SAE SRP-002-2017 Clean Snowmobile Challenge - 1 The Early Years 4-Stroke Engines Make Their Debut (To Purchase Call 1-800-854-7179 USA Canada or 303-397-7956 Worldwide).pdf

1、Clean Snowmobile Challenge 1: The Early Years, 4-Stroke Engines Make Their DebutFor more information or to order a book, contact: SAE INTERNATIONAL 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096 Phone: +1.877.606.7323 (U.S. and Canada only) or +1.724.776.4970 (outside U.S. and Canada) Fax: +1.724.776.0

2、790 Email: CustomerServicesae.org Website: books.sae.org Other SAE Books of Interest Modern Engine Technology from A to Z Richard Van Basshuysen and Fred Schfer (Product Code: R-373) An Introduction to Engine Testing and Development Richard D. Atkins (Product Code: R-344) Design and Simulation of Fo

3、ur-Stroke Engines Gordon P. Blair (Product Code: R-186) Internal Combustion Engine Handbook, 2 ndEnglish Edition Richard Van Basshuysen and Fred Schfer (Product Code: R-434) Engine Design Concepts for World Championship Grand Prix Motorcycles Alberto Boretti (Product Code: PT-155) Introduction to In

4、ternal Combustion Engines, Fourth Edition Richard Stone (Product Code: R-391)Clean Snowmobile Challenge 1: The Early Years, 4-Stroke Engines Make Their Debut Edited by Jay Meldrum Warrendale, Pennsylvania, USACopyright 2017 SAE International. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be r

5、eproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed, or transmitted, in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of SAE International. For permission and licensing requests, contact SAE Permissions, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 USA; e-mail: copyrightsae.org

6、; phone: +1-724-772-4028; fax: +1-724-772-9765. Library of Congress Catalog Number 2016953304 SAE Order Number SRP-002 http:/dx.doi.org/10.4271/srp-002 Information contained in this work has been obtained by SAE International from sources believed to be reliable. However, neither SAE International n

7、or its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein and neither SAE International nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that SAE Internatio

8、nal and its authors are supplying information, but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought. ISBN-Print 978-0-7680-8393-4 ISBN-PDF 978-0-7680-8394-1 ISBN-epub 978-0-7680-8396

9、-5 ISBN-prc 978-0-7680-8395-8 To purchase bulk quantities, please contact SAE Customer Service e-mail: CustomerServicesae.org phone: +1.877.606.7323 (inside USA and Canada) +1.724.776.4970 (outside USA) fax: +1.724.776.0790 Visit the SAE International Bookstore at books.sae.org 400 Commonwealth Driv

10、e Warrendale, PA 15096 E-mail: CustomerServicesae.org Phone: +1.877.606.7323 (inside USA and Canada) +1.724.776.4970 (outside USA) Fax: +1.724.776.0790v Table of Contents Foreword vii Optimization of a Direct-Injected 2-Stroke Cycle Snowmobile (2003-32-0074 / 20034374). 1 Walter Hull, Jason Beu, Jef

11、f Jorenby, Joel Lentz, Jeff Hoss, Grant Pickard, Flint Jamison, Travis Mathis, and Bryan Willson, Colorado State University Improving the University of Idaho Clean Snowmobile (2003-32-0075 / 20034375) 15 Nathan Bradbury, Forrest French, and Karen R., DenBraven, University of Idaho Quantifying How th

12、e Environment Effects SAE-J192 Pass-by Noise Testing of Snowmobiles (2005-01-2414) . 23 Jason R. Blough and Geoffrey Gwaltney, Michigan Technological University; James Vizanko, Polaris Industries Kettering Universitys 2003 Design for the Clean Snowmobile Challenge (2003-32-0076 / 20034376) 33 Nichol

13、e Carrick, Erin Kampman, and Gregory Davis, Kettering University Comparison of an E10 Direct Injection Two-Stroke Cycle Engine and an E85 Four-Stroke Cycle Engine (2003-32-0077 / 20034377) . 43 Justin Anderson, Nick Bredemus, Brian Hickok, Peter Kruchoski, Nick Maki, Matt Oien, Adam Oswald, Chad Per

14、rin, Pat Rollenhagen, Matt Sandlin, Dominic Bakken, Timothy Christensen, Brian Fleming, Mark Halbert, Reed Hanson, Jake Jardee, Jeremy Losinski, Matt Poylio, Tony Rolfes, and Bruce Jones, Minnesota State University Adaptation of Four-Stroke Motorcycle Engine to Continuously Variable Transmission for

15、 Snowmobile Application (2003-32-0083 / 20034383) . 55 Brian D. Barr, David J. McKinstry, Aaron S. Messenger, Jason M. Seidenstucker, Daniel H. Kallio, Daniel P. Hoffman, and Bernhard P. Bettig, Michigan Technological University Low-Pressure In-Cylinder Fuel Injection (2003-32-0082 / 20034382) . 65

16、Michael Davenport, Royce Duke, Jeffrey Bingham, David Kemmerer, Christie Chatterley, Don Lewis, and Todd Gansauge, Idaho State Universityvi The Development of a Clean Snowmobile for the 2004 SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge (2004-32-0074 / 20044361) 77 Carl Block, Nichole Carrick, Jake Maurer, Gregory

17、 W. Davis, and Craig J. Hoff, Kettering University Incorporation of a High Performance, Four-Cylinder, Four-Stroke Motorcycle Engine into a Snowmobile Application (2005-01-3678) 89 Gregory A. Davis, Nick S. Dahlheimer, David A. Meyer, Aaron S. Messenger, James R. Johnson, and Bernhard P. Bettig, Mic

18、higan Technological University Development of Clean Snowmobile Technology for the 2005 SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge (2005-01-3679) . 105 Nichole Carrick, Gregory W. Davis, Dennis Warchuck, Carl Block, and Jake Maurer, Kettering University About the Editor .117vii Foreword Background In the year 20

19、00, a new Collegiate Design Series competition was born, the SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge (CSC). Dr. Lori Fussell of the Institute of Science, Ecology, and the Environment and Bill Paddleford, Chair of the Teton County, Wyoming Commission combined forces with SAE International to create a student

20、competition with the goal of designing a cleaner and quieter snowmobile. Faced with legislation that would ban snowmobiles from Yellowstone National Park, the founders gathered support from local businesses, snowmobile clubs, associations, government agencies, and snowmobile manufacturers to encoura

21、ge students to design a more environmentally friendly snowmobile. Seven 31, 2000 in and around the Yellowstone area. The winner was the State University of New York at Buffalo. The other teams that competed were Colorado State University, cole de Technologie Suprieure, Colorado School of Mines, Mich

22、igan Technological University, University of Waterloo, and Minnesota State University, Mankato. The competition was held three times in the Yellowstone area and grew to 20 university teams competing. In 2003, the competition moved to the Keweenaw Research Center (KRC), a research arm of Michigan Tec

23、hnological University in Houghton, Michigan. KRC maintains a winter test course and is in a pristine snowmobile area of Michigans Upper Peninsula. As of this writing (2016), Michigan Tech KRC had hosted the competition 14 times. Introduction to the First Compendium This compendium of papers authored

24、 by faculty and students competing in the SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge has been assembled as a reference for future competitors. It is also, in part, a resource for studying the history of the evolving technologies that have contributed to the transformation of “noisy and smelly” snowmobiles of th

25、e 1990s to the clean and quiet snowmobiles being produced since 2006. Although student competitions are generally about learning technology, not necessarily creating technology, CSC was ripe for technology development. As such, the founders and organizers in SAEs many technical conferences. These in

26、clude the SAE World Congress, Small Engines Technology Conference, Powertrain and Fluid Systems Conference, and Noise and Vibration Conference. Approximately 30 papers related to CSC have been published. Most are written by students, along with their faculty advisors, while some are written by the o

27、rganizers as a summary of the events or as an explanation of a particular test technique used for evaluation at the competition. team is required to write a paper for the event, but not all teams proceed to publish their papers in an SAE peer- reviewed conference. It is important to note that the ru

28、les of the competition were fairly consistent from 2000 to 2006, the time frame of these ten papers. Teams were to design a snowmobile that used E10 gasoline (10% ethanol mixed with pump gasoline). A control sled was used as a target. The teams had to be quieter and emit fewer emissions than the con

29、trol sled. E85 (85% ethanol) could be selected by the teams as a design strategy to reduce emissions. Following are some comments on the technologies explored by the teams that published their papers. Engine Design In general, 4-stroke engines were assumed to be quieter and easier to achieve emissio

30、n control in snowmobiles as compared to 2-stroke engines. As a result, many of the early teams of CSC chose 4-stroke engines used in other vehicles. The 2-stroke snowmobile engines of the 1990 era used a loop scavenging method of pushing exhaust gas out of the cylinder after combustion and pulling i

31、n a fresh draught of fuel/air mixture all on the same up/ down/up cycle. With this type of engine, if combustion is incomplete, there may be raw fuel in the exhaust leading to high amounts of hydrocarbon emissions, thus causing the smell. Because 2-stroke engines typically use an air/fuel/oil mixtur

32、e for improving lubrication, oil can be expelled in the exhaust as well, contributing to the oily smell and clouds of white smoke. In 2002, Colorado State University saw the possibility of a different type of 2-stroke engine using a direct injection technology 1. Injection of the air/fuel/ oil mixtu

33、re only after the exhaust ports are closed enables much lower emissions. In fact, Colorado States emissions numbers were lower than the University of Idahos emissions numbers in 2002. However, the University of Idaho in 2002 used a 4-stroke engine from BMW and won the competition in both 2002 and 20

34、03, primarily for being both clean and quiet 2. Noise In addition to gaseous emissions, the noise output of snowmobiles was part of the controversy with snowmobiles in the national parks. The SAE J192 Pass-by Noise Test Procedure was chosen as the way to screen and approve or disapprove a snowmobile

35、 from entering the park. This test procedure is very sensitive to atmospheric conditions and trail conditions. If testing is done in a narrow space of time and on stable trail conditions, good comparisons from one sled to another can be made 3. One of the most important discoveries made in snowmobil

36、e noise is that half the noise comes from the engine and half the noise comes from the track. This discovery resulted in several clever ideas such as masking the noise of the track with skirts, heavy noise insulation inside the engine compartment and around the exhaust, and even redirection of the e

37、xhaust to the ground rather than rearward as in most production snowmobiles. Unfortunately, some of these designs were not durable or caused higher is probably the single most common failure mode of one-of-a-kind student-designed and -built snowmobiles. On the commercial side of track noise solution

38、s, softer viii track compounds along with smoother track designs have resulted in much quieter snowmobiles. Exhaust After-Treatment to Reduce Emissions Although common on automobile engines and truck engines, exhaust after-treatment technologies such as catalytic converters are not seen on small eng

39、ines in the marketplace. This is primarily due to cost and the success of the industry to meet the standards without this for the teams to engineer such an advanced technology. Emissions data are required to match a catalyst to an engine. As a result, this has created a valuable learning exercise fo

40、r the students, not only in the technology, but in communications with industry sponsors. Many teams have found partners in the after-treatment world willing to help them. The companies then have a chance to meet prospective new employees, and the teams have a chance to gain valuable knowledge to st

41、rengthen their resumes. It is actually rare now that a team would not show up without a two-way or a three-way catalyst for their snowmobile. The costs have reduced, and there may be a market for after-treatment in small engines. More stringent controls on unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen,

42、and other currently unregulated exhaust constituents are inevitable, which will make exhaust after-treatment a necessity. Elements of a Winning Team I have witnessed some common factors in the management and make up of winning teams in the Clean Snowmobile Challenge. Great faculty leadership is cert

43、ainly one of the most important factors. Winning faculty are passionate for success and supportive of their teams education, and they exhibit gracious professionalism when it comes to controversyand there is always controversy. Reading and understanding the rules is probably the single most importan

44、t factor for success in CSC. By knowing the rules and knowing the priority of the graded events, it is a simple task to determine where time should be spent in the development of the teams entry. This is primarily an engine competition. It is not about building a snowmobile from scratch the way Form

45、ula SAE or SAE Baja are building a car from the ground up. In CSC, teams start with a production sled and make it better. Changing the engine is all about. Fancy suspensions or expensive paint jobs might look nice, but they earn few points in the end. Teams that choose to ignore the intent of the co

46、mpetition and make a sled that only goes fast or only handles nicely have not concentrated on the areas where the most points are obtained: emissions, noise, and fuel economy. CSC is a marathon because the sled must run consistently in all events from Monday through Saturday to win. Time management

47、is perhaps the second most important factor in winning. Coming to the competition with a fully operational sled is critically important. Our mantra has always been, “Come to compete, not complete.” Many teams show up with a bag of parts or a non-running sled. Often, those sleds, once completed, fail quickly or never run by weeks end.