View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lightweight Fuel Efficient Engine Package
Team Introduction
• Brittany Borella• Evan See
• Chris Jones• John Scanlon
• Stanley Fofano• Taylor Hattori
P12221:
Materials Reviewed
• Project Description• Work Breakdown Structure• Customer Needs• Customer Specifications• Concept Development and Proposed Design• Current System Design Schematic• Project Plan• Risk Assessment
Project Introduction
• Background: Fuel efficiency is becoming increasingly more important in Formula SAE competition scoring. In order to improve the RIT Formula SAE Race Team’s score, an engine package is desired that will be more fuel efficient while still producing a competitive amount of power.
Percentage Scored (Detroit) 2009 2010 2011Design 67% 67% 83%Cost 87% 89% 77%Sales 96% 93% 90%Acceleration 75% 80% 92%Skidpad 76% 81% 85%Autocross 93% 86% 83%Endurance 100% 92% N/AFuel 20% 52% 60% est.
Points lost 2011
Detroit Germany
Design 25 60
Cost 20 0
Sales 7 7
Acceleration 6 0
Skidpad 8 6
Autocross 25 18
Endurance N/A 86
Fuel 40 42
• Problem Statement: Develop a more fuel efficient and powerful engine package to be used by the RIT Formula SAE 2012 car
• Previous Formula SAE Senior Design Projects:– Variable Intake System– Paddle Shift System– Data Acquisition System– Engine Control Unit
Project Introduction
Objective and Scope
• Entire engine package able to provide the following:– Approximately 55 horsepower– Operation in ambient temperatures up to 100°F
under racing conditions– Reduction in fuel required by 60% compared to the
previous engine package over a similar run
• Well understood and documented development process
Deliverables
• Engine Package• Cooling System• Engine Model and
CFD Analysis• Wiring Diagram• Engine Maps
– Power Output – Fuel Economy
Assumptions and Constraints
• RIT Formula Team previously selected a single cylinder engine – 2009 Yamaha WR450F
• Must comply with all Formula SAE rules– Including, but not limited to:
• Use provided race fuel: 93 or 100 Octane Gasoline or E85 Ethanol
• Spark Ignition• Four Stroke
Work Breakdown Structure
Customer Needs
Customer Need # Importance Description
Engine
CN1 1 The engine must reduce fuel consumption when compared to the previous engine package
CN2 1 The engine must provide sufficient power output and acceleration
Control System
CN11 2 The control system must provide accurate fuel delivery and measurement
Cooling System
CN14 1 The cooling system must be able to allow the engine to operate in high ambient temperatures under race conditions
Documentation and Testing
CN17 1 Documented theoretical test plan and anticipated results
CN18 1 Must provide a CFD analysis of the intake manifold, restrictor, and throttle
CN19 2 Must provide an accurate model of the engine in GT-suite
Engineering Specifications
Spec. # Importance Source
Specification (metric)
Unit of Measure
Marginal Value
Ideal Value Comments/Status
S1 1 CN1 Fuel Consumption km/l 6.9 8.3 Want to use ~0.7 gal for the
22km run
S3 1 CN2 Power Output HP 45 55
S4 1 CN2 Torque ft-lbs 31 35
S6 1 CN4,15 Reliability km 50 100Should be able to perform in all Formula SAE events and
testing before major overhaul
S8 1 CN6 Weight lbs 75 68 Engine weight
S9 1 CN8 Fuel Type N/A E85 Ethanol-Gasoline Blend or 100 Octane Gasoline
S12 1 CN14 Temperature °F 220 200
Cooling system must keep the engine under 200 degrees in ambient temperatures up to
100 degrees
Sensors Necessary For Dynamometer Testing
Parameter Qty. Acquisition System Required Range Warning Limit Units MethodThrottle Position 1 MoTeC M400 0-100 % Rotary PotentiometerManifold Air Pressure 2 MoTeC M400 0-110 kPaa Pressure TransducerMass Air Flow 1 MoTeC M400 0-60 g/s Cold Wire MAFInlet Air Temperature 1 MoTeC M400 0-100 >80 C ThermistorExhaust Gas Temperature 4 NI PCI-6034E 0-950 >850 C K-Type ThermocoupleAir Fuel Ratio 1 MoTeC M400 .7-1.3 Lambda O2 SensorCrank Reference Sensor 1 MoTeC M400 Magnetic PickupCam Sync Sensor 1 MoTeC M400 Inductive ProximityEngine Coolant Temperature 1 MoTeC M400 0-120 >90 C ThermistorEngine Oil Temperature 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-150 >130 C ThermistorEngine Oil Pressure 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-800 <140 kPag Pressure TransducerBarometric Pressure 1 MoTeC M400 95-105 kPaa Pressure TransducerAmbient Air Temperature 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-50 >40 C ThermistorEngine Crank Angle 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-360 dATCD EncoderCylinder Pressure 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-5000 kPaa Piezo Pressure TransducerFuel Pressure 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-70 kPag Pressure TransducerFuel Inlet Flow Rate 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-2.4 lpm Turbine Flow MeterFuel Inlet Temperature 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-70 >60 C K-Type ThermocoupleFuel Outlet Flow Rate 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-2.4 lpm Turbine Flow MeterInjector Duty MoTeC M400 0-100 >90 % MoTeC ParameterSpark Advance MoTeC M400 0-50 dBTDC MoTeC ParameterCoolant Inlet Temperature 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-120 >90 C K-Type ThermocoupleCoolant Outlet Temperature 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-120 >90 C K-Type ThermocoupleCoolant Flow Rate 1 NI PCI-6034E 0-70 lpm Variable Area or TurbineKnock 1 Y Y/N Knock Tube
Sensor List
• ECM: Motec M400• Custom fuel maps for
each event• Controls various
auxiliary devices• Built-in data acquisition
Engine Management System
System Design Schematic:Engine
Concept Development and Proposed Design - Engine
Possible Engine Packages
Weight
Naturally
Aspirated 250
Single
Forced Induction 250 Single
Naturally
Aspirated 450
Single
Forced Induction 450 Single
Naturally
Aspirated
550 V-Twin
Forced Induction 550
V-Twin
Naturally
Aspirated
500 I2
Forced Induction 500
I2
Naturally
Aspirated
600 I4
Forced Induction 600
I4
Requirements
Fuel Efficient 5 1 1 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1Reliable 5 0 -1 1 0 -1 -1 1 0 0 0
Light 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1Practical 5 -1 0 1 0 0 -1 1 1 1 0Driveable 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0Powerful 3 -1 0 0 1 1 1 -1 0 1 1
Serviceable 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0Complexity 3 1 -1 1 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1
Ease of calibration
3 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1
Inexpensive 2 1 -1 0 -1 0 -1 1 0 1 0Attractive
Sound1 -1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Totals: 16 -3 33 0 14 -19 14 -11 16 -12
Concept Selection and Proposed Design – Cooling System
Possible Cooling System Designs
Weight
Oil Cooler
No Oil Cooler
Single Radiat
or
Twin Radiat
orFan
No Fan
Surge Tank
No Surge Tank
Electric
pump
Mechanical pump
Requirements
Light 5 0 1 1 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0
Effective high speed 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 -1 0 0
Effective low speed/off
4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
CG Height 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
Complexity 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
Serviceable 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cost 2 -1 1 1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 1
-2 14 10 8 -3 17 3 2 2 2
System Design Schematic:Cooling System
Concept Selection and Proposed Design – Fuel Choice
Possible Fuel Choices
Weight
93 Octane
Gasoline
100 Octane
Gasoline
E85 Ethanol/Gasoline
Requirements
Power potential 5 0 1 1
Knock Protection 4 0 1 1
Energy Content 4 1 1 0
Corrosivity 3 1 1 0
Cost 3 1 -1 0
Innovative 2 -1 -1 0
8 11 9
Project Plan
Project Plan
Risk Assessment - TechnicalID Risk Item Effect Cause L S I Action to Minimize Risk Owner
Technical Risks
1Engine Dynamometer
not reliable
Unable to characterize
engine torque
Dynamometer control system
not reliable2 2 4
Be familiarized with the Dynamometer control programs. Attempt to
characterize the Dynamometer and create
an accurate control system in case the original is
inefficient.
Stanley Fofano , Phil Vars
3Insufficient Cooling of
the Engine
Engine Overheats/damag
e to engine
Cooling system undersized or
inefficient2 3 6
Correctly analyze cooling system to maximize
efficiency
Evan See, Brittany Borella
4
Unable to accuractly predict airflow through
the intake manifold, restrictor, and throttle
Inaccurate theoretical model
of engine
Improper CFD analysis
2 2 4
Accurately control initial assumptions and
conditions in order to create the most accurate
model possible
Taylor Hattori
5
Unable to accurately predict fuel
consumption and power output
Inefficiencies in the engine package
Improper Engine
Modeling2 3 6
Verify engine model with dynamometer testing in correlation with fuel flow
sensors.
Jon Scanlon
8 Air:Fuel Ratio too leanDamage to
engine
Ratio leaned out too far in
order to increase fuel
economy
2 3 6
Slowly change the air fuel mixture in order to realize
effects before another change is made
Chris Jones, Jon Scanlon
Risk Assessment - Management
ID Risk Item Effect Cause L S I Action to Minimize Risk Owner
Project Management Risks
10Insufficient
funding
Outside contracted work
won't be able to be paid for
Outside Contracting work is expensive
1 1 1
Use funds wisely and try to do as much in house testing as possible. When outside testing is necessary,
try to take advantage of sponsorships.
Brittany Borella
11Inconsistant
Team Priorities
Actual Senior Design
deliverables do not get met
Actual engineering in the project given more
priority than Senior design paperwork and
deliverables
1 1 1
Project Manager(s) in charge of keeping track of all deliverables, for
the class and the actual engine design, and making sure they are
being taken care of by everyone on the team
Evan See, Britttany Borella
12Project not
completed on time
Formula team does not have a complete engine
package
Poor time management and planning
1 3 3
Lead engineer will make sure that sufficient time is put into all engine systems so that all components are properly tested and prepared for the
final engine package
Jon Scanlon
13Parts are
ordered too late
Engine Dyno testing and on car testing cannot be completed on time
long lead parts not identified and ordered
on time1 2 2
Long lead time parts ordered as soon as identified - early in MSD1
Jon Scanlon
Action Items for Detailed Design
• Well Documented Testing Plan
• BOM and 3D Model of Key Cooling System Components, Intake and Exhaust
• Preliminary Engine Model
• Wiring Diagram
• Baseline Engine Maps– Power Output – Fuel Economy
General Questions and Comments?