SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
As we all know, Common Rail fuel injection systems decouples the fuel pressure generation from actual
fuel injection process. This is done by mounting a high pressure accumulator element called rail along the
engine block. The rail is fed by a high pressure pump. This common rail feeds all the injectors on the engine.
Piezoelectric injectors are commonly used. The injectors and the fuel pump are electronically controlled.

1.1. LITERATURE REVIEW

After approximately 10 years of production, the Common Rail (CR) fuel injection apparatus has reached a
high level of sophistication that ensures accuracy and repeatability of the injected amounts [15].
Commercial CR systems are capable of applying up to five injection shots per engine cycle with close-to-zero
dwell times (the time between two successive injections) and can control tiny injected quantities, even smaller
than 0.7 mm3 in a precise manner [6]. Besides, the application of piezo-technology has recently allowed
directly actuated injectors to be produced, with flow-rate shaping capability [7]. Nevertheless, injection
system upgrading is still ongoing in order to cope with to-days market demand. The main drivers are: lower
emissions along with reduced fuel consumption [8,9], robustness against different types of fuel quality
[10,11], affordable technologies for emerging markets and low-priced vehicles [12]. An important branch of
the current industrial research has focused on the development of innovative high-pressure layouts that are
capable of preserving the injection system performance, but with a remarkable cost reduction [13].
A key point in the design of low-priced high-performance layouts pertains to the assessment of the rail
volume effects on system dynamics [14]. An injector-upstream pressure level, which is always kept
adequately close to the desired nominal value reported in the engine electronic control unit (ECU) maps, is
essential to guarantee accuracy and repeatability of the injected fuel quantities. In commercial setups, two
different strategies, which apply two distinct actuators, are used to control the high-pressure level [15]. In the
first, a pressure control valve (PCV) discharges the excess pumped fuel, that is not required for the injectors
[16]. In the other strategy, a fuel metering valve (FMV) controls the flow-rate at the pump inlet [17]. In both
cases, a relatively large volume of the accumulator has traditionally been considered fundamental to dampen
the pressure fluctuations caused by the fuel pulses delivered by the pump and the fuel-injection cycles [15].
Preliminary experimental analyses with lower accumulation volumes than typical production range ones
were made in [18]. The progressive reduction in the accumulator volume, from 20 to 5 cm3, was shown to not
affect the injector performance to any great extent. In fact, the high-pressure control capability resulted from
the synergic action of both the system hydraulic capacitance and the pressure control device. Although the
duty cycle of either the PCV or the FMV depended on the rail size, the high-pressure control system was
capable of keeping the pressure level adequately close to the nominal value in all the analyzed setups. From
this result, two different approaches can be followed to develop innovative CR hydraulic layouts: one leads to
a high-pressure circuit without a rail, the other to systems that apply larger rail volumes than those currently
available in production, but without any electronic feedback control of the pressure [19].
As far as the possibility of removing the rail from the high-pres-sure circuit is concerned, the innovative
layout, with a pipe junction, proposed and investigated in [20] should be regarded as an intermediate step.
The junction (Minirail) had the main function of connecting the pump to the injectors and providing the
hydraulic circuit with an accumulation volume of approximately 2 cm3. The fuelling capability of the injectors
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

was not altered compared to the standard CR and the injector-to-injector fluid dynamics interference
continued to be negligible. However, the Minirail sys-tem does not seem a radically innovative concept since
its layout architecture is basically the same as that of the standard CR [20]: the major difference only
concerns the accumulator dimensions, which are dramatically reduced. The removal of the rail from the
piping system would lead to a highly innovative hydraulic layout and to further remarkable advantages, in
terms of cost reduction and easy installation on engine, compared to the Minirail system, but it requires a
suitable new location for both the PCV and the ECU pressure sensor.

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Chapter 2
NOMENCLATURE
a
bmep
bsfc
d
d1
DT
ECU
EMI
EVI
ET
FMV
G
ICEAL
iV
K
KMM
l
l1
M
MFB50
MR
NEDC
p
Pu
PCV
Q
SOImain
t
T
V

sound speed
brake mean effective pressure
brake specific fuel consumption
inner diameter of the injector feeding pipe
inner diameter of the pump-to-rail pipe
dwell time
electronic control unit
indicator of the injected volume
injection-rate indicator
energizing time
fuel metering valve
mass flow-rate
internal combustion engine advanced laboratory
engine total displacement
geometrical term in the expression of the static leakage
continuous measuring flow meter system
length of the injector feeding pipe
length of the pump-to-rail pipe
fuel mass
instant at which half of the injected mass is burned
Minirail
New European Driving Cycle
pressure
engine power
pressure control valve
volumetric flow-rate
start angle of the main current pulse to the injector
time
temperature; natural period of the pressure waves
fuel volume
restrictor diameter
relative air-to-fuel normalized with respect to the stochiometric value
fuel dynamical viscosity
standard deviation measured by the EMI; % deviation in the injected volume fluctuation

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

Subscripts
acc
EMI
inj
inj inlet
leak
main
max
min
nom
PCV
pil
post
pump
rail
tank

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

accumulator
measured by the indicator of the injected volume
injected
at the injector inlet
leakage
main injection
maximum
minimum
nominal level in the rail
through the pressure control valve
pilot injection
post injection
at pump delivery
rail
in the tank

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Chapter 3
EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES
The hydraulic activity was carried out on the Moehwald-Bosch MEP2000-CA4000 test rig [21], installed in
the IC Engine Advanced Laboratory (ICEAL) at the Politecnico di Torino.
The bench, rating 35 kW of maximum power and 6100 rpm of maximum shaft speed.
Equipped with the following main measuring instruments:
EMI to gauge the whole injected oil mass and, separately, the volume injected at each shot, in multiple
injections;
A Bosch type injection-rate indicator, EVI;
KMM flow-meters to continuously detect the flow-rate recirculated by each injector;
Piezoresistive sensors were used to monitor the pressures in the rail and at the injector inlet.
The tests on the engine were carried out in the ICEAL high-performance dynamometer cell [22]. This cell has
an ELIN AVL APA 100 cradle mounted AC dynamometer, with nominal torque and power of 525 Nm and
220 kW, respectively.
The AVL KMA 4000 fuel metering system is capable of continuously and accurately measuring the engine
fuel consumption over a 0.28110 kg/h range.
For exhaust gas analysis, an AVL AMAi60 raw exhaust-gas multipurpose analyzer was employed to gauge
the engine-out pollutant emission levels of NOx, HC and CO.
In order to measure the soot from the diesel engine, the dynamic test bench was equipped with an AVL415S
smoke meter.
A high-frequency piezoelectric transducer was installed on the glow plug seat of one cylinder by means of a
specific adapter in order to measure the pressure time-history of the gases in the combustion chamber and be
able to perform a heat release analysis.

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Chapter 4
CAPACITANCE AND INERTIAL EFFECT OF THE ACCUMULATOR
Figs. 1 and 2 report the time histories of the experimental pressure at the injector inlet and in the rail
(junction) as well as the injected flow-rate from the EVI profile [23], for both the Minirail system (Vacc = 2
cm3) and the standard Multijet CR apparatus (Vacc = 20 cm3). Fig. 1 refers to pnom = 500 bar, ET = 800 s,
whereas Fig. 2 refers to pnom = 1500 bar, ET = 600 s. Injector feeding pipes with l = 200 mm and d = 3.0
mm as well as a pump-to rail duct with l1 = 300 mm and d1 = 3.0 mm were considered in the comparison.
The impact of the accumulation volume on the system dynamics is shown through the pressure distributions
in the rail (prail) and in the junction (pjunct), which have been plotted with thin solid lines. The pressure drop
detected at the end of injection in the accumulator (capacitance effect) significantly increased in the case of
the Minirail (the difference is up to 35 bar in Fig. 1 and up to55 bar in Fig. 2). From the continuity equation
for the accumulator, following a lumped parameter approach, one obtains:

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Where pacc is the mean pressure in the accumulator ( equal to prail or pjunct, depending on the considered
system), a is the liquid flow sound speed, Vacc the accumulator volume, Gpump the mass flow-rate delivered by
the pump, GPCV the mass flow-rate discharged through the PCV and Ginj inlet the mass flow-rate entering the
injectors. Eq.(1) shows that the diminution rate of pacc, due to injection, increases as Vacc reduces. However,
the remarkable disparities in the accumulation volume between the Minirail and standard CR resulted in
reduced differences in the corresponding prail and pjunct drops. This was mainly due to the compensating
action of the pressure control system. In fact, the duty cycle of the PCV changed with Vacc and so did GPCV(t),
which remained lower in the case of the Minirail system. As a consequence, the injected flow rate time
histories were very similar for the two pieces of apparatus.
A smaller accumulator also induces a lower amplitude and a higher frequency of the free pressure oscillations
that travel along the high-pressure circuit after nozzle closure; both these features are beneficial for a
reduction in the pressure-wave induced disturbances on the injection system dynamics. This inertial effect of
the accumulator is evident if one compares the injector inlet pressure time distributions (plotted with thick
solid lines), which refer to the two distinct layouts. In fact, the energy stored in a wave train grows with both
the amplitude and frequency of the waves [24], the value of this latter being closely related to the geometry of
the high-pressure circuit. Since the energy stored in the pressure oscillations mainly depends on the values of
ET and pnom [18], a layout modification that induces an increase in the wave frequency, without any
appreciable change in viscous power dissipation, would lead to a diminution in their amplitude and vice versa.

Fig. 3 reports the natural period (T) of the pressure fluctuations at pnom = 800 bar, Ttank= 40 C for both the
Minirail and the standard CR. The results refer to values of l that range from 100 to 275 mm and to two
different values of d. The solid and dashed line distributions were obtained using a lumped parameter model
of the high-pressure hydraulic circuit, which was developed and assessed in [18] and the symbols refer to
experimental values plotted for comparison with the predictions. The most interesting outcome of the
theoretical analysis is that, at fixed values of l and d, the natural period of the waves decreases when the
accumulator volume is reduced, this also being consistent with what was previously observed in Figs. 1 and 2.
Therefore, unexpectedly, the reduction in Vacc results to have a positive impact on the pressure oscillations.

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Chapter 5
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW-GENERATION CF SYSTEM
The previous experimental tests, together with the data reported in [20], showed that it is feasible to
investigate the possibility of removing the rail from the CR layout. This would lead to a new-generation fuel
injection system, that is, the CR without a rail. When this component is eliminated, a minimum accumulation
volume V (about one order of magnitude lower than the standard rail volume) should however be added to
the high-pressure circuit, in order to avoid an excessive decrease in the pressure level during the injection
event. Furthermore, the presence of such a volume V, where the pressure can be efficiently monitored by a
sensor, is required for stable working of the pressure control system.

In principle, two locations are available for V, either the pump or the injectors (Fig. 4). In the former case
(Layout 1), a special pump delivery chamber featuring a volume of size V should be designed, whereas in
the latter case (Layout 2) a large chamber should be realized and located upstream from the injector nozzle.
The effect that V has on the system pressure drop that occurs during the injection (capacitance effect) is
independent of the location of this volume in the high-pressure circuit. Instead, its impact on the injection
dynamics (inertial effect) can change to a great extent, depending on whether V is integrated in the pump or
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

in the injectors. When a pressure wave triggered by the injection reaches a system component that can be
regarded as a hydraulic-capacitance element, part of the incoming wave is transmitted down-stream from the
capacitance and part is reflected back ( Fig. 4). As the volume of the capacitance element increases, the
amplitude of the reflected wave becomes larger, whereas that of the transmitted wave becomes smaller.
The disturbances induced on the nozzle dynamics by the V-reflected pressure waves should be much
lower for Layout 1 than for Layout 2. In the former solution both the incoming and the reflected waves are
dampened by both the concentrated losses (restrictions) and the wall friction actions through the high-pressure
circuit from the pump to the nozzle. In Layout 2 most of the unsteady waves travel forwards and backwards
between the nozzle and the injector delivery chamber (V in Fig. 4) and only a minor part of these waves is
transmitted towards the pump. Although these pressure oscillations are characterized by a high frequency
value (as already explained this has a positive effect on the wave amplitude), their impact on the injection
dynamics can be relevant, due to the absence of any remarkable flow dissipation in the short path from the
nozzle to the injector delivery chamber and back.
The above considerations led to the definition of a new injection system, based on the Layout 1 solution. A
modified version of the CR pump, featuring a specific delivery chamber with an enlarged volume was
prototyped. The innovative pump was also equipped with a PCV and a pressure sensor, which were both
placed in correspondence to the newly designed delivery chamber. An FMV was installed at the pump inlet in
order to make the control of the high-pressure level in the apparatus possible by applying either FMV- or
PCV-based control strategies. A schematic of the new-generation Common Feeding (CF1) system is reported
in Fig. 5.

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Chapter 6
CF VS. CR SYSTEM: HYDRAULIC-TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A comparison between the CF ( Fig. 5) and CR ( Fig. 6) systems was carried out on piezoelectric injectors.
This choice was made to assess whether the removal of the rail would be critical in the presence of reduced
leakages. Piezo-injectors are affected by small leakages, because the high-pressure force acting on the pilot
valve tends to keep this latter closed [25]. When a pump delivery phase is in progress, some fuel is added to
the high-pressure circuit, the mean pressure in this circuit tends to rapidly increase and a peak value is
reached. The pressure rise is mitigated by both the static leakage at the injector pilot valve and the rail
hydraulic capacitance: in principle, the larger the static leakage and the rail volume, the lower the pressure
peak value should be. Therefore, the application of piezoelectric injectors to the CF system could be
considered a difficult challenge to assess the robustness of the pressure control system.
As far as the geometrical features of the high-pressure layout are concerned, injector feeding pipes of l =
200 mm and d = 3.0 mm were selected for both the systems, and a pump-to-rail duct of l1 = 275 mm and d1 =
3.0 mm was used in the case of the CR apparatus, all these sizes being typical of automobile applications.
Initially, the CF system was not provided with a restrictor in the high-pressure circuit. On the other hand,
calibrated orifices (= 1.7 mm) were present on the standard CR where the rail was connected to the injector
inlet pipes, in order to damp pressure waves travelling along the high-pressure circuit. It still has to be verified
whether the accumulation volume reduction, which is a an active damping strategy of the pressure
oscillations, is capable, on its own, of compensating for the dissipative action of the orifices (passive
damping) in the CR.

6.1. SINGLE INJECTION DYNAMICS

Fig. 7 reports the time-histories of the injected mass flow-rate (Ginj) from the EVI pressure profile and of
the experimental pressure at the injector inlet (pinj inlet) as well as in the rail (prail), for the standard CR, or at the
pump delivery chamber (ppump), for the CF, for a single injection event (pnom = 500 bar, ET = 200 s, Minj 0.7
mg). Although the drop in the high-pressure level subsequent to injection is significantly higher in the case of
the CF system, the injected flow-rate time history remains virtually the same for both the pieces of apparatus.
When injection occurs, a depression wave propagates from the nozzle along the injector feeding pipe and is
then reflected, as a compression wave, at the first system component, which features an adequate hydraulic
capacitance. This component is the rail or the pump delivery chamber for the CR and the CF systems,
respectively. The injection dynamics starts to be affected by the high-pressure layout geometry from the
instant the reflected compression wave reaches the nozzle. Thus, the minimum energizing time, which is
required to make injector dynamics sensitive to the high-pressure layout geometry, is approximately given by
2l/a for both systems (in Figs. 5 and 6, l is the length of the injector feeding pipe). In the present analysis (l =
200 mm), such a threshold value ranges from 210 to 300 s, depending on the values of pnom and of the mean
fluid temperature in the high-pressure circuit. As a consequence, no appreciable changes were observed
between the CF and CR injected flow-rates when low ETs, that are typical for pilot injections were applied.
Fig. 8 plots the same variables as Fig. 7, but with reference to a medium injected quantity (Minj =21 mg, pnom
= 800 bar and ET = 600 s). After reaching a local minimum at t 1.1 ms, the injector inlet pressure was
observed to rise. In fact, from this instant onwards the fuel amount ejected through the nozzle holes and at the
pilot valve could no longer balance the flow-rate entering the injector from the feeding pipe as a result of the
injection induced depression [3].
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
10

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

11

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

This determined the start of the pressure increase detectable in the injector inlet time distributions. The
compression wave, which originated as a consequence of the illustrated events, propagated through the
injector feeding pipe and reached the rail in the CR system as well as the pump delivery chamber in the CF
system and mitigated the pressure drop due to injection in these accumulation volumes. Such a compensating
action of the compression wave on the pressure drop was stronger for the smaller accumulation volume, that
is, in the case of the pump delivery chamber (CF system), which, on the other hand, underwent the more
intense depression event subsequent to injection. The described dynamics of the pressure transients reduced
the difference between prail and ppump during the injection phase and thus could explain why the injected flowrate time histories had almost the same values for the two apparatuses. The peak pressure value recorded at t
1.8 ms was due to the nozzle-closure-induced water hammer [21].
When large fuel injected quantities were considered, such as that in Fig. 9 (Minj =78 mg), slight differences
were observed in the injected flow-rate between the CF and CR systems. The disparity in the hydraulic
capacitance gave rise to significant differences between prail(t) and ppump(t), which, however, only had a
reduced impact on the time distributions of Ginj. The CF system was characterized by slightly lower values of
the injected flow-rate during the 1.8 ms < t < 2.35 ms interval. In fact, unlike the cases at ET = 600 s, the
large pressure drop due to the reduced accumulation volume prevailed over any dynamic effects related to the
unsteady pressure wave motion in the high-pressure circuit.
The ppump(t) in Fig. 9 is an average line around which the injector inlet pressure fluctuates. From a
mathematical point of view, ppump(t) is accurately approximated by the first low-frequency harmonic terms in
the Fourier series of the corresponding injector inlet pressure time history. In the case of the CR system, prail(t)
remains significantly higher than the average line of pinj inlet(t) during the entire injection phase. In fact, the
calibrated orifice at the connection between the rail and the injector feeding pipe introduces a remarkable
static pressure drop when the fuel is conveyed from the rail towards the nozzle, where it is then ejected.
The presence of the calibrated orifice is also responsible for the fast damping of the free pressure oscillations
after the end of injection as evidenced by all the pinj inlet time distributions reported in Figs. 8 and 9 for the CR
system.

6.2. INJECTOR CHARACTERISTICS AND LEAKAGES

Fig. 10 reports the injector characteristics, that is, the injected mass measured by means of the EMI as a
function of ET for different pnom values, for both the CF (symbols) and the CR (solid lines). The tests refer to
Ttank = 30C, but no important changes were observed in the measured quantities when the tank fuel
temperature was varied in the range 3060 C.
The absolute differences in the EMI injected mass between the two systems were below 4 mg in all cases and
the percentage differences, evaluated with respect to the CR quantities, were lower than 7% for higher
injected masses than 10 mg (the percentage differences are not appropriate for lower injected masses than 10
mg due to the excessively small values of MEMI). In general, the EMI injected mass was slightly lower for the
CF apparatus, especially at high pnom and large ET values. As already explained, at these working conditions,
the pressure drop experienced by ppump was remarkably higher than that experienced by prail and this was the
main reason for the difference in the MEMI quantities between the two pieces of apparatus. Instead, no
appreciable differences were detected in [20] in any of the injector characteristics when the Minirail was
compared to the CR.

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

12

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Nevertheless, the accumulation volume at the junction, in the Minirail, was comparable with that of the
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
13

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

pump delivery chamber in the CF system. However, the Minirail had a 3.0 mm diameter pump-to-junction
duct, which provided an extra accumulation volume to the injection apparatus compared to the CF system.
The absence of this extra accumulation volume seemed to be the main responsible for the slight loss in fuel
capability, at high pnom and large ET values, shown by the CF system compared to the Minirail. A threshold
value exists for the hydraulic capacitance of the high-pressure circuit of the injection system, below which the
general fuelling capability of the apparatus decreases. In general, the smaller the hydraulic capacitance of the
high-pressure circuit with respect to this threshold value, the stronger the loss in fuelling capability of the
apparatus and the larger the pnom/ET range in which such a loss can be observed. When the high-pressure
circuit accumulation volume becomes too small, instability can occur in the control of the high-pressure level.
The injector characteristics in Fig. 10 were obtained by controlling the high-pressure level in the systems
using the PCV. It was interesting to assess, for the CF system, whether the adopted pressure control strategy
could have an impact on the EMI injected masses. Fig. 11 shows a comparison of the injector characteristics
obtained under PCV- and FMV-based control strategies. As can be inferred, the differences are negligible
(lower than 1 mg), a result which is in line with what is usually observed in conventional CR systems.
Fig. 12 shows a plot of the comparison of the injector leakages, which are reported as volumes (Vleak) vs.
ET at different pnom values. The injector leakage is the sum of the static and the dynamic leakages. The former
is the leakage that occurs through the pilot valve when this is closed, the latter is the leakage through the pilot
valve when this is open by the piezo-actuator. Therefore, the static leakage is independent of ET, whereas the
dynamic leakage is dependent on ET. In the graph, the dynamic leakage at each fixed p nom results to linearly
increase with ET for both injection systems.
Instead, the static leakage is given by the intersection point of each distribution with the ordinate axis. The
distribution marked with symbols (CF) for each considered pnom seems to be translated towards higher values
than the corresponding one plotted with a solid line (CR). This means that the dynamic leakage is almost the
same for the two systems, while the static leakage is rather higher for the CF apparatus. The absolute
differences in the leakage are below 4.5 mm3 in all cases and the percentage differences range from 90% at
pnom = 500 bar, ET = 200 s to 10% at pnom = 1500 bar, ET = 1000 s. The higher static leakage experienced
by the CF is explained in what follows.

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

14

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Fig. 13 reports ppump (CF) and prail (CR) as functions of the time for a complete engine cycle at pnom=1000
bar and ET=600 s. The time average value of prail along the engine cycle, namely prail , is higher than ppump
(prail 950 bar, ppump 930 bar). Furthermore, the static leakage can be expressed as a stationary volumetric flowrate according to the following HagenPouseille type formula [26]:

where Kleak = Kleak(p) is a geometrical term that depends on the clearances between the pilot valve and the
seat, = (p,T) is the fuel dynamic viscosity, p and T are the time averaged values of the pressure and
temperature in the high-pressure circuit (p=ppump and p=prail for the CF and the CR, respectively). Finally,
temperature T was verified to be much higher (up to some tens of degrees) in the case of the CF system. Since
is sensitive to T to a great extent (and decreases with T), the static leakage was demonstrated to increase for
the CF. In conclusion, a thermal effect seemed to be the main cause of the differences between the two
injection systems, shown in Fig. 12.
The higher injector leakage of the CF system had no influence on the on-engine behavior because the full
load fuel request continued to be satisfied. This meant that the displacement and the transmission ratio
adopted for the CF pumping unit, which were the same as those of the standard CR pump, were able to
guarantee the extra fuel required in order to compensate for the higher injector leakage. Furthermore, the
increased injector leakage of the CF system was verified to not have any appreciable effect on the engine
brake specific fuel consumption (see bsfc data in subsection 6.1).

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

15

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

6.3. CYCLE-TO-CYCLE DISPERSION AND MINIMUM INJECTABLE QUANTITY

The graphs in Fig. 14 report the standard percentage deviation vs. the average injected mass measured over
100 cycles by the EMI device for the CF system. The standard deviation was related to the cycle-to-cycle
dispersion in the injection system performance. The data referred to the PCV controlled system and to
different pnom values.

The dispersion was experimentally verified to be within the limits prescribed by the injector manufacturer
for the different pnom and injected quantity values. These limits are specified in the charts and can be checked
by interpolating and extrapolating the injected masses in each diagram.
The standard deviation at each pnom is shown to generally increase as the injected quantity reduces, reaching
higher values than 3% for smaller injected masses than 2 mg. This is generally in agreement with what is
usually observed in CR systems. One drawback of the CR system, and, in this case, of the CF, in fact involves
the accurate control of tiny injected masses. As the nozzle opens, the fuel is injected at a high-pressure level,
which is related to pnom, and thus it is difficult to accurately dose minute injected quantities. Furthermore, the
needle is ballistic at short ET values, hence a noteworthy cycle-to-cycle dispersion is likely to occur in the
injection temporal length, and this can have a significant impact on the repeatability of the injected quantity.
All this is responsible for the trend observed in Fig. 14 at the lowest injected quantities.
The minimum injected mass for which the standard deviation measured by EMI over 100 cycles is lower
than 10% can be defined as the minimum injectable quantity. This mass was almost analogous for the two
pieces of apparatus at the different pnom. The minimum injectable mass data did not show any definite trend
with respect to pnom and varied in the 0.30.4 mg range for both systems (the measurements were controlled
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
16

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

with an analytical balance providing very high accuracy). The value of the energizing time, for which the
minimum injectable mass was obtained, decreased from 165 s to 120 s when pnom was varied from 400 bar
to 1700 bar, for both systems.

6.4. MULTIPLE INJECTIONS

Figs. 15 and 16 plot the time histories of prail(t), ppump(t), pinj inlet(t) and Ginj(t) for the pilot-main injection
events at the different pnom, ETpil, ETmain values which are quoted in the figure captions. Each figure has two
graphs, namely (a) and (b), which refer to distinct values of the dwell time (DT). The pilot injected flow-rate
time history in each graph maintains the same pattern when passing from the CF to the CR system, which is
consistent with what occurred in the Section 5.1 (ETpil is lower or equal to 235 s), whereas differences can
occur in the main injected flow-rate time histories. These can be noted in Fig. 16, where the maximum value
of Ginj(t) is higher for the CF system. The pressure drop induced by the double injection on ppump(t), in all the
examined cases, is larger than the corresponding one induced on prail(t). However, as soon as the main current
signal is switched on, prail(t) and ppump(t) exhibit values that are still very close to each other. The possible
differences in the main injected flow-rate peak values between the two systems are determined by the nozzle
pressure values during the main injection. These, in turn, depend on the pressure transients that are triggered
by the pilot-injection induced water-hammer in the two systems and thus on the selected set of injection
parameters (pnom, ETpil, ETmain, DT). In Fig. 15, the injector inlet pressure time distributions, which are
expected to be almost phased to the nozzle-pressure histories, are roughly the same for both systems during
the main injected flow-rate growth. On the other hand, pinj inlet(t) in Fig. 16b remains slightly higher for the
CF apparatus during the 2.6 ms < t < 2.8 ms time interval. All this is physically consistent with the trends
shown by the corresponding flow-rates. In general, when pilot-main injections are performed, the system
high-pressure at the beginning of the main injection is still close to the nominal value, due to the small amount
of fuel injected in the pilot shots, regardless of the accumulation volume. As a consequence, the main injected
flow-rate time history is affected more by the accumulator inertial effect (pressure wave dynamics) than by its
capacitance effect (size of the volume). The results and the conclusions pertaining to Figs. 15 and 16 are in
agreement with those reported in [20], where both pilot-main and main-post injection events were analyzed
for the Minirail system equipped with an enhanced ECU (see also Section 6).
The amplitude of the free pressure waves that occurred after nozzle closure is larger for the CF system, due
to the absence of any purposely designed damping restrictor in its high-pressure circuit. The pressure
oscillations at the end of the pilot shot are responsible for the variations in the main injected volume as the DT
between the pilot and the main injection is changed [3]. Fig. 17 shows the percentage deviation of the
measured main injected fuel-volume from its average value, in the 3003500 s DT range, for both the CF (a,
b) and the CR (c, d) systems, with reference to a double injection (Vpil = 2 mm3, Vmain = 30 mm3) at pnom =
500 bar (a, c) and pnom = 1000 bar (b, d). The ordinate is defined as:

where Vmain (DT) is the main injected volume for a given DT and
Vmain is its average value, that is:

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

17

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

where DTmin = 300 s and DTmax = 3500 s. Fig. 17 shows the distributions for different d values (2.4, 3.0
and 3.5 mm): the frequency of the fluctuations for d = 3.0 mm coincides with that of the corresponding
pressure waves illustrated in Figs. 15 and 16.

In general, the fluctuations exhibited a stronger amplitude for the CF system, in a consistent way to what
is shown in Figs. 15 and 16 for the pressure waves. The maximum absolute values of were comparable for
the two pieces of apparatus operating under the same pnom. However, the oscillations were dampened to a
great extent as DT increased in the CR apparatus, due to the action of the calibrated orifices on the pressure
waves, at the connections between the rail and the injector feeding pipes, whereas they appeared to be only
slightly dampened in the CF system. In this latter case, the viscous dissipation at the injector restrictions and
at the boundary walls was the only mechanism that was involved in damping the pressure waves.

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

18

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Chapter 7
UPGRADE OF THE CF SYSTEM AND TESTS ON THE ENGINE
On the basis of the results of the previous section, an important improvement was made on the design of the
CF system which involved the introduction of a restrictor in the high-pressure circuit in order to damp
pressure waves. Fig. 17 shows that the dynamic effect, due to the accumulation volume reduction, is not
capable on its own of compensating for the dissipative action of the calibrated orifices in the CR system. With
regard to the effect of DT on multiple injections, Figs. 18 reports another comparison between the CR
apparatus and the enhanced version of the CF system with a pump integrated orifice. A damping restrictor (=
1.8 mm) was placed at the pump delivery chamber inlet.
As can be inferred, the main injected volume fluctuations diminished for the CF injection system as DT
increased. In the figures, it can be observed that the maximum absolute value of (| max|) was higher for the
CR, even though the calibrated orifices applied to this system had smaller diameters than the one used in the
CF (= 1.7 mm instead of = 1.8 mm). This apparent inconsistency can be explained by the already
mentioned dynamic effect of the reduced accumulation volume on the modulation of the pressure wave
kinetic energy.
The introduction of a damping restrictor in the CF system has expected to reduce the system fuelling
capability. Fig. 19 reports injector characteristics of the CF apparatus at some pnom values in the absence
(solid line) and in the presence (symbols) of the orifice. The discrepancies in the injected masses between the
two setups are appreciable, but not remarkable: the absolute differences are below 2.3 mg in all cases and the
percentage differences lower than 5% for higher injected masses than 10 mg. It has also been verified that the
differences in the injected masses between the CF system with the orifice and the CR system were below 6.3
mg in all cases and lower than 9% for higher injected masses than 10 mg. The reduced fuelling capability of
the injection system, with respect to the CR is not a problem, provided the full-load fuel request continues to
be satisfied. If this is the case, only a recalibration of the engine maps is required. However, it is necessary to
assess whether the modified calibration deteriorates engine out pollutant emissions at part load. A possible
solution to limit the remarkable pressure drop, detected in the CF as a consequence of injection, consists of
the application of look ahead strategies in the control of ppump(t). The pressure at the start of injection is kept
higher than pnom by the ECU, so that the time-average of ppump(t) during the whole injection event can be made
equal to the desired value. This control approach could also be helpful when post injections are considered in
the injection schedule.
In the case of the main-post injections, the pressure drop in the high pressure circuit, induced by the main
injection, can have a significant influence on the post injection for the CF system. In fact, an excessive
difference can occur between the actual and nominal pressure levels after the end of the main injection (see in
Figs. 2, 9 and 16), where post injections are feasible. The look-ahead strategy has already been applied
successfully to the Minirail system in [20] and its implementation has resulted in efficient main-post
injections, with a contained gap between the actual and nominal pressure levels at the end of the main
injection shot. However, in the present investigation, the ECU was still at a preliminary development stage
and was therefore not capable of supporting such a sophisticated control strategy

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

19

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Fig. 17. Injected volume fluctuations with respect to DT: CF vs. CR (l = 200 mm; d = 2.4 mm, d = 3.0 mm
and d = 3.5 mm)

Fig. 18. CF system with the pump integrated orifice (l = 200 mm, d = 3.0 mm).
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
20

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

.
7.1. POLLUTANT EMISSION PERFORMANCE
The upgraded CF system was tested in the dynamometer cell on a Turbo Euro 5 engine (iV = 1950 cm 3, Pu =
190 CV) and its performance was compared with that obtained using the standard CR.
[CV is short for cavalli vapore, used commonly in Italy and France. 1 CV= 0.73549875 kW]
The experimental analysis was carried out on the piezoelectric injectors and the following key points were
selected to characterize the engine operation at part load: N = 1500 rpm and bmep = 2 - bar (1500X2), N =
2000 rpm and bmep = 5 bar (2000X5), N = 2500 rpm and bmep = 8 bar (2500X8). The same ECU calibration
set was adopted to perform the tests on the two injection systems. In fact, the previous hydraulic
characterization at the Moehwald Bosch test rig showed only minor differences in the injection performance
at part load between the two injection systems. However, since the ECU maps were optimized for the engine
configuration with the standard CR, the pollutant emission comparison was unfavorable for the CF system
and thus constituted a tricky test for the latter system.
Figs. 20 and 21 compare the Soot-NOx tradeoff (a) and the corresponding bsfc curve (b) of the two
injection systems, at 2500X8 and 2000X5, respectively.
[Air-Fuel equivalence ratio, , is the ratio of actual AFR to stoichiometry for a given mixture. = 1.0 is at
stoichiometry, rich mixtures < 1.0, and lean mixtures > 1.0. There is a direct relationship between and
AFR. To calculate AFR from a given , multiply the measured by the stoichiometric AFR for that fuel.
Alternatively, to recover from an AFR, divide AFR by the stoichiometric AFR for that fuel.
=(AFR/AFRstoichiometric)
Because the composition of common fuels varies seasonally, and because many modern vehicles can handle
different fuels, when tuning, it makes more sense to talk about values rather than AFR.]
Each operative point of the Soot-NOx trade-off, and thus of the bsfc curve, was obtained varying only the
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
21

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

EGR rate and keeping all the other working parameters constant.EGR is minimum at the symbol furthest on
the right in each diagram and increases as NOx or diminishes. The plotted quantities are dimensionless, as
they (apart from ) are normalized with respect to the value of the considered variable obtained at the nominal
EGR level in the case of the standard CR. The engine configuration with the CF shows better Soot-NOx tradeoff and bsfc values in both the figures. In particular, the discrepancies in the Soot level between the two
engine setups were significant, whereas those on bsfc were only minor (the maximum percentage difference
was around 1.5%). The comprehensive analysis of the injector parameters pointed out the presence of shorter
ETmain values for the CF system at all the operative points of the trade-offs. Due to the different dynamics of
the pilot-injection triggered pressure waves in the two pieces of apparatus (see the Section 5.4), at the
considered working conditions the CF was capable of injecting the same fuel amount as the CR, but for
shorter ETmain values. As a consequence, since SOImain was the same for both systems, MFB50 would be
slightly advanced in the CF system and this fact alone would give rise to a better bsfc [27]. This improvement
in bsfc then led to a reduction in the fuel request ( increased slightly in the figures for the CF system) and
thus to a further diminution of ETmain and a subsequent additional advance of MFB50. The heat-rate analysis
based on the in-cylinder experimental pressure trace [28] confirmed the presence of differences in MFB50
(up to 1.8 deg at 2000X5 and up to 1 deg at 2500X8) between the two systems. The reduced injection
temporal length(it is the duration of an injection), caused by the shorter ET-main, also improved the interaction
between the injected fuel and cylinder charge close to the injector tip during the last phase of injection, which
in turn led to lower soot emissions. Furthermore, the increased and the advanced MFB50 were the main
reasons for the increase in the NOx emissions shown by the CF in Figs. 20 and 21.
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
22

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Fig. 22 plots the CONOx trade-off (a) and the corresponding bsfc curve (b) for the CF and the CR
systems, with reference to key point 1500 2. At such a low-load engine condition, the soot levels were minute
(FSN was lower than 0.4) and thus a comparison was more significant concerning the CO emissions. In fact,
due to the large values and to the reduced in-cylinder temperatures, the CO emission increased considerably.
[Here FSN-Filter Smoke Number is the fractional reduction in reflectance by a smoke filter due to the
blackening of its surface by soot. Its measurement principle is that at first a volume of exhaust gas is drawn
through a filter paper, which is then optically evaluated. The reflectance of the filter is reduced by the soot.
The fractional reduction in reflectance on a linear scale of 0 to 10 is the filter smoke number.]
The CONOx trade off was shown to be virtually the same for the two engine setups. However, unlike what
appeared in Figs. 20 and 21, the bsfc deteriorated in the CF (up to 3%). The explanation for this behavior is
the same as that provided in Figs. 20b and 21b, but in this key point the dynamics of the pressure waves was
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
23

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

more favorable for the CR, which could generally inject the same quantity at lower ETmain values. In
conclusion, the emission performance of the two injection systems seems to be almost comparable when the
engine is run at a steady point: the possible differences can vary according the considered working condition
because they depend on the pressure-wave motion in each injection apparatus, which in turn also depends on
the selected DT, ETpil, prail and SOImain values.
Finally, in order to evaluate the emission performance on the engine transients, the Euro 5 engine equipped
with the CF system was run according to the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) load-speed profile. The
NEDC consists of four repeated ECE-15 driving cycles and an Extra Urban Driving Cycle or EUDC [29].
[The New European Driving Cycle is a driving cycle designed to assess the emission levels of car engines
and fuel economy in passenger cars (excluding light trucks and commercial vehicles). It is also referred to as
MVEG cycle.The NEDC is supposed to represent the typical usage of a car in Europe. It consists of four
repeated ECE-15 Urban Driving Cycles (UDC) and an Extra-Urban driving cycle (EUDC).
Measurements
Several measurements are usually performed along the cycle. The figures made available to the general public
are:

Urban fuel economy (first 780 seconds)

Extra-Urban fuel economy (780 to 1180 s)
Overall fuel economy (complete cycle)
CO2 emission (complete cycle)

The following parameters are also generally measured to validate the compliance to European emission
standards:

Carbon monoxide
Unburnt hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
Particulate matter

Test procedure
The cycle must be performed on a cold vehicle at 20-30C (typically run at 25C). The cycles may be
performed on a flat road, in the absence of wind. However, to improve repeatability, they are generally
performed on a roller test bench. This type of bench is equipped with an electrical machine to emulate
resistance due to aerodynamic drag and vehicle mass (inertia).
For each vehicle configuration, a look-up table is applied: each speed corresponds to a certain value of
resistance (reverse torque applied to the drive wheels). This arrangement enables the use of a single physical
vehicle to test all vehicle body styles (Sedan, hatchback, MPV etc.) by simply changing the look-up table. A
fan is coupled to the roller bench to provide the vehicle air intakes with an airflow matching the current speed.
Many more tests can be performed during vehicle development with this arrangement than with conventional

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

24

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

road tests. The test is conducted with all ancillary loads turned off (Air conditioning compressor and fan,
lights, heated rear window, etc.)
Urban driving
The Urban Driving Cycle, also known as ECE R15 cycle, has been first introduced in 1970 as part of ECE
vehicle regulations; the recent version is defined by ECE R83, R84 and R101. The cycle has been designed to
represent typical driving conditions of busy European cities, and is characterized by low engine load, low
exhaust gas temperature, and a maximum speed of 50 km/h.
When the engine starts, the car pauses for 11 s - if equipped with a manual gearbox, 6 s in neutral (with clutch
engaged) and 5 s in the 1st gear (with clutch disengaged) - then slowly accelerates to 15 km/h in 4 s, cruises at
constant speed for 8 s, brakes to a full stop in 5 s (manual: last 3 s with clutch disengaged), then stops for 21 s
(manual: 16 s in neutral, then 5 s in the 1st gear).
At 49 s, the car slowly accelerates to 32 km/h in 12 s (manual: 5 s in 1st gear, 2 s gear change, then 5 s in the
2nd gear), cruises for 24 s, slowly brakes to a full stop in 11 s (manual: last 3 s with clutch disengaged), then
pauses for another 21 s (manual: 16 s in neutral, 5 s in the 1st gear).
At 117 s, the car slowly accelerates to 50 km/h in 26 s (manual: 5 s, 9 s and 8 s in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears,
with additional 2 2 s for gear changes), cruises for 12 s, decelerates to 35 km/h in 8 s, cruises for another 13
s, brakes to a full stop in 12 s (manual: 2 s change to the 2nd gear, 7 s in the 2nd gear, last 3 s with clutch
disengaged), then pauses for 7 s (manual: in neutral with clutch engaged).
The cycle ends on 195 s after a theoretical distance of 1017 meters, then it repeats four consecutive times.
Total duration is 780 s (13 minutes) over a theoretical distance of 4067 meters, with an average speed of 18.77
km/h.
Extra-urban driving
The EUDC (Extra Urban Driving Cycle), introduced by ECE R101 in 1990, has been designed to represent
more aggressive, high speed driving modes. The maximum speed of the EUDC cycle is 120 km/h; lowpowered vehicles are limited to 90 km/h.
After a 20 s stop - if equipped with manual gearbox, in the 1st gear with clutch disengaged - the car slowly
accelerates to 70 km/h in 41 s (manual: 5 s, 9 s, 8 s and 13 s in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th gears, with additional
3 2 s for gear changes), cruises for 50 s (manual: in the 5th gear [sic]), decelerates to 50 km/h in 8 s
(manual: 4 s in the 5th and 4 s in the 4th gear [sic]) and cruises for 69 s, then slowly accelerates to 70 km/h in
13 s.
At 201 s, the car cruises at 70 km/h for 50 s (manual: in the 5th gear), then slowly accelerates to 100 km/h in
35 s and cruises for 30 s (manual: in the 5th or 6th gear).
Finally, at 316 s the car slowly accelerates to 120 km/h in 20 s, cruises for 10 s, then slowly brakes to a full
stop in 34 s (manual: in the 5th or 6th gear, lat 10 s with clutch disengaged), and idles for another 20 s
(manual: in neutral).
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
25

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Total duration is 400 s (6 minutes 40 seconds) and theoretical distance is 6956 meters, with an average speed
of 62.6 km/h.
Combined
The combined fuel economy is calculated by a total consumption of urban and extra-urban cycles over the
total distance (theoretical 11023 meters). The total test time amounts to 1180 s with an average speed of 33.6
km/h.]

Table 1 reports the cumulate emission values (g/km or mg/km) of the pollutants, which were measured
downstream from the diesel oxygen catalyst at the end of each of the five main phases of the hot NEDC, as
well as the fuel consumption; the test was conducted with no diesel particulate filter at the engine outlet. The
results show considerably higher CO for the first ECE15 repetition as well as significant differences in NO x
and soot emissions for the first ECE-15 compared to the levels obtained in the fourth repetition. In fact, after
the engine had been warmed up (cooling-water temperature close to 95 C at engine out), it was stopped and
the automatic procedure required about 3 minutes in order to purge and pre-sample the measuring instruments
before the NEDC could be run. This soaking time and the absence of the glow-plug (the calibration was not
available at this preliminary development stage) determined a temperature decrease during the first ECE-15
that was the cause of the trend observed in the urban emissions.
The data on pollutants, referring to the whole hot NEDC (penultimate row in Table 1), should be compared
with those reported in the last row, as they represent the target values of the Euro 5 standard for diesel
passenger cars [30].

[Euro 5 standard
Emissions from diesel vehicles:

carbon monoxide: 500 mg/km;

particulates: 5 mg/km (80 % reduction of emissions in comparison to the Euro 4 standard);
nitrogen oxides (NOx): 180 mg/km (20 % reduction of emissions in comparison to the Euro
4 standard);
combined emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides: 230 mg/km.]

In order to take into account both the aging effect and engine production dispersion, the emission values
measured for the whole NEDC should be multiplied by a corrective factor (in the present case the value 1.15
was considered), before being compared with the limits of the Euro 5 standard. As can easily be verified, the
thus obtained CO and THC emissions resulted to be much smaller than the corresponding Euro 5 limit values,
because the cycle was executed after the engine had warmed up. Furthermore, a final quantity of
165.6*1.15=190.4 mg/km, which was 6% higher than the limit of 180 mg/km, was achieved for the NOx.
Lastly, the Soot level resulted to be much higher (23.8*1.15=27.4 mg/km) than the target value (5 mg/km).
Since the efficiency of the DPF on the NEDC is usually at least 90%, a value of about 2.7 mg/km could, in
principle, be achieved downstream from the DPF (Diesel Particulate Filters) . All these results are particularly
promising as far as the Euro 5 standard is concerned, and a sensible improvement can be expected if a
calibration set that has been optimized for the CF apparatus is used.
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
26

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Chapter 8
CONCLUSIONS
The main feature of the innovative CF apparatus is the absence of the rail in the hydraulic layout. A small
hydraulic capacitance was integrated in the pump housing as the delivery chamber was enlarged. The pump
was connected directly to the injector feeding pipes through screwed ports, which were machined on its
housing, and it was possible to control the high-pressure level in the system by either the PCV or the FMV.
The cycle-to-cycle dispersion of the CF system was verified to be within the acceptable tolerances for the
injectors at different working conditions. Furthermore, the minimum controllable quantity that could be
injected by the new-generation apparatus was similar to that of the standard CR. The multiple injection
performance was improved with respect to the CR, because of the reduced variation in the fuel injected
volume as DT varied. The smaller accumulation volume of the CF system induced a lower amplitude and a
higher frequency of the free pressure oscillations after nozzle closure. Both these features were beneficial in
reducing the disturbances induced by pressure-waves on the multiple injections (the phenomenon is here
referred to as accumulator inertial effect). In addition to this effect, a restrictor was integrated in the highpressure pump circuit to damp the pressure waves and it played the same role as the calibrated orifices that are
usually installed in the CR layout where the rail is connected to the injector feeding pipes.
Tests on a Euro 5 engine were performed in the dynamometer cell to assess the performance of the CF
system concerning emissions. Soot-NOx and CONOx trade-offs were made at different working conditions.
The results have shown that the emission performance and the brake specific fuel consumption are
comparable for the two engine configurations applying the CF and the CR systems. The small discrepancies
that were detected were ascribed to minor differences in the main injection flow-rate pattern, which were
induced by the characteristic dynamics of the pressure waves in the high-pressure circuit of each injection
apparatus. Finally, a hot NEDC was performed on the engine equipped with the CF system. The pollutant
emissions that were measured at the end of the cycle were promising to cope with the Euro 5 target values. In
general, the results pertaining to the emissions at the key points and on the hot NEDC, which were obtained
for the CF, are appealing.
Now we understand that CF injection system had low hydraulic inertia, which gave rise to a fast dynamic
response to the transients, and reduced production costs. Moreover, this system matched the requirements of
easy installation on the engine which in turn would decrease the production time and further reduce the
production costs. These results were achieved using the available ECU calibration set, which had been
optimized for the engine setup applying the standard CR. More improved results could be obtained if an ECU
calibration set optimized for CF fuel injection system was employed. A future development of the present
work could consist in comparing emission and fuel consumption results obtained on the NEDC for the
standard and the new injection systems, each of them being optimized with a tailored engine calibration
strategy. The optimal values of the calibration variables for the CF apparatus (ETs, DTs, pnom, SOI, EGR rate,
boost pressure, swirl ratio, etc.) could be determined through a design-of-experiment procedure. It is proven
experimentally that the CF system is as good as the CR fuel injection system and has also extra advantages
than CR system. Hence this is one of the technology which is going to replace CR fuel injection systems.

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

27

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

Chapter 9
REFERENCES
[1]
Suh HK. Investigations of multiple injection strategies for the improvement of combustion
and
exhaust emissions characteristics in a low compression ratio (CR) engine. Appl Energy
2011;88(12):50139.
[2]
Chiodi M, Mack O, Bargende M, Paule K, Brandt von Fackh J, Wichelhaus D. Improvement of a
high-performance diesel-engine by means of investigation on different injection strategies. SAE paper no.
2009-24-0008.
[3]
Catania AE, Ferrari A, Spessa E. Numericalexperimental study and solutions to reduce the dwell time
threshold for fusion-free consecutive injections in a multijet solenoid-type C.R. system, ICE best paper
award. J Eng Gas Turb Power 2009;131(1). 022804-1022804-14.
[4]
Ghaffarpour M, Noorpoor AR. NOx reduction in diesel engines using rate shaping and pilot injection.
Int J Automotive Technol Manage 2007;7(1):15.
[5]
Payri R, Salvador FJ, Gimeno J, De la Morena J. Influence of injector technology on injection and
combustion development Part 1: Hydraulic characterization. Appl Energy 2011;88:106874.
[6]
Shayler PJ, Brooks TD, Pugh GJ, Gambrill R. The influence of pilot and split-main injection
parameters on diesel emissions and fuel consumption. SAE paper no. 2005-01-0365; 2005.
[7]
Atzler F, Kastner O, Rotondi R, Weigand A. Multiple injection and rate shaping. Part 1: Emissions
reduction in passenger car diesel engines. SAE paper no. 2009-24-0004; 2009.
[8]
Tanabe K, Kohketsu S, Nakayama N. Effect of fuel injection rate control on reduction of emissions
and fuel consumption in a heavy duty DI diesel engine. SAE paper no. 2005-01-0907; 2005.
[9]
Ismailov M, Blaisot JB, Dementhon JB. A novel diesel injection nozzle for future HCCI engines. SAE
paper no. 2008-01-0940; 2008.
[10] No YS. Inedible vegetable oils and their derivatives for alternative diesel fuels in CI engines: a review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:13149.
[11] Kim H, Choi B. The effect of biodiesel and bioethanol blended diesel fuel
on nanoparticles
and
exhaust emissions from CRDI diesel engine. Renew Energy 2010;35:15763.
[12] Natu M, Bhise V, Shulze R. Development of specifications for the UM-Ds low mass vehicle for
China, India and United States. SAE paper no. 2005-01-1027; 2005.
[13] Fan L, Long W, Zhu Y, Xue Y. A characteristic study of electronic in-line pump system for diesel
engines. SAE paper no. 2008-01-0943; 2008.
[14] Catania AE, Ferrari A, Manno M. Parametric analysis of layout effects on common rail multipleinjections. In: ASME ICED fall technical conference. Paper no. ICEF2005-1288; 2005.
[15] R. Bosch, GmbH. Diesel engine management. Technical handbook, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
[16] Xiao W, Liang F, Tan W, Mao X, Yang L, Zhuo B. Analysis of common rail pressure build-up and
assistant-establishment of engine phase position in starting process. SAE paper no. 2006-01-3525; 2006.
[17] Catania AE, Ferrari A. Experimental analysis, modeling and control of volumetric radial-piston
Pumps. ASME Transactions. J Fluids Eng 2011;133(8):081103.
[18] Baratta M, Catania AE, Ferrari A. Hydraulic circuit design rules to eliminate the dependence of the
injected fuel on dwell time in multijet CR systems. J Fluids Eng 2008;130. 121104-1121104-13.
[19] Spinnler F, Zanetti C. High-pressure injection system. Patent application no. US 2002/0017278A1;
2002.
[20] Catania AE, Ferrari A, Mittica A, Spessa E. Common rail without accumulator: development,
theoreticalexperimental analysis and performance enhancement at DI-HCCI level of a new generation
FIS. SAE paper no. 2007-01-1258; 2007.
[21] Catania AE, Ferrari A, Manno M, Spessa E. Experimental investigation of dynamic effects on multiple
DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
28

SEMINAR REPORT 2013

DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF CFFIS

injection CR system performance. J Eng Gas Turb Power 2008;130(3):032806.

[22] Catania AE, dAmbrosio S, Finesso R, Spessa E. Effects of rail pressure, pilot scheduling and EGR
rate on combustion and emissions in conventional and PCCI diesel engines. SAE J Eng 2010;3:77387.
[23] R. Bosch, GmbH. The Fuel rate indicator: a new measuring instrument for display of the
characteristics of individual injection. SAE paper 660749; 1966.
[24] Landau LD, Lifshitz EM. Course of theoretical physics. Butterworth-Heinemann; 1987.
[25] Arpaia A, Catania AE, Ferrari A, Spessa E. Development and application of an advanced numerical
model CR piezo indirect acting injection systems. SAE paper no. 2010-01-1503; 2010.
[26] Batchelor GK. An introduction to fluid dynamics. New-York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
[27] Catania AE, dAmbrosio S, Ferrari A, Finesso R, Spessa E, Avolio G, et al. Experimental analysis of
combustion processes and emissions in a 2.0L multi-cylinder diesel engine featuring a new generation
piezo-driven injector. SAE paper no. 2009-24-0040; 2009.
[28] Heywood JB. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. McGram-Hill; 1988.
[29] R. Bosch, GmbH. Emissions-control technology for gasoline engines. Automotive technology
handbook. Bosch Yellow Jackets; 2003.
[30] Regulation (EC) No. 725/2007 of the European parliament and of the council of 20 June 2007 on
emission standards and on board diagnostics.
[31] Catania AE, Ferrari A, Development and performance assessment of the new-generation CF fuel
injection system for diesel passenger cars. Appl Energy 2012;91:483-495.
[32] Automobile Engineering Vol 2;by Dr.Kripal Singh
[33] Diesel Emissions and Their Control by W.Addy Majewski and Magdi K.Khair
[34] Website:europa.eu:europa.eu/legislation-summaries/environment/air-pollution/128186_en.htm.

DEPT. OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

29