Pipe Design Exercise in EngMod2T

There are a large number of user questions about specific usage inside EngMod2T which cannot be
answered as a single topic because of the interdependencies with other subsystems. To aid in this,
Wobbly came up with the brilliant idea to create an informal pipe design competition where any user
can enter. He then creates a master model with modelling explanations and assumptions to show
how he gets to the values and publishes these documents for all to see.

Next we need to release the model with a dummy pipe model and guidelines on the rules. This
follows.

To make the pipe competition viable and fair we need to establish some guidelines and rules. Firstly,
the following subsystems are not allowed any modifications:

1. Engine
2. Transfer Ports and Scavenging
3. Inlet Port
4. Inlet System
5. Temperature System.

Of the remaining systems other than the exhaust system:

1. Exhaust Port – only the power valve timing curve may be adjusted.
2. Combustion system – the combustion efficiency, nitro ratio and fuel type is fixed, the rest is
changeable.

Methodology:

1. After unpacking the “KR180_COMP.pack” file you should have the engine model complete
except for a simplistic pipe.
2. Before you make any changes to the pipe date, save it under a new name “YourName” and
then modify it. Once you have completed your pipe design and simulations, you then need
to email [email protected] the following three files:
a. YourName.exl
b. YourName.exd
c. YourName.sil
3. If you make any changes to the combustion system or exhaust port files, you need to also
save them and send them to me:
a. YourName.exp
b. YourName.cbd

When running the simulation use the rpm text file that was unpacked during the creation of the
project. It starts at 7000rpm and ends at 13500rpm. This is the range the engine will be operated
over, decided on by primary usage and reliability requirements.

I will run each pipe submitted and create a power output file with all the results. This file will then be
analysed to declare a winner. The winner will be decided on by using the “Power Range” principle as
developed by Frits Overmars. For a detailed description see the Post2T Help files or the Appendix.

No detonation will be allowed using the Deto post processing of Post2T.

 The algorithm used is explained in the following picture.

The best pipe is the

one with the value at
peak added to:

the value at 1.3 and

the sum divided by 2
having the highest
value

This pipe then has

the value of
(40.6+37.4)/2=39

Disclaimer: The main aim is for this to be a teaching experience.

© Frits Overmars, Wayne Wright and Neels van Niekerk

 Appendix

Power Range as defined by Frits Overmars

Peak power alone does not say much about the usefulness of an engine.
The combination of power curve and transmission, the sort of
application that the engine will be used for, the abilities of the
rider and the condition of the track, together define which is the
optimum engine character.

An example: a 125 cc road race engine can always be kept between 10000
and 14000 rpm thanks to its six-speed gearbox. Whether this engine
produces 2 hp or 20 hp at 6000 rpm, is unimportant.

But a kart engine with direct drive without a gearbox has trouble
staying above 5000 rpm in slow corners; it only can manage to do so by
means of a very short gearing that forces the engine to rev over 17000
rpm on the straightaway. For such a kart it is imperative that
acceleration out of slow corners does not cost too much time. There may
be only one such corner on the whole circuit, but time lost there
cannot be made up by a higher top speed on the straight.

Therefore a sensible tuner will not concentrate on peak power; he will

make sure that the power is never really bad in the whole range from
5000 to 17000 rpm (in this kart-example).

I prefer to work not with a power band but with a power range, which I
defined as the highest rpm of a power curve, divided by its lowest rpm.
Experience has taught what kind of power range is needed for a certain
application. Road racing calls for a range of about 1.4. When a CVT is
involved, I imagine 1.2 or even less might be enough. Motocross calls
for something like 2.0. A touring bike needs at least 3 to be
comfortable. And the direct-drive kart in the above-mentioned example
needs about 3.4 (17000/5000).

Let us assume that we have a measured power curve from 7000 to 14000
rpm. That gives a power range of 2.0.

Within this power curve all possible range values are investigated,
from range=1.00; range=1.01; range=1.02; etc, up to range=2.0.

For each of these range values the whole power curve is examined in
order to find which lower and upper rpm values yield the highest
average power.

For range=1.5 for instance, we start with calculating the average power
between 7000 and 10500 rpm. Then we proceed with 7010--10515; then with
7020--10530; and so on, until the final possibility of 9333--14000 rpm.
And the highest value found is stored as the average power for range
1.5, together with its corresponding lower and upper rpm limits.

All stored values for average power are displayed in range graphs. So
when you are preparing an engine that will need a range of 1.6, you can
see at a single glance which engine delivers the best average power at
range 1.6. Furthermore you can see between which rpm values this engine
is most effective. And you don't need to fall into the trap that all
engine builders have fallen into at some time: attaching too much
importance to peak power.

Maybe you are used to comparing the acceleration times of different

engines on an inertial dyno. But that only makes sense if these engines
are all run between the same initial rpm and the same final rpm, and
all with the same gearing.

The range concept does not suffer from any of these limitations; it
functions under all circumstances. And because you can compare the
range graphs of all your engines, you will be able to distinguish much
quicker which range is best for a specific application. That is an
experience you would otherwise only gather after years of trial and
error.

Suppose you are preparing an engine for an application that requires a

power range of 1.5. Then which of the two power curves in the picture
below left should you pick? Hard to say, isn't it? But when you look at
the power range curves in the picture on the right, it is clear as day:
the yellow curve wins.

Two more power curves. The yellow curve does not look very useful. But
maybe it could work with a CVT....

The power range curves tell us what we need to know. If the CVT can
keep within a 1.2 rpm range, the yellow curve is OK. And if the CVT can
keep within a 1.1 rpm range, the yellow curve is a winner!
Another advantage of the power range curve: it can show you the rpm
limits you should operate between.
At range 1.2 the yellow power curve works best between 9970 rpm (the
blue curve) and 11964 rpm (the white curve).

=======================================================================

Average power
In the above Power Range text I mentioned average power. Average power
is not the area under the power curve. A claim like this calls for an
explanation, so here goes.
Take a look at the power curve above. It is a peculiar curve where at
rpm-point E the power totally collapses, but then comes back. The
reason I drew it like this will become clear in a minute.
We can look at the red area under the curve and convert that to a
rectangle. The yellow rectangle in the picture below has the same area
as the red areas under the original power curve. So you could say the
average power between rpm-point A and rpm-point B has a magnitude equal
to the height A--D. Or could you?

Let us put the engine with the peculiar red power curve in a vehicle
and start accelerating, from rpm-point A to rpm-point B. How long will
that take? It will take forever because the power at rpm-point E is
zero, so acceleration at point E is zero; we will never get past that
point. Acceleration from A to B will take an eternity which means that
average power between A and B is zero!

Admittedly you won't encounter a power curve like the one in the first
red picture very often. But the acceleration versus area argument holds
for any power curve. Let's take a look at a 'normal' curve without a
zero-power point. The curve below is split up into 9 equal rectangles,
each with a horizontal dimension A--B that represents rpm, and a
vertical dimension A--G that represents power.

When you convert the sum area of those 9 rectangles into a single
rectangle with the same rpm spread A--F, it will have a height A--H
that is 1.8 * A--G. Assuming A--G equals 1 HP, then the average power
A--H would be 1.8 HP (picture below).
Now let us look at the same power curve and determine the average power
via the acceleration approach (picture below). We will assume that
acceleration from A to B with the available power A--G takes 1 second.
Between B and C the power is twice as much, so acceleration from B to C
will take ½ second. And so on.
Total acceleration from A to F takes 20/6 s. If this acceleration were
to have a constant value, it would take 1/5 * 20/6 = 4/6 s from A to B.
This would require a constant power of 6/4 * A--G. Assuming again that
A--G equals 1 HP, then the average power would be 1.5 HP instead of the
1.8 HP that came out of the area-approach...

By the way, if you really want to grasp the difference between the
'area under the curve'-approach and the acceleration approach, put
another 97 yellow rectangles on top of the 3 rectangles between C and D
in the above picture, and repeat the area-calculation and the
acceleration-calculation of average power.

© Frits Overmars