You are on page 1of 8

SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

2002-01-0457

Formula SAE Dual Plenum Induction


System Design
Badih A. Jawad, Jeffrey P. Hoste and Brian E. Johnson
Lawrence Technological Univ.

SAE 2002 World Congress


Detroit, Michigan
March 4-7, 2002
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A.

Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or
108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for
general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for
resale.
Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected


books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

2002-01-0457

Formula SAE Dual Plenum Induction System Design


Badih A. Jawad, Jeffrey P. Hoste and Brian E. Johnson
Lawrence Technological University
Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
DUAL PLENUM INTAKE MANIFOLD DESIGN
A new induction system has been developed, created,
and tested for use in the 2001 Formula SAE
competition. A 600 Honda CBR F4 four-stroke engine
intake is designed using dual plenums, which prevents
charging losses due to overlapping intake events at
low engine speeds. Dual butterfly valves actuated at
high engine speeds enable plenum volume
combination for improved high-end performance. The
intake restrictor venturi design has also been
improved.

INTRODUCTION
The Formula SAE competition is a nationwide event in
which teams of engineers representing competing
universities design, build, and race miniature Formula
One cars. Vehicles must undergo significant redesign
annually. Competition rules dictate specific guidelines
governing power train design and engine performance.
Engine displacement may not exceed 610 cubic
centimeters in a four-stroke design. The intake system
must include a 20-millimeter restrictor downstream of a
single throttle body controlling airflow.
The 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula
Team selected a Honda CBR 600 F4 four-stroke
motorcycle engine.
The F4 engine was chosen
primarily due to its weight and power advantages over
similar class engines. The stock carbureted engine
was modified to a fuel-injected configuration, which
required the inclusion of cam position sensing for
accurate injection and spark timing. Electronic engine
control is accomplished through the use of a Motec
M48 ECU.
The restrictor creates the primary limitation on airflow
in the intake system, as it is the region of smallest
diameter. Maximum flow required at peak engine
speed was determined and used as a flow target for
intake component testing. The restrictor was designed
to incorporate a short entrance nozzle as well as a
long diffuser to minimize the impact of flow separation
prior to plenum entry. This nozzle and diffuser section
is referred to as the venturi [Figure 2].

The distinguishing aspect of the intake manifold design is


the use of dual plenums to eliminate the effects of
overlapping intake events.
During normal engine
operation, a cylinder intake valve (V1) opens slightly
before the piston reaches top dead center to enable airfuel mixture to be drawn into the cylinder as the piston
descends. This occurs prior to the completion of a similar
event in a nearly charged second cylinder, just before its
intake valve (V2) closes. When a single induction manifold
joins the two cylinders, the filling event of the second
cylinder overlaps with that of the first, causing interference
and uneven filling between cylinders. Flow to the initial
cylinder is created by reduced pressure caused by
outgoing exhausts gases [1,2].
The net effect is a
reduction in potential cylinder charge and decreased
engine power output. In an effort to significantly reduce
this effect, a dual plenum manifold design was
implemented.
Cylinder pairs with potentially overlapping events in a
Honda CBR600 F4 engine are corresponding cylinders
beginning and ending their induction strokes. This occurs
in the firing order sequence 1-2-4-3. For this reason,
C1+C4 are fed by one manifold, and C2+C3 are fed by a
second [Figure 1].

Figure 1. Dual Plenum Intake Manifold Design

At higher engine speeds, it was later determined that


small plenum volumes may contribute to flow
limitations as well as to destructive pressure wave
interference. In an attempt to eliminate these effects,
the dual plenums were joined at both ends, and a
butterfly valve was incorporated at each joint to allow
for the separation and combination of airflow with
valve actuation.
VENTURI DESIGN
Flow calculations involving engine displacement and
fluid properties indicated the dominance of turbulence
within the range of feasible intake dimensions. The
initial diffuser cone length was then maximized to
reduce airflow separation flow losses, while
maintaining ability to be packaged.
Based on
historical data and reference [5,6,8], a 14 degree
included nozzle angle design was used.
Three
prototype venturi designs incorporating 5, 6, and 7
degree included diffuser angles were created using a
stereo lithographic (SLA) method [Figure 2]. Although
this process enables the rapid generation of
prototypes for flow comparison, the internal surface
roughness of the parts causes a much higher frictional
drag on airflow than that of the final carbon fiber
design. Final validation is therefore expected to yield
significantly higher flows than the results shown in
Table 1.
Nozzle

Diffuser

FLOW BENCH VENTURI DESIGN VALIDATION


Initial flow evaluation was conducted using a SuperFlow
SF-600 flow bench. The bench is limited to a maximum
internal pressure of 12.453 kPa. The three prototyped
venturi designs were tested. Pressure was increased in
1.245 kPa steps. Pressures near the bench limit were
avoided in the interest of accuracy. Flow was allowed to
stabilize prior to recording. Prototype designs were tested
concurrently to minimize errors due to temperature and
humidity variations. As is evident in Table 1, the 6-degree
diffuser demonstrated clear flow advantages at every
pressure tested [Table 1].

Pressure
(kPa)
0.000
1.245
2.491
3.736
4.981
6.227
7.472
8.717
9.963
11.208

5 Degree
(m3/min)
0.000
1.586
2.209
2.665
2.990
3.242
3.438
3.576
3.670
3.721

6 Degree
(m3/min)
0.000
1.603
2.257
2.730
3.061
3.307
3.514
3.650
3.726
3.760

7 Degree
(m3/min)
0.000
1.623
2.246
2.684
3.016
3.276
3.472
3.616
3.707
3.735

Table 1. Diffuser Angle Prototype Flow Results

Prototype Flow Bench Test Results


4.0
3.5
3.0

Airflow (m^3/min))

Initial runner lengths were designed to take advantage


of inertial wave charge primary volume reflections
[3,4]. Variable intake pipe length designs allowing
maximum volumetric efficiency over the range of
operating speeds were discarded due to complexity
and cost. Typical operating speeds of past designs
were evaluated [5,6], and peak efficiency was
determined to be most beneficial between 8000 and
9000 rpm. Primary runner lengths were adjusted to
correspond with Helmholtz resonance tuning peaks
predicted by the electrical circuit resonance analogy
developed by W. Englemann [7] and demonstrated in
prior designs [8,9]. Sample calculations are presented
in the appendix.

2.5
2.0
5 Degree
1.5
6 Degree
1.0
7 Degree
0.5
0.0

20mm Restrictor

Figure 2. Venturi Restrictor Design

10

12

Pressure (kPa)

Figure 3. Diffuser Angle Prototype Flow Comparison

A dual plenum intake was created using straight and


mandrel bent aluminum tube. A comparison of
maximum flow at constant pressure of 6.23 kPa was
conducted using the SuperFlow SF-600 flow bench.
Maximum flow through a single cylinder was measured
using an adapted engine head. The initial dual plenum
intake design produced less airflow than existing
designs over a range of intake valve lift. Known peak
performing manifolds from previous LTU Formula SAE
teams were also tested. Results are shown in Table 2.
[Table 2].

Flow Rate (m 3 /min) at 6.23 kPa

Intake
Valve Lift
(cm)
0.254

1995
Intake
1.415

1999
Intake
1.426

2000
Intake
1.446

2001
Initial
1.412

0.381
0.508
0.635

1.927
2.326
2.530

1.927
2.275
2.451

1.958
2.363
2.550

1.873
2.199
2.326

0.762

2.598

2.533

2.612

2.391

Table 2. Flow Comparison of Intake Systems

ENGINE DYNOMOMETER SYSTEM VALIDATION


A Land and Sea Dynomite water-brake engine
dynomometer was used to determine engine torque
and horsepower production over a range of engine
speeds [Figure 4].

System performance showed low-end improvement


compared to the 2000-team design. At higher engine
speeds, however, design targets were not achieved
[Figure 5].
DYNOmite Test by Lawrence Tech University
100

2001 Initial Intake Design vs. 2000 Intake Design

2001

Corrected
Smoothed

2000

90

Torque, Horsepower, RPM

INTAKE MANIFOLD DESIGN VALIDATION

hp

80
70
60
50
TORQUE
40
30
20
10
0
2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

RPM

Figure 5. Dynomometer Performance Evaluation


The initial design was evaluated and strategies to increase
flow were considered. A new intake was constructed
incorporating decreased bend angles and internal
bellmouths at the primary runner and plenum transition. In
order to improve flow and eliminate high-speed pressure
wave interference, a joined plenum was created using
butterfly valves and a pneumatic mechanism to combine
plenum volumes at high engine speeds. This improved
design was re-evaluated on the SuperFlow SF-600 flow
bench [Table 3]. The improved system demonstrates a
clear advantage over all previous designs in its ability to
flow more air in the combined plenum configuration under
nearly all lift conditions. As expected, flow is somewhat
lower in the separated plenum configuration.
As
previously explained, this sacrifice is made to separate
overlapping intake events, resulting in improved overall
engine performance and increased power.

Flow Rate (m3/min) at 6.23 kPa


Intake
Valve Lift 1995
1999
2000
2001
2001
(cm)
Intake Intake Intake
Sep.
Comb.
0.254
1.415
1.426
1.446
1.421
1.440
0.381
1.927
1.927
1.958
1.944
1.978
0.508
2.326
2.275
2.363
2.372
2.411
0.635
2.530
2.451
2.550
2.570
2.604
0.762
2.598
2.533
2.612
2.655
2.683
Table 3. Flow Comparison of the Improved Intake Design
Figure 4. Dynomometer Testing

The new design was then tested on the engine


dynomometer in separated and combined plenum
configurations. An overlap performance point was
found at approximately 8500 rpm. This value was
programmed into the Motec M48 engine control unit
for valve actuation.
Dynomometer results are shown in Figure 6, which
displays the valves closed state represented by the
thin line, and the valves open state represented by the
thicker line.

Future tuning of this new engine and intake system will


include further improvements to the fuel mapping to gain
peak performance in both the separated and combined
modes of operation. The torque and horsepower curves
will then again be overlaid to reveal the most beneficial
engine speed at which the plenum volumes should be
combined.
CONCLUSION

DYNOmite Test by Lawrence Tech University


13:1 2001/B Valves Open vs. 13:1 2001/B valves closed

100

Corrected
Smoothed
HP

90

Overlap Area

80

Torque, Horsepower, RPM

high end of the range, indicating the dominance of the


higher speed Helmholtz tuning peak.

hp

70
60
50
torque TORQUE
40
30
20
10
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

RPM

Figure 6. Plenum Crossover Point Determination


Engine performance was then compared with that of
previous designs [Figure 7]. The current design was
found to create at significantly more peak horsepower
than the 2000 design, which was the next best
performer in flow testing. The torque curve produced
is flatter, and extends over a larger range of engine
speeds, providing improved distribution of power.

The 2001 intake design combines proven designs,


theoretical calculation, and prototype evaluation using
current industry tools to enable another successful
evolution of the Lawrence Technological University
Formula SAE intake. Extended torque is created in the
desired range by minimizing flow separation in the venturi,
employing manifold system tuning techniques, and
incorporating dual plenums to separate overlapping intake
events. Further performance enhancement is available
through the identification of proper peak volume
combination speeds. The overall effect is to maximize the
increased horsepower offered by the Honda CBR 600 F4
engine.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Yazaki North
America and Ford Motor Company for their continued
generous support of the Lawrence Technological
University Formula SAE Team. We would also like to
thank Ryan Wahl for his invaluable assistance, as well as
all previous LTU FSAE teams for their foundational
knowledge, designs, and assistance.
CONTACTS
Any questions concerning this paper may be directed to
Dr. Badih Jawad at JAWAD@ltu.edu, or Jeff Hoste at
jph@aol.com. Dr. Jawad is the LTU FSAE faculty advisor
and a professor of mechanical engineering at Lawrence
Technological University.
Jeffrey Hoste and Brian
Johnson are both mechanical engineering students at
Lawrence Technological University as well as members of
the 2001 Lawrence Technological University Formula SAE
team.

Figure 7. 2001 Intake vs. 2000 Intake Design


Further evaluation of the newly designed intake and
fuel-injected F4 engine reveals the desired
performance has been achieved.
The observed
torque peak corresponds to the predicted 8000 to
9000 rpm target range, more closely centered in the

REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

APPENDIX

Winterbone, D. and Pearson, R. Design


Techniques for Engine Manifolds: Wave Action
Methods for IC Engines, Ch. 4, Professional
Engineering Publishing Limited, UK 1999. SAE
Order No. R-274.
Blair, Gordon P., Design and Simulation of Fourst
Stroke Engines, Ch. 1, 1 Edition, Society of
Automotive Engineers, 1999. SAE Order No.
R-186.
Stone,
Richard,
Introduction
to
Internal
nd
th
Combustion Engines, 2
Edition, Ch. 6, 5
Edition, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1997.
nd

Heisler, Heinz, Advanced Engine Technology, 2


Edition, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1999.

2000 LTU FSAE Team, 2000 Formula SAE Final


Report, Lawrence Technological University,
Southfield, Michigan.
1999 LTU FSAE Team, 1999 Formula SAE Final
Report, Lawrence Technological University,
Southfield, Michigan.

Calculations
Helmholtz Resonance Peak Determination
System Characteristics
Intake Manifold Runner Length

Limr

22.098

cm

Intake Manifold Runner Area

Aimr

9.581

cm

Restrictor Outlet Diameter

Dro

4.7625

cm

Intake Port Length

Lip

8.9662

cm

Intake Port Average Area

Aip

7.3355

cm

Engine Compression Ratio

ECR

13

Displacement per Cylinder

DPC

149.75

Plenum Length

Lplen

27.000

cm

Plenum Average Area

Aplen

32.774

cm

Throttle Body Inductance

Ithr

Venturi Inductance

Ivent

Secondary Runner Inductance

Isr

0.4874

cm

oF
Speed of Sound in Air @ 42

Cs

335.28

m
s

cm

0.94488

cm

7.654

cm

1
1
1

Calculations
Intake Port Inductance

7.

Englemann, H.W., Design of a Tuned Intake


Manifold, ASME Paper 73-WA/DGP-2, 1973.

8.

Jawad, Badih A., DeGain, Michael D., and Young,


Anthony P. Jr., Design of a Four Cylinder, High
Speed FSAE Restricted Induction System, SAE

Lip
Aip

Iip

Iip = 1.2223

cm

Iimr = 2.3064

cm

Iplen = 0.8238

cm

C1 = 87.3542

cm

Primary Runner Inductance

Limr

Iimr

Aimr

2000-01-3090.

Plenum Inductance

9.

Jameson, Renee T., and Hodgins, Patrick A.,


Improvement of the Torque Characteristics of a
Small, High-Speed Engine Through the Design of
Helmholtz-Tuned Manifolding, SAE 900680.

Iplen

Lplen
Aplen

Cylinder Effective Volume

C1

DPC. ( ECR 1 )
2 ( ECR 1 )

Frequency Factor

fp

1 .

2.

Iimr) . C1

( Iip

fp = 0.0091

Primary Inductance

Iprim

Iip

Iimr

Iprim = 3.5287

cm

Secondary Inductance

Isec

Isr Ithr

Ivent

Iplen Isec = 9.9101

cm

Inertial Wave Charging

Inductance Ratio

Isec
Iprim

a = 2.8084

Engine Speed at Peak Efficiency

3 . ( Limr. Aimr

Lip . Aip)

C1

8000

rpm

85

degrees

Cs = 335.28

m
s

Optimal Crankshaft Displacement t


(Target determined experimentally)

Capacitance Ratio

b = 9.5299
Speed of Sound in Air

Calculation Constants

a. b

A = 30.5722

Primary Port and Runner Length


2

( 4. a. b)

Lp

B = 28.7681

2.
t . Cs. ( 100) .
360
1
12 . N.
60

Resonant Frequencies

f1

1 .
( A B)
.
.
2 2 a . b . Iprim. C1

f2

1 .
( A B)
.
.
2 2 a . b . Iprim. C1

Lp = 31.0874

f1 = 0.0095
Primary Runner Length

f1
fp

X1 = 1.0529

X2

f2
fp

X2 = 0.1836

Primary Inductance Area

( Aip. Lip )

Limr

Lip
2

Aprim = 8.9329

cm

Helmholtz Model Tuning Peak

Np

642 . Cs .

Aprim
. ( ECR
.
( Limr Lip ) DPC ( ECR

Np = 8732.7558

1)
1)

rpm

Helmholtz Tuning Peaks

N1
N2

X1 . Np
X2 . Np

Lip

Limr = 22.1212 cm

X1

( Aimr. Limr)

Lp

f2 = 0.0017

Frequency Ratios

Aprim

Limr

cm

N1 = 9194.6952

rpm

N2 = 1603.2149

rpm