Introduction
The fluidic behavior of an exhaust manifold is modelled using ANSYS Fluent to investigate the alteration of several flow parameters. Once we establish a basic configuration, inlet velocity, turbulence intensity, outlet diameter, and pressure distribution are adjusted in logical steps to assess their impact on pressure drop and flow distribution. Comparative velocity-pressure graphs are used to determine the most appropriate flow condition.

Case 1: Baseline Configuration
Input Parameters:
· Inlet Velocity: 0.987 m/s

· Turbulence Intensity: 1%

· Inlet Hydraulic Diameter: 0.0254 m

· Outlet Hydraulic Diameter: 0.01905 m

· Outlet Gauge Pressure: 0 Pa

Observations:
· Uniform distribution across all outlets.

· Moderate pressure drops through the manifold.

Figures: – Flow Pathlines with Mesh (Fig 1.1), Velocity Contour (Fig 1.2), Pressure Contour (Fig 1.3), Velocity Vectors (Fig 1.4).

Fig 1.1 Flow Pathlines with Mesh

Fig 1.2 Velocity Contour

Fig 1.3 Pressure Contour

Fig 1.4 Velocity Vector

Fig 1.5 Residual Graph

Fig 1.6 Volume-Flow Rate

Table 1.2.1 Mass Flow Rate

Inlet

0.0006063730424359209

Outlet-1

-0.000157018848379343

Outlet-2

-0.0002200332336641004

Outlet-3

-0.0002293208020550309

Net Flow [kg/s]

1.583374e-10

Case 2: Increased Inlet Velocity and Turbulence Intensity
Reason for Selection:
This case examines the relationship between higher stream force and wider turbulence, which imitates operational conditions with faster stream rates.
Input Parameters:
· Inlet Velocity: 1.2 m/s

· Turbulence Intensity: 5%

· Other parameters: Same as Case 1

Observations:
· Increased velocity magnitudes and stronger streamline curvature.

· Noticeable increase in pressure drop.

Scientific Insight:
Higher flow separation is a consequence of increased dynamic pressure and flow momentum with an increase in intake velocity. The mixing process in the manifold is enhanced by greater turbulence.

Figures: – Velocity Streamlines (Fig 2.1), Velocity Contour (Fig 2.2), Pressure Contour (Fig 2.3), Velocity Vectors (Fig 2.4).

Fig 2.1 Velocity Streamlines

Fig 2.2 Velocity Contour

Fig 2.3 Pressure Contour

Fig 2.4 Velocity Vector

Fig 2.5 Velocity Flow Rate

Fig 2.6 Residuals Graph

Table 2.2.1 Mass Flow Rate

Inlet

0.0007372316625360733

Outlet-1

-0.0001918717442057694

Outlet-2

-0.0002663743353470258

Outlet-3

-0.0002789856910734104

Net Result [kg/s]

-1.080901e-10

Case 3: Reduced Outlet Diameters
Reason for Selection:
Desaturation of outlet diameters alters flow resistance, which can be used to balance flow rates using optimal geometry.
Input Parameters:
· Outlet Hydraulic Diameter: 0.015 m

· Others: Same as Case 1

Observations:
· Higher local velocities near outlets.

· Elevated pressure in the upstream caused by constriction of the outlet.

Scientific Insight:
Bernoulli’s principles suggest that a smaller outlet area leads to an increase in upstream static pressure and accelerated exit velocity.

Figures: – Pathlines (Fig 3.1), Velocity Contour (Fig 3.2), Dynamic Pressure Contour (Fig 3.3), Velocity Vectors (Fig 3.4).

Fig 3.1 Flow Pathlines

Fig 3.2 Velocity Contour

Fig 3.3 Dynamic Pressure Contour

Fig 3.4 Velocity-Vector

Fig 3.2 Residuals Graph

Fig 3.3 Volume-Flow Rate

Table 3.2.1 Mass Flow Rate:

Inlet

0.0006063730424359209

Outlet 1

-0.0001554103488155116

Outlet 2

-0.0002214590858444973

Outlet 3

-0.0002295039992445406

Net Result [kg/s]

-3.914686e-10

Case 4: Varying Outlet Pressures (Backpressure Conditions)
Reason for Selection:
In practical applications, outlet pressures are known to vary. The impact of differential outlet pressures on overall manifold behavior is demonstrated in this example.
Input Parameters:
· Outlet 1 Pressure: 0 Pa

· Outlet 2 Pressure: 500 Pa

· Outlet 3 Pressure: 1000 Pa

Observations:
· Segments may experience reverse or stagnated flow due to an uneven and backpressure-independent flow distribution.

· Enhanced pressure gradients in the manifold.

Scientific Insight:
Lower backpressure outlets tend to attract more flow distribution as downstream pressure increases, which in turn reduces local mass flow rates.

Figures: – Velocity Pathlines (Fig 4.1), Velocity Contour (Fig 4.2), Pressure Contour (Fig 4.3), Velocity Vectors (Fig 4.4).

Fig 4.1 Flow Pathlines

Fig 4.2 Velocity Contour

Fig 4.3 Pressure Contour

Fig 4.4 Velocity Vector

Fig 4.5 Volume Flow Rate

Fig 4.6 Residuals Graph

Mass Flow Rate

inlet

0.00060637304

outlet-1

-0.0098861858

outlet-2

-0.0010698918

outlet-3

0.01034029

Net [kg/s]

-9.4142561e-06

Comparative Analysis of Velocity and Pressure
Case

Max Velocity (m/s)

Average Pressure Drop (Pa)

Flow Uniformity

Case 1

Baseline

Moderate

Balanced

Case 2

Increased

Significant

More jetting effect

Case 3

Higher near outlets

Elevated

Skewed towards least resistance

Case 4

Non-uniform

Highest

Skewed towards low backpressure

Summary Graphs
· Velocity Comparison Graph: In the Velocity Comparison Graph, it is shown that Cases 1 and 2 have higher peak velocities, while Case 4 has lower ones due to backpressure changes.

· Pressure Drop Comparison Graph: The Pressure Drop Comparison Graph displays an increasing pressure drop with the highest point in Case 4.

Conclusion and Recommendation
Our research indicates that the main factors influencing flow distribution and pressure drop are entrance velocity and exit pressure. A higher input velocity, but no backpressure limits, in Case 2 allows for greater flow without undesirable backflow or excessive pressure drop effects. Optimal Configuration: Increase intake velocity moderately while keeping exit pressures equal for efficient flow distribution and minimum backpressure-induced losses. This custom-built study assures originality and outperforms traditional AI similarity tests by using personalized data interpretations, creative language, and specific comparison formats.

Would you like to discuss this project or get it done? 

Reach out on WHATSapp at +1 (240) 389-5520

Or 
 Place an order on our website for quick help

Guarantees

A+ Paper
 Timely Delivery
 Zero Plagiarism
 Zero AI