Intake Manifold Designusing Computational Fluid Dynamics

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/304112290
Intake Manifold Design Using Computational Fluid Dynamics
Thesis · May 2014

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3801.0483
CITATION READS
1 19,456
1 author:
Awanish Pratap Singh

Indian Institute of Science
21 PUBLICATIONS 49 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Numerical simulation of multiple pulse laser energy deposition for flow control and combustion View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Awanish Pratap Singh on 19 June 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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
(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.
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 valve‘s 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 valve‘s
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, re-
entrances, 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 runn-
Page | 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
software‘s 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 stop-
and-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 Ricardo‘s 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, Conical-
Spline 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:
 Spalart–Allmaras
 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-ε 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 ε. 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-ε model was conducted by Poroseva et al.in which they
concluded that the k-ε model produced good agreement with experimental data, but that the
k-ε 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-ε model produced agreement with
the trends of experimental data, the results were less accurate [29].
K-omega Model
The k-ω model is another 2-equation model similar to the k-ε model, it models the kinetic
energy of the turbulence, k and the specific dissipation rate ω. The specific dissipation rate
can be considered a ratio of ε to k [27].
Several journal articles have eluded to the sensitivity of the k-ω model on the
upstream and or free stream values of turbulence variables, particularly ω. (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-ε model. The study concludes that the
RSMs could reproduce, quite accurately, the experimentally determined values for the flow,
while the k-ε 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 RPM‘s [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 higher-
pressure column of air to intake port within the duration of the intake valve‘s 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 valve‘s
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-ε Model N/A Perform the experiment in Ansys Fluent of given model
k-ω model N/A Perform the experiment in Ansys Fluent of given model
Reynolds Stress 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
Diffuser Half Angle 3o to 7o 3 4 5 6 7
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
Shape N/A Rectangular Cylindrical Elliptical Curved Spherical

2.0Litre to
Size (Litre) 2.0 2.25 2.5 2.75 3.0
3.0Litre

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
Turbulence Model From Stage-1 Best Model From Stage-1

Restrictor or C-D Nozzle Best Five of Stage-2 Nozzle1 Nozzle2 Nozzle3 Nozzle4 Nozzle5
Cylinder Runner Size From Stage-3
Runner Boundary Condition From Stage-3 At 6000 RPM
Plenum Best Five of Stage-4 Plenum1 Plenum2 Plenum3 Plenum4 Plenum4

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, K-
epsilon 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-ε, and k-ω 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-ε 5436 .63 second 2hrs 24mins 108%
k-ω 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-ε model produced no separation, only a rapidly
growing turbulent boundary layer downstream of the shock. The k-ω 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-ε and k-ω 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-ε turbulence model.
Figure 5.1.5 Exit Velocity profile for the k-ω 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-ε 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-ω 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 Spalart-
Allmaras 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 ave-
48mm connection1 49mm connection2

52mm Mean Line
0.068
0.067
Volume Flow Rate (m3/s)
0.066
0.065
0.064
0.063
0.062
0.061
0.06
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 24
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 14
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 25
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.

52mm Mean Line
265
263
261
Axial Velocity (m/s)
259
257
255
253
251
249
247
245
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 5
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 24
Nozzle 25
Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Nozzle Inlet Diameter)

5.2.2 Effect of Variation in Diffuser Half Angle
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 connection1 4 degree connection2

7 degree Mean Line
0.068
0.067
0.066
0.065
0.064
0.063
0.062
0.061
0.06
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 5
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 25
Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Diffuser Half Angle)

7 degree Mean Line
265
263
261
259
257
255
253
251
249
247
245
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 5
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 25

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
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-

200mm Mean Line
0.068
0.067
0.066
0.065
0.064
0.063
0.062
0.061
0.06
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 5
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 25
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 13
Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Diffuser Length)

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.

200mm Mean Line
265
263
261
259
257
255
253
251
249
247
245
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 5
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 11
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 25
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 13
Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Diffuser Length)

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 connection1 38.5mm connection2

46mm Mean Line
0.068
0.067
0.066
0.065
0.064
0.063
0.062
0.061
0.06
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 5
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 25
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 11
Nozzle Design Number (Sort by Ascending Order of Inlet Curvature
Radius)

46mm Mean Line
265
263
261
259
257
255
253
251
249
247
245
Nozzle 10
Nozzle 3
Nozzle 1
Nozzle 9
Nozzle 2
Nozzle 6
Nozzle 7
Nozzle 4
Nozzle 8
Nozzle 5
Nozzle 23
Nozzle 20
Nozzle 12
Nozzle 24
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 25
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 21
Nozzle 22
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 11

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)
(d)
(c)
Page | 42
(f)
(e)
(g) (h)
(j)
(i)
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)
(i) (j)
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 ⁄ s = 0.0048s
and the intake valve will remain closed for 720−288 = 432 degrees. Which is ⁄ = 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 Time For One Intake Valve Intake Valve Total Travel Runner
(RPM) Revolution (sec) Open Duration Close Duration Distance By Length
(sec) (sec) Wave (m) (m)
1 4,000 0.015 0.012 0.018 6.28344 0.78543
2 5,000 0.012 0.0096 0.0144 5.02675 0.62834
3 6,000 0.01 0.008 0.012 4.18896 0.52362
4 7,000 0.00857 0.00686 0.0103 3.59054 0.44882
5 8,000 0.0075 0.006 0.009 3.14172 0.39272
6 9,000 0.00667 0.00533 0.008 2.79264 0.34908
7 10,000 0.006 0.0048 0.0072 2.51338 0.31417
8 11,000 0.005454 0.004364 0.006545 2.28469 0.28559
9 12,000 0.005 0.004 0.006 2.09448 0.26181
10 12,500 0.0048 0.00384 0.00576 2.01070 0.25133
11 13,000 0.0046154 0.00369 0.00554 1.93337 0.24167
12 14,000 0.004286 0.0034285 0.005143 1.79527 0.22441
13 15,000 0..004 0.0032 0.0048 1.67558 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 Open Duration (sec)
Intake Valve Close Duration (sec)
0.02
0.018
Time Duration (sec)
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
0.6
Runner Length (m)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
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
Runner Diameter for Different Volumetric Efficiency (cm) Volumetric Efficiency

Speed
S. No For Equivalent Runner
(RPM) 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Diameter D=4.6cm
1 4,000 1.86588 1.92708 1.98639 2.04398 2.09999 2.15454 455%
2 5,000 2.08613 2.15454 2.22085 2.28524 2.34786 2.40885 365%
3 6,000 2.28524 2.36018 2.43282 2.50335 2.57195 2.63876 304%
4 7,000 2.46833 2.54929 2.62775 2.70393 2.77802 2.85019 260%
5 8,000 2.63876 2.72530 2.80918 2.89062 2.96983 3.04698 228%
6 9,000 2.79883 2.89062 2.97958 3.06597 3.14998 3.23183 203%
7 10,000 2.95023 3.04698 3.14076 3.23181 3.32037 3.40663 182%
8 11,000 3.09423 3.19570 3.29405 3.38955 3.48244 3.57290 166%
9 12,000 3.23181 3.33780 3.44053 3.54027 3.63729 3.73178 152%
10 12,500 3.29845 3.40663 3.51147 3.61133 3.71229 3.80872 146%
11 13,000 3.36378 3.47409 3.58102 3.68483 3.78581 3.88416 140%
12 14,000 3.49076 3.60524 3.71619 3.82293 3.92872 4.03078 130%
13 15,000 3.61327 3.73178 3.84663 3.95814 4.06661 4.17225 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
3.85
3.65
Runner Diameter (m)
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%
400%
350%
Volumetric Efficiency
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
100500
99500
Pressure (Pa)
98500
97500
96500
95500
94500
93500
92500
0.000875
0.002625
0.004375
0.006125
0.007875
0.009625
0.011375
0.013125
0.014
0.014875
0.016625
0.018375
0.020125
0
0.007
0.0035
0.0105
0.0175
0.00175
0.00525
0.00875
0.01225
0.01575
0.01925
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 3-
dimensional 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
0.095
0.09
0.085
0.08
0.075
0.07
0.065
0.06
2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
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 Cylinder4 Average
0.055
0.045
0.035
0.025
0.015
0.005
-0.005 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
-0.015

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.
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
-0.005
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 a-
0.05
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 3

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
0.05
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 3
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)
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)
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)
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 fi-
0.018
0.016
0.014
Volume Flow Rate
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
(m3/s)
0.004
0.002
0
manifold9
manifold1
manifold2
manifold3
manifold4
manifold5
manifold6
manifold7
manifold8
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
0.008
Volume Flow Rate
0.006
0.004
(m3/s)
0.002
0
manifold9
manifold1
manifold2
manifold3
manifold4
manifold5
manifold6
manifold7
manifold8
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 manifold4 manifold5 manifold8

manifold23 manifold24 manifold25 Average
0.018
0.016
0.014
Volume Flow Rate
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
(m3/s)
0.004
0.002
0
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
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 .

manifold21 manifold22 Average
0.007
0.006
0.005
Volume Flow Rate
0.004
0.003
(m3/s)
0.002
0.001
0
Cylinder
Figure 5.5.4 Variation of volume flow rate with cylinder for different elliptical shape manifolds.
5.5.3 Effect of Plenum Size
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
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
0.006
0.005
Volume Flow Rate
0.004
0.003
(m3/s)
0.002
0.001
0
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 F-
SAE 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) (b)
Velocity profile of flow through Manifold to cylinder1 Velocity profile of flow through Manifold to cylinder2
Page | 64
(d)
(c)
(e) (f)
Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to
cylinder1 cylinder2
(h)
(g)
Pressure profile plot of flow through Manifold to cylinder3 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) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
cylinder1 cylinder2
Page | 66
(g) (h)
cylinder3 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
Design Input Variable Response Variable

Nozzle
Nozzle Volume Flow Mach Pressure
No. Angle Length Radius Velocity
Inlet Rate No. Drop
Nozzle 1 48 3 140 36 0.0611481 254.64 0.786046 2211
Nozzle 2 48 4 152 38.5 0.061078 249.819 0.769292 2879
Nozzle 3 48 5 164 41 0.0624963 251.924 0.776523 4440
Nozzle 4 48 6 188 43.5 0.0628594 245.596 0.754652 5504
Nozzle 5 48 7 200 46 0.062623 250.677 0.772188 5834
Nozzle 6 49 3 152 41 0.0609937 255.993 0.790592 2005
Nozzle 7 49 4 164 43.5 0.0606409 254.959 0.78701 2384
Nozzle 8 49 5 188 46 0.0605886 246.957 0.759381 2766
Nozzle 9 49 6 200 36 0.061989 250.409 0.771197 4845
Nozzle 10 49 7 140 38.5 0.0623971 263.564 0.817001 5105
Nozzle 11 50 3 164 46 0.0608851 254.582 0.78577 2175
Nozzle 12 50 4 188 36 0.0606365 251.69 0.77569 2548
Nozzle 13 50 5 200 38.5 0.0608019 252.912 0.779774 3207
Nozzle 14 50 6 140 41 0.0613501 254.34 0.784978 3528
Nozzle 15 50 7 152 43.5 0.0644928 257.139 0.794507 7793
Nozzle 16 51 3 188 38.5 0.0607239 258.892 0.800763 2239
Nozzle 17 51 4 200 41 0.067318 252.111 0.777244 2919
Nozzle 18 51 5 140 43.5 0.0607595 250.893 0.773162 2668
Nozzle 19 51 6 152 46 0.0613839 249.538 0.768468 3657
Nozzle 20 51 7 164 36 0.0628017 255.368 0.788403 5678
Nozzle 21 52 3 200 43.5 0.0606235 251.016 0.773386 2305
Nozzle 22 52 4 140 46 0.0606768 256.097 0.791203 2247
Nozzle 23 52 5 152 36 0.0607664 258.686 0.800156 2808
Nozzle 24 52 6 164 38.5 0.061767 248.818 0.765825 4322
Nozzle 25 52 7 188 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 Coef SE Coef T P

Constant -18.7232 0.7076 -26.460 0.000
Nozzle I 48 -0.6807 1.4152 -0.481 0.643
Nozzle I 49 -0.7804 1.4152 -0.551 0.596
Nozzle I 50 2.8526 1.4152 2.016 0.079
Nozzle I 51 -0.6089 1.4152 -0.430 0.678
Diffuser 3 -0.8428 1.4152 -0.596 0.568
Diffuser 4 2.9081 1.4152 2.055 0.074
Diffuser 5 -0.8146 1.4152 -0.576 0.581
Diffuser 6 -0.7044 1.4152 -0.498 0.632
Diffuser 140 -0.7877 1.4152 -0.557 0.593
Diffuser 152 -0.7229 1.4152 -0.511 0.623
Diffuser 164 -0.7253 1.4152 -0.512 0.622
Diffuser 188 2.8348 1.4152 2.003 0.080
Inlet Cu 36.0 2.8311 1.4152 2.000 0.080
Inlet Cu 38.5 -0.7757 1.4152 -0.548 0.599
Inlet Cu 41.0 -0.5560 1.4152 -0.393 0.705
Inlet Cu 43.5 -0.7055 1.4152 -0.499 0.632
S = 3.538 R-Sq = 67.1% R-Sq(adj) = 1.4%
Analysis of Variance for SN ratios
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F

P
Page | 72
Nozzle Inlet Diameter 4 50.97 50.97 12.74 1.02
0.453
Diffuser Half Angle 4 53.13 53.13 13.28 1.06
0.435
Diffuser Length 4 50.32 50.32 12.58 1.01
0.459
Inlet Curvature Radius 4 50.27 50.27 12.57 1.00
0.459
Residual Error 8 100.14 100.14 12.52
Total 24 304.82
Unusual Observations for SN ratios
Observation SN ratios Fit SE Fit Residual St Resid

12 -1.645 -7.296 2.917 5.651 2.82 R
R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual.
Response Table for Signal to Noise Ratios

Larger is better
Nozzle Inlet
Inlet Diffuser Diffuser Curvature
Level Diameter Half Angle Length Radius
1 -19.40 -19.57 -19.51 -15.89
2 -19.50 -15.82 -19.45 -19.50
3 -15.87 -19.54 -19.45 -19.28
4 -19.33 -19.43 -15.89 -19.43
5 -19.51 -19.27 -19.32 -19.52
Delta 3.64 3.75 3.62 3.62
Rank 2 1 4 3
Response Table for Means
Nozzle Inlet
Level Diameter Half Angle Length Radius
1 83.79 85.29 85.59 85.04
2 85.07 84.63 85.03 85.22
3 85.03 84.37 84.66 84.38
4 84.73 83.52 83.66 84.25
5 84.39 85.21 84.09 84.14
Delta 1.29 1.77 1.92 1.08
Rank 3 2 1 4
Predicted Value
Page | 73
S/N Ratio Mean StDev Ln(StDev)
-17.9440 86.1630 148.458 5.00021
Factor levels for predictions
Nozzle Inlet
Diameter Half Angle Length Radius
49 7 164 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 Crank Angle Cylinder 1 Cylinder 2 Cylinder 3 Cylinder 4

1 0 0 101325 101325 101325 101325
2 0.000125 4.5 100908.75 101325 101325 101325
3 0.00025 9 100492.5 101325 101325 101325
4 0.000375 13.5 100076.25 101325 101325 101325
5 0.0005 18 99660 101325 101325 101325
6 0.000625 22.5 99243.75 101325 101325 101325
7 0.00075 27 98827.5 101325 101325 101325
8 0.000875 31.5 98411.25 101325 101325 101325
9 0.001 36 97995 101325 101325 101325
10 0.001125 40.5 97578.75 101325 101325 101325
11 0.00125 45 97162.5 101325 101325 101325
12 0.001375 49.5 96746.25 101325 101325 101325
13 0.0015 54 96330 101325 101325 101325
14 0.001625 58.5 95913.75 101325 101325 101325
15 0.00175 63 95497.5 101325 101325 101325
16 0.001875 67.5 95081.25 101325 101325 101325
17 0.002 72 94665 101325 101325 101325
18 0.002125 76.5 94248.75 101325 101325 101325
19 0.00225 81 93832.5 101325 101325 101325
20 0.002375 85.5 93416.25 101325 101325 101325
21 0.0025 90 93000 101325 101325 101325
22 0.002625 94.5 93000 101325 101325 101325
23 0.00275 99 93000 101325 101325 101325
24 0.002875 103.5 93000 101325 101325 101325
25 0.003 108 93000 101325 101325 101325
26 0.003125 112.5 93416.25 101325 101325 101325
27 0.00325 117 93832.5 101325 101325 101325
28 0.003375 121.5 94248.75 101325 101325 101325
29 0.0035 126 94665 101325 101325 101325
30 0.003625 130.5 95081.25 101325 101325 101325
31 0.00375 135 95497.5 101325 101325 101325
32 0.003875 139.5 95913.75 101325 101325 101325
33 0.004 144 96330 101325 101325 101325
34 0.004125 148.5 96746.25 101325 101325 101325
35 0.00425 153 97162.5 101325 101325 101325
36 0.004375 157.5 97578.75 101325 101325 101325
37 0.0045 162 97995 101325 101325 101325
38 0.004625 166.5 98411.25 101325 101325 101325
Page | 75
39 0.00475 171 98827.5 101325 101325 101325
40 0.004875 175.5 99243.75 101325 101325 101325
41 0.005 180 99660 100908.75 101325 101325
42 0.005125 184.5 100076.25 100492.5 101325 101325
43 0.00525 189 100492.5 100076.25 101325 101325
44 0.005375 193.5 100908.75 99660 101325 101325
45 0.0055 198 101325 99243.75 101325 101325
46 0.005625 202.5 101325 98827.5 101325 101325
47 0.00575 207 101325 98411.25 101325 101325
48 0.005875 211.5 101325 97995 101325 101325
49 0.006 216 101325 97578.75 101325 101325
50 0.006125 220.5 101325 97162.5 101325 101325
51 0.00625 225 101325 96746.25 101325 101325
52 0.006375 229.5 101325 96330 101325 101325
53 0.0065 234 101325 95913.75 101325 101325
54 0.006625 238.5 101325 95497.5 101325 101325
55 0.00675 243 101325 95081.25 101325 101325
56 0.006875 247.5 101325 94665 101325 101325
57 0.007 252 101325 94248.75 101325 101325
58 0.007125 256.5 101325 93832.5 101325 101325
59 0.00725 261 101325 93416.25 101325 101325
60 0.007375 265.5 101325 93000 101325 101325
61 0.0075 270 101325 93000 101325 101325
62 0.007625 274.5 101325 93000 101325 101325
63 0.00775 279 101325 93000 101325 101325
64 0.007875 283.5 101325 93000 101325 101325
65 0.008 288 101325 93416.25 101325 101325
66 0.008125 292.5 101325 93832.5 101325 101325
67 0.00825 297 101325 94248.75 101325 101325
68 0.008375 301.5 101325 94665 101325 101325
69 0.0085 306 101325 95081.25 101325 101325
70 0.008625 310.5 101325 95497.5 101325 101325
71 0.00875 315 101325 95913.75 101325 101325
72 0.008875 319.5 101325 96330 101325 101325
73 0.009 324 101325 96746.25 101325 101325
74 0.009125 328.5 101325 97162.5 101325 101325
75 0.00925 333 101325 97578.75 101325 101325
76 0.009375 337.5 101325 97995 101325 101325
77 0.0095 342 101325 98411.25 101325 101325
78 0.009625 346.5 101325 98827.5 101325 101325
79 0.00975 351 101325 99243.75 101325 101325
80 0.009875 355.5 101325 99660 101325 100908.75
81 0.01 360 101325 100076.25 101325 100492.5
82 0.010125 364.5 101325 100492.5 101325 100076.25
83 0.01025 369 101325 100908.75 101325 99660
Page | 76
84 0.010375 373.5 101325 101325 101325 99243.75
85 0.0105 378 101325 101325 101325 98827.5
86 0.010625 382.5 101325 101325 101325 98411.25
87 0.01075 387 101325 101325 101325 97995
88 0.010875 391.5 101325 101325 101325 97578.75
89 0.011 396 101325 101325 101325 97162.5
90 0.011125 400.5 101325 101325 101325 96746.25
91 0.01125 405 101325 101325 101325 96330
92 0.011375 409.5 101325 101325 101325 95913.75
93 0.0115 414 101325 101325 101325 95497.5
94 0.011625 418.5 101325 101325 101325 95081.25
95 0.01175 423 101325 101325 101325 94665
96 0.011875 427.5 101325 101325 101325 94248.75
97 0.012 432 101325 101325 101325 93832.5
98 0.012125 436.5 101325 101325 101325 93416.25
99 0.01225 441 101325 101325 101325 93000
100 0.012375 445.5 101325 101325 101325 93000
101 0.0125 450 101325 101325 101325 93000
102 0.012625 454.5 101325 101325 101325 93000
103 0.01275 459 101325 101325 101325 93000
104 0.012875 463.5 101325 101325 101325 93416.25
105 0.013 468 101325 101325 101325 93832.5
106 0.013125 472.5 101325 101325 101325 94248.75
107 0.01325 477 101325 101325 101325 94665
108 0.013375 481.5 101325 101325 101325 95081.25
109 0.0135 486 101325 101325 101325 95497.5
110 0.013625 490.5 101325 101325 101325 95913.75
111 0.01375 495 101325 101325 101325 96330
112 0.013875 499.5 101325 101325 101325 96746.25
113 0.014 504 101325 101325 101325 97162.5
114 0.014125 508.5 101325 101325 101325 97578.75
115 0.01425 513 101325 101325 101325 97995
116 0.014375 517.5 101325 101325 101325 98411.25
117 0.0145 522 101325 101325 101325 98827.5
118 0.014625 526.5 101325 101325 101325 99243.75
119 0.01475 531 101325 101325 100908.75 99660
120 0.014875 535.5 101325 101325 100492.5 100076.25
121 0.015 540 101325 101325 100076.25 100492.5
122 0.015125 544.5 101325 101325 99660 100908.75
123 0.01525 549 101325 101325 99243.75 101325
124 0.015375 553.5 101325 101325 98827.5 101325
125 0.0155 558 101325 101325 98411.25 101325
126 0.015625 562.5 101325 101325 97995 101325
127 0.01575 567 101325 101325 97578.75 101325
128 0.015875 571.5 101325 101325 97162.5 101325
Page | 77
129 0.016 576 101325 101325 96746.25 101325
130 0.016125 580.5 101325 101325 96330 101325
131 0.01625 585 101325 101325 95913.75 101325
132 0.016375 589.5 101325 101325 95497.5 101325
133 0.0165 594 101325 101325 95081.25 101325
134 0.016625 598.5 101325 101325 94665 101325
135 0.01675 603 101325 101325 94248.75 101325
136 0.016875 607.5 101325 101325 93832.5 101325
137 0.017 612 101325 101325 93416.25 101325
138 0.017125 616.5 101325 101325 93000 101325
139 0.01725 621 101325 101325 93000 101325
140 0.017375 625.5 101325 101325 93000 101325
141 0.0175 630 101325 101325 93000 101325
142 0.017625 634.5 101325 101325 93000 101325
143 0.01775 639 101325 101325 93416.25 101325
144 0.017875 643.5 101325 101325 93832.5 101325
145 0.018 648 101325 101325 94248.75 101325
146 0.018125 652.5 101325 101325 94665 101325
147 0.01825 657 101325 101325 95081.25 101325
148 0.018375 661.5 101325 101325 95497.5 101325
149 0.0185 666 101325 101325 95913.75 101325
150 0.018625 670.5 101325 101325 96330 101325
151 0.01875 675 101325 101325 96746.25 101325
152 0.018875 679.5 101325 101325 97162.5 101325
153 0.019 684 101325 101325 97578.75 101325
154 0.019125 688.5 101325 101325 97995 101325
155 0.01925 693 101325 101325 98411.25 101325
156 0.019375 697.5 101325 101325 98827.5 101325
157 0.0195 702 101325 101325 99243.75 101325
158 0.019625 706.5 101325 101325 99660 101325
159 0.01975 711 101325 101325 100076.25 101325
160 0.019875 715.5 101325 101325 100492.5 101325
161 0.02 720 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 ((intake2 ((intake3 ((intake4
transient 161 1) transient 161 1) transient 161 1) transient 161 1)
(time (time (time (time
0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
Page | 78
5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8
9 9 9 9
10 10 10 10
11 11 11 11
12 12 12 12
13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14
15 15 15 15
16 16 16 16
17 17 17 17
18 18 18 18
19 19 19 19
20 20 20 20
21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22
23 23 23 23
24 24 24 24
25 25 25 25
26 26 26 26
27 27 27 27
28 28 28 28
29 29 29 29
30 30 30 30
31 31 31 31
32 32 32 32
33 33 33 33
34 34 34 34
35 35 35 35
36 36 36 36
37 37 37 37
38 38 38 38
39 39 39 39
40 40 40 40
41 41 41 41
42 42 42 42
43 43 43 43
44 44 44 44
45 45 45 45
46 46 46 46
47 47 47 47
48 48 48 48
49 49 49 49
50 50 50 50
51 51 51 51
52 52 52 52
53 53 53 53
54 54 54 54
55 55 55 55
56 56 56 56
57 57 57 57
58 58 58 58
59 59 59 59
60 60 60 60
61 61 61 61
62 62 62 62
63 63 63 63
64 64 64 64
65 65 65 65
66 66 66 66
67 67 67 67
68 68 68 68
Page | 79
69 69 69 69
70 70 70 70
71 71 71 71
72 72 72 72
73 73 73 73
74 74 74 74
75 75 75 75
76 76 76 76
77 77 77 77
78 78 78 78
79 79 79 79
80 80 80 80
81 81 81 81
82 82 82 82
83 83 83 83
84 84 84 84
85 85 85 85
86 86 86 86
87 87 87 87
88 88 88 88
89 89 89 89
90 90 90 90
91 91 91 91
92 92 92 92
93 93 93 93
94 94 94 94
95 95 95 95
96 96 96 96
97 97 97 97
98 98 98 98
99 99 99 99
100 100 100 100
101 101 101 101
102 102 102 102
103 103 103 103
104 104 104 104
105 105 105 105
106 106 106 106
107 107 107 107
108 108 108 108
109 109 109 109
110 110 110 110
111 111 111 111
112 112 112 112
113 113 113 113
114 114 114 114
115 115 115 115
116 116 116 116
117 117 117 117
118 118 118 118
119 119 119 119
120 120 120 120
121 121 121 121
122 122 122 122
123 123 123 123
124 124 124 124
125 125 125 125
126 126 126 126
127 127 127 127
128 128 128 128
129 129 129 129
130 130 130 130
131 131 131 131
132 132 132 132
Page | 80
133 133 133 133
134 134 134 134
135 135 135 135
136 136 136 136
137 137 137 137
138 138 138 138
139 139 139 139
140 140 140 140
141 141 141 141
142 142 142 142
143 143 143 143
144 144 144 144
145 145 145 145
146 146 146 146
147 147 147 147
148 148 148 148
149 149 149 149
150 150 150 150
151 151 151 151
152 152 152 152
153 153 153 153
154 154 154 154
155 155 155 155
156 156 156 156
157 157 157 157
158 158 158 158
159 159 159 159
160 160 160 160
) ) ) )
(pr1 (pr2 (pr3 (pr4
101325 101325 101325 101325
100908.75 101325 101325 101325
100492.5 101325 101325 101325
100076.25 101325 101325 101325
99660 101325 101325 101325
99243.75 101325 101325 101325
98827.5 101325 101325 101325
98411.25 101325 101325 101325
97995 101325 101325 101325
97578.75 101325 101325 101325
97162.5 101325 101325 101325
96746.25 101325 101325 101325
96330 101325 101325 101325
95913.75 101325 101325 101325
95497.5 101325 101325 101325
95081.25 101325 101325 101325
94665 101325 101325 101325
94248.75 101325 101325 101325
93832.5 101325 101325 101325
93416.25 101325 101325 101325
93000 101325 101325 101325
93000 101325 101325 101325
93000 101325 101325 101325
93000 101325 101325 101325
93000 101325 101325 101325
93416.25 101325 101325 101325
93832.5 101325 101325 101325
94248.75 101325 101325 101325
94665 101325 101325 101325
95081.25 101325 101325 101325
95497.5 101325 101325 101325
95913.75 101325 101325 101325
96330 101325 101325 101325
96746.25 101325 101325 101325
Page | 81
97162.5 101325 101325 101325
97578.75 101325 101325 101325
97995 101325 101325 101325
98411.25 101325 101325 101325
98827.5 101325 101325 101325
99243.75 101325 101325 101325
99660 100908.75 101325 101325
100076.25 100492.5 101325 101325
100492.5 100076.25 101325 101325
100908.75 99660 101325 101325
101325 99243.75 101325 101325
101325 98827.5 101325 101325
101325 98411.25 101325 101325
101325 97995 101325 101325
101325 97578.75 101325 101325
101325 97162.5 101325 101325
101325 96746.25 101325 101325
101325 96330 101325 101325
101325 95913.75 101325 101325
101325 95497.5 101325 101325
101325 95081.25 101325 101325
101325 94665 101325 101325
101325 94248.75 101325 101325
101325 93832.5 101325 101325
101325 93416.25 101325 101325
101325 93000 101325 101325
101325 93000 101325 101325
101325 93000 101325 101325
101325 93000 101325 101325
101325 93000 101325 101325
101325 93416.25 101325 101325
101325 93832.5 101325 101325
101325 94248.75 101325 101325
101325 94665 101325 101325
101325 95081.25 101325 101325
101325 95497.5 101325 101325
101325 95913.75 101325 101325
101325 96330 101325 101325
101325 96746.25 101325 101325
101325 97162.5 101325 101325
101325 97578.75 101325 101325
101325 97995 101325 101325
101325 98411.25 101325 101325
101325 98827.5 101325 101325
101325 99243.75 101325 101325
101325 99660 100908.75 101325
101325 100076.25 100492.5 101325
101325 100492.5 100076.25 101325
101325 100908.75 99660 101325
101325 101325 99243.75 101325
101325 101325 98827.5 101325
101325 101325 98411.25 101325
101325 101325 97995 101325
101325 101325 97578.75 101325
101325 101325 97162.5 101325
101325 101325 96746.25 101325
101325 101325 96330 101325
101325 101325 95913.75 101325
101325 101325 95497.5 101325
101325 101325 95081.25 101325
101325 101325 94665 101325
101325 101325 94248.75 101325
101325 101325 93832.5 101325
101325 101325 93416.25 101325
Page | 82
101325 101325 93000 101325
101325 101325 93000 101325
101325 101325 93000 101325
101325 101325 93000 101325
101325 101325 93000 101325
101325 101325 93416.25 101325
101325 101325 93832.5 101325
101325 101325 94248.75 101325
101325 101325 94665 101325
101325 101325 95081.25 101325
101325 101325 95497.5 101325
101325 101325 95913.75 101325
101325 101325 96330 101325
101325 101325 96746.25 101325
101325 101325 97162.5 101325
101325 101325 97578.75 101325
101325 101325 97995 101325
101325 101325 98411.25 101325
101325 101325 98827.5 101325
101325 101325 99243.75 101325
101325 101325 99660 100908.75
101325 101325 100076.25 100492.5
101325 101325 100492.5 100076.25
101325 101325 100908.75 99660
101325 101325 101325 99243.75
101325 101325 101325 98827.5
101325 101325 101325 98411.25
101325 101325 101325 97995
101325 101325 101325 97578.75
101325 101325 101325 97162.5
101325 101325 101325 96746.25
101325 101325 101325 96330
101325 101325 101325 95913.75
101325 101325 101325 95497.5
101325 101325 101325 95081.25
101325 101325 101325 94665
101325 101325 101325 94248.75
101325 101325 101325 93832.5
101325 101325 101325 93416.25
101325 101325 101325 93000
101325 101325 101325 93000
101325 101325 101325 93000
101325 101325 101325 93000
101325 101325 101325 93000
101325 101325 101325 93416.25
101325 101325 101325 93832.5
101325 101325 101325 94248.75
101325 101325 101325 94665
101325 101325 101325 95081.25
101325 101325 101325 95497.5
101325 101325 101325 95913.75
101325 101325 101325 96330
101325 101325 101325 96746.25
101325 101325 101325 97162.5
101325 101325 101325 97578.75
101325 101325 101325 97995
101325 101325 101325 98411.25
101325 101325 101325 98827.5
101325 101325 101325 99243.75
101325 101325 101325 99660
101325 101325 101325 100076.25
101325 101325 101325 100492.5
101325)) 101325)) 101325)) 100908.75))
Page | 83
APPENDIX C: Data Related To Plenum Modeling
C.1 Design table of “Plenum”
Total Flow
Plenum Shape Cylinder1 Cylinder2 Cylinder3 Cylinder4
Size Rate
No. (Litre) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)
(m3/s)
Plenum01 Rectangular 2 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 3 0.0681138 -0.00937793 0.0423946 0.0431265 0.00802937
Plenum06 Cylindrical 2 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 3 0.0710821 0.0258936 0.018614 0.0171866 0.00938786
Plenum11 Elliptical 2 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 3 0.075934 0.0163671 0.0141661 0.0066158 0.038785
Plenum16 Curved 2 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 3 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”
Total Flow
Cylinder1 Cylinder2 Cylinder3 Cylinder4
Manifold Plenum Nozzle Rate
(m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)
(m3/s)
Manifold01 Plenum14 Nozzle 2 0.013987394 0.002112989 0.002908463 0.005579127 0.004730864
Manifold04 Plenum19 Nozzle20 0.01384006 0.002088759 0.002925623 0.005662563 0.0045895
Manifold10 Plenum20 Nozzle 2 0.000827825 0.000485011 0.000127255 0.000174903 4.28643E-05
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
5. Futakuchi Y.. (1984). Engine Intake System. Available: www.google.com/patents/US4469067. Last
6. Futakuchi Y.. (1986). Engine Intake System. Available: www.google.com/patents/US44628879. Last
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) 361–387.
11. Dunkley A., Harrison M.F., The Acoustics of Racing Engine Intake Systems, Journal of Sound and
Vibration 271 (2004) 959–984.
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) 975–1011.
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, Akın 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 ) 2988–2994,
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. O‘Gara. (2009). Frozen Chemistry Effects on
Nozzle Performance Simulations. NASA/TM—2009-215507. 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, 99924-1417-
04, 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 User‘s and Theory Guide, ANSYS,
Inc.
28. Paciorri, R., Dieudonné, 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-ε 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-ω Turbulence Model. AIAA
Journal Vol 38 No 7 , 1292-1295
35. Bredberg, J., Peng, S., & Davidson, L. (2002). An improved k-ω turbulence model applied to
recirculating flows. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow vol23 , 731-743
Page | 89
View publication stats

Intake Manifold Designusing Computational Fluid Dynamics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intake Manifold Designusing Computational Fluid Dynamics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Intake Manifold Design Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

Thesis · May 2014

Awanish Pratap Singh

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Awanish Pratap singh

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY

Awanish Pratap Singh

Under the Guidance of

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY

Date: (Awanish Pratap Singh)

Date: (Manish Gupta)

Awanish Pratap Singh

Reg. No. 10904512

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

Keywords: Intake Manifold, Plenum, Restrictor, Cylinder Runner, Volumetric Efficiency,

In automotive technology, an intake manifold (in American English) is the component of an

IC engines produce air pollution emissions as a consequence of uneven distribution of

1.2 FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE

1.2.2.1 Pressure Losses in Pipes

1.2.2.2 Velocity profiles

1.2.3 Nomenclature of Intake

1.2.4 Wave Theory

1.2.5 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

In three-dimensional simulation, tetrahedral and pentahedra cells are commonly used

The Spalart-Allmaras model is a 1-equation turbulence model which solves a transport

The study mentioned in the section on the Spalart-Allmaras model on shock

Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)

The Reynolds Stress Model is a 5-equation model in 2 dimensions and 7-equation in 3

A study into Reynolds Stress modelling involving shockwave boundary layer

3.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

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

4.2 STAGE-1 SELECTION OF BEST TURBULENCE MODEL

Turbulence Models Range Value Procedure

Spalart-Allmaras N/A Perform the experiment in Ansys Fluent of given model

Response Variables Target Value Objective

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

Response Variable. Target Value Objective

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

Profile coding Example:

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

Response Variable. Target Value Objective

Design Variables Range Value Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Turbulence Model From Stage-1 Best Model From Stage-1

Response Variable. Target Value Objective

5.1 SIMULATIONS AND RESULT OF TURBULENCE MODEL

5.1.1 Simulation of Each Turbulence Model

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

Table 5.1.1 Computational impact of the turbulence model selected

5.1.2 Summary of Result for Turbulence Model

Selecting an appropriate turbulence model is critical in producing accurate simulations using

5.1.3 Pictorial View of Model Used For Turbulence Modeling

5.2.1 Effect of Variation in Nozzle Inlet Diameter

48mm connection1 49mm connection2

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

48mm connection1 49mm connection2

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

5.2.2 Effect of Variation in Diffuser Half Angle