Intake Manifold Design for a Formula Student Vehicle

Ujjwal Aashray, Parth Dharsandia

SEM- 4

Force Ikshvaku

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,

NIE, Mysore

aashray.trakroo@gmail.com

parthchelsea15@gmail.com

Abstract- This paper describes the design and analysis procedure
for the intake manifold for a Formula Student Vehicle. The design
is influenced by the restrictions provided in the rule book for the
FS event, namely Formula Bharat. The intake thus designed saw
use on the FI04; the fourth FS car from the team.
I. INTRODUCTION
The air intake design for a formula student vehicle is
primarily focussed on tackling the design constraints as
per the event rulebook. The rulebook states that all the
air to be fed into the engine should pass through a
circular orifice 20mm in diameter called the restrictor.
The presence of the restrictor in the intake manifold if
not managed properly can adversely affect the engine
performance with a significant drop in volumetric
efficiency and the subsequent power output.
In a naturally aspirated engine, the engine creates a low
pressure during the intake stroke, causing the air from
the atmosphere to enter the cylinders. The higher the
rpm, the greater the pull, and the higher the pressure
created inside the cylinder. According to the
stoichiometric air-fuel ratio, to burn 1 gram of gasoline
14.7 grams of air is required. By reducing the diameter
of the flow path from 46mm to 20mm, the flow cross-
section area gets reduced substantially. At low rpms of
the engine when the engine requires less air, the
reduction in area is compensated by the accelerated flow
of air through the throat (20mm section). But since the
car is designed to run at high rpm’s (6,000rpm to
10,000rpm with the restrictor attached, the flow at the
throat reaches near sonic velocities
(Critical Flow condition), and therein lays the problem.
Critical Flow exists when the mass flow is the maximum
possible for the existing upstream conditions, and the
average velocity closely approximates the local sonic
velocity (speed of sound in air ≈ 330m/s, or Mach 1)
Since the maximum mass flow rate is now a fixed
parameter because of the restrictor, the aim is to allow
the engine to achieve the maximum mass flow with
minimal pull from the engine. In short, the pressure
difference between atmosphere and the pressure created
in the cylinder should be minimal, so that maximum
airflow into the engine is ensured at all times.
The team currently uses a single cylinder fuel injected
DOHC KTM Duke 390 engine [2014 series] which
produces a peak power of 43hp at 9500 rpm and a peak
torque of 28 Nm at 7000 rpm with a cylinder volume of
373.2 cc. The stock 6 speed transmission is mated with
the engine as of now with a primary reduction of 30:80.
The drive train employs a chain drive with an open
differential.
Fig. 1 Intake Manifold for the FI03
II. DESIGN OBJECTIVES

The design objectives for the intake manifold design are as
follows:
• Minimize pressure loss, as pressure loss results in a decrease
in output power.
• Maintain equal static pressure distribution in the plenum.
• Minimize the number of bends and sudden changes in
geometry, as these geometric affects can cause pressure loss.
• Maximize air velocity and mass flow into the cylinder, as
this provides a better mixture of fuel and air, which results in
better combustion and performance.
• Minimize the mass of the system; a common goal of every
subsystem of the vehicle.
The design of the intake manifold is majorly dependent on the
target RPM range of the engine. Since the car will mostly be
performing in the RPM range of 6000 to 10,000 rpm at the
event, the intake is designed for an rpm of 7000 rpm. The
driving factor behind it is the fact that the KTM engine gives
the maximised torque output at 7000 rpm since we still use the
stock KTM ECU.
III. DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
The FS rulebook specifies the following design constraints for
the intake manifold design:
 All parts of the engine air and fuel control systems
(including the throttle and the complete air intake
system, including the air filter and any air boxes) must
lie within the surface defined by the top of the roll bar
and the outside edge of the four tires.
 Any portion of the air intake system that is less than
350mm above the ground must be shielded from side
or rear impact collisions.
 The intake manifold must be securely attached to the
engine block or cylinder head with brackets and
mechanical fasteners. The threaded fasteners used to
secure the intake manifold are considered critical
fasteners.
 Intake systems with significant mass or cantilever
from the cylinder head must be supported to prevent
stress to the intake system. Supports to the engine
must be rigid. Supports to the frame or chassis must
incorporate isolation to allow for engine movement
and chassis.
 In order to limit the power capability from the engine,
a single circular restrictor must be placed in the intake
system and all engine airflow must pass through the
restrictor. The only allowed sequence of components
are the following:
For naturally aspirated engines, the sequence must be: throttle
body, restrictor, and engine. The maximum restrictor diameters
which must be respected at all times during the competition are:
(a) Gasoline fuelled vehicles - 20mm
(b) E-85 fuelled vehicles - 19mm
IV. DESIGN
For the sake of localizing design objectives; the intake manifold
is divided into three main components:
 The Restrictor
 The Plenum
 The Runner
Each of the aforementioned components of the intake manifold
has their performance interdependent on the others.
For obtaining optimum performance from the intake manifold
as a whole, each of the components is studied individually and
then the overall manifold geometry is analysed.
V. THE RESTRICTOR
The restrictor by definition is a circular profile of diameter 20
mm, through which all the airflow to the engine is supposed to
pass.
The restrictor is mostly realised in design in the form of a
Orifice or a Venturi.
An orifice plate is a thin plate with a hole in the centre. It is
usually placed in a pipe in which fluid flows. When the fluid
reaches the orifice plate, the fluid is forced to converge to go
through the small hole; the point of maximum convergence
actually occurs shortly downstream of the physical orifice, at
the so-called vena contracta. As it does so, the velocity and the
pressure change. Beyond the vena contracta, the fluid expands
and the velocity and pressure change once again. By measuring
the difference in fluid pressure between the normal pipe section
and at the vena contracta, the volumetric and mass flow rates
can be calculated.
The Venturi tube or simply a Venturi is a tubular setup of
converging and diverging conical sections. The Venturi effect
is a jet effect; as with a funnel the velocity of the fluid increases
as the cross sectional area decreases, with the static pressure
correspondingly decreasing. According to the laws governing
fluid dynamics, a fluid’s velocity must increase as it passes
through a constriction to satisfy the principle of continuity,
while its pressure must decrease to satisfy the principle of
conservation of mechanical energy. Thus a drop in pressure
negates any gain in kinetic energy a fluid may accrue due to its
increased velocity through a constriction.
The team currently makes use of a venturi type restrictor
instead of an orifice type because of a much higher discharge
coefficient. This also allows for better plenum filling as
compared to the orifice type.
The optimum solution to achieve maximum possible mass flow
rate of air as quickly as possible is to minimize the pressure loss
through the flow restriction device. The best general design for
this objective is to use the Venturi design. From the data
gathered through the numerous simulations, it can be observed
that the values for converging angle and diverging angle of the
Venturi are 18 degrees and 6 degrees respectively. This also
prevents flow separation along the venturi walls.
Fig. 2 Venturi Type Restrictor
VI. THE PLENUM
The plenum or the air box has a primary purpose of storing a
surplus amount of air. Since the intake manifold has a restrictor
upstream the plenum, the effect of the restrictor can be nullified
to a large extent by an efficient plenum design.
The purpose of the plenum is to fill up faster than the discharge
time during the intake stroke such that the presence of the
upstream restrictor doesn’t affect the mass flow to the engine.
Hence the plenum volume and geometry also plays an
important role in intake manifold design. The plenum design
can further be pursued in two ways; one is to design it for rapid
filling and discharge such that the plenum volume can be
decreased to some extent. Another is to compromise a bit on the
filling time and go for a higher plenum volume [2x to 3x engine
volume] so that even a slower fill up is covered up by the excess
volume. Design of the second type exhibits a lesser dependence
on the plenum geometry and calls in for a relatively simpler
analysis and is hence preferred by majority of the FS teams
including us.
VII. RUNNER
The runner is the final part of the intake manifold that feeds
directly to the intake port at the engine. The performance of the
entire intake manifold is largely dependent on the runner
geometry: the runner length and the runner diameter; out of
which the runner length is the more dominant feature.
During the intake stroke, piston descends and creates a low
pressure region in the cylinder. This generates an expansion
wave that propagates to the intake pipe. When the expansion
wave reaches the plenum; a bigger volume junction, it reflects
back to the inlet valves as compression wave as if pressure
reflection at the sudden expansion junction. If the arriving of a
compression wave at intake valves is at the short period before
intake valve closing, IVC, the intake mass flow rate into the
engine can be maximized.
The runner length is calculated based on two theories: The
Helmholtz Resonator Theory and the Vizard’s Rule.
David Vizard's Rule for IM Runner Length states that we begin
with a runner length of 17.8 cm for a 10,000 rpm peak torque
location, from the intake opening to the plenum chamber. Then
we keep on adding 4.3 cm to the runner length for every 1000
rpm that want the peak torque to occur before the 10,000 rpm.
Helmholtz Resonator is an acoustic resonance chamber (as
described by the plenum above) that modifies the acoustic
frequency of a sound wave like a spring oscillating with a mass
attached on the end. A Helmholtz resonator is used not only in
an automotive induction system but also in the designing of
exhausts to suppress sound. The Helmholtz resonator theory
treats the engine as the resonator and again gives results for the
runner length as a function of the engine RPM.
 Fig. 3 Runner Length vs. Engine RPM by Vizard’s Rule and Helmholtz
Theory

The runner length values from the two abovementioned

theories yield converging results for the runner length at
304mm at 7000 rpm as shown in the plot.

VIII. PROTOTYPING

All these parameters call for intensive analysis of each design

iteration of the intake manifold. Three intake prototypes with
varying plenum volumes and venturi geometries were designed
and fabricated and the results indicate a correct approach
towards a better intake. The first intake prototype allowed for a
smoother idling rpm but for a poor throttle response. The
Manifold Air Pressure [MAP] values depicted a drop as well.
The design objective for the second prototype was to fix the
poor throttle response from the first prototype as well as to
address the drop in MAP values. This was done successfully by
merging the diverging section of the venturi to the plenum body
with no intermediate expansion between them, and some
changes in the plenum volume as well. The test runs with the
second prototype were satisfactory.
Fig. 4 Intake Prototype 1

Fig. 5 Intake Prototype 2
IX. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
For the final Intake design iteration, CFD analysis was
undertaken to optimize the intake geometry.
The second intake prototype was analysed initially to build up
a reference for the final design. Results from the simulations
have been later compared and conclusions drawn.
For undertaking the analysis, the model geometries were
created using SolidWorks 2015. CFD analysis was done on
ANSYS R15, with FLUENT as the solver.
A. Pre Processing
(a) Solver Preferences
Since the boundary conditions at the cylinder end of the intake
manifold are time varying, i.e., transient, therefore a transient
analysis was opted.
Solver Preferences were as follows:
 Pressure based
 Transient
 Absolute Velocity Formation
 2D
The solver viscosity model was chosen to be a RANS
[Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes] model; specifically
standard 2 equation k- epsilon model, with a standard wall
treatment function.
This was mainly chosen considering the turbulent nature of the
flow in the intake manifold.
RANS models offer the most economic approach for
computing complex turbulent industrial flows. Typical
examples of such models are the k-epsilon or the k-omega
models in their different forms. These models simplify the
problem to the solution of two additional transport equations
and introduce an Eddy-Viscosity (turbulent viscosity) to
compute the Reynolds Stresses. RANS models are suitable for
many engineering applications and typically provide the level
of accuracy required.
• K-epsilon (k-ε) turbulence model is the most common
model used in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
to simulate mean flow characteristics for turbulent
flow conditions. It is a two equation model which
gives a general description of turbulence by means of
two transport equations (PDEs). The original impetus
for the K-epsilon model was to improve the mixing-
length model, as well as to find an alternative to
algebraically prescribing turbulent length scales in
moderate to high complexity flows.
• The first transported variable determines the energy in
the turbulence and is called turbulent kinetic energy
(k).
• The second transported variable is the turbulent
dissipation (ε) which determines the rate of dissipation
of the turbulent kinetic energy.
(b) Boundary Conditions
To define the boundary conditions (bcs) for the manifold case;
the air inlet at the filter end is defined as a pressure inlet with a
constant pressure value = patm.
The boundary condition at the engine end of the manifold is as
follows:
 Fig. 8 Intake prototype 3, meshed

Fig. 6 Boundary Condition at the Engine end of the manifold

Detailed mesh statistics have been mentioned in the appendix.

(d) Solution Methods

Since the boundary condition depicted in fig. 6 is an
approximate representation of the actual pressure condition;
whereas the real condition is more smoothened at the cardinal
points. Therefore the Pressure vs. time data was fit to a piece-
wise function with a second degree polynomial to smoothen the
pressure drop situation.
And also since ANSYS R15 doesn’t support transient boundary
conditions with inbuilt functions; the above mentioned
boundary condition was initialized into the solver by writing
the condition as a C-based User Defined Function [UDF]. The
UDF was compiled and subsequently interpreted by the solver
itself. The UDF is mentioned in the appendix.
The pressure- velocity scheme employed was SIMPLEC, with
the default spatial discretization parameters.
Transient formulation was kept at first order implicit.
For complicated flows involving turbulence and/or additional
physical models, SIMPLEC improves convergence only if it is
being limited by the pressure-velocity coupling.
B. Post processing
The Velocity vector plots for each of the intake iterations at the
maximum velocity frame are as shown:

(c) Meshing

The geometries were meshed using the default ANSYS

meshing package, with the average mesh qualities at 84.2% and
89.8% for the prototype and the final intake design.

Fig. 9 Intake prototype 2

Fig. 7 Intake prototype 2 ; meshed

 Fig. 9 Intake prototype 3
As can be inferred from the figures 8 and 9; the maximum
velocity attained by air at the restrictor for prototype 3 is 275.4
m/s ; whereas the same value in case of the second prototype is
230 m/s. Therefore the third prototype has a higher mass flow
through the restrictor, since the mass flow at the restrictor is
directly proportional to the maximum velocity attained.
Also; comparing the velocity vectors for both the prototypes at
the same time t = 0.012 sec; [ref. figures 10 and 11]; it is clearly
observed that there is substantial stagnation of flow occurring
in the second prototype in the plenum section; unlike the third
prototype; while has a relatively smoother flow characteristic.
This led to unpredictable and poor throttle response with the
second prototype while it underwent testing.
Fig. 10 Intake prototype 2, velocity vectors at t= 0.012s
Fig. 11 Intake prototype 3, velocity vectors at t= 0.012s
Since the third prototype yielded better results both in
simulation and validation phase; it was decided to proceed with
the third prototype as the final intake model for the 2018 car ,
the FI04.
Fig. 12 Intake prototype 3; the final intake manifold for FI04
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the faculty of
Department of Mechanical Engineering, NIE Mysore, for their
continuous support throughout this endeavour.
REFERENCES
[1] Heywood J.B.-Internal Combustion Engines Fundamentals.pdf
[2] Intake Manifold Tech_ Runner Size Calculations - Team Integra Forums -
Team Integra.pdf
[3] Carroll Smith - Tune to win OCR.pdf
[4] Anshul Singhal, Mallika Parveen -Air Flow Optimization via a Venturi Type
Air Restrictor.pdf
APPENDIX

1. UDF for the transient boundary condition at the Prototype 3:

cylinder end:

#include "udf.h"

DEFINE_PROFILE(unsteady_pressure, thread,
position)

face_t f;

real t = CURRENT_TIME;
3. Residual Plot for prototype 3 simulation:
begin_f_loop(f, thread)

if(t<0.008)

F_PROFILE(f, thread, position) =

(96280)*sin(4.061*t+2.164) +
(11630)*sin(384.5*t+1.73);

else

{F_PROFILE(f, thread, position) = 92000 ;

end_f_loop(f, thread)

2. Mesh Metrics for the prototype geometries:

Prototype 2: