SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

2001-01-1308

Some Critical Technical Issues on the

Steady Flow Testing of Cylinder Heads
Hongming Xu
Jaguar Cars

SAE 2001 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 5-8, 2001
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A.

Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.
SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

2001-01-1308

SOME CRITICAL TECHNICAL ISSUES ON

THE STEADY FLOW TESTING OF CYLINDER HEADS
Hongming Xu
Jaguar Cars

Copyright 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
There are considerable diversities in the techniques used
for the steady flow testing of engine cylinder heads, and
this paper presents and discusses the important issues
involved in the flow bench experiment. The work aims to
provide information necessary for setting up or upgrading
the experimental system of cylinder head testing. The
definitions of discharge/flow coefficients and swirl/tumble
ratios are compared and examined, followed by the
principles of selecting the test conditions such as
pressure drop and flow rate. Techniques for measuring
the angular flow momentum in cylinders are discussed
and the link between the steady flow parameters and the
engine combustion performance is highlighted. Some
conclusions and recommendations are drawn from the
discussion.

1. INTRODUCTION
The steady flow testing of cylinder heads is a widely
adopted procedure in the development of engines [1, 2]
and it is used to assist and assess the design of the
engine ports and the combustion chamber concerning
the engine flow capacity and the in-cylinder flow pattern
of the charge motion, which are critical to the engine
combustion performance. Although considerable efforts
have been made by research workers to explore the
most effective methodology for steady flow tests, there
are considerable diversities in the definitions of the
technical terms and techniques used in the present
experiment [1, 3], and the configurations of the flow
bench vary considerably with users.
The absence of a standard methodology has obviously
raised difficulties in the interpretation of available data
and prevented comparisons between the intake flows
characterized by different engine groups [4]. For
example, a swirl ratio of 3 quantified by one group could
mean a different value to another, and the ambiguity with
the tumble ratios is even greater. In the engine
development process, there is often a need to make

reference to bench mark designs or data published in the

literature. It is important, therefore, to understand the
original definitions of the terms and the effect of the
experimental techniques on the result. The experimental
techniques for the steady flow bench test and their
implications have been discussed by the early work of [3,
5, 6], and more recently by [1, 4, 7] but a critical
comprehensive review of the important issues is not
available.
This paper presents and discusses the important
technical issues involved in the steady flow bench test.
The purpose of the work is to provide the information
necessary for setting up or upgrading the experimental
system, either by selecting a commercially available
bench product as often practised by industry, or by
designing a flexible piping system which is usually a low
cost solution for university research groups. The critical
information is also expected to be useful to engineers
working on the development of engine cylinder heads,
particularly those involved in the steady flow tests.
Because there are so many techniques which have been
proposed and used in the practice, it is sensible to
choose only a few representative ones for review. The
Ricardo and AVL techniques are discussed here since
they are probably the most widely used in automotive
industry.
The text below is divided into six sections. Following this
introduction, the definitions of discharge and flow
coefficients are presented. The third section is devoted
to the methodology of defining the swirl and tumble
ratios, and the fourth section discusses the selection of
test conditions such as pressure drop, flow rate and also
the issues concerning blowing and suction systems.
Then, the experimental techniques for measuring the
angular flow momentum flux is reviewed in the fifth
section, and the link between the steady flow bench test
and engine combustion performance is discussed in the
sixth section. Finally, the main conclusions and
recommendations drawn from the discussion are
summarized.

The choice of the reference flow area should not be

arbitrary and the name of the 'flow coefficient' should not
be confused with the 'discharge coefficient', although it
often is. For conciseness, this paper uses the term 'static
flow coefficient' when addressing the two at the same
time. In particular, the definition of discharge coefficient
seems to have indeed been a convention or arbitrary
choice for different engine groups. Therefore, when
evaluating discharge coefficients, one must define or
check the reference area carefully. This is an unfortunate
situation which has often prevented the comparison
between published data. The author recommends using
both the discharge coefficient and the flow coefficient,
which are based on the valve inner curtain area (DvLv)
and the valve inner seat area (Dv2/4), respectively, for
the following reasons:

2. DISCHARGE COEFFICIENT AND FLOW

COEFFICIENT
A basic requirement of the port and valve assembly
design is to enable the engine to have high volumetric
efficiency for achieving high torque and power. During
the early stage of engine development, the performance
of the port/valve assembly in terms of the air flow
capacity is usually assessed under steady flow test
conditions, using the ratio of the measured mass flow
rate to the theoretically calculated flow rate through a
reference flow area in the port/valve assembly. This flow
rate ratio is commonly called discharge coefficient or
flow coefficient, depending on which flow area is used
as the reference, Table 1.1. The 'discharge coefficient',
Cd, refers to the flow rate ratio referenced to the gap
between the valve lips and the valve seats, and there
several ways of defining this gap area [9]. The 'flow
coefficient', Cf, refers to that corresponding to the flow
area in the port, either the minimum flow area (port
throat) or the valve inner seat area, in which the valve
stem blocking effect can be included or neglected. They
are actually alternative ways of expressing the same
data, but it will be shown below that there are some
differences in terms of their emphasis of presentation.
The calculations of Cd and Cf are simple, once the actual
flow rate is measured and the reference area is
determined.

1. The 'discharge coefficient' (Cd), which decreases

with valve lift, reflects the flow restriction produced by the
valve and seat lips at low valve lifts which then determine
the flow orifice area. In fact, the geometry of valve and
seat lips are critical to the flow at lower valve lifts [8, 9].
Using the valve inner curtain area (DvLv) makes the
comparison between data irrespective of the valve seat
angle and it also allows a linear relationship between the
theoretical flow and the valve lift for easy interpretation.

Table 1.1 Parameters for evaluating flow breathing capacity

Common
name
Discharge
Coefficient

Reference

Equation

Valve gap area, which

has several definitions
[1]

Cd =

Feature

&
m
A v Vo

2p

&
m
Cf =
Ap Vo
Vo =

Flow Coefficient

Valve inner seat area

Vo =

2p

(2.1a)

Value decreases with lift,

identify flow restriction by
valve and seat lips

(2.1b)

(2.2a)

Value increases with lift,

identify flow restriction by
port geometry

(2.2b)

Ricardo Mean
flow
Coefficient

Averaged over the

time between IVO and
IVC

AVL
Mean
Coefficient

Averaged over the

time between TDC and
BDC

Gulp Factor
(Mach Index)

Local sonic speed

Cf =

2 1

Overall port efficiency

(2.3)
1

1 C ( ) 3 1
2
Cf =

2 d (2.4)
0 C m C f

B 2 S s 1 1

(2.5)
D v n a Cf

Z=

Overall port efficiency

Overall restriction of the

ports at rated engine
speed

1. The 'flow coefficient'(Cf), which increases with valve

lift, reflects the restriction by the port geometry, when the
gap area between the valve and seat lips becomes
comparable to or beyond the port throat area. Since a
large proportion of charge enters the cylinder at higher
valve lifts, the influence of the 'flow coefficient' to the
engine breathing capacity is more important. Using Cf
only, however, will not reflect clearly the difference in the
flow capacity at smaller valve lifts simply because the
scale of Cf at low valve lift is too small. This is
demonstrated in Fig 1 which presents the static flow
coefficients of two cylinder heads. Compared with
cylinder head one, cylinder head two has a poorer design
of the valve and seat geometry which led to flow
separation with a low discharge coefficient at low valve
lifts. This difference can be often omitted if only Cf is
used.
Other flow parameters such as Mean Flow Coefficient
and Gulp Factor have been proposed to provide
normalized parameters for assessment. Ricardo and
AVL have different definitions for the mean flow
coefficient [10], and the main differences are that
Ricardo consider the intake process to start at IVO
(intake valve open) and end at IVC (intake valve close)
and the total intake flow quantity is dependent of cam
profile and valve open duration (see Table 1). AVL
assume that the intake process takes place only
between TDC and BDC for 180 crank angle degrees and
the instantaneous flow velocity in the valve gaps is
proportional to the instantaneous piston speed. AVL
defined a 'standard lift curve' for the flow parameter
integration. Therefore, a simple conversion between the
Ricardo and AVL flow parameters is not possible.
The gulp factor, also called the inlet Mach index, is the
ratio of the mean effective flow velocity in the port throat
during intake process to the local sonic speed. It
corresponds closely to the mean Mach number in the
valve throat. Taylor et al correlated volumetric
efficiencies (v) measured on a range of engine and
intake valve designs with the gulp factor and found that
1.0

Cd, Cf

0.8

Cd1

0.6

Cd2

0.2

Evaluating swirl or tumble strength in engine cylinders is

far more difficult than assessing the engine breathing
capacity. The main issues concerned are firstly the
techniques for measuring the flow, as will be discussed
in the fourth section, and secondly, the method to
calculate the data, which involves the definitions of Swirl
Ratio' and 'Tumble Ratio. The process to define the
tumble ratio is actually 'borrowed' from the conventional
way of defining the swirl ratio. This section discusses the
definitions, in which the term 'swirling flow' is used to
refer to both the swirl and tumble motion.
There are a number of different ways of defining swirl
and tumble ratios, and the two methods widely used in
automotive industry are the Ricardo and AVL systems. It
is necessary to be aware of the difference between the
techniques used by Ricardo and AVL in in-cylinder flow
studies.
DEFINITIONS
The swirling flow is usually characterized by the moment
of angular momentum about a chosen axis. The angular
momentum flux in the engine cylinder, G, is a function of
crank angle during the induction process. In the steady
flow test, it is a function of valve lift for a given flow rate
or pressure drop. The linear ratio of this angular
momentum flux to the fictitious engine speed
corresponding to the test condition is called the 'Rig Swirl
Number' and 'Stationary Swirl Number' in the Ricardo
and AVL systems, respectively. For the fictitious engine
speed, Ricardo adopted the isentropic ideal velocity
across the port and AVL used the axial flow velocity
equal to the mean piston speed, which led to the
equations for calculating the swirl parameters in Table 2.

where, n-number of inlet valves, D- inner diameter of

inlet valve seat.

Cf 2
2

BACKGROUND

n v D 2v C f
N SR
=
N SA
BS

Cf 1

3. SWIRL RATIO AND TUMBLE RATIO

Rewriting the equations in Table 3.1, it follows that

0.4

0.0
0

the v decreases rapidly for Z 0.5 [9]. This limit should

be re-examined for the modern four valve cylinder head
due to the difference in the ratio of surface to volume of
the inlet port. The basic requirement is to ensure that the
flow will not become choked at high engine speeds.

10

valve lift (mm)

Figure 1 Typical profiles of discharge coefficient

and flow coefficient [8].

Using geometry of a 4.0 liter V8 engine, we have

N SR
= 0.92 Cf
N SA

Table 3.1 Ricardo and AVL swirl parameters

System

Name of the swirl

parameter

Ricardo

Rig swirl number

Definition

tangential swirl velocity

Equation

NSR =

8
G (3.1)
& B V0
m

NSA =

2S
G
Q2

ideal velocity
Stationary swirl
number

AVL

equivalent vortex rotation

fictitious engine speed

(3.2)

& - mass flow rate, B - cylinder bore, Vo - ideal velocity head, S - engine stroke, - charge density, Q where, m
volumetric flow rate, G - flow momentum torque.
This indicates that the Ricardo rig swirl number is smaller
than the AVL stationary swirl number, approximately by a
factor of the corresponding flow coefficient at each valve
lift. Note that the value of Cf varies with the valve lift.
The most often used swirl parameter is the engine swirl
ratio, which has been broadly defined as
Rs =

Charge vortex rotation speed ( s )

(3.3)
Engine speed ( N / 30)

where N - crankshaft revolution speed, rpm.

Under steady flow test conditions, the vortex rotation
speed is commonly calculated assuming that the charge
motion is a solid body rotating flow which, at the end of
induction process, has momentum equal to the sum of
the angular momentum introduced during the whole
induction process. The swirl ratio is calculated by
integrating the rig or stationary swirl numbers as a
function of crank angle during the induction process and
then divided by the fictitious engine speed. Omitting the
derivation of the equations, we have
Ricardo Swirl Ratio
1

RSR=

(3.4)

AVL Swirl Ratio

1
RSA=

N
0

SA

C ()

Gd
Cm

For a tumble motion, the flow angular momentum flux is

measured as for measuring the swirl, using the
techniques described in the next section. The Ricardo
and AVL tumble ratios are defined in the same way as
for the swirl ratios in Eq (3.4) and (3.5).
4. EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

N SR d

BS 2
2
n v D v 2 1

C f d
2

The differences in the definitions of the Ricardo and AVL

swirl ratios are partly due to the different assumptions
made by the two groups on the engine induction and
partly due to their own way of integrating the moment of
the flow momentum flux. Ricardo defined the flow as
occurring between IVO and IVC and therefore the swirl
ratio is affected by the valve lift profile. AVL assumed
that the suction flow occurs only between TDC and BDC,
and the measurement corresponding to the 'standard
valve lift' profile mentioned earlier is also used in the
calculation of their swirl ratio. A simple conversion from
the Ricardo swirl ratio to the AVL swirl ratio is again not
possible, since the cam profile must be considered.
Unlike AVL, Ricardo defined a smaller rig swirl ratio at a
given valve lift but the definition of the engine swirl ratio
has covered a longer integration period, and it is
normalized by the engine geometry data including the
bore, stroke and intake valve diameter. Note that the
AVL swirl ratio is related to the engine stroke (see Table
2).

(3.5)

where 1, 2 - inlet valve open and close position crank

angle respectively; C(), Cm - instantaneous and mean
piston speed respectively.

The discussion of the experimental techniques in a

steady flow test mainly concerns the measurement of the
angular momentum flux. The characterization of flow
structures is less sensitive to the flow conditions such as
pressure drop and mass flow rate than the flow capacity
test. It is known that the swirl flow angular momentum
increases linearly within the range of pressure drop from
220 to 2400 mm water gauge [1]. The techniques for
measuring the swirl ratio are relatively simple and they
have been 'transferred' into the measurement of tumble.
Special attention must be given so that the
characterization of the tumble flow has as much
relevance as possible to the combustion performance in
the engine, since the tumble motion in a steady flow is
not a well defined flow pattern. This section thus starts
with tumble measurement.

4.1 TUMBLE ADAPTOR

The measurement techniques used for characterizing
tumble are not standardized. The commonly used
methods for measuring tumble is to use a tumble
adaptor, such as those used by Imperial College and
Ricardo [7, 10], which converts the tumble motion in the
cylinder into a swirling flow in the extended perpendicular
pipe. AVL prefer to use in-cylinder velocity
measurements from LDV and FEV prefer to use an incylinder paddle wheel or ring. The advantage of using a
tumble adaptor is that the in-cylinder flow is reflected by
the top surface of a dummy piston, simulating the flow
pattern in the engine cylinder. However, the detailed
geometry of the tumble adapter, which significantly
affects the measurement, varies considerably with users.
The commonly used configurations are the "T-pipe" and
the "L-type", Fig 2, and the positions where the flow
momentum measurement is taken also vary with users.
Ricardo recommend that the distance between the
center of the cross pipe and the firing surface of cylinder
head be one half of the cylinder bore plus 20mm
(probably for the flange thickness) and the swirl torque
meter be situated at about 0.5 m downstream of the 'T'
junction [10].
The measurement of tumble using a flow adptor has its
limitations. Firstly, the conversion of tumble into swirling
flow is subject to flow velocity head losses within the
tumble adaptor and in the conversion pipe. Secondly,
when the swirl impulse meter is used, the conversion of
the flow angular momentum to a mechanical torque is
subject to errors, although of a smaller magnitude
compared to a paddle wheel anemometer [1, 3]. For LDV
measurements in the extended conversion pipe, the
integration of the velocity profiles is subject to the
assumption that the axial flow is uniform, which was
found not to be true [4, 11]. Of course, the second
problem also exists for the measurement of swirl.

IN

4.2 PADDLE WHEEL AND SWIRL TORQUE METER

The most often used instruments for measuring swirl are
the paddle wheel and the flow torque meter, Fig 3a and
3b. The paddle wheel has a longer history and the
configuration
varies
significantly.
The
only
standardization appears to be in aligning the paddle
wheel axis with the cylinder axis [1]. It has also been
proposed to use a paddle ring to measure the tumble
motion in the engine cylinder, for example FEV [12].
There are, however, many reports showing that the
paddle wheel significantly underestimates the swirl ratio
by up to 60% due to disturbance of the flow, friction of
the wheel bearing and slip between the vanes and the
flow [1]. The swirl torque meter, on the other hand, is
now widely adopted. It features a flow straightening
element, on which the flow angular momentum about the
straightener axis is turned into the restraining torque.
Note that the measurement of swirl is sensitive to the
position of the torque meter. Ricardo and AVL
recommend that the distance of the meter from the
cylinder head firing surface should be 1.75 times of the
cylinder bore, as a compromise between allowing the
swirl to develop and limiting the swirl decay. Imperial
College recommend that the swirling flow be measured
at 3 times of the cylinder bore downstream to allow the
swirl to settle so that the flow center moves closer to the
cylinder center [7, 13].

EX

A-A
B

IN

EX

IN

EX

B-B

perspex plate

B
perspex

perspex
swirl torque meter

(a)

Overall, due to the existing uncertainties in quantifying

the tumble strength under steady flow conditions with a
tumble adaptor, it can be argued that the interpretation of
the tumble ratio measured in flow rigs is not as straight
forward as for the swirl ratio. Nevertheless, the simplicity
of the tumble adaptor for characterizing cylinder heads
during engine development stage under steady flow
conditions is such that it outweighs the above limitations.
There are a number of evidences which have proven the
tumble adaptor a useful tool for designing advanced
spark-ignition engines [4]. The issue regarding the
correlation of the flow measurement to the combustion
performance will be discussed in section 6.

(b)

Figure 2 Configurations of tumble adaptor

(a) the "T" type; (b) the "L" type [4]

Although the intake flow patterns in engines are

commonly characterized by the ratios of swirl, tumble
and cross tumble, which are the normalized angular
momentum moments about the three perpendicular axes
in the cylinder, the steady flow test usually measures only
one flow component. This is acceptable for engines
which are designed to have only one dominant flow
pattern. If a complex flow pattern such as an inclined
swirl is involved, e.g., when valve disablement is
employed in a multi-valve combustion chamber,
measurements have to be taken on more than one
component. Tipplemann, who originally proposed the
conventional swirl meter, has developed a new
measuring system with a spherical honeycomb which
allows measurement of all the three components of the
intake flow in engine cylinders simultaneously [14, 15]. A
schematic diagram of the device is shown in Fig 3c. No
information or review about the practical application of
the so called '3-D flow meter' has been published.

4.3 OPTICAL METHODS

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)
Figure 3 Devices for measuring flow momentum flux

(a) paddle wheel

(b) swirl torque meter
(c) 3-D momentum meter
(d) rig swirl number variation with valve lift [4]
The advantage of the 3-D flow meter is obviously that it
saves the amount of work required in the multicomponent measurements. For sure, the measurement
of swirl with this meter will be similar to its predecessor,
the one component swirl meter. The main concern is that
the pivot of the spherical element of the swirl meter
seems to have to be located in a position below the
equivalent BDC piston boundary due to its structure.
There is no simulated deflection by a dummy piston. This
implies that it can measure the flow momentum flux but
with the moment about a point different from the incylinder flow vortex center conventionally defined. It is
important to emphasize that the moment of momentum
of a flow depends on its integration center. Obviously, we
expect that the in-cylinder bulk flow vortex center is
around the cylinder geometry center in an ideal case,
although the real flow can be much more complex.
Further investigations are required to study the 3-D flow
meter's calibration and correlation with respect to other
more widely used techniques. It would be a very useful
measurement device if the relationship between the '3-D'
measurement and the flow momentum data interested to
the engine development can be found.

Commonly used optical techniques for measuring the

swirl include laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV), particle
image velocimetry (PIV), particle tracking velocimetry
(PTV) and other visualization methods. Figure 4 shows a
LDV set-up for testing the Jaguar V8 cylinder head and
the measured rid swirl number was comparable with that
using a swirl torque meter, Fig 3d [4]. The advantages
and disadvantages of these techniques are well
documented in literature. It must be noted that after
obtaining sufficient measurements of the flow field, the
methods of processing the data affect significantly the
estimate of swirl and tumble ratios. Indeed, the
evaluation of the moment of momentum flux for a flow in
which the swirl and axial velocities only vary with radius
is unambiguous [1], but the results of the integration of
the momentum flux for an off-centered swirling flow
depend on the choice of the integration center. Both the
geometry center and the flow center have been used in
the published literature. Using LDV measurements, AVL
recommend that the center of integration be at a
distance equal to half the bore below the cylinder head
surface [16].
Integration about the geometry center is one option, but
one should bear in mind that the calculation does not
necessarily capture the essence of the flow pattern
because a perfectly centered flow is rare in engines.
Jackson et al at Ricardo [17] found that the flow
momentum integration about the center-point (either midcylinder or eddy center) can produce misleading
interpretation of the flow characteristics and they propose
to use a tumble ratio based on vorticity obtained from
their PIV measurement. Obviously, one should find a
suitable technique for a particular engine design to
achieve the best correlation, and further investigations on
this issue are required.

Figure 4
A LDV set-up for testing the Jaguar V8
cylinder head

4.4 OTHER CYLINDER HEAD TESTS

The conventional steady flow test is used to assess the
intake port design in terms of the static flow coefficients
and swirl and tumble ratios. Generally, a static flow
coefficient of a port/valve assembly refers to the intake
flow from the port into the cylinder through the inlet valve.
As input data for modeling, static flow coefficients for the
back-flow are also useful. The back-flow coefficients
can be tested with the flow reversed in the port. The
steady flow rig can also be used to examine the static
flow coefficient of the exhaust port and the cylinder head
with manifolds.
(a)

While the steady flow bench test has become a

standard technique in the development of cylinder
heads, there are some other experimental systems
which fall between the steady flow rig and the operating
engine. They have demonstrated good abilities in
revealing the fluids mechanics during the intake process
of engines and here are two interesting examples. The
first is that employed by Imperial College [18], Fig 5a,
which was a pulse flow arrangement with the overhead
camshaft driven by an electric motor. The multi-cylinder
engine cylinder head was coupled to a custom-built
adapter with a plenum tank connected to a suction fan.
The main advantages of this system are: (1) the dynamic
effect of the flow system can be studied, including that of
the multi-runner manifold; (2) optical access can be
easily provided for optical diagnostics; (3) the running
cost is relatively low compared against its testing
capability. The pulsating flow has also been used to
examine the exhaust port design [19].
The second important experimental system is the water
analogue rig used by Ricardo [17], Ford [20], GM [21],
and VW [22]. The set-up of the rig at Ford SRL is shown
in Fig. 5b. It requires thermal, geometrical, dynamic and
kinetic similarities to simulate the gas flow, and the
Reynolds number (VpB/) and Strouhal number (B/tVp) in
the experiment must be the same as in the engine
operation. The water analogue slows down the flow
process and significantly reduces the requirement of the
measuring time scales, allowing the use of Particle
Tracking Velocimetry (PTV) or Particle Image
Velocimetry (PIV). The piston moves only during the
intake and the exhaust processes and there are no
compression or expansion processes because of the
incompressibility of water. Ford and Ricardo have shown
that the dynamic water rig resulted in a much better
correlation between the flow parameters and the
combustion performance than the steady state flow
bench. It should be noted that Ford and Ricardo used
different data interpretation techniques after they
obtained the velocity data in the cylinder. A little more will
be said about this issue following the next section which
discusses the steady flow test condition.
5. PRESSURE, PRESSURE DROP AND FLOW RATE
It has been widely adopted that the steady flow test is

(b)
Figure 5
Transient flow bench for cylinder head
testing
(a) air flow [18]
(b) water analogue [20]
carried out under conditions of a constant pressure drop
of 254 or 508 mm water gauge (WG). Larger pressure
drops up to 1727 mm (68 inches) WG have been used
by Ford [23]. It may also be interesting to be aware that a
constant flow rate is sometimes preferred as a steady
flow condition and advantages have been claimed for
such an arrangement. The pressure drops can be
created by either blowing or suction. Some engine
groups including Ricardo prefer a blowing system
whereas others including AVL use a suction system. To
highlight the principles for selecting the test conditions,
this section discusses the effect of the pressure,
pressure drops and flow rate on the steady flow testing
results.
5.1 REYNOLDS NUMBER
It is known that the Reynolds number is one of the key
parameters in designing experiments in fluids since non-

0.7

Rep =

Flow coefficient (Cf)

0.6

0.5

Vp d p

&
4m
n v dp

4 Q
d
n d 2p p

(5.3)

0.4

1mm
2mm
5mm
7mm
9mm
11 mm

0.3

0.2
0.1
0.0

2.0x104 4.0x104 6.0x104 8.0x104 1.0x105 1.2x105 1.4x105 1.6x105 1.8x105 2.0x105

For flow in the valve gap

Q
L
n Dv Lv v
Vv L
Rev =
=

&
4m
=
(5.4)
n v D v

Reynolds number

For flow in the cylinder

Figure 6 Flow coefficients as a function of Reynolds
number at valve lip

dimensional properties of the fluids are similar as long as

the Reynolds number is the same [24]. A requirement of
the steady flow test condition is that the flow is fully
turbulent so that the loss of velocity head is independent
of the pressure drop or flow rate. Experiments have
shown that the flow head loss in a pipe flow is due to
1)
friction loss defined by the Darcy-Weisbach
equation

L V2
hf = f
D 2g

(5.1)

2)
head losses caused by bends, elbows and
valves

V2
hc = K
2g

(5.2)

where f is a function of Reynolds number and the relative

roughness of the pipe surface; K is determined by the
geometry of the flow passage. Nikurade [24] proved that
the friction loss of a turbulent flow remains constant
when the Reynolds number in the range of 20,000 200,000 for a relative roughness of the pipe wall of 1/30 1/250. This is in consistence with the work of Annand
and Roe [25] which shows that the discharge coefficient
remains fairly constant for high Reynolds numbers. Data
available within Jaguar showed a slide of the flow
coefficient with the Reynolds number and an explanation
is to be found, Fig. 6.
Three Reynolds numbers can be defined in the steady
flow test for cylinder heads:
For flow in the port

Q
B
n B2
Vc B
Rec =
=

&
4m
=
(5.5)
n v B

Ricardo [10] reported that the non-dimensional properties

of the engine port flow become substantially independent
of the pressure drop when the 'Port Reynolds Number'
exceed 60,000 at low valve lifts and 90,000 at high valve
lifts. For a valve inner diameter of around 30 mm, their
estimated minimum pressure drop required to achieve
this range of Reynolds numbers is about 10 inch water
gauge, which has been widely used [2]. On the other
hand, according to Eq (5.3) to (5.5), the Reynolds
& ) only for a
number is a function of the mass flow rate ( m
given flow configuration. It thus seems to be that the
cylinder head can be tested with a constant mass flow
rate for a chosen Reynolds number larger than a
threshold. To make a choice, a comparison is needed
between the constant pressure drop and the constant
flow rate methods.
5.2 PRESSURE DROP AND FLOW RATE
Experiments have been carried out by Vafidis et al [5, 6]
to compare the steady flow discharge coefficients
measured with different constant pressure drops and a
constant flow rate, respectively. The comparison was
also made to the dynamic coefficient obtained in an
operating engine. It was found that at lower valve lifts,
L/D<0.12, the static discharge coefficient with constant
pressure drops led to errors in the mass flow rate of over
5%. Obtained with a constant flow rate corresponding to
the mean piston speed, the static discharge coefficient
matched the dynamic measurement more closely in
trend and the difference of larger than 5% only occurred
for valve lifts with L/D<0.05. It is believed that this was
because the Reynolds number at smaller valve lifts for
the constant flow rate was higher than that with the

constant pressure drop, and thus the test result was less
dependent on the test condition.
The earlier work at Imperial College, Figure 7, shows that
the influence of the pressure drop across the valve on
the discharge coefficient (Cd) was more significant at
lower valve lifts and smaller pressure drops (p) with a
clear tendency that Cd increased with p [6]. It was found
that for pressure drops larger than 250 mm H2O, the
static flow coefficient became independent of the
pressure drop, except for the smaller valve lifts of L/D <
0.10. This has been confirmed by the work of Benjamin
et al [11]. It was also found that for most valve lift
positions, the discharge coefficients for constant
pressure drop and constant flow rate varied with L/D in
the similar trends.
In practice, constant pressure drops are more widely
adopted for the following reasons:
(3) To run a constant flow rate through the whole valve
lift range requires a higher power output of the motor
driving the fan and very large pressure drops. The power
required for driving the fan can be estimated:

instantaneous mass flow rate

constant mass flow rate

( 1) /

C p T01
p
1 +
&

1
Pc= m
c
p 01

m
& = Cf

2 p
Av

(5.6)

(5.7)

where Cp - the specific heat of air at constant pressure,

c - the efficiency of the fan, T01 - temperature at the fan
entrance, p01 - pressure the fan entrance, p - pressure
deferential across the fan, - the ratio of specific heat of
air.
Therefore, for a given pressure drop in the system, the
power is simply proportional to the mass flow rate which
decreases with valve lift. For a constant flow rate,
however, the required pressure drop increases
quadratically for a reduced flow orifice, Fig 8,

&
m

p =
2 Cd A v

(5.8)

For a large flow rate, the flow will become choked at low
valve lifts.
(2) The engine flow is neither at a constant pressure
drop nor at a constant flow rate, but the flow at a
constant pressure drop appears closer to the real case.
(3) In engine simulations, the static flow coefficient is
often required as a function of different pressure drops
[23].

constant
pressure
drop

(a)

(4) For a constant pressure drop, the Reynolds number

becomes higher at larger valve lifts and reduces the
uncertainty of the static flow coefficient. This is favorable
because the engine breathing capacity depends mainly
on the flow at lager valve lifts.

(b)
Figure 7 Relationship of discharge coefficients
with pressure drop and flow rate [6]

Figure 8
Variations of pressure drop with
valve lift for constant flow rate, estimated using a
4-valve engine parameters

0.7
0.6
Flow coefficient (Cf)

The constant pressure drops of 254 mm WG was initially

proposed by Ricardo for two valve engines, Fig. 9, and a
508 mm WG is needed for the modern four valve
cylinder head for the same order of Reynolds number in
the port. Note that the Reynolds number in the valve gap
is approximately 4 times smaller, Eq (5.3) and Eq (5.4).
Taking the current steady flow testing of a V8 engine
cylinder head as an example, we can estimate that the
Reynolds number in the valve gap is between 4,000 to
29,000 for the 508 mm WG pressure drop, with the lower
value corresponding to lower valve lifts, Fig. 10. Because
the Reynolds number at small valve lifts is rather low,
one probably expects the static flow coefficient strongly
depends on the test condition and will increase with the
pressure drop, according to the results of Fig. 7 and
Benjamin et al [11]. However, data available within
Jaguar shows that using higher pressure drops have
resulted in a lower flow coefficient for certain valve lift,
Fig. 11, and this is contradictory to the trend found at

0.5
0.4
0.3

68 inches WG
20 inches WG
10 inches WG

0.2
0.1
0.0

10

12

Valve lift (mm)

Figure 11
drop

Flow coefficients at varied pressure

the low end of pressure drop. The author believes that

the relationship of flow coefficient with pressure drop is
not linear and assumes that while Cd in lower pressure
drop range increases with pressure drop, as found by [7]
and [11], it reaches a peak at certain pressure drop and
starts to decrease for very high pressure drop. It is
obvious that the value and position of this peak may vary
with engine cylinder head design. This assumption is not
confirmed and requires further investigation. It seems to
the author that testing a cylinder head using several
pressure drops including that close to the extreme found
in the engine is shifting from its original concept of nondimensional fluids analogy to a more realistic parameter
measurement. It is clear that comparisons between static
flow coefficients are valid only if the cylinder heads have
the same valve diameter and have been tested with the
same pressure drop.
Figure 9
Pressure drop recommended by
Ricardo according to [2]
100

Rec

Reynolds number ( x1k )

80

Rep
60

40

Rev
20

0
0

10

valve lift (mm)

Figure 10
The Reynolds number in the test of
a typical 4-valve engine cylinder head

5.3 INCOMPRESSIBILITY
The methods for characterizing the intake flow under
steady flow conditions are based on a basic assumption
that the flow is incompressible because the flow velocity
in the port is relatively low and the pressure drop is
relatively small. One should be aware that in the steady
flow test, when the Reynolds number or pressure drop
increases, errors in the measured static flow coefficient
and swirl/tumble ratio due to the assumption of
incompressible flow also increase. Using the calculations
of compressible flow, we can estimate the effect of this
assumption. Figure 12 shows that at a pressure drop of
504 mmH2O, the flow coefficient Cf is underestimated by
2.5% and the non-dimensional rig swirl ratio is
overestimated by 0.8%. These errors are often neglected
but will be tripled for a pressure drop of 1700 mm H2O.
Therefore, careful calculations are needed to trade off
the benefits of higher pressure drops. One option is that
for the static flow coefficient Cd and Cf, the theoretical
flow rates can be calculated using the equations of
compressible flow so that the results are not affected by
the assumption.

error %

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

flow capacity and the swirl or tumble strength. The flow

bench test is also an important source of input data for
the engine simulation code, which usually requires the
non-dimensional and normalized intake flow parameters
across the range of valve lifts. This section discusses the
links between the results of steady flow tests and the
combustion performance of the engine. The validity of
the steady flow parameters in engine combustion
simulations is also mentioned.

Cf
Rs

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

pressure drop (mm WG)

Figure 12 Errors in flow coefficient and swirl ratio

due to the assumption of incompressible flow
5.4 BLOWING AND SUCTION
Both the blowing and suction systems have been used in
the steady flow test. Typically, the design of the Ricardo
flow bench is based on blowing and that of AVL is based
on suction. For both systems, the flow must be fully
turbulent with a high Reynolds number. They all treat the
flow as incompressible and thus the velocity head loss is
only a function of pressure drop. Therefore, one should
not expect any apparent difference in the test results
purely because of the choice of blowing or suction, which
seems to be entirely a matter of convention and
convenience for the design of each individual system. In
fact, the pressure in the intake port of an operating
engine is pulsating. It is usually below atmospheric for a
NA engine and above atmospheric for a supercharged
engine. The steady flow test is only an idealized and
simplified method to characterize the flow.
Technically, the requirement of the hardware for the two
systems is somewhat different due to the difference in
the pressure distributions. For a blowing system, the
pressure at the fan entrance is atmospheric and for a
suction system, this pressure is approximately
atmospheric minus the pressure drop. From Eq (5.6), it
is obvious that the power required for driving the fan is a
function of pressure drop and inversely proportional to
the pressure at the fan entrance. Therefore, a smaller
power is required for a blowing flow system to achieve
the same pressure drop than for a suction system. We
estimate that the power required for a suction system will
be approximately up to 50% higher than for a blowing
system, depending on the pressure drop. One of the
advantages with the suction system is that it makes
easier to introduce seeding particles for optical
diagnostics applications, such as for the AVL tumble
measuring system.

The correlation between the static flow coefficient and

engine breathing capacity is simpler, but that between
the swirl/tumble ratio and the combustion performance is
not straightforward. Although many have reported an
increase of burning rate with the increase of swirl or
tumble ratio, some others have found that an overall flow
momentum including contributions from the other two
swirl components correlated better with engine
combustion. This is because the in-cylinder flow
structure is often more complicated than just pure swirl
or pure tumble. One flow model proposed by Trigui et al
at Ford [20] is to use the kinetic energy, defined as:
2

E= (TR +CR +SR )-( TR CR + TR SR +

CR SR )
(6.1)
where TR, CR and SR are tumble ratio, cross tumble
ratio and swirl ratio, respectively, and they are the
normalized angular momentum about the 'volumecentered' axes. The first three quadratic terms have a
favorable influence on the combustion rate, while the
second mixed terms represent an unfavorable influence
due to the destruction of kinetic energy through
interactions. The constant was recommended to be
0.55, but may need to be adjusted for different engine
designs. Figure 13 presents the correlation between the
flow parameters and the combustion performance, and it
shows that the kinetic energy of the 3-D flow model had
a good correlation whereas the swirl and tumble ratios
failed to demonstrate the trend clearly.

6. LINKS BETWEEN THE FLOW BENCH TEST AND

THE ENGINE PERFORMANCE
The flow bench test of a cylinder head is particularly
useful for evaluating the static flow coefficient and
making compromises to trade off between the engine

Figure 13 Correlation between intake kinetic

energy and combustion burn rate [20]

As pointed out earlier, the definitions of swirl or tumble

ratio vary with users, particularly for the flow field velocity
measurement using 2-D or 3-D optical techniques. This
can affect the characterization of the flow and thus the
correlation between the flow bench experiment and
engine combustion performance. The strength of tumble
in the operating engine is expected to be higher than that
indicated by the steady flow tumbling vortex ratio, while
the associated enhancement of turbulence depends on
the geometry and operating conditions of the engine. It
has been shown, for example, in reference [26], that the
tumble motion may collapse in the early stages of the
compression stroke for certain engine configurations,
such as a pancake combustion chamber, resulting in
little turbulence enhancement in the cylinder.
On the other hand, for an engine having a 'curved head'
piston and a pent-roof cylinder head, such as the
Mitsubishi DI engine, the flow angular momentum can be
well preserved until the later stages of the compression
stroke, when the breaking down of the tumble can
generate much higher turbulence levels around the time
of
ignition.
Therefore,
the
induction-generated
momentum flux is not sufficient on its own to define the
flow completely, and in order to obtain improved
combustion by swirl/tumble-enhanced flow conditions at
ignition, attention must be paid to both the combustion
chamber and valve/port geometries. A quantitative
relationship between the steady flow and the engine flow
for validation of the CFD simulation is not available at the
present.
Bearing the limitations in mind, the swirl and tumble ratio
can be used as a convenient parameter to characterize
the strength of the mean flow in the combustion
chamber. The mean flow across the spark-gap at the
time of ignition plays a critical role for the growth rate of
the flame kernel, due partly to the convective heat loss
effects. For a centrally located spark plug, the mean flow
velocity around the spark gap at the time of ignition
depends on the strength of bulk vortex motion. Images of
the flame in a four-valve engine have provided evidence
that the growth rate of the flame kernel is faster with
stronger swirl and tumble [27]. Thus, the local mean flow
must be carefully optimized in conjunction with the timing
of fuel injection for either port open-valve or direct incylinder injection concepts so as to enhance the chances
of local mixture stratification.
It can be concluded that, despite the diversity in
experimental techniques, there are evidences that steady
flow test results generally correlate with the engine
combustion performance. As mentioned earlier, direct
comparisons can only be made between cylinder heads
with a similar geometry and tested on the same flow
bench under same conditions. No comparison or
reference, however, can be made between test results
other than specified as such. The essential requirements
in such investigations are thus: firstly to be consistent in
the geometry and use of the flow measurement
techniques, and secondly, to be consistent in the way in
which the momentum flux is measured.

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The important technical issues on the steady flow testing
of cylinder heads have been presented and discussed.
The definitions of discharge/flow coefficients and
swirl/tumble ratios have been examined, and the
principles for selecting the test conditions such as
pressure drop and flow rate presented. Techniques in
measuring the angular flow momentum in cylinders have
been discussed and the link between the steady flow
parameters and the combustion performance is
highlighted. The main conclusions and recommendations
drawn by the author from the discussion are:
1.

To critically assess the flow capacity of a cylinder

head, the discharge coefficient should be used at
lower valve lifts to examine the design of the valve
geometry and seat lips. At higher valve lifts, the
flow coefficient should be used to examine the port
geometry. The definitions of the coefficients are
based on the choice of reference flow area which
varies with the user and therefore it is necessary
to check the original definitions of the parameters
before making any comparisons with the data
obtained by other groups.

2.

The quantification of swirl and tumble generated

by the intake process concerns firstly the
definitions of the flow parameters, and secondly,
the techniques used for measuring the angular
flow momentum flux. The Ricardo Swirl/Tumble
Ratio, probably more widely used elsewhere, is
preferred because it involves the cam profile and
valve open duration, which are relevant to engines
using VVT. Note there is a difference between the
Ricardo and AVL methods which characterize the
in-cylinder flow, and the equivalent flow
parameters in the two systems can not be simply
interchanged.

3.

The conventional swirl torque meter is a widely

adopted technique for measuring the angular flow
momentum flux, whereas a paddle wheel usually
underestimates the flow angular momentum. The
proposed '3-D swirl meter' can be a useful device
only if a reliable relationship between the '3-D'
measurement and the flow momentum data
interested to the engine development can be
found. Further investigations are required to study
the calibration and correlation with respect to other
more widely adopted techniques.

4.

The tumble adaptor is a useful and widely used

technique for estimating the strength of the tumble
motion in an engine cylinder generated by the
intake flow. The geometry of the adaptor is,
however, not standard and will significantly affect
the conversion of the tumble into a swirling flow in
the measuring pipe. It is necessary to use
consistent configurations in order to make sensible
comparisons between data. The position and
shape of the dummy piston top surface are the

most critical factors. It is recommended that the

dummy piston have a flat top surface with the
position equivalent to the BDC position, but a
curved surface for the dummy piston can be used
to estimate the effect of the piston shape on the incylinder flow. It is useful to make the tumble
adaptor and the dummy cylinder of transparent
materials such perspex so that optical diagnostics
can be applied to investigate the flow inside.
5.

6.

Two alternative flow bench designs are

recommended for consideration. They are the
transient air flow bench and the water analogue
rig. In particular, the former is easy to set up at low
cost and can be operated with the same
instrument arrangement as for the steady flow
bench, providing great potential to benefit the
cylinder head design. The latter requires
comparable flow measurement techniques, such
PIV and PTV.
The most important factor to be considered in
determining the steady test condition is to ensure
that the intake flow is fully turbulent, as indicated
by the Reynolds number of the flow. It is
recommended that the Reynolds number in the
valve gap should be of order 10 thousand or more.
The Reynolds number is a function of the flow rate
only, which is determined by the combination of
pressure drop and valve lift. Static flow coefficient
obtained with a constant flow rate demonstrated a
better correlation to the dynamic flow coefficient,
probably because the Reynolds number at smaller
valve lifts for the constant flow rate is higher than
that with the constant pressure drop.

9.

10.

not available at the present and require further

research.
It is believed that there is no substantial difference
between blowing and suction flow systems in
terms of the test results. The selection of the
system is only a matter of convenience for the
setup. The blowing system needs less power than
the suction system for the same pressure drop,
but on the other hand, it is easier to introduce
seeding particles with a suction system for optical
diagnostics of the flow.
Despite the diversity in experimental techniques
involved in the flow bench test, there are a number
of evidences that steady flow testing results
generally correlate with engine combustion
performance. The swirl and tumble ratios are
simplified
but
convenient
parameters
to
characterize the strength of the mean flow, and a
multi-component evaluation of the flow is often
needed. Direct comparison can be made between
cylinder heads only for those with a similar
geometry and tested on the similar flow bench
under the same conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to thank Huw Williams at Jaguar
Research and Huiyu Fu, Xiangdong Chen, and Martin
Haste at Jaguar Powertrain for many useful discussions.
REFERENCES:
1. Stone. C. R. and Ladommatos, N., The measurement and
analysis of swirl in steady flow, SAE Paper 921642, 1992.

2. Challen, B., and Baranescu, R., Diesel engine reference

7.

The constant pressure drop, however, has

become a widely adopted convention across the
industry as the steady flow test condition, largely
due to the feasibility of this test condition.
Generally, a higher pressure drop is required for
two valves open than for one valve open. To
ensure that the test result be less dependent of
the pressure and closer to the dynamic flow
coefficient, it is recommended to use at least 500
mm WG for tests in which two valves open.

8.

A higher pressure drop is a favourable option, but

using a very high pressure drop e.g. up to 68 or
more inches water gauge is shifting away from its
original concept of non-dimensional fluids analogy
to a more realistic parameter measurement. On
the other hand, the transient study such as water
analogy of the intake flow is playing a more and
more important role for flow pattern investigation.
This is perhaps due to the development of CFD
and optical diagnostic applications. Accordingly,
the simulation methodology necessitates further
investigations into some issues which are not so
clear at the moment, since a quantitative
relationship between the steady flow and the
engine flow for validation of the CFD simulation is

nd

book, 2 edition, SAE, 1999.

3. Monaghan, M. L. and Pettifer, H. F., Air motion and its
effect on diesel performance and emissions, SAE Paper
810255, 1981.
4. Arcoumanis, C., Nouri. J., Xu, H. M. and Stone, R.,
Analysis of the steady flow characteristics of tumblegenerating four-valve cylinder heads, Optical Diagnostics
in Engineering, Vol. 2(2), 71-83, http://www.odeweb.demon.co.uk/PAPERS/XU1.PDF , 1997.
5. Vafidis, C., Aerodynamics of reciprocating engines, Ph.D
Thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 1986.
6. Arcoumanis, C and Whitelaw, J.H., Are steady flow inlet
boundary
conditions
valid
for
engine
cylinder
calculations?, Proc. Congress on modelling of internal
combustion engines, Valencia, Spain, 1987.
7. Arcroumanis, C, Hu, Z, and Whitelaw, J.H., Steady flow
characterization of tumble generating four valve cylinder
heads, Proc. IMechE, Part D, 1992.
8. Xu, H.M, Turbulent flow and combustion in a lean-burn
spark-ignition engine, PhD Thesis, Imperial College,
University of London, 1995.
9. Heywood, J.B., Fundamentals of internal combustion
engines, McGraw-Hill, 1988.
10. Ricardo, Steady state flowbench port performance
measurement
and
analysis
techniques,
Report
DP93/0704, 1993.
11. Baker, P., Benjamin, S. F., Girgis, N. S., Newman, A. W.
and Seeley, W. A., Characterisation of barrel swirl motion
under steady flow conditions, SAE Paper 950729,

12. Endres, E., Neuber, H-J. and Warms, R, Influence of swirl

13.

14.
15.
16.
17.

18.
19.
20.

21.

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.
29.

and tumble on economy and emissions of multi-valve SI

engines, SAE Paper 920516, 1992.
Hu, Z, C. Vafidis, Whitelaw and H.M. Xu, Steady flow
characteristics of a rover four-valve cylinder head,
Research report TF/91/14, Mech Eng, Imperial College,
1991.
MTZ, 58, 6, 1997.
Tipplemann, Private Communications.
AVL Report, Design and development of CBR-intake
ports.
Jackson, N.S., Stokes, J., Sadler, M., Correlation of the
combustion characteristics of spark ignition engines with
the in-cylinder flow field characterised using PIV in a water
analog rig, SAE paper 971637.
Brehm, C., Whitelaw, J. H, Sassi, L. and Vafidis, C., Air
and fuel characteristics in the intake port of a SI engine,
SAE paper 1999-01-1491, 1999.
Bohac, S and Landfahrer, K., Effects of pulsating flow on
exhaust pot flow coefficients, SAE paper 1999-01-0214,
1999.
Trigui, N., Kent, J. C., Guezennec and Choi, W. -C.,
Characterisation of intake generated fluid flow fields in IC
engines using 3-D particle tracking velocimetry (3-D PTV).
SAE Paper 940279, 1994.
Khalighi, B., Intake-generated swirl and tumble motions in
a 4-valve engine with various intake configurations- Flow
visualisation and particle tracking velocimetry, SAE paper
900059, 1990.
Bensler, H., Freek, C, Beesten, B, Ritter, A., Hentschel,
W., An Experimental and numerical study of the steadystate flow of a SI-engine intake port, SAE 982470, 1998.
Fu, H.Y., communications within Jaguar.
Streeter, V.L, Fluids mechanics, McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Annand and Roe, Gas Flow in the Internal Combustion
Engine, 1974.
Whitelaw, J.H. and Xu, H.M., Steady flow characteristics
of a FIAT engine cylinder head with conventional and
shrouded intake valves, Research report TF/93/21, Mech.
Eng., Imperial College, 1993.
Whitelaw, J.H. and Xu, H.M., Cyclic variations in a leanburn spark-ignition engine without and with swirl, SAE
paper 950683, 1995.
AVL List GmbH, 'Port development - flow test bench',
Report collection.
Ford, Steady state air flow calculations.

LIST OF SYMBOLS:
a
Av
B
C()
C
Cd
Cf

speed of sound
inlet valve inner seat area = NvDv2/4
cylinder bore
instantaneous piston speed
constant
discharge coefficient
flow coefficient

mean piston speed

specific heat of air at constant pressure
diameter
inlet valve inner seat diameter
friction coefficient
acceleration gravity
angular momentum flux of tumbling vortex
coefficient of minor velocity head loss
velocity head
length
valve lift
m&
air mass flow-rate through the port/valve
assembly
nv
number of inlet valves
N
engine speed
NSA
non-dimensional rig swirl, defined by AVL
NSR
non-dimensional rig swirl, defined by Ricardo
p
pressure
Q
volumetric flow rate
R
Reynolds number
Rs
engine swirl ratio
S
piston stroke
TVRo tumbling vortex ratio
Vo
idea velocity head
Vp
mean piston speed

Cm
Cp
D
Dv
f
g
G
K
h
L
Lv

1, 2 crank angles of intake valve opening and closure

differential
air density
c
efficiency of the blower or fan

air viscosity

air kinematic viscosity

t
tumble rotation speed (rad/s)

engine speed (rad/s)

CONTACT
Hongming Xu, Dr.
Jaguar Research
W/2/021, Engineering Centre
Jaguar Cars
Abbey Road, Coventry CV3 4LF
Tel: +44 (0)24 76 20 6112
Fax: +44 (0)24 76 20 6533
Email: hxu3@jaguar.com