LAUSR

Abstract Volumetric machines are the most suitable candidates to be used as expander in power units based on the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) thermodynamic concept, for waste heat recovery of Internal Combustion Engine in the on-the-road transportation sector. In particular, the technology of the Sliding Rotary Vane Expander (SRVE) shows intrinsic advantages thanks to their lower cost, shaping features, easier manufacturing and reliability and, generally speaking, very suitable operative conditions. Nevertheless, they show some disadvantages which are typical of volumetric machines, such as low capacity, limited expansion ratio and power lost by friction. Among the different technologies available to reduce the effects of these aspects (revolution speed increase, elliptical stators or with more complex geometries, tip blade optimization, rolling stators, etc.), the Dual-Intake Port (DIP) was assessed as a promising solution to enhance SVREs performance and operability. However, dual-intake port was still not conceived as design option. In this paper, a novel Sliding Vane Rotary Expander design concept involving a Dual Intake Port expander (DIP) option was developed and compared to the conventional Single Intake Port (SIP) one, under the same operating conditions. Thus, after an experimental comparison between SIP and DIP expanders, under the same conditions of mass flowrate, a theoretical expander model of the latter was validated on a set of experimental results. The model allows to outline the advantages of considering the dual port as a design option: for a specific flow rate and revolution speed, this option allows to reduce the friction losses, which represent a weak point of this volumetric machine. For a given mass flow rate of the working fluid, an additional feature is that it allows a sensible downsizing with respect to the SIP, with an axial dimension reduction up to 50%, ensuring additional weight and space saving. Despite the reduction of the dimensions, DIP produces a comparable mechanical power with respect to SIP, limiting the reduction to 8–10% of the SIP one with a 50% lower mechanical power loss due to friction. For the same flow rate, the added intake port determines a decrease of the intake pressure which is completely beneficial in terms of operating conditions of the overall recovery unit.