2. Automobile- IJAuERD - Experimental Analysis of Optimal .... Automobile- IJAuERD... · [email protected]

www.tjprc.org [email protected]

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF DIFFERENT MODELS TO S ELECT BEST POSSIBLE DESIGN OF EXHAUST OF THE MANIFOLD

K. S. UMESH1, V. K. PRAVIN 2 & K. RAJAGOPAL 3

1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Thadomal Shahani Engineering College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

2Department of Mechanical Engineering, P.D.A. College of Engineering, Gulbarga, Karnataka, India 3Former Vice Chancellor, JNT University, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT

In internal combustion engines, Brake specific fuel consumption is direct measure of fuel economy of engine

whereas volumetric efficiency is one of the prime factors in determining how much power output an engine can

generate as compared to its capacity. Exhaust velocity & back pressure are the parameters on which emissions from the

engines would depend .The purpose of this research work is to investigate which can be the best geometry for exhaust

manifold of the multi-cylinder SI engine. The research work is concentrated on the experimental investigation of 4

different models of exhaust manifold and conclude on best possible design of exhaust of the manifold .Physical models

of the two systems were manufactured exhaustive experiments were carried out on them. The analysis has been carried

out on two designs an existing one and a modified one. It was observed that the volumetric efficiency improved

drastically upon modification in exhaust geometry. Later on both these models were modified by attaching a reducer at

its outlet and similar experiments were carried upon them .Attachment of reducer leads to drastic reduction in BSFC.

The scope of the research of this work has been stretched to investigate whether all the design modifications which

were considered has any impact on the other factors like exhaust velocity, back pressure, exhaust temperature,

mechanical efficiency etc.

KEYWORDS: Multi-Cylinder Engine, Exhaust Manifold, Volumetric Efficiency, Existing Model, Modified Model,

Reducer, Mechanical Efficiency, B.S.F.C., Thermal Efficiency, Fuel Economy, Optimization

Received: Nov 05, 2015; Accepted: Nov 21, 2015; Published: Nov 23, 2015; Paper Id.: IJAuERDDEC20152

INTRODUCTION

In any multi-cylinder IC engine, an exhaust manifold (also known as a header) collects the exhaust gases

from multiple cylinders into one pipe. This header is connected to these cylinders through bends. It is attached

downstream of the engine and is major part in multi‐ cylinder engines where there are multiple exhaust streams

that have to be collected into a single pipe. Exhaust gases comes out of this Header as a single stream of hot

exhaust gases through single outlet.

When an exhaust stroke starts in multi-cylinder SI engine, the piston moves up the cylinder bore,

increasing the pressure. When the exhaust valve opens, the high pressure exhaust gas leaves the cylinder and

enters into the exhaust manifold or header after flowing through bends, creating an exhaust pulse comprising

three main parts: The high‐pressure head is created by the large pressure difference between the exhaust in the

combustion chamber and the atmospheric pressure outside of the exhaust system. As the exhaust gases equalize

between the combustion chamber and the atmosphere, the difference in pressure decreases and the exhaust

velocity decreases. This forms the medium‐pressure body component of the exhaust pulse. The remaining

Original A

rticle International Journal of Automobile Engineering Research and Development (IJAuERD) ISSN(P): 2277-4785; ISSN(E): 2278-9413 Vol. 5, Issue 4, Dec 2015, 11-22 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

12 K. S. Umesh, V. K. Pravin & K. Rajagopal

Impact Factor (JCC): 5.4529 Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

exhaust gas forms the low‐pressure tail component. This tail component may initially match ambient atmospheric pressure,

but the momentum of the high‐and medium‐ pressure components reduces the pressure in the combustion chamber to a

lower‐than‐atmospheric level. This relatively low pressure (known as back pressure) helps to extract all the combustion

products from the cylinder. This process is known as scavenging and efficiency of this process is thus called scavenging

efficiency. Thus back pressure is one of the most critical parameter for exhaust system especially in cases where speed of

engine is very high or Engine has very large power capacity. In other words, lower back pressure helps to induct the intake

charge during the overlap period when both intake and exhaust valves are partially open the effect is known as scavenging.

Scavenging efficiency is function of Length of the exhaust manifold, cross‐sectional area, shaping of the exhaust ports and

pipe‐works influences the degree of scavenging effect and the engine speed range over which scavenging occurs.

The magnitude of the exhaust scavenging effect is proportional to the velocity of the high and medium pressure

components of the exhaust pulse. Headers are designed to increase the exhaust velocity as much as possible. Obvious way

of achieving this is to reduce the diameter of the outlet of exhaust manifold but it brings an disadvantage of rise in back

pressure.

Exhaustive work has taken place already in this field. Scheeringa et al studied analysis of Liquid cooled exhaust

manifold using CFD. Detailed information of flow property distributions and heat transfer were obtained by him to

improve the fundamental understandings of manifold operation. A number of computations were performed by him to

investigate the parametric effects of operating conditions and geometry on the performance of manifolds. Seenikannan et al

analysed a Y section exhaust manifold system experimentally to improve engine performance. His paper investigates the

effect of using various models of exhaust manifold on CI engine performance and exhaust emission. Yasar Deger et al did

CFD-FE-Analysis for the Exhaust Manifold of a Diesel Engine aiming to determine specific temperature and pressure

distributions. The fluid flow and the heat transfer through the exhaust manifold were computed correspondingly by CFD

analyses including the conjugate heat transfer.

In our own previous work, we experimentally investigated the effect of exhaust manifold geometry on volumetric

efficiency of Multi-cylinder SI engine and also verified the results obtained through CFD analysis.

DISCUSSIONS

Model Description

Two different Models considered for this research work are shown in the figure 1 & 2 respectively. The material

used for pipe was SA 106 (grade B). Flange material was IS 2602 (Grade B). Elbows were manufactured using SA 234

WPB.

Experimental Investigation of Different Models to Select Best 13 Possible Design of Exhaust of the Manifold


Figure 1: Existing Model Figure 2: Modified Model

Both existing model and modified model has header length of 335mm. ID and OD of headers is 52.48 mm & 60.3

mm respectively. In existing model the bend radius is 48 mm and exhaust is on one side as shown in the figure. ID and OD

of bend were 35.08mm and 42.86mm respectively. Modified model has bend radius of 100 mm and exhaust is at the centre

of header. ID & OD of the bend & exhaust is 52.48mm and 60.3 mm respectively for both models. Length of the outlet of

exhaust manifold was kept at 220mm and flange was attached at the end to connect it to exhaust muffler. Arrangement was

provided on the model as shown in figure to investigate pressure and temperature at distinct points.

In order to further investigate the effect of attaching a reducer at the end of the outlet of exhaust manifold a nozzle

of length 70mm was attached to the outlet which was cut at length of 50 mm from centerline. At the end of nozzle whose

smaller diameter was 38mm an extended pipe of constant cross section was attached. Length of this pipe was 100 mm at

the end of which flange was attached in order to attach it to the exhaust muffler.

Figure 3: Existing Model (with Nozzle) Figure 4: Modified Model (with Nozzle)

METHODOLOGY

All the 4 models were attached to testing rig one by one and operated at speed of 1500rpm for finite duration of

time till steady state was achieved. Pressures (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) and temperatures (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5) were noted down.

Time required for consumption of 10 gm of fuel and manometric pressure head at orifice meter attached for the

measurement of the air flow rate were also noted down. These readings were taken down at different loading condition i.e.

2kg, 4kg, 6kg, 8kg, 10kg and 12 kg.



Morse test was also conducted on all these 4 models at all above mentioned loading conditions at said speed.

Purpose of Morse test was to investigate I.P. of the engine which in turn helps in evaluation of mechanical efficiency.

All the results obtained along with Heat balance sheet were subsequently tabulated to draw the conclusions.

Material Fluid Properties

Exhaust gas will be considered as an incompressible fluid operating at 230‐280 0C. The material properties under

these conditions are

Table 1: Material Fluid Properties

Material Air + Gasoline Density (kg/m3) 1.0685 Viscosity (Pa-s) 3.0927 x 10‐5 Specific heat (J/kg-K) 1056.6434 Thermal conductivity (W/m-K) 0.0250

Boundary Conditions

The engine speed was maintained at 1500 RPM and results were obtained at different load Conditions viz. 2kg,

4kg, 6k, 8kg and 12 kg. The atmospheric gauge pressure was assumed to be at 0. The flow through manifold was assumed

to be steady state.

Experimental Set-up

The test was conducted on 4 stroke 4 cylinder Engine of Maruti-Suzuki Wagon-R. Experimental set up consisted

of:

• The engine & dynamometer fitted together on common channel frame

• Fuel Consumption measuring unit & temperature measuring units

• Exhaust gas Calorimeter

• Orifice Meter

Experimental set up shown in figure:

Figure 5: Experimental Set-up



Temperatures were measured at

• Exhaust Gas inlet to the calorimeter

• Exhaust gas outlet to calorimeter

• Water inlet to calorimeter

• Water outlet from Calorimeter

• Water outlet from Engine

Also pressure and temperatures were measured in header at points where bends are attached and in the exhaust.

Engine Specifications

Table 2: Engine Specification

Engine 4 Stroke 4 Cylinder SI engine Make Maruti-Suzuki Wagon-R Calorific Value of Fuel (Gasoline) 45208 KJ/Kg-K Specific Gravity of Fuel 0.7 gm/cc Bore and Stroke 69.05 mm X 73.40 mm Swept Volume 1100 cc Compression Ratio 7.2 :1 Dynamometer Constant 2000 Diameter of Orifice 29 mm Coefficient of Discharge of orifice 0.65

RESULTS

Results obtained during the investigation of all 4 models after the calculations are enlisted in following tables. Qs

and Qa specify swept volume and air intake respectively. Thus their ratio gives volumetric efficiency. Also morse test was

conducted on engines to evaluate their Indicated power (I.P.). Brake power (B.P.) was experimentally determined using

dynamometer. Thus Mechanical efficiency was also evaluated as ratio of B.P. to I.P. Velocity was calculated using

continuity equation. These are instantaneous velocities of exhaust gas at above mentioned points.

Table 3: Existing Model (Calculations)

Unit (1) Load kg 2 4 6 8 10 12 (2) Speed rpm 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 (3) B.P. (kW) KW 1.119 2.238 3.357 4.476 5.595 6.714 (4) Heat Equivalent Kj/min 67.14 134.28 201.42 268.56 335.7 402.84 (5) Time (t) sec 17.09 16.6 15.81 14.13 14 13.31 (6) Fuel Consumption gm/min 35.108 36.145 37.951 42.463 42.857 45.079 (7) Heat Supplied Kj/min 1587.2 1634 1715.7 1919.7 1937.5 2037.9 (8)Tw(outlet) oC 46 74 80 83 84 85 (9) Tw (inlet) oC 28 30 31 32 32 32 (10) Heat carried away Kj/min 286.39 700.07 779.62 811.44 827.35 843.26 (11) Water temp (inlet) oC 23 23 22 22 22 22 (12) Water temp (outlet) oC 28 30 31 32 32 32 (13) Flue gas temp (in) oC 109 152 179 198 206 212 (14) Flue gas temp (out) oC 54 58 75 95 109 120 (15) Heat capacity Kj/kgoC 1.4464 1.1848 1.3769 1.5447 1.6403 1.7294 (16) Engine Exhaust temp. oC 303 381 403 409 401 385 (17) Atmospheric temp oC 24 24 24 24 24 24



(18)Heat gone with exhaust Kj/min 403.55 422.98 521.84 594.72 618.38 624.32 (19)Unaccounted loss Kj/min 830.09 376.69 212.8 244.94 156.05 167.51 (20) Swept Volume m3/s 0.0138 0.0138 0.0138 0.0138 0.0138 0.0138 (21) Manometric Head mm of H2O 18 16 21 26 29 33 (22) Air Consumption m3/s 0.0074 0.007 0.008 0.0089 0.0094 0.01 (23) Volumetric Efficiency EXP 53.764 50.69 58.072 64.617 68.243 72.797 (24) BSFC kg/kW-hr 0.3964 0.1869 0.1427 0.1191 0.1006 0.0895 (25) Air Fuel Ratio 12.634 11.57 12.624 12.554 13.137 13.323 (26) Morse test (no cut off) kg 2 4 6 8 10 12 (27) Morse test (1st cut off) kg 1.4 2.9 4.3 5.9 7.35 8.7 (28) Morse test (2nd cut off) kg 1.4 2.9 4.3 5.8 7.4 8.7 (29) Morse test (3rd cut off) kg 1.4 2.9 4.3 5.8 7.35 8.6 (30) Morse test (4th cut off) kg 1.4 2.8 4.3 5.8 7.35 8.7 (31) I.P. (1st) KW 0.3357 0.6155 0.9512 1.175 1.4827 1.8464 (32) I.P. (2nd) KW 0.3357 0.6155 0.9512 1.2309 1.4547 1.8464 (33) I.P. (3rd) KW 0.3357 0.6155 0.9512 1.2309 1.4827 1.9023 (34) I.P. (4rd) KW 0.3357 0.6714 0.9512 1.2309 1.4827 1.8464 (35) I.P. KW 1.3428 2.5178 3.8046 4.8677 5.9027 7.4414 (36) Mechanical Efficiency 83.333 88.889 88.235 91.954 94.787 90.226 (37) F.P. KW 0.2238 0.2798 0.4476 0.3917 0.3077 0.7274 (38) Total flow rate (Vf + Va) m3/s 0.0074 0.007 0.008 0.0089 0.0094 0.01 (39) Flow rate per Cylinder m3/s 0.0018 0.0017 0.002 0.0022 0.0023 0.0025 (40) Exhaust Diameter m 0.0525 0.0525 0.0525 0.0525 0.0525 0.0525 (41) Exhaust Velocity m/s 0.8544 0.8055 0.9228 1.0268 1.0845 1.1568 (42) Back Pressure mm of H2O 90 131 169 196 198 223 (43) Thermal Efficiency 4.2302 8.2177 11.74 13.99 17.327 19.767

Table 4: Existing Model (Heat Balanced Sheet)

Heat Balance Sheet Unit

Heat Supplied (total) Kj/min 1587.2 1634.02 1715.67 1919.66 1937.5 2038 Total Percentage (Supply)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Heat Utilised

Brake Power Kj/min 67.14 134.28 201.42 268.56 335.7 402.8 Percentage

4.2302 8.21775 11.74 13.99 17.327 19.77

Heat carried by cooling H2O Kj/min 286.39 700.066 779.619 811.441 827.35 843.3 Percentage

18.044 42.8431 45.441 42.27 42.702 41.38

Heat carried by exhaust gas Kj/min 403.55 422.985 521.837 594.717 618.38 624.3 Percentage

25.426 25.8861 30.4159 30.9803 31.917 30.63

Unaccounted Heat loss Kj/min 830.09 376.693 212.797 244.943 156.05 167.5 Percentage

52.3 23.0531 12.4031 12.7597 8.0544 8.219

Heat Utilised (total) Kj/min 1587.2 1634.02 1715.67 1919.66 1937.5 2038 Total Percentage Utilised

100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 5: Modified Model (Calculations)

Unit

(1) Load kg 2 4 6 8 10 12 (2) Speed rpm 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 (3) B.P. (kW) KW 1.119 2.238 3.357 4.476 5.595 6.714 (4) Heat Equivalent Kj/min 67.14 134.28 201.42 268.6 335.7 402.84 (5) Time (t) sec 13.1 12.28 12.1 11.4 11.2 11 (6) Fuel Consumption gm/min 45.802 48.86 49.587 52.63 53.57 54.545 (7) Heat Supplied Kj/min 2070.6 2208.9 2241.7 2379 2422 2465.9 (8)Tw(outlet) oC 36 42 50 63 74 76 (9) Tw (inlet) oC 26 27 27 29 31 30 (10) Heat carried away Kj/min 159.11 238.66 365.94 541 684.2 731.89



(11) Water temp (inlet) oC 22 22 21 21 21 21 (12) Water temp (outlet) oC 26 27 27 29 31 30 (13) Flue gas temp (in) oC 104 123 144 171 195 201 (14) Flue gas temp (out) oC 61 71 77 95 113 118 (15) Heat capacity Kj/kgoC 1.4801 1.5299 1.4248 1.675 1.94 1.7252 (16) Engine Exhaust temp. oC 240 257 292 340 390 405 (17) Atmospheric temp oC 21 21 21 21 21 21 (18)Heat gone with exhaust Kj/min 324.13 361.05 386.13 534.3 716 662.49 (19)Unaccounted Heat loss Kj/min 1520.2 1474.9 1288.2 1036 686 668.67 (20) Swept Volume m3/s 0.0138 0.0138 0.0138 0.014 0.014 0.0138 (21) Manometric Head mm of H2O 25 32 31 41 41 36 (22) Air Consumption m3/s 0.0087 0.0099 0.0097 0.011 0.011 0.0105 (23) Volumetric Efficiency EXP 63.362 71.686 70.557 81.14 81.14 76.034 (24) BSFC kg/kW-hr 0.4671 0.2643 0.1734 0.15 0.12 0.0934 (25) Air Fuel Ratio 11.413 12.104 11.739 12.72 12.5 11.5 (26) Morse test (no cut off) kg 2 4 6 8 10 12 (27) Morse test (1st cut off) kg 1.45 2.85 4.4 5.9 7.3 8.7 (28) Morse test (2nd cut off) kg 1.45 2.9 4.35 5.8 7.3 8.7 (29) Morse test (3rd cut off) kg 1.45 2.95 4.3 5.8 7.3 8.7 (30) Morse test (4th cut off) kg 1.45 2.95 4.35 5.9 7.4 8.7 (31) I.P. (1st) KW 0.3077 0.6434 0.8952 1.175 1.511 1.8464 (32) I.P. (2nd) KW 0.3077 0.6155 0.9232 1.231 1.511 1.8464 (33) I.P. (3rd) KW 0.3077 0.5875 0.9512 1.231 1.511 1.8464 (34) I.P. (4rd) KW 0.3077 0.5875 0.9232 1.175 1.455 1.8464 (35) I.P. KW 1.2309 2.4338 3.6927 4.812 5.987 7.3854 (36) Mechanical Efficiency 90.909 91.954 90.909 93.02 93.46 90.909 (37) F.P. KW 0.1119 0.1958 0.3357 0.336 0.392 0.6714 (38) Total flow rate (Vf + Va) m3/s 0.0087 0.0099 0.0097 0.011 0.011 0.0105 (39) Flow rate per Cylinder m3/s 0.0022 0.0025 0.0024 0.003 0.003 0.0026 (40) Exhaust Diameter m 0.0525 0.0525 0.0525 0.052 0.052 0.0525 (41) Exhaust Velocity m/s 1.0069 1.1392 1.1212 1.289 1.289 1.2083 (42) Back Pressure mm of H2O 89 107 147 173 178 210 (43) Thermal Efficiency 3.2425 6.0792 8.9851 11.29 13.86 16.336

Table 6: Existing Model (Heat Balanced Sheet)


Heat Supplied (total) Kj/min 2070.6 2208.9 2241.7 2379.37 2421.86 2465.9 Total Percentage (Supply)

100 100 100 100 100 100

Heat Utilised


3.2425 6.0792 8.9851 11.287 13.8613 16.336


7.6841 10.805 16.324 22.7355 28.2492 29.68

Heat carried by exhaust gas Kj/min 324.13 361.05 386.13 534.261 715.977 662.49 Percentage

15.654 16.345 17.225 22.4539 29.5631 26.866


73.419 66.771 57.466 43.5236 28.3264 27.117

Heat Utilised (total) Kj/min 2070.6 2208.9 2241.7 2379.37 2421.86 2465.9 Total Percentage Utilised

100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 7: Existing Model with Nozzle (Calculations)

Unit

(1) Load kg 2 4 6 8 10 12 (2) Speed rpm 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 (3) B.P. (kW) KW 1.119 2.238 3.357 4.476 5.595 6.714



(4) Heat Equivalent Kj/min 67.14 134.28 201.42 268.56 335.7 402.84 (5) Time (t) sec 18.38 17.54 17.47 16.25 16.1 15.3 (6) Fuel Consumption gm/min 32.644 34.2075 34.345 36.9231 37.267 39.2157 (7) Heat Supplied Kj/min 1475.8 1546.45 1552.7 1669.22 1684.8 1772.86 (8)Tw(outlet) oC 28 48 67 73 73 76 (9) Tw (inlet) oC 22 24 24 24 24 24 (10) Heat carried away Kj/min 95.464 381.854 684.16 779.619 779.62 827.351 (11) Water temp (inlet) oC 17 16 16 16 15 15 (12) Water temp (outlet) oC 22 24 24 24 24 24 (13) Flue gas temp (in) oC 96 133 144 158 150 156 (14) Flue gas temp (out) oC 34 37 36 37 38 39 (15) Heat capacity Kj/kgoC 1.2831 1.32588 1.1786 1.05194 1.2785 1.22389 (16) Engine Exhaust temp. oC 217 287 307 301 292 288 (17) Atmospheric temp oC 20 20 20 20 20 20 (18)Heat gone with exhaust Kj/min 252.77 354.011 338.25 295.595 347.76 328.003 (19)Unaccounted Heat loss Kj/min 1060.4 676.309 328.83 325.444 221.69 214.668 (20) Swept Volume m3/s 0.0138 0.01375 0.0138 0.01375 0.0138 0.01375 (21) Manometric Head mm of H2O 15 18 19 22 22 28 (22) Air Consumption m3/s 0.0067 0.00739 0.0076 0.00817 0.0082 0.00922 (23) Volumetric Efficiency EXP 49.08 53.7645 55.238 59.4389 59.439 67.0561 (24) BSFC kg/kW-hr 0.3618 0.19819 0.1357 0.10956 0.0876 0.0824 (25) Air Fuel Ratio

12.404 12.9666 13.269 13.2809 13.158 14.1069

(26) Morse test (no cut off) kg 2 4 6 8 10 12 (27) Morse test (1st cut off) kg 1.4 2.85 4.45 5.9 7.3 8.7 (28) Morse test (2nd cut off) kg 1.45 2.9 4.35 5.8 7.3 8.7 (29) Morse test (3rd cut off) kg 1.45 2.85 4.3 5.8 7.3 8.7 (30) Morse test (4th cut off) kg 1.4 2.85 4.3 5.8 7.3 8.7 (31) I.P. (1st) KW 0.3357 0.64343 0.8672 1.17495 1.5107 1.84635 (32) I.P. (2nd) KW 0.3077 0.61545 0.9232 1.2309 1.5107 1.84635 (33) I.P. (3rd) KW 0.3077 0.64343 0.9512 1.2309 1.5107 1.84635 (34) I.P. (4rd) KW 0.3357 0.64343 0.9512 1.2309 1.5107 1.84635 (35) I.P. KW 1.2869 2.54573 3.6927 4.86765 6.0426 7.3854 (36) Mechanical Efficiency

86.957 87.9121 90.909 91.954 92.593 90.9091

(37) F.P. KW 0.1679 0.30773 0.3357 0.39165 0.4476 0.6714 (38) Total flow rate (Vf + Va) m3/s 0.0067 0.00739 0.0076 0.00817 0.0082 0.00922 (39) Flow rate per Cylinder m3/s 0.0017 0.00185 0.0019 0.00204 0.002 0.00231 (40) Exhaust Diameter m 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 (41) Exhaust Velocity m/s 1.4876 1.62957 1.6742 1.80155 1.8016 2.03241 (42) Back Pressure mm of H2O 112 140 210 212 224 235 (43) Thermal Efficiency

4.5495 8.68309 12.973 16.089 19.926 22.7226

Table 8: Existing Model with Nozzle (Heat Balance Sheet)



100 100 100 100 100 100

Heat Utilised


4.5495 8.6831 12.9727 16.089 19.926 22.723


6.4687 24.692 44.0637 46.7057 46.275 46.668

Heat carried by exhaust gas Kj/min 252.77 354.01 338.248 295.595 347.76 328 Percentage

17.128 22.892 21.7852 17.7086 20.641 18.501


71.854 43.733 21.1784 19.4968 13.159 12.109


100 100 100 100 100 100



Table 9: Modified Model with Nozzle (Calculations)

Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7 Column8

Unit

(1) Load kg 2 4 6 8 10 12 (2) Speed rpm 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 (3) B.P. (kW) KW 1.119 2.238 3.357 4.476 5.595 6.714 (4) Heat Equivalent Kj/min 67.14 134.28 201.42 268.56 335.7 402.84 (5) Time (t) sec 13.1 12.28 12.1 11.4 11.2 11 (6) Fuel Consumption gm/min 45.802 48.8599 49.5868 52.6316 53.5714 54.5455 (7) Heat Supplied Kj/min 2070.6 2208.86 2241.72 2379.37 2421.86 2465.89 (8)Tw(outlet) oC 36 42 50 63 74 76 (9) Tw (inlet) oC 26 27 27 29 31 30 (10) Heat carried away Kj/min 159.11 238.659 365.944 540.96 684.156 731.888 (11) Water temp (inlet) oC 22 22 21 21 21 21 (12) Water temp (outlet) oC 26 27 27 29 31 30 (13) Flue gas temp (in) oC 104 123 144 171 195 201 (14) Flue gas temp (out) oC 61 71 77 95 113 118 (15) Heat capacity Kj/kgoC 1.4801 1.52987 1.42483 1.6748 1.94032 1.72525 (16) Engine Exhaust temp. oC 270 287 312 370 420 435 (17) Atmospheric temp oC 19 19 19 19 19 19 (18)Heat gone with exhaust Kj/min 371.49 410.004 417.475 587.855 778.067 717.702 (19)Unaccounted Heat loss Kj/min 1472.9 1425.92 1256.88 981.993 623.934 613.461 (20) Swept Volume m3/s 0.0138 0.01375 0.01375 0.01375 0.01375 0.01375 (21) Manometric Head mm of H2O 13 15 18 20 24 30 (22) Air Consumption m3/s 0.0063 0.00675 0.00739 0.00779 0.00854 0.00954 (23) Volumetric Efficiency EXP 45.691 49.08 53.7645 56.6727 62.0819 69.4096 (24) BSFC kg/kW-hr 0.3369 0.18092 0.13213 0.10446 0.09154 0.08529 (25) Air Fuel Ratio

8.2301 8.28716 8.94506 8.88345 9.56061 10.4982

(26) Morse test (no cut off) kg 2 4 6 8 10 12 (27) Morse test (1st cut off) kg 1.45 2.85 4.35 5.9 7.3 8.8 (28) Morse test (2nd cut off) kg 1.45 2.85 4.35 5.8 7.3 8.7 (29) Morse test (3rd cut off) kg 1.45 2.85 4.35 5.8 7.2 8.7 (30) Morse test (4th cut off) kg 1.45 2.85 4.35 5.9 7.25 8.8 (31) I.P. (1st) KW 0.3077 0.64343 0.92318 1.17495 1.51065 1.7904 (32) I.P. (2nd) KW 0.3077 0.64343 0.92318 1.2309 1.51065 1.84635 (33) I.P. (3rd) KW 0.3077 0.64343 0.92318 1.2309 1.5666 1.84635 (34) I.P. (4rd) KW 0.3077 0.64343 0.92318 1.17495 1.53863 1.7904 (35) I.P. KW 1.2309 2.5737 3.6927 4.8117 6.12653 7.2735 (36) Mechanical Efficiency

90.909 86.9565 90.9091 93.0233 91.3242 92.3077

(37) F.P. KW 0.1119 0.3357 0.3357 0.3357 0.53153 0.5595 (38) Total flow rate (Vf + Va) m3/s 0.0063 0.00675 0.00739 0.00779 0.00854 0.00955 (39) Flow rate per Cylinder m3/s 0.0016 0.00169 0.00185 0.00195 0.00213 0.00239 (40) Exhaust Diameter m 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 (41) Exhaust Velocity m/s 1.385 1.48768 1.62965 1.7178 1.88174 2.10382 (42) Back Pressure mm of H2O 109 135 186 210 217 224 (43) Thermal Efficiency

3.2425 6.07915 8.98507 11.287 13.8613 16.3365

Table 10: Modified Model with Nozzle (Heat Balance Sheet)



100 100 100 100 100 100

Heat Utilised


3.24255 6.07915 8.98507 11.287 13.8613 16.336

Heat carried by cooling H2O Kj/min 159.106 238.659 365.944 540.96 684.156 731.89



Percentage

7.68407 10.8046 16.3242 22.735 28.2492 29.68 Heat carried by exhaust gas Kj/min 371.494 410.004 417.475 587.85 778.067 717.7 Percentage

17.9414 18.5618 18.623 24.706 32.1269 29.105


71.132 64.5544 56.0677 41.271 25.7626 24.878


100 100 100 100 100 100

The results obtained through the experiment are plotted with suitable scale to emphasize the findings of the work.

Figure 6: Volumetric Efficiency vs Load

Figure 7: Mechanical Efficiency vs Load

Figure 8: B.S.F.C. vs Load



Figure 9: Exhaust Velocity vs Load

Figure 10: Back Pressure vs Load

Figure 11: Thermal Efficiency vs Load

CONCLUSIONS

From nature of all the graphs obtained as a result of observations made it is quite obvious that no manifold

geometry is perfect for all kind of purposes. It can be easily observed that a model which gives highest volumetric

efficiency essentially gives maximum BSFC i.e. minimum thermal efficiency. Thus it means that design that produces

more power per cycle also consumes more fuel per unit time. This in turn result in dilemma in choice of best exhaust

manifold geometry for given application. Following Game matrix obtained from above graphs leads to optimal solution.



Table 11

Recreational Purpose Both Commercial Purpose Model 1 Average Good Enough Average Model 2 Best suited Average Not suitable Model 3 Average Good Enough Average Model 4 Not Suitable Average Best Suited

Acceptable Design :- (a) Best Suited

(b) Good Enough

REFERENCES

1. M.B. Beardsley et al.,Thermal Barrier Coatings for Low Emission, High Efficiency Diesel Engine Applications” SAE

Technical Paper 1999-01-2255.

2. Rajesh Biniwale , N.K. Labhsetwar, R.Kumar and M.Z.Hasan, “A non-noble metal based catalytic converter for two strokes,

two-wheeler applications”, SAE Paper No. 2001011303, 2001.

3. G. Muramatsu, A. Abe, M. Furuyama, “Catalytic Reduction of Nox in Diesel Exhaust”, SAE 930135, 1993.

4. John B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals (Tata McGrah Hill).

5. Nitin K. Labhsetwar, A. Watanabe and T. Mitsuhashi, “Possibilities of the application of catalyst technologies for the control

of particulate emission for diesel vehicles”, SAE Transaction 2001, paper no. 2001280044.

6. PL.S. Muthaiah, Dr.M. Senthil Kumar, Dr. S. Sendilvelan “CFD Analysis of catalytic converter to reduce particulate matter

and achieve limited back pressure in diesel engine”, Global journal of researches in engineering A: Classification (FOR)

091304,091399, Vol.10 Issue 5 (Ver1.0) October 2010.

7. P.R.Kamble and S.S. Ingle “Copper Plate Catalytic Converter: An Emission Control Technique”, SAE Number 2008-28-0104.

8. Eberhard Jacob, Rheinhard Lammermann, Andreas Pappenherimer, and Diether Rothe Exhaust Gas After treatment System

for Euro 4: Heavy Duty Engines – MTZ 6/2005.

9. Jacobs, T., Chatterjee, S., Conway, R., Walker, A., Kramer, J. and K. Mueller-Haas, Development Of a Partial Filter

Technology for Hdd Retrofit, Sae Technical Paper 2006-01-0213.

10. C. Lahousse, B. Kern,H. Hadrane and L. Faillon, “Backpressure Characteristics of Modern Three-way Catalysts”, Benefit on

Engine Performance, SAE Paper No. 2006011062,2006 SAE World Congress, Detroit, Michigan , April 36, 2006.

Documents

2. Automobile- IJAuERD - Experimental Analysis of Optimal .... Automobile- IJAuERD... · [email protected]