Stirling Analysis Comparison of Commercial vs. High-Order Methods

Recently, three-dimensional Stirling engine simulations have been accomplished utilizing commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics software. The validations reported can be somewhat inconclusive due to the lack of precise time accurate experimental results from engines, export control/proprietary concerns, and the lack of variation in the methods utilized. The last issue may be addressed by solving the same flow problem with alternate methods. In this work, a comprehensive examination of the methods utilized in the commercial codes is compared with more recently developed high-order methods. Specifically, Lele’s Compact scheme and Dyson’s Ultra Hi-Fi method will be compared with the SIMPLE and PISO methods currently employed in CFD-ACE, FLUENT, CFX, and STAR-CD (all commercial codes which can in theory solve a three-dimensional Stirling model although sliding interfaces and their moving grids limit the eective time accuracy). We will initially look at one-dimensional flows since the current standard practice is to design and optimize Stirling engines with empirically corrected friction and heat transfer coecients in an overall one-dimensional model. This comparison provides an idea of the range in which commercial CFD software for modeling Stirling engines may be expected to provide accurate results. In addition, this work provides a framework for improving current one-dimensional analysis codes.