1 / 22

Fuel Injection Placement

Fuel Injection Placement. Bryce Tillman David Mengelkoch. Fuel Injection VS. Carburetion. Changed an originally carbureted intake to use fuel injection (FI) Advantages: Easier to tune Fewer parts Easier maintenance Adapts to environmental conditions. Our Project.

rhian
Download Presentation

Fuel Injection Placement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fuel Injection Placement Bryce Tillman David Mengelkoch

  2. Fuel Injection VS. Carburetion • Changed an originally carbureted intake to use fuel injection (FI) • Advantages: • Easier to tune • Fewer parts • Easier maintenance • Adapts to environmental conditions

  3. Our Project • KTM 525 4-stroke engine • Fuel Injected • E-85 • Turbocharged • Intercooled • Intake system restriction

  4. Co-Flow and Opposing Flow • Co-Flow: fuel is injected in the same direction as the air stream entering the engine • Opposing Flow: fuel is injected in the opposite direction as the air stream entering the engine

  5. FI Placement Co-flow Opposing flow

  6. Measurement Comparisons • Effects of Co-flow Vs. Opposing flow FI • Intake air cooling • Engine horsepower • Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) (lb/hp-hr) • Fuel vaporization

  7. Hypothesis Co-Flow • Higher horsepower • Lower BSFC • Less cooling effect • Better engine stability Opposing Flow • Lower horsepower • Higher BSFC • More cooling effect • Difficulty idling

  8. Co-Flow Simulation Fuel in Air in Co-Flow Velocity ~ 50 m/s at Intake Port

  9. Opposing Flow Simulation Fuel in Air in Opposing Flow Velocity ~ 15 m/s at Intake Port

  10. Co-Flow Simulation Fuel in Air in Co-Flow Fuel Mixture

  11. Opposing Flow Simulation Fuel in Air in Opposing Flow Fuel Mixture

  12. Construction of Co-flow FI Placement

  13. Construction of Opposing Flow FI Placement

  14. Temperature Readings Pre-FI post turbo measurement

  15. Temperature Readings Post FI measurement

  16. Co-flow Results Max HP: 64 @ 7000 RPM Max Torque: 57.3 ft-lbs @ 5400 RPM

  17. Opposing Flow Results Max HP: 73 @ 6300 RPM Max Torque: 64.9 ft-lbs @ 5300 RPM

  18. Temperatures • Co-flow • Max post turbo temp: 257°F • Max post FI temp: 80°F • Average temperature drop: 158.36 °F • Opposing flow • Max post turbo temp: 268°F • Max post FI temp: 87°F • Average temperature drop: 152.96 °F

  19. BSFC • Co-flow • Average BSFC: 0.914 lb/hp-hr • Opposing flow • Average BSFC: 0.647 lb/hp-hr

  20. Conclusion Co-Flow • Lower horsepower • Higher BSFC • Less cooling effect • Better engine stability Opposing Flow • Higher horsepower • Lower BSFC • More cooling effect • Difficulty idling

  21. References Pulkrabek, Willard W. Engineering Fundamentals of the Internal Combustion Engine. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997. Print. Sches, Celine, StephaneGuilain, and FadilaMaroteaux. Modeling of the Fuel Behavior in the Intake Manifold of a Port-Injected Spark-Ignition Engine. Diss. Paris University, 1997. Warrendale: Society of Automotive Engineers, 1997. Print. Wegleitner, Joseph A., Scott A. Miers, Ryan D. Hayes, Scott P. Heim, Dan P. Hoffman, and Bernhard P. Bettig. Design and Testing of a Single Cylinder, Turbocharged, Four-Stroke Snowmobile with E.F.I. and Catalytic Exhaust Treatment. Diss. Michigan Technological University, 2002. Warrendale: Society of Automotive Engineers, 2002. Print.

  22. Questions?

More Related