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

Sound 1 -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

FanSurge Tank

No Surge Tank

Electric

pump

Mechanical pump

Requirements 

Light 5 0 1 1 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0Effective 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 0Complexity 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0Serviceable 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

1 Engine 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

3 Insufficient 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 lean Damage to engine

Ratio leaned out too far in

order to increase fuel

economy

2 3 6Slowly change the air fuel mixture in order to realize

effects before another change is made

Chris Jones, Jon Scanlon

Risk Assessment - ManagementID Risk Item Effect Cause L S I Action to Minimize Risk Owner

Project Management Risks

10 Insufficient 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?