The present study summarises a comprehensive review of the simulation modelling of the Stirling engine. A Stirling engine, characterized as an external combustion engine, is versatile enough to operate on various fuels, including solar energy and waste heat. Among the different analysis approaches for the Stirling Engine, fourth-order analysis, which is Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis, stands out as the sole method that takes into account the actual geometry of the engine. It is capable of identifying intricate gas flow patterns, as well as non-uniform pressure and temperature distributions within the engine. This results in better understanding and optimisation of the design parameters of the engine. The primary goal of this study is to compile and summarize 2D and 3D CFD simulation investigations, categorizing them based on the software employed, including ANSYS Fluent, OpenFOAM, and COMSOL. The focus will be on delineating the study type, computational domain, and the eddy viscosity models utilized for the modeling of Stirling engines. Comparison of various models and their deviation from experimental results is also listed. It was found that considering the radiation model resulted in an improvement of accuracy by 11%. The impinging effect, noted by CFD analysis, is responsible for vortex formation that improved heat transfer, resulting in a discrepancy of over 80% between the prediction of power output by the second-order method and CFD. For accuracy, simulation in full domain 3D is preferred over partial domain 3D and 2D CFD studies. However, it will require more computational resources, accurate 3D model and boundary conditions.

本研究总结了斯特林发动机仿真模型的全面回顾。斯特林发动机的特点是外燃机，用途广泛，可以使用各种燃料，包括太阳能和废热。在斯特林发动机的不同分析方法中，四阶分析，即计算流体动力学 (CFD) 分析，是唯一考虑发动机实际几何形状的方法。它能够识别复杂的气流模式以及发动机内不均匀的压力和温度分布。这有助于更好地理解和优化发动机的设计参数。本研究的主要目标是编译和总结 2D 和 3D CFD 仿真研究，并根据所使用的软件（包括 ANSYS Fluent、OpenFOAM 和 COMSOL）对它们进行分类。重点将放在描述研究类型、计算域和用于斯特林发动机建模的涡粘模型。还列出了各种模型的比较及其与实验结果的偏差。研究发现，考虑辐射模型后，准确度提高了 11%。CFD 分析指出，冲击效应会形成涡流，从而改善传热，导致二阶方法与 CFD 预测的功率输出之间存在超过 80% 的差异。就准确性而言，全域 3D 仿真优于部分域 3D 和 2D CFD 研究。然而，它将需要更多的计算资源、精确的 3D 模型和边界条件。