
Appropriate
CFD simulation. Some boundary
physical conditions
quantities and initial
within themconditions
(e.g., are indispensable
initial fluid state inprerequisites
different for 3Dinside
regions
CFD simulation. Some physical quantities within them (e.g., initial fluid state in different regions
CFD simulation.
the engine) Some physical quantities within them (e.g., initial
Tofluid statethein different regions
inside are
thedifficult
engine) to arebe directly
difficult to measured
be directlyby experiment.
measured acquire
by experiment. needed
To acquire theparameters,
needed
inside the engine) are difficult to be directly measured by experiment. To acquire the needed
a 1D simulation
parameters,model of the prototype
a 1D simulation model ofengine is established
the prototype engine iswith GT Power.
established with GT Power.
parameters, a 1D simulation model of the prototype engine is established with GT Power.
FigureFigure 4 displays
4 displays the specific
the specific architecture
architecture ofofthethe1D1DGTGTPower
Power simulation
simulationmodel.model. AA two-stroke
two-stroke
Figure 4 displays the specific architecture of the 1D GT Power simulation model. A two-stroke
small
smallsmall areoengine
areoengine for forfor
UAVs UAVs is selected
is isselected as the research focus in this paper. This spark-ignition
areoengine UAVs selectedas as the
the research
research focusfocusininthisthispaper.
paper. ThisThis spark-ignition
spark-ignition
prototype
prototype engine engine
is a is a single
single point point injection(SPI)
injection (SPI)gasoline
gasoline engine
engine andand employs
employs a atwo-cylinder
two-cylinder
prototype engine is a single point injection (SPI) gasoline engine and employs a two-cylinder
horizontally-opposed arrangement (i.e., the boxer) scheme. Moreover, it is a crankcase scavenged
horizontally-opposed arrangement (i.e., the boxer) scheme. Moreover,
horizontally-opposed arrangement (i.e., the boxer) scheme. Moreover, it is a crankcase scavenged it is a crankcase scavenged
engine and the gas flow admitted to the crankcase is controlled by reed valves. Two percent synthetic
engine and the
engine and gas flow
the gas admitted
flow admitted totothethecrankcase
crankcase is is controlled
controlledbyby reed
reed valves.
valves. TwoTwo percent
percent synthetic
synthetic
oil with 93 octane petrol is used as engine fuel. It is important to mention that exhaust emissions is
oil with
oil with 93 octane petrol is used as enginefuel.
fuel. It
It is important totomention that exhaust emissions is
not selected as the research focus in this paper because military UAVs equipped with this prototype is
93 octane petrol is used as engine important mention that exhaust emissions
not selected
not selected as as the
the research
research focus
focus in inthis
thispaper
paper because
because military
military UAVs
UAVs equipped
equipped with this this
with prototype
prototype
engine generally have no stringent requirements on pollution emissions. Relatively simple straight
engine
engine generally
generally havehave
no no stringent
stringent requirements on
requirements on pollution
pollution emissions.
emissions. Relatively
Relativelysimple straight
simple straight
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 7 of 26
Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 28

exhaust
exhaust pipes
pipesare
areemployed
employed on onthe
thetest
testbed
bedand
andcorresponding
correspondingparts
partsare
areconstructed
constructedin
inthe
theGT
GTPower
Power
simulation
simulation model for the sake of simplicity. Therefore, the workload during the modelling process
model for the sake of simplicity. Therefore, the workload during the modelling process
can
canbe
bereduced
reducedwhile
whilethetheobtained
obtainedsimulation
simulationresults
resultswill
willnot
notbe
besignificantly
significantlyaffected.
affected. The
Theprototype
prototype
engine specifications are listed in Table
engine specifications are listed in Table 1.1.

GTPower
Figure4.4.GT
Figure Powersimulation
simulationmodel
modelarchitecture.
architecture.

Table 1. Prototype engine specifications.

Table 1. Prototype engine specifications.
Parameters Value Unit
Parameters Value Unit
Total displacement 498 cm3
Total displacement 498 cm3
Bore 75 mm
Bore
Stroke 7556 mm
mm
Stroke rod
Connecting 56
110 mm
mm
Compress ratio
Connecting rod 10.6
110 mm -
Rated power 32 kW
Compress ratio 10.6 -
Rated speed 6500 r/min
Rated power
Rated torque 3247 kW
N·m
Number Rated speed ports
of scavenging 65003 r/min
-
Number
Rated of torque
exhaust ports 471 N·m-
Scavenging port opening 110 ◦ CA
Number of scavenging ports 3 -
◦ CA
Exhaust port opening 94
Number of exhaust
Scavenging port closing
ports 1
250
-
◦ CA
Scavenging port opening
Exhaust port closing 110
266 °CA
◦ CA
Exhaust
Ignition timing port opening load)
(high/partial 94
347/352 ◦ CA
°CA
Ambient temperature
Scavenging port closing 298
250 K
°CA
Ambient pressure 1.013 bar
Exhaust port closing 266 °CA
Intake pressure 1.105 bar
Ignition Exhaust
timing (high/partial
back pressure load) 347/352
1.013 °CA
bar
Ambient
Assumed temperature
air fuel ratio 298
13.24 K-
Equivalence
Ambient ratio
pressure 1.11
1.013 -
bar
Intake pressure 1.105 bar
Exhaust back pressure 1.013 bar
To guarantee the accuracy, corresponding configuration parameters of the GT Power simulation
Assumed
model are precisely calibrated. In-cylinderair fuel ratio is an important
pressure 13.24 working- performance index and its
Equivalence
variation curve can be accurately measuredratio 1.11
on the test bed. Therefore, -
in-cylinder pressure is selected
as the calibration target and thus we adjust the parameter settings accordingly to make sure that the
To guarantee
simulation the accuracy,
curve matches corresponding
well with the measured configuration parameters
curve. As described of thethe
below, GTmost
Power simulation
quintessential
model are conditions
operating precisely calibrated.
of the UAV In-cylinder
equipped pressure is an important
with the prototype engineworking
are the highperformance index
load take-off and
(speed
its variation curve can be accurately measured on the test bed. Therefore, in-cylinder
6000 r/min, throttle opening 100%), and the partial load cruise (speed 4500 r/min, throttle opening pressure is
selected as the calibration target and thus we adjust the parameter settings accordingly
40%). As a consequence, we carry out the prototype test under these two operating conditions and to make sure
that the simulation
measure curve
the in-cylinder matches
curves on thewell
test with the measured
bed. Based curve. As
on the measured described
in-cylinder below,
curves, thethe most
pressure
quintessential operating conditions of the UAV equipped with the prototype engine
diagrams can be obtained and applied for GT Power model calibration. As shown in Figure 5, the are the high load
GT
take-off (speed 6000
Power simulation r/min,
model throttle opening
is validated against100%), and thedata
experimental partial load of
in terms cruise (speed 4500pressure
the in-cylinder r/min,
throttle
during opening 40%).engine
the complete As a consequence,
cycle and thewe carry out the
comparative prototype
results display test under these
a perfect two operating
matching. Based on
conditions and measure the in-cylinder curves on the test bed. Based on the
the GT Power simulation model, tremendous characteristic parameters (e.g., the back pressure measured in-cylinder
of the
curves, the pressure diagrams can be obtained and applied for GT Power model calibration.
exhaust ports, the intake pressure of the scavenging ports, the mass flow into and out of the crankcase, As
shown in Figure 5, the GT Power simulation model is validated against experimental data in terms
of the in-cylinder pressure during the complete engine cycle and the comparative results display a
perfect matching. Based on the GT Power simulation model, tremendous characteristic parameters
Energies 2017,
Energies 10,10,
2017, x FOR PEER
x FOR REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 8 8of of
2828
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 8 of 26

(e.g.,
(e.g.,the
theback
backpressure
pressureofofthe
theexhaust
exhaustports,
ports,the
theintake
intakepressure
pressureofofthe
thescavenging
scavengingports,
ports,the
themass
mass
flow into
flowthe
and and out
intoinitial
and out of the crankcase,
of the crankcase,
temperatures and the initial
and the initial
of the cylinder, temperatures
temperatures
the exhaust of the cylinder,
of the cylinder,
duct, and the
combustion exhaust
thechamber duct,
exhaust duct, and
wall) and
can
the
becombustion
the combustion
exported forchamber
chamber wall)
subsequentwall)
3Dcan bebe
can
CFD exported
exported
simulations.for subsequent
for subsequent 3D
3D CFD
CFD simulations.
simulations.

(a)(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure5.5.5.Comparison
Comparison
Comparison ofin-cylinder
of ofin-cylinder
in-cylinderpressure
pressure
pressure curves
curves curves between
between between the
theexperiment
and GT and
experiment
the experiment andGT
Power GTPower
Power
simulation.
simulation.
simulation.
(a) High load(a) High load
(a)operating
High loadoperating condition;
operating(b)
condition; (b)
condition; partial load
(b) operating
partial load operating
partial load condition.
operating condition.
condition.

2.3.3D
2.3. 3D AVL
AVL FIRESimulation
FIRE Simulation Model
2.3. 3D AVL FIRE SimulationModelModel
Important
Important engine parts of thescavenging
scavenging system (e.g.,piston,
piston, cylinder,andand cylinderhead)
head) are
Importantengine
engineparts
partsofofthe
the scavengingsystem
system(e.g.,
(e.g., piston,cylinder,
cylinder, andcylinder
cylinder head)areare
3D-scannedtotobuild
3D-scanned buildthe
thefundamental
fundamentalcomputer
computeraided
aideddesign
design(CAD)
(CAD)model.
model.On Onthe
thebasis
basisofofmassive
massive
3D-scanned to build the fundamental computer aided design (CAD) model. On the basis of massive
pointcloud
point cloud data,corresponding
corresponding CADmodels models arereconstructed.
reconstructed. Figure 6 showsananexample
example of the
point clouddata,
data, correspondingCAD CAD modelsare are reconstructed.Figure
Figure6 6shows
shows an exampleofofthe the
comparison
comparison ofof the
the engine
engine cylinder
cylinder between
between the
the reconstruction
reconstruction CAD
CAD result
result andand the
the actual
actual part.
part.
comparison of the engine cylinder between the reconstruction CAD result and the actual part.

(a)(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure
Figure6. 6.
Comparison
6. ofof
Comparison
Comparison the
of engine
the
the cylinder.
engine
engine (a)(a)
cylinder.
cylinder. Reconstruction
(a) computer
Reconstruction
Reconstruction aided
computer
computer design
aided
aided (CAD)
design
design result;
(CAD)
(CAD) result;
result;
(b) actual
(b) actualpart.
part.
(b) actual part.

ByBy parameterizingthe
Byparameterizing
the maindesign
parameterizing themain
design considerationsofofthe
main designconsiderations
the scavengingsystem,
considerations of thescavenging
system, thewhole
scavenging system,the
whole fluid
the wholefluid
fluid
domainmodel
domain model is establishedinina aCATIA CATIA environment.It Ithas has to be mentionedthatthat somegeometric
geometric
domain modelis isestablished
established in a CATIAenvironment.environment. It hastotobebementioned
mentioned thatsome some geometric
characteristics
characteristics aresimplified
are simplifiedfor forthe
thesake
sakeofofthethe perfect
perfect compatibility
compatibility ofof the
the whole
whole model
model with
with 3D3D mesh
mesh
characteristics are simplified for the sake of the perfect compatibility of the whole model with 3D mesh
generation.
generation. Subsequently, the meshing process is implemented using AVL FIRE software. The whole
generation.Subsequently,
Subsequently,the themeshing
meshingprocess
processis isimplemented
implementedusing
usingAVL
AVLFIRE
FIREsoftware.
software.TheThewhole
whole
modelisis divided
model into the static (scavenging ports, exhaust ports) and theand
moving part (the combustion
model isdivided
dividedintointothethestatic
static(scavenging
(scavengingports, ports,exhaust
exhaustports)
ports) andthethemoving
movingpart part(the
(the
chamber,
combustion crankcase).
chamber, Fame Hexa
crankcase). Meshing
Fame Hexa (FEM) and
Meshing Fame
(FEM)Engine
and Plus
Fame (FEP) methods
Engine Plus are respectively
(FEP) methods
combustion chamber, crankcase). Fame Hexa Meshing (FEM) and Fame Engine Plus (FEP) methods
applied
are to generate
respectively appliedthetostatic and the
generate the transient
static andmeshes.
the Beforemeshes.
transient assembling these
Before two meshes,
assembling thesespecial
two
are respectively applied to generate the static and the transient meshes. Before assembling these two
“arbitrary interface” needs to be defined to realize the precise connectivity between them.
 Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 28
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 9 of 26

meshes, special “arbitrary interface” needs to be defined to realize the precise connectivity between
them.
Figure 7 shows the simplified fluid domain model of the scavenging system in a CATIA
Figure 7 shows the simplified fluid domain model of the scavenging system in a CATIA
environment and the corresponding CFD calculation model in an AVL FIRE environment, where part
environment and the corresponding CFD calculation model in an AVL FIRE environment, where part
A is the
A iscentral scavenging
the central port,
scavenging part
port, partBB1 1and
and B arethe
B22are thelateral
lateral scavenging
scavenging ports,
ports, partpart C iscrankcase,
C is the the crankcase,
part part
D is Dthe combustion chamber, and part E is the exhaust
is the combustion chamber, and part E is the exhaust port. port.

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 7. Scavengingsystem
7. Scavenging systemmodel.
model. (a)
(a)CAD
CADmodel;
model;(b)(b)
CFD calculation
CFD model.
calculation model.

Accurate
Accurate boundary
boundary conditionsand
conditions andinitial
initial conditions
conditionsare arefundamental
fundamental prerequisites for 3D
prerequisites forCFD
3D CFD
simulation and these can be provided by 1D GT Power simulation results.
simulation and these can be provided by 1D GT Power simulation results. Main specificationsMain specifications and and
condition
condition parameters
parameters areare listed
listed in in Table
Table 2. 2.
It It
is is crucial
crucial thatthe
that therelevant
relevantparameter
parameter configuration
configuration in in AVL
AVL FIRE should match with that in the GT Power model to guarantee the reliability of results
FIRE should match with that in the GT Power model to guarantee the reliability of results obtained
obtained from the simulation. For example, the ambient conditions set in AVL FIRE are exactly the
from the simulation. For example, the ambient conditions set in AVL FIRE are exactly the same as
same as those in GT Power for consistency.
those in GT Power for consistency.
Table 2. Main specifications and condition parameters in AVL FIRE.
Table 2. Main specifications and condition parameters in AVL FIRE.
Condition Parameters High Load Partial Load
Condition Parameters
Engine speed (rpm) High Load
6000 Partial Load
4500
Fuel
Engine speed (rpm) 2% synthetic oil
6000with 93 octane petrol
4500
AssumedFuel air fuel ratio 13.24
2% synthetic oil with 93 octane petrol
Equivalence
Assumed air fuelratio
ratio 1.11 13.24
Equivalence
Ambient ratio (K)
temperature 298 1.11
Ambient
Ambienttemperature
pressure (bar) (K) 1.013 298
Ambient pressure(bar)
Intake pressure (bar) 1.105 1.013
Intake pressure (bar)
Exhaust back pressure (bar) 1.013 1.105
Exhaust back pressure (bar) 1.013
Ignition timing (°CA) 347 352
Ignition timing (◦ CA) 347 352
Boundary temperature of the combustion
Boundary temperature of the combustion chamber wall (K) 528 528 497 497
chamber wall
Boundary temperature of the(K)crankcase (K) 330 312
Boundary
Boundary temperature of the crankcase
temperature of the cylinder (K)(K) 330 504 312 480
Boundary
Boundary temperature
temperature of of
thethe cylinder
exhaust duct(K)
(K) 504 476 480 460
Boundary temperatureof
Initial temperature ofthe
thecrankcase
exhaust duct(K) (K) 476 364 460 358
Initialtemperature
Initial pressure of the crankcase
of the crankcase(bar)
(K) 364 1.105 358 0.984
Initial
Initial temperature
pressure of theof the cylinder(bar)
crankcase (K) 1.105 1719 0.984 1476
Initialtemperature
Initial pressure of the cylinder
of the (bar)
cylinder (K) 1719 4.922 1476 3.017
Initial temperature of the exhaust duct (bar) 1.013 1.013
Initial pressure of the exhaust duct (K) 734 582

Regarding the solver settings in AVL FIRE, the species transport module and combustion module
are activated. The standard transport model (STM) and extended coherent flame model (ECFM) are
 Initial pressure of the cylinder (bar) 4.922 3.017
Initial temperature of the exhaust duct (bar) 1.013 1.013
Initial pressure of the exhaust duct (K) 734 582

Regarding
Energies the
2018, 11, 2739 solver settings in AVL FIRE, the species transport module and combustion 10 of 26
module are activated. The standard transport model (STM) and extended coherent flame model
(ECFM) are selected. Both the boundary conditions and initial conditions are derived from the 1D GT
selected.
Power Both theresults.
simulation boundary Fluidconditions
propertiesand are initial
given byconditions
experimental are derived from theThe
measurements. 1Dextrapolate
GT Power
simulation results. Fluid properties are given by experimental measurements.
method is used for the calculation of boundary values and the least squared fit method is employed The extrapolate method
is used
to for the
calculate calculation
derivatives. of boundary
Several variable values and the
limits (e.g., least squared fit method
maximum/minimum temperature,is employed
minimum to
calculate derivatives. Several variable limits (e.g., maximum/minimum
density, minimum turbulence kinetic energy (TKE), and maximum velocity magnitude) are set to temperature, minimum
density, minimum
eliminate abnormalturbulence
results. Becausekinetictheenergy (TKE),of
cell number andthemaximum
full-scale CFDvelocity
model magnitude)
amounts to are710,519
set to
eliminate
at the topabnormal
dead centerresults.
(TDC) Because the cellatnumber
and 914,533 of thedead
the bottom full-scale
centerCFD model
(BDC), amounts
a cell qualitytocheck
710,519andat
the top dead center (TDC) and 914,533 at the bottom dead center (BDC),
cell face adjustment function is applied for mesh smoothing and fine tuning during the simulation a cell quality check and cell
face adjustment
process. function
The hybrid wallistreatment
applied for mesh option
(HWT) smoothingis usedandfor finewall
tuning during and
treatment the simulation
the standard process.
wall
The hybrid wall treatment (HWT) option is used for wall treatment
function (SWF) is selected as the heat transfer wall model. Momentum, continuity, and energy and the standard wall function
(SWF)
equationsis selected
are all as the heat transfer
considered. Besides,wallthe model. Momentum,
k-ζ-f model is applied continuity,
to captureandturbulence.
energy equations
The semi-are
all considered.
implicit methodBesides, the k-ζ-f
for pressure model
linked is applied
equations to capture
(SIMPLE) turbulence.
algorithm The semi-implicit
is adopted method
with a two-stage
for pressure linked equations (SIMPLE) algorithm is adopted with
pressure correction. Differencing schemes of continuity, energy, and momentum equations are a two-stage pressure correction.
Differencing
central schemes of
differencing, continuity,
upwind energy, andand
differencing, momentum
MINMOD equations
relaxed,arerespectively.
central differencing, upwind
Corresponding
differencing, and factors
under-relaxation MINMOD and relaxed,
convergencerespectively.
criteria ofCorresponding
these equations under-relaxation
are also determined. factors and
The
convergence criteria of these equations are also determined. The gradient
gradient stabilized biconjugate (GSTB) method is selected as the linear solver type for the solution of stabilized biconjugate
(GSTB) method is selected as the linear solver type for the solution of main equations.
main equations.
The time before
The time before exhaust
exhaustport portopening
openingisisselected
selectedasasthe the start
start ofof simulation
simulation calculation,
calculation, because
because the
the combustion process has ended by that time and the temperature
combustion process has ended by that time and the temperature and composition distribution in the and composition distribution
in the cylinder
cylinder remainremain relatively
relatively stable. Itstable.
can beItseencan from
be seenTablefrom Table
1 that 1 that
the the exhaust
exhaust port openingport opening
is 94 °CA. is
94 ◦ CA. Therefore, the simulation calculation ranges from 90 ◦ CA to 450 ◦ CA to complete a two-stroke
Therefore, the simulation calculation ranges from 90 °CA to 450 °CA to complete a two-stroke engine
engineModel
cycle. cycle. configurations
Model configurations
of the AVL of the
FIRE AVL FIRE simulation
simulation are similarlyare adjusted
similarly to adjusted to match
match well with
well
corresponding measured data. Figure 8 presents the comparison of in-cylinder pressurepressure
with corresponding measured data. Figure 8 presents the comparison of in-cylinder curves
curves between
between the experiment
the experiment and AVL andFIRE
AVL simulation.
FIRE simulation. As shown As shown in Figure
in Figure 8, the8, reliability
the reliability of the
of the 3D
3D AVL FIRE simulation model has been verified, which lays a solid
AVL FIRE simulation model has been verified, which lays a solid foundation for the follow-up foundation for the follow-up
optimal design.
optimal design.

(a) (b)
Figure 8.8.Comparison
Comparison of of in-cylinder
in-cylinder pressure
pressure curves curves
between between the experiment
the experiment and AVL and
FIRE AVL FIRE
simulation.
simulation.
(a) High load(a)operating
High load operating(b)
condition; condition; (b) operating
partial load partial load operating condition.
condition.

3. Orthogonal Experiment Design

3.1. Optimal Design Determinants

The essence of scavenging system optimization is the ports’ optimal design. It is mainly composed
of three aspects: The shapes and size of ports affect the resistance loss; the position of ports determines
the opening and closing time (i.e., the timing phase of scavenging process); the orientation of ports
determines the flowing direction of fresh charge and eventually has significant impacts on the
in-cylinder flow field. From the literature review, the first two have been thoroughly studied using
1D simulation platforms, such as GT Power and AVL Boost [8,16]. To make full use of the powerful
 The essence of scavenging system optimization is the ports’ optimal design. It is mainly
composed of three aspects: The shapes and size of ports affect the resistance loss; the position of ports
determines the opening and closing time (i.e., the timing phase of scavenging process); the orientation
of ports determines the flowing direction of fresh charge and eventually has significant impacts on
the in-cylinder flow field. From the literature review, the first two have been thoroughly studied
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 11 of 26
using 1D simulation platforms, such as GT Power and AVL Boost [8,16]. To make full use of the
powerful visualization tools provided by AVL FIRE, the orientation of ports is parameterized and
visualization
selected as thetools
mainprovided
research by AVL FIRE, the orientation of ports is parameterized and selected as the
object.
main research object.
The prototype engine scavenging system consists of three scavenging ports and one exhaust port
as shown The in
prototype
Figure 9.engine
For one scavenging
thing, thesystem
centralconsists
scavengingof three
portscavenging
has a clearports and one
tilt angle. exhaust port
Consequently,
as shown
fresh chargeinthrough
Figure 9. theFor one thing,
central the central
scavenging scavenging
port is port has
led to the upper a clear
part of thetilt angle. Consequently,
cylinder to sweep out
fresh
the chargegas.
burned through the central
For another, thescavenging
combinationport of
is led
twotolateral
the upper part of the
scavenging cylinder
ports to sweep
displays mirrorout
the burnedEach
symmetry. gas. ofFor another,
the two has the combination
a slip angle andofistwo lateral
biased scavenging
toward portsscavenging
the central displays mirror
port.symmetry.
Besides,
Each
the of the
lateral two has aports
scavenging slip angle and is
also have biased
a tilt toward
angle. the central
On account scavenging
of these port. Besides,
angles mentioned the swirl
above, lateral
scavenging
and tumble are ports also have
generated inathe
tilt gas
angle. On account
exchange of these
process. angles mentioned
Afterwards, above, into
they are broken swirlsmall-scale
and tumble
are generated
turbulence, whichin the gas exchange
contributes process.toAfterwards,
significantly air-fuel mixingtheyand
are flame
brokenpropagation.
into small-scale turbulence,
Moreover, the
which contributes
underside significantly
of the exhaust port is to air-fuel mixing
specifically and to
designed flame propagation.
be tilted Moreover,
for clearing the underside
the burned gas out ofof
thecylinder.
the exhaust port is specifically designed to be tilted for clearing the burned gas out of the cylinder.

Figure
Figure9.9.Ports’
Ports’arrangement
arrangementofofthe
theprototype
prototypeengine
enginescavenging
scavengingsystem.
system.

Fourparameters
Four parametersare areconsidered
consideredand andare
areoptimal
optimaldesign
designdeterminants:
determinants:Tilt Tiltangle
angleofofthe
thecentral
central
scavenging port, 𝛼 C; tilt angle of the lateral scavenging ports, 𝛼 ;l slip angle of the lateral scavenging
scavenging port, α ; tilt angle of the lateral scavenging ports, α ; slip angle of the lateral scavenging
ports, 𝛽β l;; and the
ports, the width
widthratioratioofof
thethe
central scavenging
central scavengingport,port, 𝛾 . first
γC . The The three
first parameters are defined
three parameters are
as shown in Figure 10. The width ratio of the central scavenging
defined as shown in Figure 10. The width ratio of the central scavenging port, γ C , port, 𝛾 , describes theof
describes the proportion
the mass flow
proportion entering
of the the cylinder
mass flow enteringthrough the central
the cylinder throughscavenging
the centralportscavenging
and is given by and
port the following
is given
equation
by [28]: equation [28]:
the following
L
γC = 𝐿 C (13)
𝛾 = L C + 2Ll (13)
𝐿 + 2𝐿
where LC is the width of the central scavenging port, and Ll is the width of the single lateral scavenging
where 𝐿 is on
port. Based thethe
width of theparameters
geometric central scavenging port, and
of the prototype 𝐿 is
engine the widthsystem,
scavenging of the an
single lateral
appropriate
scavenging port. Based on the geometric parameters of the prototype
geometric parameter table with four factors and five levels is given in Table 3: engine scavenging system, an
appropriate geometric parameter table with four factors and five levels is given in Table 3:
Table 3. Geometric parameter configuration.

Level αC (◦ ) αl (◦ ) β l (◦ ) γC LC (mm) Ll (mm)

1 45 −10 10 14.29% 12 36
2 50 0 20 19.05% 16 34
3 55 10 30 23.81% 20 32
4 60 20 40 28.57% 24 30
5 65 30 50 33.33% 28 28
 Level 𝜶𝑪 (°) 𝜶𝒍 (°) 𝜷𝒍 (°) 𝜸𝑪 𝑳𝑪 (mm) 𝑳𝒍 (mm)
1 45 −10 10 14.29% 12 36
2 50 0 20 19.05% 16 34
3 55 10 30 23.81% 20 32
4 60 20 40 28.57% 24 30
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 12 of 26
5 65 30 50 33.33% 28 28

Figure 10. Definitions of important geometric

Figure 10. geometric parameters.
parameters.

3.2.
3.2. Evaluation
Evaluation Objective
Objective Function
Function
Because each investigated
investigated factor
factorof ofthe
thefour
fourhashasfive
fivelevels,
levels, 4
Because each 54 5or or
625625
CFD CFD simulation
simulation casescases
are
are
required for traversing all the possible combinations of geometric parameters. Considering the
required for traversing all the possible combinations of geometric parameters. Considering the
enormous
enormous time time expenditure,
expenditure, the the OED
OED method
method is is adopted
adopted to to reduce
reduce the the number
number of of cases
cases to
to accelerate
accelerate
the whole simulation procedure. Regardless of the interaction effect
the whole simulation procedure. Regardless of the interaction effect between these investigated between these investigated
factors,
factors, the
the LL25 (56 ) orthogonal table is employed and four parameters mentioned-above are taken as
25 (56) orthogonal table is employed and four parameters mentioned-above are taken as
independent
independentvariables.
variables.AsAs a result, a remarkable
a result, a remarkable reduction takes place
reduction takesinplace
the total
in number
the totalof number
simulation of
cases, and only
simulation 25 cases
cases, need 25
and only to be executed
cases need as to shown in Table
be executed as4,shown
which means
in Tablethe4,corresponding
which meanstime the
cost is acceptable.
corresponding In the
time costwell-designed
is acceptable. orthogonal table, the frequency
In the well-designed of occurrences
orthogonal table, theoffrequency
each level ofof
each factor is the same for the sake of balance. On the basis of the OED results,
occurrences of each level of each factor is the same for the sake of balance. On the basis of the OED the estimated mean
values
results,ofthe
investigated
estimatedfactorsmeancan be used
values of to select the optimal
investigated factorscombination
can be used of independent
to select thevariables.
optimal
To
combination of independent variables. To evaluate the influence of each independentthe
evaluate the influence of each independent variable upon the dependent variable, significance
variable upon
level of each factor can be derived from the range analysis and variance analysis.
the dependent variable, the significance level of each factor can be derived from the range analysis
For the analysis.
and variance subsequent results analysis, an evaluation objective function based on the
Benson/Bradham
For the subsequentscavengingresults
model isanalysis,
selected as antheevaluation
dependent objective
variable forfunction
the designedbased orthogonal
on the
table as well as the
Benson/Bradham optimization
scavenging modelgoal. As shown
is selected as the above,
dependent the variable S −the
crucial ηfor relationship
λSdesigned of the
orthogonal
Benson/Bradham scavenging model satisfies Equation (11) and it can
table as well as the optimization goal. As shown above, the crucial 𝜂 − 𝜆 relationship of be derived that the closer x isthe
to
and the closer y is
1Benson/Bradham to 0, the better
scavenging modelthe scavenging
satisfies Equationquality.
(11) By
andthe AVLbeFIRE
it can simulation,
derived that thethe desired
closer 𝑥 is
ηtoS − relation curve of each case can be obtained and the corresponding
1 and the closer 𝑦 is to 0, the better the scavenging quality. By the AVL FIRE simulation,
λ S coefficients, x and y, canthebe
ascertained by curve fitting. Therefore, the sum of squares of the deviations of x and y from ideal
values is employed to construct the elementary evaluation objective function:

ηBB = (1 − x )2 + y2 (14)
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 13 of 26

Additionally, the scavenging quality under different operating conditions will also be different.
To establish the integrated objective function, the most quintessential operating conditions of the
UAV equipped with the prototype engine, including the high load take-off (speed 6000 r/min,
throttle opening 100%) and the partial load cruise (speed 4500 r/min, throttle opening 40%),
are considered simultaneously:
ηBB,c = ηBB,h + ηBB,p (15)

where ηBB,h is the evaluation objective function for the high load take-off, ηBB,p is the evaluation
objective function for the partial load cruise, and ηBB,c is the combination of the two above. Besides,
conventional performance indicators, IMEP and ISFC, are employed as constraint conditions to exclude
those cases failing to meet the basic power performance and fuel economy requirements.
(
IMEP ≥ 5.3 bar for the high load
s.t : (16)
IMEP ≥ 3.0 bar for the partial load
(
ISFC ≤ 260 g/(kW·h) for the high load
s.t : (17)
ISFC ≤ 310 g/(kW·h) for the partial load

Table 4. Designed orthogonal table.

No. αC (◦ ) αl (◦ ) β l (◦ ) γC
1 45 −10 10 14.29%
2 45 0 20 19.05%
3 45 10 30 23.81%
4 45 20 40 28.57%
5 45 30 50 33.33%
6 50 −10 20 23.81%
7 50 0 30 28.57%
8 50 10 40 33.33%
9 50 20 50 14.29%
10 50 30 10 19.05%
11 55 −10 30 33.33%
12 55 0 40 14.29%
13 55 10 50 19.05%
14 55 20 10 23.81%
15 55 30 20 28.57%
16 60 −10 40 19.05%
17 60 0 50 23.81%
18 60 10 10 28.57%
19 60 20 20 33.33%
20 60 30 30 14.29%
21 65 −10 50 28.57%
22 65 0 10 33.33%
23 65 10 20 14.29%
24 65 20 30 19.05%
25 65 30 40 23.81%

4. Simulation Results Analysis

4.1. OED Results Analysis

A total of 25 simulation cases are sequentially implemented by AVL FIRE. Table 5 displays the
overall simulation results; subscripts h and p refer to parameters for the high load and the partial
load, respectively.
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 14 of 26

Table 5. Overall simulation results.

No. λS,h ηT,h ηS,h xh yh ηBB,h λS,p ηT,p ηS,p xp yp ηBB,p ηBB,c
1 1.028 0.770 0.791 0.764 0.103 0.066 0.776 0.861 0.668 0.658 0.046 0.119 0.185
2 0.995 0.805 0.801 0.777 0.089 0.058 0.769 0.886 0.682 0.673 0.036 0.108 0.166
3 0.917 0.856 0.785 0.767 0.063 0.058 0.764 0.895 0.684 0.670 0.025 0.110 0.168
4 0.830 0.912 0.757 0.752 0.047 0.064 0.731 0.924 0.675 0.675 0.019 0.106 0.170
5 0.783 0.922 0.722 0.718 0.027 0.080 0.699 0.929 0.650 0.657 0.012 0.118 0.198
6 0.882 0.877 0.773 0.781 0.089 0.056 0.731 0.898 0.657 0.671 0.037 0.110 0.165
7 0.861 0.894 0.769 0.771 0.070 0.057 0.758 0.894 0.678 0.668 0.028 0.111 0.168
8 0.754 0.942 0.711 0.756 0.047 0.062 0.651 0.957 0.623 0.676 0.020 0.105 0.167
9 0.767 0.941 0.722 0.740 0.041 0.069 0.734 0.907 0.666 0.668 0.021 0.111 0.180
10 1.207 0.657 0.793 0.743 0.073 0.071 0.845 0.833 0.704 0.663 0.020 0.114 0.185
11 0.834 0.901 0.752 0.771 0.076 0.058 0.699 0.919 0.643 0.656 0.032 0.119 0.178
12 0.884 0.874 0.773 0.769 0.078 0.059 0.681 0.923 0.628 0.671 0.037 0.110 0.169
13 0.743 0.953 0.708 0.742 0.044 0.069 0.664 0.945 0.628 0.663 0.026 0.114 0.183
14 1.082 0.743 0.804 0.760 0.075 0.063 0.830 0.856 0.710 0.674 0.020 0.107 0.170
15 0.996 0.796 0.793 0.759 0.052 0.061 0.791 0.890 0.704 0.676 0.015 0.105 0.166
16 0.783 0.936 0.733 0.792 0.081 0.050 0.651 0.938 0.611 0.664 0.038 0.114 0.164
17 0.727 0.963 0.700 0.738 0.085 0.076 0.634 0.954 0.605 0.656 0.026 0.119 0.195
18 1.015 0.796 0.809 0.780 0.077 0.054 0.813 0.866 0.703 0.663 0.023 0.114 0.168
19 0.992 0.809 0.802 0.771 0.057 0.056 0.807 0.905 0.731 0.691 0.019 0.096 0.152
20 0.914 0.845 0.773 0.760 0.075 0.063 0.852 0.850 0.724 0.685 0.022 0.100 0.163
21 0.719 0.953 0.685 0.720 0.056 0.082 0.641 0.959 0.615 0.656 0.028 0.119 0.201
22 0.958 0.829 0.794 0.779 0.082 0.056 0.788 0.871 0.687 0.650 0.028 0.123 0.179
23 1.032 0.785 0.811 0.783 0.082 0.054 0.833 0.848 0.706 0.669 0.030 0.110 0.164
24 0.949 0.836 0.794 0.775 0.058 0.054 0.794 0.891 0.708 0.680 0.022 0.103 0.157
25 0.869 0.896 0.778 0.761 0.035 0.058 0.751 0.934 0.702 0.698 0.016 0.091 0.151

Take the high load take-off operating condition as an example, the scatterplots of 25 cases are
shown in Figure 11. With respect to the delivery ratio, λS,h , and scavenging efficiency, ηS,h , Figure 11a
shows that a positive correlation exists between λS,h and ηS,h , which is in accordance with previously
discussed analysis. In terms of teh delivery ratio, λS,h , and trapping efficiency, ηT,h , Figure 11b shows
that a linearly drop can be observed in ηT,h with the increasing λS,h . Intuitively, we can corroborate
that the trade-off relationship between the fuel economy indicator, ηT , and the power performance
indicator, λS , indeed exists for the prototype engine scavenging system, which makes it difficult to
improve power
Energies 2017, performance
10, x FOR while keeping fuel consumption low.
PEER REVIEW 15 of 28

(a) (b)
Figure 11.
Figure 11. The
The high
high load
load results.
results. (a)
(a) Scavenging
Scavenging efficiency;
efficiency; (b)
(b) trapping
trapping efficiency.
efficiency.

Take the12high
Figure load take-off
presents operating
the detailed condition
comparison as an
results example,
between the the
highscatterplots
load and theof 25 casesload.
partial are
shown
As shownin Figure 11. With
in Figure respect
12a–c, to the
all the scavenging ratio, λS,h𝜂, and
delivery indexes, , 𝜂 ,scavenging
and 𝜆 , generally
efficiency, ηS,h , Figure
exhibit 11a
a positive
correlation when comparing the two operating conditions. For instance, the higher 𝜂 , , the higher
𝜂 , . However, the linearity is not high, which indicates the same geometric parameter configuration
will vary in scavenging performance under different operating conditions. With regards to the
evaluation objective function, Figure 12d shows that there exists no obvious relationship between
𝜂 , and 𝜂 , . Therefore, it is indeed necessary to consider multiple operating conditions to
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 15 of 26

shows that a positive correlation exists between λS,h and ηS,h , which is in accordance with previously
discussed analysis. In terms of teh delivery ratio, λS,h , and trapping efficiency, ηT,h , Figure 11b shows
that a linearly drop can be observed in ηT,h with the increasing λS,h . Intuitively, we can corroborate
(a) (b)
that the trade-off relationship between the fuel economy indicator, ηT , and the power performance
indicator, λS , Figure
indeed11. The high
exists for theloadprototype
results. (a)engine
Scavenging efficiency;
scavenging (b) trapping
system, which efficiency.
makes it difficult to
improve power performance while keeping fuel consumption low.
Figure 12
Figure 12 presents
presents the
the detailed
detailed comparison
comparison results
results between
between the the high
high load
load and
and the
the partial
partial load.
load.
As shown
As shown in in Figure
Figure 12a–c,
12a–c, all
all the
the scavenging indexes, η𝜂 ,, η𝜂 , , and
scavenging indexes, andλ𝜆 , , generally
generally exhibit
exhibit aa positive
positive
S T S
correlation when comparing the two operating conditions. For instance, the
correlation when comparing the two operating conditions. For instance, the higher ηT,h , the, higher higher 𝜂 , the higher
ηT,p .
𝜂 , . However,
However, the linearity is not high, which indicates the same geometric parameter
the linearity is not high, which indicates the same geometric parameter configuration will configuration
will in
vary vary in scavenging
scavenging performance
performance under different
under different operatingoperating
conditions. conditions.
With regards With to regards to the
the evaluation
evaluation objective function, Figure 12d shows that there exists no obvious
objective function, Figure 12d shows that there exists no obvious relationship between ηBB,h and ηBB,p . relationship between
𝜂 , andit 𝜂is indeed
Therefore, , . Therefore,
necessary it to
is consider
indeed necessary to consider
multiple operating multiple
conditions operatingcomprehensive
to establish conditions to
establish comprehensive
optimal design criteria. optimal design criteria.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 12.
Figure 12. Comparison
Comparison between
between thethe high
high load
load results
results and
andthe
thepartial
partialload
loadresults.
results. (a)
(a) Scavenging
Scavenging
efficiency;(b)
efficiency; (b)trapping
trappingefficiency;
efficiency;(c)
(c)delivery
deliveryratio;
ratio;(d)
(d)evaluation
evaluationobjective
objectivefunction.
function.

The desired ηS,h − λS,h relation curve of one of the 25 cases is shown in Figure 13a. The root-mean-
square error of the corresponding curve fitting is in the order of 10−4 , indicating that the fitting curve
matches well with the simulation result. In addition, the satisfying fitting result proves that the
whole scavenging process of the prototype engine can be precisely described by the Benson/Bradham
scavenging model. As for the coefficients, xh and yh , Figure 13b shows that there exists no clear
relationship in the scatterplot, which means these two key parameters change independently. It is
 The desired 𝜂 , − 𝜆 , relation curve of one of the 25 cases is shown in Figure 13a. The root-mean-
square error of the corresponding curve fitting is in the order of 10−4, indicating that the fitting curve
matches well with the simulation result. In addition, the satisfying fitting result proves that the whole
scavenging
Energies 2018, 11,process
2739 of the prototype engine can be precisely described by the Benson/Bradham 16 of 26
scavenging model. As for the coefficients, 𝑥 and 𝑦 , Figure 13b shows that there exists no clear
relationship in the scatterplot, which means these two key parameters change independently. It is
worthy
worthyof ofspecial
specialmention
mentionthat
thatthe
thepartial
partialload
loadcondition
conditionisisvery
verysimilar,
similar,thus
thusrelated
relateddiscussions
discussionsareare
not repeated.
not repeated.

(a) (b)
Figure13.
Figure 13.The
Thehigh
highload
loadresults.
results.(a)
(a)Comparison
Comparison between
between the
the simulation
simulation result
result and
and the
the fitting
fitting curve;
curve;
(b)scatterplot
(b) scatterplotof coefficients,xh𝑥 and
ofcoefficients, yh .𝑦 .
and

As
Asmentioned above, η𝜂BB,c, isisdetermined
mentionedabove, determinedasasthe
thedependent
dependentvariable
variablefor
forthe
thedesigned
designedorthogonal
orthogonal
table as well as the optimization goal. To make the indicating coefficients, 𝑥 y,
table as well as the optimization goal. To make the indicating coefficients, x and 𝑦, approach
approach
and as close
as
as possible
close to the to
as possible ideal
thevalues, respectively,
ideal values, 𝜂 , toneeds
ηBB,c needs
respectively, be minimized:
to be minimized:
𝑀𝑖𝑛
Min (𝜂 ) , =) =
(ηBB,c 𝑓(𝛼, α, ,𝛼β, ,𝛽γ, 𝛾) )
f (α (18)
(18)
C l l C
Based on the above OED results, the mean values of the different levels of each factor are
Based as
calculated onshown
the above OED6.results,
in Table It can bethe mean values
concluded of the
that the different
effect order oflevels of eachlevels
the various factor
ofare
the
calculated as shown in Table 6. It can be concluded that the effect order of the various levels of
four investigated factors on 𝜂 , is: A1 > A2 = A3 > A5 > A4, B1 > B 2> B5 > B3 > B4, C5 > C1 > C3 > C4 > C2, D4 the four
investigated
= D5 > D1 > Dfactors on ηBB,c is: the
2 > D3. Therefore,
A1 >best
A2 factors
= A3 > A 5 > A4 , B1 > is
combination B 2determined
> B5 > B3 > B as4 , A
C45B>4CC2D
1> C3 > C4 >𝛼C2=,
3, namely
D60°,
4 = D > D
𝛼 5 = 20°,> D > D
1 𝛽 2 = 20°, . Therefore,
3 and 𝛾 = 23.81%.the best factors combination is determined as A 4 4 2 D3 , namely
B C
◦ ◦ ◦
αC = 60 , αl = 20 , β l = 20 , and γC = 23.81%.
Table 6. Mean values calculation results.
Table 6. Mean values calculation results.
Level A (𝜶𝑪 ) B (𝜶𝒍 ) C (𝜷𝒍 ) D (𝜸𝑪 )
Level
1 A (α0.1774
C) B (α0.1787
l) C (β l )0.1776 D (γC0.1723
)
12 0.1733 0.1787
0.1774 0.1754 0.17760.1626 0.1723 0.1710
23 0.1733 0.1754
0.1733 0.1701 0.16260.1667 0.1710 0.1696
34 0.1733
0.1684 0.1701
0.1656 0.16670.1640 0.1696 0.1746
45 0.1684
0.1701 0.1656
0.1724 0.16400.1913 0.1746 0.1746
5 0.1701 0.1724 0.1913 0.1746
Range analysis is conducted with the results shown in Table 7. The effect order of the
investigated
Range analysis on 𝜂 , is:
factorsis conducted with 𝛽 the 𝛼 > shown
> results 𝛼 > 𝛾in ;Table
obviously the slip
7. The effect angle
order of theofinvestigated
the lateral
scavenging
factors on ηBB,c is: β𝛽l >
ports, , isαlthe
> αmost
C > γsignificant
C ; obviouslyfactor
the among
slip the
angle offour.
the lateral scavenging ports, β l , is the
most significant factor among the four.

Table 7. Range analysis results.

Factors Range
αC 0.0090
αl 0.0131
βl 0.0287
γC 0.0050
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 17 of 26

Table 8 displays the variance analysis results. The effect order of the investigated factors on ηBB,c
is: β l > αl > αC > γC ; which is exactly the same as the range analysis. The significance level for the
variance analysis is set as α = 0.05. It can be observed from Table 8 that the p-value of β l is 0.00131
< 0.01, which means β l has the most significant influence on ηBB,c ; the p-value of αl is 0.0485 < 0.05,
which means αl has a comparatively significant influence on ηBB,c ; neither αC and γC are statistically
significant in terms of their influence on ηBB,c .

Table 8. Variance analysis results.

Factors Type III Sum of Squares DOF Mean Square F P

A (αC ) 0.00236 4 0.000059 1.079 0.32755
B (αl ) 0.00050 4 0.000125 6.287 0.04845
C (β l ) 0.00291 4 0.000727 13.303 0.00131
D (γC ) 0.00010 4 0.000025 0.454 0.76752
Error 0.00044 8 0.000055 - -
Total 0.00418 24 - - -

Generally, multi-objective programming can be described as follows [33]:

(

T gi (n) ≥ 0, i∈I
Min f (n) = f 1 (n), f 2 (n), . . . , f p (n) s.t : (19)
h j (n) = 0, j∈E

Considering all possible solutions, if solution n1 is no worse than n2 in all objectives and solution
n1 is strictly better than n2 in at least one objective, then n1 dominates n2 . Given a set of solutions,
the non-dominated solution set is a set of all the solutions that are not dominated by any member of the
solution set. The non-dominated set of the entire feasible decision space is the so-called Pareto-optimal
set. The boundary defined by the set of all points mapped from the Pareto-optimal set is called the
Pareto front. A Pareto front is more intuitive to display the simulation results of a multi-objective
optimization engineering problem [33]. Based on the simulation results given by Table 5, the set of
non-dominated solutions can be obtained and corresponding 3D Pareto front diagrams are generated.
Both operating conditions are taken into consideration. In Figures 14 and 15 the trapping efficiency,
delivery ratio, and scavenging efficiency are selected as three objectives. In Figures 16 and 17,
the short-circuiting fraction, displacement ratio, and evaluation objective function are considered
as three objectives. These present findings can provide more comprehensive guidance for the designers
of the next
Energies 2017,generation of UAVs.
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 28

Figure14.
Figure 14. 3D
3D Pareto
Pareto front
frontresults
resultsof
ofthe
thehigh
highload
loadoperating
operatingcondition.
condition.
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 18 of 26
Figure
Figure 14.
14. 3D
3D Pareto
Pareto front
front results
results of
of the
the high
high load
load operating
operating condition.
condition.

Figure
Figure 15.
Figure 15. 3D
15. 3D Pareto
3D Pareto front
Pareto results
front results
front of
results of the
of the partial
the partial load
partialload operating
loadoperating condition.
operatingcondition.
condition.

Energies 2017, 10, x FORFigure 16.

16. 3D
3D Pareto
PEER REVIEW
Figure Pareto front
front results
results of
of the
thehigh
highload
loadoperating
operatingcondition.
condition. 19 of 28

Figure
Figure 17.
17. 3D
3D Pareto
Pareto front
front results
results of
of the
the partial
partial load operating condition.
load operating condition.

4.2. Verification
4.2. Verification of
of the
the Best
Best Factors
Factors Combination
Combination
Based on
Based on the
the OED
OED results
results analysis,
analysis, A B44C
A44B C22D
D33isisselected
selectedasasthe
theoptimal
optimalparameter
parameterconfiguration.
configuration.
The expected value
The expected of η𝜂BB,c, isis0.149
value of 0.149with
withaa95%
95%confidence
confidenceinterval
interval (0.1456,
(0.1456, 0.1524).
0.1524). For
For verifying the
verifying the
best factors combination, the corresponding 3D CFD model is established and AVL
combination, the corresponding 3D CFD model is established and AVL FIRE simulation FIRE simulation is
performed. The comparison results between the prototype engine and optimal
is performed. The comparison results between the prototype engine and optimal design are design are presented in
presented in Table 9. Apart from the scavenging parameters and evaluation objective functions
discussed before, the conventional power performance and fuel economy indicators, IMEP and ISFC,
are taken into consideration as well. Because mechanical loss (pumping loss, throttling loss, friction
loss, etc.) is not involved in AVL FIRE simulation, indicated indexes are analyzed rather than effective
indexes.
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 19 of 26

Table 9. Apart from the scavenging parameters and evaluation objective functions discussed before,
the conventional power performance and fuel economy indicators, IMEP and ISFC, are taken into
consideration as well. Because mechanical loss (pumping loss, throttling loss, friction loss, etc.) is not
involved in AVL FIRE simulation, indicated indexes are analyzed rather than effective indexes.

Table 9. Comparison results between the prototype engine and optimal design.

Prototype Engine Optimal Design

Parameter
High Load Partial Load High Load Partial Load
λS 0.889 0.730 0.979 0.785
ηT 0.882 0.931 0.861 0.917
ηS 0.784 0.680 0.843 0.720
x 0.778 0.671 0.782 0.686
y 0.071 0.030 0.057 0.018
ηBB 0.054 0.109 0.051 0.099
ηBB,c 0.163 0.150
IMEP (bar) 5.641 3.310 5.840 3.463
ISFC [g/(kW·h)] 251.4 306.7 253.2 310.4

Compared with the prototype engine, both λS and ηS in the optimal design results are improved,
yet ηT declines to some extent. With regard to the fitting coefficients, x and y, of the Benson/Bradham
model, both of the two are closer to ideal values, respectively (i.e., x is closer to 1 and y is closer to 0
after optimization). As a consequence, the combined evaluation objective function, ηBB,c , descends
with an increasing x and a decreasing y. The whole scavenging process approaches more closely to
the ideal perfect displacement model after optimization, which means the expected refinement has
been received. For one thing, the comparatively notable increase of ηS , with the slight decrease of ηT ,
indicates that the scavenging quality of the optimal design is superior to that of the prototype engine.
For another, the evaluation objective function, ηBB,c , based on the Benson/Bradham model is proven
to reflect the scavenging quality.
As for conventional performance indexes, there are also improvements in IMEP, with a 3.4%
increase under the high load and a 4.6% increase under the partial load, respectively. Additionally,
ISFC shows a 0.7% increase under the high load and a 1.2% increase under the partial load. Because
λS and ηS go up while ηT declines slightly after optimization, more fresh charge is delivered into the
cylinder and retained there after the end of the scavenging process, and the short circuit loss also
grows accordingly. Therefore, the enhancement of IMEP caused by more fresh charge trapped in the
cylinder and the improvement of ISFC due to more fresh charge leaking out of the cylinder takes place
simultaneously. Taken together, the optimal design shows superior progress in the power performance
while marginally deteriorating the fuel economy, which makes it still acceptable overall.
However, targeted improvement in the power performance and fuel economy cannot be achieved
with ηBB,c as the optimization goal since there is no direct relationship between the coefficients of
the Benson/Bradham model and engine performance indexes. In addition, when ηBB,c is selected
as the evaluation objective function, different operating conditions are considered simultaneously,
but the weights of the concerned operating conditions are not easy to identify (we make no distinction
between the high load and partial load in this paper), which also brings some deficiency into this
optimizing method.

4.3. 3D Flow Field Visualization

With the powerful visualization tools provided by AVL FIRE simulation, various sectional views
of the gas composition distribution inside the cylinder are accessible. As shown in Figure 18a, the X
section passes through the cylinder axis and is exactly the symmetry plane of the cylinder. As shown
in Figure 18b, the Z section is normal to the cylinder axis and passes through the center of four ports
located on the cylinder wall.
4.3. 3D Flow Field Visualization
With the powerful visualization tools provided by AVL FIRE simulation, various sectional views
of the gas composition distribution inside the cylinder are accessible. As shown in Figure 18a, the X
section passes through the cylinder axis and is exactly the symmetry plane of the cylinder. As shown
in Figure
Energies 2018,18b, the Z section is normal to the cylinder axis and passes through the center of four20ports
11, 2739 of 26
located on the cylinder wall.

(a) (b)
Figure18.
Figure 18.(a)
(a)XXsection;
section;(b)
(b)ZZsection.
section.

150 ◦ CA, 180◦ CA, and 210◦ CA are selected as the representative crank angles of the whole
150° CA, 180° CA, and 210° CA are selected as the representative crank angles of the whole
scavenging
scavengingprocess.
process.XXcross-sectional
cross-sectionalviews
viewsand
andZZcross-sectional
cross-sectionalviews
viewsof ofboth
boththe
theprototype
prototypeengine
engine
and
and the
theoptimal
optimaldesign
designunder
undertwo
twodifferent
differentoperating
operatingconditions
conditionsare arepresented.
presented. TheThe color
color in
in these
these
figures
figures indicates
indicates the
the proportion
proportion ofof fresh
fresh charge.
charge. The
The value
value of
of 11 indicates
indicates all
all fresh
fresh charge
charge while
while 00
indicates
indicatesall
allburned
burnedgas.
gas.The
The3D3Dflow
flowfield
fieldvisualization
visualizationresults
resultsshow
showthat:
that:
(1) As
(1) As shown
shown in in Figures
Figures 19–22,
19–22, when
when comparing
comparing the the scavenging
scavenging process
process of of the
the prototype
prototype engine
engine
under two operating conditions, it is not difficult to find that the fresh intake
under two operating conditions, it is not difficult to find that the fresh intake charge under charge under the
highhigh
the loadload
is less thanthan
is less thatthat
of the partial
of the loadload
partial in the
in initial stage
the initial of the
stage of scavenging
the scavenging process (150
process
°CA).◦ The in-cylinder pressure under the high load is higher than that of the
(150 CA). The in-cylinder pressure under the high load is higher than that of the partial load and partial load and the
exhaust process takes a longer time, thus the in-cylinder pressure is still at a high
the exhaust process takes a longer time, thus the in-cylinder pressure is still at a high level after level after the
scavenging
the scavenging portport
opening. As aAs
opening. result, the the
a result, pressure
pressure of the fresh
of the charge
fresh is not
charge enough
is not enoughto enter the
to enter
cylinder in the early scavenging phase. Contrastingly, the fresh charge intake
the cylinder in the early scavenging phase. Contrastingly, the fresh charge intake under the high under the high
load is
load is notably
notably more
more than
than that
that of
of the
the partial
partialload
loadat at180
180◦°CA
CA andand 210
210 ◦°CA. Because the
CA. Because the throttle
throttleisis
wide open under the high load, the crankcase pressure is higher and the piston motion is faster
and the crankcase scavenged process is more effective, thus more fresh charge is delivered into
the cylinder. This significant difference can be perceived based on the λS simulation data as well.
(2) As shown in Figures 19 and 20, when comparing the simulation results of the prototype engine
and optimal design under the partial load, it can be found that at 150 ◦ CA, the fresh charge intake
of the prototype engine case is more than that of the optimal design case, especially around
the lateral scavenging ports; at 180 ◦ CA, the situation is similar to the high load simulation
results, fresh charge distribution is biased toward the upper part of the cylinder with a larger
“coverage area” after the optimal design; at 210 ◦ CA, the optimal design results still show
advantages over the prototype engine results in the scavenging quality. For the latter case,
fresh charge is concentrated on the side of the central scavenging port as shown in the relevant Z
cross-sectional views. Both lateral scavenging ports are inclined toward the central scavenging
port. In consequence, corresponding gas motion due to the arrangement of the lateral scavenging
ports hinders the fresh charge from entering the cylinder through the central scavenging port,
and eventually gives rise to airflow obstruction and reduces the scavenging quality.
(3) As shown in Figures 21 and 22, when comparing the simulation results of the prototype
engine and optimal design under the high load, it can be concluded that their gas composition
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 21 of 26

distributions in the cylinder at 150 ◦ CA are similar; at 180 ◦ CA, fresh charge inside the cylinder
is more biased toward the upper part in the optimal design results; at 210 ◦ CA, fresh charge
has reached more than 75% of the area of the entire cylinder after optimization. By contrast,
the proportion of fresh charge in the combustion area is relatively low in the prototype engine
case, which means the burned gas has not been cleared out of the cylinder even in the final
scavenging phase.

Investigated factor values before and after optimization are displayed in Table 10. Taken together,
the optimal design has a larger αC and αl , which yields better scavenging effects especially for the
upper part of the cylinder, while a smaller β S alleviates the conflict impact resulted from the gas motion
of fresh charge entering the cylinder through the central scavenging port and the lateral scavenging
ports. The combination of these two points contributes to the optimal design results with a higher
scavenging efficiency.

Table 10. Investigated factor values before and after optimization.

Factors Prototype Engine Optimal Design

αC (◦ ) 55 60
α l (◦ ) 0 20
β l (◦ ) 30 20
γC 23.81% 23.81%

Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 28

Figure 19. X cross-sectional views of the prototype engine simulation case and optimal design
Figure 19. X cross-sectional views of the prototype engine simulation case and optimal design
simulation case under the partial load operating condition.
simulation case under the partial load operating condition.
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 22 of 26

Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 28

Figure 20. Z cross-sectional views of the prototype engine simulation case and optimal design
Figure 20. Z cross-sectional views of the prototype engine simulation case and optimal design
simulation case under the partial load operating condition.
simulation case
Energiesunder
2017, 10, xthe
FOR partial load operating condition.
PEER REVIEW 24 of 28

Figure 21. X cross-sectional views of the prototype engine simulation case and optimal design
Figure 21. X cross-sectional views of the prototype engine simulation case and optimal design
simulation case under the high load operating condition.
simulation case under the high load operating condition.
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 23 of 26

Energies 2017, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 28

Figure 22. Z cross-sectional

Figure 22. Z cross-sectional viewsviews of the
of the prototype engine
prototype simulation
engine case and optimal
simulation case anddesignoptimal design
simulation case under the high load operating condition.
simulation case under the high load operating condition.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5. Discussion and As
Conclusions
a common power source for widely applied small and medium-sized UAVs, the two-stroke
small areoengine was selected as the research focus in this paper. Because of the particular scavenging
As a common power source for widely applied small and medium-sized UAVs, the two-stroke
system structure, the scavenging process features prominently in the engine power performance and
small areoenginefuelwas selected
economy. as themodels
Scavenging research focus
are also in this
proposed paper.the
to describe Because of thescavenging
corresponding particular scavenging
process. However, few previous researchers have paid enough attention to these more accurate and
system structure, the scavenging process features prominently in the engine power performance
sophisticated scavenging models when optimizing the design of original ports’ arrangement. To
and fuel economy. Scavenging
illuminate models
this uncharted area, we are also
selected theproposed
comprehensive toevaluation
describeobjective
the corresponding
function based scavenging
on the few
process. However, Benson/Bradham
previousmodel as the optimization
researchers have paid goal enough
and performed the 1D/3D
attention to coupling
these more accurate
simulation to verify the optimal design results. Although demonstrated by preliminary simulation
and sophisticated scavenging
results, models
this optimization whenfrom
method suffers optimizing thedue
some limitations design of oforiginal
to the lack a practicalports’
bench arrangement.
To illuminate this
test ofuncharted
the redesigned area, wesmall
two-stroke selected theDespite
areoengine. comprehensive
that inadequacy,evaluation objective function
the present research
findings provide the requisite criteria necessary for the appropriate design of a crankcase scavenging
based on the Benson/Bradham model as the optimization goal and performed the 1D/3D coupling
system, which plays a vital role in engine performance improvement. Detailed analysis leads to the
simulation to verify
followingthe optimal design results. Although demonstrated by preliminary simulation
conclusions:
results, this optimization
(1) With respect method suffers prototype
to the investigated from some enginelimitations duethere
scavenging system, to the lack
exists of a practical bench
an obvious
trade-off relationship between the scavenging efficiency, 𝜂 , and trapping efficiency, 𝜂 , which
test of the redesigned two-stroke small areoengine. Despite that inadequacy, the present research
findings provide the requisite criteria necessary for the appropriate design of a crankcase scavenging
system, which plays a vital role in engine performance improvement. Detailed analysis leads to the
following conclusions:

(1) With respect to the investigated prototype engine scavenging system, there exists an obvious
trade-off relationship between the scavenging efficiency, ηS , and trapping efficiency, ηT ,
which makes it difficult to balance the power performance and fuel economy during the
optimization process.
(2) Characteristics of the actual gas exchange process can be indicated by the key parameters, x and
y, and the evaluation objective function, ηBB,c , based on the Benson/Bradham model was proven
to reflect the scavenging quality precisely.
(3) From the OED results analysis, it is clear that the slip angle of lateral scavenging ports, β l ,
has the most significant influence on ηBB,c , followed by the tilt angle of lateral scavenging ports,
αl , while the tilt angle of the central scavenging port, αC , and the width ratio of the central
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 24 of 26

scavenging port, γC , are not statistically significant in terms of their influence on ηBB,c . The best
factors combination is αC = 60◦ , αl = 20◦ , β l = 20◦ , and γC = 23.81%.
(4) Compared with the prototype engine, both λS and ηS in the optimal design results are improved,
yet ηT declines to some extent. Taken together, the optimal design results show superior progress
in power performance (IMEP) while marginally deteriorations in the fuel economy (ISFC), which
makes it still acceptable overall.
(5) Powerful visualization tools provided by AVL FIRE software can be employed to analyze the gas
composition distribution inside the cylinder during the whole scavenging process.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.H. and Y.Q.; Methodology, J.Q. and K.H.; Software, J.Q. and
Y.S.; Formal Analysis, Y.Q. and X.D.; Data Curation, Y.Q. and J.Q.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, Y.Q.;
Writing-Review & Editing, K.H. and Y.Q.
Funding: This research was funded by Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission grant number
D17111000490000.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the administrative and technical support from the AVL
Shanghai Technology Center Co., Ltd. and IDAJ Beijing Co., Ltd.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclatures
Abbreviations
UAV unmanned aerial vehicle
1D one-dimensional
3D three-dimensional
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
BUSDIG Boosted Uniflow Scavenged Direct Injection Gasoline
POD Proper Orthogonal Decomposition
OP2S Opposed-Piston 2-Stroke Diesel Engine
LICELGIS Linear Internal Combustion Engine-Linear Generator Integrated System
OPHSDI Opposed Piston High Speed Direct Injection Diesel Engine
OED Orthogonal Experimental Design
IMEP indicated mean effective pressure
ISFC indicated specific fuel consumption
SPI single point injection
CAD Computer Aided Design
FEM Fame Hexa Meshing
FEP Fame Engine Plus
STM Standard Transport Model
ECFM Extended Coherent Flame Model
TKE turbulence kinetic energy
TDC top dead center
BDC bottom dead center
SIMPLE Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure Linked Equations
HWT Hybrid Wall Treatment
SWF Standard Wall Function
GSTB Gradient Stabilized Biconjugate
Symbols
mi mass of delivered fresh charge through all scavenging ports
mfC mass of delivered fresh charge retained in cylinder
mleak mass of delivered fresh charge leaking out of the cylinder
mbg mass of residual burned gas retained in cylinder
m all mass of all trapped cylinder charge
m0 reference mass
λS delivery ratio
ηS scavenging efficiency
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 25 of 26

ηT trapping efficiency
ηC charging efficiency
Vbg instant burned gas volume in the cylinder
Vall the whole cylinder volume
x displacement ratio
y short-circuiting fraction
αC tilt angle of the central scavenging port
αl tilt angle of lateral scavenging ports
βl slip angle of lateral scavenging ports
γC width ratio of the central scavenging port
LC width of the central scavenging port
Ll width of single lateral scavenging port
ηBB elementary evaluation objective function
ηBB,h evaluation objective function for the high load
ηBB,p evaluation objective function for the partial load
ηBB,c combined evaluation objective function
α significance level for the variance analysis

References
1. Ma, S.; Ma, L.; Xiao, B.; Yuan, Z. In Analysis of medium-sized unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) maintenance
and support organization. In Proceedings of the 2014 Prognostics and System Health Management
Conference, Zhangjiajie, China, 24–27 August 2014; pp. 583–588.
2. Groff, E.G. Automotive Two-Stroke-Cycle Engine Development in the 1980–1990’s; Technical Paper for SAE
International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2016.
3. Feng, G.; Zhou, M. Assessment of heavy fuel aircraft piston engine types. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2016, 56,
1114–1121.
4. Mavinahally, N.S. An Historical Overview of Stratified Scavenged Two-Stroke Engines-1901 through 2003; Technical
Paper for SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2004.
5. Hori, H. Scavenging Flow Optimization of Two-Stroke Diesel Engine by Use of CFD; Technical Paper for SAE
International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2000.
6. Merker, G.P.; Gerstle, M. Evaluation on Two Stroke Engines Scavenging Models; Technical Paper for SAE
International: Detroit, MI, USA, 1997.
7. Ma, F.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, J.; Feng, Y.; Su, T.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y. Simulation Modeling Method and
Experimental Investigation on the Uniflow Scavenging System of an Opposed-Piston Folded-Cranktrain
Diesel Engine. Energies 2017, 10, 727. [CrossRef]
8. Brynych, P.; Macek, J.; Novella, R.; Thein, K. Representation of Two-Stroke Engine Scavenging in 1D Models
Using 3D Simulations; Technical Paper for SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2018.
9. Mattarelli, E.; Rinaldini, C.A.; Savioli, T. Port Design Criteria for 2-Stroke Loop Scavenged Engines; Technical
Paper for SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2016.
10. Wang, X.; Ma, J.; Zhao, H. Evaluations of Scavenge Port Designs for a Boosted Uniflow Scavenged Direct Injection
Gasoline (BUSDIG) Engine by 3D CFD Simulations; Technical Paper for SAE International: Detroit, MI,
USA, 2016.
11. Ma, J.; Zhao, H. The Modeling and Design of a Boosted Uniflow Scavenged Direct Injection Gasoline (BUSDIG)
Engine; Technical Paper for SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2015.
12. Wang, X.; Ma, J.; Zhao, H. Analysis of the Effect of Intake Plenum Design on the Scavenging Process in a 2-Stroke
Boosted Uniflow Scavenged Direct Injection Gasoline (BUSDIG) Engine; Technical Paper for SAE International:
Detroit, MI, USA, 2017.
13. Khoury, R.R.E.; Errera, M.; Khoury, K.E.; Nemer, M. Efficiency of coupling schemes for the treatment of
steady state fluid-structure thermal interactions. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 2017, 115, 225–235. [CrossRef]
14. Rinaldini, C.A.; Mattarelli, E.; Golovitchev, V. CFD Analyses on 2-Stroke High Speed Diesel Engines. SAE Int.
J. Engines 2011, 7, 2240–2256. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 2739 26 of 26

15. Zirngibl, S.; Held, S.; Prager, M.; Wachtmeister, G. Experimental and Simulative Approaches for the Determination
of Discharge Coefficients for Inlet and Exhaust Valves and Ports in Internal Combustion Engines; Technical Paper
for SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2017.
16. Nuccio, P.; Denno, D.D.; Magno, A. Development through Simulation of a Turbocharged 2-Stroke G.D.I. Engine
Focused on a Range-Extender Application; Technical Paper for SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2017.
17. Cui, L.; Wang, T.; Sun, K.; Lu, Z.; Che, Z.; Sun, Y. Numerical Analysis of the Steady-State Scavenging Flow
Characteristics of a Two-Stroke Marine Engine; Technical Paper for SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2017.
18. Xie, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, Z. Numerical Simulation of an Opposed-Piston Two-Stroke Diesel Engine; Technical
Paper for SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2015.
19. Zang, P.; Wang, Z.; Fu, Y.; Sun, C. Investigation of Scavenging Process for Steady-State Operation of a Linear
Internal Combustion Engine-Linear Generator Integrated System; Technical Paper for SAE International: Detroit,
MI, USA, 2017.
20. Mattarelli, E.; Rinaldini, C.A.; Savioli, T.; Cantore, G.; Warey, A.; Potter, M.; Gopalakrishnan, V.; Balestrino, S.
Scavenge Ports Optimization of a 2-Stroke Opposed Piston Diesel Engine; Technical Paper for SAE International:
Detroit, MI, USA, 2017.
21. Li, Z.; He, B.-q.; Zhao, H. Influences of intake ports and pent-roof structures on the flow characteristics of a
poppet-valved two-stroke gasoline engine. Int. J. Engine Res. 2016, 17, 1077–1091. [CrossRef]
22. He, C.; Xu, S. Transient Gas Exchange Simulation and Uniflow Scavenging Analysis for a Unique Opposed Piston
Diesel Engine; Technical Paper for SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2016.
23. Zhou, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, F. Research on Opposed Piston Two-Stroke Engine for Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle by Thermodynamic Simulation; Technical Paper for SAE International: Detroit, MI, USA, 2017.
24. Zhao, F. Simulation Analysis and Optimization on the Scavenging Process for the Uniflow-Scavenge Diesel
Engine. Master’s Thesis, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China, 6 July 2010.
25. Grljušić, M.; Tolj, I.; Radica, G.; Sciubba, E. An Investigation of the Composition of the Flow in and out of a
Two-Stroke Diesel Engine and Air Consumption Ratio. Energies 2017, 10, 1. [CrossRef]
26. Taylor, C.F. The Internal-Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice: Thermodynamics, Fluid Flow, Performance,
2nd ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 1985.
27. Γ Technologies, Engine Performance Application Manual, GT-Power Version 7.1. Available online: http:
//www.gtisoft.com/ (accessed on 19 July 2018).
28. Ma, F.K.; Wang, J.; Feng, Y.N.; Zhang, Y.G.; Su, T.X.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.H. Parameter Optimization on the
Uniflow Scavenging System of an OP2S-GDI Engine Based on Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (IMEP).
Energies 2017, 10, 368. [CrossRef]
29. Dong, X.F.; Zhao, C.L.; Zhang, F.J.; Zhao, Z.F.; Xie, Z.Y. Experiment on the Scavenging Process of Opposed-Piston
Two-Stroke Diesel Engine. Trans. CSICE 2015, 33, 362–369.
30. Sher, E.; Harari, R. A simple and realistic model for the scavenging process in a crankcase-scavenged
two-stroke cycle engine. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A J. Power Energy 1991, 205, 129–137. [CrossRef]
31. Wu, J. Similar design method used on the port size on the two-stroke diesel engine. Trans. Eng. Thermophys.
1981, 2, 145–153.
32. Dang, D.; Wallace, F.J. Some single zone scavenging models for two-stroke engines. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 1992, 34,
595–604. [CrossRef]
33. Kim, I.Y.; DeWeck, O.L. Adaptive weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization: A new method
for Pareto front generation. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 2006, 31, 105–116. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).