ME1104-08 Elliot Rose

Scott Hamilton Conrad Meekhof

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Claudia Fajardo Industrial Sponsor: DENSO North America Foundation

�  Project Goals •  Design a forced-air induction system for a Suzuki RM-Z450 for use in the

WMU Formula race car •  Meet or exceed previous engine power to weight ratio •  Increase fuel efficiency •  Increase volumetric efficiency and engine torque

�  Why? •  Increase in points awarded for fuel economy from 5 to10% of total

competition points •  Accomplished using engine downsizing •  Power output decreases by engine downsizing

�  Method

•  Design was completed using parametric solid modeling, one-dimensional engine simulation software and experimental testing.

�  Forced induction system selection �  Engine system modeling (Ricardo Wave Software) �  Engine model validation

•  Restrictor

•  Analytical peak pressure calculation (MathCAD) �  Sensitivity Study �  Design Iterations �  Cam Profile Design �  Design Results �  Conclusions, Recommendation and Future Work

http://www.wmich.edu/engineer/images/splash/2-9.jpg

�  Current Engine •  Suzuki GSX-R600 �  Four-cylinder, 600cc displacement �  4 valves per cylinder �  Weight: 125 lbs �  Port fuel injected �  Vehicle power to weight ratio: 0.14

�  Proposed Engine •  Suzuki RM-Z450 �  Single-cylinder, 450cc displacement �  4 valves per cylinder �  Weight: 75 lbs �  Gas direct injection redesign �  Vehicle power to weight ratio: 0.11

�  Eaton R410 Roots Supercharger •  Weight: 15 lbs •  Parasitic loss: 6.0 HP– 8.0 HP •  Effect on throttle response •  Designed for 500cc – 1400cc

displacement engines

�  Honeywell GT12 Turbocharger •  Weight: 8.8 lbs •  Parasitic Loss: 0 HP •  No effect on throttle response •  Designed for 500cc – 1,200cc

displacement engines

�  Honeywell GT15VNT Turbocharger •  Weight: 10 lbs •  Parasitic Loss: 0 HP •  Maximum exhaust input temperature

of 825 °C •  Variable vane turbine •  Designed for 1000cc – 1600cc

displacement engines

Supercharger Turbocharger

http://www.eaton.com/ecm/groups/public/@pub/@eaton/@per/documents/content/ct_126004.jpg

http://www51.honeywell.com/honeywell/news-events/graphic-library-n3/transport-systems/images/3.5.3.4.1_gt12_turbo_charger_2.jpg

�  Ricardo Wave (1-D engine simulation software) �  Restrictor implementation (FSAE rules) �  Turbocharger implementation �  Camshaft measurement

•  Design Variables �  Overlap �  Lift �  Duration

�  Mathematical model

Camshaft profiles

Validated Base Model

Turbocharged Engine Model with Restrictor

Restrictor

Turbocharger

�  Restrictor verification •  Flow bench

•  Less than 14% error

�  Stock cam profiles

•  Directly correlate to the cam profiles in the validated engine model

0

50

100

150

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Volu

met

ric

flow

rat

e (C

FM

)

Pressure Drop (psi) Exparimental Ricardo

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

-400 -200 0 200 400

Valv

e L

ift (

in)

Crank Angle (Degrees from TDC) Intake Exhaust

�  Design variables •  8 variables identified •  This would result in greater than 1,000 iterations

�  Identify critical components

�  Component variation •  Packaging •  6 pipe lengths varied from 2 inches to 8 inches •  2 plenum volumes varied from 0.5 L to 4 L

Varied  Component  

Power  at  7000  RPM  

Min  (hp)   Max  (hp)  Percent  difference  

Restrictor  to  compressor  Runner   26.1   26.3   0.7  

Compressor  to  Plenum  Runner   26.1   26.3   0.9  

Intake  Plenum   26.0   27.6   6  

Plenum  to  cylinder  Runner   26.9   30.2   10.8  

Cylinder  to  plenum  Runner   24.4   29.4   16.9  

Exhaust  Plenum   18.5   31.3   40.8  

Plenum  to  turbine  Runner   26.0   26.3   1.2  

Turbine  to  muffler  Runner   25.8   26.2   1.4  

�  Limits set by packaging constraints �  Number of iterations: 290

�  Analyzed according to design criteria

�  Turbocharged restricted engine model •  Marginal performance improvements at engine speeds below

8,000 RPM over the stock restricted engine model •  Greatest performance improvements located above 8,000 RPM

�  15% improvement at 8,000 RPM �  60% improvement at 12,000 RPM

Component   Final  Size  

Restrictor  to  compressor  runner   2  in  

Compressor  to  plenum  runner   3  in  

Intake  plenum   2  L  

Plenum  to  cylinder  runner   5  in  

Cylinder  to  plenum  runner   5  in  

Exhaust  plenum   5  L  

Plenum  to  turbine  runner   18  in  

Turbine  to  muffler  runner   3.5  in  

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

3000 5000 7000 9000 11000

Pow

er (h

p)

Engine Speed (RPM)

Initial Redesign Restricted

�  Problem •  Excessive exhaust pressure causing

backflow �  Objective

•  Reduce exhaust backflow •  Increase volumetric efficiency

�  Profile redesign •  Intake valve opening shifted 65 crank angles •  Reduced valve overlap by 66%

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3000 5000 7000 9000 11000

Pre

ssu

re (p

si)

Engine Speed (RPM)

Intake Exhaust

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

-400 -200 0 200 400

Valv

e L

ift (

in)

Crank Angle (Degree from TDC) Exhaust Intake Intake Redesign

�  Performance results •  Improved performance throughout the engine speed range

�  Increased brake power by ~30%

�  Increased volumetric efficiency by ~19% to 56% �  Lowered exhaust back flow by ~ 50%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

3000 5000 7000 9000 11000

Bra

ke

Pow

er (h

p)

Engine Speed (RPM) Stock Camshafts Redesigned Camshafts

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

3000 5000 7000 9000 11000

Volu

met

ric

Eff

icie

ncy

Engine Speed (RPM) Stock Camshafts Redesigned Camshaft

�  Goals •  Recover power to weight ratio

lost when down sizing •  Increase fuel efficiency

�  Power increase •  Final design increased peak power by

41% over restricted stock engine

�  Power to weight ratio •  Increased by 35% over restricted

stock engine •  Increased 21% over the GSX-R 600

�  Fuel efficiency •  Marginally decreased over the engine

operating range

•  Fuel efficiency gains from direct-injection design will compensate for this reduction

0.2

0.225

0.25

0.275

0.3

0.325

0.35

3000 5000 7000 9000 11000

Bra

ke

Spec

ific

Fu

el

Con

sum

pti

on (k

g/k

W/h

r)

Engine Speed (RPM) Stock Restricted Final Design

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

3000 5000 7000 9000 11000

Bra

ke

Pow

er (h

p)

Engine Speed (RPM)

Stock Restricted Final Design

�  Goals

•  Increase low end torque •  Increase volumetric efficiency

�  Torque increase •  35% over stock restricted

engine

�  Volumetric efficiency •  Stock restricted: 87% at 8,000

RPM •  Final design: 144% at 9,000

RPM

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

3000 5000 7000 9000 11000

Vol

um

etri

c E

ffic

ien

cy

Engine Speed (RPM) Stock Restricted Final Design

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

3000 5000 7000 9000 11000

Bra

ke

Torq

ue

(Ft-

lbs)

Engine Speed (RPM)

Stock Restricted Final Design

�  Implement forced air induction system featuring: •  Honeywell Garrett GT12 Turbocharger •  Plenum volume �  Intake: 2 L �  Exhaust: 5 L

•  Critical runner lengths �  Plenum to intake: 5 in. �  Exhaust to plenum: 5 in.

•  Cam change �  Delay intake opening 65 crank angles �  66% reduced overlap

� Gear vehicle drivetrain to best utilize power produced.

Picture Courtesy of Honeywell

�  Experimental validation of simulation model •  Physical system build

�  Further refinement of engine packaging •  Exploration of plenum geometries

�  Ricardo VECTIS

•  3-D computational fluid dynamics software •  Intake and exhaust system flow characteristics

�  WMU Mechanical & Aeronautical Engineering Department

�  Dr. Claudia Fajardo

�  Dr. Richard Hathaway

�  Michael Nienhuis

�  DENSO

�  Garrett by Honeywell

•  Nathan Theiss

�  Eaton

•  Zach Tuyls

�  Ricardo PLC

� Benchmarking •  Intercooling was not used in successful designs

� Plenum •  Allows time for intake air to cool

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

3000 5000 7000 9000 11000

Inta

ke

Tem

per

atu

re (°

F)

Engine Speed (RPM)

Final Design Stock Restricted

� Dual Cycle •  Partial heat addition at constant volume •  Partial heat addition at constant pressure

� Results •  33% error in peak pressures between mathematical

model and simulation �  Mathematical model does not account for heat loss.

Expansion

Compression

Constant Volume

Constant Pressure

� Waste gate controls knock by limiting intake pressure •  Exhaust gas bypasses turbine

� Knock was not detected in any simulation which included airflow restriction

� Boost ratio in simulations was 1.8 •  Turbo remained in most efficient region