FSAE Cooling
Product Design Specifications Report – Winter 2011
Group Members
Craig Mclain
Reuben Ness
Riki Hopkins
Portland State University Advisor
Dr. Lemmy Meekisho
Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................ 3
Purpose of this PDS Document............................................................................ 4
Mission Statement .............................................................................................. 4
Project Plan ........................................................................................................ 5
Customer Identification ...................................................................................... 5
Product Design Specifications ............................................................................. 7
House of Quality ............................................................................................... 12
Risk Assessment ............................................................................................... 13
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 14
Appendix .......................................................................................................... 15
Page 2
Introduction
Formula Society of Automotive Engineers (FSAE) is an international engineering competition where
students design, build, and test small-scale autocross racing vehicles. The given rules and constraints
create a real-world engineering challenge. Approximately half of the FSAE teams have cooling-related
issues during competition, making it so they could not finish all the events or adversely affecting their
scores. From catastrophic engine destruction and head gasket failure, to “lesser” issues of hard starting
and performance reduction can be explained by insufficient cooling. This happens because most teams
address cooling as an afterthought and then use something off the shelf instead of an engineered
solution.
Portland State University’s (PSU) FSAE team in 2010 fell into this trap and did not have sufficient cooling.
The three problems we had with the 2010 car due to insufficient cooling:



The car ran hot during testing and competition.
The car would overheat when run at an extended time at idle.
The car had hard hot starting due to excessive temperatures.
Running hot during testing and competition.
The 2010 car had inadequate cooling capacity due to undersized radiator and fan, and improper airflow
due to poor radiator positioning. Since the radiator was an afterthought for this team, not enough time
could be spent analyzing the necessary cooling loads. The radiator design (sizing) relied heavily on broad
assumptions that were not well understood. The fan sizing followed the flawed assumptions used for
sizing the radiator, proving inadequate. Radiator placement and orientation were packaging constraints
without considering fluid dynamics (airflow). Since the team did not have many resources, ducting and
fan placement were neglected.
There were two major problems with the cooling design of the 2010 car. The first is the importance of
the cooling system was underrated. The second is that during the design and build process, inadequate
resources were allocated to the project.
Overheating at idle.
During most testing sessions and driver’s training, extended idle periods are normal and should be
expected. The periods of idle should not be of concern if the cooling system is engineered properly
because the cooling system load is significantly less.
For the 2010 car, the heat load of the engine was unknown, and the assumptions were obviously
inadequate. Also the fan placement was poor in the fact that it only pulled air through a small area of
the radiator. The fan sizing was dependent on the assumptions of the heat load as well.
Page 3
Hard hot starting at excessive temperatures.
A race car is expected to start every time so it should always be in a state for easy starting. To be in this
ideal range, many factors need to be considered, and cooling is not expected to be a problem. For the
2010 car, the engine was too hot to start during competition, causing the team to fail an event.
For the coolant temperature to always be within the ideal operating range, all factors need to be
considered. All loading conditions must be handled by the cooling system. These include: different
drivers, different tracks or events, ambient air temperature, and loading patterns.
Purpose of this PDS Document
The purpose of this document is to outline the customer's requirements and the plan to meet those
requirements. As the product is developed, it will be compared to the requirements outlined in this
document. Design requirements are analyzed, prioritized and detailed with engineering metrics, targets,
customers, methods and constraints.
Mission Statement
The FSAE Cooling capstone team will design a new solution for the cooling of the 2011 FSAE car. Our
goal is to produce a solution with correct engineering methods and to understand the physics, math and
engineering behind those methods. The final design will be prototyped and documented, with all of its
performance characteristics quantified.
Page 4
Project Plan
The dates in the following table are goals and deadlines for completion of project milestones. Dates
other than due dates are subject to change dependent on project requirements.
Project Milestones
Task
Start Date
Initial Brainstorming
June 22
Research Possible Solutions
June 22
Initial Design
Sep 5
PDS Report
Jan 3
PDS Report Presentation
Jan 24
Design Evaluation
Feb 7
External Search Presentation Feb 7
Design
Nov 18
Progress Report
Feb 21
Progress Report Presentation Feb 21
Prototype & Test
Jan 17
Redesign
Jan 24
Repeat Prototype & Test
April 29
Manufacture
Feb 7
Assemble/Install/Test
March 22
See Gantt Chart in Appendix for details.
Finish Date
Sep 12
Sep 12
Nov 18
Jan 31
Jan 31
Feb 25
Feb 14
Jan 17
March 7
Feb 28
June 13
April 29
June 13
Mar 22
June 13
Customer Identification
Internal Customers




Viking Motorsports
o Meet the cooling needs of the FSAE 2011 car
Portland State University Capstone
o Course requirements
Dr. Etesami (Mechanical Engineering Capstone coordinator)
o Comply with instructions provided
Dr. Meekisho (Project Advisor)
o Comply with instructions provided
Page 5
Due Date
Feb 9
Jan 31
Feb 14
March 7
Feb 28
March 22
External Customers





FSAE regulations
o Driver safety
o Technical Inspection
Judges of the Business Presentation
o Attractive, appealing and marketable
o Low Cost
Weekend Auto Crossers (End Users/Consumers)
o Functional
o High Performance
o Attractive
Sponsors of Viking Motorsports
o Return on Investment
o See Viking Motorsports be Successful
Mac's Radiator
o Manufacturable design
Page 6
Product Design Specifications
Product Design Specifications
Criteria
Priority
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Performance
Quality and Reliability
Life in service
Size and Shape
Timelines
Applicable codes and standards
Cost of production per part (material and labor)
Materials
Maintenance
Safety
Testing
Company constraints and procedures
Documentation
Weight
Manufacturing facilities
Quantity
Installation
Aesthetics
Shipping
Packaging
Legal (Related patents)
Disposal
Ergonomics
Environment
Page
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
Performance
Customer
Viking
Motorsports
Requirements
Adequate Heat
Transfer
Metrics
Targets
Basis
Verification
Horse Power
30HP
Calculation
Testing
Page 7
Quality and Reliability
Customer
Viking
Motorsports
Viking
Motorsports
Requirements
Heat Transfer
is Steady
Can Handle
Peak Loading
Condition
Metrics
Targets
Basis
Verification
BTU/min
~1200BTU/min
Calculation
Testing
Top Tank
Temperature
210°F
Calculation
Testing
Life in service
Customer
Viking
Motorsports
Requirements
Operation For
Foreseeable
Life of the
FSAE car
Metrics
Targets
Basis
Verification
Expected Life
1 Year
Customer
Feedback
Time
Size and Shape
Customer
Viking
Motorsports
Viking
Motorsports
Requirements
Fits Within Size
Required By
FSAE Rules
Does Not
Negatively
Impact Center
Of Gravity of
FSAE car
Metrics
Targets
Basis
Verification
Outside Edge
of Tires
Inside the Tires
FSAE Rules
Cad Model
CG Height in
inches
No more than
+0.5inch
Customer
Feedback
Cad Model
Timelines
Customer
ME 492
Requirements
Progress
Report
ME 493
Design Report
Viking
Motorsports
Completed
Prototype
Metrics
Reports
Submitted
Reports
Submitted
Fully
Assembled
Cooling System
Targets
1 report
1 report
1 Radiator w/
connections
and Fan
Page 8
Basis
Course
Requirements
Course
Requirements
Customer
Feedback and
Course
Requirements
Verification
Grade
Grade
Customer
Feedback
Applicable codes and standards
Customer
Viking
Motorsports/FSAE
Rules and Judges
Requirements
Metrics
Targets
Basis
Verification
Meets FSAE
Rules
Passes/Fails
FSAE Rules
Passes Rules
Safety
Rule Book
Cost of production per part (material and labor)
Customer
Viking
Motorsports
Requirements
Does Not Cost
Too Much
Metrics
Targets
Basis
Verification
Dollars
<200
Budget
Cost Quote
Basis
Weight
Transfer and
Overall Weight
Verification
Materials
Customer
Requirements
Metrics
Targets
Viking
Motorsports
Not Too Heavy
lbs
<10
Viking
Motorsports
Can Withstand
Temperatures
°F
>210
Anti-Failure
Cad Model
Material
Properties
Maintenance
Customer
Viking
Motorsports
Requirements
Easy to
Maintain
Viking
Motorsports
Easy to
Maintain
Metrics
Minutes of
Cooling Service
Minutes
Needed to
Bleed Air
Targets
10 minutes
Basis
Should Be
Serviceable
Verification
Testing
4 minutes
Should be
Serviceable
Testing
Targets
Basis
Verification
Passes Rules
Safety
Rule Book
Passes Rules
Safety
Rule Book
Safety
Customer
Viking
Motorsports
FSAE Rules
Requirements
Meets FSAE
Rules
If failure
occurs, driver
is shielded
from hot
liquids
Metrics
Passes/Fails
FSAE Rules
Passes/Fails
FSAE Rules
Page 9
Testing
Customer
Viking
Motorsports
Project Team
Requirements
Must Pass all
Necessary
Tests
Must Pass all
Necessary
Tests
Metrics
All Tests that
can Be
preformed
All Tests that
can Be
preformed
Targets
Basis
Verification
Passes All
Group Decision
Analysis of
Data
Passes All
Group Decision
Analysis of
Data
Targets
Basis
Verification
100%
Customer
Feedback
Customer
Feedback
100%
Course
Requirements
Grade
Company constraints and procedures
Customer
Requirements
Viking
Motorsports
Weekly
Updates
Dr. Etesami
Evidence of
Weekly
Meetings
Metrics
Percentage of
Weekly
Updates Met
Percentage of
Weekly
Meetings Met
Documentation
Customer
Requirements
Metrics
Targets
Viking
Motorsports
All Cad
Drawings and
Models
Undocumented
Components
0
undocumented
Dr. Etesami
All Proper
Missing/Incomplete
Documentation
documents
0
Basis
For Future
Teams and
Design
Portion of
FSAE
Competition
Course
Requirements
Verification
Customer
Feedback
Grade
Weight
Customer
Requirements
Metrics
Targets
Viking
Motorsports
Not Too Heavy
lbs
<10lbs
Page
10
Basis
Weight
Transfer and
Overall Weight
Verification
Cad Model
Manufacturing facilities
Customer
Project Team
Mac's Radiator
Requirements
Some
fabrication in
house
Manufacturable
Metrics
Cost and Ease
of
Manufacture
Lead time and
Cost to Viking
Motorsports
Targets
Basis
Verification
Available
Machinery at
PSU
<$50 and
<15Hours
Group
Decision
<3 weeks
<$200
Customer
Feedback
Customer
Feedback
Basis
Cooling System
Must be On
the Car
Verification
Basis
In case the
Cooling System
needs
Maintenance
On Track
Verification
Targets
Basis
Verification
100%
Competition
Points
Feedback From
Judges
Quantity
Customer
Requirements
Metrics
Targets
Viking
Motorsports
Fits FSAE 2011
Chassis Design
Fit or No Fit
Fits
Cad Model
Installation
Customer
Requirements
Metrics
Targets
Viking
Motorsports
Not Very
Difficult to
Install/Remove
Hours to
Install/remove
0.75H
Testing
Aesthetics
Customer
Requirements
Judges of
Business
Presentation
Marketable
Metrics
Percentage of
Judges That
Find the
Design
Marketable
Page
11
N/A
Criteria
Reason
Shipping
Packaging
Legal (Related patents)
Disposal
Ergonomics
Environment
Radiator will not be shipped.
Packaging not an issue.
No unique legal constraints.
Will not be disassembled.
Does not affect driver position.
Coolant used is water.
House of Quality
Performance
Heat rejection
Drag
CG Height
Reliability
Maintenance
Air purge
Coolant service
Timelines
Rules
2010 Design
9
5
4
10
8
7
6
8
VMS
VMS
FSAE
VMS
***** ***** **** ***** ***
***
****
**
***
**
*
**** *****
**
****
*****
***
****
**
*
*
***
**
**
*
*
VMS
FSAE
*****
****
***
Page
12
Fan
Performance
Competition
Coolant
Weight
Geometry
Material
Cost
Engine Temp
Customer
Parameter
Importance
Engineering Criteria
2010 Design
**
*
*****
*
***
**
**
****
***
*****
****
***
**
*
**
**
***
**
*
**
**
***
***
**
****
****
*
**
Risk Assessment
There are various potential sources of risk that may cause the product to fail to meet the requirements
and deadline specified earlier in the document. Listed below are few of the potential sources that
possess relatively high levels of risk.

The product requirements, such as the minimum heat transfer requirements or the maximum
allowable power consumption of the product, are significantly under estimated.
Although the likelihood of said event occurring is unlikely, the consequences of such event would
be severe, as this will lead to engine failure due to overheating, or exhausting the battery while the
vehicle is performing. This poses a moderate risk level according to the risk scoring matrix. Based on
the experience from the previous year’s competition, the performance specifications of the
previous year’s product can be compared with the condition under which the product had failed.
This is realized by considering factors such as the ambient temperature of last year’s location and
this year’s location for the competition, vehicle speed, and engine speed. These steps will mitigate
the likelihood of failure due to underestimation of the requirements.

An erroneous analysis that leads to a failure in meeting the specified requirements for the product.
This includes, for example, an error in the in the heat transfer analysis and consequently failing to
sufficiently cool the engine. Similar to the case described above, the event is unlikely, but the
consequences are severe; thus, posing a moderate risk level. The risk is mitigated by reducing the
likelihood of the event from occurring. Though, due to budget and time constraints, no more than
one prototype can be manufactured, and therefore no experiments can be performed on the final
product to confirm the complete analysis; some experiments, such as heat rejection measurements
on the previous year’s radiator, can be performed on particular components of the product, which
can confirm and reassure some of the critical sections of analysis.

Unexpected failure of a part/component of the product.
For a one-off prototype, a failure of a part certainly possible, but the severity of the failure will
depend upon the particular part that fails. For example, a broken radiator hose, is unlikely cause a
severe problem, as it is relatively inexpensive and non-time consuming to replace. However, if a
major part, such as the core fails, it will be very difficult to replace while keeping to the budget that
has very little flexibility. Furthermore, depending on when the part fails, the consequences can
become severe. For example, if the core fails during or shortly before the competition, the product
may not be able to be repaired in time. If the radiator fails, the whole car fails. In term, a failure of a
part could pose a moderate to high risk level. In order to reduce the frequency of such occurrence,
Page
13
the team will perform failure analysis prior to a decision on which part is to be used. Also, frequent
maintenance of the parts that are more vulnerable will help mitigate the risk of failure.

Ordered parts not arriving on time.
The likelihood of said event is rare. However, the consequences can be severe, as this may cause a
delay in the progress of the product. This will retard the development of the entire vehicle, since no
real operational tests can be performed on the vehicle until the product is complete. All parts
requiring shipping is planed and ordered at least a month in advance, in ordered keep the risk at a
low level.
Conclusion
The Viking Motorsports team strives to make improvements over previous years, every year. There is no
such thing as a perfect design. A design can always be improved. Therefore, a previous design's
performance is the best place to start when redesigning components.
The cooling system design for the 2010 car was not adequate, causing the car to not perform to the
standard Viking Motorsports had hoped for. The 2010 design was produced without proper
understanding of the driving assumptions, leading to a flawed design. There is much room for
improvement from the 2010 design to the 2011 design.
Armed with the proper understanding and taking into account the learning experiences of past years,
the capstone team will improve the cooling system design. The new design will be manufactured and
implemented on the 2011 car. The design must be improved and implemented within strict time and
monetary constraints. The design will be tested on the 2011 car, and must outperform the previous
design by not allowing the engine to overheat within a set time scale.
By redesigning the cooling system and making the necessary changes, Viking Motorsports can continue
the trend of improvement over past years.
Page
14
Appendix
Gantt Chart
Page
15