DESIGN AND OPTIMZATION OF A FORMULA SAE COOLING SYSTEM

Neal Persaud

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE

Supervisor Professor M. Bussmann. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering University Of Toronto March 2007

ABSTRACT
This thesis documents the testing, design and analysis performed to determine the optimal design for the 2007 cooling system for the University of Toronto Formula SAE race car. The main focus of this project is the physical testing and analysis of the data collected. The cooling system design has been refined as a result of the testing carried out in this project. The test data has been analyzed to identify heat rejection requirements, optimal engine operating temperature, and other important design parameters. It has been found that the cooling system used in the race car must reject 9500 Watts of heat energy, and should aim to maintain an operating temperature of 85C. The 2007 cooling system promises to be successful and an improvement over last years system. The new system is 10% lighter than the system it replaces, contributing to the overall improvement of vehicle performance of the 2007 University of Toronto FSAE race car.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the following people for their much appreciated help and support during the course of this thesis: o Professor M. Bussmann for graciously agreeing to supervise my thesis and the for his role as the University of Toronto Formula SAE Faculty Advisor. o Long Dana Manufacturing for providing radiators and continued support of the University of Toronto FSAE team. In particular I would like to thank Martine Banville, Stephanie Sesitito, Nick Kalman, and David Bruce from Long Dana manufacturing for assisting in the radiator procurement as well as providing proprietary testing data that proved to be invaluable.

o Jeremy Koudelka and Jerry Zielinski for assisting me during my first year
as cooling system design leader

o Nilufar Damji and James Correia for their help in conducting performing
cooling tests and test component manufacture

o Huang Iu and Saquib Siddiqui for their help in developing, troubleshooting,

maintaining, and operating the engine dyno

o Andrew Wong for his excellent photography skills o To past and present members of the Formula SAE team who have helped
me to develop into a competent young engineer. The knowledge and practical experience gained by being a part of this team has profoundly affected my life and will continue to do so for many years to come.

ii

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .. I ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .. II TABLE OF CONTENTS...III GLOSSARY ................................................................................... V 1 INTRODUCTION. 1
1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Formula SAE.......................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Background........................................................................................ 1 1.2.2 Formula SAE Rules .......................................................................... 3 1.3 Literature Review.................................................................................. 3 1.4 Motivation............................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 History .............................................................................................. 4

2 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 6

2.1 Design Objectives................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Design Constraints............................................................................ 7 2.2 Design Requirements ............................................................................ 7 2.2.1 Benchmarking................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 2005 Cooling System vs. 2006 Cooling System .......................... 10 2.3 UT2007 Initiatives................................................................................. 12 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Track Testing ........................................................................................ 14 Flow Rate Testing ................................................................................. 19 Heat Rejection Requirements ............................................................. 21 Optimal Engine Operating Temperature.......................................... 23 Radiator Configuration Testing .......................................................... 26

3 Testing And Analysis................................................................. 14

4 Component Selection ................................................................. 30

4.1 Component Selection.............................................................................. 30 4.2 Water Pump Selection............................................................................ 30 4.3 Radiator Selection................................................................................... 31 4.4 Cooling Fan Selection............................................................................. 33 4.5 Thermostat vs. Flow Restrictors........................................................... 35 4.6 Temperature Regulation........................................................................ 36 4.7 Weight Reduction ................................................................................... 36

iii

5 Component Manufacture.......................................................... 38

5.1 Radiator ................................................................................................... 38 5.2 Cooling Fan ............................................................................................. 38 5.3 Cooling Duct and Shroud Assembly .................................................... 38 5.4 Mechanical Water Pump....................................................................... 39 5.5 Thermostat and Thermostat Housing.................................................. 39 5.6 Swirl Pot................................................................................................... 39 5.7 Hardlines.................................................................................................. 40 5.8 Hoses and Hose Clamps......................................................................... 40

6 Recommendations..................................................................... 41 7 Conclusions ................................................................................. 42 References ...................................................................................... 43 Appendix A Weight Comparison Matrix ...................................... 44 Appendix B Flow Rate vs. RPM Data .46 Appendix C Water Temperature vs. Torque Plot.47 Appendix D Cooling System Design Data...48

iv

Glossary
AFR: Acronym for Air-Fuel ratio. A lean air fuel ratio indicates excess air and results in high combustion temperature. A rich air fuel ratio is desired for maximum engine power output CC: Acronym for cubic centimeter. CBR 600 F4i: The model of engine used in the University of Toronto FSAE Race Car. Dynamometer: A device that is used to measure torque. ECU: Acronym for Engine Control Unit. Responsible for controlling many electronic functions such as cooling fan relay, spark timing, fuel injector timing, etc. RPM: Acronym for revolutions per minute, the most common units for measuring engine speed. SAE: Acronym for Society Of Automotive engineers, the governing body of the Formula SAE competition. Thermistor: A resistor whose resistance changes with temperature. Used for logging water temperatures. UT XXXX: Referring to University of Toronto FSAE vehicle, year XXXX (e.g. UT 2005)

1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to perform extensive testing and research to establish a set of guidelines for designing and optimizing a cooling system for a Formula SAE race vehicle. The design objectives of the cooling system will be identified, and through rigorous testing that has been completed during the course of this thesis, the fundamental requirements will be presented. Using the testing data compiled, an in-depth analysis will be conducted to satisfy all of the design objectives. Justification of design decisions and system components selection will also be presented.

The scope of this analysis will be to establish a reference for cooling system designs in future UT Formula SAE vehicles.

1.2 Formula SAE

1.2.1 Background The Formula SAE competition is a student design competition that is open to undergraduate and graduate students around the world. The students are to conceive, design, and manufacture an open wheel formula style vehicle that is suited for a weekend autocross-racing car. Each team represents a fictional manufacturing company that is to produce these vehicles at a rate of four vehicles per day, while maintaining a cost below $25,000 USD. The target audience is the recreational autocrosser who wishes to participate

in non-professional autocross events. At the competition, the formula cars are judged in static and dynamic events, with the following point breakdown: Table 1.1 Formula SAE Competition Points Breakdown Static Events Presentation Engineering Design Cost Analysis Dynamic Events Dynamic Events Acceleration Skid-Pad Autocross Fuel Economy Endurance Total: 75 50 150 50 350 1000 Points Max Points Available 75 150 100 75

It is evident that the majority of the points are contained within the dynamic events, and thus a larger proportion of time is spent on refining the dynamic performance of the vehicle. Given that the Endurance event accounts for 35% of the points, much effort is spent on ensuring reliability of the vehicle as a whole to withstand the tremendous loads placed on the vehicle during this event.

1.2.2 Formula SAE Rules The SAE sanctioning body has numerous rules that are strictly enforced due to the nature of the competition; since these formula cars are designed and raced by the students themselves. Among the many rules in the Formula SAE Rulebook, the most significant ones are: o A four stroke piston engine(s) that has a maximum displacement of 610 CC per cycle. o The use of a single circular restrictor placed between the throttle and the engine. The maximum restrictor diameter size for a gasoline engine is 20mm. o A minimum wheelbase of at least 60 inches. o The vehicle must have four wheels that are not in a straight line. Rules pertaining specifically to the cooling system state that the cooling system must use water as the working fluid. Rust inhibitor is permitted, to a maximum of 10% of the total system volume.

1.3 Literature Review

Literary resources on the design of a cooling system to be used in a race application are mediocre at best. Valkenburg8 and Smith9 both cover the cooling system in famous race car engineering texts but do not provide any sort of theoretical analysis for determining any of the system operating condition, or system parameters. They both emphasize the importance of the cooling system and other engine support systems and give a general overview of the systems desired function. These two texts are helpful when it comes to sharing industry 3

experience of what can be easily overlooked in the system design, construction, and maintenance. The lack of theoretical literature regarding the subject of a race car cooling system is one of the reasons that have inspired me to undertake this project.

1.4 Motivation
1.4.1 History Since the inception of the Formula SAE team at the University of Toronto in 1997 until 2004, all of the UT cars suffered from inadequately designed cooling systems. This was due to the fact that the cooling system was overlooked as a major subsection, and usually put together as an afterthought. Consequently, it did not get the attention required to ensure that the cooling system was able to perform its desired function. All of the UT FSAE cars prior to 2004 experienced overheating problems on hot, dry, sunny days. In some cases the overheating was mild, in other cases it resulted in catastrophic engine component failures. For UT 2004, Technical Director Jeremy Koudelka did some testing and analysis to design the cooling system. Working with manufacturer test data, he was able to size an appropriate radiator, fan, and water pump combination to adequately meet the cooling requirements. This system was highly effective but could easily be improved upon as it was very overbuilt. For the UT 2005 and UT 2006 race cars, I was responsible for the cooling system design and manufacture. While completing the analysis to select the cooling system components, it was noted that the system input variable, the amount of heat rejection required, had been estimated for our engine (CBR 600 F4i.) Consequently, it was necessary to either validate 4

or refine the existing heat rejection requirement estimate. The current estimated maximum heat rejection requirement of the motor is 10200 Watts, and the entire cooling load is assumed to be carried solely by the cooling system, i.e. cooling via radiation and conduction is neglected. To refine this estimate a test was performed to experimentally identify the heat rejection requirement.

2 Objectives
2.1 Design Objectives
In order to optimize the system, the design parameters must be defined. It is important to remember that the design parameters are similar to that of a production car, however their order of importance is different, given the context of its racing application. The design parameters listed in descending order of importance are as follows: o Maintain an optimal engine operating temperature over a wide range of ambient conditions. o Maximize the overall system reliability. o Meet all of the design criterions while minimizing the system mass. o Minimize mechanical power requirements. o Minimize electrical power requirements. o Meet the packaging constraints of the chassis designer. o Ensure the system does not negatively impact other sub-sections. o Keep the system mass as central and as close to the ground as practical. o Ensure the system can be serviced without undue difficulty. o Minimize the cost of the system.

2.1.1 Design Constraints The major design constraints in descending order of importance are: o Timeline - Completed on time to meet running car deadline

o Packaging - Fit neatly within the chassis and minimize system weight without comprising system performance or adjacent sub-system

performance. o Cost Minimize cost, and maximize system performance and reliability. In general, the timeline and packaging are the most restrictive design constraints. Our team philosophy is to complete the car early and get it tested on track. This limits the amount of time for development before the system must be finalized and construction must begin. Packaging constraints represent the physical constraint in terms of overall component sizes and location. This primarily affects the size of the radiator and fan combination, as well as its placement on the vehicle. The final constraint is cost. Most of the components are either donated to the FSAE team or sold at a reduced price, so the cost does not have a great impact on the design. It does, however, require the relationships built between the team and sponsors to be maintained in a professional manner.

2.2 Design Requirements

The system design cannot begin until the system requirements are identified. Once identified, design and testing can begin to converge towards the optimal cooling system design. The data plots needed to aid system design are described as follows in descending order of importance: o Compute the average heat rejection needed for the engine during simulated race use.

o Create a characteristic curve for the stock cooling system, a 3D graph containing pressure drop vs. rpm vs. flow rate. o Analyze the relationship between water temperature, AFR ratio, fuel economy, and engine output. o Compute water side pressure drop for double and single pass radiators. o Compute heat rejection values for double vs. single pass radiators. o Analyze the effect of added air side (heat exchanger) velocity to evaluate air side limitation of FSAE race vehicles. o Compute engine output losses associated with a mechanical pump. o Compute engine output losses associated with electrical loads.

2.2.1 Benchmarking Given the limited time, money, and testing facility resources, benchmarking older systems is a useful tool to compare system performance and identify areas where the most gains can be achieved. It allows for the system designer to focus their attention in the appropriate areas, and allows them to make empirical relations between system parameters and system performance.

Refer to the Table 2.1 below for discussion: Table 2.1 Cooling System Comparison 2003-2006
Vehicle Finned Surface Area Airflow Rate Water flow Rate Designed Max Temp (30C air) Actual Max Temp

UT 2003 UT 2004 UT 2005 UT 2006

0.075 m2 0.075 m2 0.07245 m2 0.07245 m2

3.2 m/s 4.2 m/s 2.6 m/s 4.7 m/s

18L/min 18L/min 30 L/min (avg) 30 L/min (avg)

90C 90C 90C 90C

115C 88C 115C 85C

Table 2.1 serves to illustrate a number of points. The most significant point to comment on is the apparent cyclical nature of the cooling system performance. It can be seen that the performance of the system has fluctuated over the past four years. This can be directly attributed to the system designer having insufficient background information and reference material when starting the design. The intent of this paper is to serve as that reference material to ensure the system converges to an optimal design. One should note that the 2003 and 2004 vehicles used the same radiator and water pump, but had different fan and duct designs. Similarly the 2005 and 2006 vehicles also used the same radiator and water pump, and also had different fan and duct designs. This illustrates the air side limited nature of FSAE cooling systems. That is to say that the maximum heat rejection is dictated by airflow as opposed to water flow through the radiator. Given the low speed nature of the competition, the air velocity through the radiator (after losses) is significantly less than the flow velocity induced by an axial flow fan. Thus, ducting and proper fan selections are 9

absolutely critical to ensure system performance. The 2004 and 2006 cooling systems both utilized a fully ducted radiator entrance and shroud exit. Both systems also used larger diameter fans to ensure the correct airflow was maintained through the radiator core. It is also important to note that both the 2003 and 2005 systems had high operating temperatures, but only the UT 2003 overheated catastrophically. The 2005 system was able to sustain high engine temperatures due to the fact that it used a mechanical water pump that increased water flow rate substantially. It also ran a relatively high system pressure at 1.6 bar. The additional water flow rate reduced the chances of localized hot spots within the engine, and the high system pressure raised the boiling point of the water.

2.2.2 2005 Cooling System vs. 2006 Cooling System As mentioned above, both UT 2005 and UT 2006 used the same radiator and water pump combination. The UT 2007 cooling system will continue to use the same radiator and water pump combination and the analysis for this decision is discussed further in the report. A benefit to this decision is that it allows for direct comparisons to be made between the systems since many of the system variables are being held constant. This greatly reduces the uncertainties and possible sources of error during analysis.

10

Table 2.2 is a thermal performance comparison between the 2005 and 2006 cooling system. Table 2.2 Cooling System Comparisons Thermal Performance vs. Mass
Vehicle Actual Specific Heat Dissipation UT 2005 UT 2006 Overall System Weight Specific Heat Dissipation per unit mass

135 W/C 186 W/C

8.7 kg 7.0 kg

15.52 W/C*kg 26.57 W/C*kg

One should note that the specific heat dissipation refers to the amount of heat that is rejected per 1C increase, and is normalized against mass to quantify each systems performance to mass ratio. It is evident that the system design of UT 2006 is substantially improved in all respects when compared to that of UT 2005. It is over 1.5 kg lighter and can reject 28% more heat. The weight savings between the two systems is primarily from weight reduction measures in system packaging, as well as the removal of the stock oil cooler. The stock oil cooler accounts for more than half of the weight savings. Testing completed in 2005 indicates that the oil cooler can be removed without any detriment to engine performance or longevity. The additional cooling performance can be attributed to the use of a duct and shroud for the radiator rather than a side pod. The duct and shroud assembly are about 0.7 kg lighter than a full side pod, while the performance gain is a result of the seal generated by the duct and shroud. This seal prevents air from escaping through low-pressure zones around the radiator, rather than passing through the radiator core. A full weight breakdown and comparison can be found in Appendix A.

11

2.3 UT 2007 Initiatives

The most important initiative for this report is to experimentally quantify the amount of heat rejected by the motor to the cooling system, since subsequent design calculations use this value repeatedly. The testing has been completed and will be discussed in further detail later in this report. After reviewing the previous years cooling system data, there are two main design initiatives being considered for UT 2007. Despite the fact that the optimal engine operating temperature has not yet been established, reference material10,11, engine builders, and racing industry professionals all agree that a safe steady-state operating temperature range for an engine is between 80C 105C. Temperatures above this will result in overheating of the engine and other peripheral components, and temperatures below this have negative effects on engine power output, fuel consumption, and engine wear. The optimal operating temperature typically lies somewhere between the 80C 105C range, although some engines show peak performance around 75C. This optimal temperature will vary from engine to engine as parasitic losses are generally a function of temperature. The temperature at which these losses are a minimum is the optimal operating temperature for the engine. With this in mind, the design initiatives for UT 2007 are intended to reduce the weight of the cooling system, while satisfying all of the aforementioned design constraints. The first initiative is to switch from the current Medium performance 11 Spal fan to the Standard performance 11 Spal fan, which has the same overall diameter as the current fan but uses a smaller motor which reduces the mass of the fan. The use of a smaller motor also reduces the electrical load on the electrical system. Switching to the standard 12

performance fan results in a weight savings of 0.36 kg. One may suggest that going to a smaller fan will result in the system losing some heat rejection ability. This is true; however analysis of on track data suggests that the UT 2006 system is overbuilt. The justification and analysis of on-track data will be examined later in this report. The second design initiative is to remove the water-pump by-pass line and thermostat assembly to reduce system complexity and reduce the weight of the system. This assembly is to be replaced by a flow restriction disc. However this requires careful consideration of the intended function of the thermostat and by-pass lines, and to verify that the flow restriction disc can be used without adverse effects on the performance of the cooling system and the engine. If these design initiatives are implemented, the overall system weight savings over the 2006 system is about 0.7kg, which equates to a 10% weight savings.

13

3 Testing and Analysis:

3.1 Track Testing
As noted above, the 2006 cooling system was suspected to have been overbuilt for its application. However, prior to this discussion and analysis, it is important to understand the general function of the thermostat (see Fig. 3.1) and the warm up phase of an engine. The function of the thermostat is to bring the engine to its operating temperature as quickly as possible. This is due to the fact that engines operating below ~ 70C10,11 typically exhibit poor performance, poor fuel economy, and high engine wear. The thermostat is a flow restriction device that is placed at the water outlet of the engine and remains closed until the engine is close to the operating temperature. In the closed position, water is not allowed to enter the radiator, and is recirculated back into the water pump via the bypass line. As the temperature approaches the engines operating temperature the thermostat valve begins to open allowing water to flow to the radiator to be cooled.

Figure 3.1: Automotive Thermostat 14

In the case of the CBR 600 F4i engine, the thermostat begins to open around 82C and is fully open around 90C12. In August of 2006, on-track testing was completed to examine the cooling system performance by varying a number of system parameters. The first test was to complete a simulated endurance race with the cooling fan running for the duration of the race to see what temperature the system would operate at for steady state race use. Figure 3.2, generated by race studio analysis, the data acquisition software used in conjunction with the data acquisition system, shows a plot of engine temperature as a function of time. The ambient conditions are at 30C and the car is undergoing a simulated endurance run.

Figure 3.2: Race Studio Water Temp (C) vs. Time (sec)

15

Figure 3.3 Measures Figure 3.3 shows the data collected on lap 26 of 31. Each lap is on average 24 seconds long. The car starts the test at a water temperature of 78C and the cooling fan is turned on and remains on during the course of the race simulation. The plot in Fig 3.2 shows that the engine water temperature averaged about 85-86C. Given the above operating conditions and the discussion about the thermostat, closer inspection of the plot suggests that the thermostat was not in the fully open position and the thermostat was cycling between opened and closed positions while the engine was running. This explains the apparent noise in the water temperature signal. One should note that design calculations indicate that the car should run at 85C. However, if the thermostat is indeed cycling between the open and close positions, this suggests that the car can run cooler if the thermostat were to be removed. Due to time constraints, this test was not actually performed. Given that the above simulation represents the most extreme conditions, the data suggests that the system is overbuilt. Since Formula SAE cooling systems are typically airside limited, the UT2006 system is likely to have more airflow than needed through the radiator core. Consequently a lighter duty fan is being considered for use in UT 2007. 16

Another on-track test performed was to evaluate the effect of thermostat removal on the performance of the cooling system. Some consideration was given to removing the thermostat and by-pass line to reduce the system weight. However, removal of the thermostat could have detrimental effects if not considered carefully. The primary function of the thermostat is to regulate the temperature of the engine and facilitate a shorter warm up period for the engine. The first test conducted was an endurance simulation with the thermostat installed and the second test was the same endurance simulation with the thermostat removed. The purpose of the test was to examine the impact of the thermostats presence on the rate at which the water temperature increases to a reasonable operating water temperature. The test was conducted by starting the car, idling briefly and then full out race driving to simulate the first few laps seen in an endurance race. Both tests were conducted on the same track with the same ambient conditions.

Figure 3.4 Endurance Simulation with Thermostat 17

Figure 3.5 Endurance Simulation without Thermostat Referring to the Figures 3.4 and 3.5 generated by Race Studio, it can be seen that there is a delay in reaching the engines operating temperature when the thermostat is removed. It should be noted that the X-axis scale on these two graphs are different. To quantify the difference between the two system arrangements, the average rate of water temperature increase was computed by taking the slope of line drawn from 45C to 85C, which is presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Rate of Water Temp Rise Rate of Water Temp Rise Thermostat Removed 0.17C/s Thermostat Installed 0.5C/s This indicates that the thermostat allows the car to reach its operating temperature nearly 3 times as quickly when the thermostat is installed. However, no drivability problems were 18

noted during the test with the thermostat removed. During competition, the car is warmed up prior to running the dynamic events, with the exception of the endurance event. The endurance and fuel economy events are coupled, so unnecessary fuel consumption used to warm up the engine prior to the endurance race adversely affects the fuel economy score. Thus, the only event that needs to be considered when comparing the performance impact of the thermostat is the endurance event. Analysis regarding the impact of a longer warmup period is discussed later in greater detail. However, as mentioned earlier, the engine should be maintained at an operating temperature between 80 and 105C, and it should approach those temperatures during the warm-up phase relatively quickly.

3.2 Flow Rate Testing

Determining the water flow rate through the engine was a particularly important design parameter needed to make many design calculations and design decisions. The primary objective of the flow rate testing was to determine the flow rate at the average engine speed during race use. This value is needed to compute the heat rejection requirement of the CBR engine and, as mentioned earlier, the heat rejection requirement is the most important parameter to be computed. All of the subsequent system designs are based on the initial heat rejection requirement. For a mechanical water pump, a pump characteristic curve consisting of flow rate vs. rpm vs. pressure drop is desired. However, due to time and manufacturing constraints, only a flow rate vs. rpm test was conducted.

19

Testing was completed on the UT 2006 vehicle using the stock water pump and radiator. As noted earlier, flow restriction devices were being considered, so testing was completed using these flow restriction discs. Three discs were prototyped and tested. The three discs create varying flow restrictions quantified from low to high restriction. The restrictive disc is simply a small round 0.050 thick aluminium disc with one or more holes to facilitate water flow. Note that the medium flow restriction disc is sized to provide the same diameter opening as the thermostat orifice in the fully open position. Thus, it is assumed water flow rate curve for a medium restriction disc representative of the water flow rate for the stock thermostat. The testing was completed using a GPI brand water flow meter and the ignition cut feature on the engine control system to hold the engine at steady state rpm. From this test, a scatter plot of flow rate vs. rpm has been created and a line of best fit has been used to represent the flow rate. Refer to Appendix B for this plot. Table 3.2 Water Flow Rates Disc Type Ambient Conditions Low Restriction Medium Restriction High Restriction Hot Warm Cold/Raining Flow Rate @ Idle (~1600 rpm) 9L/min 6L/min 4L/min 43 L/min 30 L/min 25L/min Flow Rate @ 7500rpm

Table 3.2 shows the flow rates at idle and at 7500 rpm for the three different discs. Note that the flow rate of 7500 rpm is used since it is the average engine speed during a race. After a great deal of analysis and consideration, it was decided not to use flow restriction 20

discs for UT 2007, but to use a modified thermostat. An in-depth analysis can be found later in this report.

3.3 Heat Rejection Requirements

As noted earlier the most important design parameter is the heat rejection required to maintain optimal operating temperature. One should note that these are two separate parameters that are decoupled. The first one is the actual heat rejection by the motor to the cooling system, and the second is the optimal engine operating temperature. The heat rejection requirement is governed by the equation Q = mCP T . In this case, the mass flow rate has been calculated using a flow meter as discussed earlier, and the water flow rate for a fully open thermostat was used. Since the mass flow rate is a function of engine speed, the flow rate is taken at the average engine speed during race simulation. The temperature difference is calculated by placing an additional thermistor in the cooling line at the radiator exit, coupled with the use of the existing stock thermistor at the engine block outlet. These two positions represent the coolest and hottest spots respectively. The

temperature rise between these two points is caused by the heat rejected from the engine to the water. Given the nature of the experiment and the value of the data extracted from the test, a great deal of time was spent calibrating and the verifying calibration on these sensors.

21

Figure 3.6 Water Temperature Difference between engine inlet and outlet

Referring to figure 3.6 it is apparent that the temperature difference between the two values remains fairly constant during race simulation. Since heat rejection is a function of engine speed, this observation indicates that the assumption of constant heat rejection is justified since the heat rejection requirement remains fairly constant during the simulation. The temperature difference is on average 4.1C. Using the average engine speed of 7500 rpm, the water flow rate is approximately 30L/min. Using the calculation for heat rejection we have:
Q = mCP T Q = 0.5 Kg / s 4.205 KJ / KgK 4.1K = 8620 Watts

22

When compared to the estimated heat rejection value of 10200 Watts it is apparent that the estimate used in previous years is fairly conservative. The use of this conservative estimate explains the characteristics of the UT2006 cooling system, which was capable of cooling more than what the initial design calculations suggested. Using a safety factor of 1.1, the heat rejection design requirement for the CBR 600F4i motor is calculated to be 9500 Watts. The designer should bear in mind that engine operating parameters, such as lean air-fuel ratio and pre-detonation caused by too much ignition advance, will increase combustion temperatures. This, in turn, will cause the heat rejection requirement to increase. However, dyno testing indicates that both of these conditions cause reduced power output and compromise engine longevity due to excessive mechanical and thermal loads.

3.4 Optimal Engine Operating Temperature

Determining the optimal engine operating temperature is a key test to designing the cooling system. Once the system designer knows how much heat is rejected by the motor, the next step is to determine the operating temperature for optimal for engine performance. It would be difficult to determine the optimal engine temperature through analytical methods. The time and effort needed to develop an in-depth model would encompass the scope of this thesis. Additionally, it would have to be verified through physical testing. Consequently, the physical testing portion was completed using the engine dynamometer, which can be seen in Figure 3.7, developed throughout the past 6 months.

23

Figure 3.7 Engine Dyno Testing Rig The testing procedure was to hold the engine at constant speeds while under full load. This procedure was repeated at various operating temperatures and plotted against output torque at the brake. The test was conducted on three separate occasions. On each occasion the test was completed by sweeping in both ascending and descending temperature to verify the repeatability of the results. The dyno was calibrated prior to each testing session and the data trends (as opposed to absolute values) were compared to each other. This method of comparison eliminated any uncertainty due to changing ambient conditions, which would also impact the engine torque output. Each testing session showed the same trends. The data from a single session can be seen in Figure 3.8 for an engine speed of 10000 rpm. Refer to Appendix C for the same plot at 6000 rpm.

24

Torque vs. Water Temp at 10000 Rpm

85 83 81 Torque (lb-ft) 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 60 65 70 75 80 Water Temp (C) 85 90 95 100
Torque @ 70C Torque @ 80C Torque @ 95C

Figure 3.8 Torque vs. Water Temperature The scatter plots for both 6000 and 10000 rpm indicate that the optimal operating engine temperature is approximately 70C. Both plots have similar trends that indicate that the torque output is at a maximum near 70C and the output decreases and temperature increases. Both graphs indicate a 3.2% power output difference between 70C and 95C. This suggests that the function of engine operating temperature and torque output is not related to engine speed. Given the packaging and weight restraints, designing a cooling system to operate at 70C would require a system that is considerably larger and heavier than the existing system. Also, noting that the torque output difference between 70C and 85C is about 1%, a desired operating temperature of 85C was selected as it is a tradeoff between optimal torque output and maintaining low system weight. Additionally, one should note that it is possible to maintain temperatures closer to 70C for short dynamic events, such as the acceleration or autocross event. 25

3.5 Radiator Configuration Testing

The radiator configuration refers to the number of times the water must pass through the radiator core. A single pass, or standard cross flow radiator, is a radiator configuration that allows the water to pass through the core once. A serpentine cross flow, or multipass radiator, allows the water to pass through the core multiple times. Fig 3.9 shows a single

Figure 3.9 Radiator Configuration Schematics and a multipass radiator configuration to illustrate this point. The crossflow radiator is the traditional radiator configuration, since it is typically cheaper to manufacture. One should note that this type of heat exchange must transfer heat from the heat source (engine) to the water and then to atmospheric air. If one of the heat transfer rates to one of the fluids is smaller than the other, then one side of the system will limit the overall system performance. For example, a system in which the heat exchanger has a small air flow rate, but an infinite water flow rate, will be limited by the maximum heat transfer of the water to the air. A simple analogy to this would be a fluidic pipe system where one pipe is much smaller than all the others. This would result in a bottleneck and limit the flow.

26

A multipass radiator is often considered for cooling systems that are air side limited. This is because the water must remain in the core for a longer period of time and will transfer heat to the air for a greater period of time. However, the pressure drop in the system increases for a multipass radiator. Consequently, for a fixed water pump, a multipass radiator would have a lower water flow rate than a single pass radiator. Based on manufacturer test data and experience with previous cooling systems, I believe that the cooling system of an

Fig 3.10 Radiator Single Pass Configuration Testing Set-up FSAE vehicle is very much airside limited. This hypothesis is supported by the dramatic performance increases that are seen by using higher flow rate fans. However, in the past, the decision to use a double pass radiator was speculative and definitive testing in a controlled manner has never been completed. Thus a test was developed to compare the performance of a single and double pass radiator in a Formula SAE application. Note that a 27

triple pass radiator was not considered due to time constraints, and the fact that a triple pass radiator has a considerably larger pressure drop. Using a single pass radiator as a baseline reference, a double pass radiator increases the pressure drop by 16 times and a triple pass radiator increases the pressure drop by 64 times15. The test was completed using a single (Fig 3.10) and double pass (Fig 3.11) configuration of the same radiator, and placed on the UT2006 vehicle. Testing was completed with the same ambient conditions. The vehicle was stationary and the motor was started and the engine speed was held constant at 5000 rpm. Once the water temperature reached 100C, the cooling fan was turned on and air was blown across the core. Once the coolant temperature reached a steady state temperature recordings were taken. The same test was repeated with a double pass configuration.

Figure 3.11 Double Pass Radiator Configuration 28

The test results found in Table 3.3 indicate that the double pass radiator has a significant advantage in comparison to the single pass radiator in this particular application. There was some small variability in test conditions, but a 33.5C temperature drop is a clear indication that the double pass radiator performs much better this application.

Table 3.3 Radiator Configuration Testing Results Single Pass Ambient Air Temp Starting Water Temp Steady State Water Temp -4C 100C 98C Double Pass -4.5C 101C 64.5C Delta 0.5C 1C 33.5C

It is important to note that this experiment is specific to this system and one cannot assume that a double pass will perform better than a single pass in every application. In this case of a Formula SAE vehicle, the air side limitation causes the double pass radiator to perform better than a single pass.

29

4 Component Selection
4.1 Component Selection
After compiling all of the necessary data collected during testing, cooling system design can proceed. The first step is to size a water pump, cooling fan, and radiator combination that will maintain an optimal operating temperature of 85C while rejecting 9500 Watts of heat with an ambient air temperature of 30C. Using manufacturer supplied test data, found in Appendix D, we can calculate system parameters that will allow the engine to operate at 85C during the worst case scenario. As mentioned above the worst case scenario is approximated as a hot day with an ambient temperature of 30C. In the case that the car should be exposed to a hotter ambient temperature, the water temperature rise is directly proportional to the rise in ambient temperature, i.e. a 40C ambient temperature would result in a water temperature of 95C.

4.2 Water Pump Selection

Due to time constraints, the analysis of parasitic draw for mechanical and electrical pumps was not completed. However, existing test data from various automotive and pump manufacturers suggests that electrical pumps create less parasitic load on the motor than mechanical pump. However, past experience with electrical pumps on the UT FSAE cars has resulted in pump failure and consequent overheating. The electrical pumps cannot withstand the harsh operating conditions endured in a Formula SAE vehicle. Additionally the pumps that are suited for use on a Formula SAE car have significantly lower flow rates than a mechanical pump. The water flow rate for an electrical pump is constant, whereas 30

the flow rate for a mechanical pump is proportional to engine speed. This is beneficial since high engine speeds have greater cooling requirements. Despite the fact that a mechanical pump likely requires a greater power input than an electric pump, a mechanical pump was selected due to its superior reliability and greater flow rates at high rpms.

4.3 Radiator Selection

Long Dana Manufacturing, a manufacturer of radiators for small ATVs and personal recreational vehicles, sponsors the UT FSAE team and supplies prototype radiators. For UT2007 the radiator selection was limited to the available resources rather than specifying a specific radiator design. This would be rather cumbersome, and testing and validation of a radiator design would be difficult. The resources needed to complete such testing would be more than what the UT Formula SAE team can support. As such the radiator selected is the same radiator that has been used in UT 2005 and UT 2006. This radiator was selected for a number of reasons. It packages well within the chassis, it was the smallest radiator that Long Dana has made available to Formula SAE teams, it has proven to be adequately sized on UT2006, it has an existing set of molds for a duct and shroud, and its geometry lends itself well to a 10 fan or larger. The fact that it can accommodate a relatively large fan is beneficial and will be explained in greater detail in the subsequent section. The molds used to manufacture the duct and shroud are extremely time consuming to fabricate, so using existing molds save a great deal of time. The stock radiator, which can be seen in Figure 4.1 in its factory configuration is a single pass crossflow design that uses cooling bungs. 31

Figure 4.1 Unmodified UT 2007 Radiator The radiator is modified heavily to make it more efficient. It is double passed by welding a plate to block flow through the header tank to force the water to flow through the core twice. The stock bungs are removed and replaced with 1 diameter bungs to increase flow and reduce head loss. Figure 4.2 shows the modified radiator in process.

32

Figure 4.2 UT 2007 Radiator in Process

4.4 Cooling Fan Selection

Since the mechanical pump was selected, the water flow rate value is a fixed design parameter. Working under the assumption that the thermostat will be used, average water speed is about 30L/min. Also noting that the same radiator used in 2006 was chosen, the only design variable remaining is the cooling fan selection. It is important to note that Spals fan product line comes in three performance levels: standard, medium and high performance. Each performance level uses a standard motor for each respective performance level. For a given performance level the motors are the same for each fan 33

diameter. The only difference is the housing and fan blades. With that being said, the only difference between a 10 and a 16 fan of the same performance level is the plastic fan blade and housing. The two fans share the same motor. The difference between a 10 standard performance fan and a 10 medium performance fan is the motor output, i.e. the 10 medium performance fan has a larger, heavier, and more powerful motor. Therefore to maximize performance and minimize weight, it is desirable to choose the largest diameter fan that can be packaged in the lowest performance level. It can be seen from heat rejection graph found in Appendix D, that the desired output value of 176W/C requires an air flow velocity of approximately 4.0 m/s through the core. There are three fans that are in the vicinity of 4.0 m/s. They are the 10 and 11 inch Spal medium performance, and the 11 Spal regular performance fans. Given the aforementioned description of Spal fans and the fact that UT2006 used a Spal 11 medium performance fan, an 11 standard performance fan was chosen for 2007. This choice was made for a number of reasons; the cooling system on UT2006 was suspected of being overbuilt, and since the other two system components remained the same as last year, this is the most suitable way of optimizing the 2007 cooling system. The 11 standard performance fan can only pull air through the core at a velocity of 3.1m/s, which is 0.9m/s short of the 4.0m/s needed to achieve the desired operating temperature for the worst case scenario. However, one must take into consideration the following: First, the duct assembly will aid to channel air through the core of the radiator. This will help increase the actual core velocity to be greater than 3.1 m/s. On track testing will help to determine if this fan combination is capable of meeting the design objectives. Second one must also consider 34

that the worst case scenario is unlikely to be encountered during the FSAE competition, as it is held in mid May, where peak ambient temperatures are usually between 15-23C. Additionally the 11 standard fan has the same bolt pattern as the 11 medium performance fan. This feature ensures that if the system is inadequate to maintain a temperature of 84C, the medium performance fan can be swapped in to increase cooling capacity.

4.5 T-Stat vs. Flow Restrictors

Post competition testing indicated that with the thermostat removed it takes about 3 times as long to bring the engine up to operating temperature. As mentioned earlier, the idea behind removing the thermostat was to reduce the weight of the cooling system, by approximately 0.5kg. However, the extended warm up period is undesirable, and a device is needed to accelerate the warm-up phase. The proposed solution was to use a flow restriction disc in place of the thermostat that serves a two-fold purpose. First, it serves to allow water to flow through the thermostat housing, such that the by-pass lines can be removed without pressurizing the system and risking damage to the water pump. Second, it restricts the water flow rate to aid in the warm-up process. Given the low dependence of flow rate, and high dependence of air speed, it was thought that the system would be able to increase its water temperature when the vehicle is stationary, without sacrificing performance when running on track. However, varying ambient conditions would require frequent changing of the flow restriction disc to ensure a reasonably fast warm-up phase. Consequently, it was decided to use a modified thermostat. The stock thermostat has been modified by drilling three 1/8 holes on the periphery to allow a small amount of coolant 35

flow while the thermostat is in the closed position. This feature will allow the thermostat to greatly reduce water flow at low temperatures to aid warm-up. Once the water temperature approaches 82C the thermostat will begin to open and function as it would normally. This allows the thermostat to remain in the car for all ambient conditions without greatly increasing the warm-up period, or compromising flow at high water temperatures. It also facilitates the removal of the by-pass line since water flow is permitted (at a reduced flow rate) during the closed position thermostat operation. This ensures that the block inlet side is not highly pressurized, which may damage the water pump impeller. This design has yet to be tested on the track, but data analysis suggests that this is the best solution to achieve the goals of weight reduction without compromising component longevity or greatly increasing engine warm up phase.

4.6 Temperature Regulation

The cooling temperature is thermostatically controlled via the feedback loop between the water temperature sensor, the cooling fan relay, and the ECU. Once the water temperature exceeds 88C the ECU powers up the cooling fan relay and cooling fan is turned on. Once the water temperature cools down to 83C the cooling fan shuts off. The set temperature for the cooling fan for turning the fan on and off the fan is adjustable via the ECU.

4.7 Weight Reduction

The majority of the weight reduction comes from the removal of the water pump by-pass line and the switch from a medium performance fan to a standard performance fan. The 36

removal of the by-pass line accounts for 0.2 kg savings, and the fan switch accounts for 0.35 kg. Thus, the total weight savings over UT 2006 is conservatively estimated at 0.55kg. However, a concerted effort was also placed on reduction of water volume by minimizing cooling line lengths. Since the final placement has not yet been decided, it is unclear whether this initiative will yield any additional weight savings.

37

5 Components and Manufacture

5.1 Radiator
As mentioned earlier the radiator is donated by Long Dana Manufacturing. The radiator is then modified by cutting off the old cooling bungs and welding larger lower restriction bungs. The cooling bungs are custom machined from 1-1/8 6061T-6 aluminium rod. The radiator also has a bleeder screw assembly welded to it to facilitate the removal of air pockets that may accumulate near the top of the radiator. The radiator is mounted off a chassis tube and the carbon fibre side panel. Each mount is a rubber sandwich mount that isolates the aluminium radiator from vibration. In this application vibration isolation is important since fatigue failure of the radiator mounts has occurred in the past.

5.2 Cooling Fan

The cooling fan is purchased from Spal Fan. The fan remains mostly stock. The only modifications are the removal of casting flash from the fan blades to reduce turbulence, and the replacement of the fasteners that clamp the motor to the fan hub. The plastic screws are replaced with socket head cap screws and locking nuts that will not back off due to vibration.

5.3 Cooling Duct and Shroud Assembly

The duct and shroud assembly are made out of fibreglass material. The assembly is completed using a wet lay up on a hand made mold. Once the finished parts are removed from the mold, the shroud and duct assembly are fitted to the radiator and then bonded using epoxy. 38

5.4 Mechanical Water Pump

The water pump is modified by machining the back face of the water pump to mate with the custom adaptor plate that mates the dry sump to the water pump. The stock water pump impeller is pressed onto the dry sump pump shaft, which replaces the water pump shaft inside the motor. The cooling bungs on the water pump used for the stock oil cooler and the by-pass line are also cut off and then welded shut.

5.5 Thermostat and Thermostat Housing

The thermostat is modified by drilling three 1/8 holes to allow low flow rates during closed thermostat operation. The thermostat housing has the by-pass line bung cut off and welded shut.

5.6 Swirl Pot

The swirl pot is made from 3.5 O.D. 0.065 wall thickness aluminium tubing and is 2.5 inches long. It serves to deaerate the cooling system and is placed at the highest point in the system to facilitate bleeding of the air in the cooling system. The swirl pot also contains the filler neck assembly, which is welded to the swirl pot cap.

39

5.7 Hardlines
The hardlines are made from 1 O.D. 0.065 wall thickness 6061T6 aluminium tubing. The lines are filled with sand and then the ends are crimped. The sand prevents the collapse of the hardline during bending. The line is then heated and bent using solid metal stock to achieve the desired bend radius. Once the lines are completed, the ends of the line are beaded using aluminium filler. The bead is added to increase the interference fit with the cooling hoses.

5.8 Hoses and hose clamps

Silicon hoses are used for the cooling system due to their high temperature resistance and high burst pressure rating. The hoses clamps used are double lined hose clamps with radiused edges. It is important to use these particular hose clamps as they do not cut the cooling hose. Cheaper perforated hose clamps are notorious for puncturing cooling hoses due to the sharp edges.

40

6 Recommendations
During the course of this thesis, a great deal of testing and development has occurred. The subsequent cooling system designers have an abundant source of data that will aid in making sound design decisions. However, there are a number of tests that could not be completed due to time and manufacturing constraints. Thus, it is my recommendation that future system designers complete pressure drop testing mentioned earlier in this report. In this thesis it did not hinder development since all of the testing was done on the same radiator, fan, and water pump combination that is being used for the current vehicle. However, this data would be useful for comparing system components that have different pressure drops across them. I also recommend that future testing involve load testing for engine output losses generated by electrical pump loads and mechanical pump loads. It is my opinion that electrical water pumps are not suited for use on an FSAE car, but load testing of this sort would provide additional insight for a designer who must select one of these two pump options.

41

7 Conclusions
This thesis has been successful in identifying the cooling requirements of the CBR 600 F4i motor used in the UT FSAE vehicle. Substantial testing was completed to determine that the cooling system must be sized to reject 9500 Watts of energy, and must also be able to maintain a steady state operating water temperature of 85C for an ambient air temperature of 30C. The UT2007 cooling system is set to be the most optimized cooling system to date that is designed to maximize performance and minimize weight, without compromising system reliability. The new system is approximately 10% lighter than last year, thereby improving the overall performance of the vehicle. During the testing season the design will be validated through on track testing and extensive data logging and data analysis.

42

References
[1] Formula SAE Rules [2] Smith, Carroll., Carroll Smiths Nuts, Bolts, Fasteners and Plumbing Handbook, MBI, 1990. [3] engel, Yunus A., Heat and Mass Transfer: a practical approach., McGraw-Hill, 2007. [4] engel, Yunus A., Thermodynamics: an engineering approach, McGraw-Hill, 2006. [5] Ngy-Srun AP., A Simple Engine Cooling System Simulation Model. SAE International. Technical paper no 1999-01-0237. [6] Smith, Jeffrey D., Engine Cooling Fan and Shroud Optimization for Blow Through Operation. SAE International. Technical paper no. 860764. [7] McKenzie, A.B. Axial flow fans and compressors: aerodynamic design and performance. Ashgate, 2007. [8] Valkenburgh, Paul Van., Race Car Engineering & Mechanics. Published by Author, 2000. [9] Smith, Carroll., Engineer to win. MBI, 1990. [10] Bosch, Robert., Automotive Handbook. Robert Bosch, 2004. [11] Stockel, Martin T., Automotive Mechanics Fundamentals Goodheart-Wilcox, 1990. [12] Coombs, M. Honda CBR 600 F4i Service and Repair Manual, Haynes, 1998. [13] Spal Fans. www.spalusa.com [14] Bosch Electronics. www.boschautoparts.com [15] Stewart Racing Components. http://www.stewartcomponents.com/

43

APPENDIX A: Weight Comparison Matrix

2005 Cooling System Weight Analysis
Radiator: overall 240 X 405 mm core area: 315 X 230 mm Cooling Component Description Rad to Water Pump w/ 2 hoses and 4 clamps Rad - S-pot - T-stat w/ 2 hoses + 4 clamps Line Length S-pot dims: 3.5" long X 2.5" Water Pump to block inlet w/ 2 hoses and 4 clamps Upper T-Stat Line Swirl pot - block inlet bleed line + two clamps Swirl Pot water Volume Oil Cooler Line - Rad to cooler + two hose clamps Oil Cooler Line - Cooler - pump + two hose clamps Rubber hose from S-pot to Overflow tank Oil Cooler Radiator + Fan Thermostat Bypass Line with hoses + clamps Body Work (50% of one full side pod) Totals Volume of Rad Header tank (cubic cm) Total volume of Header tanks (cubic cm) Cooling System Component Weights Cooling System Water Weight Total Cooling System Mass Mass (g) 269.00 g Length (in) 14.875 Line ID (in) 0.86 Volume (ml) 141.6193875 Water Weight (g) 141.62 g

500.00 g

27.875

0.86

265.3875918

265.39 g

357.00 g 150.00 g 50.00 g 0.00 g 132.00 g 90.00 g 107.00 g 764.00 g 3624.00 g 150.00 g 151.00 g 908.00 g 7252.00 g 280.035 560.07 7252.00 g 1462.22 g 8714.22 g 19.21 lbs

18.5 10.625 13 0 19 12.875 15.625

0.86 0.86 0 0 0.41 0.41

176.1316752 101.1567054

176.13 g 101.16 g Negligible

80.45 41.11403955 27.86017154

80.45 g 41.11 g 27.86 g Negligible Negligible

560.07

560.00 g 0.00 g

18.25

0.54

68.50451933

68.50 g 0.00 g 1462.22 g

44

APPENDIX A: Weight Comparison Matrix

2006 Cooling System Weight Analysis
Radiator: overall 240 X 405 mm core area: 315 X 230 mm Cooling Component Description Rad to Water Pump w/ 2 hoses and 4 clamps Rad - S-pot - T-stat w/ 2 hoses + 4 clamps Line Length S-pot dims: 3.5" long X 2.5" Water Pump to block inlet w/ 2 hoses and 4 clamps Swirl Pot water Volume Rubber hose from S-pot to Overflow tank Radiator + Fan Thermostat Bypass Line with hoses + clamps Totals Volume of Rad Header tank (cubic cm) Total volume of Header tanks (cubic cm) Cooling System Component Weights Cooling System Water Weight Total Cooling System Mass (g) 279.50 g Length (in) 10 Line ID 0.86 Volume (ml) 95.20631094 Water Weight (g) 95.21 g

662.00 g 310.00 g 0.00 g 107.00 g 4100.00 g 150.00 g 135.00 g 5743.50 g 280.035 560.07 5743.50 g 1263.67 g 7007.17 g 15.45 lbs

31.75 17 0 15.625

0.86 0.86 0

302.2800372 161.8507286 80.45

302.28 g 161.85 g 80.45 g 0.00 g

560.07

560.07 g 0.00 g

17

0.54

63.81242896

63.81 g 1263.67 g

45

APPENDIX B: Flow Rate vs. RPM Data

Cooling System Flow Rate Testing

Test Completed Nov 06, 2006 High Restriction Disc RPM (x 1000) 1.5 2.8 5 6 7 8.6 9.8 Flow Rate GPM 1 2.46 4.77 5.67 7.09 7.665 7.73 Flow Rate LPM 3.785 9.312 18.056 21.463 26.839 29.015 29.261 Medium Restriction Disc RPM (x 1000) 1.5 3 4.5 5.7 7.5 9 Flow Rate GPM 1.5 3.09 4.77 5.995 8.055 9.465 Flow Rate LPM 5.678 11.697 18.056 22.694 30.491 35.829 Low Restriction Disc RPM (x 1000) 1.5 3 4.5 5.7 7.5 9 Flow Rate GPM 2.25 4.56 7.01 8.76 11.51 13.605 Flow Rate LPM 8.517 17.261 26.536 33.160 43.570 51.501

46

APPENDIX C: Water Temperature vs. Torque Plot

Torque vs Water Temp at 6000 Rpm
68

66

64

62

Torque (lb-ft)

60

58

56

54

52

50

Torque @ 70C Torque @ 80C Torque @ 95C

48 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Water Temp (C)

47

APPENDIX D: Design Data (Radiator, Fan, and Water Pump data)

These Calculations do not consider radiation as a method of heat loss. 2003 Car Operating Parameters Radiator Spec Radiator Area Water Pump Fan System Operating Water Flow Rate System Operating Air Flow Rate Thermal Performance Max Temp Ambient Temp Max Heat Transfer Required 2004 Car Radiator Spec Radiator Area Water Pump Fan System Operating Water Flow Rate System Operating Air Flow Rate Thermal Performance Max Temp Ambient Temp Max Heat Transfer Required 2005 Car Heat Transfer Max Temperature Desired Ambient Temp Designed For Adjusted Thermal Performance Radiator Spec Radiator Area Water Pump Fan System Operating Water Flow Rate System Operating Air Flow Rate Thermal Performance Max Temp Ambient Temp 600 Series - 18 FPI 0.075 Davies Craig 900 L/hr Spal Std. Mid Performance 12" 18 3.6 175 88 30 10200 Unit 400 Series - 12 FPI 0.075 Davies Craig 900 L/hr Spal Std. 10" 18 3.2 120 115 30 10200 sq. m

L/min m/s W/C C C W

sq. m

L/min m/s W/C C C W

10200 90 30 170.0

W C C W/C

18 FPI, 16 core 0.07245 sq. m Stock CBR 600 F4I Mechanical Pump Zirgo 10" ~ 30L/min @ 7500 rpm L/min unknown (est. at 2.6) m/s 135 W/C 110 C 30 C

48

2006 Car Heat Transfer Max Temperature Desired Ambient Temp Designed For Adjusted Thermal Performance Radiator Spec Radiator Area Water Pump Fan System Operating Water Flow Rate System Operating Air Flow Rate Thermal Performance Max Temp Ambient Temp 2007 Car Heat Transfer Max Temperature Desired Ambient Temp Designed For Adjusted Thermal Performance Radiator Spec Radiator Area Water Pump Fan System Operating Water Flow Rate System Operating Air Flow Rate Thermal Performance Max Temp Ambient Temp

10200 90 30 170.0

W C C W/C

18 FPI, 16 core 0.07245 sq. m Stock CBR 600 F4I Mechanical Pump 11" Spal Med Performance ~ 30L/min @ 7500 rpm L/min 4.72 m/s 186 W/C 85 C 30 C

9500 85 30 172.7

W C C W/C

18 FPI, 16 core 0.07245 sq. m Stock CBR 600 F4I Mechanical Pump 11" Spal Med Performance ~ 30L/min @ 7500 rpm L/min 3.1 m/s 154 W/C TBD C 30 C

49

Test No. Ref. No. Rad Fluid

A1166 H1416-1 Ethylene Glycol 50/50 mm in 9.84 11.81 1.61

Header Distance Core Width Core Thickness Fin Type Water Flow L/min 7.6 22.7 30.3 45.4 7.6 22.7 30.3 45.4 7.6 22.7 30.3

250 300 41 18 fpi louvered fins

Water Temperature Inlet

o

Air Flow

Air Temperature Inlet Outlet

o o

Heat Transfer Water W/ C 94.1 103.4 104.5 107.0 133.8 160.7 162.9 169.2 169.2 213.7 224.1 242.9
o

Outlet
o

Air W/ C 94.8 101.2 104.6 104.5 132.9 164.7 162.3 164.5 173.7 213.4 226.3 247.9
o

Percentage Difference 0.8 -2.1 0.1 -2.3 -0.6 2.5 -0.4 -2.8 2.6 -0.1 1.0 2.0

C 84.7 84.7 85.4 85.6 84.4 84.8 84.7 85.1 84.8 85.1 84.9

C 72.0 80.0 81.8 83.2 66.4 77.5 79.2 81.3 62.3 75.6 77.4 79.7

m/s 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 6.7 6.7 6.7

C 25.1 25.0 25.1 25.1 24.9 25.0 24.9 25.7 26.0 26.0 26.1

C 59.2 61.5 63.4 63.4 48.9 55.1 54.6 55.6 42.7 46.6 47.7 50.2

45.4 85.0 Water Pressure Drop Water Flow L/min 7.6 22.7 30.3 Water dP kPa 2.8 9 14.5

6.7 26.6 Air Pressure Drop Air Flow m/s 1.8 3.6 6.7 Air dP mmH2O 4.3 12.7 34.5

50

51

52

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

53