FSAE Intake/Exhaust System

Vanderbilt University Senior Design Project

Fall Semester Report

December 17, 2007

Kristina Kitko
Mark Melasky
Perry Peterson
Tim Wranovix

Faculty Advisors:
Dr. Andrew Dozier
Dr. A.B. Bonds
Dr. Joel Barnett
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SYSTEM OVERVIEW............................................................................................................ 3

1.1 FORMULA SAE...........................................................................................................................3

1.2 THE CAR.....................................................................................................................................4
1.3 THE CURRENT SYSTEM.............................................................................................................5
1.4 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS...........................................................................................................6

2. SYSTEM INTERFACE............................................................................................................ 6

2.1 EXTERNAL INTERFACES............................................................................................................6

2.1.1 INTAKE MANIFOLD INTERFACES..............................................................................................6
2.1.2 EXHAUST MANIFOLD INTERFACES...........................................................................................7
2.1.3 CYLINDER HEAD PLACEMENT..................................................................................................7
2.1.4 INTAKE WIDTH CONSTRAINT...................................................................................................8
2.1.5 MUFFLER INTERFACE...............................................................................................................9

3. MAJOR COMPONENT OPTIONS........................................................................................ 9

3.1 TURBOCHARGERS......................................................................................................................9
3.1.1 THEORY....................................................................................................................................9
3.1.2 TURBOCHARGING PROS..........................................................................................................10
3.1.3 TURBOCHARGING CONS.........................................................................................................10
3.2 NATURAL ASPIRATION.............................................................................................................10
3.2.1 THEORY..................................................................................................................................10
3.2.2 NATURAL ASPIRATION PROS...................................................................................................11
3.2.3 NATURAL ASPIRATION CONS..................................................................................................11

4. INITIAL DESIGN DECISION.............................................................................................. 12

4.1 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................12

4.1.1 OVERALL COMPETITION RESULTS..........................................................................................12
4.1.2 DESIGN AND COST RESULTS..................................................................................................12
4.2 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS DECISION........................................................................................12

5. PROJECT TASK MANAGEMENT...................................................................................... 13

5.1 PROJECT PLAN.........................................................................................................................13

5.2 Project Schedule.....................................................................................................................13

2
1. SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The primary purpose of the project is to design and fabricate a new intake and/or exhaust
system for the 2008 Formula SAE car.

1.1 Formula SAE

Vanderbilt Motorsports designs and builds an open wheel racecar to compete in the
annual Formula SAE competition. Formula SAE is an engineering design competition
held in Detroit, MI between 140 colleges and universities. Scoring of the competition is
based on both static and dynamic events. The static events include a design presentation,
a cost presentation, and a business presentation. The design competition evaluates the
overall design of the car. Judges examine every aspect of the car, ranging from weight to
materials selection to packaging. The cost competition scores the teams relative to one
another with a substantial percentage of scoring for that event based upon a rank relative
to the lowest cost score reported. Every team must submit the actual retail cost of the
parts of the car including labor hours and manufacturing. Teams also compete in the
business presentation, where the team creates a fictitious marketing plan and presents it to
a panel of judges.

The dynamic events are acceleration, skid-pad, autocross, endurance, and fuel economy.
The acceleration competition measures the car’s capability in straight line acceleration.
The skid-pad times the car around two laps of a figure 8-style track. The autocross track,
less than one kilometer long, comprises two laps of hairpin turns, slaloms, and short
straight-aways. The endurance course is designed to subject the cars to long, sustained
stresses. This track is similar to that of the autocross but is one kilometer long and
designed such that multiple cars may be on the track at the same time. The competition is
run with two drivers, each driving 11 consecutive laps. The fuel economy is measured
during the endurance competition. The weighted scoring for each event is displayed in
Figure 1.

3
 Figure 1: Percentage of Total Score for Each Event at Formula SAE

The single biggest factor in a team’s overall score is the endurance event, comprising
34% of the overall score. Design and cost are also large percentages of a team’s overall
score, and the areas where the Vanderbilt team has struggled the most.

1.2 The Car

Each team is allowed to design a unique car within the rule specifications. The 2007 VU
Motorsports car is nine feet long, six feet wide and four feet tall. It uses a Honda CBR
600 motorcycle engine having a displacement of 599cc. The team added high
compression pistons to compensate for the restrictor. The car has a steel chassis, a
naturally aspirated intake/exhaust system, a sequentially shifting manual transmission, a
fiberglass body and an anti-roll system. A picture of the car is located below as Figure 2.

Figure 2: 2007 Vanderbilt Motorsports Car

4
There are several rule specifications that directly affect the scope of this project. The
design team must take these constraints into account when working toward the final
design. Teams must include a 20mm restrictor on their intake systems. This restrictor
must be located between the air intake and any forced induction systems. Exhaust noise
is limited to 110 dB. In addition, the design team must work under the constraint that the
cost of the system not be substantial for purposes of the overall cost score at the Formula
SAE competition.

1.3 The Current System

The 2007 car uses a naturally aspirated intake/exhaust system. The aluminum intake has
a fuel rail, spark plug mounts, an air filter mount, a throttle body, and a Venturi-style
restrictor. Figure 3 (below) shows a Pro/Engineer rendering of the current intake system.

Figure 3: Current Intake System Design

The exhaust system is made of steel pipes in a four-to-one configuration. Each pipe
increases in diameter as it moves away from the engine's exhaust port. This increase
allows the exhaust gases to expand and move faster towards the muffler. The pipes meet
at a collector that tapers the cross-sectional area from four pipes to the area of the muffler.
The pipes are all equal length up to the collector to allow for complementary shock
effects, known as Helmholtz Resonance. As the exhaust from a cylinder gets choked by
the tapered diameter of the collector, a shock is sent back toward the other cylinders.
This shock should arrive at the cylinder when that cylinder is releasing fresh exhaust.
The shock will bounce off of the cylinder's exhaust port and help pull the fresh exhaust
towards the muffler. This process is designed to reduce the pressure in the exhaust

5
manifold so the fresh exhaust can easily leave the cylinders. Figure 4 (below) shows a
Pro/Engineer rendering of the current exhaust system.

Figure 4: Current Exhaust System Design

While the complete system is fully functional, no testing has been performed and no
analytical data exists. The team suffers each year during the design portion of the
competition due to a lack of both knowledge and quantitative evidence about the design.
In addition, the team is unable to improve on the design of the two systems as there is no
data on the effectiveness of the current system.

1.4 System Requirements

The system requirements for the project are the constraints within which the team must
work. The final product requirement was already stated in the introductory portion of this
section. The design team has three umbrella constraint areas which the project sponsor
specified in the 2008 FSAE rules, packaging of the car, and the cost. The Formula SAE
rule constraints are listed in section 1.2. The packaging constraints are that the system
must fit within the rear of the car and are explained in section 2.1. The cost constraints
are such that the system should not greatly increase the overall cost of the car for the cost
report. Thus, the team must base any design and fabrication decisions on component cost.

2. SYSTEM INTERFACE

2.1 External Interfaces

There are several different interfaces that must be accounted for in the design of a new
intake and/or exhaust system. Images of the different system interfaces are shown as
follows.

2.1.1 Intake Manifold Interfaces

6
The intake manifold connects to the engine by pressing into the intake ports in the
cylinder head. Figure 5 shows the intake ports on a cylinder head.

Figure 5: Intake Ports

2.1.2 Exhaust Manifold Interfaces

The exhaust manifold connects to the engine by bolting into the exhaust ports in the
cylinder head. Figure 6 shows the exhaust ports on a cylinder head.

Figure 6: Exhaust Ports

2.1.3 Cylinder Head Placement

7
The cylinder head bolts to the top of the engine pictured in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Engine. The right side of the engine faces the front of the car.

2.1.4 Intake Width Constraint

The intake manifold must fit between the main roll hoop support braces. This setup is
shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Intake width constraint

8
2.1.5 Muffler Interface

The exhaust system must bolt to the muffler. The connection on the 2007 car is pictured
in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Muffler interface

3. MAJOR COMPONENT OPTIONS

As the scope of the project may include both intake and exhaust systems, the initial phase
of the project focused on the research of both systems. The rules allow forced induction
systems and some teams choose to implement turbochargers. An analysis of the
advantages and disadvantages of a turbocharged system as compared to a naturally
aspirated system was required in order to make a final decision on the type of system that
will be designed for the 2008 car.

3.1 Turbochargers

3.1.1 Theory

A turbocharged system is substantially different from a naturally aspirated system. In a

turbocharged system, a turbine is placed in the exhaust stream. The turbine is attached to
a compressor by a shaft. The compressor is located in the air intake stream and forces air
into the intake manifold. When the cylinder opens, more air is pushed into the cylinder
than in a N/A (naturally aspirated) system. If more air is in the cylinder, the fuel injectors
will deliver more gasoline. This creates a lager fuel mixture for the spark plug to ignite
and produces a larger explosion. A larger explosion creates more horsepower..

3.1.2 Turbocharging Pros

9
There are several positive aspects to using a turbocharger on the Vanderbilt car. The
engine will have increased horsepower. In addition, the intake and exhaust system are
designed as one because turbochargers run on exhaust gases and are implemented in the
intake. Also, the system does not need to be as geometrically precise in both design and
fabrication because the airflow is pressurized. Turbochargers also widen the engine's
power band; this maximizes the power output at the wheels and results in a faster
response time for the car.

3.1.3 Turbocharging Cons

There are also downsides to the adoption of a turbocharged system. The high
compression pistons currently in the engine are for use with a N/A system and would
need to be replaced. The widening of the engine’s power band would also make the car
more difficult to drive. Turbocharger lag can occur when the driver presses the throttle.
The manifold pressure may not be high enough to deliver the desired amount of fuel.
This happens because exhaust gases are spinning the compressor at a certain rate before
the driver hits the throttle. This rate may not be able to supply the new fuel demand. A
short time may be needed for the compressor to pressurize the intake manifold to meet
the demand. This time is referred to as the turbocharger lag.

In addition, a turbocharger will add weight to the car. At 550 pounds, the Vanderbilt car
is already among the heaviest at the competition. The autocross and endurance tracks
require the cars to turn sharply, so the lighter cars perform better. The turbocharger must
also be included in the cost report. Cost has been the weakest event for the team in the
past with a 90th place finish last year stemming directly from the cost of parts used on the
car. Any additional cost incurred with the price of a turbocharger would further lower the
cost score for the team; this would violate the constraint set forth in the project formation
stage regarding a low-cost system for the cost report.

3.2 Natural Aspiration

3.2.1 Theory

There are several options for natural aspiration that differ from the 2007 car's
configuration. The intake plenum volume and shape, which is the area that contains the
air before it is sucked into an engine cylinder, can be varied. The size and shape of the
Venturi restrictor can be optimized for increased flow velocity. A scoop could also be
constructed around the air filter to create a mild forced induction resulting from the wind
velocity.

Different exhaust configurations can also be explored. Using one muffler, there could be
either a 4-to-1 or a 3Y configuration. In the 4-to-1 configuration, the pipes from each
cylinder meet at a taper and converge to the diameter of the muffler. In the 3Y
configuration, two sets of pipes from two cylinders meet and taper into one pipe. The
resulting pipes from each set then taper into the muffler. The engine's firing order is 1-2-

10
4-3 and determines the exhaust configuration. Cylinders 1 and 4 form a pair and
cylinders 2 and 3 form a pair. This pairing allows for the maximum possible time
between fresh exhaust gases in the manifold. A third possibility involving dual mufflers
could be explored. In this configuration, cylinders 1 and 4 form a pair and cylinders 2
and 3 form a pair. Each of these pairs would then go to their own mufflers. This
configuration could be advantageous because a smaller amount of pipe would be required
to taper to the muffler diameter. Smaller mufflers may be capable of meeting the
maximum decibel level requirement.

Figure 10: Potential Exhaust System Designs. Left to Right: 3Y, 4-to-1, Dual Exhaust

3.2.2 Natural Aspiration Pros

There are many advantages to a naturally aspirated system. The car is currently
configured for a N/A system using high compression pistons and the engine would not
require any modification. This system is substantially cheaper than a forced induction
system which would meet the cost constraint set forth at project formation. This
configuration has independent intake and design systems. The design team may choose
to work with one or both of these systems depending on time constraints. N/A systems
are passive because they have no moving parts that have the possibility of failure. They
are also not pressurized, so there is no risk of an explosion and thus subsequent damage
to components.

3.2.3 Natural Aspiration Cons

There are several cons to a N/A system when comparing it to a turbocharged forced
induction system. This system produces less horsepower and has a narrower power band
making it less responsive than a turbocharged system. The geometric configuration of
the system must be manipulated for optimization and will be more time consuming to
design than a system that utilizes pressurized air.

11
4. INITIAL DESIGN DECISION

4.1 Competitive Analysis

In order to make a final determination between a naturally aspirated system and a

turbocharged system, a competitive analysis of the 2007 Formula SAE results was
performed. 108 teams attended the 2007 event and data was readily obtained for 93 of
those present. Of those 93 teams, 82 teams ran naturally aspirated systems and 11 teams
ran turbocharged systems. A table of results for the teams with turbochargers is shown
below as Table 1.
Table 1: Competition Results for Teams with Turbochargers
NC Minnesota Western
Team Florida Kokushikan Laval State Cornell McGill State Washington Delaware Venezuela McMaster
Places
Overall 6 11 14 16 45 50 53 54 57 86 95
Acceleration 9 8 41 1 73 67 11 53 73 73 73
Skid Pad 33 12 39 18 10 62 44 43 76 76 76
Autocross 7 26 33 38 10 50 71 30 70 90 90
Endurance 9 15 7 16 37.45 36 37.45 37.45 27 37.45 37.45
Finish Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No
Scores
Design 100 100 80 80 100 80 100 60 60 80 40
Cost 80.54 70.81 72.97 68.98 77.84 79.46 79.45 79.78 75.83 85.49 82.22

4.1.1 Overall Competition Results

The highest placing team that ran a turbocharger placed 6th. No other teams placed in the
top 10. There appeared to be four teams that placed well overall with turbochargers. The
other seven teams did not place competitively. However, a further analysis based upon
design and cost scores was required to meet the constraints set forth at project formation.

4.1.2 Design and Cost Results

Four out of the eleven team running turbochargers finished in the top preliminary points
bracket, receiving 100 points in the design competition. This appears to make a
turbocharged system a design advantage, but the breadth of knowledge about the system
that is required to present a strong case for any design using a turbocharger would be
beyond what could feasibly be obtained by the Vanderbilt Motorsports team before
competition. In the cost event, the top cost score earned at last year’s competition was
93.31 points. The schools listed have fairly low cost event scores as a turbocharged
system would increase the cost of the car for the cost report. As Vanderbilt finished
poorly in cost without a turbocharged system, the increase in cost resulting from a
turbocharged system would be a hindrance to improving cost ranking.

4.2 Competitive Analysis Decision

Based upon both the competitive analysis of teams with turbocharged systems and input
from the project sponsor and project advisor, it was decided that the design team would

12
focus on a naturally aspirated intake and exhaust system for the 2008 car. The possible
benefit that a turbocharged system could have in the design event did not outweigh the
cost that would be incurred in the cost event.

5. PROJECT TASK MANAGEMENT

5.1 Project Plan

The most essential part of this project will be the generation of a solid foundation for the
design of a new intake and exhaust system. The existing system is 7 years old and does
not have the necessary design and testing required to perform well in the Formula SAE
design event. After deciding upon a naturally aspirated system, the team will model the
current system in a computational flow modeling program and begin to make changes to
the design. After steps are taken to modify and optimize the design, a prototype design
will be selected. This prototype will be manufactured and tested on the 2008 Vanderbilt
Motorsports car. If additional iterations are required for functionality, the process will
begin again until a final prototype intake system is delivered to the project sponsor.

Another goal of the project is the delivery of a new exhaust system. Given the time
constraints and the complexity of the modeling and simulation of both the intake and
exhaust systems, it is not certain that both systems will be delivered by the project due
date set forth by the project sponsor. In this event, the design work for the new exhaust
system would be started but a finalized design would be left to future design projects.
Design work in this area would include researching different possible exhaust systems
such as a 3Y, a 4-to-1, and a dual muffler configuration. This research would set the stage
for future work in the optimization and fabrication of a new exhaust.

5.2 Project Schedule

The planned project schedule, a snapshot of which is shown in Figure 11, gave the team
the first semester of project work to familiarize themselves with the intake and exhaust
systems and begin initial research into a new system. This time was spent learning the
components of an intake and exhaust system, researching natural aspiration and
turbocharged systems, and developing a project website and project management control
flow. Over winter break, the project will focus on development of subtasks that will be
divided amongst group members. These tasks will include computational flow modeling
of the current system, design for destructive testing of a muffler, and initial research into
analytical flow solutions for intake modeling. The next phase of the project will begin
after winter break and will include computational flow testing of the current system,
destructive testing of a muffler, and application of analytical flow solutions to the current
system. From this point, re-design and optimization will begin, with focus placed initially
on the intake system and shifting to the exhaust system time permitting. With re-design
and optimization of the intake system complete, a prototype model will be outsourced for
construction and testing on the FSAE car. Once this has been accomplished an exhaust

13
system may be designed and then outsourced and tested depending upon the timeline for
the final completion of the intake system.

Figure 11: MS Project Schedule and Timeline

14