EDGE™

P08222 – FSAE Engine Management System

Erich Fiederlein (EMEN)

EDGE™

Project Information• Project Name

– FSAE Engine Management System • Project Number

– P08222 • Project Family

– FSAE Autosports Family• Track

– Vehicle Systems Technology Track• Start Term

– 2007-2 planned academic quarter for MSD1• End Term

– 2007-3 planned academic quarter for MSD2• Faculty Guide

– Dr. Alan Nye (ME) - confirmed• Faculty Consultant

– Mr. Chris Deminco (ME) - confirmed• Faculty Consultant

– Mr. George Slack (EE) - confirmed• Primary Customer

– RIT FSAE Racing Team - confirmed

EDGE™

Phase 0: PlanningMission Statement

Product Description –The high cost of high performance engine control units creates the desire for an 'in-house' unit. Sponsored by RIT's Formula SAE Racing team, this project is the second phase of several, which is intended to continue and expand upon the ECU project started last year. With an RIT made engine management system, which is based on MoTeC's M400 ECU, the formula team can significantly cut costs and gain recognition for their uniqueness in design. In addition, the ECU is designed and customized specifically for the RIT formula car, which can allow for greater freedoms in tuning, inputs, outputs, and data collection.

Key Business Goals The primary business goals of this product are to – Provide the FSAE team with innovative technology made by RIT students that will improve their performance at competition.– Provide an open ended product that other senior design teams or the FSAE team can expand upon.– Reduce the cost incurred when purchasing a unit in the market.

Primary Market The primary market for the ECU is the Formula SEA Racing team.

Secondary Market Secondary markets for the ECU include other motorsports projects/teams such as the Mini Baja team.

Stakeholders Stakeholders in the design of our product include the following: The RIT FSAE Racing team The faculty consultants and guides The Society of Automotive Engineers The sponsors of the RIT FSAE Racing teamThe Kate Gleason College of Engineering

EDGE™

EDGE™

Motec Software Utility

EDGE™

Phase 0: PlanningStaffing Requirements

Mechanical Engineers Number: 2It will be the responsibility of the Mechanical Engineers to design and develop a test bench for the engine management system. In order to test the unit properly we will need to develop a tool that will simulate the inputs and outputs of the system (ie. A running engine). These engineers should have an understanding of how engines operate with regards to sensor and communication to and from the engine controller.

Electrical Engineers Number: 3 The groundwork has been laid for this project already and we are not trying to reinvent the wheel. The Electrical Engineers job will be to learn what the previous team accomplished and expand upon their design. These engineers should have a strong background in circuit design and should be able to debug and troubleshoot circuitry. They should have experience in coding microcontrollers, PCB layout tools, surface mount soldering tools, Power supplies, signal processing, DC-DC converters, noise filtering, etc. These engineers should also have knowledge of how engine management systems work and how their subsystem components work.

Industrial and Systems EngineersNumber: 1This project will need extensive testing and confirmation before being used on a real engine. It will be the responsibility of the Industrial and Systems Engineers to develop a test plan based on the Formula teams requests and the requirements used in industry. These engineers should have some knowledge of how engines operate. They will also be responsible for assisting in the design of the test bench so that the design can accommodate all of the tests.

Computer EngineersNumber: 1The integration of the ECU to the motor is of utmost importance in this project. It will be the responsibility of the Computer Engineer to assist the Electrical Engineers in developing the code for the microcontroller, and to help the software engineer in developing the graphical user interface (GUI)

Software EngineersNumber:1The Integration of the ECU to the user is also of high importance in this project and it is the responsibility of this engineer to develop a graphical user interface (GUI) modeled after the Motec M400 software.

EDGE™

EDGE™

EDGE™

EDGE™

EDGE™

Phase 0: PlanningResource Requirements

PeopleThe FSAE team project manager and engine group leader will be heavily relied upon for information and requirements.Chris Deminco of Delphi is a valuable source of knowledge and experience from industry.ME, EE, and CE professors will also be useful as resources for this project.The members of the past senior design team will be a valuable source of information

Environment A dedicated workspace will be necessary as elaborate testing and debugging setups will be used.Space in the Senior Design lab on the 3rd floor of the Engineering building is necessary.This space will have to be reserved at the beginning of the SD1

EquipmentMachine shop equipment such as mills, lathes, etc. will be needed for machiningElectrical Engineering test equipment such as scope, multi-meters, power supplies, etc. will be required.Computers for coding will be necessary to test/run and develop codeA development board has already been purchased for this project.A 10 Amp power supply would be helpful but a car battery with a charger would work as well.The CIMS Surface mounting PCB equipment is necessary for populating boards

MaterialsMore chips will likely be needed as time goes on. Materials to build the test bench will be neededSensors and other devices will also be needed for the test bench but will likely come from Formula team supplies.

EDGE™

Phase 1: Concept DevelopmentIdentify Customer Needs - Interviews

Primary Customer(s)Last years FSAE team project manager indicated that developing a test bench is a necessary step. He feels that the project should continue where the other team left it and should not be redesigned. The teams deliverables should include a test bench that will simulate an engine, and a proposal, with proof, of a fixed ECU. It is not the goal of this SD team to remake the ECU, that will be the goal of the next SD team. This will help keep the scope of the project reasonable for a senior design team.

Other Stakeholder(s)I have interviewed the faculty guide for this project and the FSAE team. He indicated that developing a test bench for the ECU would be an important component for the project. He also indicated that their would likely be another senior design team to finish the ECU development next year.

Past Senior Design Team(s)I was the project manager for last years team. I have all of the documentation from the past team. The FSAE team has the ECU prototype that was developed last year including all the extra chips and connectors that were purchased. I have interviewed the lead EE of last years project who gave some more advice as to how to debug the ECU. He indicated that a 10 amp power supply would be useful in debugging the power supply circuitry. He noted that it could be done with a car battery but the power conditioning circuitry would need to be tested first so the correct amount of power goes to the correct circuitry. Also the battery would have to be kept charged which would be the responsibility of the SD team.

EDGE™

Phase 1: Concept DevelopmentIdentify Customer Needs - Benchmarking

Competitive or Cooperative SolutionsExtensive benchmarking was done by last years team when developing the ECU. We also took the input from the formula team members and incorporated their requests into the design. The graphical user interface that the team will develop should be modeled after the one currently used by the FSAE team. That software, created by MOTEC, is already used by the FSAE team and is readily available for benchmark.

A detailed list of customer needs and specs can be found at P07222 website.

Internet and Technical Literature Search–[1] Bosch, R., 1999, Gasoline-engine management, Robert Bosch GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany. –[2] Bosch, R., 2001, "Technical Customer Information: Planar Wide Band Lambda Sensor," Robert Bosch GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany. –[3] "Oxygen Sensors," Service Tech Magazine, May, 2001, pp. 13-15. –[4] Tech-Edge, 2007, "How 5-Wire Sensors Work," http://wbo2.com/lsu/lsuworks.htm –[5] M400 System Specifications MoTeC Pty Ltd. 2003. m400specs.pdf. –[6] MoTeC M400/M600/M800/M880 User's Manual MoTeC Pty Ltd, 2001-2003. pp. 1-101 –[7] Linear Technologies Schematic Screenshot from SWCAD Program simulation. –[8] www.motec.com–[9] www.autronic.com–[10] www.sae.org–[11] www.howstuffworks.com

EDGE™

Phase 1: Concept DevelopmentIdentify Customer Needs – Hierarchy

Needs Statements:1. Debug the ECU.

– Pick up where the last team left off– Debug the current design– Propose a solution to fix the circuitry in the prototype– Prove that the solution will work by demonstrating it on the test bench.

2. Create a test bench to help develop the ECU.– Test bench must have sensors that support ECU operation– Must be representative of an actual engine– Should have outputs for proof of concept

3. Create a graphical user interface (GUI).– Modeled after the Motec ECU interface– Should be easy to use and update– Show that the ECU can be updated from the GUI

4. Develop a test plan so the ECU can be validated.– Thorough testing must be completed before placing on an engine– Research regulations for testing ECU’s

5. Keep good documentation – This project will be handed on to the next team so good documentation is essential

6. A detailed list of customer needs and specs can be found at the P07222 website.

EDGE™

Specification Number

Customer Need Number

Design Specification ImportanceUnit of

MeasureMarginal

ValueIdeal Value

1 Size 1 mm 174x105x40 80x50x202 1 Weight 1 kg 1 0.53 Number of digital inputs 3 8 104 Number of digital outputs 3 16 205 Serial interface 3 USB 2 26 Number of Analog inputs 3 16 207 Number of Analog outputs 3 2 48 Pulse width modulated outputs 3 4 69 2 Timing granularity 1 degrees 5 1

10 3 Injector pulse width and time 9 ms 0-10 0-1011 Processor speed 9 MHz 24 3212 RAM memory 9 kB 512 51213 Flash memory 9 kB 512 51214 Burn in 3 oC/hr. 10-70/10 hrs 10-70/32 hrs15 Battery transient protection 3 mV 0.1 0.00116 4 Max RPM 3 RPM 12000 1500017 Internal temperature range 3 oC -20-85 -50-12518 Operating voltage 1 V 9-24 6-2419 Operating current 1 Amp 10 820 5 fuel calibration accuracy 9 us 2 0.04221 6 Ignition calibration accuracy 3 us 2 0.04222 7 tach output 3 RPM 15000 1800023 8 Logging rate 9 samples/sec 1-200 1-50024 9 Logging time 9 min 20 28

1 1 Configurable firing order 92 2 FSAE sensors compatible with calibration 33 3 Controller software updatable by USB 94 High RFI immunity 35 Battery reverse protection 96 4 Environmentally sealed electronics 97 5 Display communications 38 6 Tuning setup diagnostic and utility software 99 cross platform usability 1

10 7 Data logging 911 8 User definable real-time display 912 individual cylinder trim 113 9 Adjustable fuel calibration 314 10 RPM and load sites are user programmable 915 11 adjustable ignition calibration 316 12 Onboard wideband lambda sensor controller 317 13 Driver warning alarm and shift light control 118 14 gear detection 119 15 Launch control 120 Gear change ignition cut (for paddle shifters) 121 16 Traction control capable 1

Attributes Section

EDGE™

Value Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations

Punctual

The team member has had one or more unexcused absences or tardy arrivals to a scheduled team activity. The team member is not notifying others of conflicts with meeting times, or has allowed other committments to impede the member's duties to this team. The team member is detracting from the performance of the entire team.

The team member has had one or more unexcused absences or tardy arrivals. The individual could and should have done a better job at notifying (in advance) a peer of the absence or tradiness. At the current time, the problem has not caused significant harm to the team, but this behavior needs to improve. It is not unusual for a team member to receive this rating a couple of times during the project.

The team member was prompt and present at every team event this week, or any absences were excused in advance. If there was an unexcused absence or tardiness, then the team-mates agreed that the reason disclosed after the fact was indeed unavoidable. For example, a member is in a fender bender on the way to campus, and was unable to contact a team-mate about being late. The absent member caught up with a peer as soon as practical, and informed them of the problem.

Not only is the team member always prompt and present, but the member clearly plans ahead for excused absences (such as job trips) and insures that the absence will not adversely affect the team's performance. The member notifies the team of heavy loads and external conflicts (such as exams in other classes) that COULD have an adverse impact on the team, and works with the peers on this team to make sure that the information flow from the member to and from the peers is smooth even in such cases.

Thorough

The team member has not completed the task assigned, or has submitted a response that is clearly insufficient. The work will need to be re-done by another team member in order for the team to move forward. Some of the work may have been done, but it was incomplete. The team member is detracting from the performance of the entire team.

The team member made some progress towards the task assigned, but not as much progress as should have been accomplished. The work may be done, but the other team member's have no way of checking the results, because the supporting documentation is incomplete. The team member is getting behind on the tasks that need to be completed. The team member needs to make up the missed work during the next evaluation period.

The team member has made solid progress towards the task assigned. The task is complete, and is well done, though it may need some additional work and refinement to be fully complete. The assignment may be incomplete, but the team member has clearly made a good effort towards getting the task done. In retrospect, this task may have been too much for the member to do in the time allocated, so the fact that the task is not done yet is not due to lack of effort by the member.

The task has been completed fully, and is in essentially finished form. The other team members can readily check the work submitted since the documentation is so clear. Not only is the work done, but everyone on the team recognizes that the task is complete with little or no need for additional effort.

Accurate

The work completed by the team member is unacceptable and does not meet the basic standards of engineering work. Engineering principles were not applied, or were grossly mis-applied. Basic elements of the engineering task were overlooked. The work completed must be re-done completely.

The work completed by the member contains many errors that must be corrected. While the basic approach to problem solving may be ok, the actual work completed needs to be largely re-done in order to be useful to the team. Some things were not done by the team member, that should have been obvious to complete.

The work completed by the member contains a few errors that must be corrected. The basic approach to problem solving is good, and the errors are relatively minor and could be readily corrected through normal peer review and checking. The work was corrected through consultation with the team members or faculty guide.

The team member completed the task with virtually no errors or omissions. The work was accurate, and can be easily scaled to other applications or tasks that the team may encounter.

Professional and Ethical

The team member has committed plagiarism, falsified data, ignored their responsibility as an engineer. The team member may have behaved inappropriately at a team event, or in a manner that reflects adversely on the team. The members' actions may cause the entire team to fail.

The team member has overlooked some references or consistently fails to cite sources and conduct individual tasks. The team member may have made some off-color remarks or been offensive to a team-mate or other individual. The team member needs to clean up his/her act.

The team member behaves responsibly and fully documents sources and collaborators on all work.

The team member is a role model for others, and behaves in a professional and ethical fashion even under very trying and difficult circumstances.

Committed The team member is a burden to the rest of the team.

The team member is carrying less than their fair share of the work load.

The team member is carrying their fair share of the workload.

The team member is carrying more than their fair share of the workload.

Accepted Norms of Performance: Weekly Peer Assessment Rubric

EDGE™

Grading StructureGrade Level

MSD I MSD II

D

Plan outlined, some drawings made, proof of concept. Test plan structure started with

minimal specifications. Can show on paper what problems have been found. Code

developed for development board that shows general communications.

Test box is not completely assembled and therefore cannot demonstrate the functionality of the ECU. Certain circuits can be shown to work

using a scope and function generators. The GUI can not communicate with the ECU

because of a debugging issue but code is written which shows the steps. The team has documented everything so another team can

pick up where they left off.

C

Test box design is finished but drawings arent complete. No parts list made. Shows parts of circuits functioning properly using a scope and

function generators. Can show only a few inputs being read and outputs created. GUI has some graphics but are not functional yet. Few

aspects have a test plan developed.

Test box manufactured and shows minimal functionality of the ECU. Parts of the ECU can

run by themselves but can not be run all at once. The GUI can communicate with the ECU most

of the time. The inteface is either visually appealing or easy to use. The team has

documented everything so another team can pick up where they left off.

B

Test box design is complete with drawings and parts list made. Can show only 1 circuit

functioning properly using a sope and function generators. Can show the microprossor reading

all of the inputs and outputting appropriate signals. GUI has one graphic operational and

can show how it will communicate with the microcontroller. Test plan for most aspects

outlined

Test box manufactured and shows most of the functionality of the ECU. The ECU can run on

its own for a short time before it has to be supported by students. The GUI communicates

most of the time. The interface is visually appealing but difficult to use. The team has documented everything so another team can

pick up where they left off.

A

Test box design is complete with drawings and parts ordered. Can show some of the circuitry running using a scope and function generators.

Most of the code running on development board. Can show the GUI and the

Microprosessor communicating properly on top of whats required for a B. Has some graphics operational with respect to maps and tables.

Full test plan outlined.

Test box manufactured and shows the functionality of the ECU. The ECU can be

plugged in and run on its own for an extended period of time without failure or human support.

The GUI communicates consistantly with the ECU and provides a user friendly, asthetically pleasing interface. The team has documented their solution so another team can make a new

version of the ECU

EDGE™

Preliminary Budget AnalysisDescription Manufacturer Part Number Distributer Unit Price Build Qty. Quantity Total Qty. Total CostMicrocontroller Texas Instrument TMS470R1B512 Digikey $16.58 1 1 1 SampledOp-amp Analog Devices AD8604 Digikey $2.27 1 10 10 $22.70Header Tyco 581-01-60-005 Allied $29.14 1 1 1 SampledConnector Tyco 581-01-30-028 Allied $9.26 1 2 2 SampledPWM controller Linear Tech LT1242 Digikey $3.50 1 4 4 $14.00Power FETs On Semi MTB50P03HDLT4 Digikey $2.96 1 10 10 $29.60Power FETs Int. Rectifier IRF7821 Digikey $2.38 1 2 2 $4.76DC-DC Controller Linear Tech LTC1778 Digikey $5.75 1 3 3 SampledVoltage Regulator Linear Tech LT1962 Digikey $3.50 1 1 1 SampledDiode NXP Semi BAT54 Digikey $0.33 1 1 1 $0.33Crystal Citizen HCM49-7.3728MABJ-UT Digikey $0.90 1 1 1 $0.90PCB PCB Express qty. 4 (4"x6") $340.00 1 1 1 no needPassives Panasonic Digikey $50.00 1 1 1 $50.00Fuse Holder Digikey $3.50 1 2 2 $7.00Injector Driver National Semi LM1949 Digikey $4.35 1 4 4 $17.40FET for injector Fairchild NDS8410 Digikey $1.35 1 5 5 $6.75Zener Flyback On Semi 1N5359BRLG Digikey $0.37 1 4 4 $1.48FET Driver Texas Instrument TC4469COE Digikey $2.48 1 2 2 $4.96Fuse Radioshack $3.99 1 2 2 $7.98Buffer Texas Instrument SN74AHCT125PWR Digikey $0.55 1 4 4 $2.20Temp Sensor Analog Devices TMP36GRTZ Digikey $1.20 1 1 1 $1.20Reverse Batt On Semi MBR140SFT1-D Digikey $0.37 1 10 10 $3.70input clipping On Semi BAS40LT1G Digikey $0.17 1 100 100 $16.97voltage refernece Analog Devices REF192 Digikey $3.83 1 1 1 $3.83Aluminum Stock McMaster Carr 9515K571 $46.51 1 1 1 $46.51Geltech Bushings Geltech A-1 $5.00 1 3 3 no needBushing Bolts McMasterCarr 92005a218 McMaster $3.00 1 1 1 no needTMS470 Eval. Kit Texas Instrument $199.00 1 1 1 no needBattery Walmart Walmart $50.00 1 1 1 $50.00Batter charger Walmart Walmart $50.00 1 1 1 $50.00

TOTAL $342.27

EDGE™

Issues and Risks

• Having a team that is not skilled enough or does not have the drive to complete a difficult task such as this

• Being unable to get lab space

• Not remembering to charge the battery for use at the next session.

• Danger from having a car battery lying around

• Lead times of parts

• Aligning resources with the formula team

EDGE™

Future Plan

Continue to recruit team members for this project. Present this presentation to the new SD team and answer any

questions about the project that may arise from it.Help the team get the information that was left by the last team

along with the materials/prototypes.Finish touching up PRP