Bernoulli and 350 ft/s, 146 cfm/in²

-

Earlie A

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2023
Messages
563
Reaction score
733
Location
TN Hills
I hate watching technical Youtube videos when the guy on the video really doesn't know what he's talking about. Today, I may be that guy. The Bernoulli equation as it relates to intake ports is a complicated subject and I do not pretend to understand much of it. With the help of some guys on Speed-talk, I have managed to absorb some things. That is what I want to share.

Everything I'm talking about here has to do with theoretical dry air at 60 degrees F moving through an intake port on a flow bench with the flow bench depression (the difference between inlet and outlet pressure) set to 28 inches of water. These numbers do not represent what is happening in a running engine.

If you read much about flow bench testing you will soon see references to a maximum average port velocity of 350 ft/s and a maximum potential flow rate of 146 cfm/sq in. It's difficult to understand what these numbers mean and where they come from. The 350 ft/s is especially confusing because parts of a port CAN exceed 350 ft/s average velocity. The key word there is PART of the port, not the whole port. The 146 cfm/sq in is confusing because of the sq in part. Square inches of what? I don't think I can explain all of those questions, but maybe I can help some of you see the origin of these numbers. Discussions like this usually lead to other people jumping in and sharing knowledge that I do not have, so I look forward to learning something on this subject myself.

I'm not going to attempt to explain much of the Bernoulli principle. I do not fully understand it myself. If you are interested do the Google search and read up on it. I'll only attempt to explain the parts that relate to our discussion. Referencing the attached drawing of a port with a wide mouth at point 1 and a small discharge at point 2, the Bernoulli principle states that the sum of all fluid energies at point 1 must equal the sum of all energies at point two. So the internal energy + kinetic energy + potential energy at point 1 must equal the internal energy + kinetic energy + potential energy at point 2. Potential energy has to do with the height (elevation) of the fluid. In this case, the height at point 1 equals the height at point 2. There is no change in height from point 1 to point 2, so there is no change in potential energy. So we can delete potential energy from our equation. It now becomes internal energy + kinetic energy at point 1 = internal energy + kinetic energy at point 2. For our purposes, internal energy is represented by static pressure of the fluid (air) and the kinetic energy is a product of the density of the air multiplied by the velocity squared. It's like the energy in a moving bullet. The mass of the bullet can do damage, but the velocity does more damage.

Now, let's assume that the mouth of this intake port is so large that the velocity of the air at point 1 is zero. Our equation now becomes internal energy at point 1 = internal energy + kinetic energy at point 2. Or stated another way, static pressure 1 = static pressure 2 + kinetic energy 2. Or, just rearranging the equation static pressure 1 - static pressure 2 = kinetic pressure 2. We know that static pressure 1 - static pressure 2 is the pressure differential between the two points, which is the 28 inch depression across the flow bench. So now we have 28 inches of H2O = kinetic energy 2. So what this is saying is that 28 inches of water (which is 1.012 psi which is also 145.7 lbf/sq ft) is the amount of the static pressure at point 1 that is converted entirely to kinetic energy at point 2. Originally at point 1 there is an absolute pressure of 14.969 psi (this is standard atmospheric pressure) available to push the air through the port. Since we know that there is 1.012 psi less at point 2, the absolute pressure at point 2 is 13.675 psi. This is all the energy that is available to push air through the port. That's it. That's the limitation. If all of that 1.012 psi gets 100% converted from pressure energy to kinetic (velocity) energy, that is the limit of velocity at point 2.

In equation form this is P1-P2=ρv²/2 where P=pressure, ρ=density at point 2 and v=velocity at point 2

Here's one area where the Bernoulli principle is a little errant for air flow in a port. The Bernoulli equation used in this discussion is for incompressible fluids. Air is compressible. However, if air is flowing at low speeds relative to the speed of sound, and if there is no turbulence then Bernoulli can be used for air. Obviously this is a stretch as well because air flows quite fast in the port and does have turbulence. Nonetheless, these errors are somewhat small so we will continue.

If we assume the air is incompressible, then the density at 2 = density at point 1. So now we can write:

P1-P2=ρv²/2 where P=pressure, ρ=density at point 1 and v=velocity at point 2. So now reference the paper below where the numbers are plugged in and the equation is solved for v2.

We see that v2=350.3 ft/s. So what this is saying is that if air at point 1 loses 1.012 psi of pressure in traveling to point 2, it must gain 350.3 ft/s in average velocity. This is the maximum gain. There is no more gain possible. Can't happen.............unless the density at point 2 is lower than the density at point 1 (which it is) or unless there is a venturi effect. That's how velocities in certain areas of the port can exceed 350.3 average. These concepts are even more complicated than what we have discussed so far.

One more point to make. 146 cfm per square inch is really the same thing as 350.3 ft/s. See the attached paper for the unit conversions. If you convert seconds to minutes and multiply by 1 ft²/144 in² (which is really multiplying by 1), you end up with 146 cfm/in². For the purposes of this discussion, the 146 cfm/in² applies to the discharge area at point 2. We'll leave it there for now other than to say this. The 146 cfm/in² is an important number in calculating port efficiencies and discharge coefficients. The challenge is accurately defining the discharge area. There does not seem to be a universal standard.

If I've made errors, please kindly point them out so I can edit this post. I really tried to get it right, but I'm sure I've butchered something.

IMG_2660.jpg
 

Attachments

  • EPSON001.PDF
    1.2 MB · Views: 62
Last edited:
The average guy or gal on boob tube is basically trying to make as long of a video as possible for more possible commercials and drive their market on the leader board up. Look at UTG- such long wind that it gives me anxiety watching him. The only guy I know that knows everything about Mopar’s but gets so much…. Wrong?!?

Anyhow- I’m not sure what this formula has to do with an average guy but nice work and I hope somebody chimes in. in regards to this question.
Again EarlyA you have taken it to the next level!
 
1718108366089.png

:lol:
No time to go over it in detail this morning, but thanks for pulling the information together.
 
I admire your deep thought that goes into all this. I’m going to have to delve into this post later tonight at the end of my day and try to bring my level of deep thinking to your level(wish me good luck). Vastly interested subject for me. Looking forward to opening the door and “break on through to the other side”.
 
Here's an equivalent without the math. Let's say you're racing a 3200 lb car with a 400 hp engine. You can get about 116 mph in the quarter mile, but the theoretical limit is 130 mph. The 1.012 psi on the flow bench is like the 400 hp, it's all the power there is. The 3200 lb car is like the density of the air in the port. It's the mass that's being pushed. There is a limit to how fast 400 hp can push a 3200 lb car just like there's a limit to how fast 1.012 psi can push air with a density of 0.0764 lbm/ft3. Lighten the car and it can go faster on 400 hp. Reduce the air density and it can go faster than 350 ft/s with 1.012 psi of pressure drop. The 3200 lb car will never get to the 130 mph theoretical limit just like the 0.0764 air will never get to the 350 ft/s theoretical limit.
 
Last edited:
This will be way over my IQ and pay grade level but I’ll try to follow along. I sticka da bur in da thing that go round and round and make aluminum chips. Lol
 
This will be way over my IQ and pay grade level but I’ll try to follow along. I sticka da bur in da thing that go round and round and make aluminum chips. Lol
There's scientific formulas for everything but common sense can prevail and make it work. A friend worked at Deere in engine development. An engineer designed the cam for their new diesel they were developing. The lobes were damn near square. Denny said it wouldn't work and it didn't. He contacted Harvey Crane and he designed a cam for the engine that worked well.
 
This will be way over my IQ and pay grade level but I’ll try to follow along. I sticka da bur in da thing that go round and round and make aluminum chips. Lol
You are hilarious. The math is geek squad but you understand the principles quite well.
 
Here is the source of some of my confusion on this subject. In book after book and in video after video, the theoretical limits of 350 ft/s and 146 cfm/in² are used. Several months ago, in pitot tube probing the combustion chamber side of the intake valve (see picture below), I was getting local velocities of well over 350 ft/s. I thought, well, that's OK as long as the average velocity is below the limit of 350ft/s. Look at the sixteen pitot tube readings in pink. The average is 370 ft/s.

The answer is twofold. One reason is because of the venturi effect. Air is speeding up to get through the venturi created by the valve and valve seat. The other answer is because of the 28 in H2O pressure drop across the intact port. The 350 ft/s velocity limit is the limit at the density of air at the inlet of the port (14.696 psi). Because the air in the chamber is at a lower pressure (13.675 psi) than the air at the inlet to the port, the density in the chamber is lower. So, as air travels down the intake port, it's pressure is reducing and therefore its density is also reducing. Since the mass flow rate of air through the port cannot change, the velocity has to increase as the air gets closer to the chamber. So, even if the area of the intake port is constant, the velocity will be increasing as the air travels down the port.

One other confusing part of this pitot testing in the chamber was the average cfm/in² readings. These can be seen in blue. Again, the average number of 154 cfm/in² seems to violate the maximum theoretical value of 146. But again, the reason it's doing so is because of the venturi effect and the reduction in density associated with high air speeds. The 154 number would yield a discharge coefficient of 154/146=1.05 if the 146 is used as the theoretical maximum. It should not be possible to get discharge coefficients higher than 1, but it is common at low lifts. I believe the explanation has to do with scfm vs acfm. The 154 number is cfm at a lower density than the 146 number. If both numbers were converted to standard conditions (scfm), I believe that a discharge coefficient of greater than 1 could never be achieved.

Discharge coefficients are about as intimidating as shaping a short side radius. I think the reason is because of the complexities of scfm vs acfm and the difficulty of measuring the valve curtain area. More on that later.

IMG_2348.jpg


IMG_2663.jpg


IMG_2665.jpg
 
I'm definitely no expert here but i believe you're trying to compare apples to oranges.
From your first post.."That's how velocities in certain areas of the port can exceed 350.3 average." "Certain areas" of the port are local velocities not average. Using your pitot probe at the curtain area you're measuring the local velocity. Great job on all the math
 
I'm definitely no expert here but i believe you're trying to compare apples to oranges.
From your first post.."That's how velocities in certain areas of the port can exceed 350.3 average." "Certain areas" of the port are local velocities not average. Using your pitot probe at the curtain area you're measuring the local velocity. Great job on all the math
You are correct that the pitot measures local velocity. If we are trying to measure the average velocity in the curtain area, then taking multiple measurements around the entire perimeter of the valve and averaging them together will give the average velocity. That’s what the section highlighted in pink shows. In this example, 16 pitot measurements were taken with the valve at 0.200 lift. The average of those measurements is 370 ft per sec.

My point was this: The mass flow rate through the port cannot change; it must be a constant. The average flow (measured in acfm) can change locally as the density changes. The average flow in scfm will not change throughout the length of the port. The actual local velocity can be higher than 350 ft/sec. The average velocity converted back to standard conditions cannot exceed 350.

This post was edited to clean up the language.
 
Last edited:
If you can measure the temperature change in the air then you would know something about the density changes.

PV=nRT (ideal gas law)
 
This will be way over my IQ and pay grade level but I’ll try to follow along. I sticka da bur in da thing that go round and round and make aluminum chips. Lol
And you did it so well. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to port heads well.
 
If you can measure the temperature change in the air then you would know something about the density changes.

PV=nRT (ideal gas law)
I agree. In theory the temperature rise through the port (on the flow bench) could be related directly to the inefficiency of the port. I don’t have the equipment or experience to do that however.
 
I think temperature of the air will go down. When air expands from a high-pressure area into a low pressure area it's temperature goes down, doesn't it? Temperature probes would be fairly inexpensive and highly accurate I would think.
 
I think you are correct. In an adiabatic process where no heat is transferred to the surroundings, expansion would cause a drop in temperature and compression would cause a rise in temperature.

There would be several things going on in the port (on the flow bench) that would cause temperature changes. A perfectly shaped port would diverge all the way to the throat/valve and then expand/converge into the chamber. Since the air ends up at a lower pressure in the cylinder than it starts at ambient conditions, that would tend to drop the temperature. However, because of the work being done on the fluid (air) heat would be generated. Also, any losses due to friction, turbulence and other inefficiencies would show up as heat. I think the net effect would actually be a heating of the air rather than a cooling.

Good discussion. I’ve never really thought about things in this manner.

This I have thought about: On the flow bench the air goes from a state of higher energy to a state of lower energy. That is what drives the flow direction. The energy that is lost from entry into the intake port until it exits the cylinder gets converted to heat.
 
Multiply your valve diameter by .25 and measure the cfm at that lift number
 
I studied fluid mechanics way back in college. Enjoyed it and did well at it. At one time I could apply Bernoulli without reference to a textbook.

The main thing I recall about it, is that the basic assumption is that it requires smooth non varying flow. That doesn't describe the behavior of flow in the intake tract (not in a running engine anyway). Probably some good practical takeaways to be had with the understanding, but I doubt the calculations hold merit.
 
As with many calculations of this type, the most simple forms of the equations make a lot of assumptions and eliminate some of the more complex variables. The most simple forms of Bernoulli assume incompressible flow that is also non turbulent and frictionless. Non of those assumptions are true in the running engine. This means that it is quite difficult to write an equation that would accurately define what is happening at any given time in a running intake port.

What we can do however, is use Bernoulli to define something that is perfect, some ideal condition that we can never achieve. That sets the bar or the goal of 100% efficiency. Then we can measure against that standard and see how well we are doing.

For me, this whole line of thinking started as I was flow testing the heads and trying to understand why flow stops. Why does 28 in of differential pressure only push air so fast?

I understand the arguments against Bernoulli. But I also understand this - Bernoulli can be used to predict a theoretical limit of 146 cfm/ sq in of flow area. The very best hemi heads don’t quite get there, but they are extremely close.

Let me also say that I appreciate the questions and the feedback. I am searching for answers and understanding. All of this interaction really helps.
 
There’s a video on YouTube with Curtis Boggs of RFD. In that video he talks about really starting to understand what happens in the ports when he understood the relationship between pressure and velocity. He was referring to the Bernoulli principle applied to points in the intake tract, not just the intake port as a whole.
 
There’s a video on YouTube with Curtis Boggs of RFD. In that video he talks about really starting to understand what happens in the ports when he understood the relationship between pressure and velocity. He was referring to the Bernoulli principle applied to points in the intake tract, not just the intake port as a whole.


I think I have watched that video. I know one of his videos he says some things most or probably some people would find unorthodox.

Not sure if it’s that video but I enjoy his stuff.
 
-
Back
Top