Backpressure considerations in designing of cross flow perforated-element

reactive silencers
S. N. Panigrahia) and M. L. Munjalb)
(Received 2007 March 23; revised 2007 September 25; accepted 2007 November 05)
A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) based three-dimensional analysis has
been undertaken using a commercial software to evaluate the pressure drop
characteristics of four major backpressure-intensive components of automotive
mufflers. Empirical expressions have been derived to relate the normalized
pressure drop across these elements to the most significantly affecting
parameters of the configuration. These expressions have been derived in a
manner such that they can be used to evaluate the total pressure drop across
complex mufflers constituting these basic elements. Effect of perforation
diameter on the pressure drop in the cross-flow elements has been investigated.
Techniques are proposed to achieve lower backpressure without significantly
affecting the transmission loss performance, with the same overall length and
volume of the muffler. © 2007 Institute of Noise Control Engineering.

Primary subject classification: 34.2; Secondary subject classification: 26.1

1 INTRODUCTION muffler have been proposed6 to have a compromise

The pressure drop across different constituent
elements of a muffler adds up to a substantial backpres-
sure on the piston of the reciprocating engine to which
they are generally attached. This problem becomes
even more pronounced when the muffler contains
cross-flow perforated elements; i.e., when the exhaust
gas is forced to move through the perforations because
of plugs in the flow path. It is a well-known fact in the
literature of acoustic analysis of mufflers that these
kinds of mufflers perform quite well over a broad range
of frequencies1–5, particularly low frequencies, as
compared to their grazing-flow counterparts. This gain,
however, does not come without any price and the
compromise has to be made in terms of the heavy
backpressure that these mufflers introduce. For the
luxury segment vehicles (where these mufflers are
currently being used) this does not pose a serious
problem. However, for the economy segment vehicles,
where the specific fuel consumption is a major crite-
rion, they are almost never used despite their high
acoustic performance. Concepts like combination
a)
Facility for Research in Technical Acoustics, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore-560012, INDIA;
email: munjal@mecheng.iisc.ernet.in.
b)
Facility for Research in Technical Acoustics, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore-560012, INDIA;
email: munjal@mecheng.iisc.ernet.in.
between the pressure drop and acoustic performances.
The approach however involves the use of absorptive
elements which are still not widespread in the field of
automotive mufflers.
Though substantial literature is available on the
acoustic characterization of such mufflers3, one does
not find sufficient information on the pressure drop
characterization of such elements or mufflers. Pure
analytical investigation of such complex domains is not
possible. Experimental methods exist5 and are very
straightforward in nature to evaluate flow performance
of any given muffler. However, when it comes to
characterizing basic muffler elements or mufflers with
respect to their pressure drop performance to develop
design guidelines which can be readily used in the
industry, it is very difficult5,7,8 to use experimental
methods because of the requirement of varying the
crucial geometric parameters like porosity of perfora-
tion, diameter of holes, etc. Therefore, in this work, a
systematic three-dimensional (3-D) computational
analysis is taken up to study the backpressure charac-
teristics of the cross-flow perforated muffler elements.
Some techniques are discussed with reference to a few
novel muffler configurations in order to reduce the
backpressure. The analysis is carried out with the
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) based commer-
cial software FLUENT9,10. The 3-D acoustic perfor-
mance analysis (axial transmission loss evaluation) of
the mufflers is performed using SYSNOISE11, a finite
element (FE) method based commercial software.

504 Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec

Transmission loss evaluation has been performed for
certain cases to bring out the nature (qualitative as well
as quantitative) of the trade-off between the acoustic
and hydraulic performance of the proposed modified
designs. Empirical expressions for pressure drop or
head loss across four major reactive and perforated
(cross-flow) elements, normalized with respect to the
total dynamic head of the fluid, have been presented.
These expressions are evaluated in terms of the most
influential parameters for each configuration. All the
analysis has been carried out at temperature of 600 ° C
where most of the exhaust mufflers work.
The next section describes four major backpressure-
intensive elements of many commercial mufflers. The
following section deals with some novel means of
achieving lesser backpressure with only marginal
compromise with the transmission loss performance.
The manuscript concludes with some design guidelines
resulting from the present analysis.
2 MAJOR BACKPRESSURE-INTENSIVE
COMPONENTS
In any commercial muffler, one can perform a
notional dissection to arrive at a number of basic
constituent elements12,13, namely, sudden expansion,
sudden contraction, grazing-flow and cross-flow perfo-
rated tubes, flow reversal elements, bends and exten-
sions. Acoustically, all of these elements behave differ-
ently and are used for achieving different objectives3
from the transmission loss perspective. Similarly, these
elements behave differently with respect to their
pressure drop characteristics. Some of these elements
have very serious detrimental effects on the specific
fuel consumption of the engine though acoustically
they are very effective for use in a muffler. Four of such
elements, namely, sudden expansion, sudden
contraction14, cross-flow expansion and contraction
elements, that are generally used in commercial
mufflers, have been investigated below.
2.1 Sudden Expansion
This element, conceivably, is the most common
element of any commercial muffler. This also happens
to be a major backpressure-intensive component.
Figure 1(a) shows the domain of analysis to investigate
the pressure drop characteristics of axi-symmetric
abrupt area expansion. Inlet portion of the duct domain
has been chosen to be relatively smaller in length
(100 mm, with a diameter of 50 mm) because uniform
velocity profile (plug flow) is applied at this end
surface of the tube. The larger-area duct’s length,
however, has been kept relatively longer (500 mm, with
varying diameter) so as to have sufficiently extended
length for the flow to become reasonably uniform over
Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec
the outlet cross-section where the ambient atmospheric
pressure boundary condition has been imposed. A 45°
sector has been selected as the analysis domain and a
three-dimensional mesh has been prepared using tetra-
hedral elements in the GAMBIT commercial model-
ling and meshing software10.
Another commercial software, FLUENT, has been
used to perform the CFD analysis9 of the problem
where the standard k − ␧ turbulent model has been used
to represent the flow inside the domain. The flow field
here (also in all the subsequent cases) is considered to
be steady and the temperature gradient in the domain of
the muffler is neglected. Periodic boundaries with zero
pressure gradients at the periodic wall have been
imposed to take care of the periodicity of the chosen
sector. All analysis reported in this work assumes the
air temperature to be 623 ° C where the speed of sound
is evaluated to be 600 m / sec and the corresponding air
density is 0.39 kg/ m3. It is to be noted that the param-
eters finally evaluated are independent of this tempera-
ture. However, a value typical of automotive exhaust
gases has been used for the whole of the work
presented here. All the other parameters have been
taken corresponding to this temperature. A constant
viscosity of 4.0⫻ 10−05 kg/ m . sec has been used to be
consistent with the other parameters. With an inlet
velocity of 60 m / sec, the Reynolds number at the inlet
tube is of the order of 30000 which indicates the state
of turbulence in the exhaust gas system. Figures
1(b)–1(d) show velocity contours over the axial cross-
sectional area and axial variation of the total pressure
for three different values of the area expansion ratio
(n = 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6, respectively). These figures also
depict the method of calculation of the pressure drop at
the expansion junction. The pressure difference
between the inlet and the outlet also includes the
frictional losses in the tubes. Therefore, a line with a
slope equal to that of the pressure curve in the exit duct
is drawn and its value just after the junction has been
taken to be the pressure at this point just downstream of
the junction. Also indicated are the pressure drop in
terms of the total dynamic head ‘H’ in the inlet pipe
which is defined as
1
H = ␳U2 , 共1兲
2
where, ␳ is the mass density and U is the mean flow
velocity of the incoming fluid in the inlet pipe. Figure
1(e) shows the total pressure variation along the axis of
the element superimposed for various values of expan-
sion ratios. Figure 2 shows the velocity vector plot
colored by velocity magnitude in case of abrupt expan-
sion where the actual flow pattern can be noticed.
505
Fig. 1—(a) Domain of analysis for the sudden area expansion element of a muffler; (b), (c) and (d) are
velocity contour and total pressure curves for three different area expansion ratios (n = 0.1, 0.3
and 0.6, respectively); (e) total pressure curves along the axis of the element superimposed for
various values of expansion ratio, n.
It can also be noticed from the total pressure varia- Different pressure drop values evaluated from the
tion curves that as the expansion ratio, n, decreases, the above-mentioned procedure have been plotted in Fig. 3.
length required for the flow in the expanded tube to A least square fitting has been performed to pass a
re-attach to the boundary increases. For n = 0.1, this curve through these points to arrive at some empirical
length can be seen to be of the order of 300 mm. In any formula for the total normalized pressure loss, known
configuration, if another in-line area contraction is as the pressure loss coefficient K, across sudden expan-
introduced well within this length, then the net pressure
sion. The empirical expression derived from this
drop becomes considerably lower than that of the
exercise is given below:
present case. Such a situation has been discussed in a
later section of this work.

506 Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec

Fig. 2—Velocity vectors plot colored by velocity magnitude in case of abrupt expansion. All arrows are of
the same length.
K = ⌬Psuddenគexpansion = 0.9837 ⫻ 共1 − n兲1.7635
where, n is the ratio of the smaller (upstream) area to
the larger (downstream) area. Figure 3 also shows the
curve normally used in the literature14 to evaluate the
pressure drop in such situation; i.e.,
K = ⌬Psuddenគexpansion = Kcor共1 − n兲2 ,
where, Kcor is the correction factor to be decided for
any particular situation and has been taken to be unity
for the curve in Fig. 3.
2.2 Sudden Contraction
A similar exercise has been followed to derive an
empirical expression for the normalized head loss in
Fig. 3—Effect of area expansion ratio (AER) on
the pressure loss coefficient in case of
abrupt expansion.
Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec
共2兲 case of a sudden contraction in the fluid flow path.
Figure 4(a) shows the geometry of the analysis domain
(with downstream diameter of 50 mm) used and Fig.
4(b) shows the data obtained from the CFD analysis for
the pressure drop and the corresponding fitted curve in
a least square sense. The resultant empirical expression
共3兲 is given by
K = ⌬Psuddenគcontraction = 0.69 ⫻ 共1 − n兲, 共4兲
where, n is defined in the same way as the previous
case. The same figure also includes three more curves.
One, from Ref. 3, which is applicable for laminar flows
is given by the expression
K = ⌬Psuddenគcontraction = 0.5 ⫻ 共1 − n兲, 共5兲
and second, a more realistic one from Ref. 14 repre-
sented by the expression
共1 − n兲0.75
K = ⌬Psuddenគcontraction = Kcor , 共6兲
2
and third, an experimentally determined one from Ref.
15 and 16 given by
K = ⌬Psuddenគcontraction = 0.5781 + 0.3954n1/2 − 4.5385n
+ 14.24n3/2 − 19.22n2 + 8.54n5/2 , 共6a兲
where, Kcor and n have the same meaning as defined
previously. It can be pointed out that both of these
curves are also empirical relations based on some
assumptions like sharp edged pipe discharging from a
large tank and all of the energy dissipation being
caused by eddies formed between the ‘Vena Contracta’
and the wall of the pipe. It may be noted that the
expression in Eqn. (4) is 38% higher than that of Eqn.
(5). For the turbulent flow case, the pressure loss
507
Fig. 4—Effect of area expansion ratio (AER) on the pressure loss coefficient in case of abrupt contrac-
tion.
coefficient is considerably higher as can be noticed
from the fourth curve which represents the experimen-
tally obtained values of K.
2.3 Cross Flow Expansion
The most critical component regarding backpressure
of any commercial muffler is the cross-flow perforated
elements. One does not find much information in the
literature regarding the pressure drop characteristics for
these types of mufflers. Though Ref. 5 throws some
light on this aspect for similar mufflers, the investiga-
tion is limited to some particular muffler configurations
where both the cross-flow type expansion and the
contraction are together as elements of a plug chamber.
The results, therefore, cannot be used to quantify the
pressure drop characteristics of any other muffler with
508 Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec
these type of elements in isolation or in a combination
other than a plug chamber or a cross-flow chamber.
Consequently, it is necessary to analyze the expansion
and the contraction of the cross-flow separately.
Figure 5(a) depicts the domain of analysis to inves-
tigate the pressure drop characteristics of an
axi-symmetric cross-flow expansion element (with d
= 50 mm, D = 100 mm). On the lines of the previous
analysis of the abrupt expansion, the inlet duct is
relatively smaller than the outlet duct. The plug on the
inner tube in the outlet duct has also been placed suffi-
ciently away from the perforated portion of the tube.
With an adequately long outlet duct, the atmospheric
pressure boundary condition at the open end of the
outlet duct has been applied at a location free from
local disturbances. An extended un-perforated length
Fig. 5—(a) Domain of analysis for the cross-flow expansion element of a muffler; (b), (c) and (d) are ve-
locity contours and total pressure curves for three different open area ratios (OAR= 0.537, 1.0
and 1.46, respectively); (e) shows the average axial flow velocity in the inner and the outer annu-
lar tube.

of 50 mm has been provided at the junction of the the muffler element for OAR= 0.537, 1.0 and 1.46,
smaller and the larger ducts. Wall thickness of 1.5 mm respectively. OAR is the open area ratio defined as

冉冊
has been used and holes are located symmetrically on
the circumference so as to be able to have a sector dh 2
␲dLp␴ 4Lp␴
OAR = nh = = , 共7兲
containing only one hole in the perimeter of the region. d ␲ 2 d
The domain is then meshed with the tetrahedral d
4
elements in GAMBIT and the mesh has been exported
to FLUENT for the CFD analysis. Figures. 5(b)–5(d) where, nh represents the total number of holes, dh is the
show the variation of the total pressure along the axis of diameter of the holes, d represents the diameter of the

Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec 509

Fig. 6—Effect of open area ratio (OAR) on the
pressure loss co-efficient in the case of
cross-flow expansion.
perforated tube and ␴ is the overall porosity of the
perforate as a fraction. One curve represents the
pressure field inside the smaller (inner) tube and the
other one represents the field in the larger or the outer
tube. The total pressure drop across the perforation is
reckoned to be the difference in the total pressure at the
starting of the perforation in the inner tube and the end
of the perforation in the outer tube. The start and the
end points are with respect to the flow direction which
is into the volume at the inlet of the smaller tube, as
shown in Fig. 5(a). Figure 5(e) shows the average axial
flow velocity in the inner and the outer annular tube.
The pressure drop thus calculated is normalized with
reference to the dynamic head at the inlet and is plotted
against different values of the open area ratio of the
perforation. Figure 6 shows the plotted values of the
normalized total pressure drop for different open area
ratios. The discrete values of the CFD analysis have
been fitted with an empirical expression
K = ⌬Pcross-flowគexpansion = 4.7844 ⫻ OAR−1.5150 . 共8兲
In Fig. 6, porosity is kept constant. Instead, the perfo-
rate length Lp has been varied to varying nh, the number
of holes. It is to be noted that the accuracy of the coeffi-
cients and the exponents in Eqn. (8) are not really
needed to the 4th decimal place. For practical purposes,
they can be rounded to their 2nd decimal place and
used.
It has also been observed that this relation remains
more or less the same with respect to expansion ratio,
i.e. the ratio of cross-sectional area of the inner tube to
that of the outer tube, 共d / D兲2, for all practical purposes.
The boundary condition at the atmospheric end also
affects the pressure drop marginally. Therefore, Eqn.
510 Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec
Fig. 7—Effect of open area ratio (OAR) on the
pressure loss coefficient in the case of
cross-flow contraction.
(8) can be used, in conjunction with those for other
elements with little error in the design considerations.
2.4 Cross Flow Contraction
A similar exercise has been undertaken to character-
ize the backpressure performance of the cross-flow
contraction element (see Fig. 7(a)). The results from
the CFD analysis and the corresponding fitted curve are
shown in Fig. 7(b). The empirical expression that has
been derived to be used for such a condition is given by
K = ⌬Pcross-flowគcontraction = 3.6480 ⫻ OAR−1.5424 ,
共9兲
where all the terms have their usual meaning as defined
earlier except that the pressure loss has been normal-
ized with respect to the exhaust velocity head in the
outlet tube. It can be observed that in general the cross-
flow contraction offers less backpressure as compared
to its expansion counterpart for the same conditions.
This observation suggests that a slightly lower porosity
perforation can be used if the same backpressure as that
of the cross-flow expansion is acceptable for the
contraction element as well.

Fig. 8—(a) A two-duct cross-flow plug muffler (b)
Comparison of prediction from the
present work with the experimental results
for the above muffler.
In order to verify the usefulness of the developed
empirical formulas, a comparison is made with experi-
mental results obtained for the effect of open area ratio
on the loss coefficient of a plug muffler5. Figure 8(a)
shows the muffler configuration (d = 43.5 mm, D
= 130 mm, dh = 4 mm, ␴ = 3.94%) and Fig. 8(b) shows
the comparison of predicted results from the presently
developed empirical formulas with those obtained
experimentally for the above muffler. The results can be
seen to be matching well in the practical range of open
area ratio.
All the above observations have been put into use in
the next section in order to come up with some means
of reducing backpressure with very little compromise
with the transmission loss performance.
3 SOME DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN
BACKPRESSURE REDUCTION
Having discussed the pressure drop characteristics
of four major backpressure-intensive components, the
next step is to investigate some means through which
the above discussion can be put to better flow-acoustic
design applications. The following subsections discuss
two such techniques of reducing backpressure with
very little compromise on the transmission loss front.
Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec
Fig. 9—Effect of hole diameter on the pressure
loss coefficient in the case of cross-flow
expansion, with the open area ratio OAR
kept constant at 1.0.
3.1 Increasing Perforation Diameter
It has been shown in the literature5 that the effect of
hole diameter, dh, of the perforation and the wall thick-
ness of the perforated tube on the transmission loss of
any muffler is not very significant (within ±1 dB).
Therefore, a study on the effect of hole diameter on the
pressure loss coefficient in the cross-flow muffler
element is undertaken. As can be seen from Fig. 9, the
normalized head loss varies with the perforate diameter
according the following expression:
K = ⌬P = 6.4508 ⫻ d−0.3749
h 共10兲
where, dh is the diameter of the perforations in milli-
meters.
One can derive an empirical expression for the same
in terms of both the open area ratio and the perforate
hole diameter as follows:
K = ⌬P = 7.2227 ⫻ OAR−1.5150d−0.3749
h 共11兲
The above expression has been generated for the case
of cross-flow expansion. However, it has also been
noticed that the same relation holds reasonably for the
cross-flow contraction case as well. Therefore, an
empirical relation similar to Eqn. (11) has been derived
for the cross-flow contraction case:
K = ⌬P = 5.5072 ⫻ OAR−1.5424d−0.3749
h 共12兲
It can be observed from the figure that the pressure
drop can be reduced by about 0.8H by having perforate
tubes with 5 mm diameter holes instead of 3 mm
diameter holes. This change in diameter of holes does
not affect the transmission loss performance of the
511

Fig. 10—Muffler (four-tube configuration) of fig-
ure (b) has been developed applying the
flow division scheme on the muffler
(single-tube configuration) of figure (a).
muffler if the overall porosity is maintained at a
constant value5.
3.2 Introducing Flow Division
Another method of reducing pressure drop in the
mufflers is by introducing flow division. The basis of
this improvement can be explained by analyzing the
non-dimensionalized acoustic impedance expression
for the case of cross-flow perforated elements, given by
the following equation2,3:
冋 册冒
dM
␨ = 0.514 + j0.95k0共tp + 0.75dh兲
l␴
where d is diameter of the perforated tubes;
M is the mean-flow Mach number in the perfo-
rated tube, upstream of the perforate;
l is length of the perforate;
␴ is the overall porosity of the perforates;
k0 is the wave number;
Fig. 11—Velocity magnitude and the total pressure contours of the muffler of Fig. 10(a).
512 Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec
tp is thickness of the perforated tube; and dh is
diameter of the perforations.
It can be observed from the above equation that the
resistive part of the impedance is strongly dependent on
the overall porosity of the perforate. It is also known
that for a given cross-sectional area, the perimeter
increases if the total area is divided into smaller subdi-
visions. For example, if a tube of area A is divided in
four smaller tubes of equal sections, the total perimeter
increases by a factor of two. This concept can be
applied to the cross-flow perforated tubes. A single
tube can be broken into several tubes of lesser cross-
sectional area thereby increasing the overall surface
area for perforation and in turn the open area ratio
(OAR). This fact has been demonstrated in the muffler
configuration of Fig. 10 where a single-tube cross-flow
muffler. Figure 10(a) has been transformed into a
four-tube cross-flow (Fig. 10(b)) muffler. As has been
discussed in an earlier section, the increased OAR is
expected to produce less backpressure. Figure 11
shows the velocity magnitude and total pressure
contours for the single-tube configuration. The pressure
loss coefficient for this muffler has been evaluated to be
7.96H. The overall porosity 共␴兲, open area ratio (OAR),
diameter of the hole 共dh兲, thickness of the perforate
wall 共tp兲 have been taken to be 0.07,1.0, 5 mm and
1.5 mm, respectively.
An element-by-element analysis suggests the
following stages of pressure drops in the muffler:
␴ 共13兲
K across the muffler = ⌬Pmuffler = 7.96H
K across the first expansion chamber = ⌬Pexp 1
= 0.5263H
K across the cross-flow expansion = ⌬PCFE = 3.772H
Fig. 12—Velocity vectors colored by velocity magnitude for the muffler of Fig. 10(a). All arrows are of the
same length.
K across the cross-flow contraction = ⌬PCFC
= 3.304H
K across the second expansion chamber = ⌬Pexp 2
= 0.2924H
From these values of pressure drops at various stages, it
can be observed that the pressure drops in the expan-
sion chambers are considerably lower than expected for
the diameter ratio of 1:4 共d : D兲. This can be explained
from the nature of the velocity vectors of the muffler
(Fig. 12). It is clearly noticeable that the flow in a sense
bypasses the expansion chamber and enters the next
tubular section both at the inlet and at the exhaust of the
muffler. In this way a muffler with a large pressure drop
can be saved from being built.
Figure 13 shows the velocity magnitude and the total
pressure contours of the four-tube cross-flow muffler of
Fig. 13—Velocity magnitude and the total pressure contours of the muffler of Fig. 10(b).
Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec
Fig. 10(b). The same overall porosity has been
maintained on all of the four tubes. Combined area of
cross-section of these tubes is equal to the cross-
sectional area of the single tube of the muffler of Fig.
10(a). The loss coefficient for this muffler has been
evaluated to be 5.11H (i.e., an overall saving of 2.85H
in terms of the pressure drop with respect to the single-
tube cross-flow muffler of Fig. 10(a)).
The area-weighted values at the outlet are slightly
small in the case of four-tube configurations of Fig. 13
than that in Fig. 11 (see Table 1). This is due to the fact
that the flow is somewhat converging after coming out
of the four tubes and the exit tube length is not suffi-
cient for the flow to become reasonably uniform over
the outlet cross-section. For this reason, the velocities
are a little more in a central core (than the average
513
Table 1—Area-weighted average of the velocity
magnitude.
Area-Weighted Average
Velocity Magnitude (m/s)
Single-tube Four-tube
configuration configuration
Position (Fig. 11) (Fig. 13)
Inlet 60 60
Outlet 59.883131 58.360716
velocity of 60 m / s) and a relatively larger annular area
has a smaller velocity as compared to the average
velocity.
Figure 14 shows a comparison of transmission loss
spectra for the two mufflers discussed in this section. It
can be observed from the curves that the transmission
loss performance has slightly come down in the case of
the four-tube configuration as compared to its single-
tube counterpart. However, this can be opted for
depending on the requirement where the backpressure
consideration is very important as in the case of turbo-
charged, multi-cylinder engines where the mean-flow
Mach number can be as high as 0.25. As an increase in
the mean flow Mach number increases the resistive part
of the perforate impedance (see Eqn. (13)) and thence
raises TL, the acoustic performance will be adequate
even with the four-tube configuration which offers
lower backpressure than the corresponding single-tube
configuration. This change in the design (i.e., from a
single tube to four tube configuration) will lead to a
heavier and costlier muffler.
4 CONCLUSIONS
A systematic study has been carried out on four
major backpressure-intensive elements, namely, the
Fig. 14—Comparison of transmission loss spectra
for the mufflers of Fig. 2(a) and 2(b).
514 Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec
sudden area expansion and contraction, and the cross-
flow expansion and contraction, of reactive automotive
mufflers using the commercial CFD based software
FLUENT. The geometric modelling and the meshing
have been performed in GAMBIT. Empirical expres-
sions have been derived for the pressure drop in each of
these four cases in terms of the most significantly
affecting parameter. These expressions have been
derived in such a way that they can be used to evaluate
the pressure drop of more complex muffler systems
where these elements are used in conjunction. The
results of such exercise, however, will be slightly on the
high side. Incidentally, that will be on the safer side
from the design point of view.
It has been shown that the pressure drop in the case
of the contraction is always less than their expansion
counterparts in both the types under consideration. An
empirical expression relating the pressure drop and the
perforation hole diameter has also been derived. A
technique of flow division has been proposed to
achieve lower pressure drops without affecting the
acoustic performance significantly. Incidentally, this
paper represents one of the first efforts to both simulate
the fluid dynamic and acoustic performance of
mufflers.
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support of the Facility for Research in
Technical Acoustics (FRITA) by the Department of
Science and Technology of the Government of India is
gratefully acknowledged.
6 REFERENCES
1. J. W. Sullivan, “A method of modelling perforate tube muffler
components. I: Theory,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 66, 772–778,
(1979).
2. J. W. Sullivan, “A method of modelling perforate tube muffler
components. II: Application,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 66, 779–788,
(1979).
3. M. L. Munjal, Acoustics of Ducts and Mufflers, Wiley-
Interscience, New York, (1987).
4. M. L. Munjal, K. Narayana Rao and A. D. Sahasrabudhe,
“Aeroacoustic analysis of perforated muffler components,” J.
Sound Vib. 114(2), 173–188, (1987).
5. M. L. Munjal, S. Krishnan and M. M. Reddy, “Flow-acoustic
performance of perforated element mufflers with application to
design,” Noise Control Eng. J., 40(1), 159–167, (1992).
6. S. N. Panigrahi and M. L. Munjal, “Combination mufflers—
theory and parametric study,” Noise Control Eng. J., 53(6),
277–285, (2005).
7. V. B. Panicker and M. L. Munjal, “Aeroacoustic analysis of
mufflers with flow reversals,” J. Indian Inst. Sci, 63(A), 21–38,
(1981).
8. P. J. Oliveira and F. T. Pinho, “Pressure drop coefficient of lami-
nar Newtonian flow in axi-symmetric sudden expansions,” Int.
J. Heat Fluid Flow 18(5), 518–529, (1997).
9. FLUENT Users’ Manual, FLUENT Inc, (2003).
10. GAMBIT Users’ Manual, GAMBIT Inc, (2003).
11. SYSNOISE Users’ Manual, Rev. 5.6, LMS International, Bel-
 gium, (2003).
12. FRITAmuff Users’ Manual, Facility for Research in Technical
Acoustics, IISc, Bangalore, India, (2006).
13. S. N. Panigrahi and M. L. Munjal, “A generalized scheme for
analysis of multifarious commercially used mufflers,” Appl.
Acoust. 68(6), 660–681, (2007).
Noise Control Eng. J. 55 (6), 2007 Nov-Dec
14. I. E. Idelchik, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, CRC Begell
House, (1994).
15. R. P. Benedict et al., “Flow losses in abrupt enlargements and
contractions,” J. Eng. Power, 88, 73–81, (1966).
16. R. D. Blevins, Applied Fluid Dynamics Handbook, Krieger
Publishing Co., Malabar, Florida, (2003).
515