CFD Analysis of Exhaust Manifold for

Multi-cylinder SI Engine

Submitted By

Devaraj V 1PI13ME043
Santosh Hukkeri 1PI13ME145
Dhruv Kiran Shedshyal 1PI13ME044

Batch No : C10

GUIDE : Prof. Balesh Babali

Department of Mechanical Engineering

PES Institute of Technology
Bengaluru-560085
INTRODUCTION

• In present scenario, the design engineers mainly focus to achieve better

performance with lowest and feeble possible emissions.
• Exhaust manifold is one among the crucial component that has a major influence
on achieving lowest emission.
• The designing of exhaust manifold is one of the complex procedures and relies on
many variables like backpressure, flow velocity, mechanical efficiency, volumetric
efficiency, etc.
• Present work is focused on modelling of the exhaust manifold by varying manifold
geometries. Two different types of exhaust manifold models with different
geometry are modelled/developed with the aid of CATIA V5.
• Steady state Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation is performed. CFD
simulation facilitated in determining the amount of backpressure produced and the
flow velocity of fluid/exhaust gas
• The work is further extended by modelling Four other models and the performed
analysis results are validated with journal data.
Exhaust Manifold

• Exhaust manifold is a series of

pipes that are usually connected
directly on the engine cylinder
head. It is an integral part of the
exhaust system. Hot exhaust gases
from the exhaust ports on the
cylinder head is passed through
the exhaust manifold pipes and
then into a single collector pipe

• Exhaust manifolds is a necessary part of the exhaust system.

Their design is optimized to ensure exhaust gases go with the
flow efficiently from the engine combustion chamber without
any back pressure.
Exhaust Manifolds vs. Headers

Both the headers and the exhaust manifold perform the same function of
transmitting the exhaust gases from the engine cylinder head to the
exhaust pipe and finally out to the back of the car.

• Exhaust Manifold are generally made up of Cast Iron which

offers them good strength and durability as prime benefit.
Considering the fact that cast iron is thick, it holds on to heat
good, which is fine for emissions and keeps the heat from
leaking to different nearby components and also the thick walls
do, yet, mean that there is a small amount of space for exhaust
gases to pass through, and the iron casting makes the inner hard
which can lead to slowing down the exhaust gas flow.
.

• Headers are usually Tubular Steel Exhaust Manifold/Headers are aftermarket upgrade
exhaust manifolds that use an individual steel tube for each cylinder in the engine and
all these individual pipes will connect to a collector pipe at the end. And also these
exhaust tubes are equal in length smooth and are smooth which ensures that the gases
from each and every cylinder attain the collector individually, wherein back-pressure
can be avoided
Back Pressure
Back-pressure can loosely defined as resistance to positive flow, in this case, the
resistance to positive flow of the exhaust gas. This depends on a number of factors,
including the diameter of the pipe, the smoothness of the inside of the pipe, the bend
angles, viscosity of the fluid and the velocity of the fluid. In the case of an exhaust
pipe, the outlet of the pipe is open to atmosphere, so we know the pressure at this
point is atmospheric pressure.

Exhaust Velocity
It is the velocity at which the exhaust gasses exit from the manifold pipes
Exhaust system is intended to expel out the gases from the combustion chamber
effectively and quickly as possible
LITERATURE SURVEY

• K S Umesh, et al. (2013) in their work, has analyzed different models of exhaust manifold.
For all eight models, the speed is kept constant at 1500RPM. The calculations are
performed at different loading conditions i.e. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10& 12kg. Pressure contours and
velocity contours are plotted for all models and finally concludes the best possible design
for least emissions and complete combustion of fuel to ensure least pollution.

• Kulal, et al. (2013) in their work have investigated the effect of attaching a reducer to the
outlet of exhaust manifold. The work mainly focuses on the study of velocity distribution
and pressure distribution inside an exhaust manifold for different geometries and to
conclude which is the best possible design from emissions point of view.

• Jae Ung Cho (2016) [6] in his work has modelled two turbo diesel exhaust manifold
models with the help of modelling tool CATIA and has performed CFD flow analysis on
both CFD Analysis of Exhaust Manifold of a Multi-Cylinder SI Engine

• models and compared the results of both. Finally plotted Velocity Streamlines and Pressure
Contours for both models and concludes the flow velocity is faster in model 2.
Methodology

The software tools used are

• CATIA v5 for building of geometric models

• Altair HYPERMESH 12.0 for meshing of geometric model
• ANSYS FLUENT 16.2 as a CFD solver tool.
Geometric modelling

Model with four inlets and single outlet is generated using CATIAv5

The models are named as

• Short Bend Side Exit
• Short Bend Center Exit
• Long Bend Side Exit
• Long Bend Center Exit

The models are developed as per the dimensions and configuration in

the journal paper by K.S. Umesh et al.
Short Bend Side Exit

Inner Diameter of 35.08 mm

inlet

Outer diameter of 42.86 mm

inlet
Distance between 78.33 mm
two inlet pipes
Length of Header 335 mm

Outer diameter of 60.3 mm

Header

Inner diameter of 52.48 mm

Header

Length of outlet 220 mm

Pipe
Bend radius of 48 mm
inlet pipes
Short Bend Center Exit

Inner Diameter of 35.08 mm

inlet

Outer diameter of 42.86 mm

inlet
Distance between 78.33 mm
two inlet pipes
Length of Header 335 mm

Outer diameter of 60.3 mm

Header

Inner diameter of 52.48 mm

Header

Length of outlet 220 mm

Pipe
Bend radius of 48 mm
inlet pipes
Long Bend Center Exit

Inner Diameter of 35.08 mm

inlet

Outer diameter of 42.86 mm

inlet

Distance between 78.33 mm

two inlet pipes
Length of Header 335 mm

Outer diameter of 60.3 mm

Header

Inner diameter of 52.48 mm

Header

Length of outlet 220 mm

Pipe
Bend radius of 100 mm
inlet pipes
Long Bend Side Exit

Inner Diameter of 35.08 mm

inlet

Outer diameter of 42.86 mm

inlet
Distance between 78.33 mm
two inlet pipes
Length of Header 335 mm

Outer diameter of 60.3 mm

Header

Inner diameter of 52.48 mm

Header

Length of outlet 220 mm

Pipe
Bend radius of 100 mm
inlet pipes
Designed models
1 Inlet Pipes
2 3
4

Outlet Pipe

Dimensions

Manifold
Model 1
 Inlet
1 Pipes
2
3
4

Outlet
Pipe
Dimensions

Manifold
Model 2
Structure of mesh

• The element size for surface mesh is taken as 3 mm and the type of
element used is tria elements

• For CFD tetra mesh, wall is considered as fixed boundary layer, inlet
and outlet as without Boundary layer(float).

• The number of boundary layer is taken 5

• First layer thickness is 0.5 mm

• Boundary layer growth as 1.1 mm

• Boundary layer transition mode is kept to ‘all prism’.

SURFACE MESH
Short Bend Side Exit Short Bend Center Exit

Long Bend Side Exit Long Bend Side Exit

NODES AND ELEMENTS

Short Bend Side Exit

Domain NO. of Nodes No. of Elements

Fluid 127595 4410739

Short Bend Center Exit

Domain NO. of Nodes No. of Elements

Fluid 129275 443070

Long Bend Side Exit

Domain NO. of Nodes No. of Elements

Fluid 148430 505128

Long Bend Side Exit

Domain NO. of Nodes No. of Elements

Fluid 148120 505256

TETRAMESH

Boundary layer generated using CFD mesh Solid Tetramesh with Boundary layer
MANIFOLD MODEL 1 MANIFOLD MODEL 2

Element error was observed in manifold

model 2 due to design complexity and solved
by cleaning up and partitioning elements
Analysis
Assumptions considered

•Mass flow rate at inlet is equal to mass flow rate at

outlet
•Volumetric Efficiency is 90%
•Temperature at inlet to be 650K
•The flow is considered to be turbulent with 5%
turbulent intensity
Boundary Conditions

The four models analysed again based on loading condition as given in

K S Umesh et journal paper for comparison and validating our
procedures.

Boundary conditions used for present analysis of verifications.

RPM is 1500.
Load (Kg) Mass Flow Rate (Kg/s)

2 0.001696

4 0.003392
Fluid properties

Parameter Values

Density(Kg/m^3) 1.045

Viscosity(pa-s) 3.0927e-5

Specific Heat(J/kg-K) 1056.64

Thermal Conductivity(W/m-K) 0.025

Calorific Value of Fuel 45208

(Gasoline) KJ/Kg-K
Boundary conditions for designed models

Mass flow rate evaluated at different Engine Speeds

RPM Mass Flow Rate(Kg/s)

1000 .0156
3000 .0469
6000 .0939

The turbulent model used for simulation is K-epsilon

Model with RNG scheme
Engine Specification used for analysis

Specifications Values
Bore(mm) 86
Stroke(mm) 86
Compression 8.5:1
Ratio
Swept Volume 1997cc
Short Bend Side Exit (Pressure) 2KG Load
Max Pressure : 1067 Pa
Short Bend Side Exit (Velocity) 2KG Load
Max Velocity : 18.5 m/s
Short Bend Side Exit (Pressure) 4KG Load
Max Pressure : 1106 Pa
Short Bend Side Exit (Velocity) 4KG Load
Max Velocity : 20.6 m/s
Long Bend Center Exit (Pressure) 2KG Load
Max Pressure : 9065 Pa
Long Bend Center Exit (Velocity) 2KG Load
Max Velocity : 18.85 m/s
Results Comparison/ Validations

Short Bend Side Exit

K.S. Umesh Present %
Load Parameters
Journal Work error
Pressure (pa) 1020 1067 4.6
2 Kg.
Velocity (m/s) 18.1 18.52 2.32
Pressure (pa) 1071 1106 3.2
4 Kg.
Velocity (m/s) 18.6 20.6 9.2

Short Bend Center Exit

K.S. Umesh Present %
Load Parameters
Journal Work error
Pressure (pa) 940 903 4.02
2 Kg.
Velocity (m/s) 17.03 18.34 8.04
Pressure (pa) 976 966 1.02
4 Kg.
Velocity (m/s) 18.1 19.02 5.08
Results Comparison/Validations

Long Bend Side Exit

K.S. Umesh Present %
Load Parameters
Journal Work error
Pressure (pa) 973 993.2 2.07
2 Kg.
Velocity (m/s) 17.71 16.48 6.94
Pressure (pa) 1005 1105 9.8
4 Kg.
Velocity (m/s) 18.92 19.28 1.90

Long Bend Center Exit

K.S. Umesh Present %
Load Parameters
Journal Work error
Pressure (pa) 850 906.5 6.64
2 Kg.
Velocity (m/s) 20.22 18.85 6.77

Pressure (pa) 893 955.3 7.8

4 Kg.
Velocity (m/s) 21.33 20.22 5.2
Boundary conditions for designed models

Mass flow rate evaluated at different Engine Speeds

RPM Mass Flow Rate(Kg/s)

1000 .0156
3000 .0469
6000 .0939
Manifold Model 1 (1000 RPM)
Max Pressure : 631 Pa
Manifold Model 1 (1000 RPM)
Max Velocity : 34.2 m/s
Manifold Model 1 (3000 RPM)
Max Pressure : 2969 Pa
Manifold Model 1 (3000 RPM)
Max Velocity : 47.6 m/s
Manifold Model 2 (1000 RPM)
Max Pressure : 463.5 Pa
Manifold Model 2 (1000 RPM)
Max Velocity : 33.7 m/s
Manifold Model 1 (3000 RPM)
Max Pressure : 3667.2Pa
Manifold Model 1 (3000 RPM)
Max Velocity : 96.48 m/s
RESULTS

Pressure Velocity
Manifold Model 1
(Pa) (m/s)
1000 RPM 631 34.2

3000 RPM 2969 47.6

6000 RPM 12512 152.7

Pressure Velocity
Manifold Model 2
(Pa) (m/s)
1000 RPM 488 31.6

3000 RPM 3821 89.2

6000 RPM 14532 174.8

Results Comparison

Manifold Model 1
16000 200

180
14000

160
12000
140

10000
120
pressure

8000 100
pressure
velocity
80
6000

60
4000
40

2000
20

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
speed rpm
 Manifold Model 2
16000 200

180
14000

160
12000
140

10000
120
Pressure

8000 100
pressure

80 velocity
6000

60
4000
40

2000
20

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Speed rpm
CONCLUSION

Following the results obtained from steady state CFD Simulation,

• The results obtained from analysis for Short Bend Side Exit
model, Short bend Center exit, Long Bend Side Exit Model and
Long Bend Center Exit model are compared with the values
obtained by K.S. Umesh et al. [1] and the results are almost close
with acceptable relative error.
• Manifold Model 1 yields the best results in terms of least
backpressure when compared to other models.
• exhaust manifold selection is a tricky thing where we need to
have narrow pipes as possible with least back pressure.
• If wider pipes are selected, no doubt that there will be low
backpressure, but will be losing power because there will be no
good exhaust flow.
Future Scope of work

• CFD Simulation is carried out here in steady state

condition, this can be tried out with transient state and
compare the results.
• Thermo mechanical analysis can be carried out to study
different material behaviour at operating temperature of
exhaust manifold.
• Exhaust Manifold can be considered along with the
catalytic convertor and try for overall optimization of
back pressure.
REFERENCES

• [1] K. S. Umesh, V. K. Pravin & K. Rajagopal, (2013) “CFD analysis of exhaust

manifold of multicylinder SI engine to determine optimal geometry for reducing
emissions”, International Journal of Automobile Engineering Research and
Development (IJAuERD) ISSN 2277-4785, Vol. 3, Issue 4, Oct 2013, 45-56
• [2] Manu C S (2014) “The Parametric Design Study and CFD Simulation of an
Exhaust Manifold”
• MTech Thesis, PESIT, 2013-2014
• [3] Kulal (2013) “Experimental Analysis of Optimal Geometry for Exhaust Manifold
of Multicylinder SI Engine for Optimum Performance” Global journal of researches
in engineering A: Classification (FOR) 091304,091399, Vol.10 Issue 5 (Ver1.0)
October 2010.

• [4] K.S. Umesh, V.K. Pravin and K. Rajagopal (2013) “CFD Analysis and
Experimental Verification of Effect of Manifold Geometry on Volumetric efficiency
and Back Pressure for Multicylinder SI Engine” International Journal of
Engineering & Science Research IJESR/July 2013/ Vol-3/Issue-7/342-353.
• [5] Mohd Sajid Ahmed, Kailash BA, Gowreesh, (2015) “Design and Analysis of a
Multi-Cylinder

• Four Stroke SI Engine Exhaust Manifold using CFD technique”, International

Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Volume: 02 Issue: 09 |
Dec-2015
• [6] Jae Ung Cho, (2016) “A Study on Flow Analysis of the Exhaust manifold for
Automobile”,

• International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume

11, Number 2 (2016) pp 1239-1242
• [7] V.K. Pravin, K.S. Umesh, K. Rajagopal, P.H. Veena, (2012) “Simulative analysis
of flow through exhaust manifold for improved volumetric efficiency of multi
cylinder petrol engine”, World Journal of Engineering 9(3) (2012) 221-226

• [8] Atul A. Patil, L.G. Navale, V.S. Patil, (2014) “Design, Analysis of Flow
Characteristics of Exhaust System and Effect of Back Pressure on Engine
Performance”, International Journal of Engineering, Business and Enterprise
Applications, 7(1), December 2013- February 2014, pp. 99103
THANK YOU