PROJECT REPORT: VA178 ISSUE#1

Generic Automotive Engine Intake Port Optimisation

PROJECT ENGINEER(S): Matthew Cross, Daniel Smith DATE: 14 February, 2005

SIGNATURE:

APPROVED BY:

REQUESTED BY:

SUMMARY
This report aims to describe the steps taken to optimise a generic automotive intake port geometry
for mass flow rate under a given pressure drop using CFD.

A series of 11 unique parameters have been defined using SculptorTM together another 4
parameters which have been defined as functions of these. The cross-sectional area of the intake
port was also constrained to within +/- 15% of the baseline geometry during the optimisation.

An in-house code has been used to define an initial set of experiments based on a Latin
Hypercube sampling technique. A response surface approach has then been used to identify areas
of the design space that require refinement and subsequently has predicted an optimum design
that is situated within the bounds of the cross-sectional area constraint.

A total of 124 runs were solved as part of the study and an overall gain of 1.94% was found within
the prescribed limits.

Advantage CFD
Reynard Park, Brackley, Northants, NN13 7RP, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1280 846806 Fax: +44 (0)1280 846822
www.advantage-cfd.co.uk
CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. SCULPTOR METHODOLOGY 6

2.1. ASD Volume generation 7

2.2. Parameter creation 10

2.3. Making smooth deformations and finding parameter limits 11

2.4. Creating the other ASD volumes 12

2.5. Time summary 13

3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS AND AUTOMATION 14

3.1. Design of experiment 14

3.2. Automatic generation of experiments 14

3.3. Performance function and the area constraint 15

4. RESULTS 16

4.1. Results of optimisation 16

4.2. Design variable sensitivity 17

4.3. Comparison of baseline and optimised geometries 18

4.4. Comparison of flow structure 19

4.5. Time summary 22

5. CONCLUSIONS 23

6. APPENDIX A 24

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 2

1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a study to optimise the geometry of a generic automotive engine
intake port using CFD. The goal of the optimisation process was to increase the mass flow entering
the chamber for a fixed pressure drop.

A total pressure inlet of 0 Pa was used on the plenum inlet and a pressure outlet of –16.9kPa was
applied to the exit. All analyses were carried out at a single valve lift of 10.0mm and used the
standard k-ε turbulence model with non-equilibrium wall functions. The volume mesh was fully
tetrahedral and contained 2.7 million cells

The CFD model was supplied by a third party to demonstrate the use of SculptorTM to this type of
application and is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Intake Port Geometry

A series of 11 individual parameters were defined to modify the geometry of the intake port. These
variables, DV1 to DV11 are identified in Figure 2 to Figure 4 together with 4 additional variables,
DVTEMP1 to DVTEMP4, that are defined as functions of DV1 to DV11.

The cross-sectional area of the port is measured in the two locations identified in Figure 5. The
optimisation was constrained so that the areas of the final optimum were within +\- 15% of the
baseline.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 3

 Figure 2 – Variable DV1

Figure 3 – Variable DV2 – DV6

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 4

 Figure 4 – Variable DV7 – DV11

Port shape variables – (DV7 – DV11)

DV11

DV7 DV8

TEMPDV3 TEMPDV4

DV9
DV10 DV11

Section z - z
Section y - y

Both ports share the same design variables

Figure 5- Cross section constraints

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 5

2. SCULPTOR METHODOLOGY
The parametric deformations to the baseline geometry have been made using SculptorTM. This
section of the report presents the method used to define these deformations. An overview of the
process is shown below.

Generate Fluent
case file (*.cas)

Import Fluent case

file into SculptorTM

Create ASD volume

No
Add planes and buffer planes Can the deformation/mesh be
Yes
improved by…

Reposition control points …adding/removing planes?

No
Group control points Yes …re-grouping control

No
Apply transformation Yes …altering Co-efficients?

Freeze ASD volume

No
Deform geometry Is deformation satisfactory?

Yes

Is the mesh still within quality No

Set parameter limits
limits?

Output Designs

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 6

2.1. ASD Volume generation

Once the CFD volume mesh has been imported into SculptorTM (in this instance a FLUENT case
file – see Figure 6) it is possible to begin constructing the ASD (Arbitrary Shape Deformation)
volumes around the geometry. These ASD volumes provide the basis for the deformations.

Figure 6 – FLUENT case file read directly into SculptorTM

Figure 7 shows the initial stage of defining the first ASD volume around the runner. This volume is
intended to make the deformations specified in Figure 3.

Essentially an initial box is described around the boundary zone of interest that is then positioned
using tools within SculptorTM. This ASD volume is then subdivided (or extended) with a series of
planes. The nodes at intersections of the planes are later used to control the deformation of the
geometry.

Any geometry/volume mesh that sits outside of the ASD volume is not modified so it is possible to
isolate changes to an accurately defined volume.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 7

 Figure 7 – Initial generation of ASD

The further subdivision of the initial ASD is shown in Figure 8. The positioning of the ASD planes
close to the FLUENT boundary zone can also be identified.

The final ASD volume around the runner is displayed in Figure 9.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 8

 Figure 8 – Further subdivision of ASD

Figure 9 – Completed ASD volume around runner

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 9

2.2. Parameter creation

The next stage in the Sculptor™ process is to create relationships between the nodes within the
ASD volume to define parameters that deform the geometry as required.

These nodes are initially selected by the user (shown in yellow and highlighted in Figure 10) and
grouped together. Each group of points can later be translated, scaled or rotated in either cartesian
or parametric space.

Figure 10 – Points selected for grouping

In addition to this it is possible to add coefficients to each individual point within a group. This
allows points to be moved in diagonal directions or to be moved in different directions to the other
points in a group just using a single parameter. An example of this is shown in Figure 11 where a
single parameter has been used to define a powerful change to the geometry.

There was some iteration of these groups and the position of the planes before suitable
parameters were defined.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 10

 Figure 11 – Example of using coefficients in a group

Before these deformations can be made however the ASD volume must be ‘frozen’. This process
maps the nodes within the FLUENT case file to the parametric co-ordinates of the ASD volume
allowing distortion of the ASD to deform the FLUENT volume mesh smoothly and interactively.

2.3. Making smooth deformations and finding parameter limits

Once the volume has been frozen it is possible to deform the geometry with each of the
parameters. Before an optimisation can begin bounds need to be defined for each parameter.
These bounds are generally a function of geometrical constraints (such as restrictions to the
design space) or cell volume/skewness limits.

Currently, the best way to find these limits is to make a range of changes to a parameter and then
check the case in FLUENT or TGrid to ascertain the acceptable range of movement. An in-built
skewness and cell volume checker is in development for Sculptor™ as is collision detection with
constraint surface which will improve the speed of this process.

The deformations made to the FLUENT case file are distributed extremely smoothly to the volume
mesh. Figure 12 shows an example of a deformation made to the thickness of a wing section.
Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 11
 Figure 12 – Example of volume mesh deformation

2.4. Creating the other ASD volumes

The other ASD volumes were generated in a similar way to that specified for the runner. Figure 13
and Figure 14 show the ASD volumes around the port junction and the port itself respectively. Of
note is the way in which the planes have been positioned around the valve to ensure that the stem
is only moved by a negligible amount.

Figure 13 – ASD volume around port junction

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 12

 Figure 14 – ASD volume around port

2.5. Time summary

A breakdown of the time taken for each of the stages involved in generating the ASD volume
around the various components and defining the parameters is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Time breakdown

Time Summary Man time CPU time

Import fluent case file 1 minute -
Select visible regions 1 minute -
ASD volume 1 1 minute -
Setting the design space 1 minute -
Positioning the ASD volume 1 minute -
Adding layers to the ASD volume* 100 mins -
Grouping points** 60 mins -
Assigning movement co-efficient** 75 mins -
Creating the other ASD volumes*** 540 mins -
Freezing the ASD volumes**** - 205 mins
Finding parameter limits 120 mins -
Total 15hrs 3hrs 25mins
* Includes time added for second attempt
** Includes time added for refinements
*** Includes time added for refinements and second attempt on ASD volume 2
**** Includes time added for re-freezing volumes after 2nd creation iteration

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 13

3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS AND AUTOMATION
3.1. Design of experiment

Once the 11 parameters had been defined and tested it was possible to design a series of
experiments that would allow a relationship between these parameters and the performance of the
intake port to be calculated.

It was calculated that at least 75 initial experiments would be required in order to solve the
coefficients of a second order response surface. An in-house code was used to define 77
experiments by means of a Latin hypercube sampling method.

3.2. Automatic generation of experiments

Using a piece of in-house code the combination of the 11 parameters for the initial 77 experiments
were converted into a series of journal files for Sculptor. From these it was possible to automate
the generation of these 77 cases from Sculptor™ in batch mode thus removing the need for any
human input.

In-house scripts were also used to automate the checking of each case for negative volume cells
and high skewness, the generation of a FLUENT journal for each case and the processing of
results.

To create, check and process all of these cases took less than 3 man-hours in total.

Significant computational time reductions were possible as each experiment could be started from
the converged solution of the baseline. As only the node co-ordinates in the volume mesh are
modified and not the connectivity or CFD setup then reconverging the solution is possible.

Reconverging the solution reduced the number of iterations required to get to a steady mass flow
from approximately 4000 to 500 – a saving of nearly 90% of the time taken to solve each
experiment.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 14

3.3. Performance function and the area constraint

Throughout the optimisation process the 11 parameters were optimised for maximum mass flow
rate through the system. During the majority of this process the variation in the cross-sectional
area was ignored. This allowed the design space to be populated in both ‘illegal’ and ‘legal’
designs, which improved the accuracy of the response surface near the limits of the design space.

The cross-sectional area constraints were only applied in the final stage of the optimisation.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 15

4. RESULTS
4.1. Results of optimisation

The mass flow rate for each of the different runs in the optimisation process is shown in Figure 15
with the 4 different stages are identified with different colours. After the initial experiments defined
by the latin hypercube (shown in blue) two refinement stages were used to improve the resolution
of the response surface in the regions of predicted maxima and minima. Then a final search stage
(shown in red) was used to assess the predicted global maxima.

Note that it was only in this final search stage that the cross-sectional area constraints were
applied.

Figure 15 – Mass flow rate results over optimisation process

-0.215

-0.213

-0.210
BASELINE BASELINE
-0.208
Mass flow (kg/s)

-0.205

-0.203

-0.200

-0.198

-0.195

-0.193

-0.190
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Run Number
Initial DOE Refinement-1 Refinement-2 Maximum Search

Figure 16 compares the mass flow for the baseline and the optimum geometry found within the
cross-sectional area constraints (Run 123). These results are for both geometries run from an
initialised solution in Fluent for 4000 iterations with the same setup.

The cross-sectional areas are compared in Figure 17.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 16

 Figure 16 – Comparison of baseline and optimum mass flow rate

Mass Flow
(kg/s)
Baseline 0.2094
RUN123 0.2135
% change 1.94%

Figure 17 – Comparison of cross-sectional areas for baseline and optimum

Runner Port (lh) Port (rh)

Baseline Area 0.002104 0.001000 0.000999
RUN123 Area 0.002248 0.000850 0.000850
% change 6.8% -15.0% -14.9%

A comparison of the mass flow rate convergence history for the two cases is shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18 – Comparison of mass flow rate convergence history

-0.23

-0.22

-0.21

Baseline
-0.20 Run 123

-0.19

-0.18

-0.17
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

4.2. Design variable sensitivity

Figure 19 shows the variation in performance for each of the 11 parameters. For each curve the
parameter is varied between its maximum and minimum value whilst all other variables are kept in
the optimum position.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 17

 Figure 19 – Variation of performance with parameter value

-0.2125

-0.2120

DV1
-0.2115
DV2

DV3
-0.2110
Mass flow (kg/s)

DV4

DV5
-0.2105
DV6

-0.2100 DV7a

DV8a

-0.2095 DV9a

DV10a
-0.2090 DV11a

-0.2085
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Parameter value

Details of the variation in performance for 2 interacting parameters can be found in APPENDIX A.

4.3. Comparison of baseline and optimised geometries

A comparison of the original and optimised geometries is shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21. The
cross-section of the runner has been increased in all directions but well within the limits of the
design space. Around the port the cross-section has been dramatically reduced in the region near
the centreline of the bore (Figure 21) and increased slightly on the opposite side. Figure 17 shows
that the cross-sectional area here is reduced to the minimum possible within the constraints.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 18

 Figure 20 – Comparison of baseline and optimised runners

Figure 21 – Comparison of baseline and optimised geometries around the port

4.4. Comparison of flow structure

Figure 22 to Figure 25 identify different aspects of the flow structure for the baseline and optimum.
Figure 22 compares the velocity profile between the valve and the seat for the two cases

Isosurfaces of velocity cutaway through the centre of a valve are shown in Figure 23 and surface
contours of static pressure are shown in Figure 24. Figure 25 shows the flow direction local to the
intake port surface using oilflow and total pressure contours.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 19

 Figure 22 – Comparison of flow between the valve and the seat

Figure 23 – Comparison of isosurfaces of velocity through the valve centreline

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 20

 Figure 24 – Comparison of surface pressure for the two intake ports

Figure 25 - Comparison of oilflow and total pressure on the surface of the two intake ports

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 21

4.5. Time summary

Table 2 shows both the man time and CPU time involved in this phase of the optimisation. The
total duration of these stages was less than one week, including solve time (more than one
12xCPU PC-array was used at some stages).

Table 2 – Time summary

Time Summary (for all 124 cases) Man time CPU time

Working with in-house Latin hypercube code 30 mins 50 mins

Modifying existing scripts to automate case generation 20 mins -
Export time - 370 mins
Modifying existing scripts to automate case checking 20 mins -
Case checking - 180 mins
Modifying existing scripts to automate journal creation 10 mins -
Journal creation time - 2 mins
Modifying existing scripts to automate processing results 10 mins -
Processing results - 30 mins
Working with in-house response surface code 60 mins 20mins
Sub-Total 1hr 30 mins 10hrs 52 mins

Sub-Total from Table 1 15hrs 3hrs 25mins

Total solve time (12xCPU PC-array) - 9300 mins

Total 16hr 30 mins 169hrs 17 mins

Please note that these figures are approximate

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 22

5. CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be made about the process used in this study:
• The geometry of a generic automotive intake port has been successfully modified to
increase the mass flow for a given pressure drop by 1.94% whilst staying within a +/- 15%
cross-sectional area constraint in the runner and port. The entire process was possible in
just over a week.
• Sculptor™ has enabled the definition of 11 parameters to deform the case file directly so no
re-meshing has been necessary. The process of defining and refining the ASD volume and
parameters for this complex problem has taken approximately 2 man days.
• The generation of these cases has been automated using Sculptor™ in batch mode and a
series of scripts reducing the man-time taken to produce each subsequent design to a
matter of seconds.
• Latin hypercube sampling has been used to define a set of experiments based on the 11
parameters defined. A response surface method was then used to predict a global maxima.
• A total of 124 cases were run to optimise the 11 parameters.
• All experiments were reconverged from the baseline data file reducing the number of
iterations required from 4000 to 500 thus cutting the computational requirement by 90%

The results of the optimisation show the following:

• An overall increase in mass flow rate of 1.94% has been possible based on the 11
parameters used in this study. The cross-sectional areas of the runner and port are
constrained within the bounds identified at the start of the project (Figure 17)
• The cross-sectional area of the runner has been increased in all directions. The area of the
port has been reduced near the centreline of the bore and increased on the opposite side
(Figure 21)
• The changes to the runner have reduced the local velocities thus reducing some of the
losses.
• The decrease in cross-sectional area around the port has altered the flow local to the
surface downstream of the valve stem. With the optimised geometry the surface flow is
injected behind the valve stem slightly more rapidly leading to a small reduction in the size
of the stem wake.
• It is a complex combination of these 11 parameters, which has led to the performance
increase. To make such a gain without using parametric optimisation techniques would
have been difficult.

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 23

6. APPENDIX A
The variation in performance with two interacting parameters is plotted in Figure 26 and Figure 35.
As the two parameters may have different limits they are varied between their maximum and
minimum values at the same rate. For this reason there is no scale shown on the x-axis of the
graph.

Figure 26 to Figure 30 show where the two parameters are both increased at the same rate
between their limits. Figure 31 to Figure 35 show where one parameter is being increased whilst
the other is decreased.

Figure 26 Variation of performance with interacting parameter values

-0.213

-0.212

-0.211

increasing DV5 with increasing DV4

increasing DV3 with increasing DV4
-0.21
increasing DV2 with increasing DV4
increasing DV6 with increasing DV4
increasing DV11a with increasing DV4
-0.209 increasing DV9a with increasing DV4
increasing DV10a with increasing DV4
increasing DV8a with increasing DV4
increasing DV7a with increasing DV4
-0.208
increasing DV1 with increasing DV4
increasing DV3 with increasing DV5

-0.207

-0.206

-0.205

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 24

 Figure 27 Variation of performance with interacting parameter values

-0.213

-0.212

-0.211

increasing DV2 with increasing DV5

increasing DV6 with increasing DV5
-0.21
increasing DV11a with increasing DV5
increasing DV9a with increasing DV5
increasing DV10a with increasing DV5
-0.209 increasing DV8a with increasing DV5
increasing DV7a with increasing DV5
increasing DV1 with increasing DV5
increasing DV2 with increasing DV3
-0.208
increasing DV6 with increasing DV3
increasing DV11a with increasing DV3

-0.207

-0.206

-0.205

Figure 28 Variation of performance with interacting parameter values

-0.213

-0.212

-0.211

increasing DV9a with increasing DV3

increasing DV10a with increasing DV3
-0.21
increasing DV8a with increasing DV3
increasing DV7a with increasing DV3
increasing DV1 with increasing DV3
-0.209 increasing DV6 with increasing DV2
increasing DV11a with increasing DV2
increasing DV9a with increasing DV2
increasing DV10a with increasing DV2
-0.208
increasing DV8a with increasing DV2
increasing DV7a with increasing DV2

-0.207

-0.206

-0.205

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 25

 Figure 29 Variation of performance with interacting parameter values

-0.213

-0.212

-0.211

increasing DV1 with increasing DV2

increasing DV11a with increasing DV6
-0.21
increasing DV9a with increasing DV6
increasing DV10a with increasing DV6
increasing DV8a with increasing DV6
-0.209 increasing DV7a with increasing DV6
increasing DV1 with increasing DV6
increasing DV9a with increasing DV11a
increasing DV10a with increasing DV11a
-0.208
increasing DV8a with increasing DV11a
increasing DV7a with increasing DV11a

-0.207

-0.206

-0.205

Figure 30 Variation of performance with interacting parameter values

-0.213

-0.212

-0.211

increasing DV1 with increasing DV11a

increasing DV10a with increasing DV9a
-0.21
increasing DV8a with increasing DV9a
increasing DV7a with increasing DV9a
increasing DV1 with increasing DV9a
-0.209 increasing DV8a with increasing DV10a
increasing DV7a with increasing DV10a
increasing DV1 with increasing DV10a
increasing DV7a with increasing DV8a
-0.208
increasing DV1 with increasing DV8a
increasing DV1 with increasing DV7a

-0.207

-0.206

-0.205

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 26

 Figure 31 Variation of performance with interacting parameter values

-0.213

-0.212

-0.211
increasing DV5 with decreasing DV4
increasing DV3 with decreasing DV4
-0.21 increasing DV2 with decreasing DV4
increasing DV6 with decreasing DV4
increasing DV11a with decreasing DV4
-0.209 increasing DV9a with decreasing DV4
increasing DV10a with decreasing DV4
increasing DV8a with decreasing DV4
-0.208 increasing DV7a with decreasing DV4
increasing DV1 with decreasing DV4
increasing DV3 with decreasing DV5
-0.207

-0.206

-0.205

Figure 32 Variation of performance with interacting parameter values

-0.213

-0.212

-0.211

increasing DV2 with decreasing DV5

increasing DV6 with decreasing DV5
-0.21
increasing DV11a with decreasing DV5
increasing DV9a with decreasing DV5
increasing DV10a with decreasing DV5
-0.209 increasing DV8a with decreasing DV5
increasing DV7a with decreasing DV5
increasing DV1 with decreasing DV5
increasing DV2 with decreasing DV3
-0.208
increasing DV6 with decreasing DV3
increasing DV11a with decreasing DV3

-0.207

-0.206

-0.205

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 27

 Figure 33 Variation of performance with interacting parameter values

-0.213

-0.212

-0.211

increasing DV9a with decreasing DV3

increasing DV10a with decreasing DV3
-0.21
increasing DV8a with decreasing DV3
increasing DV7a with decreasing DV3
increasing DV1 with decreasing DV3
-0.209 increasing DV6 with decreasing DV2
increasing DV11a with decreasing DV2
increasing DV9a with decreasing DV2
increasing DV10a with decreasing DV2
-0.208
increasing DV8a with decreasing DV2
increasing DV7a with decreasing DV2

-0.207

-0.206

-0.205

Figure 34 Variation of performance with interacting parameter values

-0.213

-0.212

-0.211

increasing DV1 with decreasing DV2

increasing DV11a with decreasing DV6
-0.21
increasing DV9a with decreasing DV6
increasing DV10a with decreasing DV6
increasing DV8a with decreasing DV6
-0.209 increasing DV7a with decreasing DV6
increasing DV1 with decreasing DV6
increasing DV9a with decreasing DV11a
increasing DV10a with decreasing DV11a
-0.208
increasing DV8a with decreasing DV11a
increasing DV7a with decreasing DV11a

-0.207

-0.206

-0.205

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 28

 Figure 35 Variation of performance with interacting parameter values

-0.213

-0.212

-0.211

increasing DV1 with decreasing DV11a

increasing DV10a with decreasing DV9a
-0.21
increasing DV8a with decreasing DV9a
increasing DV7a with decreasing DV9a
increasing DV1 with decreasing DV9a
-0.209 increasing DV8a with decreasing DV10a
increasing DV7a with decreasing DV10a
increasing DV1 with decreasing DV10a
increasing DV7a with decreasing DV8a
-0.208
increasing DV1 with decreasing DV8a
increasing DV1 with decreasing DV7a

-0.207

-0.206

-0.205

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 29

Advantage CFD VA178 INTAKE PORT OPTIMISATION ISSUE #1 30