FSAE FLOW TESTING DEVICE

povertywhyInternet and Web Development

Nov 18, 2013 (3 years and 8 months ago)

77 views



FSAE FLOW TESTING DEVICE



PRODUCT DESIGN SPECIFICATION REPORT

WINTER 2012



Group

members

Adam Barka

Jasper Wong

Keith Lundquist

Long Dang

Vu Nguyen


Portland State University
Advisor

Dr. Chien Wern


Industry Advisor

Evan Waymire


Table of
C
ontents


Introduction

................................
................................
................................
................................
.

1

Purpose of this PDS Document
................................
................................
................................
...

2

Mission Statement

................................
................................
................................
.......................

2

Project Plan

................................
................................
................................
................................
.

3

Customer Identification

................................
................................
................................
..............

4

Customer Feedback/Interviews

................................
................................
................................
...

4

Product
Design Specification

................................
................................
................................
......

5

House of Qua
lity

................................
................................
................................
.........................

8

Technical Risk Management
................................
................................
................................
.......

9

Conclusion

................................
................................
................................
................................

1
1

Appendix

................................
................................
................................
................................
...

1
2

1

Introduction


Each year, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) invites colleges from around the
world to participate in their Formula SAE series
competition. This competition challenges
students from each school to design, build, and race an open
-
wheeled formula style race car.
Portland State is represented in this series by the Viking Motorsports (VMS) student group.


In order to encourage teams t
o focus on design and optimization rather than on generating
raw power, the SAE has imposed a series of regulations on the powertrain subsystem of the race
car. The most notable regulation is that all of the air supplied to the car’s engine must go through

a 20
mm

restrictor, which severely limits the output power of the engine. To overcome this, VMS
must be able to accurately measure the mass flow of any customized component (see Appendix

A
) at a standard pressure in order to reduce parasitic losses to the

engine. In addition, the team
must measure the discharge or flow coefficient of the cylinder intake and exhaust valves, as well
as of the butterfly valve on the throttle. These values are necessary for the team to utilize 1
-
D
simulation software to improv
e their design. Currently, VMS has no method to test for these
values.


In order to flow test their components
, the powertrain group could purchase a device
known as a flow bench. A typical flow bench uses a pump to move air through a device under
test (DU
T) and then through a calibrated obstruction flow meter at a standard test pressure,
which is measured upstream of the flow meter. The pressure drop across the obstruction is a
known function of the volume flow rate through the meter. The mass flow rate th
rough the DUT,
also known as the flow coefficient of the DUT, is calculated from the volume flow across the
meter and from temperature/pressure measurements at the DUT
. Figure 1 shows a typical flow
bench operating under a negative pressure differential (r
elative to atmospheric). A flow bench
would reverse the flow by creating a positive pressure differential relative to atmospheric.


Figure
1
.

Simple flow bench.
P
1

is the test pressure; the difference
P
2
-
P
1

is measured to produce mass
flow rate.


2


There are many flow benches available for purchase, but all share similar limitations.
Foremost is cost. Commercial flow benches with enough air flow capacity to accurately test
VMS powertrain components cost anywh
ere from $5,000 to $15,000. In addition, commercial
devices would require VMS to build customized mounts to accommodate the restrictor, intake
manifold, and exhaust. Finally, commercial flow benches do not easily allow for future
improvements or modificati
ons. VMS has constantly changing needs, and so must be able to
modify the flow bench.


The other option is to buy a home build kit. These “do it yourself” (DIY) kits include key
components and/or detailed plans with which to build a flow bench. The kit is

a more affordable
option. However, the measurements provided by flow

benches built from DIY kits have
unspecified uncertainty.

In addition, they generally require manual calculation to attain the flow
rate, which leads to low treatment turnover. Finally,
DIY options would also need customized
test fixtures to mount all components.


Purpose of this PDS Document

The purpose of this document is to outline the customer

s requirements and

the team’s

plan to meet those requirements. The Product Design Specification document must clearly define
the design criteria, metrics, targets,

and

priorities to meet customer requirement. Some core
criteria include cost
,

capacity,
accuracy
,

and service life.

A det
ailed list of criteria is provided in
the Product Design Specification section. The team and our customers
will

agree on this
document as a principal guideline for product delivery.


Mission Statement

This team is challenged to design and build a device capable of measuring the flow
coefficients for the intake, exhaust, and throttle valves of a formula SAE racecar at various open
positions, and to measure the mass flow through the racecar’s intake manif
old and exhaust
ductwork. The device will measure these values at a standard test pressure of 28
inH
2
0

with
95% measurement repeatability. The completed project, consisting of a working prototype,
testing results, detailed drawings, bill of material, and d
etailed reports, will be presented in June
2012. If successful, the project would help the VMS team to validate and improve their designs.


3

Project
P
lan

The dates in

Table 1

are critical milestones
for
the project. A Gantt chart

is

provided in
Appendix
B

and will be considered as a living document. Dates other than due dates are
subjected to change
,

dependent on the project requirements.

Table 1.
Project Milestones
.
The team will work on the Task
s

between the Start and
Finish dates. Due dates reflect time
s when the task
s

must be delivered to the customer
s
.

Task

Start

Finish

Due

Project
P
lanning

Jan 9

Jan 13

N/A

PDS Report

Jan 9

Jan 29

Jan 30

PDS Report Presentation

Jan 31

Feb 3

Feb 6

External and Internal Search

Jan 19

Feb 5

N/A

Concept Evaluation

Feb

6

Feb 13

N/A

Detail Design

Feb 13

Mar 5

N/A

Progress Report

Feb 7

Mar 11

Mar 12

Progress Report Presentation

Mar 1

Mar 4

Mar 5

Prototype and
T
est

Mar
24

May
23

N/A

Final Report

Apr 24

May 25

N/A

Release Design to Customer



May 28




4

Customer
Identification

For this project, two categories of customer exist: external customers and internal
customers.

The first of the external customers is Viking Motorsports, who is the end user of the
testing device, and therefore provides the key performance,
ergonomic
s,

and size criteria.

Besides

VMS,
industry adviser
Evan

Waymire

and faculty member Dr. Gerald
Rec
ktenwald

are

also
the team’
s

external

customer
s, as they provide

the cost
and

various performance parameters.
VMS’s use of the testing device

will be

scored by a team of judges at the FSAE competition,
therefore

the

competition

judges

are a
nother

customer for this project.

In addition there are
three

internal customers

who must be taken into account. The first

two

of these
are

Dr.

Faryar
Etesami and th
e

Maseeh College of Engineering and Computer
Science,

who provide the documentation requirements.

Likewise, Portland State

University

is a
key customer
,

because the project must adhere to the school’s requirements for graduation.



Customer
Feedback/Interviews

Direct feedback f
rom the VMS powe
rtrain team and Evan Waymire has been an integral
part
of

determining the design specifications for this project. The concept for the project was first
developed by Robert

Melchione
, who leads the VMS po
wertrain team. Rob proposed the idea
during
the
summer

of

2011
,
as a way to make flow testing for the car an integral part of the
design and validation

process
. Until
now,

VMS

has

no
t performed

flow testing on
its

engine
components.
During the summer of 20
11,

prelimi
nary meetings with Eva
n

provided a basic
outline for what the design parameters would be
.
During that

time
,

the
mechanical
engineering
department head, Dr.

Rec
k
tenwald, held

a meeting
,
during which
he provided funding
informat
ion and

advice for
performing
analysis and findi
ng resources for this project.


T
he competition judges are

also

key customer
s
,
but

we cannot interview them in person
.
Given this, we have reviewed

the FSAE rules
(Appendix
C
)

and feedback from
the 2011

design
competition
in
order

to extrapolate the design judge

s require
ments for

this project.




5

Product Design Specifications

(PDS)

Table
2


is a representation of

each customer

s design requirements
,

as well as applicable
parameters. These include the priority
level of each,
which are rated by the customer

as

either

high, medium
,

or low
with
three, two, or one dot
,

respectiv
e
ly
,

as well as
the

associated

metrics
and targets and how t
h
at target

will be
verified. Some targets may change
,

with the customer

s
approval
,

based on d
etailed ana
l
ysis of the system.


Table
2
.

Design Specifications

Priority

Requirement

Customer

Metric

Target

Target
Basis

Verification

Performa
n
ce





Repeatability of

measur
ements

VMS

%
difference

(+/
-
) 5

Customer
feedback

Testing





Flow Rate/
Pressure
Capacity

VMS

c
fm
,

in
H
2
O


160
,


28

Group
decision

Prototyping





Test intake, throttle,
muffler, valves

VMS

Yes/No

Yes

Customer
feedback

Design




Waiting

time

to get
steady value

VMS

M
in

15

Customer
feedback

Testing








Safety





Emergency stop

VMS

Yes/No

Yes

Customer
feedback

Design




Warning labels

VMS

Yes/No

Yes

Customer
feedback

Design





E
r
gonomics safety

VMS

Yes/No

Yes

Customer
feedback

Design








Environment




Low noise

VMS


dBA

9
5

Customer
feedback

Design

6

Ergonomics




䕡獩sy⁡ce獳
i
扬b


噍V

奥猯乯

Y


C畳瑯ue爠
晥e摢dck

䑥獩sn





乵浢N爠潦灥牡瑯t
s

噍V

p
eople

1

Customer
feedback

Testing





呲a楮i湧⁴ 浥m

噍V

h
ours

5

Group
decision

Testing








Size




F潯瑰物湴

噍V

ft x ft

6
x

4

Customer
feedback

Design








Maintenance





䕡sy⁴漠 湳灥ct

a湤n
牥灬慣e⁰ 牴r

噍V

奥猯乯

奥s

C畳瑯ue爠
晥e摢dck

䑥獩sn




F牥煵e湣y
潦o牥煵楲e搠
浡楮m
e
n
a湣e

噍V

m
onths

6

Customer
feedback

Design








Insta
l
l
ation




呩浥⁴漠T獳敭扬s

a湤n
摩獡獳d浢me

噍V

h
ours

4

Customer
feedback

Testing





呩浥⁴漠獥T



噍V

min

20

Customer
feedback

Testing





Re煵楲q搠獰dc楡汩ie搠
灯睥爠獯畲ce

噍V

奥猯乯



C畳瑯ue爠
晥e摢dck

䑥獩sn








Cost





呯瑡氠捯獴

偓P

USD

3
500

Customer
feedback

Bill of
m
aterials




7

Documentation





P䑓

偓P

䑥a摬d湥

〱⼳〯㈰ㄲ

C潵牳o
牥煵楲q浥湴

Rece楰i





P牯rre獳s
r
e灯牴

偓P

䑥a摬d湥

〳⼰㔯㈰ㄲ

C潵牳o
牥煵楲q浥湴

Rece楰i





F楮慬i
r
e灯牴

偓P

䑥a摬d湥

〵⼲㠯㈰ㄲ

C潵牳o
牥煵楲q浥湴

Rece楰i




I湳瑲nc瑩潮

噍V

奥猯乯

奥s

C畳瑯ue爠
晥e摢dck

䡡牤⁣潰y








Applicable codes and standards





䵥et

楮摵i瑲y
獴慮摡牤r

噍V

奥猯乯

奥s

C畳瑯ue爠
晥e摢dck

S瑵tyf

牥g畬慴楯湳








Material





Rea獯湡扬攠灲楣e

呥am

奥猯乯

奥s

C畳瑯ue爠
晥e摢dck

B楬氠潦l
浡瑥物rl








Quantity




乵浢N爠潦⁤ 癩ce猠

噍V

u
nit

1

Customer
feedback

Final
product









Life in service




C潮瑩湵n搠潰d牡瑩潮o
睩瑨⁡灰w潲楡瑥t
浡楮瑥m湡ce

噍V

y
ears

5

Customer
feedback

Design








Manufacturing facility




䑥獩s渠na牴猠景爠
浡湵mac瑵ta扩b楴y

呥am

奥猯乯

奥s

䝲潵瀠
摥c楳i潮

䑥獩sn




8

House of Quality

Th
e House of Quality
(Table 3)

relate
s the influence of the project
requirements to
engineering criteria. Each cell within table has a '

'
symbol marker to relate the influence of the
project requirement to engineering criteria. The symbol ranges from
'



' high influence, to
'

'
little influence, if the cell is left blank then no influence.

Also the
importance of the requirements
is

listed f
rom a scale of one to ten, with the total score adding to ten.

Table
3
.

House of Quality

REQUIREMENT

IMPORTANCE

CUSTOMER

ENGINEERING CRITERIA

COMPETITION

Cost

Weight

Flow
rate

Noise
level

Basic 2.0


SF
-
600

USD

lb

cfm

dBA

Flow
Performance

SuperFlow

PERFORMANCE

3


Accurately Measure Flow

1


VMS





















Capacity

1




















Test Intake, Throttle, Muffler,
and Valves

1




















SAFETY

2


Emergency Stop

2

VMS











ENVIRONMENT &
ERGONOMICS

1

Low Noise

0.5

OSHA




















Training Required

0
.
5

VMS











MAINTENANCE

1

Easy to Inspect and Replace
Parts

1

VMS















COST

3

Less Expensive than
Commercial Options

3

ME















COMPETITION











Basic 2.0 (Flow Performance)

1600

100

600

101



SF
-
600

(SuperFlow)

9
000

4
0
0

6
00

> 85



TARGET

3500

200

160

95



Verification

BOM

Inspect

Test



Test



9

Technical Risk Management

To ensure the success of this project, we have identified the probable risks an
d their
associated
consequences (
Table 4
)
.
Depending on the probability of the risk event occurring and
its severity, we developed an

in
-
depth mitigation and monitoring plan
for high level risks,
summarized in
Table 5
.


Table
4
.
Risk Identification and Assessment

RISK

ASSESS
MENT

MITIGATION

MONITORING

ODDS OF
EVENT
OCCURRING

CONSEQUENCES

LEVEL
OF
RISK

Project Exceeds
Budget

Possible

Severe

High

Necessary

Necessary

Not Serviceable

Unlikely

Severe

Medium

Necessary

Necessary

Design too
Complicated to
Fabricate

Possible

Severe

High

Necessary

Necessary

Team
Alignment and
Communication

Unlikely

Negligible

Low

Necessary

Unnecessary

Not Meeting
Deadline

Possible

Severe

High

Necessary

Necessary

Change in
Budget

Possible

Severe

High

Necessary

Unnecessary

Machine Does
Not
Meet
Requirements

Possible

Severe

High

Unnecessary

Unnecessary

Injury to
Operator

Possible

Catastrophic

High

Necessary

Necessary


10

Table
5
.

Risk Mitigation and Monitoring

Risk:

Injury to Operator

Mitigation:

Design for acoustics will be limited to maximum
95
dBA
, and equipment operator will wear ear
plugs during equipment use. Kill switch will be
included for i
mmediate shut
off of equipment.

Degree of Risk:

HIGH

Monitoring:

Acoustic levels will be track
ed with
dBA

meter
on equipment
periodically (monthly/quarterly).


Risk:

Not Meeting Deadline

Mitigation:

Communication between team members and
accountability for
individual members to
complete tasks.

Degree of Risk:

HIGH

Monitoring:

Weekly meetings with academic advisor, weekly
work parties, online communication, and
Gantt

chart for project tracking.


Risk:

Design is Difficult to
Manufacture

Mitigation:

Design
for performance and manufacturability

Degree of Risk:

HIGH

Monitoring:

Track all design changes on personal team server
and have design review meetings.


Risk:

Project Exceeds Budget

Mitigation:

Use reasonable priced components during design
of flow
bench system. Validate component
choice with uncertainty analysis.

Degree of Risk:

HIGH

Monitoring:

Create a B.O.M with different options for
different price levels that determine which to
build upon budget received




11

Conclusion

This document addresses the key specifications and issues of designing and
manufacturing a flow test bench for the Viking Motorsports Formula SAE team. Key areas of
difficulty or interest stem from designing to a wide and unique operating range in terms of

pressure, flow rates, part mounting, and data acquisition.

Developing a custom flow bench will greatly improve the quality of the VMS program by
allowing for the team to validate their designs to a far greater degree than in the past. In addition,
making

the device available to the students at all times will provide future students the ability to
gain significant experience in part testing and increase understanding of how to incorporate part
testing into the design process. The availability of the device
, when combined with detailed
documentation, will also give future VMS members the opportunity to improve on the device’s
functionality, thus creating long
-
term potential for improving the car. In the end, this team
believes that the device will give VMS a

strong competitive advantage in competition, since very
few of the other FSAE teams have access to flow testing at this accuracy level.



12

Appendix A: 2011 VMS powertrain components

This section includes the components which VMS needs to test for mass flow

rate, or flow
coefficient. The kind of information needed and the specific mounting requirements of each
component are detailed.

A1.
Intake Manifold

This is the device which disperses the air which comes through the restrictor to the
individual cylinders.

The mass flow rate through each runner is needed to determine if all 4
cylinders are receiving the same amount of air. A custom test fixture needs to include a
bracket with all four 25
mm
, with three plugs.
Flow only needs to me measured at a negative
pre
ssure differentail.


Figure A1.
Intake manifold




13

A2. Throttle/Restrictor

This piece contains both the throttle butterfly valve and so VMS needs flow
coeficients for the valve, and mass flow at wide open throttle. The custom test fixture would
need a 25
mm

adapotor with properly placed holes for the bolts, as well as a mechanism for
controling the degree of opeing in the throttle valve. Flow only needs to me measured at a
negative pressure differentail.


Figure A2.
Throttle body

A3. Exhaust

After combustion, the air in the engine is expelled to the atmosphere through the
exhaust. VMS needs to know the pressure loss in this ductwork. The exaust will be mounted
in a similar fashion to the intake manafold. This part needs a positive pressure dif
ferential.


Figure A3.
Exhaust system



14

A4. Cylinder Head

The cylinder head contains the valves which regulate the intake and exhaust flow
through each cylinder. Reliable flow confinements are needed for each valve for 1
-
D engine
simulation software. The head needs a custom 67
mm

bore adaptor and a device for
con
trolling the valve lift. The cylinder head needs to be measured under both negative and
positive pressure differential.


Figure A4.
Engine head (Honda CBR 600cc F4i)




15

APPENDIX
B

Detailed Gantt chart




Table B
1
.

Detailed Gantt chart

16

APPENDIX

C

2012 Formula SAE


R畬es


[…]

ARTICLE 8: POWERTRAIN

B8.1 Engine Limitation

B8.1.1

The engine(s) used to power the car must be a piston engine(s) using a four
-
stroke
primary heat cycle with a displacement not exceeding 610 cc per cycle. Hybrid
powertrains, such as those using electric motors running off stored energy, are prohibited.

No
te: All waste/rejected heat from the primary heat cycle may be used. The method of
conversion is not limited to the four
-
stroke cycle.

B8.1.2

The engine can be modified within the restrictions of the rules.

B8.1.3

If more than one engine is used, the t
otal displacement cannot exceed 610 cc and the air
for all

[…]

B8.5 Throttle and Throttle Actuation

B8.5.1

Carburetor/Throttle Body

The car must be equipped with a carburetor or throttle body. The carburetor or throttle
body may be of any size or design
.

B8.5.2

Throttle Actuation

The throttle must be actuated mechanically, i.e. via a cable or a rod system. The use of
electronic throttle control (ETC) or “drive
-
by
-
wire” is prohibited.

B8.5.3

The throttle cable or rod must have smooth operation, and m
ust not have the possibility
of binding or sticking.

B8.5.4

The throttle actuation system must use at least two (2) return springs located at the
throttle body, so that the failure of any component of the throttle system will not prevent
the throttle ret
urning to the closed position.

Note:

Throttle Position Sensors (TPS) are NOT acceptable as return springs.

B8.5.5

Throttle cables must be at least 50.8 mm (2 inches) from any exhaust system component

and out of the exhaust stream.

17

B8.5.6

A positive pe
dal stop must be incorporated on the throttle pedal to prevent over stressing
the throttle cable or actuation system.

B8.6 Intake System Restrictor

B8.6.1

In order to limit the power capability from the engine, a single circular restrictor must be
placed

in the intake system between the throttle and the engine and all engine airflow
must pass through the restrictor.

B8.6.2

Any device that has the ability to throttle the engine downstream of the restrictor is
prohibited.

B8.6.3

The maximum restrictor d
iameters are:

-

Gasoline fueled cars
-

20.0 mm (0.7874 inch)

-

E
-
85 fueled cars


19.0 mm (0.7480 inch)


B8.6.4

The restrictor must be located to facilitate measurement during the inspection process.

B8.6.5

The circular restricting cross section may NOT be movable or flexible in any way, e.g.
the restrictor may not be part of the movable portion of a barrel throttle body.

B8.6.6

If more than one engine is used, the intake air for all engines must pass
through the one
restrictor.

[…]