See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303964304

Impact of Swirl on NOx and Soot Emission by Optimizing Helical Inlet Port of 4
Valve Direct Injection Diesel Engine

Conference Paper · January 2015

DOI: 10.4271/2015-26-0091

CITATIONS READS

0 1,127

1 author:

Angshuman Goswami
ZF North America
10 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Novel Hierarchical Approach to Path Planning for Connected Fleets in Off-road Scenarios View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Angshuman Goswami on 27 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimization of Swirl for NOx and Soot Trade-off in 4 Valve Diesel Engine
Ramakant Gode, Angshuman Goswami, Jyotirmoy Barman, Hardik Lakhlani
Abstract
Air motion in a cylinder in a compression ignition engine affects
on mixing of air-fuel, quality of combustion and emission
produced. With upcoming stringent norms for diesel engines, it
is necessary to enhance air-fuel mixing for proper combustion.
Swirl, squish and tumble are three forms of air motion. Swirl is a
rotational motion of a bulk mass within cylinder. Swirl is
generated by shaping and countering intake manifold and valve
ports. Swirl enhances air-fuel mixing and helps to spread flame-
front during combustion.
The objective of this paper is to analyze the impact of different
swirl ratios on NOx and soot emission characteristics inside the
cylinder of a DI Diesel engine. The effects of different
geometrical parameters of helical port were studied and the swirl
ratios are optimized by optimizing the geometrical parameter of
helical port. This can be done by different manufacturing,
polishing and grinding processes. The designed inlet port were
then validated by measuring swirl on AVL paddle wheel
anemometer and the experiments were conducted on these inlet
ports of different swirl ratios and validate the NOx and soot
emissions as per emission norms BS IV. Positive results have
been observed and the data has been shared in paper.
Introduction
To improve the overall performance of a DI diesel engine, it is
necessary to study the air-fuel mixing, which directly affects the
heat release pattern, BSFC and emissions. The study of air
motion characteristics along with fuel spray are important to
define the mixture formation process, the overall fuel distribution
and local air fuel ratio. In a diesel engine, the significant portion
of the combustion process takes place by diffusion of flames.
Under this condition, air-fuel mixing controls the rate of chemical
reaction and thus the heat release [1].
The combustion characteristics of the diesel engine with proper
fuel and air management are enhanced to meet the upcoming
stringent emission norms. Air-fuel mixing is a function of kinetic
energies associated with fuel injection and air turbulence [12].
Swirl plays important role in formation of turbulence in air, air-
fuel mixture formation and thus formation of emissions [3]. The
paper presents and discusses the important characteristics of
swirl in which it explains the swirl impacts on emissions and
BSFC, methods of measurement of swirl in steady flow test rig,
Calculation of swirl measurement and optimization of swirl in
cylinder head. It is also interesting to see the impact of swirl on
volumetric efficiency of cylinder.
Methodology
Swirl is measured on steady flow test rig with the paddle wheel
anemometer method. The target is to achieve the legislative
norms of BS IV for NOx and Soot emissions. Emission targets
are also having a constraint of BSFC. While minimizing the soot
and NOx, the study of BSFC variation is also a point of interest.
Keeping a BSFC low is desirable. We had tested three different
cylinder heads with swirl ratio: 1.5, 2.0 & 2.5 .The swirl is change
from 2.0 to 1.5 to study the effect of reduced swirl on emissions
and BSFC. The swirl is also increased from 2.0 to 2.5 for better
understanding on NOx, soot and BSFC. The swirl is change by
porting, grinding and polishing of the helical ports of cylindrical
port. The further results are shared in the paper.
Basic definitions
Swirl
Swirl is defined as organized rotation of charge about the
cylinder. Swirl is created by bringing the intake flow into the
cylinder with an initial angular momentum. While some decay
in swirl due to friction occurs during the engine cycle, intake
generated swirl usually persists through the compression,
combustion and expansion processes [1].
Discharge Coefficient (cd)
The discharge coefficient is defined as ratio of measured mass
flow to the theoretically calculated flow rate through the
reference flow area in the port/valve assembly. The discharge
coefficient Cd refers to the flow rate ratio referenced to the gap
between the valve lips and the valve seats (2001-01-1308).The
flow conditions in case of discharge through an opening of
cross-section area F are generally described by means of a
discharge coefficient µ. This coefficient is defined as the ratio
between the actual rate of flow and the theoretical rate of flow
without contraction and flow losses, both determined at a certain
pressure drop.
This method of representation may also be used for the flow
through valve ports. In this case F represents the free cross-
sectional area between the valve and the valve seat. Both F and
the discharge coefficient µ are a function of the valve lift h v.
Moreover µ is also a function of the Reynolds number and the
pressure ratio between atmosphere and cylinder volume. The
latter dependence is caused by the compressibility of the intake
air and the exhaust gas, respectively.
Conveniently, the free cross-sectional area F is expressed by
𝐹 = 𝜎Fv
Where 𝜎 is an obstruction coefficient, dependent on the
geometric conditions and the valve lift and Fv represents a
certain reference cross-sectional, in the case the inner valve
seat diameter is used
dv2 π
Fv =
4 (mean piston speed)
As the discharge coefficient µ describes the flow through a fixed
cross-sectional area,
𝐺
µ𝜎=
𝐺𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜
is a dimensionless coefficient, describing the weight rate of flow
G through the valve port at a certain valve lift, Reynolds number
and pressure ratio. The value of G may be determined by
stationary flow tests using a flow meter. G Theo represents a
theoretical weight rate of flow through the reference cross
section Fv and is computed by using equal pressure drop Δp and
equal inlet conditions without contraction or losses. Let ϒm be
the mean specific gravity of air or exhaust gas respectively
between intake and outlet, and ϒ be the specific gravity at the
outlet, we get for a pressure ratio close to one
∆𝑝
Gtheo= ϒF√2𝑔
ϒm
It is suitable to plot in a diagram the product µϒ over the value
lift, which is rendered dimensionless by division by a
characteristics port dimension. As reference dimension the inner
valve seat diameter dv is used in this case.
Provided that measurements are made under equal or similar
pressure conditions and Reynolds number, the quality of flow of
different ports may be compared simply by the µϒ curves plotted
over hv/ dv. The influence of the Reynolds number on µ in the
range of port dimension and flow velocity under consideration is
very small and may be neglected in first approximation process
[2,8].
Flow Coefficient
The definition of flow coefficient is same as discharge
coefficient, just a difference in reference flow area. The flow
coefficient is defined as ratio of the measured mass flow rate to
the theoretically calculated flow rate through a reference flow
area in the port /valve geometry, but here reference area is
corresponding to the flow area in the port, either the minimum
flow area or the valve inner seat area, in which the valve stem
blocking effect can be included or neglected.
The discharge coefficient decreases with valve lift and it reflects
the flow restriction produced by the valve and seat lips at low
valve lifts. On the other hand, the flow coefficient increases with
valve lift and it reflects the restriction by the port geometry [2,8].
Gulp Factor
The gulp factor is defined as the ratio of mean effective flow
velocity in the port throat during intake process to the local sonic
speed.
According to Ricardo theory, the velocity of the air through the
valve is given by [19],
𝐴𝑝
𝑈= . 𝑈𝑝
𝐴𝑣
Where, Ap - piston area, Av- valve geometrical area, Up- 2*SN
The valve area is taken to be the effective area.
𝐴𝑒 = 𝐴𝑣 ∗ 𝐶𝑑𝑎𝑣
The gulp factor is given by,
𝐴𝑝 𝑈𝑝
𝑍= ∗
𝐴𝑒 𝐶
It has been found that the volumetric efficiency of the four stroke
engine, for various designs and operating condition is a unique
function of the gulp factor as defined by equation. It is claimed
that this is so because this factor describes the gas velocity
through the value correctly. The gulp factor is closely
corresponds to the mean Mach number in the valve throat.
Taylor rt al corrected volumetric efficiencies (ηv) measured on a
range of engine and found that the ηv decreases rapidly for𝑍 ≥
0.5. This limit should be re-examined for the modern four valve
cylinder head due to the difference in the ratio of surface to
volume of the inlet port. The basic requirement is to ensure that
the flow will not become choked at high engine speeds.
Measurement techniques
To assess the nature of swirling flow in an actual operating
condition is difficult, so steady state swirl rigs are often used to
characterize the swirl & measure the swirl intensity within the
cylinder. The air is blown steadily through the inlet port of an
assembled cylinder head into an appropriately located cylinder.
There two common techniques to measure swirl. Paddle wheel
anemometer measurement and Swirl vane meter. Here we use
paddle wheel swirl measurement method.
Paddle wheel anemometer measurement
technique
A light paddle wheel is used, which is pivoted on the cylinder
centre line with low friction bearings mounted between 1 and
1.75 bore diameters down to the cylinder. The paddle wheel
diameter is close to the cylinder bore. The rotation of paddle
wheel is a measure of the mass flow rate. This mass flow rate is
measured for a fixed pressure drop (DP) across the port at
different valve lifts using a steady air flow. Based on these
measurements a dimensionless flow co-efficient (μs) is
calculated, which is defined as the ratio of the actual mass flow
over a theoretical mass flow. Where, the later is calculated from
a fictitious velocity in the open seat area (ᴨ/4 dv 2) at an equal
pressure drop “Dp” assuming a flow free of losses. Further, a
mean flow coefficient (μs) m is calculated by the integration over
the crank angle between TDC & BDC considering the valve lift
& piston displacement. This method of swirl measurement is
followed by AVL.
If the flow could be treated as a forced vortex and there was no
slip between the vanes and the flow, then the angular velocity
would correspond to the angular velocity of the forced vortex. In
practice the flow is not a forced vortex, and there is slip between
the paddle wheel vanes and the flow. If there was no slip
between the vanes and the flow, and the paddle wheel bearings
were frictionless, then the paddle wheel would constrain the flow
to become a forced vortex. However, the friction in the bearings
means that the flow must exert a torque on the paddle wheel,
and to do so, there must be slip between the vane and the flow.
A direct consequence of this is that the paddle wheel must
underestimate the swirl, by an amount that is influenced by the
bearing friction.
Angular speed of air inside the cylinder
Swirl number =
Engine fictitious speed
Figure 1: AVL paddle wheel swirl measurement test rig
Calculation for swirl measurement
Measuring arrangement
For the measurement of intake ports the air is sucked by a test
bed blower through the port, over a valve with adjustable stroke,
the cylinder liner, the tank and finally a connected flow meter.
The pressure drop δp between the atmosphere and the tank in
this case is equal to pressure loss in the intake port and the
intake valve, as there exists no significant pressure loss in the
cylinder liner. The shape and the position of the paddle wheel
used for the measurement of rotation of the air sucked inside the
cylinder liner. A pulse pick-up transmits the paddle wheel speed
to an electronic counter. For the measurement of exhaust ports
the best bed blower is connected in reverse order.
To characterize the rotation of the entire cylinder charge AVL
uses a mean swirl ratio (nd/n)m, Proceeding from the assumption
that the sum of moments of momentum during the intake
process is equal to the moment of momentum of the entire
cylinder load. Moreover, each moment of momentum is
characterized by the swirl ratio nd/n measured by stationary flow
test, valid for one particular valve lift. In arriving at the above
result the instantaneous piston speed is also taken into account.
The compressibility of the suction air is neglected and the
suction process is only considered from TDC to BDC.
Hence, the following formula is obtained for the mean swirl ratio.
𝒏𝑫 𝟏 𝑩𝑫𝑪(𝜶=𝝅) 𝒏𝑫 𝑪
( 𝒏 )𝒎 = 𝝅 ∫𝑻𝑫𝑪(𝜶=𝟎) 𝒏
(𝑪𝒎)𝟐 𝒅𝜶
Where α denotes the crank angle in radians and c/c m the ratio
of instantaneous to mean piston speed. The swirl ratio n d/n is
obtained from the results of the stationary flow test for each
valve lift belonging to the instantaneous crank angle.
Swirl optimization techniques
In the present engine, the various types of port design can be
used to generate the swirl during the induction process. Of
these, the helical port is most effective at producing relatively
uniform high swirl with minimum loss of volumetric efficiency.
Parameters of the helical port are discussed here to understand
overall effect of parameters of helical port on swirl.
Figure 2: Schismatic diagram of helical port
The design of the helical port consists of eight parameters. The
two parameters “a” and “b” define the diameter of minimum
cross-section which is also called as lip area. “h” is the inlet
centre distance. “H” represents the valve guide boss height. “r”
& “R” are the radiuses of spiral and “θ 1” & “θ” are the relative
dimensions of spiral , “α” is a valve cone angle and “β” is a slope
angle. “dv” is the diameter of the throat of helical port.
From the earlier studies, it is known that Centre distance “h”
affects the whole slope’s shape, the value of dip angle, the
distributing proportion of eddy airflow and tangential flow and
finally flow state in the cylinder, but in the current work we can’t
change due production constraint.
The optimization of swirl is achieved by the freehand grinding of
the different parameters and positions of port geometry.
Because of some production constraint, all the parameters can’t
be optimized. The helix angle, valve guide boss height and inner
valve seat diameters are selected for the optimization.
The main differences can be seen in the region of the helix lip
area. Increasing the entrance cross section of the helix is the
mostly carried our swirl decreasing method the flow velocity into
the helix is the mostly decreased and conclusively the swirl is
decreased. The valve guide boss height is another parameter
which can be influencing the swirl. By freehand grinding the boss
guide increased swirl can be achieved. In addition, the throat
diameter, valve inner seat diameter and fire deck chamfer angle
is also made to select the optimum parameters. Thus all these
parameters are tuned to achieve the targeted swirl.
 Combustion System Electronic – DI System

Bore x Stroke (mm) 100 * 120

Compression Ratio 17:5

Total Displacement (Lts.) 3.8

Injector Solenoid operated injector

Turbocharger Type Waste gate

Maximum Rail/ Pump Pressure 1800 bar

Figure 3: Parametric diagram of helical port

Experimental set up & test condition

The layout for adaptation of temperature and pressure sensor

along with EMS related sensors are mounted across the engine
during the test cell is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 5 – Experimental layout of test cell

The experimental layout for the test cell is shown below in Figure
5.The details of equipment used in the test cell is also mentioned
in Table 2.

Figure 4 – Test bed adaptation of temperature and pressure sensors

The engine specifications are mentioned in Table 1.

Table 1 – Test Engine Specifications Table 2 - Basic instrumentation for pollutant emissions measurements.

Engine 3.77 Ltrs, 4Cyl

 Unit Item Unit Limit
Type Operating principal
Instrumentation
Compressor Air Temperature Out deg.C 200
Dynamometer AVL Eddy Current
Turbine Mean Temperature deg.C 720
Fuel mass flow AVL – 735
Coriolis effect
meter (Measurement) Turbo Speed *1000 rpm 250

Air mass flow AVL CACS 2400 Peak Cylinder Pressure MPa 18
Hot film anemometer
meter with fast response
EOI deg. ~25° ATDC
Smoke meter AVL – 415 SE Hartridge, optical
NOx g/kWh 9
HORIBA MEXA – Chemiluminescence
NOx
7100 detector PM g/kWh 0.02

HORIBA MEXA – Flame ionization Soot g/kWh -

HC
7100 detector
CO g/kWh 1.5

HC g/kWh 0.46
Test condition
Smoke for ELR m-1 0.8
For optimization of emission and fuel consumption, engine
testing was done with 3 different Swirl Ratio cylinder heads; the
engine tested conditions are mentioned in Table 3.

Analysis of results
Table 3 – Test Condition This is an SCR engine and hence the engine out target of NOx
is kept 9 gm/kWh. Emission and performance results were
Item Unit Target carried out to show the effect of swirl on combustion. After going
through the literature survey regarding swirl ratio [9-11] it was
found that effect of increasing swirl is beneficial for BSFC and
Air Pressure Intake kPa 100
soot with the penalty of NOx, but excessive swirl also increases
soot and BSFC due over-mixing of charge, spray distortion or
Exhaust Pressure kPa 10 due loss of volumetric efficiency. The optimum value of swirl is
helpful for soot reduction with minor benefit of BSFC
Ambient temperature deg.C 25±2 improvement. The ESC and FTP test was carried out on various
swirl head to analyze the emissions. Full load performance tests
Intake Manifold Temperature deg.C 50±2 (FTP) were taken by running at rated speed and then logging
the emissions on every 200 rpm up to 800 RPM. Back to back
Coolant Temperature Out deg.C 80±2 three trails had been conducted for swirl ratios 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5.
From figure (6-8) we can see that, in 2.0 swirl head, smoke and
BSFC is better. There is good improvement in smoke as
Fuel Temperature Flow Meter In deg.C 38±2
compared to 1.5 and 2.5 swirl heads. In case of NOx emissions,
with increase in swirl ratio the NOx value is also increasing due
to increase in air- fuel mixing rate which directly proportional to
flame temperature. For the common rail diesel engine, where
The limitations in testing which were considered are shown in the injection pressure is high, reducing swirl ratio is giving
Table 4.The emission values are limited in the emission zones benefit for soot and BSFC.
whereas other limitations are kept for the other part of region.

Table 4 – Test Condition

FTP test results:
 0.7 ESC test results:
1.5 swirl head 2.0 swirl head 2.5 swirl head
0.6
12
1.5 swirl ratio 2.0 swirl head 2.5 swirl head
Smoke (g/kWh)

0.5
10
0.4
0.3 8

NOx (g/kwh)
0.2
6
0.1
4
0
2

RPM 0
2 3 4 5 6 7mode8 9 10 11 12 13
Fig 6: Comparison of Smoke in FTP test.
Fig 8: Comparison of NOx for all ESC modes
16
1.5 swirl head 2.0 swirl head 2.5 swirl head
14
0.2
12 1.5 swirl head 2.0 swirl head 2.5 swirl head
0.18
NOX (g/kWh)

10
0.16
8
0.14

SMOKE (FSN)
6
0.12
4
0.1
2
0.08
0
0.06
RPM 0.04
0.02
Fig 7: Comparison of NOx in FTP test
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1.5 swirl head 2.0 swirl head 2.5 swirl head Mode

Fig 9: Comparison of smoke for all ESC modes

BSFC (g/kWh)

2.5 swirl head 1.5 swirl head 2.0 swirl head

BSFC (g/kWh)

RPM

Fig 8: Comparison of BSFC in FTP test.

In FTP test, we can see that, smoke has improved in very good
margin at 2.0 swirl as compare to 1.5 swirl ratio. It is because of 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
increase in inertial energy in the form of swirl which helps to
increase in mixing rate of fuel and decrease of combustion Mode
duration. With 2.5 swirl head smoke again increases compared
to 2.0 but still it is lesser than 1.5 swirl head since though Fig 10: Comparison of BSFC for all ESC modes
missing is happening better, we might have a case of over
mixing, which creates local centers of over-lean and over rich
mixture. The NOx values are increased due to increase in
airflow, better combustion from better mixing as well as higher
kinetic energy of the incoming charge. Due to appropriate mixing
of charge at 2.0 swirl, we see an improvement in fuel
consumption while over mixing at 2.5 swirl is leading to again
deterioration in fuel consumption.
 NOx (g/kWh)
10 SMOKE (FSN)
0.03
9.5
0.025

SMOKE (FSN)
9 0.02
NOx (g/kWh)

0.015
8.5
0.01

8 0.005

0
7.5 1.5 2 2.5
Swirl Ratio
7
1.5 2 2.5 Fig 14: Comparison of smoke at all ESC modes
Swirl Ratio
ESC tests were also conducted for taking emissions and BSFC
at emission points. The emissions are taking in to consideration
Fig 11: Comparison of NOx at all ESC modes on ESC modes because of BS IV legislations. In ESC test, it is
found that, smoke and BSFC is decreases as swirl ratio is
Soot (g/kWh) increases from 1.5 to 2.0, but it again increases when swirl ratio
0.008 is increases from 2.0 to 2.5. this is because when the swirl is
0.007 increased, from 1.5 to 2.0, the air fuel mixing rate is high and
0.006 overall duration of combustion process is shorten hence proper
complete combustion resulted the reduction in smoke and
Soot (g/kWh)

0.005 BSFC. When the swirl is increased further from 2.0 to 2.5, then
0.004 over mixing of fuel and air, spray distortion or deflection of flame
0.003
occurs inside the cylinder which increases the smoke and
BSFC. The NOx emissions also increase with increase in swirl
0.002 mainly due to better combustion from 1.5 to 2 and due to higher
0.001 kinetic energy in the incoming charge from 2 to 2.5 [4]. All the
analysis is done in terms of power. Hence, in the graphs, 1 st
0
1.5 2 2.5 mode is not shown for better representation of data since at idle
Swirl Ratio power is 0.

Fig 12: Comparison of Soot at all ESC modes Effect of Swirl Ratio on Volumetric efficiency

The previous study ( ) shows that, design changes necessary

to introduce the intake air with an initial angular momentum,
also tend to reduce engine volumetric efficiency. So we have
BSFC (g/kWh) taken a data from FTP tests of all three swirl heads to calculate
the volumetric efficiency. The figure shows the trend of
volumetric efficiency with respect to speed. Normally volumetric
efficiency is higher at middle speed, and it decreases its value
with respect to increase in speed. In FTP of 2.0 swirl head, the
BSFC (g/kWh)

good improvement in volumetric efficiency at lighter loads. In the

range of ‘B’ speed of engine it reaches to 83.5 %. So it is found
that at optimum level of swirl ratio there is a scope of
improvement of volumetric efficiency. In higher swirl ratio the air
in induction process forms high angular momentum. This
angular momentum increases the rotation of air in combustion
chamber which further resists the intake air coming in end of the
1.5 2 2.5 induction process. This effect may reduce the volumetric
Swirl Ratio efficiency at higher swirl ratio.

Fig 13: Comparison of BSFC at all ESC modes In the production of engine, the various types of port geometry
is use to generate the swirl during the induction process. Of
these, the helical port is most effective at producing relatively
uniform high swirl with minimum loss of volumetric efficiency.
 1.5 swirl head 2.0 swirl head 2.5 swirl head
84
NOx vs Soot (A50)
83
0.02
82 2.0 swirl head 1.5 swirl head
Percentage (%)

81
80 0.015

Soot, (gm/kWh)
79
78 0.01

77
76 0.005
800
1000
1100
1200
1400
1535
1600
1800
1930
2000
2200
2325
2400
2600
0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
BSNOx, (gm/kWh)
Fig 15: Comparison of volumetric efficiencies of different swirl ratio.

Effect of combustion parameter optimization: Fig 18 : Comparison of soot vs NOx at A50

From the ESC results we can see that, with 1.5 swirl ratio, we NOx vs BSFC (A50)
had lower NOx. So there was scope of improvement from the 230
emission point of view in comparison to 2 swirl ratio cylinder 1.5 swirl head 2.0 swirl head
head. Throughout the trials above the combustion parameters
were kept same. It will be interesting to check if we with the same 225
NOx value as in 2.0 NOx can we have an improvement in BSFC
BSFC, (gm/kWh)
and soot. So we with rail pressures ranging from 800 bar to 1800 220
bar and main injection timing from -4 BTDC to 10 ATDC, a DOE
was carried out in A speed, 25.50 & 75 % load points and the
following results obtained. 215

NOx vs Soot (A25)

210
0.015
2.0 swirl head 1.5 swirl head

205
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Soot, (gm/kWh)

0.01 BSNOx, (gm/kWh)

Fig 19 : Comparison of BSFC vs NOx at A50

0.005

NOx vs Soot (A75)

0.02
0 2.0 swirl head 1.5 swirl head
0.018
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
BSNOx, (gm/kWh) 0.016
0.014
Soot, (gm/kWh)

Fig 16: Comparison of soot vs NOx at A25 0.012

0.01
NOx vs BSFC (A25)
260 0.008
1.5 swirl head 2.0 swirl head
0.006
255
BSFC, (gm/kWh)

0.004
250 0.002

245 0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
240 BSNOx, (gm/kWh)

235
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Fig 20 : Comparison of soot vs NOx at A75
BSNOx, (gm/kWh)

Fig 17: Comparison of BSFC vs NOx at A25


NOx vs BSFC (A75)
225
2.0 swirl head 1.5 swirl head
220
215
BSFC, (gm/kWh)
210
205
200
195
190
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
BSNOx, (gm/kWh)
Fig 21 : Comparison of soot vs NOx at A75
From the DOE we found out that, employing advanced main
injection timing and higher rail pressures in 1.5 swirl ratio, we
can get improvement in BSFC which is comparable to or slightly
better than 2.0 swirl results with the same NOx emission levels.
But during the trials we saw that soot emissions with 2.0 was still
better than 1.5. Since in 2.5 swirl ratio head NOx was already
higher it was not investigated. But this trial shows that we should
also carry out DOE by changing combustion parameters (rail
pressure and main injection timing) for lower swirl ratio to see if
we can get better results. But having a higher injection pressure
and advanced timing can also lead to higher peak combustion
pressure. So depending on the project requirement the relevant
swirl ratio can be selected.
Conclusion
Experiments were carried out to analyze the effect of different
swirl ratios on the NOx, Smoke and BSFC .Major findings from
this study are summarized as follows:
Effect of Swirl ratio on nox: With increase in swirl, NOx
emissions increase. The results of experiments show that, with
increase in swirl ratio the mixing of air and fuel improves. Due to
better mixing, complete combustion happens which leads to an
increase in NOx emissions. Also with an optimum swirl, we have
better volumetric efficiency which results in increased air flow.
The availability of air also helps in the formation of NOx. At high
swirl (2.5 swirl ratio in this case), we might have a case of high
kinetic energy of the incoming charge eventually leading to
higher flame temperature which is leading to the increased NOx
levels.
Effect of Swirl ratio on Soot: Soot emission is
dependent on the complete combustion of the charge in the
engine. Since air swirl is used to increase the fuel air mixing
rates, one would expect the overall duration of the combustion
process to shorten as swirl increases. The soot decreases as
swirl increases due to more rapid fuel-air mixing. But due to
excessive air motion in the combustion chamber various
temperature region forms at different position of combustion
chamber. Excessive swirl creates low temperature region at
central part of chamber which is responsible for generation of
soot at higher swirl ratios. Experiments had proved that trend in
which soot improves from 0.0067 at 1.5 swirl ratio to 0.0025 at
2.0 swirl ratio which is 62% improvement. But when swirl ratio
increases from 2.0 to 2.5, then soot increased. This shows that
2.0 swirl ratio is optimum for this engine in case of soot
formation.
Effect of Swirl ratio on Volumetric Efficiency: With
the increase in swirl, we see that there is an improvement in
volumetric efficiency, which then deteriorates if it is increased
beyond a particular limit. This might be due to the fact that as
the swirl increases, we have some local pressure depressions
happening during the charge induction in the suction stroke, but
as the angular momentum increases we might see the flow
going from laminar to turbulent which then can create pressure
shocks or local pressure increase which impedes the charge
moving into the cylinder This can be used as a parameter for
CFD simulation to get the optimum swirl in terms of volumetric
efficiency.
13
Effect of swirl ratio on BSFC: As the swirl increases we
see that there is an improvement in the BSFC since; we have a
better combustion due to better mixing as well as higher airflow
leading to complete combustion. But as the swirl is increased
beyond a particular optimum value it again deteriorates due to
over-mixing of charge as well lower volumetric efficiency leading
to lower airflow and hence incomplete combustion.
Contact information
Mr Ramakant Gode
Designation: Masters of technology (I.C. engines)
Organization: ARAI Academy, Pune
Email address: ramakant.gode@gmail.com
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Mr.
R.S.Sachdeva, Chief of product development & technology, Mr.
Sachin Agarwal, VP – Head of Powertrain and Mr. Akhilesh
Shukla, Deputy General Manager, VE Commercial Ltd and Mr.
K.C.Vora, Sr. Deputy Director and Head of ARAI Academy,
Pune for giving permission to publish this work and provided
their valuable guidance for making this paper.
References
1. Heywood, J. B., “ Internal Combustion Engine
Fundamentals”, MC Graw Hill Publications, 1996
2. Thien, G. E., “ Description of Measuring Methods for
the Investigation of Stationary Flow Properties at Valve
Port and statement for the Evaluation of the
Measurement Results” , AVL – FA report no.
128/General/ 011
3. Khan, I. M.,et al., “ Effect of Air Swirl on Smoke and
Gaseous Emossions From Direct Injection Diesel
Engines”, SAE paper 720102
4. Yashodhan , Manasi Mone, Asit Desai, Saurabh
Markandeya, Nagaraj Nayak, Yogesh Aghav, Navtej
 Singh sohi, A. D. Dani et al., “ Optimization of Intake IOF – Insoluble Organic Fraction
Port Performance on Emission Compliance of
Naturally Aspirated DI Diesel Engine”, SAE paper 200- SOF – Soluble Organic Fraction
26-010.
5. Bates M.C., Heikal M.R., et al “A Knowledge-Based BSIV – Bharat Stage IV
Modal for Multi-Valve Diesel Engine Inlet Port Design”
SAE paper 2002-01-1747.
T3 – Exhaust Temperature
6. Combustion characteristics of a swirl chamber type
diesel engine, Journal of Mechanical Science and
Technology (Impact Factor: 1.09). 01/2009; SO2 – Sulphur Oxide
23(12):3385-3392. DOI: 10.1007/s12206-009-1011-2
7. Shuisheng Jiang, Siwei Zhu, Hua Wen, Shuping PCP – Peak Combustion Pressure
Huang et al ., “Parameter Analysis of Diesel Helical
Intake Port Numerical Design” International DOC - Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
Conference on Future Energy Environment, and
Materials, Energy Procedia 16 (2012) 558-563 BSFC -Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
8. Xia Xing-lan, Chen Da-lu and Wang Sheng-li et al.,
“Evaluation Methods to Performance of Intake Port in MI -Main Injection
Internal Combustion Engine [J]. Modern Vehicle
Power, 2002(2):7-12 EOI -End of Injection
9. H. Endres, H.J. Neuber, R. Wurms et al.,” Influence of
Swirl and Tumble on Economy and Emissions of Multi
Valve SI Engines.” SAE paper 920516(1992). HC -Hydro Carbon
10. Wang Zhi, Huang Rong-hua et al.,” Three-Dimensional
Simulation for Helical Intake Port of 4 BTAA Diesel A, B & C- Emission Point
Engine.” Journal of Combustion Science and
Technology, DOI: 2004, 10(2):176-180. RPM -Engine Speed
11. Lakshminarayanan, P.A. et al., “Solving Inlet Valve
Seat Wear Problem in High BMEP Engines”, SAE FSN- Finite Smoke Number
paper 2001-01-0024, Presented at SIAT 2001.
12. KOEL Company Standard on “Performance Testing
and Requirements for Inlet and Exhaust Ports”, 1990.
Appendix
13. Arcoumanis, C., Tanabe, S. et al “Swirl Generation by
Helical Ports.”. SAE paper 890790.
14. M.C. Bates, M.R. Heikal et al., “ A Knowledge-Based
Model for Multi-Valve Diesel Engine Inlet Port Design.”
SAE paper 2002-01-1747.
15. N F Gale .et al., “Diesel Engine Cylinder Head Design-
The Compromises and the Techniques”. SAE paper-
SAE900133.
16. S. K. Widener. “Parametric Design of Helical Intake
Ports. SAE paper- SAE950818
17. Y Li, L Li, J Xu, X Gong, S Liu, S Xu, et al.,”Effect of
Combustion and Orientation of Intake Port on Swirl
Mtion in Four-Valve DI Diesel Engines.” SAE paper
200-01-1823.
18. C.R.Stone, N. Ladommatos et al.,” The Measurement
and Analysis of Swirl in Steady Flow.” SAE paper
921642.
19. Hongming Xu et al.,”Some Critical Technical Issues on
the Steady Flow Testing of Cylinder Heads.” SAE
paper 2001-01-1308

Abbreviations
NOx –Nitrogen Oxide

PM– Particulate Matter

CO – Carbon Mono-Oxide

HC – Hydro Carbon

View publication stats