e-issn 2277-2685, p-issn 2320-9763 international journal ... 4 hjul13esr.pdf · international...

*Corresponding Author www.ijesr.org 342

IJESR/July 2013/ Vol-3/Issue-7/342-353 e-ISSN 2277-2685, p-ISSN 2320-9763

International Journal of Engineering & Science Research

CFD ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF EFFECT OF MANIFOLD

GEOMETRY ON VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY AND BACK PRESSURE FOR MULTI-

CYLINDER SI ENGINE

KS Umesh*1, VK Pravin

2, K Rajagopal

3

1Dept. of Mech. Engg, Thadomal Shahani Engineering College, Mumbai , Maharastra, India

2Dept. of Mech. Engg, P.D.A. College of Engg., Gulbarga, Karnataka, India.

3Former Vice Chancellor, JNT University, Hyderabad (AP), India.

ABSTRACT

In internal combustion engines, volumetric efficiency is one of the prime factors in determining how much power output

an engine can generate as compared to its capacity. The purpose of this research work is to investigate using CFD

whether design of exhaust manifold has any impact on volumetric efficiency of the multi-cylinder SI engine and if any

verify those results obtained through CFD analysis via actual experiments. The scope of the research is further stretched

to investigate whether exhaust geometry has any impact on mechanical efficiency of the multi-cylinder SI engine. Flow

of the exhaust gases through exhaust manifold is simulated using ANSYS FLUENT V12.0 using pressure and velocity

parameters as boundary condition. The analysis has been carried out on two designs an existing one and a modified one

and results are subsequently compared. It was observed that the volumetric efficiency improved drastically upon

modification in exhaust geometry. Physical models of the same these two systems were subsequently manufactured and

exhaustive experiments were carried out on them. The results obtained through CFD analysis were experimentally

confirmed.

Keywords: Exhaust Manifold, Volumetric Efficiency, Multi-cylinder Engine, ANSYS FLUENT, Existing model.

1. 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. 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.

When an engine starts its exhaust stroke, the piston moves up the cylinder bore, increasing the pressure. When the

exhaust valve opens, the high pressure exhaust gas enters into the exhaust manifold or header, 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 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. Thus back pressure is one of the most critical parameter for exhaust system. Also 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 a direct function of

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. One technique is tuned‐length primary tubes. This technique attempts to time the

occurrence of each exhaust pulse, to occur one after the other in succession while still in the exhaust system. The lower


Copyright © 2013 Published by IJESR. All rights reserved 343

pressure tail of an exhaust pulse then serves to create a greater pressure difference between the high pressure head of the

next exhaust pulse, thus increasing the velocity of that exhaust pulse.

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.

2. DISCUSSION

Model Description

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

Fig 1: Existing Model Fig 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. Modified

model has bend radius of 100 mm and exhaust is at the centre of header. ID & OD of the bend & exhaust is 35.08mm and

42.2mm respectively for both models.

3. METHODOLOGY

Both the models considered for this work were prepared using SOLIDWORKS. These models were imported into

ANSYS CFX V12.0. The fluid body was subsequently generated from existing models using design Modular in ANSYS

and subsequently meshed as shown in figures.

Fig 3: Fluid Body (Existing Model) Fig 4: Existing Manifold (After Meshing)



Fig 5: Fluid Body (Modified Model) Fig 6: Modified Manifold (After Meshing)

A steady state single‐species simulation will be carried out under isothermal conditions for exhaust gas. Turbulence will

be modeled by k-ε RNG turbulence model appropriate to account for high velocities and strong streamline curvature in

the flow domain. The reference pressure will be set at 1 atm and all pressure inputs and outputs will be obtained as gauge

values with respect to this.

4. 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 set at 0. And pressure distribution was obtained.

5. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

Two models considered for the work were manufactured. The material used for pipe was SA106 (Grade B). Flange

Material was IS 2062 (Grade B) . Elbows were manufactured using SA 234 WPB.

Fig 7: Existing model (left) and Modified Model (Right)



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

(1) The engine & dynamometer fitted together on common channel frame

(2) Fuel Consumption measuring unit & temperature measuring units

(3) Exhaust gas Calorimeter

(4) Orifice Meter

The experimental set up is shown in the figure.

Fig 8: Experimental set up

(a) Temperatures were measured at

(b) Exhaust Gas inlet to the calorimeter

(c) Exhaust gas outlet to calorimeter

(d) Water inlet to calorimeter

(e) Water outlet from Calorimeter

(f) 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

6. RESULTS

CFD analysis was carried out on both the models at 6 different loads. 2kg, 4kg, 6kg, 8kg, 10kg and 12 kg. The resulting

pressure contour for 4 kg loading is shown in the figure for both the models. The experiments were conducted with same

loading conditions on same two models and results obtained after the calculation are enlisted in following table

Fig 9: Pressure contours for existing and Modified Models

The experiments were conducted with same loading conditions on same two models and results obtained 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. The pressures P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and temperatures T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 were measured at exhaust manifold

and points where 4 inlet bends are attached to header. Velocity was calculated using ideal gas equation. These are

instantaneous velocities of exhaust gas at above mentioned points.

Table 3: Results of experiments conducted on existing Model

Column1

Unit 2 KG 4 KG 6 KG 8 KG 10 KG 12 KG

B.P. (kW) KW 1.119 2.238 3.357 4.476 5.595 6.71

Heat Equivalent Kj/min 67.14 134.2 201.4 268.5 335.7 402

Fuel Consumption cc/min 87.77 90.36 94.88 106.2 107.1 112

gm/min 61.43 63.25 66.41 74.34 74.97 78.8

Heat Supplied Kj/min 2777.5 2859.5 3002.5 3360.8 3389.2 3566

Heat Carried By water Kj/min 477.3 891 938.7 970.5 986.5 970.



MgCpg Kj/Kg C 1.446 1.185 1.377 1.545 1.64 1.72

Heat Carried by Exhaust Kj/min 407.8 426.6 526 599.5 623.2 629

Unaccounted Heat Loss Kj/min 1825 1407 1336 1522 1443 1564

Qs *10-3

m3 13.75 13.75 13.75 13.75 13.75 13.7

Qa *10-3

m3 8.068 7.606 8.714 9.696 10.24 10.9

Volumetric Efficiency 58.67 55.32 63.37 70.52 74.47 79.4

Air : Fuel Ratio 9.454 8.658 9.447 9.391 9.834 9.97

B.S.F.C. Kg-Hr/ KW 3.294 1.695 1.187 0.996 0.804 0.70

p1 mm of water 90 131 169 196 198 223

p2 mm of water 121 168 213 251 261 289

p3 mm of water 102 142 186 222 225 255

p4 mm of water 122 163 210 252 265 296

p5 mm of water 126 167 216 255 265 296

t1 Celsius 303 381 403 409 401 385

t2 Celsius 335 423 449 456 451 441

t3 Celsius 540 630 630 661 665 690

t4 Celsius 344 424 425 432 418 403

t5 Celsius 284 371 389 390 381 370

v1 m/s 15.87 16.92 19.97 22.36 23.33 24.2

v2 m/s 4.176 4.487 5.310 5.945 6.229 6.53

v3 m/s 5.594 5.836 6.658 7.638 8.098 8.84

v4 m/s 4.237 4.496 5.135 5.749 5.943 6.18

v5 m/s 3.824 4.152 4.868 5.405 5.625 5.88

ma + mf (Kg/s) *10-3

kg/s 10.70 10.18 11.56 12.87 13.53 14.4

Morse test(All Cylinder) Kg 2 4 6 8 10 12

Morse test (1st cylinder) Kg 1.4 2.95 4.6 6.2 7.4 8.8

Morse test(2nd cylinder) Kg 1.4 2.90 4.6 6.15 7.35 8.8

Morse test (3rd cylinder) Kg 1.35 2.85 4.55 6.1 7.35 8.85

Morse test (4th cylinder) Kg 1.35 2.85 4.6 6.1 7.35 8.85

I.P. (1st) Kw 0.400 0.65 0.783 1.225 1.55 1.80

I.P. (2nd) Kw 0.400 0.605 0.783 1.15 1.485 1.80

I.P. (3rd) 0.375 0.575 0.811 1.15 1.485 1.85

I.P. (4th) Kw 0.375 0.575 0.783 1.225 1.485 1.85

IP Kw 1.45 2.5 3.65 4.985 6.225 7.55

Mechanical Efficiency Percentage 80 88.75 94.16 93.12 93 90.8

Frictional Power Kw 0.223 0.251 0.195 0.307 0.391 0.61

Table 4: Results of experiments conducted on modified Model

Column1 Unit 2 KG 4 KG 6 KG 8 KG 10 KG 12 KG

B.P. (kW) KW 1.119 2.238 3.357 4.476 5.595 6.714

Heat Equivalent Kj/min 67.14 134.28 201.42 268.56 335.7 402.87

Fuel Consumption cc/min 114.5 122.14 123.96 131.59 133.9 136.36



gm/min 80.15 85.504 86.776 92.117 93.75 95.454

Heat Supplied Kj/min 3623.4 3865.4 3922.9 4164.4 4238 4315.2

Heat Carried By Water Kj/min 175.08 254.56 381.85 556.87 715.9 715.97

MgCpg Kj/Kg C 1.48 1.53 1.4248 1.6748 1.94 1.725

Heat Carried by

Exhaust

Kj/min 324.12 361.08 386.12 534.26 715.8 662.4

Unaccounted Heat Loss Kj/min 3057.0 3115.5 2953.5 2804.7 2470 2534.0

Qs *10-3

m3 13.75 13.75 13.75 13.75 13.75 13.75

Qa *10-3

m3 9.5 10.757 10.58 12.17 12.17 11.41

Volumetric Efficiency 69.090 78.232 76.945 88.509 88.50 82.981

Air : Fuel Ratio 8.534 9.0580 8.7784 9.5121 9.346 8.6064

B.S.F.C. Kg-Hr/ KW 4.2975 2.2923 1.5509 1.2348 1.005 0.8530

p1 mm of water 89 107 147 173 225 235

p2 mm of water 122 145 200 240 295 308

p3 mm of water 117 138 183 220 275 292

p4 mm of water 120 140 183 227 280 290

p5 mm of water 124 146 188 253 298 309

t1 Celsius 240 257 292 340 390 405

t2 Celsius 234 162 220 259 342 380

t3 Celsius 233 237 297 313 369 394

t4 Celsius 229 230 270 341 383 395

t5 Celsius 131 135 184 318 368 374

v1 m/s 16.646 19.440 20.306 25.281 27.21 26.065

v2 m/s 4.1001 3.9747 4.4079 5.4511 6.269 6.2339

v3 m/s 4.0939 4.6630 5.1044 6.0156 6.557 6.3770

v4 m/s 4.0604 4.5982 4.8626 6.2989 6.696 6.3877

v5 m/s 3.2665 3.7267 4.0906 6.0484 6.533 6.1761

ma + mf (Kg/s) *10-3

kg/s 12.735 14.333 14.142 16.139 16.16 15.282

Morse test(All Cylinder) Kg 2 4 6 8 10 12

Morse test (1st cylinder) Kg 1.4 2.95 4.6 6.2 7.4 8.8

Morse test(2nd cylinder) Kg 1.4 2.90 4.6 6.15 7.35 8.8

Morse test (3rd cylinder) Kg 1.4 2.85 4.55 6.1 7.35 8.85

Morse test (4th cylinder) Kg 1.35 2.85 4.6 6.1 7.35 8.85

I.P. (1st) Kw 0.400 0.65 0.783 1.225 1.55 1.80

I.P. (2nd) Kw 0.400 0.605 0.783 1.15 1.485 1.80

I.P. (3rd) 0.400 0.575 0.811 1.15 1.485 1.85

I.P. (4th) Kw 0.375 0.575 0.783 1.225 1.485 1.85

IP Kw 1.375 2.5 3.65 4.985 6.225 7.55

Mechanical Efficiency Percentage 77.5 90 90 91.25 93 90

Frictional Power Kw 0.25178 0.2238 0.3357 0.39165 0.3916 0.6714

Aim of the work was to verify all the results obtained through CFD analysis by experimentation. Thus the results

obtained through CFD analysis and experiments have been compared in following two tables for both the models at all

load conditions.



Table 5: Comparison between theoretical results (Using CFD) and Experimental results For existing Model

LOAD :

2 Kg

Distance

from Exhaust

Pressure

(Theoretical al)

Pressure

( Experimental)

Pressure

(Experimental)

Velocity

(theoretical al)

Velocity

(Experimental) Temperature

(Pascal) (mm of water) (Pascal ) (m/s) (m/s) (Celsius)

-0.0425 1275.3 121 1187.01 4.225 4.176 335

0.0425 1079.1 102 1000.62 5.412 5.594 540

0.1275 1275.3 122 1196.82 4.225 4.237 344

0.2125 1324.35 126 1236.06 3.485 3.824 284

LOAD :

4 Kg

Distance

from Exhaust

Pressure

(Theoretical al)

Pressure

( Experimental) Pressure(Experimental)

Velocity

(theoretical al)

Velocity



-0.0425 1579.41 168 1648.08 4.375 4.487 423

0.0425 1471.5 142 1393.02 5.45 5.836 630

0.1275 1579.41 163 1599.03 4.375 4.495 424

0.2125 1716.75 167 1638.27 4.02 4.152 371

LOAD :

6 Kg

Distance

from Exhaust

Pressure

(Theoretical al)

Pressure

( Experimental)

Pressure

(Experimental)

Velocity

(theoretical al)

Velocity



-0.0425 1962 213 2089.53 5.125 5.31 449

0.0425 1765.8 186 1824.66 5.994 6.658 630

0.1275 1962 210 2060.1 5.125 5.135 425

0.2125 2207.25 216 2118.96 4.758 4.868 389

LOAD :

8 Kg

Distance from Exhaust

Pressure (Theoretical al)

Pressure ( Experimental)

Pressure (Experimental)

Velocity (theoretical al)

Velocity (Experimental) Temperature


-0.0425 2345.4 251 2462.31 5.485 5.945556 456

0.0425 2256.3 222 2177.82 6.987 7.637981 661

0.1275 2345.4 252 2472.12 5.485 5.749286 432

0.2125 2599.65 255 2501.55 5.585 5.405275 390

Load:

10 Kg

Distance from Exhaust







-0.0425 2648.7 261 2560.41 5.8742 6.229889 451

0.0425 2452.5 225 2207.25 7.945 8.098267 665

0.1275 2648.7 265 2599.65 5.8742 5.943732 418

0.2125 2795.85 265 2599.65 5.45 5.625472 381

LOAD : 12

Kg

Distance

from Exhaust

Pressure

(Theoretical al)

Pressure

( Experimental) Pressure(Experimental)

Velocity

(theoretical al)

Velocity





-0.0425 2943 289 2835.09 6.027 6.537302 441

0.0425 2646 255 2501.55 8.2125 8.844842 690

0.1275 2943 296 2903.76 6.027 6.185387 403

0.2125 3041.125 296 2903.76 5.628 5.883437 370

Table 6: Comparison between theoretical results (Using CFD) and Experimental results For Modified Model

Model

Column1 Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6 Column7

LOAD :

2 Kg

Distance

from

Exhaust

Pressure

(Theoretical al)

Pressure

( Experimental) Pressure (Experimental)

Velocity

(theoretical al)

Velocity



-0.1275 1187.01 122 1196.82 3.96 4.100114 240

-0.0425 1177.2 117 1147.77 4.18 4.093944 234

0.0425 1177.2 120 1177.2 4.18 4.06044 233

0.1275 1187.01 124 1216.44 3.96 3.266541 229

LOAD :

4 Kg

Distance

from

Exhaust

Pressure

(Theoretical

al)

Pressure (

Experimental)

Pressure(Experimental

)

Velocity

(theoretical

al)

Velocity

(Experimental

)

Temperatur

e


-0.1275 1324.35 145 1422.45 4.15 3.97473 257

-0.0425 1314.54 138 1353.78 4.48 4.663078 162

0.0425 1314.54 140 1373.4 4.48 4.598215 237

0.1275 1324.54 146 1432.26 4.15 3.727674 230

LOAD :

6 Kg

Distance

from

Exhaust

Pressure

(Theoretical al)

Pressure


Velocity

(theoretical al)

Velocity



-0.1275 1863.9 200 1962 4.35 4.407936 292

-0.0425 1814.85 183 1795.23 5.025 5.104463 220

0.0425 1814.85 183 1795.23 5.025 4.862672 297

0.1275 1863.9 188 1844.28 4.35 4.090621 270

LOAD :

8 Kg

Distance

from

Exhaust

Pressure

(Theoretical al)

Pressure


Velocity

(theoretical al)

Velocity



-0.1275 2452.5 240 2354.4 5.5125 5.451164 340

-0.0425 2256.3 220 2158.2 6.125 6.01562 259

0.0425 2256.3 227 2226.87 6.125 6.298965 313

0.1275 2452.5 253 2481.93 5.5125 6.048429 341

LOAD :

10 Kg



Distance

from Exhaust


Pressure ( Experimental) Pressure (Experimental)




-0.1275 2943 295 2893.95 5.9875 6.269705 390

-0.0425 2795.85 275 2697.75 6.235 6.557043 342

0.0425 2795.85 280 2746.8 6.235 6.696941 369

0.1275 2943 298 2923.38 5.9875 6.532959 383

LOAD :

12 Kg

Distance

from

Exhaust

Pressure

(Theoretical al)

Pressure


Velocity

(theoretical al)

Velocity



-0.1275 3139.2 308 3021.48 6.1245 6.233964 405

-0.0425 2992.05 292 2864.52 6.69545 6.377008 380

0.0425 2992.05 290 2844.9 6.69545 6.387746 394

0.1275 3139.2 309 3031.29 6.1245 6.176116 395

7. OBSERVATION

From table 5 and 6 it can be easily concluded that experimental results matches with the results of CFD analysis. Also

pressure, velocity and temperature distribution in header is more uniform for modified design as compared to existing

design. For making conclusions most important observations are enlisted below.

Table 7: Results obtained for existing Model

Load(kg) Volumetric Efficiency Mechanical Efficiency BSFC (Kg-hr/kW)

2 58.67636 80 3.294316

4 55.32073 88.75 1.695764

6 63.37818 94.167 1.18706

8 70.52073 93.125 0.996515

10 74.47273 93 0.803968

12 79.44727 90.83 0.705004

Table 8: Results obtained for modified Model

Load(kg) Volumetric Efficiency Mechanical Efficiency BSFC (Kg-hr/kW)

2 69.09091 77.5 4.297587

4 78.23273 90 2.29234

6 76.94545 90 1.55096

8 88.50909 91.25 1.234824

10 88.50909 93 1.005358

12 82.98182 90 0.85303



Fig 10: Comparison between Volumetric Efficiency of two Models

Volumetric Efficiency VS Load

Fig 11: Comparison between Mechanical Efficiency of two models

8. CONCLUSION

From CFD analysis it was found that manifold geometry has a significant impact on the volumetric efficiency of the

engine. It was concluded that the modified design gives better volumetric efficiency. The results of CFD analysis were

subsequently proved by experimental analysis. Also more uniform pressure distribution and velocity distribution

obtained in modified model eases out the design procedure for the exhaust manifold. Also even though there was slight

variation in mechanical efficiency and brake specific fuel consumption (b.s.f.c.) the variation was found to be very small

and thus no conclusion can be drawn regarding effect of manifold geometry on mechanical efficiency and b.s.f.c. Thus

we conclude that Volumetric efficiency and thus power output of the engine can be improved significantly by

deployment of suggested modified design.

REFERENCES

[1] Muthaiah PLS, Kumar MS, Sendilvelan S. 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, 2010; 10(5).

[2] Kamble PR, Ingle SS. Copper Plate Catalytic Converter: An Emission Control Technique, SAE Number 2008-28-

0104.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15

Volumetric Efficiency

(Modified Model)

Volumetric Efficiency

(Existing Model)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15

Mechanical Efficiency

(Modified Model)

Mechanical

Efficiency(Existing

Model)



[3] Beardsley MB et al. Thermal Barrier Coatings for Low Emission, High Efficiency Diesel Engine Applications, SAE

Technical Paper 1999; 1: 2255.

[4] JacobE, Lammermann R, Pappenherimer A, Rothe D. Exhaust Gas After treatment System for Euro 4: Heavy Duty

Engines – MTZ 6/2005.

[5] Jacobs T, Chatterjee S, Conway R, Walker A, Kramer J, Mueller-Haas K. Development of a Partial Filter

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

[6] Lahousse C, Kern B, Hadrane H, Faillon L. Backpressure Characteristics of Modern Three-way Catalysts, Benefit

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

[7] Muramatsu G, Abe A, Furuyama M. Catalytic Reduction of Nox in Diesel Exhaust, SAE 930135, 1993.

[8] Heywood JB, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals (Tata McGrah Hill).

[9] Labhsetwar NK, Watanabe A, Mitsuhashi T. Possibilities of the application of catalyst technologies for the control

of particulate emission for diesel vehicles, SAE Transaction 2001.

[10] Biniwale R, Labhsetwar NK, Kumar R, Hasan MZ. A non-noble metal based catalytic converter for two strokes,

two-wheeler applications, SAE.

[11] Pravin VK, Umesh KS, Rajagopal K, Veena PH. Simulative Analysis of Flow through the Exhaust Manifold for

Improved Volumetric Efficiency of a Multi-Cylinder Petrol Engine 2012; 4(2): 119-126.

e-issn 2277-2685, p-issn 2320-9763 international journal ... 4 hjul13esr.pdf · international...

Documents