Intake Manifold Design using Computational Fluid Dynamics

M.Tech Dissertation- II

By

Awanish Pratap singh

(10904512)

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY
PHAGWARA, PUNJAB (INDIA) -144402
2013-2014

Intake Manifold Design using Computational Fluid Dynamics

DISSERTATION
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for Award of the Degree
Of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
In
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
By

Awanish Pratap Singh

(Reg. No 10904512)
Under the Guidance of
Mr. Manish Gupta

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY
PHAGWARA, PUNJAB (INDIA) -144402
2013-2014

I Would like to dedicate my dissertation to my

Father, Sidheshwar Singh ; Mother, Kusum Singh ;
Brother, Alok Kumar Singh ; and Late Grandparents.

Lovely Professional University Jalandhar, Punjab

CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the work which is being presented in the dissertation entitled Intake
Manifold Design using Computational Fluid Dynamics in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of degree of Master of Technology and submitted in Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Lovely Professional University, Punjab is an authentic record of
my own work carried out during period of Dissertation under the supervision of Mr. Manish
Gupta, Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lovely Professional
University, Punjab.
The matter presented in this dissertation has not been submitted by me anywhere for
the award of any other degree or to any other institute.

Date:

(Awanish Pratap Singh)

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to best of
my knowledge.
Date:

(Manish Gupta)
Supervisor

The M- Tech Dissertation examination of Awanish Pratap Singh, has been held on .

Signature of Examiner

Page | iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my very great appreciation to Mr. Manish Gupta for his patient
guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful critiques of this research work.

His

willingness to give his time so generously has been very much appreciated.
I would also like to thank Dr. Rajeev Sharma, for his advice and assistance in keeping my
progress on schedule. I would also like to extend my thanks to Mr. Gurpreet Singh Phull, for
his valuable and constructive suggestions during the planning and development of this
research work.
I would also like to extend my thanks to the technicians of the laboratory of the Mechanical
Engineering department for their help in offering me the resources in running the program.
Finally, I wish to thank my parents for their support and encouragement throughout my study.

Awanish Pratap Singh

Reg. No. 10904512

Page | v

ABSTRACT

In automotive technology, an intake manifold is the component of an engine that

transports the air-fuel mixture to the engine cylinders. The main purpose of the intake
manifold is to evenly distribute the combustion mixture to each intake port of the engine
cylinder. Even distribution is important to optimize the volumetric efficiency and
performance of the engine, but the major problem in the thesis identify that; to achieve the
even distribution of flow at each cylinders, to select the best turbulence model for the analysis
of manifold using computational fluid dynamics, to achieve the maximum mass flow rate
through the restricted size C-D nozzle, to maintain the equal pressure throughout the plenum,
to propagate back the higher pressure column of air to intake port within the duration of the
intake valves closure. To achieve the even flow of distribution and improve the volumetric
efficiency, author divided his analysis in to three different part restrictor, plenum and cylinder
runner

and then analyzed the final intake manifold. Dividing the work into three different

part and then combine them as single manifold part provide the greater refinement in result
and act as meshing of manifold.
To select the best turbulence model for this study, author took the design data of
existing experimental model and find that Spalart-Allmaras model was approximately same
as the experimental model. For designing the nozzle, author selected the four design
variables; nozzle inlet diameter, inlet curvature radius, diffuser half angle and diffuser length
with five level of each variable. With these four variable and five level of each variable,
author had need to perform 625 experiments, but he design the matrix by the help of Taguchi
method using statistical tool Minitab and perform only 25 experiment in CFD package
Ansys Fluent, to find the best result for restrictor, author again use the statistical tool to
analyze the design matrix, and then predict the best result for restrictor. To propagate back
the higher pressure column of air to intake port within the duration of the intake valves
closure, author use the Ram Theory and Helmholtz theory to calculate the runner length and
diameter as well as total distance traveled by the pressure column during the intake valve
closure. To find out the pressure variation in cylinder runner due to intake valve opening and
closing, author design virtual engine of the same specification of Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R by
using leading engine designing software Ricardo Wave, and then use these pressure data to
develop the transient boundary condition in Ansys Fluent. To achieve the static pressure
Page | vi

inside the plenum and distribute the combustible air evenly to each intake runner, author
select two design variables; plenum shape (rectangular, circular, elliptical and curved) and
plenum size (2.0litre, 2.25litre, 2.5litre, 2.75litre and 3.0litre). To find the best result for
plenum, author perform the experiment in Ansys Fluent for all possible experiment and find
the curved and elliptical shape plenum were providing higher volumetric efficiency, static
plenum pressure and even flow of distribution to each cylinder.
For designing final intake manifold author select best design from all three part;
restrictor, cylinder runner, plenum; and perform the experiment using computational fluid
dynamics software Ansys Fluent, and in result he find that plenum with 2.5litre size curved
shape with restrictor of 48mm nozzle inlet diameter, 41mm inlet curvature radius, 152mm
diffuser length and 30and 70 diffuser half angle.
Keywords: Intake Manifold, Plenum, Restrictor, Cylinder Runner, Volumetric Efficiency,
Computational Fluid Dynamics

Page | vii

Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE ................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Fluid Flow through Duct and Pipe ............................................................................ 3
1.2.2.1 Pressure Losses in Pipes......................................................................................... 3
1.2.2.2 Velocity profiles ..................................................................................................... 3
1.2.3 Nomenclature of Intake ............................................................................................. 3
1.2.4 Wave Theory ............................................................................................................. 5
1.2.5 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) ..................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2. - LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 3. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND HYPOTHESIS ................................... 17
3.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION.................................................................................... 17
3.2 HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 19
4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 19
4.2 STAGE-1 SELECTION OF BEST TURBULENCE MODEL ..................................... 19
4.3 STAGE-2 SELECTION OF BEST RESTRICTOR MODEL ....................................... 21
4.4 STAGE-3 SELECTION OF BEST CYLINDER RUNNER SIZE AND BOUNDARY
CONDITION ....................................................................................................................... 23
4.5 STAGE-4 SELECTION OF BEST PLENUM SHAPE AND SIZE ............................. 25
4.6 STAGE-5 FINAL INTAKE MANIFOLD SELECTION .............................................. 27
4.7 SIMULATION SETUP METHOD ............................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................................... 30
5.1 SIMULATIONS AND RESULT OF TURBULENCE MODEL .................................. 30
5.1.1 Simulation of Each Turbulence Model ................................................................... 30
5.1.2 Summary of Result for Turbulence Model ............................................................. 34
5.1.3 Pictorial View of Model Used For Turbulence Modeling ...................................... 34
5.2 SIMULATIONS AND RESULT OF RESTRICTOR ................................................... 35

Page | viii

5.2.1 Effect of Variation in Nozzle Inlet Diameter .......................................................... 35

5.2.2 Effect of Variation in Diffuser Half Angle ............................................................. 36
5.2.3 Effect of Variation in Diffuser Length .................................................................... 38
5.2.4 Effect Variation in Inlet Curvature Radius ............................................................. 39
5.2.5 Overall Mean Result ............................................................................................... 41
5.2.6 Pictorial Representation of Simulation Model ........................................................ 42
5.2.7 Result Validation ..................................................................................................... 45
5.3 CALCULATION AND RESULT OF CYLINDER RUNNER..................................... 46
5.3.1 Calculation for Cylinder Runner Length ................................................................. 46
5.3.2 Calculation for Cylinder Runner Diameter ............................................................. 49
5.3.3 Boundary Condition at Cylinder Runner Outlet or Engine Intake .......................... 51
5.4 SIMULATIONS AND RESULT OF PLENUM ........................................................... 52
5.4.1 Effect of Different Plenum Shape and Size ............................................................ 53
5.4.2 Effect of Rectangular Shape Plenum ...................................................................... 54
5.4.3 Effect of Circular Shape Plenum ............................................................................. 54
5.4.4 Effect of Elliptical Shape Plenum ........................................................................... 55
5.4.4 Effect of Curved Shape Plenum .............................................................................. 56
5.4.5 Pictorial Representation of Results ......................................................................... 57
5.5 SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS OF INTAKE MANIFOLD .................................... 59
5.5.1 Simulation Result of All Intake Manifold ............................................................... 59
5.5.2 Effect of Curved Plenum Shape .............................................................................. 60
5.5.2 Effect of Elliptical Plenum Shape ........................................................................... 61
5.5.3 Effect of Plenum Size.............................................................................................. 62
5.5.4 Effect of Restrictor .................................................................................................. 63
5.5.5 Pictorial Representation of Intake Manifold Analysis ............................................ 64
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 68
6.1 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 68
6.2 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 69
APPENDIX A: Related To Restrictor Designing ................................................................... 70
A.1 Design table of Restrictor with result ........................................................................ 70
A.2 Analytical Modelling .................................................................................................... 70
A.3 Taguchi Analysis By Statistical Tool MINITAB For Nozzles ................................. 72
APPENDIX B: Data Related to Boundary Condition ............................................................. 75
Page | ix

B.1 Variation of Pressure with time for all four cylinders at 6000RPM ............................. 75
B.2 Profile Format: Fluent Transient Boundary Condition for All Four Cylinders ............ 78
APPENDIX C: Data Related To Plenum Modeling................................................................ 84
APPENDIX D: Data Related To Final Intake Manifold Modeling......................................... 85
APPENDIX E: Specification of Engine .................................................................................. 86
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 87

Page | x

List of Figures

Page | xi

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
In automotive technology, an intake manifold (in American English) is the component of an
engine that transports the air-fuel mixture to the engine cylinders. The term manifold
originated from the traditional English word manigfeald (from the Anglo-Saxon manig
[many] and feald [fold]) and relates to the folding together of multiple inputs and outputs.
The main purpose of the intake manifold is to evenly distribute the combustion mixture to
each intake port of the engine cylinder, and to create the air-fuel mixture, unless the engine
has direct injection [1, 3]. Even distribution is important to optimize the volumetric efficiency
and performance of the engine, the two most desirable techniques was found to increase the
volumetric efficiency, and they are intake manifold design and variable valve timing
technology for intake and exhaust valves. The design of the variable valve timing technology
is quite complex and expensive to produce, and it offers quite less scope of research, thus
almost every researchers and automotive industry is focused on improvement of intake
manifold.
However, there is always room for enhancement on intake system. The air intake system
has seen many reiterations and improvements and substantially increased during the past
years by controlling the dimension and shape, and permitting the engine to produce
increasing amounts of power by improving their volumetric efficiency, best possible fuel
consumption, reduced fuel emissions, and most of the research performed, by automotive
researchers and engine manufacturers (i.e. Mazda, BMW, Audi, Ford, Renault etc.)[3].
Porsche in the 1980s developed an intake system to use on their vehicles that adjusted the
length of the intake system by switching amongst the longer and shorter pair of tube utilizing
a butterfly valve, developing some positive pressure, which usually enhances overall
performance of the engine. Audi began to use a similar system in some cars in the 1990s and
Ford Motor in 1997 [7, 14].
IC engines produce air pollution emissions as a consequence of uneven distribution of
combustible air to the engine and incomplete combustion of air-fuel mixture. The principal
products of the process are carbon dioxide, water, sulphur, black carbon and some unburnt
Page | 1

hydrocarbons, which is produce due to lesser amount of air-fuel ratio supplied to the engine,
and the additional products of the combustion process include nitrogen oxides, which is
produced due to excess amount of air-fuel ratio supplied to the engine [14]. The amount of air
is only one parameter which produces emission. Thus it is needed to design a manifold which
deliver appropriate amount of air to combustion chamber.
There is great contribution of Motorsport Company in the field of intake system designing.
FIA conduct every year Formula 1 competition to allow automotive industry to contest
against each other and compare their technology in a motor racing environment. A similar
competition is conducted by Society of Automotive Engineers for students are Formula SAE
since 1979, The "Formula", specified within the name, refers to a set of rules with which all
participants' cars must follow. The key intention of designing this competition to permit
University students to contest against each other in a motor racing environment, this
competition is not just designed for engineering disciplines while applying many of the skills
essential for the automotive industry. There are some restrictions in the competition related to
intakes that, circular restrictor is positioned in the intake system between the throttle and the
engine In order to limit the power capability from the engine, and all engine airflow must
pass through the restrictor and maximum allowable diameter is 20mm. The engine used to
power the car must be a piston engine using a four-stroke primary heat cycle with a
displacement not exceeding 610 cc per cycle.

1.2 FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE

1.2.1 Introduction
An engine intake manifold is the part of the engine, between the throttle body and the engine
cylinders. In a multi-cylinder engine, the primary function of the intake manifold is to
transport combustion air to the engine cylinder, and to create the fuel air mixture, unless the
engine has direct injection. The intake manifold controls how much air can be drawn
through, including the effects both in steady state and transients, how fast that air is moving,
and how well it can be mixed with fuel, and restriction of the 20mm set how much mass of
air can flow inside engine cylinder. Because the throat area of restrictor determines exactly
the mass air flow, it has a large influence on engine volumetric efficiency [4-5].

Page | 2

1.2.2 Fluid Flow through Duct and Pipe

An intake manifold is ostensibly a network of pipes and ducts which feed air into the engine
to feed the combustion process. As such it is open to analysis and optimization as any
network of pipes and ducts may be. One well documented and theorised section of pipe flows
involves a head loss, or pressure loss due to certain geometries within the flow, specifically
for bends, valves, entrance and re-entrance flows. Another well researched characteristic of
pipe flow is velocity profiles for both turbulent and laminar flows.
1.2.2.1 Pressure Losses in Pipes
Pressure losses in pipes are split into two categories, major and minor. Major losses occur
due to the physical length of the pipe and the viscous losses associated with the friction
between the wall and the fluid. Minor losses occur due to variations in geometry through the
piping such as bends, elbows, valves, entrances and re-entrances [26]. The terms major and
minor do not refer to the relative sizes of the losses necessarily, but in typical piping systems
involving many long straight sections with few bends and valves the major losses are more
substantial than the minor. In the case of an intake manifold however, the minor losses are
far more significant, and typically dominate the pressure losses experienced. Several text
books quote pressure loss coefficients for various geometries whether they be entrances, reentrances, bends or valves. While these particular values are important in an analysis of a
pipe system their values are not important specifically for the design of a new intake, but
their relative size is.
1.2.2.2 Velocity profiles
Figure 5.1.2 presents the velocity profile of flow through pipe, velocity profiles are of
importance to the work being carried out as they are one of the tools utilized in validating the
results of various simulations. The velocity profile within a pipe is a well-studied
phenomenon and has been noted to depend on a number of factors. The predominant effect
on the final shape is the non-dimensional quantity Reynolds number, more specifically
whether it is above or below the transition from laminar to turbulent flow. This factor
ultimately determines whether the profile is parabolic (laminar flow) or much flatter
(turbulent flow).
1.2.3 Nomenclature of Intake
Intake system consists typically of throttle body, restrictor, inlet pipe, plenum, cylinder runnPage | 3

-er, fuel injectors, air temperature sensor and manifold pressure sensor. It composed of two
main parts, in combination with the throttle body, which include the plenum and the cylinder
runners. Air enters in to plenum through restrictor due to vacuum created by engine, plenum
stores the combustion air as reservoir and then transport the combustion air to engine through
the cylinder runner.

(a)

(b
)

(c)

(d
)

Figure 1.1 Intake manifold model with highlight (a) Restrictor (b) Plenum (c) Cylinder Runner (d) Mesh

The information of the work which has been done formerly on intake manifolds allow a
more systematic discussion of intake system. On the basis of those information and facts, the
basic of acoustic wave theory and general terminology of intakes will be the major field of
study, the general terminologies of intake system, which can be used for improvement are:
i.

Plenum: It is storage device which placed between throttle valve and cylinder runner.
The function of the plenum is to equalize pressure for more even distribution air-fuel
mixture in side combustion chamber, because of irregular supply or demand of the engine
cylinder, sometime plenum chamber also work as an acoustic silencer device. There are

Page | 4

two types of intake manifold on the basis of manifold dimension, fixed length intake
manifold and variable length intake manifold.
ii.

Restrictor (C-D nozzle): Restrictor is part of the intake manifold is similar to what is
usually known as a critical nozzle, critical flow venturi, or sonic choke. Such
components are often used in practice of industries as simple control devices to control
the mass flow rate. All such type of devices will be discussed to as restrictors
throughout the rest of this report. Excessive pressure losses caused by the high flow
velocities [20-23].

iii.

Cylinder Runner: The cylinder runners are the parts of the air intake system which
delivers air from plenum to the combustion chamber. In each runner, the principal
phenomenon that governs its performance is actually, the effect of acoustic waves [18,
24]. As the purpose of the cylinder runner is distribution of air, performance to transport
the maximum amount of air, and in the case of the engine, the successive enhancement in
volumetric efficiency.

1.2.4 Wave Theory

In order to understand the pressure waves which occur in an intake manifold it is easiest to
consider the application in pipe organs. The overarching principle in a pipe organ is the way
the pressure waves inside the pipes reflect back along the pipe based upon whether they
encounter an open or closed end of the pipe. To briefly explain what occurs and for future
reference, two main types of waves form inside the pipe. These waves are known as
rarefaction and compression waves. A rarefaction wave is a wave of less than atmospheric
pressure and a compression wave is one greater than atmospheric pressure. When a wave
reaches an open end of a pipe a wave of opposite form is reflected back down the pipe, if the
wave reaches a closed end, a wave of the same form is reflected back along the pipe [30].
In an intake manifold there are two significant events in the intake stroke of the engine,
these are the opening and closing of the intake valve. When the intake valve closes, a
compression wave forms, whereas when the intake valve opens a rarefaction wave is formed.
These waves reflect up and down the intake runner, in the same fashion as in a pipe organ. As
these waves are created and propagate they interact with each other in a similar fashion to any
other sounds waves, they sum together to form either a wave of higher amplitude, or even
possibly diminish to a wave of zero amplitude. In the instance where a rarefaction wave is
created upon valve opening it travels along the intake runner to the plenum where a
Page | 5

compression wave is reflected back to the valve, when this compression wave hits the intake
valve it propagates into the cylinder and increases the pressure in the cylinder.
These are parameter which can be tuned to optimize the engine efficiency on the basis of
acoustic wave theory. The phenomena related to the acoustic wave are not only limited to the
acoustics and musical instruments but also appear in automotive industry. Since the 1937s,
the tuning of intake manifolds to harness, these acoustic waves [2]. While these acoustic
waves are not a field of investigation in this study, the information of them and the capacity
to harness them in the design are of great importance.
1.2.5 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
There are many professional CFD software used in engineering, such as PHOENICS (it is the
first commercialized CFD software), STAR-CD, ANSYS FLUENT/CFX and so on. All CFD
softwares have three main structures which are Pre-Processer, Solver and Post-Processor.
It doesn't matter exactly what kind of CFD software is, the main procedures of simulation
are similar. Establishing up governing equations is the prerequisite of CFD modelling; mass,
momentum and energy conservation equation are the three foundation governing equations.
After that, Boundary conditions are decided as different flow conditions and a mesh is
created. The purpose of meshing model is discretized equations and boundary conditions into
a single grid. A cell is the basic element in structured and unstructured grid. The basic
elements of two-dimensional unstructured grid are triangular and quadrilateral cell.
Meanwhile, the rectangular cell is commonly used in structured grid.
In three-dimensional simulation, tetrahedral and pentahedra cells are commonly used
unstructured grid and hexahedra cell is used in structured grids. The mesh quality is a
prerequisite for obtaining the reasonably physical solutions and it is a function of the skill of
the simulation engineer. The more nodes resident in the mesh, the greater the computational
time to solve the aerodynamic problem concerned, therefore creating an efficient mesh is
indispensable. Three numerical methods can be used to discretize equations which are Finite
Different Method (FDM), Finite Element Method (FEM) and Finite Volume Method (FVM).
FVM is widely used in CFD software such as Fluent, CFX, PHOENICS and STAR-CD, to
name just a few. Compared with FDM, the advantages of the FVM and FEM are that they
are easily formulated to allow for unstructured meshes and have a great flexibility so that can
apply to a variety of geometries.
Page | 6

CHAPTER 2. - LITERATURE REVIEW

E.R.Burtnett in 1927 designed first gaseous-fuel manifold for two stroke cycle internal
combustion engines of the type in which no inlet valves are used to controlling for the
entrance of gaseous fuel to the pre-compression chamber. The determination of this invention
was to improve the volumetric efficiency of the engine. As result of this invention, the quick
demand developed by suction stroke from one of the pistons within the engine, the gaseous
fuel volume within the manifold does not cause an unexpected or unusual of velocity and
pressure on the carburetor [1].
W.A.Whatmough in 1937 recognized that pulsating flow inside the intake manifold had
certain disadvantages due to pulsation. He also observed that there were both static and
dynamic effects in the channel in which there was a fluid flow. The static effects were
difference due to pressure and dynamic effects in the channel was difference due to velocity.
So that, he designed a mechanism of control tube to automatic modify such pulsating flow to
improve the operation of the engine; the general effect of return flow in the control tube is to
reduce pulsation and facilitate unidirectional flow in manifold and improve volumetric
efficiency [2].
D.A Sullivan in 1939 designed an improved intake manifold for and method of supplying
fuel mixture to combustion chamber to improve the volumetric efficiency of the engine. One
of the goal of the research was to offer comparatively short passages splitting without any
obstructions passage for flow of the fuel mixture on all cylinders of an engine of this nature
and that therefore, affords free breathing action, another goal of the research was to provide a
manifold of such kind in which the air-fuel ratio produced by carburation means remains
same throughout the intake manifold. Further object of this study provide communication
among the branches of each unit of the manifold which, although limited enough to cause
each branch to draw fuel mixture mainly from their respective means of carburizing, it is
large enough to induce the further increase of the fuel mixture occurs in one branch, the other
branch of the same section to restrict backflow of the mixture through the carburetor [3].
Jim C. Taylor in 1953 designed an inimitable type of intake manifold for internal
combustion engines. The primary goal of the research was to design an intake manifold to
produce maximum operating efficiency in internal combustion engines. Another object of the
research was to provide an intake manifold of the character indicated above enabling an
Page | 7

internal combustion engine equipped therewith, to completely fill its cylinders with fuel
mixture during the intake stroke, and further object of the research was to provide an intake
manifold of the character indicated above adapted to prevent pumping losses of the engine
equipped with the manifold by reducing atmospheric pressure restrictions as far as possible.
As result of the research, in internal combustion engine complete evaporation of the fuel was
not necessary until the end of the compression stroke so that the mixture needed only to be
partly evaporated when leaving the manifold. By arranging two air inlets, the efficiency of
the engine was improved by lowering pumping losses due to atmospheric restriction. Such a
mixture improve engine performance by maintaining a low temperature of the mixture
leaving the manifold, and depending on the engine temperature from intake stroke to the end
of compression stroke to aid in completing the evaporation of the fuel [4].
Futakuchi in 1984 designed an improved intake manifold, which enhance both charging and
volumetric efficiency of the engine throughout the large range of engine speed and load. He
found that the efficiency of the engine intake and combustion, especially at low and medium
speeds can be improved by providing an auxiliary intake that communicates with the
combustion chamber and that had a relatively small effective area. He found that such
auxiliary intakes to result in a high velocity and turbulence in the combustion chamber at
ignition time and that improve flame propagation and engine running. These devices also
improve the efficiency of load to minimize pulsations in the intake system. Auxiliary intake
passage located such that a high degree of swirl can be generated, the amount of the swirls
were generated as the auxiliary intake passage increased, when the main inlet passage was in
an offset relationship with respect to the associated axis of the cylinder. In combination with
the use of auxiliary inlet had encountered advantageous to provide a volume of the air
distribution, which deliver the auxiliary intake passage. By using such a volume or plenum
chamber, it was found that the flow of the intake charge into the intake passage can be
stabilized even at slow speeds and eliminate the pulsation or substantially reduced [5]. He
again in 1986 repeat the same research and find out the much improved intake manifold than
his previous research in 1984, and as result of repeated research, the volumetric efficiency of
the new manifold was comparatively higher than the previous research [6].
C.L.Lee in 1997 found the two possible ways, which can used to increase the volumetric
efficiency. The two solutions were variable intake manifold geometry and variable valve
timing technology for intake and exhaust valves. By watching the scenario of that time, he

Page | 8

designed a different type of variable intake manifold length for internal combustion engine,
which may vary the geometry of inlet through which air was flowing. Since the primary
function of an air inlet manifold for internal combustion engine was to feed desired amount
of air to the engine combustion chamber [1-8]. To maximize the performance of the engine
(torque and power), an inlet manifold should be capable of deliver air as much as possible for
a given size. By using conventional approach, he tuned manifold based on their acoustic
properties. The tuning enabled the amount of air moving as quick as possible at a particular
engine speed, which achieved acoustic resonance in the excitation frequency caused by the
work of pumping pistons. This result in a volumetric efficiency of intake air is more than
100% for given engine speed, while at other speed range efficiency falls below 100%. It was
one in which the runner size were interchanged between long and short. Runners with longer
length decrease the resonant frequency of the intake manifold and increasing the speed of
intake air flow, and subsequently, high volumetric efficiency of the air intake occurs at a
lower engine speed. Those deliver good engine torque at low engine speed for better stopand-running conditions [7].
Sattler et al. in 1999 found that, the previous research broken conventional intake manifold
into three separate parts, plenum, runner cylinder and a supplement portion. Since a fixed
runner length can be tuned optimally for a particular engine speed. In order to overcome this,
a continuously adjustable runner length was needed to design. So that, they designed
continuously adjustable runner length manifold for an internal combustion engine.
Incorporating the purpose of a plenum, supplement flange, and continuously adjustable
length runner into a plastic box designed from distinct shaped sections. The alternating or
pulsating nature flow of the air through the manifold into each cylinder may create
resonances (analogous to the vibrations in structure pipes) in the flow of air at specific
speeds, This may increase volumetric efficiency and hence the power at certain engine speed
but may reduce the efficiency at other speeds, depending on the dimensions and shape of the
manifold [8, 10, 17]. As result of this research, With a continuously adjustable runner length
system, depending upon the engine speed the intake manifold was capable set up
automatically at the optimal runner length, fuel economy, vehicle speed, engine load, etc. and
that increase engine performance at all functioning circumstances [8].
Davis et al. in 2001 designed multiple stage ram intake manifold for a four-cycle internal
combustion engine to minimize imbalances air/fuel ratio and volumetric efficiency. Intake

Page | 9

manifold consisting of a plenum chamber contained at least two stages of ram; the first Stage
contained ram tubes, which transport the air/fuel mixture to the plenum chamber from the
throttle body. The second stage consist of at least two ram tubes that transport the air/fuel
mixture to a plurality of intake valves from the plenum chamber and through cylinder head
intake ports., plenum chamber acts as a buffer between the carburetor or throttle body and
each intake valves. The air/fuel mixture entered into the plenum chamber through first stage
ram tube. These gaseous mixtures then flow into either one of the second stage ram tubes,
depending on which cylinder was at the intake stroke; As result of the research, by drawing
the air/fuel mixtures from the plenum instead of directly from the first stage ram tube,
variations in the air/fuel ratio and volumetric efficiency were minimized. This was because
the transient variations in the conditions that occur within the first stage ram were
concentrated inside the plenum chamber [9].
M.F. Harrison et al. in 2002 describe the acoustic wave dynamics for intake manifold of an
internal combustion engine shows the better understanding of a linear acoustic model. They
performed on a Ricardo E6 single cylinder research engine and described model developed
together with a set of measurements. The simplified linear acoustic model described by them
create an estimate of the pressure time history at the port of IC engine, that agrees quite well
with the measured data from the engine equipped with a simple intake system. Since the
intake method were governed by the immediate values of the piston velocity and the area
open under the valve, Subsequently, resonant wave action dominates the process; The model
was shown to be useful in identifying the role of the resonance tube and the intake process
had led to the development of a simple hypothesis to explain the structure of the time history
of inlet pressure: The depth of the depression caused by early piston moving governed
intensity wave action, that was a pressure ratio across the valve, which was favorable for
continued inflow and was maximized when the opening period valve was such to permit at
least, but not more than one complete oscillation of the pressure at its resonant frequency
occur while the valve was open [10].
A. Dunkley et al. in 2003 study the effect of acoustics of inlet manifold for motor racing.
They design the tuned inlet manifold for naturally aspirated racing engine and shows that
volumetric efficiency and engine speed can be achieve in excess of 125% and 18,000
rev/min. since Formula SAE intake manifold divided into three separate parts, plenum,
runner cylinder, and restrictor. As result of their study in intake process in a motor racing

Page | 10

engine exposed the inertial ram effect, and make a strong influence to the inlet process at
higher engine RPM, whereas at low engine speed, the nature of acoustic resonance effect
were more weak wave action. The resonant wave action of an acoustic model presented the
useful in differentiate among these two effects. The attributes of the acoustic model were
compared by the researcher to those of more conventional time-marching gas-dynamics
calculation approaches [10, 11].
M.F. Harrison et al. in 2003 further proceed the research of M.F. Harrison et al. [2002]
and A. Dunkley et al. [2003] and study a linear acoustic model for multi-cylinder internal
combustion engine intake manifolds including the effects of the intake throttle, that can be
used as part of a hybrid frequency/time domain technique to calculate the intake wave
dynamics of applied naturally aspirated engine. These technique permits the researcher to
virtually create a model of manifold of complex geometry. These models created by the
researcher were with an assemblage of sub-models; a straight pipe through fluid was flowing
with open both ends, second sub-model was an intake throttle, third sub-model was an
enlargement compartment involving the three lengths of pipe placed at end-to-end, fourth sub
model was side-branch, which was including a model for a straight pipe with one end closed
and fifth sub model was an expansion with two or more side-branches. They found good
arrangement with measurement for respectively sub-model, when bench was tested in
isolation and promising arrangement, and when various sub-models were organized to model
a complex inlet manifold on a running engine [10-12].
Philip E.A. Stuart in 2005 further proceed the research of Sattler et al. [1999] and Davis et
al. [2001] and, He designed a continuously variable intake manifold with an flexible plenum,
which communicates with intake manifold of the internal combustion engine, and mainly to
an intake manifold having an flexible plenum to offer adjustable runner length during engine
operation. The intake manifold assembly was including a plenum volume at that time and
mounted for movement within housing [8]. There was movement of the plenum within the
housing in order to response to a drive system to define an effective runner length. A multiple
of deformable runner passage was including a flexible section such that the plenum can
retract and extend within the housing, the flexible section provide the variation in length
while structural support provided by the housing. Intake channels equally consist of a flexible
section to provide movement of the plenum volume. As result of this research, plenum length
must be extended for low engine speeds and shortened as the engine speed increases. . As the

Page | 11

operational size of the plenum itself is maintained constant and is comparatively small, a
constant idle speed is delivered as compared to systems which vary plenum volume [13, 17].
M.A. Ceviz in 2006 studied on Intake plenum volume and its influence on the engine
performance, cyclic variability and emissions, Inlet manifold system connected to the engine
intake valve, through which the mixture of air or air-fuel is introduced into the engine
cylinder. They found that the flow in intake manifolds was very difficult to examine. Since
most of engine companies are concentrated on variable intake manifold technology due to
their improvement on engine performance [7-9, 13]. He examines the effects of intake
plenum volume variation on engine performance and emissions to constitute a base study for
variable intake plenum [14, 17]. He also determine the indicated and brake engine
performance characteristics, pressure of pulsating flow in the intake manifold runner,
coefficient of change in indicated mean effective pressure as an indicator for cyclic
variability, and CO, CO2 and HC emissions were taken into concern to estimate the effects of
altered plenum volumes. As results of this study variation in the plenum volume causes an
enhancement on the engine performance and the pollutant emissions. The brake and indicated
torque and other associated performance characteristics enhanced pronouncedly about
between 1700 and 2600 rpm by increasing plenum volume. Furthermore, while the increase
in the intake runner pressure made leaner mixture due to increase in the plenum volume and
lean mixtures inclined to increase the cyclic variability, a decrease was interestingly observed
in the coefficient of variation in indicated mean effective pressure [14].
Mark Claywell et al. in 2006 study on design of intake restrictor required by the Formula
SAE event to limit the performance, keep costs low, and maintain a safe racing experience.
As the engine performance was limited by the intake restrictor. Thus researchers approach the
method of ramifications of the restrictor on the engine, which lead to enhancement in engine
performance and allow an edge over the competition. They use Ricardos software WAVE
(1D) and VECTIS (3D) to study the engine performance [15, 16]. There primary area of
improvement was determined by the use of comparatively small diffuser angles. Acoustic
filtering using Helmholtz resonators was studied using WAVE to determine enhanced
restrictor performance by making flow at the throat more uniform over the cycle [16]. They
also investigate Inline Helmholtz resonators in an attempt to increase upstream pressure of
the throat. An extra coupled simulation considered the effect of turbulence vanes placed
upstream of the restrictor throat. Turbulence vanes had little to no effect on the performance

Page | 12

of the intake [16]. They also studied on various type of plenum and found that, ConicalSpline Intake Concept offer the best performance and give higher order of magnitude
improvement in the deviation of cylinder-to-cylinder volumetric efficiency [15].
M.A. Ceviz et al. in 2010 further proceed the research of Sattler et al. [1999], Philip E.A.
Stuart [2005] and M.A. Ceviz [2006] and, he studied the effects of variable intake plenum
length on the engine performance characteristics of a SI engine with MPFI system using
electronically controlled fuel injectors. He describes that, the intake manifold only transport
the air from plenum to engine cylinder whereas, the fuel was injected onto the intake valve,
the and also found that supercharging effects of the variable length intake plenum will be
different from carbureted engine [4-10, 14, 17]. He carried out the engine test with the
purpose of establishing a base study to design a new variable length intake manifold plenum.
He takes consideration of Engine performance characteristics such as brake torque; brake
power, thermal efficiency and specific fuel consumption into to estimate the effects of the
different length of intake plenum. According to the test results, as the engine speed increases,
the plenum is driven to shorten the deformable runner for maximum speed operation and also
shows that the improvement on the engine performance characteristics caused by the
variation in the intake plenum length, especially on the fuel consumption at low engine speed
and high load which are put forward the system using for urban roads. [17]
David Chalet et al. in 2011 studied on inlet manifold of internal combustion engine by
frequency modeling of the pressure waves, they perform the simulation of pressure waves on
inlet and exhaust manifolds of internal combustion engine, which remains challenging. In
their study they design new model which is presented in order to investigate these pressures
waves without the use of a one-dimensional explanation of the system. They study on the
system which using a frequency approach. In order to originate this model, they used a
dynamic flow bench. Latter they modified flow in order to generate waves in fluid which may
be in moving condition or stationary condition. They characterized inlet system by its
geometrical characteristics as well as the fluid characteristics. Certainly, the gas temperature
and the gas velocity were major influence on the fluid behavior. They used new model in
order to simulate the behavior of pressure waves into a 1-m pipe which is associated with
driven engine, which act as a pulse generator. They proved that experimental and the
numerical results keep good agreement. [18]

Page | 13

Fluent-14.0 (2011) provide very good approach to solve the physical problem of
computational fluid dynamics, for solving any physical problem on fluent turbulence model
should be appropriate and there are some turbulence model presented in Fluent. The viscous
turbulence modeling feature within FLUENT provides the user the ability to model
turbulence making use of 4 different turbulence models, these are:

SpalartAllmaras

K-epsilon

K-omega

Reynolds Stress Model

These models, all in simplistic effect, produce a time averaged equation to simplify

the governing equations of turbulence, which if considered in full are of such high frequency
and small scale that it would be too computationally intensive to run even the simplest of
simulations [27]. In order to determine which model was most appropriate for this particular
case of internal ducted flow it was necessary to consider the backgrounds and merits of each
model
Spalart-Allmaras Model
The Spalart-Allmaras model is a 1-equation turbulence model which solves a transport
equation for kinematic turbulent viscosity. This is a relatively new turbulence model and has
applications to the aerospace industry, specifically those involving wall-bounded flows [27].
A validation study on the model conducted by Paciorri et al. from the Von Karman
Institute in Belgium concluded that the Spalart-Allmaras model provided excellent agreement
with experimental data for most models tested. For those models where agreement was not as
good it still produced excellent correlation for pressure distribution and heat transfer but
under estimated the size of separation regions [28]. A critical survey on numerical methods
by Knight et al. investigating the prediction capabilities of various turbulence models relating
to shock wave/boundary layer interactions concluded that the Spalart-Allmaras model
produced very accurate results when compared with experimental data [29].
K-Epsilon Model
The k- turbulence model is a 2-equation turbulence model which independently calculates
turbulent viscosity and a length scale. The two equations relate to kinetic energy of the
Page | 14

turbulence k, and the rate of dissipation . The model has been widely used by industry and
has become almost a standard by virtue of its economy of computational efficiency, accuracy
and robustness for a wide range of turbulent flow applications [27].
A validation study for a k- model was conducted by Poroseva et al.in which they
concluded that the k- model produced good agreement with experimental data, but that the
k- model would often produce higher peaks in velocity than were obtained experimentally.
The velocity profile by all three turbulence models produced a higher peak than was obtained
experimentally and these peaks were generally sharper than what was obtained
experimentally [32].
The study mentioned in the section on the Spalart-Allmaras model on shock
wave/boundary layer interaction indicated that while the k- model produced agreement with
the trends of experimental data, the results were less accurate [29].
K-omega Model
The k- model is another 2-equation model similar to the k- model, it models the kinetic
energy of the turbulence, k and the specific dissipation rate . The specific dissipation rate
can be considered a ratio of to k [27].
Several journal articles have eluded to the sensitivity of the k- model on the
upstream and or free stream values of turbulence variables, particularly . (Kok, 2000) and
(Bredberg et al. 2002) While work has been conducted to reduce this dependence the update
model has yet to be implemented into the version of FLUENT being utilised. In the case
being simulated we only have an approximation of the turbulence of the flow entering the
restrictor and this may indicate a potential weakness of this model. It will however still be
included for comparison.
Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)
The Reynolds Stress Model is a 5-equation model in 2 dimensions and 7-equation in 3
dimensions. It calculates the individual Reynolds stresses utilizing differential transport
equations. The equations are derived directly from the momentum equation; the equations are
used to close the unknowns of the full momentum equation. The added complexity of this
model and the 5 or 7 equations that need to be solved significantly increase the processing
power required to conduct simulations. Improvements to the algorithm have significantly
Page | 15

improved the performance of this model and computational time is approximately 50%
higher per iteration than the 2-equation models [27].
A study into Reynolds Stress modelling involving shockwave boundary layer
interactions by Vallet of the Pierre and Marie Curie University compared the performance of
several Reynolds-stress models and also considers a k- model. The study concludes that the
RSMs could reproduce, quite accurately, the experimentally determined values for the flow,
while the k- model failed [33].

Page | 16

CHAPTER 3. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND HYPOTHESIS

3.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

The primary function of the intake manifold system was to transport combustion air to
the cylinder. Specifically, the primary design goal was to distribute the air evenly to each
intake port, as doing so improve the engine ability to efficiently produce torque and power.
The geometric design of the intake system affects the volumetric efficiency of the engine, and
thus directly affects the performance of the vehicle [3]. The construction of the intake system
has a major influence on how the engine performs at various RPMs [14]. The challenge,
therefore, was to optimize the design of the intake system and remap the fuel injection
system. To achieve primary design goal of distributing equivalent amounts of air to each
cylinder, there are several objectives to consider when designing an intake system:
i.

Minimize pressure loss, as pressure loss results in a decrease in output power.

ii.

Maintain equal static pressure distribution in the plenum, as this will cause the
cylinders to pull the same vacuum, thus leading to even flow in each cylinder.

iii.

Minimize bends and sudden changes in geometry, as these geometric affects can
cause pressure loss.

iv.

Maximize air velocity into the cylinder, as this provides a better mixture of fuel and
air, which results in better combustion and performance.

v.

To select optimum plenum size according to the engine to maximum mass flow rate in
order to improve the volumetric efficiency

vi.

To achieve the Mach number (M=1) at throat of restrictor nozzle, to increase the
volume flow rate of air through restrictor but it depends upon boundary condition.

vii.

Minimize the mass of the system, a common goal of every subsystem of the vehicle.

viii.

Design a technique to fluctuate the intake plenum length, cylinder runner length and
optimal profile for restrictor to operate the engine efficiently over a wide speed range.

ix.

To order to achieve minimum turbulence, it is necessary to design a profile with no

flat edges with central inlet curved plenum which transferred the air at right angles to
four tapered runners.

x.

The main objective for designing the cylinder runner is to propagate back the higherpressure column of air to intake port within the duration of the intake valves closure.
Page | 17

xi.

To keep minimum runner diameter area as much as possible, because increase in

diameter provides additional surface area that creates more flow resistance and also
reduce the air velocity.

3.2 HYPOTHESIS
In some previous study and fundamental knowledge of flow through ducts and pipes,
the base plate, sudden bends or valves were causing turbulence so that in this thesis
assumption was made to design a profile without flat edges, sudden bends and re-entrances.
In this study intake system was assumed to be central inlet with curved plenum, which
transferred the air at right angles to all four tapered runners. The concept here was that the air
will enter in the plenum and travels to the back wall in which the profile of the wall will
distribute the air to all four runners. With this concept an even distribution of air among all
four runners can achieved with minimum turbulence and for achieving minimum turbulence
different type of turbulence model were also assume to be used for validation study, that
provide excellent agreement with experimental data for most models tested.
For achieving maximum volumetric efficiency, nozzle of ISO: 9300 category was
assumed to be best design and most beneficial for the use, because it consists of an inlet
radius, and exit angle and also certified by ISO: 9300. For designing any restrictor five
variables were used to define the optimum profile of the restrictor, inlet diameter Di, choke
diameter D, exit diameter De, radius R and exit angle ; and these five variable can be obtain
by using standard profile of ISO:9300.
In order to achieve this, the higher-pressure column of air, which starts forming upon
the closing of the intake valve, will have to propagate to the open end of the runner, be
reflected, and propagate back to the valve opening within the duration of the intake valves
closure. Knowing the time required for the distance travelled, as well as taking the
assumption that this acoustic compression and expansion wave propagates at the speed of
sound, by using Ram Theory and Helmholtz Theory a simple calculation can be done to
obtain the runner length to accommodate such a distance. Having an intake runner sized at
the appropriate length to increase the pressure of the air behind the intake valves when they
open, is known as runner length tuning. A properly tuned intake runner system will be able to
ram more air into the cylinder and thus improve the overall volumetric efficiency.
Page | 18

CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 INTRODUCTION
CFD allows the simulation of fluid flows through or over models of any size and or
shape, furthermore it allows an in depth look at the occurring inside a model with great ease.
In the case of an intake manifold it makes a clear choice for examining the flow occurring
inside the manifold itself. Another significant advantage of CFD is it allows the comparison
of different models without actually having to spend any resources constructing the models
themselves. This will allow the author to compare several variations in intake geometry in
both restrictor parameters and plenum parameters with great ease.
4.2 STAGE-1 SELECTION OF BEST TURBULENCE MODEL
The findings of various literature reviews all have indicated that the previously
mentioned turbulence models are, given the right set-up and capable of simulating the flow
we wish to examine. Each model had identified strengths and shortcomings for various
simulations and it was clear that no one model was able to be utilised reliably given any case.
As a consequence there would have to be further investigations into each model in order to
pick one as more suited than others and method is explained in flow chart. It was decided to
conduct simulations applying each of the potential turbulence models and comparing the
results obtained to each other, and to expected characteristics for pipe flow.
Table 4.1 Design table for selecting turbulence model for simulation
Turbulence Models

Range Value

Procedure

Spalart-Allmaras

N/A

Perform the experiment in Ansys Fluent of given model

k- Model

N/A

Perform the experiment in Ansys Fluent of given model

k- model
Reynolds Stress Model

N/A

Perform the experiment in Ansys Fluent of given model

N/A

Perform the experiment in Ansys Fluent of given model

Other Model in Fluent

N/A

Perform the experiment in Ansys Fluent of given model

Response Variables

Target Value

Objective

Volume Flow Rate

Experimental Model

Nominal the Best

Velocity

Experimental Model

Nominal the Best

Pressure Drop

Experimental Model

Nominal the Best

Page | 19

A schematic layout of the method used for selection of Turbulence Model indicated in flow
chart:

Figure 4.1 Flow chart: Method used for Turbulence Model selection

Page | 20

4.3 STAGE-2 SELECTION OF BEST RESTRICTOR MODEL

The restrictor is a very significant part of the intake system being modeled. The
restrictor is the ultimate restriction on the amount of air which can flow into the intake
system, and thus, the amount of power produced by the engine. Consequently this segment of
the intake manifold is the logical place to commence simulations. A thorough understanding
of the flow through this section will allow the author and to improve the design as much as
possible, giving the best possible air flow into the plenum..
For achieving maximum volumetric efficiency, standard profile of ISO:9300 was best
design and most beneficial for the use. For designing any restrictor five variables were used
to define the optimum profile of the restrictor, inlet diameter Di, choke diameter d, , radius of
curvature at inlet R, diffuser half angle

and diffuser length, these five variable can be

obtain by using standard profile of ISO:9300. As per this thesis motivation there is some
restriction to keep choke diameter as constant, so that only four variables was used to
optimize the restrictor profile.

Figure 4.2 Circular profile for restrictor nozzle design [ISO: 9300] [20]

When designing the engine components, then first step to choose the design variables
which affect the target response, in this study, there were four factors with and each factor
consists of five levels. Author feel that experiment was difficult to perform according to full
factorial method because it was creating 625 possible experiments and taking much time, so
that author design experiment by the help of Taguchi method with the help of statistical tool
MINITAB, Taguchi method created 25 best possible experiment by combination of all four
factors and five levels. Author then simulate all the 25 experiment by using best turbulence
model chosen in stage-1 and compare each simulation with set target response value, if any of
the simulated response value was approximately equal to the set target value then that model
was chosen for designing final intake manifold else author analyse experiment in statistical
Page | 21

tool MINITAB to see the effect of all design variable on target response value and redesign
new experiment. Author was repeating the experiment until he did not get best five result of
restrictor for final intake manifold design.
A schematic layout of the method used for Restrictor design indicated in flow chart:

Figure 4.3 Flow chart: Method used for Restrictor design and simulation

Page | 22

Table 4.2 Design table for simulation of restrictor model

Design Variables

Range Value

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Choke Diameter (mm) d

Constant (d=20)

20

20

20

20

20

Nozzle Inlet Diameter (mm) Di

2.4d< Di <2.6d

48

49

50

51

52

Inlet Curvature Radius (mm) R

1.8d < R <2.3d

36

38.5

41

43.5

46

Diffuser Length (mm) L

7d< L < 10d

140

152

164

188

200

3o to 7o

Diffuser Half Angle

Response Variable.

Target Value

Objective

Volume Flow Rate

N/A

Larger The Better

Mach Number At Throat

M =1

Nominal the best

Pressure Drop

N/A

Smaller the Better

4.4 STAGE-3 SELECTION OF BEST CYLINDER RUNNER SIZE AND BOUNDARY

CONDITION
This stage deals with design methodology of cylinder runner and their boundary
condition. In this stage author divided his work two part, first part was geometrical design
methodology of cylinder runner by using Ram Theory or Helmholtz Theory or David
Visard Rule with the help of acoustic wave theory and second part was to obtain boundary
condition by designing the engine in RICARDO WAVE software to get the approximate
value of real time pressure drop inside the all four cylinder for every targeted RPM. Author
exported all the data in to excel and then make transient profile for setting the boundary
condition in FLUENT, the format of profile data coding is :
Profile coding Example:
((runner1 transient 3 1)
(time
1
2
3)
(
pr1
101325
91325
101325
)
)

Page | 23

The above written coding was example of profile format for transient boundary
condition and in profile coding every word should be lowercase otherwise FLUENT will not
read the profile for boundary condition. Boundary conditions for transient simulation can be
also set by using User Defined Function (UDF) but author was feeling comfortable with
profile boundary condition. The full coding of all four cylinder is available in Annexure B.2,
reader can fallow for the detailed knowledge. At last of this stage author collect all the data of
best targeted result and send to stage-5 for final intake manifold simulation.

A schematic layout of the method used for Cylinder Runner design indicated in flow chart:

Figure 4.4 Flow chart: Method used for Cylinder Runner design and simulation

Page | 24

4.5 STAGE-4 SELECTION OF BEST PLENUM SHAPE AND SIZE

A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study of a plenum may indeed yield some
quantitative information about the optimal size. It seems that no specific plenum design could
be accurately modelled by one-dimensional or two-dimensional approximations. It does
appear that a symmetric plenum design would be more suitable for such approximations. A
full three-dimensional model of the flow through a plenum may yield answers to the problem
of plenum sizing and shape.
When designing the engine components, then first step to choose the design variables
which affect the target response, According to previous study, there were two factors for
designing plenum, first factor was plenum geometrical shape and second factor was plenum
size, and each factor was consisting of five levels. There was another factor turbulence model
but it was already considered in this study in stage-1. Author design and perform all
maximum possible experiment by using statistical tool MINITAB, because it was not
difficult to perform according to full factorial method because it was only creating 25
maximum possible experiments by combination of two factors and five levels. Author then
simulate all the 25 experiment by using best turbulence model selected from stage-1 and
compare each simulation with set target response value, if any of the simulated response
value was approximately equal to the set target value then that plenum model was chosen for
designing final intake manifold else author analyse experiment in statistical tool
MINITAB, to see the effect of all design variable on target response value and redesign
new experiment. Author was repeating the experiment until he did not get best five results of
plenum for final intake manifold design.
Table 4.2 Design table for simulation of Plenum model
Design Variables

Range Value

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Shape

N/A

Rectangular

Cylindrical

Elliptical

Curved

Spherical

2.0

2.25

2.5

2.75

3.0

Size (Litre)

2.0Litre to
3.0Litre

Response Variable.

Target Value

Objective

Volume Flow Rate

N/A

Larger The Better

Manifold Plenum Pressure

Static

Nominal the best

Major and Minor Losses

N/A

Smaller the Better

Air distribution to all cylinder

Evenly

Nominal the best

Page | 25

A schematic layout of the method used for Plenum design indicated in flow chart:

Figure 4.5 Flow chart: Method used for Plenum design and simulation

Page | 26

4.6 STAGE-5 FINAL INTAKE MANIFOLD SELECTION

When designing the Final Intake Manifold, then first step to choose the design
variables which affect the target response, Four factors were taken as design variable for
designing plenum, first factor was Turbulence Model, second factor was Restrictor
Design, third factor was Cylinder Runner Design and fourth factor was Plenum Design.
All the four factor or design variable were calculated in previous four stages, author select the
best turbulence model from stage-1 after fulfilling the need of selection of best turbulence
model author then select the best five restrictor from stage-2 to design a final intake manifold,
after selecting the 1st two variable, author then design most difficult part of this study and it
was cylinder runner selection, he select the best size and boundary condition from stage-3
for final intake manifold analysis for target RPM, because in simulation at instant Fluent can
analyse transient boundary condition for particular RPM only. At last author design plenum
known as major part of intake manifold sometimes it also called as heart of intake manifold,
he select the best plenum from stage-4 to design a final intake manifold.
Table 4.4 Design table for simulation of final intake manifold model
Design Variables

Range Value

Turbulence Model

From Stage-1

Restrictor or C-D Nozzle

Best Five of Stage-2

Cylinder Runner Size

From Stage-3

Runner Boundary Condition

From Stage-3

Plenum

Best Five of Stage-4

Response Variable.

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Best Model From Stage-1

Nozzle1

Nozzle2

Nozzle3

Nozzle4

Nozzle5

Plenum4

Plenum4

At 6000 RPM
Plenum1

Plenum2

Plenum3

Target Value

Objective

Volume Flow Rate

N/A

Larger The Better

Manifold Plenum Pressure

Static

Nominal the Best

Major and Minor Losses

N/A

Smaller the Better

Volumetric Efficiency

N/A

Larger The Better

Even Flow Distribution

N/A

Nominal the Best

Author design and perform all maximum possible experiment by using statistical tool
MINITAB, it was not difficult to perform all experiment according to full factorial method
because it was only creating 25 maximum possible experiments by combination of four
factors and their levels. Author then simulate all the 25 experiment and compare each
simulation with set target response value, if any of the simulated response value was

Page | 27

approximately equal to the set target value then that model was chosen as final intake
manifold else author analyse experiment in statistical tool MINITAB, to see the effect of
all design variable on target response value and redesign new experiment. Author was
repeating the experiment until he did not get best results of final intake manifold design.
A schematic layout of the method used for Final Intake Manifold design indicated in flow
chart:

Figure 4.6 Flow chart: Method used for Final Intake Manifold design and simulation

Page | 28

4.7 SIMULATION SETUP METHOD

For analysis of any intake manifold, design of the geometry is very important. Author
design the intake manifold in Solidworks, after designing the part, he open Ansys
workbench

and

open

the

computational

fluid

dynamics

module

FLUENT.

Figure 4.7 Flow chart: general outline for design and analysis of intake manifold

Page | 29

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 SIMULATIONS AND RESULT OF TURBULENCE MODEL

5.1.1 Simulation of Each Turbulence Model
Four simulations were carried out, all on the same restrictor model, all with the same pressure
drop across the restrictor of 20kPa. This pressure drop was larger than experienced inside the
inlet manifold but was believed to be a good value as it would definitely incite choked flow.
This would cause a fully developed shockwave so that the full effect of any shockwave
interactions might be captured. On each model the parameters with no relation to the viscous
model were kept constant to ensure accuracy of the comparison.
Good levels of convergence were produced for simulations using the Spalart-Allmaras, Kepsilon and K-omega models, with all variables converging below 1e-04. However the
simulation would not converge making use of the Reynolds Stress Model. Previous
simulations used a courant number of 5, and even reducing the courant number to 0.05 would
not remove the divergence. This was a disappointment as initial research indicated that this
model was the most accurate and would be a likely baseline for comparison of other models
against. The exact reason for this was not ascertained as the author felt that problem solving
this particular issue would be not be practicable considering the potential time taken versus
the likely benefits.

Figure 5.1.1 2D axis-symmetric grid used to compare turbulence models.

With the failure to produce useful results from the Reynolds-stress model, there were only
three models left for comparison. The Spalart-Allmaras, k-, and k- models were all applied
to the same grid model, as seen in Figure 5.1.1. The software package was allowed to
Page | 30

perform grid refinement to improve resolution and accuracy in the vicinity of the shockwave
which formed in the restrictor. The models were compared on the basis of three parameters.
The first factor considered was the total number of iterations to convergence, and time per
iteration. Overall computational time would be a factor in this project as there were limited
opportunities to perform the simulations due to other demands on software licenses from
other students and the number of simulations which needed to be run.
Table 5.1.1 Computational impact of the turbulence model selected
Turbulence Model

Number of

Average Time Per Iteration

Total Iteration Time

% Difference

Iterations
Spalart-Allmaras

3343

.75 second

1hrs 14mins

0%

k-

5436

.63 second

2hrs 24mins

108%

k-

6493

.65 second

2hrs 47mins

137%

This comparison showed that not only were the 2-equation models more intensive on a per
iteration basis, but further that these more complicated models took longer to converge to a
final solution. Clearly this would represent significant increases in computational time,
particularly when extended to simulating the whole manifold which would potentially contain
an order of magnitude more grid points. The next factor to be considered was a visual
inspection of the flow simulations provided by FLUENT.
The work reviewed in considering the strengths and weaknesses of each turbulence model
gave insight into the characteristics of the flow being simulated. The work previously done
by Knight et al. revealed that shockwave boundary layer interactions caused regions of
separated flow downstream of the shock, so we should be expecting this in our simulations.
The Spalart-Allmaras model produced significant regions of separated, recirculating flow
extending 5-7mm from the wall. The k- model produced no separation, only a rapidly
growing turbulent boundary layer downstream of the shock. The k- model produced a small
region of separated recirculating flow extending at most 2.5mm from the wall. Knight and
Degrez showed that the Spalart-Allmaras model produced the best correlation for shock-wave
boundary layer interactions. Work conducted by Paciorri et.al showed that cases where the
Spalart-Allmaras model was slightly lacking in agreement it tended to undersize regions of
separation. These factors lead the author to feel that the k- and k- models were likely doing
an inferior job of simulating the flow given the results obtained.

Page | 31

The final consideration was to examine the velocity profile of the flow exiting the restrictor
and make a comparison across each individual model, and to the expected shape of turbulent
flow within a pipe. Figure 5.1.2 shows the expected velocity distribution in a pipe for fully
developed flow. However we are considering typical L/D values lower than those for fully
developed flows and as such would expect to see a central region of uniform velocity.

Figure 5.1.2 Effect of laminar and turbulent flow on velocity profile in a pipe [31]

.
Figure 5.1.3 Exit Velocity profile for the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model.

The velocity profiles from each simulation were extracted from FLUENT and a comparison
was made across all three to determine which model was generating results in line with
expected data. The results were taken at the outlet of the restrictor; keeping in mind the

Page | 32

minimum diameter of the flow is 20mm and the length of the restrictor is 200mm, giving an
L/D =10, which is well below the expected 20-30 for fully developed flow.

Figure 5.1.4 Exit Velocity profile for the k- turbulence model.

Figure 5.1.5 Exit Velocity profile for the k- turbulence model.

Figures 5.1.3, 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 show that which turbulence model is being used greatly effects
the results being produced. The k- model in Figure 5.1.4 appears to be simulating a fully
developed flow, and the profile is analogous to a laminar velocity profile, more so than a
Page | 33

turbulent one. The k- model shown in Figure 5.1.5 by contrast looks much more like a
turbulent velocity profile, though once again it looks much closer to a fully developed profile.
Finally if we examine the profile shown in Figure 5.1.3 which was generated by the SpalartAllmaras model we see a profile much more in line with the results expected. The simulation
has a region of uniform flow in the centre, characteristic of flow which is not yet fully
developed and we see a moderate region of recirculating flow towards the wall.
5.1.2 Summary of Result for Turbulence Model
Selecting an appropriate turbulence model is critical in producing accurate simulations using
computational methods. The methods offered by FLUENT all have their strengths and
weaknesses and a thorough evaluation of each was necessary to determine which was most
suited to the application. Each consideration made, whether in reference to works carried out
by other scholars or examining the simulated results for each model lead to the same
conclusion that the Spalart-Allmaras model was most suited for the conditions simulated in
the intake manifold.
5.1.3 Pictorial View of Model Used For Turbulence Modeling

(a)

(c)

(b)

Figure 5.1.6 (a) 2D Axis-symmetric model 25 000 grid points. (b) Axial velocity (c) Static Pressure

Page | 34

5.2 SIMULATIONS AND RESULT OF RESTRICTOR

25 simulations were carried out with the same turbulence model and pressure drop across the
restrictor of 10kPa. The model used for the simulations was an axis-symmetric representation
of the restrictor itself. FLUENT has the capacity to simulate a full 3-dimensional flow based
upon a 2-dimensional section rotated around an axis. While technically a 2-dimensional
simulation provides an accurate representation of what occurs in 3-dimensions. As per
design, four variables were taken for optimization and their effect was demonstrated briefly
below with respect to response variable. For reader validation purpose, author mentioned the
design matrix in Appendix A.1 section.
5.2.1 Effect of Variation in Nozzle Inlet Diameter
Simulations of various nozzles were done at same boundary condition in order to be able to
compare the effect of nozzle inlet diameter on response variable, author take only two
response variable to validate the best nozzle inlet diameter. In C-D nozzle; inlet diameter
plays very minor important role on the response. Figure 5.2.1 shows that, average volume
flow rate of 48mm (0.062041 m3/s) and 51mm (0.062597 m3/s) nozzle inlet diameter and was
higher than overall average volume flow rate (0.061781 m3/s), while average volume flow
rate of 50mm (0.061633 m3/s) inlet diameter nozzle was approximately equal to overall ave48mm
50mm
52mm

connection1
connection3
Mean Line

49mm
51mm

connection2
connection4

0.068

Volume Flow Rate (m3/s)

0.067
0.066
0.065
0.064
0.063
0.062
0.061
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 5
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 25

0.06

Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Nozzle Inlet Diameter)

Figure 5.2.1 Variation of volume flow rate with nozzle design for five different nozzle inlet diameters.

Page | 35

-rage volume flow rate, however, the average volume flow rate of 49mm (0.061322 m3/s) and
52mm (0.061311 m3/s) was lower than overall volume flow rate.
Figure 5.2.2 present the axial velocity with different nozzle design for different nozzle inlet
diameter. Average axial velocity at 48mm (250.5312 m/s) inlet diameter was lower than
overall average velocity (252.9482 m/s), while average velocity of 49mm (254.3764 m/s),
50mm (254.1326 m/s), 51mm (253.3604 m/s) and 52mm (254.7666 m/s) inlet diameter
nozzle were higher than the overall average velocity. As from the result author shows that the
inlet diameter plays very significant role for velocity response, because its 4 design level out
of 5 gave the response above the overall average velocity response.
48mm
50mm
52mm

connection1
connection3
Mean Line

49mm
51mm

connection2
connection4

265

Axial Velocity (m/s)

263
261
259
257
255
253
251
249
247
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 5
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 25

245

Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Nozzle Inlet Diameter)

Figure 5.2.2 Variation of volume flow rate with nozzle design for five different nozzle inlet diameters.

5.2.2 Effect of Variation in Diffuser Half Angle

Simulations of various nozzles were done at same boundary condition in order to be able to
compare the effect of diffuser half angle on the response variable, author take only two
response variable to validate the best diffuser half angle. On C-D nozzle, diffuser half angle
plays very major important role on the response. Figure 5.2.3 shows that, average volume
flow rate of 30 (0.06087 m3/s) and 50 (0.062597 m3/s) diffuser half angle was lower than
overall average volume flow rate (0.061781 m3/s), while average volume flow rate of 60

Page | 36

(0.06187 m3/s) diffuser half angle was approximately equal overall average volume flow rate;
however the average volume flow rate of 40 (0.06207 m3/s) and 70 (0.06301 m3/s) was higher
than overall volume flow rate.
3 degree
5 degree
7 degree

connection1
connection3
Mean Line

4 degree
6 degree

connection2
connection4

0.068

Volume Flow Rate (m3/s)

0.067
0.066
0.065
0.064
0.063
0.062
0.061
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 5
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 25

0.06

Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Diffuser Half Angle)

Figure 5.2.3 Variation of volume flow rate with nozzle design for five different nozzle inlet diameters.

3 degree
5 degree
7 degree

connection1
connection3
Mean Line

4 degree
6 degree

connection2
connection4

265
263

Axial Velocity (m/s)

261
259
257
255
253
251
249
247
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 5
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 25

245

Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Diffuser Half Angle)

Figure 5.2.4 Variation of volume flow rate with nozzle design for five different nozzle inlet diameters.

Page | 37

Figure 5.2.4 present the axial velocity with different nozzle design for different diffuser half
angle. Average axial velocity of 30 (255.025 m/s) and 70 (254.767 m/s) was higher than
overall average velocity (252.9482 m/s), while average velocity of 40 (252.935 m/s) and 50
(252.274 m/s) diffuser half angle was approximately equal to the overall average velocity.
The velocity of 60 (249.74 m/s) was much lower than overall average velocity. As from the
result, author shows that diffuser half angle play very significant variation on velocity
response, because its 2 upper design level and lower design level gives maximum velocity
response , so that author take diffuser angle as major design variable and give it 1st priority
for choice of best restrictor selection.
5.2.3 Effect of Variation in Diffuser Length
Simulations of various nozzles were done at same boundary condition in order to be able to
compare the effect of every diffuser length on the response variable, author take only two
response variable to validate the best diffuser length. On C-D nozzle, diffuser length plays
very important role on the response, Figure 5.2.5 shows that, average volume flow rate
(0.061266 m3/s) of 140mm diffuser length nozzle was less than overall average volume flow
rate (0.061781 m3/s), while average volume flow rate of 152mm (0.061743 m3/s), 166mm
(0.061718 m3/s), and 188mm (0.061506 m3/s) diffuser length nozzles were approximately e-

0.068

140mm
164mm
200mm

connection1
connection3
Mean Line

152mm
188mm

connection2
connection4

Volume Flow Rate (m3/s)

0.067
0.066
0.065
0.064
0.063
0.062
0.061
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 25
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 5

0.06

Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Diffuser Length)

Figure 5.2.5 Variation of volume flow rate with nozzle design for five different nozzle inlet diameters.

Page | 38

-qual to overall average volume flow rate, however, the average volume flow rate of 200mm
(0.062671 m3/s) was higher than the overall average volume flow rate.
Figure 5.2.6 present the axial velocity with different nozzle design for different diffuser
length. Average axial velocity of 140mm (255.9068 m/s) and 152 (254.767 m/s) was higher
than overall average velocity (252.9482 m/s), while average velocity of 164mm (253.1302
m/s) was approximately equal to the overall average velocity. The velocity of 188mm
(250.044 m/s) and 200mm (251.425 m/s) was much lower than overall average velocity. As
from the result author shows that, the diffuser length play very significant variation on
velocity response, as diffuser length increases velocity of the flow decreases, so that author
take diffuser length as 2nd major design variable and give 2nd priority for choice of best
restrictor selection.
140mm
164mm
200mm

connection1
connection3
Mean Line

152mm
188mm

connection2
connection4

265
263

Axial Velocity (m/s)

261
259
257
255
253
251
249
247
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 25
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 5

245

Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Diffuser Length)

Figure 5.2.6 Variation of volume flow rate with nozzle design for five different nozzle inlet diameters.

5.2.4 Effect Variation in Inlet Curvature Radius

To compare the effect of inlet curvature radius on response variable, author take only two
response variable to validate the inlet curvature radius. On C-D nozzle, inlet curvature radius
plays very minor important role on the response. Figure 5.2.7 shows that, average volume
flow rate of 36mm (.061468 m3/s), 38.5mm (.061354 m3/s), 43.5mm (0.06188 m3/s) and

Page | 39

46mm (0.0612315 m3/s) inlet curvature radius nozzles were approximately equal to the
overall average volume flow rate, while volume flow rate of mm (.061468 m3/s) inlet
curvature radius nozzle was higher than the overall average volume flow rate. As from result
36mm
41mm
46mm

connection1
connection3
Mean Line

38.5mm
43.5mm

connection2
connection4

0.068

0.066
0.065
0.064
0.063
0.062
0.061
0.06
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 25
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 5

Volume Flow Rate (m3/s)

0.067

Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Inlet Curvature

Radius)
Figure 5.2.7
Variation of volume flow rate with nozzle design for five different nozzle inlet diameters.

265

36mm
41mm
46mm

connection1
connection3
Mean Line

38.5mm
43.5mm

connection2
connection4

263

Axial Velocity (m/s)

261
259
257
255
253
251
249
247
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 25
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 5

245

Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Diffuser Half Angle)

Figure 5.2.8 Variation of volume flow rate with nozzle design for five different nozzle inlet diameters.

Page | 40

author show that inlet curvature radius play no significant variation on volume flow rate,
because only at the inlet curvature radius 41 mm volume flow rate was higher than mean so
that author give last priority to inlet curvature radius for choice of best restrictor selection.
Figure 5.2.8 present the axial velocity with different nozzle design for different inlet
curvature radius. Average axial velocity of 36mm (254.1586 m/s) and 38.5 (254.801 m/s) was
higher than overall average velocity (252.9482 m/s), while average velocity of 41mm
(252.2906 m/s) was approximately equal to the overall average velocity. The velocity of
43.5mm (251.9206 m/s) and 46mm (251. 7025 m/s) was considerably lower than overall
average velocity. From the result author shows that, as inlet curvature radius increases
velocity decreases due pressure loss, inlet curvature radius of 36mm provide best and
consistent response for all experiment.
5.2.5 Overall Mean Result
Figure 5.2.9 present the mean of menas with input design parameter for all four factors.
From the result author show that, nozzle inlet diameter of 49mm,50mm and 51mm was
giving considerably higher response, while for lower and upper levels was giving response
below the mean value, so that author give the priority to choose the inlet diameter 49mm

Figure 5.2.9 Variation of mean of means with design input parameter for all four factors.

Page | 41

,50mm and 51mm for maximum response value. From Figure 5.2.9 author also shows that
result for diffuser half angle effect was just different from nozzle inlet diameter, so that
author give higher priority to choose diffuser half angle 30 and 70 for best response value, and
author give medium priority to select diffuser half angle 40 for good result. Figure 5.2.9 also
present the variation of result of diffuser length and inlet curvature radius. Diffuser lengh
140mm, 152mm and 164mm was giving good response, while curvature radius 36mm and
38.5mm was considered for best response. From reviewing above result author find that
Nozzle2, Nozzle6, Nozzle15, Nozzle20 and Nozzle23 will be best for designing final intake
manifold. Simulation result of only five best design on Fluent was shown by the author here
because simulation result of each design is not needed to show.

5.2.6 Pictorial Representation of Simulation Model

5.2.6.1 Static Pressure Countour and Plot

(b)
(a)

(c)

(d)

Page | 42

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

Figure 5.2.9 Pressure contours and plot the of static pressure. (a)& (b) Nozzle-2 (c)& (d) Nozzle-6 (e)&
(f) Nozzle-15 (g)& (h) Nozzle-20 (i)& (j) Nozzle-22

Page | 43

5.2.6.2 Velocity Countour and Plot

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Page | 44

(h)

(g)

(j)

(i)

Figure 5.2.10 Velocity contours and plot of the magnitude velocity. (a)& (b) Nozzle-2 (c)& (d) Nozzle-6
(e)& (f) Nozzle-15 (g)& (h) Nozzle-20 (i)& (j) Nozzle-22

5.2.7 Result Validation

To validate the result author use analytical method of designing convergent- divergent
nozzle, and he found the same result as calculated by computational fluid dynamics software
package Ansys Fluent; reader can fallow the Appendix section A.2 for more understanding
of the analytical method of nozzle designing. Another way to validate the result was flow
bench simulation, author did not perform the flow bench simulation for result validation due
to lack of resources and time, but he takes previous flow bench simulation results performed
by other author for validation of his study.
Page | 45

5.3 CALCULATION AND RESULT OF CYLINDER RUNNER

5.3.1 Calculation for Cylinder Runner Length

The engine speed for which the 2009 Kawasaki Ninja 600 ZX-6R power peaks is 12500
rpm.

The intake valve is open 288 degrees out of 720 degrees in total.

Speed of sound in air at 30 degrees Celsius is 349.08 m /sec.

The engine speed is required to be described in rps (revolution per second) as SI units

are preferred: 12500 rpm =

rps. This means that one revolution takes

and the intake valve will remain closed for 720288 = 432 degrees. Which is

s = 0.0048s

= 1.2

revolutions.
The time it takes between when the valve closes and when it opens again is: 0.0048
1.2 = 0.00576s. The wave moving at the speed of sound during that time will cover the
distance of: 0.00576 349.08 = 2.011m before the intake valve opens again. Since the
pressure wave has to travel back and forth, the optimum length for the intake runner when it
comes to using the ramming phenomenon at 12500 rpm is half of the calculated length (=
1.005m). A runner length of approximately 1.005m would be very difficult to fit in the car.
To address the ungainly size of the intake runner length required to utilize the
ramming phenomenon a solution is to shorten the runner length to exactly one fourth of the
calculated length. That will provide a runner length of

= 0.25133m which is

conveniently short enough to incorporate the component within car. If the runner length is
shorten to one forth, making it 0.25133m, the pressure wave will travel up and down the pipe
four times before the intake valve opens again. But it still arrives at the valve at the same
time. This is a way to shorten the intake runner and still get some benefit from the pressure
wave, preferred to as quarter wave resonator. Similarly author calculated runner length for
every targeted RPM.
Table 5.3.1 presents the best cylinder runner size for every RPM, but the author can
simulate manifold for a single RPM at a time due to constrain of software package, so that he
decided to simulate manifold in the entire study at 6000RPM, pressure variation inside the
cylinder at 6000RPM was developed by the author by the use of software package Ricardo
Wave.

Page | 46

Table 5.3.1 Cylinder Runner Length for Different RPM

S. No

Speed
(RPM)

Time For One

Revolution (sec)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
12,500
13,000
14,000
15,000

0.015
0.012
0.01
0.00857
0.0075
0.00667
0.006
0.005454
0.005
0.0048
0.0046154
0.004286
0..004

Intake Valve
Open Duration
(sec)
0.012
0.0096
0.008
0.00686
0.006
0.00533
0.0048
0.004364
0.004
0.00384
0.00369
0.0034285
0.0032

Intake Valve
Close Duration
(sec)
0.018
0.0144
0.012
0.0103
0.009
0.008
0.0072
0.006545
0.006
0.00576
0.00554
0.005143
0.0048

Total Travel
Distance By
Wave (m)
6.28344
5.02675
4.18896
3.59054
3.14172
2.79264
2.51338
2.28469
2.09448
2.01070
1.93337
1.79527
1.67558

Runner
Length
(m)
0.78543
0.62834
0.52362
0.44882
0.39272
0.34908
0.31417
0.28559
0.26181
0.25133
0.24167
0.22441
0.20945

Figure 5.3.1 present the variation of time duration with speed for different time
parameter. From the figure result shows that, as engine speed increases there was very less
time available for air intake, time duration for air intake at 4,000 RPM was 0.012s but for
15,000 RPM only 0.0032s time was available for air intake, the time duration for air intake at
15,000 RPM was approximately four times less than the time required for air intake at 4000
RPM. So that volumetric efficiency may be affected at higher speed due less time available
Time For One Revolution (sec)
Intake Valve Close Duration (sec)

Intake Valve Open Duration (sec)

0.02

Time Duration (sec)

0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0

Engine Speed (RPM)

Figure 5.3.1 Variation of time duration with engine speed for three different time parameters.

Page | 47

for air intake. As runner length increases, the peak efficiency shifts lower in engine speed.
This is due to several reasons. First, as the length increases, so does the surface area of the
flow stream which results in additional resistance. As the air velocity increases with engine
speed, the effect of this frictional resistance increases causing volumetric efficiency (VE) to
shift lower in engine speed. Conversely, as the length gets longer, the charge column of air
will get greater as it builds up over the greater length resulting in peak VE rising. This means
as length increases, VE magnitude increases while shifting earlier in engine speed, and also
trails off quicker after peak VE is reached.
0.9
0.8
0.7

Runner Length (m)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Engine Speed (RPM)

Figure 5.3.2 Variation of runner length with engine speed.

Figure 5.3.2 presents the runner length with the speeds. It can be seen from figure
that the variation of runner length at lower RPM is considerably more than the higher RPM.
Vehicle overall average running speed is at about 6,000 RPM during competition, so that
author keep in mind that the average velocity and design the runner according to 6000 RPM,
the secondary thing he kept in mind during selection of runner length; slope was falling very
smoothly after 6000 RPM as presented in Figure 5.3.2.
However, in the restricted engine case, the overall air charge is limited, which in
theory would limit the charge column capability. This effect is twofold. First, since the
charge column is limited, the increase in volumetric efficiency magnitude as the length gets
longer is diminished. Secondly, the drop in charge column mass reduces the effective
Page | 48

resistance and the rate of reduction in VE after peak would be lessened. It was be seen when
comparing the analytical calculations to the experimental results for result validation.
5.3.2 Calculation for Cylinder Runner Diameter
A second approach to tuning engine volumetric efficiency is to vary the diameter of the
runner. When using a given engine the relative cross-sectional area difference created at the
junction to the head of the engine. By changing the cross sectional area, in essence a nozzle is
created, either converging or diverging depending on the change made. This will have the
effect of either increasing or decreasing air speed at the entrance into the cylinder and affect
the pressure wave pulse mannerisms slightly. However, empirically it is still an acceptable
approach, providing a second option when tuning the manifold.
By using this Visard's Equation author find the runner diameter for various RPM for
different volumetric efficiency and results are shown in table 1
Diameter (cm )=
Here, displacement is represented as the total displacement of engine cylinder in
litres, Volumetric Efficiency is represented in percentage, speed is taken in RPM and V is the
velocity of the air flow in the Intake Manifold plenum for resonance (generally estimated at
55 m/sec max.). Now above equation can be written as,
Diameter (cm) =

Table 5.3.1 Engine speed with runner diameter for different volumetric efficiency

S. No

Speed
(RPM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
12,500
13,000
14,000
15,000

Runner Diameter for Different Volumetric Efficiency (cm)

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

1.86588
2.08613
2.28524
2.46833
2.63876
2.79883
2.95023
3.09423
3.23181
3.29845
3.36378
3.49076
3.61327

1.92708
2.15454
2.36018
2.54929
2.72530
2.89062
3.04698
3.19570
3.33780
3.40663
3.47409
3.60524
3.73178

1.98639
2.22085
2.43282
2.62775
2.80918
2.97958
3.14076
3.29405
3.44053
3.51147
3.58102
3.71619
3.84663

2.04398
2.28524
2.50335
2.70393
2.89062
3.06597
3.23181
3.38955
3.54027
3.61133
3.68483
3.82293
3.95814

2.09999
2.34786
2.57195
2.77802
2.96983
3.14998
3.32037
3.48244
3.63729
3.71229
3.78581
3.92872
4.06661

2.15454
2.40885
2.63876
2.85019
3.04698
3.23183
3.40663
3.57290
3.73178
3.80872
3.88416
4.03078
4.17225

Volumetric Efficiency
For Equivalent Runner
Diameter D=4.6cm
455%
365%
304%
260%
228%
203%
182%
166%
152%
146%
140%
130%
122%

Page | 49

Figure 5.3.3 presents the runner diameter with the speeds. It can be seen from figure
that the variation of runner diameter at lower RPM is considerably much less than the higher
RPM. Author also compare the variation of runner diameter for different volumetric
efficiency, and he found that for delivering more air to engine or for improving volumetric
efficiency; runner diameter should be larger for higher RPM, and lower RPM vehicle can
operate efficiently with small runner diameter.
75% VE

80% VE

85% VE

90% VE

95% VE

100% VE

4.25
4.05

Runner Diameter (m)

3.85
3.65
3.45
3.25
3.05
2.85
2.65
2.45
2.25
2.05
1.85

Engine Speed (RPM)

Figure 5.3.3Variation of runner diameter with engine speed for different volumetric efficiency.

As from Figure 5.3.3, results of runner diameter for different volumetric efficiency
were approximately varying linearly with engine speed, so that for deciding the runner
diameter, author did not take consideration of vehicle average running speed because of some
limitation provided by engine manufacturer at engine intake, the engine intake diameter was
fix for the engine at which the manifold was going to design, so that the author take the
diameter of the engine intake; and consider as runner diameter (d=4.6 cm) and found that
runner with 4.6 cm diameter was providing the best volumetric efficiency at every rpm and
validation is presented in Figure 5.3.4 and Table 5.3.2.
It can be seen from the above section for lower speed vehicle runner length should be
larger and runner diameter should be minimum for achieving higher volumetric efficiency
and for higher speed vehicle runner length should be kept minimum and runner diameter
should be higher.
Page | 50

Volumetric Efficiency at D=4.6cm

100% Volumetric efficency

500%
450%

Volumetric Efficiency

400%
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%

Engine Speed (RPM)

Figure 5.3.4 Variation of volumetric efficiency with engine speed for a given runner diameter.

5.3.3 Boundary Condition at Cylinder Runner Outlet or Engine Intake

For the simulation of final intake manifold, physical pressure drop with respect to time data
was needed, so that for getting the actual pressure drop at cylinder runner during the valve
open and closure duration, author design engine on engine simulation software to get physical
pressure drop with respect to time. The engine simulation software that was utilized is the
market leading ISO approved, 1-D engine and gas dynamics simulation software Wave
from Ricardo. Wave enables performance simulations to be carried out for steady-state as
well as transient simulations applicable to virtually any intake, combustion and exhaust
system configuration and includes a drivetrain model to allow complete vehicle simulation.
The software can be used throughout the entire engine design process, from early concept
research to optimising a complete engine. Whether it concerns improving volumetric
efficiency, designing complex boosting systems, improving transient response or extracting
the maximum performance from a race engine, Wave is useful.
Author also investigate the manifold using 1D/3D (Ricardo WAVE-VECTIS) and
1D/3D (Ricardo WAVE- Ansys FLUENT) Coupled Modeling Techniques, but these methods
are only used for getting accurate result not for optimizing the intake manifold, so that author
did not mention 1D/3D in this study, but he use few result of these modeling for optimization.

Page | 51

Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 4

Cylinder 3

102500
101500

Pressure (Pa)

100500
99500
98500
97500
96500
95500
94500
93500
0
0.000875
0.00175
0.002625
0.0035
0.004375
0.00525
0.006125
0.007
0.007875
0.00875
0.009625
0.0105
0.011375
0.01225
0.013125
0.014
0.014875
0.01575
0.016625
0.0175
0.018375
0.01925
0.020125

92500

Time for 7200 Crank Angle (sec)

Figure 5.3.5 Variation of Pressure with time for all four cylinders at 6000RPM.

Figure 5.3.5 present variation of pressure with time for 2009 model Kawasaki Ninja
ZX-6R, the pressure variation in cylinder was calculated by author for all for cylinder
according to firing order of the engine 1-2-4-3, and it is demonstrated in figure. For the
validation of the pressure drop across the cylinder, author use Kawasaki FI calibration tool by
using Kawasaki product no. 26031-0025 to get real time pressure drop across cylinder.
Author validates the result and found that pressure drop calculated by engine simulation
software Ricardo Wave was approximately same as real time data. For reader validation,
pressure drop data is given in Appendix B.1 and boundary condition is given in Appendix
B.2, because boundary condition was setup by the use of these pressure drop data. Engine
specification is given in Appendix E.
5.4 SIMULATIONS AND RESULT OF PLENUM
20 simulations were carried out with the same turbulence model and pressure drop across the
plenum of 10kPa. The model used for the simulations was 3D representation of the intake
manifold with different shape and size. FLUENT has the capacity to simulate a full 3dimensional flow. Author take whole intake manifold for simulation, but he evaluated only
plenum effect on response. As per design, two variables were taken for optimization and their
effect was demonstrated briefly below with respect to response variable. For reader validation
purpose, author mentioned the design matrix in Appendix C.1 section. Author simulated
Page | 52

these experiments only for refinement of result to get best plenum for final intake manifold
otherwise it is not necessary to run the experiment separately for plenum only.
5.4.1 Effect of Different Plenum Shape and Size
Author simulated different plenum shape and size for the study and evaluated each plenum
shape and effect on volumetric efficiency and even distribution to all cylinders. Figure 5.4.1
presents the variation of volume flow rate with plenum size for different type of plenum
shape. The volume flow rate of air at 2.0litre and 2.25litre was approximately equal for all
plenum size, but variation on volume flow rate started at 2.5litre plenum size, at 2.5 litre
plenum size curved shape plenum provide higher volume rate while the other were
approximately equal, when author use the 2.75litre plenum size, he found significant
variation in response and at 3.0 litre plenum size every plenum shape were providing good
results.
rectegular

cylindriclal

eliptical

curved

0.105
0.1

Volume Flow Rate (m3/s)

0.095
0.09
0.085
0.08
0.075
0.07
0.065
0.06
2

2.25

2.5

2.75

Size of Plenum (litre)

Figure 5.4.1 Variation of volume flow rate with plenum size for the different type of plenum shape.

Figure 5.4.1 only present the overall flow distribution by the different plenum shape
at different size but this is not enough to select the best plenum for final intake manifold
selection, so that author present distribution of flow to all cylinder for different plenum shape
and size because the main objective of the study was to evenly distribute the air to all four
cylinder.

Page | 53

5.4.2 Effect of Rectangular Shape Plenum

Figure 5.4.2 presents the variation of volume flow rate with plenum size for
rectangular plenum shape for all four cylinders. The volume flow rate of all four cylinders
was different as presented in Figure 5.4.2, volume flow rate at cylinder 2 and cylinder 3 was
much higher than volume flow rate at cylinder 1 and cylinder 4, so that this type of plenum
shape was diverting the goal of achieving even flow of distribution, and it was also producing
back flow, in rectangular section pressure loss was also too high due concentration of air and
frictional losses. As mentioned in objective, pressure losses should be kept minimum as much
as possible and sudden change in geometry should be also avoided but rectangular plenum
keep both, so that the author find the appropriate reason to not use rectangular shape plenum.
Cylinder1

cylinder2

Cylinder3

2.25

2.5

Cylinder4

Average

Volume Flow Rate (m3/s)

0.055
0.045
0.035
0.025
0.015
0.005
-0.005

2.75

-0.015

Size of Plenum (litre)

Figure 5.4.2 Variation of volume flow rate with plenum size for rectangular plenum for all 4 cylinders.

5.4.3 Effect of Circular Shape Plenum

Figure 5.4.3 presents the variation of volume flow rate with plenum size for circular
plenum shape for all four cylinders. The volume flow rate of all four cylinders was different
as presented in Figure 5.4.3, volume flow rate at cylinder 2 and cylinder 3 was much higher
than volume flow rate at cylinder 1 and cylinder 4 as in the case of rectangular plenum, so
that this type of plenum shape was similar to rectangular plenum shape and diverting the goal
of achieving even flow of distribution, in circular section pressure loss was also to high due

Page | 54

concentration of air at single place and frictional losses, so that author find the appropriate
reason to not use circular shape plenum for final intake manifold design.
Cylinder1

cylinder2

Cylinder3

Cylinder4

2.5

2.75

Average

0.04

Volume Flow Rate (m3/s)

0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
2

2.25

-0.005

Size of Plenum (litre)

Figure 5.4.3 Variation of volume flow rate with plenum size for circular plenum for all 4 cylinders.

5.4.4 Effect of Elliptical Shape Plenum

Figure 5.4.4 presents variation of volume flow rate with plenum size for elliptical shape for aCylinder1

cylinder2

Cylinder3

Cylinder4

Average

0.05

Volume Flow Rate (m3/s)

0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
2

2.25

2.5

2.75

Size of Plenum (litre)

Figure 5.4.4 Variation of volume flow rate with plenum size for elliptical plenum for all 4 cylinders.

Page | 55

-ll four cylinders. The volume flow rate of all four cylinders was not equal, but they are not
producing backflow; as shown in Figure 5.4.4, in this case it was not specific that, which
cylinder volume flow rate will be higher, so that the author had the significant reason to
choose elliptical plenum with 2.75litre and 3.0litre for final intake manifold analysis. He
choose 2.75litre and 3.0litre plenum size because of all the cylinder value were lying near the
average line, and volume flow rate was also higher for these plenum size, author also find
that pressure losses and frictional losses were to less comparison to rectangular and circular
section.
5.4.4 Effect of Curved Shape Plenum
Cylinder1

cylinder2

Cylinder3

2.25

2.5

Cylinder4

Average

0.05

Volume Flow Rate (m3/s)

0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
2

2.75

Size of Plenum (litre)

Figure 5.4.5 Variation of volume flow rate with plenum size for curved plenum for all 4 cylinders.

Figure 5.4.5 presents variation of volume flow rate with plenum size for curved shape
for all four cylinders. The volume flow rate of all four cylinders was not equal, but they are
not generating backflow as shown in Figure 5.4.4, this case was neither similar to elliptical
plenum nor other two other plenum. Curved plenum was some biased about center runner but
it was generating good result for side runner also. For all the cylinder runner value of flow
rate was lying near the average line as well as volume flow rate was also higher for these
plenum size, author also find that pressure losses and frictional losses were negligible
compared to rectangular and circular section, so that author get the substantial reason to
choose curved plenum with 2.5litre, 2.75litre and 3.0litre for final intake manifold analysis.
Page | 56

He chooses 2.5litre, 2.75litre and 3.0litre because of all the cylinder value were lying near the
average line, and volume flow rate was also higher for these plenums to fulfil the demand of
cylinder runner at transient boundary condition.
5.4.5 Pictorial Representation of Results
In pictorial representation of result, all the 20 experiment results could not be
presented; so that author presented the result of best design of each plenum shape.
Rectangular Shape Plenum: As shown in the velocity vector plot rectangular plenum; it
was causing too much turbulence or swirl inside the plenum, so that static pressure inside the
plenum cannot be achieved and figure also shows that flow distribution is uneven to all four
cylinders, so that author find rectangular plenum could not be beneficial for use.

(a)

(b)

Velocity vector plot of flow through plenum

Pressure contour plot of flow through plenum

Circular Shape Plenum:

Circular Shape Plenum: As shown in figure the velocity vector plot of circular plenum; it
was also causing turbulence inside the plenum so that, maintaining static pressure in circular
plenum case is very difficult and the flow is also distributed unevenly to all cylinders.

(d)

(c)
Velocity vector plot of flow through plenum

Pressure contour plot of flow through plenum

Page | 57

Elliptical Shape Plenum: As shown in velocity vector plot of elliptical plenum; this type of
plenum is providing satisfactory level of result. In this plenum flow is approximately linear
and distributed evenly to all cylinders, but it may be biased about the center runners. Higher
volumetric efficiency can be achieved by using such type of plenum, because it is fulfilling
the objective up to some extent. So that author took this type of plenum also for final intake
manifold design.

(e)

(f)

Velocity vector plot of flow through plenum

Pressure contour plot of flow through plenum

Curved Shape Plenum: As shown in figure, curved plenum is providing the same result as
per author hypothesis, by comparing the velocity vector diagram, the conclusion can be made
that only curved plenum shape is providing the equal amount air to each cylinder. Elliptical
shape is some biased, but curved plenum is delivering approximately equal volume flow
without biasing; so that author highly recommended this type of plenum for final intake
manifold design.

(g)

(h)
Velocity vector plot of flow through plenum

Pressure contour plot of flow through plenum

Figure 5.4.6 Pressure contour and velocity vector plot of different type of plenum shape

Page | 58

5.5 SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS OF INTAKE MANIFOLD

25 simulations were carried out in Fluent with the same turbulence model and
transient pressure drop across the intake manifold. As per intake manifold design it consist of
three major parts; and these are restrictor, plenum and cylinder runner. In the study of
restrictor, plenum and cylinder runner author find out that, he can only tune or alter the
restrictor and plenum, while cylinder runner will be fixed due to engine constrain. So that, the
model used for the simulations was 3D representation of the intake manifold itself with
plenum of elliptical and curved shape; and 2.5lite, 2.75litre and 3.0litre size; best five plenum
was taken, and these were Plenum14, Plenum15, Plenum18, Plenum19 and Plenum20; to find
the detail of this plenum, reader can fallow the Appendix C.1. Best five restrictor was taken
for designing the final manifold and these were Nozzle2, Nozzle6, Nozzle15, Nozzle20 and
Nozzle22. To find the detail of this Restrictor design, reader can fallow the Appendix A.1.
Author design research matrix for simulation of final intake manifold by the use of best five
restrictors and plenum, for validation of reader, design matrix is mentioned in Appendix D.1
5.5.1 Simulation Result of All Intake Manifold
Figure 5.5.1 presents variation of volume flow rate with different manifold for all
four cylinders. The volume flow rate of all four cylinders was not equal in any of experiment
design by author, so that author will evaluate effect of each variable used in design for the fiCylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Cylinder 4

0.018
0.016

Volume Flow Rate

(m3/s)

0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
manifold1
manifold2
manifold3
manifold4
manifold5
manifold6
manifold7
manifold8
manifold9
manifold10
manifold11
manifold12
manifold13
manifold14
manifold15
manifold16
manifold17
manifold18
manifold19
manifold20
manifold21
manifold22
manifold23
manifold24
manifold25

Manifold
Figure 5.5.1 Variation of volume flow rate with different manifold for for all 4 cylinders.

Page | 59

-nal intake manifold selection. As figure shows that the volume flow rate is still not
distributed evenly; volume flow rate to cylinder 3 and cylinder 4 was higher compared to
volume flow rate to cylinder 1 and cylinder 2. To determine the reason for uneven
distribution author will discuss every aspect in next section.
Each Manifold Average

Overall Average

0.012
0.01

Volume Flow Rate

(m3/s)

0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002

manifold1
manifold2
manifold3
manifold4
manifold5
manifold6
manifold7
manifold8
manifold9
manifold10
manifold11
manifold12
manifold13
manifold14
manifold15
manifold16
manifold17
manifold18
manifold19
manifold20
manifold21
manifold22
manifold23
manifold24
manifold25

Manifold
Figure 5.5.2 Variation of volume flow rate with different manifold for each manifold and overall average.

Figure 5.5.2 presents the variation of volume flow rate with the different manifold for
each manifold average and overall average; author find that, from manifold1 to manifold10
volume flow rate was lower than overall average (0.004279695 m3/s) except manifold5,
while other manifold were generating approximately equal volume flow rate to overall
averaged volume flow rate, manifold5, manifold17 and manifold23 generating larger volume
flow rate than overall averaged value, from these result, author could not conclude for best
manifold for providing maximum volumetric efficiency; because these result shows that
manifold5 and manifold23 will be best for achieving maximum volumetric efficiency.
5.5.2 Effect of Curved Plenum Shape
Figure 5.5.3 presents the volume flow rate variation for each cylinder for different
mentioned manifold, which was designed by using curved plenum; as shown in figure the
volume flow rate of all manifold are approximately same at all cylinder except manifold5,
manifold10 and manifold 23; manifold10 was generating very less volume flow rate at all for
Page | 60

cylinder, while manifold 5 and manifold 23 was generating very large amount of flow and it
was above the average volume flow rate needed to cylinder. Volume flow rate at cylinder 1
for all manifolds was not generating as expected; so that power produced by the engine may
reduce at cylinder 1, but it is to enough for running vehicle up to 10000RPM; because
volume flow rate required for 100% volumetric efficiency at 10000RPM is only
(.0025m3/sec) and the flow rate shown in figure is for 6000RPM. At cylinder 2 all manifolds
were generating same volume flow rate just near the average volume flow rate generated by
all manifolds, while cylinder3 and cylinder 4 were generating more than the overall average
volume flow rate. As from result author find that curved plenum manifold was providing
satisfactory result approximately in all cases.
manifold3
manifold9
manifold15
manifold23

manifold4
manifold10
manifold18
manifold24

manifold5
manifold13
manifold19
manifold25

manifold8
manifold14
manifold20
Average

0.018
0.016

Volume Flow Rate

(m3/s)

0.014
0.012
0.01

0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Cylinder 4

Cylinder
Figure 5.5.3 Variation of volume flow rate with cylinder for different curved shape manifolds.

5.5.2 Effect of Elliptical Plenum Shape

Figure 5.5.4 presents the volume flow rate variation for each cylinder for different
mentioned manifold, which was designed by using elliptical plenum; as shown in figure the
volume flow rate of all manifold are approximately same at all cylinder. Volume flow rate at
cylinder 1 for all manifolds was not generating as expected similar to curved shape manifold;
so that power produced by the engine may reduce at cylinder 1, but it is to enough for
running vehicle up to 10000RPM as explained above in curved manifold section. At cylinder

Page | 61

2, all manifolds were generating same volume flow rate near the average volume flow rate,
while cylinder3 and cylinder 4 were generating more than the overall average volume flow
rate. As from result author find that elliptical plenum manifold was providing consistent
result but variation of pressure and volume flow rate in each cylinder was to enough
compared to curved plenum so that author find that curved shape plenum manifold provide
better result than other plenum shape .
manifold1
manifold11
manifold21

manifold2
manifold12
manifold22

manifold6
manifold16
Average

manifold7
manifold17

0.007
0.006

Volume Flow Rate

(m3/s)

0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Cylinder 4

Cylinder
Figure 5.5.4 Variation of volume flow rate with cylinder for different elliptical shape manifolds.

5.5.3 Effect of Plenum Size

Figure 5.5.5 presents the volume flow rate variation for each cylinder for different
manifold sizes, as figure shows that, using 2.75litre and 3.0litre plenum provide result with
much alteration from averaged line and also distribution of flow was highly uneven, while
using 2.5litre plenum size manifold was providing even flow of distribution with higher flow
rate than the average value. For designing and optimizing the intake manifold; size of the
manifold play very important role for achieving even distribution of air with required
quantity. As show in Figure 5.5.5, by using the 2.5litre plenum size was fulfilling the
primary design goal of intake manifold design, So that author finally find exact size for
designing the intake manifold for restricted engine. Using of other two manifold sizes will
reduce the engine power output of the because of highly uneven distribution.
Page | 62

2.5 litre

2.75 litre

3.0 litre

Average

0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Cylinder 4

Cylinder
Figure 5.5.5 Variation of volume flow rate with cylinder for different manifold sizes.

5.5.4 Effect of Restrictor

Figure 5.5.6 presents the volume flow rate variation for each cylinder for different restrictors
used in manifold design. As figure shows that using nozzle other than nozzle6 provide much
Nozzle2

Nozzle6

Nozzle15

Nozzle20

Nozzle22

Average

0.008
0.007

Volume Flow Rate

(m3/s)

0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Cylinder 4

Cylinder
Figure 5.5.6 Variation of volume flow rate with cylinder for restrictors used in manifold design.

Page | 63

alteration from averaged volume flow rate value and also, flow was distributed unevenly to
all cylinders, for designing and optimizing the intake manifold; C-D nozzle play very
important role for achieving even distribution of air with required quantity and the
importance are already discussed in above section. As show in Figure 5.5.6, by using the
nozzle6 was fulfilling the primary design goal of intake manifold design, So that author
finally find best C-D nozzle as restrictor for designing the intake manifold for restricted
engine as per F-SAE rule.
By above all discussion, finally author find the best intake manifold design as per FSAE rulebook. The manifold23 was selected as best manifold according to above discussion.
Manifold23 was designed using 2.5 litre curved shape plenum with nozzle6. Plenum size
2.5litre and curved shape plenum was highly recommended by the author in plenum
discussion section for best result. For any design parameter reader can fallow the Appendices,
for restrictor design fallow Appendix A, for plenum design fallow Appendix C, and for
designing final intake manifold design fallow Appendix D.
5.5.5 Pictorial Representation of Intake Manifold Analysis
This section illustrates the general view of the model performed in Ansys Fluent,
author performed 25 experiments for manifold, but he presented only two best manifolds
because, all 25 experiment figure can take lot of space in dissertation; Manifold5 and
manifold23 will be presented in this section.
Manifold 5 Pictorial Results:

(a)

Velocity profile of flow through Manifold to cylinder1

(b)

Velocity profile of flow through Manifold to cylinder2

Page | 64

(c)
Velocity profile of flow through Manifold to cylinder3

(e)
Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to
cylinder1

(g)

Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to cylinder3

(d)

Velocity profile of flow through Manifold to cylinder4

(f)
Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to
cylinder2

(h)

Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to

cylinder4

Figure 5.5.7 Velocity contours and Pressure contours plot of manifold5 for all four cylinders

Page | 65

Manifold 13 Pictorial Results:

(a)

Velocity profile of flow through Manifold to cylinder1

(c)

Velocity profile of flow through Manifold to cylinder3

(e)

Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to

cylinder1

(b)

Velocity profile of flow through Manifold to cylinder2

(d)

Velocity profile of flow through Manifold to cylinder4

(f)

Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to

cylinder2

Page | 66

(g)

Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to

cylinder3

(h)

Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to

cylinder4

Figure 1 Velocity contours and Pressure contours plot of manifold13 for all four cylinders

Page | 67

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSION
The simulations conducted in this dissertation provided the bulk of the work load of
the project; however, they also returned the most benefits in terms of knowledge gained into
the workings of an intake manifold. Turbulence model is very important parameter for any
simulation of computational fluid dynamics. Selecting an appropriate turbulence model is
critical in producing accurate simulations using computational methods. The methods offered
by FLUENT all have their strengths and weaknesses and a thorough evaluation of each was
necessary to determine which was most suited to the application. Each consideration made,
whether in reference to works carried out by other scholars or examining the simulated results
for each model lead to the same conclusion that the Spalart-Allmaras model was most suited
for the conditions simulated in the intake manifold.
Simulation of the restrictor itself showed that the geometric characteristics of the
restrictor, all four inlet nozzle diameter, inlet curvature radius , diffuser length and diffuser
half angle, had a noticeable effect on maximum volume flow rate. Nozzle inlet diameter of
49mm,50mm and 51mm was giving considerably higher response, while for lower and upper
levels was giving response below the mean value, diffuser half angle effect was just altered
from nozzle inlet diameter, so that author give higher priority to choose diffuser half angle 30
and 70 for best response value, and author give medium priority to select for diffuser half
angle 40 for good result. Diffuser length 140mm, 152mm and 164mm and curvature radius
36mm and 38.5mm was considered for best response. From reviewing above result author
find that Nozzle2, Nozzle6, Nozzle15, Nozzle20 and Nozzle23 was the best nozzle for
designing final intake manifold.
Ram theory and Helmholtz theory was very helpful for deciding the best runner
length according to speed; and result comes out as, for lower speed vehicle cylinder runner
length should be larger and runner diameter should be minimum for achieving higher
volumetric efficiency and for higher speed vehicle runner length should be kept minimum
and runner diameter should be higher. For final intake manifold designing, author choose
elliptical and curved shape plenum, because in curved and elliptical plenum pressure losses

Page | 68

and frictional losses were negligible and provide higher flow rate compared to rectangular
and circular section.
The manifold23 was selected as best manifold according to overall result. Manifold23
was designed using 2.5 litre curved shape plenum with nozzle6. Plenum size 2.5litre and
curved shape plenum was highly recommended by the author in plenum discussion section
for best result.
6.2 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
In terms of continued research the following recommendations are made:
i.

Investigate the performance advantages available through the use of a turbocharger or

supercharger. While this would not increase the maximum power due to the restrictor,
it would increase the range at which max power is available.

ii.

Complete CFD analysis of the intake manifold by producing a 3D model of the intake
system which also simulates the pressure wave phenomena produced by the opening
and closing of intake valves.

iii.

Investigate entire the manifold using 1D/3D (Ricardo WAVE-VECTIS) or 1D/3D

(Ricardo WAVE- Ansys FLUENT) coupled modeling techniques to get the higher
outcome.

iv.

Design variable length plenum to fulfil the requirement of engine at every RPM and
also design the variable length runner to get higher volumetric efficiency at entire
RPM range.

v.

Design own turbulence model to get same result as experimental result, because there
are some limitation of existing turbulence model, and the Spalart-Allmaras model was
developed for aerodynamic flows. It is not calibrated for general industrial flows, and
does produce relatively larger errors for some free shear flows, especially plane and
round jet flows. In addition, it cannot be relied on to predict the decay of
homogeneous, isotropic turbulence.

vi.

The work of this dissertation is to also produce a qualitative evaluation between the
intake manifold of IR-13. The knowledge gained by attaining the primary goal will
greatly assistance in the analysis of the previous designs. The analysis of the manifold
will again be directed using the CFD package FLUENT

Page | 69

APPENDIX A: Related To Restrictor Designing

A.1 Design table of Restrictor with result

Nozzle
No.

Design Input Variable

Nozzle
Inlet

Response Variable

Angle

Length

Radius

Volume Flow
Rate

Velocity

Mach

Pressure

No.

Drop

Nozzle 1

48

140

36

0.0611481

254.64

0.786046

2211

Nozzle 2

48

152

38.5

0.061078

249.819

0.769292

2879

Nozzle 3

48

164

41

0.0624963

251.924

0.776523

4440

Nozzle 4

48

188

43.5

0.0628594

245.596

0.754652

5504

Nozzle 5

48

200

46

0.062623

250.677

0.772188

5834

Nozzle 6

49

152

41

0.0609937

255.993

0.790592

2005

Nozzle 7

49

164

43.5

0.0606409

254.959

0.78701

2384

Nozzle 8

49

188

46

0.0605886

246.957

0.759381

2766

Nozzle 9

49

200

36

0.061989

250.409

0.771197

4845

Nozzle 10

49

140

38.5

0.0623971

263.564

0.817001

5105

Nozzle 11

50

164

46

0.0608851

254.582

0.78577

2175

Nozzle 12

50

188

36

0.0606365

251.69

0.77569

2548

Nozzle 13

50

200

38.5

0.0608019

252.912

0.779774

3207

Nozzle 14

50

140

41

0.0613501

254.34

0.784978

3528

Nozzle 15

50

152

43.5

0.0644928

257.139

0.794507

7793

Nozzle 16

51

188

38.5

0.0607239

258.892

0.800763

2239

Nozzle 17

51

200

41

0.067318

252.111

0.777244

2919

Nozzle 18

51

140

43.5

0.0607595

250.893

0.773162

2668

Nozzle 19

51

152

46

0.0613839

249.538

0.768468

3657

Nozzle 20

51

164

36

0.0628017

255.368

0.788403

5678

Nozzle 21

52

200

43.5

0.0606235

251.016

0.773386

2305

Nozzle 22

52

140

46

0.0606768

256.097

0.791203

2247

Nozzle 23

52

152

36

0.0607664

258.686

0.800156

2808

Nozzle 24

52

164

38.5

0.061767

248.818

0.765825

4322

Nozzle 25

52

188

41

0.0627222

247.085

0.759919

5839

A.2 Analytical Modelling

Using a simple one-dimensional analysis of an inviscid calorically perfect gas, one can
show that for a shock-free nozzle the mass flow rate and velocity at nozzle throat and nozzle
exit are given by: [22, 23]
Page | 70

Mass flow rate at throat

Mass flow rate at nozzle exit

[( )

]( )

[( )

For a convergent nozzle, the flow either expands to the free stream pressure or becomes
choked at the nozzle exit. The exit pressure can therefore be determined from:

For a choked convergent-divergent nozzle, the exit pressure can be determined from the exit
Mach number which must satisfy the area ratio relation.

Shock losses within the nozzle obscure the analysis. Opportunely, for the immediate
fully expanded conditions of the present C-D nozzle, the above relations are adequate.

Page | 71

An important thing to note from this study is that both the mass flow rate and exit
velocity are directly dependent upon the gas constant and the operating stagnation
temperature of the nozzle. Mass flow rate at throat is directly dependent upon the stagnation
pressure and throat area and inversely dependent upon the stagnation temperature.

A.3 Taguchi Analysis By Statistical Tool MINITAB For Nozzles

Taguchi Analysis: Design Input Variable versus Response Variable
Nozzle Inlet Diameter*Diffuser Half Angle
Nozzle Inlet Diameter*Diffuser Length
Nozzle Inlet Diameter*Inlet Curvature Radius
Diffuser Half Angle*Diffuser Length
Diffuser Half Angle*Inlet Curvature Radius
Diffuser Length*Inlet Curvature Radius
Linear Model Analysis: SN ratios versus Nozzle Inlet, Diffuser Hal, Diffuser Len,
...
Estimated Model Coefficients for SN ratios
Term
Constant
Nozzle I
Nozzle I
Nozzle I
Nozzle I
Diffuser
Diffuser
Diffuser
Diffuser
Diffuser
Diffuser
Diffuser
Diffuser
Inlet Cu
Inlet Cu
Inlet Cu
Inlet Cu
S = 3.538

48
49
50
51
3
4
5
6
140
152
164
188
36.0
38.5
41.0
43.5

Coef
-18.7232
-0.6807
-0.7804
2.8526
-0.6089
-0.8428
2.9081
-0.8146
-0.7044
-0.7877
-0.7229
-0.7253
2.8348
2.8311
-0.7757
-0.5560
-0.7055

SE Coef
0.7076
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152
1.4152

R-Sq = 67.1%

T
-26.460
-0.481
-0.551
2.016
-0.430
-0.596
2.055
-0.576
-0.498
-0.557
-0.511
-0.512
2.003
2.000
-0.548
-0.393
-0.499

P
0.000
0.643
0.596
0.079
0.678
0.568
0.074
0.581
0.632
0.593
0.623
0.622
0.080
0.080
0.599
0.705
0.632

R-Sq(adj) = 1.4%

Analysis of Variance for SN ratios

Source
P

DF

Seq SS

Adj SS

Adj MS

Page | 72

Nozzle Inlet Diameter

0.453
Diffuser Half Angle
0.435
Diffuser Length
0.459
Inlet Curvature Radius
0.459
Residual Error
Total

50.97

50.97

12.74

1.02

53.13

53.13

13.28

1.06

50.32

50.32

12.58

1.01

50.27

50.27

12.57

1.00

8
24

100.14
304.82

100.14

12.52

Unusual Observations for SN ratios

Observation
12

SN ratios
-1.645

Fit
-7.296

SE Fit
2.917

Residual
5.651

St Resid
2.82 R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual.

Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios
Larger is better

Level
1
2
3
4
5
Delta
Rank

Nozzle
Inlet
Diameter
-19.40
-19.50
-15.87
-19.33
-19.51
3.64
2

Diffuser
Half Angle
-19.57
-15.82
-19.54
-19.43
-19.27
3.75
1

Diffuser
Length
-19.51
-19.45
-19.45
-15.89
-19.32
3.62
4

Inlet
Curvature
Radius
-15.89
-19.50
-19.28
-19.43
-19.52
3.62
3

Diffuser
Length
85.59
85.03
84.66
83.66
84.09
1.92
1

Inlet
Curvature
Radius
85.04
85.22
84.38
84.25
84.14
1.08
4

Response Table for Means

Level
1
2
3
4
5
Delta
Rank

Nozzle
Inlet
Diameter
83.79
85.07
85.03
84.73
84.39
1.29
3

Diffuser
Half Angle
85.29
84.63
84.37
83.52
85.21
1.77
2

Predicted Value
Page | 73

S/N Ratio
-17.9440

Mean
86.1630

StDev
148.458

Ln(StDev)
5.00021

Factor levels for predictions

Nozzle
Inlet
Diameter
49

Diffuser
Half Angle
7

Diffuser
Length
164

Inlet
Curvature
Radius
36

Note: This above predicted value of response by Minitab is approximately equal to response
of Fluent Analysis, so that no need to preform full factorial experiment for research.

Page | 74

APPENDIX B: Data Related to Boundary Condition

B.1 Variation of Pressure with time for all four cylinders at 6000RPM
S. No.

Time
1

0.000125

0.00025

0.000375

0.0005

0.000625

0.00075

0.000875

0.001

10

0.001125

11

0.00125

12

0.001375

13

0.0015

14

0.001625

15

0.00175

16

0.001875

17

0.002

18

0.002125

19

0.00225

20

0.002375

21

0.0025

22

0.002625

23

0.00275

24

0.002875

25

0.003

26

0.003125

27

0.00325

28

0.003375

29

0.0035

30

0.003625

31

0.00375

32

0.003875

33

0.004

34

0.004125

35

0.00425

36

0.004375

37

0.0045

38

0.004625

Crank Angle

Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Cylinder 4

101325

101325

101325

101325

4.5

100908.75

101325

101325

101325

100492.5

101325

101325

101325

13.5

100076.25

101325

101325

101325

18

99660

101325

101325

101325

22.5

99243.75

101325

101325

101325

27

98827.5

101325

101325

101325

31.5

98411.25

101325

101325

101325

36

97995

101325

101325

101325

40.5

97578.75

101325

101325

101325

45

97162.5

101325

101325

101325

49.5

96746.25

101325

101325

101325

54

96330

101325

101325

101325

58.5

95913.75

101325

101325

101325

63

95497.5

101325

101325

101325

67.5

95081.25

101325

101325

101325

72

94665

101325

101325

101325

76.5

94248.75

101325

101325

101325

81

93832.5

101325

101325

101325

85.5

93416.25

101325

101325

101325

90

93000

101325

101325

101325

94.5

93000

101325

101325

101325

99

93000

101325

101325

101325

103.5

93000

101325

101325

101325

108

93000

101325

101325

101325

112.5

93416.25

101325

101325

101325

117

93832.5

101325

101325

101325

121.5

94248.75

101325

101325

101325

126

94665

101325

101325

101325

130.5

95081.25

101325

101325

101325

135

95497.5

101325

101325

101325

139.5

95913.75

101325

101325

101325

144

96330

101325

101325

101325

148.5

96746.25

101325

101325

101325

153

97162.5

101325

101325

101325

157.5

97578.75

101325

101325

101325

162

97995

101325

101325

101325

166.5

98411.25

101325

101325

101325

Page | 75

39

0.00475

40

0.004875

41

0.005

42

0.005125

43

0.00525

44

0.005375

45

0.0055

46

0.005625

47

0.00575

48

0.005875

49

0.006

50

0.006125

51

0.00625

52

0.006375

53

0.0065

54

0.006625

55

0.00675

56

0.006875

57

0.007

58

0.007125

59

0.00725

60

0.007375

61

0.0075

62

0.007625

63

0.00775

64

0.007875

65

0.008

66

0.008125

67

0.00825

68

0.008375

69

0.0085

70

0.008625

71

0.00875

72

0.008875

73

0.009

74

0.009125

75

0.00925

76

0.009375

77

0.0095

78

0.009625

79

0.00975

80

0.009875

81

0.01

82

0.010125

83

0.01025

171

98827.5

101325

101325

101325

175.5

99243.75

101325

101325

101325

180

99660

100908.75

101325

101325

184.5

100076.25

100492.5

101325

101325

189

100492.5

100076.25

101325

101325

193.5

100908.75

99660

101325

101325

198

101325

99243.75

101325

101325

202.5

101325

98827.5

101325

101325

207

101325

98411.25

101325

101325

211.5

101325

97995

101325

101325

216

101325

97578.75

101325

101325

220.5

101325

97162.5

101325

101325

225

101325

96746.25

101325

101325

229.5

101325

96330

101325

101325

234

101325

95913.75

101325

101325

238.5

101325

95497.5

101325

101325

243

101325

95081.25

101325

101325

247.5

101325

94665

101325

101325

252

101325

94248.75

101325

101325

256.5

101325

93832.5

101325

101325

261

101325

93416.25

101325

101325

265.5

101325

93000

101325

101325

270

101325

93000

101325

101325

274.5

101325

93000

101325

101325

279

101325

93000

101325

101325

283.5

101325

93000

101325

101325

288

101325

93416.25

101325

101325

292.5

101325

93832.5

101325

101325

297

101325

94248.75

101325

101325

301.5

101325

94665

101325

101325

306

101325

95081.25

101325

101325

310.5

101325

95497.5

101325

101325

315

101325

95913.75

101325

101325

319.5

101325

96330

101325

101325

324

101325

96746.25

101325

101325

328.5

101325

97162.5

101325

101325

333

101325

97578.75

101325

101325

337.5

101325

97995

101325

101325

342

101325

98411.25

101325

101325

346.5

101325

98827.5

101325

101325

351

101325

99243.75

101325

101325

355.5

101325

99660

101325

100908.75

360

101325

100076.25

101325

100492.5

364.5

101325

100492.5

101325

100076.25

369

101325

100908.75

101325

99660

Page | 76

84

0.010375

85

0.0105

86

0.010625

87

0.01075

88

0.010875

89

0.011

90

0.011125

91

0.01125

92

0.011375

93

0.0115

94

0.011625

95

0.01175

96

0.011875

97

0.012

98

0.012125

99

0.01225

100

0.012375

101

0.0125

102

0.012625

103

0.01275

104

0.012875

105

0.013

106

0.013125

107

0.01325

108

0.013375

109

0.0135

110

0.013625

111

0.01375

112

0.013875

113

0.014

114

0.014125

115

0.01425

116

0.014375

117

0.0145

118

0.014625

119

0.01475

120

0.014875

121

0.015

122

0.015125

123

0.01525

124

0.015375

125

0.0155

126

0.015625

127

0.01575

128

0.015875

373.5

101325

101325

101325

99243.75

378

101325

101325

101325

98827.5

382.5

101325

101325

101325

98411.25

387

101325

101325

101325

97995

391.5

101325

101325

101325

97578.75

396

101325

101325

101325

97162.5

400.5

101325

101325

101325

96746.25

405

101325

101325

101325

96330

409.5

101325

101325

101325

95913.75

414

101325

101325

101325

95497.5

418.5

101325

101325

101325

95081.25

423

101325

101325

101325

94665

427.5

101325

101325

101325

94248.75

432

101325

101325

101325

93832.5

436.5

101325

101325

101325

93416.25

441

101325

101325

101325

93000

445.5

101325

101325

101325

93000

450

101325

101325

101325

93000

454.5

101325

101325

101325

93000

459

101325

101325

101325

93000

463.5

101325

101325

101325

93416.25

468

101325

101325

101325

93832.5

472.5

101325

101325

101325

94248.75

477

101325

101325

101325

94665

481.5

101325

101325

101325

95081.25

486

101325

101325

101325

95497.5

490.5

101325

101325

101325

95913.75

495

101325

101325

101325

96330

499.5

101325

101325

101325

96746.25

504

101325

101325

101325

97162.5

508.5

101325

101325

101325

97578.75

513

101325

101325

101325

97995

517.5

101325

101325

101325

98411.25

522

101325

101325

101325

98827.5

526.5

101325

101325

101325

99243.75

531

101325

101325

100908.75

99660

535.5

101325

101325

100492.5

100076.25

540

101325

101325

100076.25

100492.5

544.5

101325

101325

99660

100908.75

549

101325

101325

99243.75

101325

553.5

101325

101325

98827.5

101325

558

101325

101325

98411.25

101325

562.5

101325

101325

97995

101325

567

101325

101325

97578.75

101325

571.5

101325

101325

97162.5

101325

Page | 77

129

0.016

130

0.016125

131

0.01625

132

0.016375

133

0.0165

134

0.016625

135

0.01675

136

0.016875

137

0.017

138

0.017125

139

0.01725

140

0.017375

141

0.0175

142

0.017625

143

0.01775

144

0.017875

145

0.018

146

0.018125

147

0.01825

148

0.018375

149

0.0185

150

0.018625

151

0.01875

152

0.018875

153

0.019

154

0.019125

155

0.01925

156

0.019375

157

0.0195

158

0.019625

159

0.01975

160

0.019875

161

0.02

576

101325

101325

96746.25

101325

580.5

101325

101325

96330

101325

585

101325

101325

95913.75

101325

589.5

101325

101325

95497.5

101325

594

101325

101325

95081.25

101325

598.5

101325

101325

94665

101325

603

101325

101325

94248.75

101325

607.5

101325

101325

93832.5

101325

612

101325

101325

93416.25

101325

616.5

101325

101325

93000

101325

621

101325

101325

93000

101325

625.5

101325

101325

93000

101325

630

101325

101325

93000

101325

634.5

101325

101325

93000

101325

639

101325

101325

93416.25

101325

643.5

101325

101325

93832.5

101325

648

101325

101325

94248.75

101325

652.5

101325

101325

94665

101325

657

101325

101325

95081.25

101325

661.5

101325

101325

95497.5

101325

666

101325

101325

95913.75

101325

670.5

101325

101325

96330

101325

675

101325

101325

96746.25

101325

679.5

101325

101325

97162.5

101325

684

101325

101325

97578.75

101325

688.5

101325

101325

97995

101325

693

101325

101325

98411.25

101325

697.5

101325

101325

98827.5

101325

702

101325

101325

99243.75

101325

706.5

101325

101325

99660

101325

711

101325

101325

100076.25

101325

715.5

101325

101325

100492.5

101325

720

101325

101325

100908.75

101325

B.2 Profile Format: Fluent Transient Boundary Condition for All Four Cylinders
Fluent Boundary

Fluent Boundary

Fluent Boundary

Fluent Boundary

Condition At Runner 1

Condition At Runner 2

Condition At Runner 3

Condition At Runner 4

((intake1
transient 161 1)
(time
0
1
2
3
4

((intake2
transient 161 1)
(time
0
1
2
3
4

((intake3
transient 161 1)
(time
0
1
2
3
4

((intake4
transient 161 1)
(time
0
1
2
3
4

Page | 78

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

Page | 79

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132

69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132

Page | 80

133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
)
(pr1
101325
100908.75
100492.5
100076.25
99660
99243.75
98827.5
98411.25
97995
97578.75
97162.5
96746.25
96330
95913.75
95497.5
95081.25
94665
94248.75
93832.5
93416.25
93000
93000
93000
93000
93000
93416.25
93832.5
94248.75
94665
95081.25
95497.5
95913.75
96330
96746.25

133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
)
(pr2
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325

133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
)
(pr3
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325

133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
)
(pr4
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325

Page | 81

97162.5
97578.75
97995
98411.25
98827.5
99243.75
99660
100076.25
100492.5
100908.75
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325

101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
100908.75
100492.5
100076.25
99660
99243.75
98827.5
98411.25
97995
97578.75
97162.5
96746.25
96330
95913.75
95497.5
95081.25
94665
94248.75
93832.5
93416.25
93000
93000
93000
93000
93000
93416.25
93832.5
94248.75
94665
95081.25
95497.5
95913.75
96330
96746.25
97162.5
97578.75
97995
98411.25
98827.5
99243.75
99660
100076.25
100492.5
100908.75
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325

101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
100908.75
100492.5
100076.25
99660
99243.75
98827.5
98411.25
97995
97578.75
97162.5
96746.25
96330
95913.75
95497.5
95081.25
94665
94248.75
93832.5
93416.25

101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325

Page | 82

101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325))

101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325))

93000
93000
93000
93000
93000
93416.25
93832.5
94248.75
94665
95081.25
95497.5
95913.75
96330
96746.25
97162.5
97578.75
97995
98411.25
98827.5
99243.75
99660
100076.25
100492.5
100908.75
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325))

101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
101325
100908.75
100492.5
100076.25
99660
99243.75
98827.5
98411.25
97995
97578.75
97162.5
96746.25
96330
95913.75
95497.5
95081.25
94665
94248.75
93832.5
93416.25
93000
93000
93000
93000
93000
93416.25
93832.5
94248.75
94665
95081.25
95497.5
95913.75
96330
96746.25
97162.5
97578.75
97995
98411.25
98827.5
99243.75
99660
100076.25
100492.5
100908.75))

Page | 83

APPENDIX C: Data Related To Plenum Modeling

C.1 Design table of Plenum

Plenum
No.

Shape
(Litre)

Size

Total Flow
Rate
(m3/s)

Cylinder1
(m3/s)

Cylinder2
(m3/s)

Cylinder3
(m3/s)

Cylinder4
(m3/s)

Plenum01

Rectangular

0.07144861

-0.00508065

0.0412535

0.399064

-0.00463064

Plenum02

Rectangular

2.25

0.07059578

-0.00493296

0.0530861

0.0252267

-0.00278406

Plenum03

Rectangular

2.5

0.06897878

0.0367301

0.0208123

0.0059760

0.00546039

Plenum04

Rectangular

2.75

0.0707349

0.00106057

0.0402485

0.0276165

0.00180939

Plenum05

Rectangular

0.0681138

-0.00937793

0.0423946

0.0431265

0.00802937

Plenum06

Cylindrical

0.0710412

0.033681

0.0311835

0.0035351

0.00264465

Plenum07

Cylindrical

2.25

0.06812931

0.0151921

0.0097872

0.025028

0.018122

Plenum08

Cylindrical

2.5

0.0704358

0.0221019

0.0367565

0.0027804

0.00879693

Plenum09

Cylindrical

2.75

0.0706939

-0.00252397

0.0134551

0.0257931

0.0339698

Plenum10

Cylindrical

0.0710821

0.0258936

0.018614

0.0171866

0.00938786

Plenum11

Elliptical

0.06911581

0.0444535

0.0190441

0.0046101

0.00100811

Plenum12

Elliptical

2.25

0.070490237

-0.000720724

0.0224044

0.0451059

0.00370066

Plenum13

Elliptical

2.5

0.06887594

0.0289144

0.0291455

0.0076710

0.00314503

Plenum14

Elliptical

2.75

0.091495322

0.019215722

0.0351685

0.025888

0.0112231

Plenum15

Elliptical

0.075934

0.0163671

0.0141661

0.0066158

0.038785

Plenum16

Curved

0.070652041

0.00283368

0.044668

0.0223489

0.00080146

Plenum17

Curved

2.25

0.06966052

0.00645287

0.0224574

0.0340063

0.00674395

Plenum18

Curved

2.5

0.10108942

0.015521

0.0377450

0.0278622

0.0199612

Plenum19

Curved

2.75

0.0679123

0.0111653

0.0222382

0.022591

0.0119178

Plenum20

Curved

0.0690156

0.015015

0.0185184

0.0199612

0.015521

Page | 84

APPENDIX D: Data Related To Final Intake Manifold Modeling

D.1 Design table of Intake Manifold

Manifold

Plenum

Nozzle

Total Flow
Rate
(m3/s)

Cylinder1
(m3/s)

Cylinder2
(m3/s)

Cylinder3
(m3/s)

Cylinder4
(m3/s)

Manifold01

Plenum14

Nozzle 2

0.013987394

0.002112989

0.002908463

0.005579127

0.004730864

Manifold02

Plenum15

Nozzle 6

0.013621773

0.001933612

0.002865536

0.005520132

0.004632661

Manifold03

Plenum18

Nozzle 15

0.013608926

0.002018658

0.002885825

0.005657887

0.004408669

Manifold04

Plenum19

Nozzle20

0.01384006

0.002088759

0.002925623

0.005662563

0.0045895

Manifold05

Plenum20

Nozzle 22

0.024065982

0.00529602

0.012957834

0.007395953

0.015180023

Manifold06

Plenum14

Nozzle 6

0.013182812

0.001757321

0.002840088

0.005158044

0.00433007

Manifold07

Plenum15

Nozzle 15

0.013049271

0.001473546

0.002817678

0.005244139

0.004425542

Manifold08

Plenum18

Nozzle20

0.013015207

0.001549358

0.002744629

0.005348607

0.004405784

Manifold09

Plenum19

Nozzle 22

0.012770103

0.001572284

0.002670445

0.005220924

0.004182884

Manifold10

Plenum20

Nozzle 2

0.000827825

0.000485011

0.000127255

0.000174903

4.28643E-05

Manifold11

Plenum14

Nozzle 15

0.014828849

0.001941069

0.003215556

0.00570508

0.004960313

Manifold12

Plenum15

Nozzle20

0.016104814

0.00219057

0.003525482

0.006017307

0.005524272

Manifold13

Plenum18

Nozzle 22

0.015816239

0.001890035

0.003704397

0.006043225

0.005297209

Manifold14

Plenum19

Nozzle 2

0.015057633

0.001920817

0.003248763

0.005913328

0.005059407

Manifold15

Plenum20

Nozzle 6

0.01530356

0.001957259

0.003360859

0.005910766

0.005174151

Manifold16

Plenum14

Nozzle20

0.015452165

0.00213138

0.003354921

0.005931972

0.005251707

Manifold17

Plenum15

Nozzle 22

0.016413719

0.002280888

0.003596043

0.006112972

0.005593712

Manifold18

Plenum18

Nozzle 2

0.015746601

0.001980621

0.003391752

0.006126188

0.00537041

Manifold19

Plenum19

Nozzle 6

0.015764942

0.001956133

0.003527761

0.006079531

0.005320339

Manifold20

Plenum20

Nozzle 15

0.015591593

0.001999259

0.003381

0.006009553

0.005480372

Manifold21

Plenum14

Nozzle 22

0.014710607

0.001663338

0.003272269

0.005668964

0.004988745

Manifold22

Plenum15

Nozzle 2

0.014983876

0.00180585

0.003279677

0.005916068

0.005021091

Manifold23

Plenum18

Nozzle 6

0.028806299

0.016414436

0.013742973

0.005023113

0.004412543

Manifold24

Plenum19

Nozzle 15

0.014515261

0.001689038

0.003153857

0.005876164

0.004897301

Manifold25

Plenum20

Nozzle20

0.014670706

0.001688978

0.003226419

0.005922338

0.004947871

Page | 85

APPENDIX E: Specification of Engine

Engine type

Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R, 4-stroke, DOHC,4-Cylinder

Fuel Type

Gasoline

Bore (mm) x stroke (mm)

67.0mm x 42.5mm

Displacement

599 cm3

Compression ratio

13.3:1

Inlet valve opens

41o (BTDC)

Inlet valve closes

67o (ABDC)

Duration of Intake

288o

Exhaust valve opens

58o (BBDC)

Exhaust valve closes

20o (ATDC)

Duration for Exhaust

258o

Maximum power

87.5KW (119 HP) @12500RPM

Maximum torque

60 N-M @11000RPM

Cooling system

Liquid cooling

Firing order

1-2-4-3

Page | 86

REFERENCES

1. BURTNETT E. R.

(1927). Inlet Manifold for Internal Combustion Engines. Available:

www.google.com/patents/US1632880. Last accessed 30th Nov 2013.

2. WHATMOUGH W. A. (1937). Means for Automatically Modifying the Flow of Pulsating Fluid Flow
Streams. Available: www.google.com/patents/US2080293. Last accessed 30th Nov 2013.

3. SULLIVAN D.A.. (1939). Intake Manifold. Available: www.google.com/patents/US2160922. Last

accessed 30th Nov 2013.

4. Taylor Jim C. . (1953). Intake Manifold. Available: www.google.com/patents/US2636486. Last

accessed 30th Nov 2013.

5. Futakuchi Y.. (1984). Engine Intake System. Available: www.google.com/patents/US4469067. Last

accessed 30th Nov 2013.

6. Futakuchi Y.. (1986). Engine Intake System. Available: www.google.com/patents/US44628879. Last

accessed 30th Nov 2013.

7. LEE C.L. . (1997). Variable Air Intake Manifold. Available: www.google.com/patents/US5638785.

Last accessed 30th Nov 2013.

8. Sattler

Eric

R.,Myers

J.S.,Haspel

M.J..

(1999). Continuously

Variable

Runner

Length

Manifold. Available: www.google.com/patents/US5950587. Last accessed 30th Nov 2013.

9. Davis G.G.,Thurm K.. (2001). Intake Manifold with Multiple Stage Ram Induction. Available:
www.google.com/patents/US6209502. Last accessed 30th Nov 2013.

10. Harrison M.F., P.T. Stanev, A Linear Acoustic Model For Intake Wave Dynamics In IC Engines,
Journal of Sound and Vibration269 (1+2) (2004) 361387.

11. Dunkley A., Harrison M.F., The Acoustics of Racing Engine Intake Systems, Journal of Sound and
Vibration 271 (2004) 959984.

12. Harrison M.F., I. De Soto, P.L. Rubio Unzueta, A Linear Acoustic Model for Multi-Cylinder IC Engine
Intake Manifolds Including The Effects of The Intake Throttle, Journal of Sound and Vibration 278
(2004) 9751011.

13. Stuart Philip E.A. (2005). Continuously Variable Air Intake Manifold With Adjustable
Plenum. Available: www.google.com/patents/US6837204. Last accessed 30th Nov 2013.

14. Ceviz MA, Intake plenum volume and its influence on the engine performance, cyclic variability and
emissions. Energy Convers Manage(2006), doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2006.08.006.

15. Claywell, M. R., Horkheimer, D. P., and Stockburger, G. R., Investigation of Intake Concepts for
Formula SAE Four-Cylinder Engine Using 1D/3D (Ricardo WAVE-VECTIS) Coupled Modeling
Techniques, SAE 2006 Motorsports Conference, 2006-01-3652.

16. Claywell, M. R., Horkheimer, D. P., Improvement of Intake Restrictor Performance for a Formula
SAE Race Car through 1D & Coupled 1D/3D Analysis Methods, SAE 2006 Motorsports Conference,
2006-01-3654.

Page | 87

17. Ceviz MA, Akn M. Design of a new SI engine intake manifold with variable length plenum. Energy
Convers Manage (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2010.03.018.

18. Chalet D.,Alexandre M.,Jerome M.,Hete J.F.. (2011). A frequency modelling of the pressure waves in
the inlet manifold of internal combustion engine. Applied Energy. 88 (2011 ) 29882994,
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.03.036.

19. The Society Of Automotive Engineers 2013, Formula SAE Rules 2013, [Online] Available at:
http://www.sae.org/students/fsaerules.pdf.

20. Measurement Of Gas Flow By Means Of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles, International Standards
Organization, ISO 9300:1995.

21. Miralles, B.T. 2000, Preliminary Considerations In The Use Of Industrial Sonic Nozzles, Flow
Measurement And Instrumentation, vol.11 no.4, pp.345-350 .

22. Anderson Jhon D (2012). Modern Compressible Flow: With Historical Perspective. 3rd ed. india:
McGraw Hill Education (India). 65-300.

23. Dennis A Yoder and Nicholas J. Georgiadis,Michael R. OGara. (2009). Frozen Chemistry Effects on
Nozzle Performance Simulations. NASA/TM2009-215507. 1 (1), 1-23.

24. Ram

Theory.

2013. Ram

Theory.

[ONLINE]

Available

at:http://www.chrysler300club.com/uniq/allaboutrams/ramtheory.htm. [Accessed 05 December 2013].

25. Ninja 6X-ZR, Kawasaki , 2011. Motorcycle Service Manual. Kawasaki heavy Industry, 99924-141704, 19.

26. Munson, B. R., Young, D. F., & Okiishi, T. H. (2006). Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. Hoboken:
Jown Wiley & Sons.

27. ANSYS Academic Research, Release 14.0, Help System, Fluent Users and Theory Guide, ANSYS,
Inc.

28. Paciorri, R., Dieudonn, W., Degrez, G., Charbonnier, J.-M., & Deconinck, H. (1997). Validation of
the Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model for Application in Hypersonic Flows. AGARD AR-319 Vol 2 ,
1-35.

29. Knight, D., & Degrez, G. (1997). Shock Wave/Boundary Layer Interactions in High-Mach-Number
Flows; A Critical Survey Of Current CFD Prediction Capabilities. Hypersonic Experimental And
Computational Capability, Improvement And Validation Vol2 , 1-35.

30. Smith, P., & Morrison, J. (2002). Scientific Design of Exhaust and Intake Systems. Cambridge:
Bentley Publishers.

31. http://www.neilstoolbox.com/.

(2006). DOE

Thermodynamics,

Heat

Transfer

and

Fluid

Flow. Available:http://knowledgepublications.com/doe/doe_thermodynamics_web_educational_textbo
ok_solar_hydrogen_fuel_cells.htm. Last accessed 2nd May 2014.

32. Poroseva, S., & Iaccarino, G. (2007). arXiv:physics/0701112 - Validation of a new k- model with the
pressure diffusion effects in separated flow. Cornell University.

33. Vallet, I. (2008). Reynolds-Stress modelling of a M=2.25 shock-wave/turbulent boundary-layer

interaction. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids vol 56 issue 5 , 525-555

Page | 88

34. Kok, J. (2000). Resolving the Dependence on Free stream Values for the k- Turbulence Model. AIAA
Journal Vol 38 No 7 , 1292-1295

35. Bredberg, J., Peng, S., & Davidson, L. (2002). An improved k- turbulence model applied to
recirculating flows. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow vol23 , 731-743

Page | 89