PARAMETRIC STUDY OF FLOW THROUGH ENGINE EXHAUST

PORT USING CFD

Gade Upender Rao1, S. Murali 2, Dr. N.V. Marathe 3, Dr. K. Madhu Murthy 4
M.Tech Student,NIT,Warangal 1, Mechanical Engineering Department , JPNCE,
Mahabubnagar 2, Dr. N.V. Marathe, Deputy Director, HOD - Engine Development
Laboratory, ARAI Pune 3, Mechanical Engineering Department, NIT,Warangal 4.

ABSTRACT
The application of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in the study of the performance of the exhaust
process of an internal combustion engine is gaining importance. The study included the effect of various
geometrical parameters, like valve boss height variation, Port height variation, seat angle variation on the
exhaust port performance. The simulation was performed using AVL-FIRE Software with k- turbulence
model. Experiments were conducted on exhaust port flow box to measure the mass flow rate at 4 nondimensional valve lifts. The simulated mass flow rates were validated with experimental values and the
agreement was within 6%. Increase of port height resulted in maximum performance compared to other
parameters. The performance of the port was also evaluated at various pressure drops across the port.

1. INTRODUCTION
The design of the exhaust process in a four-stroke
engine is a challenging task for any engine designer.
Numerous developments have taken place in gas exchange
system design for increased performance under global
regulations. In order to increase the breathing capacity of the
engine it is most important to reduce the resistance for flow
in the port area. Figure (1) shows the geometric parameters of
a poppet valve head and its seat.
Computational fluid dynamics is increasingly employed
in internal combustion engine researches[1]. A parametric
flow study has been presented in this paper at various valve
lifts by considering the following parameters.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Increase in valve boss height (3mm)

Decrease in valve boss height (3mm)
Increase in port height by 5mm
Diffuser portion area reduction.
With various seat angle configuration (300,450 and
600).

In addition to above parametric study, the analysis is

carried out to assess the effect of variation of pressure drop
across the port on the flow rate at various valve lifts.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Figure 2: Flow test rig to measure mass flow rate through

Exhaust Port
The standard ARAI flow test rig[2] available in the
engine development lab (EDL) is used to conduct the study
Figure 1: Parameters defining Poppet Valve head and its seat

flow test. The flow rig consists of flow box or cylinder head,
cylinder liner, pressure tank or settling tank, blower, water
column U-tube manometers and electrical control panel. Air
at room temperature is used as the working fluid. The
schematic diagram of the experimental set up is shown in
Figure 2.
2.1 Flow Box
In order to make the flow box, the wooden of
exhaust port is made using special purpose wood called Ciba
Giagy. This wooden pattern flow box is a very accurate
model of the exhaust port, which incorporates a real valve
and valve seat. The central core of the flow box is made up of
thermosetting resin and outside core (thickness of 10-12mm)
is made up of aluminum for providing strength to the central
resin core and should have exactly flat surfaces after
machining so that air may not leak.

Steady flow measurements at actual engine

conditions (corresponding to blow down period and exhaust
period) cannot be carried out at the present test bench. In fact,
the flow rate through exhaust port is mainly dependent on the
port shape for small pressure drops and more over, it is
mainly determined by the section of minimum area when the
critical pressure ratio is exceeded. Therefore, mass flow rates
are measured at a pressure drop of 500mm of water across the
flow box corresponding to a pressure ratio of 0.95 between
atmosphere and the cylinder liner. This specific value of
pressure drop to be applied across the flow box is given by
the present test bed design.
While conducting the test, care is taken to place the
flow box model on the cylinder liner such that their center
lines are coincided with each other and no air leakage through
flow box split portion. The repeatability of the experiment is
observed with in 1%.

2.2 Cylinder Liner

3.1 Flow Rate And Discharge Co-Efficients

The cylinder liner used in this study is an actual

model of the engine cylinder with same bore diameter but its
length is 2.5 times the cylinder bore size. The length of the
cylinder liner is adjusted in order to avoid the influence of
outlet condition on the flow in the measurement plane.

The mass flow rate through a port-valve gap[3] is

usually described by the equation for isentropic compressible
flow through a restriction,

2.3 Pressure Tank Or Settling Tank

The pressure tank or settling tank is used as pressure
reservoir that will supply the air to flow box through cylinder
liner continuously at a pressure 500mm of water. It has a
volume of 200 liters. It dampens pulsations caused by the
blower so that a constant pressure difference between tank
and ambient is measured using a water column U-tube
manometer.
2.4 Blower
The blower is having variable speed drive (with
maximum rpm of 2910) to adjust and get the required
pressure rise in the pressure tank. The blower speed is
controlled by using electrical panel.

m& theoretica l

A p p
= V 0 1
RT0 p 0

(k 1)

k
2 k p1

k
1

(1)

Where, AV is the reference cross sectional area. P0 and T0

are the upstream pressure and temperature, P1 is the
downstream pressure, R is the gas constant and k is the ratio
of the specific heats.
For incompressible flow the theoretical mass flow
rate would be,

m&

th e o r e tic a l

= AV

2 p

(2)

Where, = air density in the cylinder, kg / m3 .

p p
0 0

p0

1/ k

(3)

m = average air density, kg / m3

3. TEST PROCEDURE
The test set up is calibrated using the master cylinder
head before starting the actual test on the exhaust port flow
box. Steady flow tests are performed by placing the flow box
on to the top of the cylinder liner, which is placed on the top
of the pressure tank. The cylinder liner used in this study has
a diameter of 86mm. The pressure tank is pressurized to
500mm of water above atmospheric pressure with an
electrically driven blower. The flow rate into the tank is
controlled by varying the speed of the blower and is
measured across the sharp edge orifice using water column
manometer. The pressure difference between tank and
ambient is measured using a manometer. The test is carried
out to measure the flow rate at different non-dimensional
valve lifts ranging from 0.10 to 0.29.

1
(O + )
2

(4)

Po
RTo

(5)

o = ambient air density, kg / m3

=

TO = ambient temperature, K
R = gas constant for air, J/kg.K
Av = reference area, m2
P0 = ambient pressure, pa
p = pressure drop, pa
The difference between the compressible and in
compressible equations is very small at low pressure and
hence, the incompressible equation is used throughout the
study.

measured mass flow rate through the exhaust port at various

valve lifts. These measurements are mode on the port when
air directly flows into the ambient. From the measured mass
flow rate, exhaust port flow co-efficients are calculated at
above-mentioned four valve lifts and are shown in figure 4.
0.060
Measured Mass Flow Rate (kg/s)

For a given valve and cylinder head port design it is

possible to measure the air passing through the whole
port/valve combination at a range of lifts from zero to the full
designed lift. In order to make comparisons for different
designs and engine sizes these lift/flow figures are often
converted into flow co-efficient. Which are plotted against a
non-dimensional valve lift which is merely the actual lift
divided by the inner valve seat diameter.
Valve lift
L
=
(6)
Ds inner valve seat diameter

The flow coefficient CF is a dimensionless flow

quality factor, which is defined as the ratio of the actual mass
flow rate (or volume flow rate) to the theoretical mass flow
rate (or theoretical volume flow rate) for the same boundary
conditions

m&
m&

a c tu a l

th e o r e tic a l

0.055
0.050
0.045
0.040
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.10

Q& a c t u a l

(7)

Q& t h e o r e t i c a l

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Non-dimensional Valve Lift (L/D s)

Figure 3: Measured exhaust port mass flow rates at four valve

lifts

Where,

m& actual = measured mass flow rate, kg/s

=

2
d
4

0.65
0.60

d = orifice diameter, m
V = velocity across orifice, m/s =

2 g h air
2

g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81), m/s

0.45
0.40

0.25
0.10

0.1 5

0 .2 0

0 .2 5

0 .3 0

Non-dim ensional V alve Lift (L/D S )

Figure 4: Calculated flow coefficients at four valve lifts

= water column, m

The mean flow co-efficient is observed to be around

0.51. From the above graph it is clear that port flow coefficient is a function of valve lift and it increases with
increase of valve lift.

= density of water, kg/m

m& theoretical = theoretical air mass flow rate, kg/s

Q&
= actual volume flow rate, m3/s

4. COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS

actual

Q& theoretical = theoretical volume flow rate, m3/s

V0 = theoretical air velocity, m/s =

= AV.V0

2 p

p = pressure drop across port, pa

m = average air density, kg/m3

DS 2
4
DS = inner valve seat diameter, m
AV = reference area, m

0.50

0.30

h air = equivalent air column, m

H 2O

0.55

0.35

H O
h air =h H2O 2 -1 , m
O
h H 2O

0.70

Flow Coefficient

A = orifice area, m2

0.75

= 0 A V

3.2 Experimental Results

Steady state port mass flow rates are measured at 4

valve lifts (L/Ds = 0.10, 0.16, 0.23 and 0.29) at a pressure
drop of 500mm of water across the port. Figure (3) shows the

In order to simulate the steady state flow through

engine exhaust port, k turbulence model[4] is used in the
computations. The simulation is governed by a set of coupled
differential equations: the conservation of mass, the
conservation of momentum in three coordinate directions and
the ideal gas equations. As the temperature effects are not
important for present study and more over study is conducted
at room temperature the energy equation is decoupled from
simulation.
4.1 Model Form Of The Mean Flow Equations

All the equations in Cartesian coordinates can be

written inthe transport form

+
t
x j

( )

u j
= S

x
j

(8)

4.2 Numerical Discritization And Solution Procedure

The discritization of the general transport equation

(8) is done based on the implicit finite volume method[5].
The finite volume method has the ability to preserve the
conservation property as these are formulated by integral
approach. Therefore the flow area is subdivided into a general
convex polyhedron, i.e., a control volume bounded by an
arbitrary number of planar or even non-planar surfaces as
shown in figure. (5). Fiinite volume approach is applied to
integrate each term of the differential equations over the
surrounding control volume.

0.055
0.050
Mass flow rate (kg/s)

Where, is the average dependent flow field

variable as obtained from equation 8 and in the case of mass
conservation equation represents u1, u2, u3, k, and f
whereas is the turbulent exchange coefficient and S the
corresponding source term.

0.045
0.040
0.035
0.030

CFD Simulation
Experiment

0.025
0.020
0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Non-dimensional valve lift

Figure 6: Measured and simulated mass flow rates for

baseline
Model
0.70
0.65
0.60
Flow coefficient

0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40

CFD Simulation
Experiment

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Non-dimensional valve lift

Figure 7: Flow coefficients of port from measurement and

simulation

Figure 5: General control volume

Equation (9) represents this integration for a quantity
located in p. The dependent variables are averaged over
the scalar control volume around P.
d
dt

6 PARAMETRIC STUDY
6.1 Valve Boss Height Change

nf

( ) dV + ( )u dA =
j =1 A f

nf

j =1 A f

dA +
x j

S dV +

(9)

nf

j =1 A f

S dA

5. VALIDATION WITH EXPERIMENT

Figure (6) gives the mass flow rates through the

exhaust port, while figure (7) shows the flow co-efficients of
the port from experiment and simulation at four nondimensional valve lifts, namely L/Ds = 0.10, 0.16, 0.23 and
0.29 for base line model. It is evident from the graphs that
the simulated values are higher than the measured values.
From the graph (7), it is also clear that the flow co-efficient is
a function of valve lift and it increases with increase of the
valve lift.

The decrease of valve boss height enhanced the mass

flow rate through port approximately 3.5% during the first
three lifts and at higher lift the flow rate is almost equal to
baseline model (figure 8). The decrease of valve boss height
has narrowed the port area in the bend portion and also
provided the smooth curvature. Narrowing the port area in
bend portion has reduced the flow separation over first three
lifts and it is eliminated at high lift.
For valve boss height increased case, mass flow rates
through port are reduced over middle lifts (% at L/Ds = 0.16
and 5 at L/Ds = 0.23) and some flow rate enhancement is also
observed at high lift. But the flow enhancement at high lift is
very much lower than the flow rate decrease in middle lifts.
Increase of valve boss height widened the port section in
bend portion, which reduced the flow rate due to flow losses
as a result of flow separation.
Generally mean flow co-efficient is used as a port
performance parameter and is also used to adjust the valve lift
curve. Hence, a comparison of mean flow co-efficients is

presented for all models. The mean flow co-efficients for

45o). But in middle lifts (L/Ds = 0.16 and 0.23) the decrease
in mass

0.060

0.060

0.055
0.050
Mass flow rate (kg/s)

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

0.050
0.045
0.040
0.035

0.030

Baseline

Boss height increase

Boss height decrease
Baseline

0.030

0.040

0.020

Port height increase

0.010

0.025

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.05

Non-dimensional valve lift

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Non-dimensional valve lift

0.35

Figure 10 Comparison of mass flow rates for base line model

Figure 8: Mass flow rates for baseline, VBH increase and

decrease models
baseline, valve boss height decrease and valve boss height
increase models are shown in Figure (9). It is observed that
increase for VBH decrease model the port performance is
decreased by 2.7% and for VBH increase model the port
performance is decreased by 1.7% as compared to baseline
model performance.
0.560

Mean flow coefficient

0.550

0.540

0.530

Figure 11: Mean flow coefficients for baseline and port

height increase

0.520

0.510

0.500

Boss height
increase

Boss height
decrease

0.060

Baseline

0.055

6.2 Port Height Increase

Increase of port height enhanced the mass flow rate

through port by about 5 % (Figure10.) The increase of mass
flow rate is more for last two lifts than for first two lifts. The
increase in mass flow rate is due to reduced flow separation at
higher lifts as a result of the alignment of flow direction and
geometry. The port performance is also increased by 5.3%
compared to baseline model (Figure11).
6.3 Seat Angle Change

Figure 12. shows the mass flow rates through

exhaust port for different seat angle configurations. For seat
angle configuration 300, at low and high lifts, the mass flow
rate is almost same as that of the baseline model (seat angle

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

0.050

Figure 9: Mean flow coefficients for baseline, VBH increase

and VBH decrease

0.045
0.040
0.035
0

Seat angle 30
0
Seat angle 45
0
Seat angle 60

0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Non-dimensional valve lift

Figure 12: Mass flow rates of port for various seat angle
configurations
flow rates of 5.6% and 3.1% are observed. The decrease in
mass flow rates in middle lifts may be due to the flow
separation from port walls near port throat section (Figure13).
In case of seat angle configuration 60o, a completely
different trend is observed. The mass flow rate decreases by
21% for first two lifts and increase of 5% for remaining two
lifts. Flow rate decrease in low lifts (L/Ds = 0.10 and 0.16) is
attributed to flow separation from port walls near throat

section (figure 14). The increase in mass flow rate in higher

lift (L/Ds =0.29) is due to very low flow detachment as seen
in figure 15. Mean flow-efficients for seat angle
configuration 300,450 and 600 are shown in Figure 16. From
this figure, it is clear that the port performance for seat angle
configuration 450 seems to be better than other seat angle
configurations (about 2.5% more than that of 300 model and
5% more than that of 600 model).

Figure 16: Mean flow cofficients for seat angle configerations

30 o , 45 o and 60 o
6.4 Diffuser Area Change

Figure 13: Velocity profile at L/DS = 0.16 for seat angle 30 o

model

The reduction of port outlet area to inlet area ratio

from 1.35 to 1.22 has reduced the port performance by 3%
(Figure17). This may be due to increased frictional losses as a
result of reduced flow area.

0.53

Mean flow coefficient

0.53
0.52
0.52
0.51
0.51
0.50
Diffuser area
reduction by 17%

Figure 14: Velocity profile at L/DS = 0.10 for seat angle 60o
model

Baseline

Figure17: Mean flow coefficients

6.5 Change Of Pressure Difference Across The Port

Figure 15: Velocity profile at L/DS = 0.29 for seat angle 60 o

model

Flow co-efficients of the exhaust port are plotted at

four valve lifts and three pressures across the exhaust port to
generate the flow co-efficient matrix as shown in Figure 18.
Port flow co-efficient is thus a function of valve lift and
pressure drop across the port. Note that the mean flow coefficient increases from 0.382 to 0.582 when pressure drop is
increased from 250mm of water to 750mm of water. It is
difficult to say what the flow co-efficients will be at much
higher pressure drops found in engines, but this data clearly
shows that flow co-efficients may be a function of pressure
drop. This evidence also shows that testing at a single
pressure drop across the port may be misleading for the
experimental development of the gas flow characteristics of
valve operated ports as a means of enhancing engine
performance.

when the pressure drop across the port is raised from 250mm
of water to 750mm of water.
4. Flow co-efficients of port seems to be a function of valve
lift and pressure drop across the port. It is observed that mean
flow co-efficient has been increased from 0.382 to 0.582
when the pressure drop across the port is raised from 250mm
of water to 750mm of water.

0.8
0.7

Flow Coefficient

0.6
0.5

Acknowledgements

0.4
0.3
250 m m of water
0.2
500 m m of water
0.1

750 m m of water

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

The authors acknowledge the help and facilities

extended by National Institute of Technology, Warangal &
ARAI Pune and encouragement provided by Jayaprakash
Narayan College of Engineering, Mahabubnagar in preparing
this paper.

No n -d im e n s io n a l va lv e lift

Figure 18: Flow coefficients as a function of pressure drop

and valve lift

8. REFERENCES

1.

Modeling Using CFD, 2004-01-0109, 2004.

7. CONCLUSIONS

1. The increase of valve boss height has reduced the overall

mass flow rate through exhaust port by 2.5% from baseline
model. But the increase of port height and decrease of valve
boss height enhanced the port performance by 5% and 2.7%
respectively from baseline model. The increase of port
performance for latter cases may be due to proper alignment
of flow direction with port geometry.
2. The change of seat angle from 450 to 300 has reduced the
port performance approximately by 2.5%. This is due to low
mass flow rates in middle lifts as a result of flow losses near
throat section of port due to flow detachment.
3. Increase of seat angle from 450 to 600 has also reduced the
port performance significantly (approximately 5%). This may
be due to very low mass flow rates at L/Ds = 0.10 and 0.16 as
a result of high flow separation from port walls near throat
section. For the last two lifts flow rate is more from450model
due to very low flow detachment from port walls at throat
section but still this increase is very low compared to flow
rate decrease during first two lifts.
4. Flow co-efficients of port seems to be a function of valve
lift and pressure drop across the port. It is observed that mean
flow co-efficient has been increased from 0.382 to 0.582

Fyhr, C., and Dahlberg, O., Complete Engine

2.

Gade Uendar Rao, A Dissertation on parametric

study of flow through engine exhaust port using
CFD,

M.Tech

thesis,

Dept.

of

Mechanical

engineering, NIT, Warangal, August 2005.

3.

Blair,

G.

P.,

Raghunathan,

Lau,
B.

D.

H.

B.,

and

Cartwright,

Mackey,

D.

A.,
O.,

Coefficients of Discharge at the Aperatures of

Engines, SAE paper 952138, 1995.
4.

Bianchi, G. M., Cantore, G., and Fontanesi, S.,

Turbulence Modelling of ICE Intake Flows: The
Discharge Coefficient Prediction, 2002-01-1118,
2002.

5.

Patankar, S. V., Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid

Flow, Taylor @ Francis publications, 2004.