Difference between revisions of "Fuel"

From fswiki.us
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Volume Determination: moving asterisks to footnotes)
(Undo revision 2595 by SpookySimon (talk) idk what happened)
Tag: Undo
Line 24: Line 24:
  
 
The minimum quantity of fuel should be enough to barely finish the endurance race at competition. However, this limits the functionality of the car by limiting run time, and increases the likelihood that you will run out of fuel early. The quantity of fuel used in an endurance competition should be determined by experimental data, but can be estimated based on past usage, or usage of similar teams, or if masochistic, be predicted based on average speed of the vehicle, the track length, and the consumption of your engine.
 
The minimum quantity of fuel should be enough to barely finish the endurance race at competition. However, this limits the functionality of the car by limiting run time, and increases the likelihood that you will run out of fuel early. The quantity of fuel used in an endurance competition should be determined by experimental data, but can be estimated based on past usage, or usage of similar teams, or if masochistic, be predicted based on average speed of the vehicle, the track length, and the consumption of your engine.
 +
 +
Below are tables showing average fuel consumption by race finishers in the 2019, 2021, and 2022 Michigan Competitions<ref>https://www.sae.org/attend/student-events/formula-sae-michigan/awards-results</ref>.
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Average FSAE Michigan May Competition Fuel Use [L] by Type* <ref> FSAE 2021 Michigan Results https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/assets/cm/content/attend/2021/student-events/formula/fsae_mi_c_2021_results.pdf </ref>
+
|+ Average FSAE Michigan May Competition Fuel Use [L] by Type
 
|-
 
|-
 
! Year !! 93 Octane !! 100 Octane !! E85
 
! Year !! 93 Octane !! 100 Octane !! E85
 
|-
 
|-
| 2022 || 3.7 || 3.8** || 5.4
+
| 2022 || 3.7 || 3.8<ref>Villanova was so efficient that this average becomes 4.2 L without including them</ref> || 5.4
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 2021 || 4.0 || 4.3 || 5.6
 
| 2021 || 4.0 || 4.3 || 5.6
Line 36: Line 38:
 
| 2019 || 4.0 || 3.9 || 5.5
 
| 2019 || 4.0 || 3.9 || 5.5
 
|}
 
|}
 
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Only race finishers eligible for efficiency scoring were used in this calculation. Comparison of fuel use by cars that did not complete the Endurance/Efficiency race course is more complicated and the method of adjustment for projecting fuel consumption is arbitrary.<br>
 
<nowiki>**</nowiki> Villanova was so efficient that this average becomes 4.2 L without including them
 
  
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Average FSAE Michigan May Efficiency Score by Fuel Type* <ref> FSAE 2021 Michigan Results https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/assets/cm/content/attend/2021/student-events/formula/fsae_mi_c_2021_results.pdf </ref>
+
|+ Average FSAE Michigan May Efficiency Score by Fuel Type
 
|-
 
|-
 
! Year !! 93 Octane !! 100 Octane !! E85
 
! Year !! 93 Octane !! 100 Octane !! E85
 
|-
 
|-
| 2022** || 56.5 || 49.4 || 57.0
+
| 2022<ref>2022 is a fascinating year, as the most efficient car (Villanova used almost 1/2 the fuel of the second place car as well as being one of the fastest cars, placing them 14 point ahead). The lowest scoring team above 0 (Ottowa) managed to score a 5.7 which is 20 points below the team just ahead of them. In fact for all three years studied here, no team has been so much more efficient and so much less efficient than these two.
 +
</ref> || 56.5 || 49.4 || 57.0
 
|-
 
|-
 
| 2021 || 77.2 || 66.8 || 77.3
 
| 2021 || 77.2 || 66.8 || 77.3
Line 51: Line 51:
 
| 2019 || 59.1 || 62.0 || 66.0
 
| 2019 || 59.1 || 62.0 || 66.0
 
|}
 
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Only race finishers eligible for efficiency scoring were used in this calculation. Comparison of fuel use by cars that did not complete the Endurance/Efficiency race course is more complicated and the method of adjustment for projecting fuel consumption is arbitrary.<br>
 
<nowiki>**</nowiki> 2022 is a fascinating year, as the most efficient car (Villanova used almost 1/2 the fuel of the second place car as well as being one of the fastest cars, placing them 14 point ahead). The lowest scoring team above 0 (Ottowa) managed to score a 5.7 which is 20 points below the team just ahead of them. In fact for all three years studied here, no team has been so much more efficient and so much less efficient than these two.
 
  
 
===Fuel Sloshing===
 
===Fuel Sloshing===

Revision as of 10:56, 12 January 2023

The energy needed to propel a combustion vehicle is stored as chemical potential energy in a liquid fuel that is burned by the engine. The fuels available at US competitions are gasoline of octane ratings 93 and 100, and E85. Fuels available in FS competitions are 98RON gasoline and E85 [1]. Fuels and the fuel system are covered in IC.5 of the FSAE Rules, and CV 2 in the FS rules. No fuel additives can be used[2].

Chemistry

Gasoline

Although the gasoline readily available in the US, and in US competition, is 5-10% ethanol (check about in other countries), gasoline is typically approached chemically as pure octane.

2C8H18(l) + 25O2(g) → 16CO2(g) + 18H2(g)

If we use atomic weights for carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, we find that 2 mol of octane is 224 grams, 25 mol of oxygen is 800 grams which comes from 3809 grams of 21 percent air. This yields an air fuel ratio of 17. Since gasoline is not pure octane and air is not exactly 21% oxygen. Experimentation yields the stoichiometric ratio of 14.7 grams of air per gram of fuel[3].

Ethanol

The ethanol used in competition is E85, nominally 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline,.

System Design

Fuel Storage

I.C.1.2 Packaging Restrictions

The fuel tank design rules can be found in IC.5.2 for FSAE and CV 2.3 for FS.

There are two main compromises that the fuel storage system must navigate. The first is Quantity of Fuel. A car will always be faster with less weight, but cutting too close to the minimum fuel level for your car can lead to disastrous consequences such as running out of fuel or temporary fuel starvation, as well as minor inconveniences such as cg changing with fuel level. The second compromise is Fuel Sloshing. As the car accelerates, the fuel itself can move about in the tank, possibly uncovering the fuel pickup and making the car more difficult to drive. Combatting this usually involves a system of internal baffles as well as tank geometry, but the cost is weight, CG height, and the possibility that you design a tank that prevents the fuel from making it back to the pickup fast enough to supply the engine when needed.

Volume Determination

There are two ways to size a fuel tank. The first is to carefully restrict the volume of fuel as to ensure a lighter car. The second method is to ensure the fuel tank has enough fuel to be used during extended drive cycles such as those found on test days. Because refueling a car takes so little time and is generally regarded as a safe practice, the first method is often chosen for combustion cars, while the second is more commonly found in EV batteries.

The minimum quantity of fuel should be enough to barely finish the endurance race at competition. However, this limits the functionality of the car by limiting run time, and increases the likelihood that you will run out of fuel early. The quantity of fuel used in an endurance competition should be determined by experimental data, but can be estimated based on past usage, or usage of similar teams, or if masochistic, be predicted based on average speed of the vehicle, the track length, and the consumption of your engine.

Below are tables showing average fuel consumption by race finishers in the 2019, 2021, and 2022 Michigan Competitions[4].

Average FSAE Michigan May Competition Fuel Use [L] by Type
Year 93 Octane 100 Octane E85
2022 3.7 3.8[5] 5.4
2021 4.0 4.3 5.6
2019 4.0 3.9 5.5
Average FSAE Michigan May Efficiency Score by Fuel Type
Year 93 Octane 100 Octane E85
2022[6] 56.5 49.4 57.0
2021 77.2 66.8 77.3
2019 59.1 62.0 66.0

Fuel Sloshing

Similar to oil sloshing, fuel will move around in the tank as the car goes around corners or accelerates/brakes. The design of the fuel tank should reduce this phenomenon. Each team will face different levels of sloshing and some may never encounter a problem. Generalized advice cannot really be furnished here except to consider it.

Rigid Container

mounting

  • cannot be stressed or loaded in any way by frame - no 3 hard points for mounting

material
form factor (exterior and interior)

Bladder

just pour the gas in a kroger bag and let it flop in the wind /s

must be enclosed by a non-flexible container that is rigidly connected to the chassis and may be load bearing

Fuel Lines

Material Internal Diameter [in] Pressure [psi] Cost [$/foot] Weight [lb/ft] Minimum Bend Radius[7] [in]
Supplier Notes
Hard Lines
Aluminum
3/8-1/2 (OD)
250*
2+   Russell link

*pressure rating is wall thickness dependent

Aluminum (0.035 wall thickness) 1/4-5/8 (OD)
200* 0.68 for 3/8": 0.043
(.651g/cm)  
  Summit

link
*pressure rating not specified formally, only mentioned in Q&A with conflicting answers, trust with caution

Nickel/Copper Alloy (0.028 wall thickness) .132-0.319 (__ -3/8 OD) unspecified 1.28 for 3/8": 0.012
(.175g/cm)   
  Summit link
sold as pressure rated comparable to mild steel brake line
304 Steel (0.028 wall thickness) .257-.319

(5/16-3/8 OD)

3500 2 for 3/8": 0.010
(.156g/cm)   
  JEGS

link

Soft Lines
Nitrile Rubber*
3/8
50
0.88     JEGS link
Nitrile* (Neoprene* cover) 1/8 50 0.8     Dayco product details
cannot buy direct
Buna-N* 3/16+ 50 1.1   1.25 McMaster link
yarn reinforced
Buna-N* 3/4+ 150 7   3 McMaster link

steel wire reinforced

Braided Lines
Nitrile Rubber* and Steel
1/4+ 50 3.50+     Spectre link
Nitrile Rubber* and Stainless Steel 0.22+ (4AN+) 1000 6+   2 Pegasus link
PTFE and Stainless Steel 0.27+ (4AN+) 1320 11.3+   0.75 Pegasus link
PTFE and Aramid 0.27+ (4AN+) 1320 21.3+   0.92 Pegasus link
PTFE and Polyester 0.38+ 305+ 15.8+   2 Pegasus link

* Not compatible with e85[8]

Comparison of Line Types

Quality Hard Lines Braided Lines Soft Lines
Weight -
Cost - +
Cost Tables (FSAE) - +
Manufacturability - +
Pressure Capacity +* -
Reusability** - +
e85 Compatibility + -

*Depends on wall thickness, see table above

**New design or small adjustments that need to be made

Filling

Fuel filling is critical to consider in the system design in three ways: safety, function, and rules compliance. To ensure a safe filling procedure, common sense should be used to prevent fuel spillage and ease of access. An easy process is a safe one. A rules mandated splash guard can further protect the vehicle, driver, and fuel filling team-mate.

Filler Neck

The filler neck has a rules specified vertical height, maximum angle, and internal diameter. Meeting these requirements helps ensure the tank can be filled safely, easily, and will pass technical inspection. Because this is often overlooked in design, and creating a new fuel tank or modifying an existing one is quite difficult on the day of competition, it is recommended to strictly follow rules as written, and to ask rule questions if clarifications are needed.

It is unusual but not unprecedented for a technical inspector to measure the internal diameter of the fuel filler neck, or the vertical height if it is visually unclear. Often in these cases, a gas can of the type used by the fuel filling team at competition is used to ensure that the vehicle can be safely fueled even if the rules are not entirely met. If the rules breach is egregious, the car will likely not be allowed to pass tech even if it may be safely fueled.

Sight Tube

There are vertical height and routing requirements to the sight tube. A frequently discussed solution is a clear, fuel resistant plastic used as the filler neck material itself to comply with both filler neck and sight tube rules. The fuel filling team at US competitions ask the teams to not mark the fuel fill line themselves and will mark it themselves at the fuel fill station to avoid incorrectly marked fill levels causing an accident.

Venting

The fuel tank is required to be able to vent excess vapor pressure while the car is in the correct orientation, but not allow fuel leaking in the event of a vehicle rollover. A common solution is to purchase or create a custom vented fuel cap.

Pump and Pressures

Low Pressure

under 10 bar
depends on injectors, we ran 3 bar, not sure what other people did
low pressure if for tbi and pi

High Pressure

systems running at or above 10 bar high pressure is for di
FSAE - Fuel lines must be stainless steel hard-line or "Aeroquip FC807 smooth bore PTFE hose with stainless steel reinforcement and visible Nomex tracer yarn" (although you can run something similar if you get approval before comp)
supply before boost pump is considered low pressure

The fuel rail must be able to withstand max force not including cyl pressure
critical fasteners


talk about filters here? contribute to pressure loss...

Injectors

Placement

Throttle Body Injection

basically electornic carb

Port Fuel Injection

Fuel Injected into the ports just before entering the combustion chamber. Usually leads to well mixed charge [citation needed]

Direct Fuel Injection=

big boys do this [citation needed]

Classification by Resistance

Low Resistance

Usually 0.5 - 5 Ohm. Also called "peak-and-hold-injectors". From this name you can directly infer the mode of operation. In the beginning the ECU has to give a high current to the valve to open it quickly. This is the peak. Then a lower current is sufficient to keep the valve open. A common ratio of the currents is 4:1.

However, for this the ECU must also have a controller that can supply the different currents. The advantage of this system is that due to the high current at the beginning the valve can be opened very quickly. However, this is no longer necessary nowadays, because even valves with high resistance can provide the necessary flow.

High Resistance

Ususally 8 - 15 Ohm. Also known as a "saturated drive injector". These are much easier to control, as only the circuit has to be closed and the resistance of the valve controls the current.

Critical Fasteners

All fasteners on the fuel system are critical. Nylon locking fasteners are not appropriate near the engine such as the fuel rail. The nylon will soften and will not retain the nut. Most technical inspectors will not catch this but it's a pain to change and better to just do it right the first time.

Firewall

Main page: Firewall


Fuel Strategy

How it's scored at comp

Since FSAE and FS considers how much fuel is used as well as how fast each car goes, the cost of fuel in terms of competition score must be considered. There are many ways to analyze the impact of the fuel usage on the competition score.

Fuel Choice

A simplistic, black box analysis is shown below using the 2021 Michigan Efficiency Event scores. With the cost of fuel in hand, one can weigh the pros and cons of burning more fuel to go faster or even the advantages of each fuel type.

Points per L Fuel used in 2021 Michigan Competition

Efficiency

Consumption vs. Thermal Efficiency

BSFC

Brake specific fuel consumption is another way to view efficiency and is used to compare engine efficiency despite size differences[9]. It measures how much fuel is used (in lbs/hr) divided by power (hp). It is usually used to show a map of engine operating points to visualize engine efficiency across load (usually BMEP) and RPM.

Calculation[10]
copying from old school notes so i'll have to add context later -simon

this is for finding fuel consumption (mpg or equivalent) w bsfc chart

Pme Mean Effective Pressure
nmot Motor speed
iG Gear Ratio (for selected gear)
isec FDR
rdyn Dynamic Radius of Tire
Vd Displacement Volume of Engine
i Constant
Freq Tractive force required


be (fuel consumption) usually experimentally determined

Failed to parse (MathML with SVG or PNG fallback (recommended for modern browsers and accessibility tools): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle B_{time} = \frac{b_e*P_{me}}{\rho_{fuel}} = \frac{b_e*P_{me}*V_d*n_{motor}*i}{\rho_{fuel}} }

Failed to parse (MathML with SVG or PNG fallback (recommended for modern browsers and accessibility tools): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle B_{distance} = \frac{B_{time}}{V} }

i = 0.5 for 4-stroke engine

References

  1. Formula Student Rules 2020 https://www.formulastudent.de/fileadmin/user_upload/all/2020/rules/FS-Rules_2020_V1.0.pdf
  2. (2020).Formula SAE Rules 2020(v2.1) Location: FSAEonline. https://www.fsaeonline.com/cdsweb/gen/DocumentResources.aspx.
  3. Hillier, V.A.W.; Pittuck, F.W. (1966). "Sub-section 3.2".Fundamentals of Motor Vehicle Technology. London:Hutchinson Educational.ISBN 0 09 110711 3.
  4. https://www.sae.org/attend/student-events/formula-sae-michigan/awards-results
  5. Villanova was so efficient that this average becomes 4.2 L without including them
  6. 2022 is a fascinating year, as the most efficient car (Villanova used almost 1/2 the fuel of the second place car as well as being one of the fastest cars, placing them 14 point ahead). The lowest scoring team above 0 (Ottowa) managed to score a 5.7 which is 20 points below the team just ahead of them. In fact for all three years studied here, no team has been so much more efficient and so much less efficient than these two.
  7. Minimum Bend Radius for hardlines is considered to be 2*D if drawn and 7*D if rolled. This is a rule of thumb, YMMV https://www.listertube.com/links/tube-bending-design-guide/
  8. https://www.highpowermedia.com/Archive/elastomer-compatibility-with-ethanol-in-fuel
  9. The wikipedia page for BSFC is hilariously poorly written. It's inscrutable and incomplete but has this enormous table of various engine BSFC stats.
  10. “Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC).” X-Engineer, https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/internal-combustion-engines/performance/brake-specific-fuel-consumption-bsfc/