Seoul 2000 FISITA World Automotive Congress June 12-15, 2000, Seoul, Korea

F2000A055

Innovative Injection Rate Control with Next Generation Common Rail Fuel Injection System
Keiki Tanabe 1) Susumu Kohketsu 1) Koji Mori 1) Kenji Kawai 1)
1)

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, 21-1 Shimomaruko 4-Chome Ota-ku Tokyo 146-0092, Japan

Injection rate control is an important capability of the ideal injection system of the future. However, in a conventional Common Rail System (CRS) the injection pressure is constant throughout the injection period, resulting in a nearly rectangular injection rate shape and offering no control of the injection rate. Thus, in order to realize injection rate control with a CRS, a Next-generation Common Rail System (NCRS) was conceptualized, designed, and fabricated. The NCRS has two common rails, for low and high pressure fuel, and switches the fuel pressure supplied to the injector from the low to the high pressure rail during the injection period, resulting in control over the injection rate shape. The effects of injection rate shape on exhaust emissions and fuel consumption were investigated by applying this NCRS to a single cylinder research engine. The results showed that it was possible to control combustion by controlling the injection rate using the NCRS, and to improve the NOx-fuel consumption and NOx-PM trade-offs, resulting in significant emissions reduction and improved fuel consumption. For example, compared to the conventional CRS, constant fuel consumption NOx was reduced by 22%, and constant NOx fuel consumption was reduced by 2.6% both at lower PM levels. In this way, the NCRS has shown a strong potential to improve exhaust emissions and fuel consumption of diesel engines, making it a promising injection system for the future. Keywords: Diesel Engine, Injection Rate Shape Control, Common Rail Fuel Injection System

INTRODUCTION
Diesel engine exhaust emissions are currently coming under increased regulatory pressure in many countries of the world. On top of that, further reductions in allowed emissions levels are expected in the future. Diesel engine exhaust emissions reduction has heretofore been centered on combustion improvement, thus it is expected that this will continue to be the primary determinant in emissions reduction. The fuel injection system plays a major role in combustion improvement. A high level of quality and multifunctionality has been required of the fuel injection system for diesel engines, not only from an emissions reduction standpoint, but also from the fuel consumption and noise reduction standpoints. For instance, careful control and matching of injection pressure and timing to engine speed and load, along with multiple stage injection schemes (pilot injection), EGR, and some type of after-treatment may become widely adopted in the future. Since a CRS offers the possibility of optimal injection pressure and timing control, depending on the engine operating condition [1, 2], a CRS type fuel injection system is expected to meet these requirements. In fact, several examples of its application to mass production engines for trucks have been recently reported [3, 4]. However, the injection rate shape of a CRS is nearly rectangular. Compared to the jurk type unit injector, the CRS has a larger initial stage injection quantity, which increases NOx and combustion noise levels. Injection rate shape control is well-known as a very effective means to reduce emissions, fuel consumption, and combustion

noise [5, 6, 7]. Capitalizing on the recent rapid improvement in electronic controls technology, an improved fuel injection system has been developed, which offers control over the injection rate shape [8, 9, 10, 11]. In this way, in order to further reduce emissions, fuel consumption, and realize high performance, it is important to gain a more positive and careful control over combustion. There is a great need to develop a new fuel injection system which offers a wide range of injection rate shape control. Thus, if injection rate control becomes possible with a CRS, which has inherently high operating flexibility, it will become a further significant advantage over other fuel injection systems in achieving the low emissions and fuel consumption demanded of future diesel engines. To this end, a Next-generation Common Rail System (NCRS) was designed and fabricated. This system features injection rate shape control, as well as all the merits of a conventional CRS. The authors have already confirmed and reported the advanced flexibility of the NCRS injection rate shape control [12]. This report covers experimental results of the NCRS from single-cylinder engine tests. The effect of a wide range of injection rate shapes on exhaust gas emissions characteristics and heat release characteristics was investigated. The results showed that proper NCRS injection rate control could achieve a dramatic reduction in exhaust emissions and fuel consumption. This shows that the NCRS is clearly suitable for current diesel engines, and if further improvement in exhaust emissions and fuel consumption can be obtained, the NCRS may become the prime candidate for the future fuel injection system.

Injector Inlet Pressure MPa

Orifice & Check Valve LPCR HPCR Switching Valve High Pressure Supply Pump

Pressure Control Valve

150 100

Conventional CRS NCRS

Low Pressure Common Rail High Pressure Common Rail

50 0 100 80 60 40 20 0

Injector

Injection Rate mm3/ms

LPCR : 20MPa HPCR : 120MPa 3 Fuel Quantity : 200mm /st

Injection Rate

Low Pressure Injection

High Pressure Injection

10

20 Time ms

30

40

100 Injection Rate mm3/ms On 80 60 40 20 0 Off Off

Start of main Injection (LPCR HPCR)

Switching Valve Injector

On

Time
Figure 1: NCRS schematic and timing characteristics

0 2 4 Time after start of injection

6 ms

EXPERIMENT / MODELING SYSTEM CONCEPT AND DESIGN

One practical way to control the injection rate shape is to control the injection pressure. There are a few methods to control the injection pressure with a CRS. One is to vary the fuel pressure supplied to the injector during injection. Another is to internally bleed off higher pressure fuel for a certain time during injection, so that a lower injection pressure (than in the CR) can be obtained. Still another is to directly control the needle valve lift. The pressure control methods have some advantages over the needle valve lift control method, such as lower variation in injection quantity among injection holes (due to seat throttling), and better spray quality. To avoid these problems, the NCRS controls the fuel pressure supplied to the injector by switching between low and high pressure rails during injection. Figure 1 shows the basic configuration and operating principle of the NCRS. The basic components of the NCRS are the fuel injector, two common rails (low and high pressure, or LPCR and HPCR, respectively), a high pressure fuel supply pump, a LPCR pressure control valve, and a switching valve to switch the injector fuel supply from the LPCR to the HPCR. Compared to a conventional CRS, the switching valve, LPCR, and LPCR pressure control valve are added. Control of the injection rate shape, as shown in Figure 1, is obtained by switching the injector fuel supply from the LPCR to the HPCR. That is, during the initial part of injection, lower pressure fuel is supplied to the injector from the LPCR. By opening the switching valve a certain 2

Figure 2:

Typical NCRS injection rate and inlet pressure

time after start of injection (ASOI), higher pressure fuel is supplied to the injector from the HPCR, enabling higher pressure fuel injection. The NCRS allows independent control of the LPCR pressure, HPCR pressure, and switching timing. Various combinations of these parameters permit various injection rate shapes. Figure 2 compares typical injection rate shapes and injector inlet pressures for NCRS and conventional CRS operation. The nearly rectangular CRS injection rate shape differs sharply from the boot type NCRS rate shape. After injection, the NCRS bleeds high pressure fuel contained between the switching valve and injector into the LPCR through an orifice. Thus, the residual pressure drops to the preset LPCR pressure, in preparation for the next injection event. This also utilizes the high pressure residual fuel as the LPCR supply source, allowing the NCRS to require only one high-pressure pump. Moreover, since simple two-way valves can be used for the switching valve, control of the injection rate shape is possible with a relatively small change to a conventional CRS.

EXPERIMENTAL ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS

The NCRS was applied to a single cylinder diesel research engine (displacement about 2L) to study the effects of injection rate shape control on emissions and fuel consumption. Note that the conventional CRS

Table1: Type of Engine

Engine Specifications Single Cylinder 4-Stroke Direct Injection Natural Aspiration

2000 Cylinder Pressure MPa 10 8 6 4 2

NCRS LPCR 0 40MPa 30MPa 20MPa Conventional CRS

Bore x Stroke Displacement Cylinder Head Compression Ratio Swirl Ratio F.I.E Nozzle hole Diameter x Number Switching Valve Diameter & Lift

200 100 0

0.205 mm x 5 2 mm - 0.75 mm

Injection Rate mm3/deg

10 5 Lift mm 0 0.5 0.0 60

combustion system was also used for the NCRS. shows engine specifications.

Table 1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

-20

EFFECT OF LPCR PRESSURE ON EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND ISFC

The NCRS offers highly flexible injection control (multiple degrees of freedom), resulting in many possible control parameters. It is thus necessary to systematically choose values for the control parameters, depending on the engine operation conditions, to obtain the optimum
Ne = 1320rpm, = 1.4 HPCR : 80MPa Injection Timing deg ATDC 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 8 g/h 6 4 2 0 220 g/kwh 210 200 190 180 40 Figure 3: 60 80 100 120 NOx g/h 140 160

0 20 Crank Angle

40 deg

Figure 4:

Effect of LPCR pressure on rate of heat release

LPCR 22MPa 30MPa NCRS 40MPa CRS(100MPa)

Effect of LPCR pressure on NOx-fuel consumption and NOx-PM trade-offs

injection rate shape. In this work, the medium-speed/high-load region was chosen as a representative operating condition, and the switching valve opening timing was fixed at 0.5ms after injection start. The average ignition delay within the middle-speed/high-load region was found to be about 0.5ms (4 Crank Angle @1320rpm). Then, the effects of LPCR and HPCR pressures were investigated. Altering the LPCR pressure should alter the initial injection quantity. Meanwhile, most CRS results were obtained at 100MPa rail pressure. Figure 3 shows the effect of LPCR pressure on exhaust emissions and fuel consumption, in terms of the NOx-fuel consumption and NOx-PM trade-offs. Here, the injection timing was varied, and the LPCR pressure was 20, 30, or 40MPa, and the HPCR pressure was 80MPa. Figure 4 shows the corresponding cylinder pressure, mean gas temperature, heat release rate and injection rate shape for the 1 ATDC injection timing case. Figure 3 shows that both trade-offs are improved over the full range of LPCR pressures. Looking at the NOx-fuel consumption trade-off characteristics, the following observations can be made regarding the NOx-fuel consumption trade-off characteristics: The conventional CRS NOx levels declined as the timing was retarded, however, beyond a certain point NOx levels increased again (the NOx curl-up). If injection timing retard is continued after the ignition delay starts increasing (i.e. after the piston begins descending), NOx levels increased with the conventional CRS. The nearly rectangular rate shape resulted in more premixed combustion, due to the increasing ignition delay. This leads to the observed NOx increase [13]. Comparing the injection rate shape and heat release 3

ISFC

PM

Rate of Heat Release J/deg

135 mm x 140 mm 3 2004 cm 4 Inlet, 4 Exhaust Valves 17.5 2.2 NCRS Prototype

1500 1000 500 300

Mean Gas Temp. K

Ne = 1320rpm, = 1.4 Inj.Timing = 1 ATDC HPCR : 80MPa

2500

Ne = 1320rpm, = 1.4 LPCR : 40MPa Injection Timing deg ATDC 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 8 g/h 6 4

2000 Cylinder Pressure MPa 10 8 6 4 2 0

Conventional CRS NCRS HPCR 120MPa 100MPa 80MPa

1500 1000 500 300 200 100 0

PM

Injection Rate 3 mm /deg

2 0 220

10 5 Lift mm 0 0.5 0.0 60

g/kwh

210 200 190 180 40 60 80 100 120 NOx g/h 140 160

ISFC

-20
Figure 6:

0 20 40 Crank Angle deg

Effect of HPCR pressure on rate of heat release

Figure 5:

Effect of HPCR pressure on NOx-fuel consumption and NOx-PM trade-offs

rate in Figure 4 reveals several interesting trends. The conventional CRS results show the expected higher initial (premixed) heat release rate and higher peak pressure. The NCRS, however, allows control of the initial injection quantity via the LPCR pressure, resulting in suppressed premixed combustion, lower Pmax, and lower NOx emissions. This is possible because the NCRS controls initial injection quantity during the ignition delay period. Therefore, it can be concluded that the NCRS makes it possible to shift the NOx reduction limit by timing retard to lower NOx levels. Looking next at the effect of LPCR pressure on trade-off improvement, Figure 3 shows that the 40MPa LPCR case is the best. In addition, at 1 ATDC injection timing (the reference point for the conventional CRS), constant-NOx PM was reduced by about 40% compared to the conventional CRS. Comparing the diffusion combustion in Figure 4 shows that as the LPCR pressure was reduced, the diffusion heat release rise is delayed, which lengthens the combustion duration. These observations show that NOx, fuel consumption, and PM are all optimized at the 40MPa LPCR pressure.

EFFECT OF HPCR PRESSURE ON EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND ISFC

Next, effects of the HPCR pressure were investigated. Figure 5 shows the effect of HPCR pressure on exhaust emissions and fuel consumption, in terms of the NOx-fuel consumption and NOx-PM trade-offs. Here, the injection timing was varied, and the HPCR pressure was 80, 100, or 4

120MPa, and the LPCR pressure was 40MPa. Figure 6 shows the corresponding cylinder pressure, mean gas temperature, heat release rate and injection rate shape for the 1 ATDC injection timing case. The injection rate shape shows that only the injection rate of the main part of injection changes when the HPCR pressure is altered (at fixed LPCR pressure). Then, as expected, the heat release rate plot shows negligible change in premixed combustion quantity, but the HPCR pressure effect is easily seen- both the slope and peak value of the diffusion heat release rate are significantly changed. In other words, after 4 the HPCR pressure differences correspond well with variations in the injection rate. At 8 ATDC the heat release plot begins to show these differences; namely, a higher slope of the rise in heat release rate and a higher peak value. At 8 ATDC it appears that combustion changes from premixed to diffusion type, and this is also where differences in injection rate appear. The differences pointed out above are largest for 120MPa HPCR pressure, followed by 100MPa, and 80MPa. Note that HPCR pressure scales directly with maximum injection rate. Looking at the NOx-injection timing characteristics in the upper plot of Figure 5. At constant injection timing, lower HPCR pressures are associated with lower NOx levels, but at 120MPa HPCR pressure, there is little change in NOx even at the lower initial injection rate compared to the conventional CRS. This means that the higher diffusion heat release slope brought on by a higher HPCR pressure can also have a significant influence on NOx formation. As a result, the trade-offs in Figure 5 show that when the HPCR pressure is 100 or 120MPa, the PM reduction effect is large. However the constant fuel

Rate of Heat Release J/deg

Mean Gas Temp. K

HPCR 120MPa 100MPa NCRS 80MPa CRS(100MPa)

Ne = 1320rpm, = 1.4 Inj.Timing = 1 ATDC LPCR : 40MPa

2500

100 80 60 40 20 0

(a) Constant ISFC 8 22% 6 54% 4 2 0 Conventional NCRS Conventional NCRS

CRS

CRS

(b) Constant NOx 195 8 39% 6 2.6% 190 4 2 185 0 Conventional NCRS Conventional NCRS
CRS

CRS

Figure 7:

Improvement of fuel consumption, NOx, and PM emissions

Ne = 1320rpm, = 1.4

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 300 Mean Gas Temp. K

reduced by 39%, while constant ISFC NOx was reduced by 22%, and constant ISFC PM was reduced by 54%. Figure 8 shows the corresponding cylinder pressure, heat release rate, and mean gas temperature. Comparing the conventional CRS and NCRS heat release rates, the lower NCRS premixed combustion rate allows the constant NOx injection timing to be so advanced that the ISFC was remarkably lower. In the same way, the constant ISFC NOx was also reduced with the NCRS. One reason the NOx could be reduced without an ISFC penalty can be observed in the cylinder pressure plot. With the conventional CRS and the constant NOx NCRS case, there is a notable pressure rise during combustion. With the constant ISFC NCRS case there is no rapid rise in cylinder pressure, allowing the engine to realize near-ideal diesel cycle combustion, in which heat addition is isobaric. The reasons for the observed PM reduction were not expressed by only comparison of the heat release rates. It is planned to carry out combustion observations in the future, to study this point further.

g/h

NOx

g/kWh

ISFC

Cylinder Pressure MPa

10 8 6 4 2 0
NCRS constant ISFC Conventional CRS Base

PM

g/h

PM

g/h

RESULTS AT ANOTHER ENGINE OPERATING CONDITION

Results for a high-speed/high-load operating condition will be described next. Here the LPCR pressure was
Ne = 1760rpm, = 1.52 LPCR : 40MPa Injection Timing deg ATDC 15 10 5 0 -5
NCRS 90MPa NCRS 110MPa Conventional CRS

200 100 0

NCRS constant NOx

Lift mm

0.5 0.0 -20

0 20 Crank Angle

40 deg

60

Figure 8:

Comparison of heat release rate at constant NOx and constant fuel consumption

Rate of Heat Release J/deg

-10 12 g/h PM g/kwh ISFC 10 8 6 4 240 220 200 180

consumption NOx reduction is small, and the 80MPa HPCR pressure showed the best NOx-fuel consumption performance.

EFFECT OF RATE SHAPE ON MEDIUM-SPEED / HIGH-LOAD PERFORMANCE

From the test result based on the parameters of the LPCR and HPCR pressure, on the engine operation conditions in the medium speed and high load region, it was found out that both trade-offs were improved in a combination of the LPCR pressure 40MPa, and HPCR pressure 80MPa. Figure 7 shows the improvement offered by the NCRS, in terms of exhaust emissions and fuel consumption, compared to the conventional CRS reference point. The NCRS constant NOx fuel consumption was reduced by 2.6%, constant NOx PM was 5

50 NOx

100 g/h

150

Figure 9:

Effect of HPCR pressure on NOx-fuel consumption and NOx-PM trade-offs at high speed and high load conditions

Ne = 1760rpm, LPCR : 40MPa Injection Rate Injector Inlet Pressure mm3/deg Pressure MPa 150 100 50 0 HPCR 110MPa 10 Conventional CRS 90MPa 8 6 4 2 0 -10 0 5.3 10 20 30 Relative Crank Angle deg Comparison of injection rate at high speed conditions

pressure case. The reasons for this are discussed next. Looking at the injection rate in Figure 10, the injection period is noticeably longer with the NCRS. This results from the fact that at this high engine speed, the change in injection rate following rail switching was relatively slow. Further evidence is shown in Figure 11, which shows the corresponding constant-ISFC cylinder pressure, heat release, and mean gas temperature. It can be seen that combustion starts earlier, but the overall combustion period is extended. Even though the peak premixed combustion rate was suppressed, it was necessary to advance the NCRS injection timing in order to maintain the same fuel consumption. In addition, there was almost no NOx reduction effect, and this led to a PM increase.

Figure 10:

EFFECT OF VALVE OPENING VELOCITY

From the previous section, it seems necessary to reduce PM first, in order to improve NCRS performance at high-speed/high-load operation. As shown in Figure 10, even though the HPCR pressure is changed, the injection rate during the 5.3 to 10 ATDC period is indistinguishable. Only the latter half injection is different. This indicates that the effects of HPCR pressure shown in Figure 11, result only from the latter half of diffusion combustion. When the HPCR pressure is 110MPa, the heat release rate of the latter half of

2000 1500 1000 500 300

Cylinder Pressure MPa

10 8 6 4 2 0
NCRS 90MPa NCRS 110MPa Conventional CRS

200 100 0

Rate of Heat Release J/deg

Mean Gas Temp. K

Ne = 1760rpm, = 1.52 LPCR : 40MPa

2500

Lift mm

0.5 0.0 -20

Ne = 1760rpm, = 1.52 LPCR : 40MPa Injection Timing deg ATDC 15 10 5 0 -5

NCRS 110MPa (Normal) NCRS 90MPa (Rapid Valve Opening Velocity) Conventional CRS

0 20 Crank Angle

40 deg

60

Figure 11:

Comparison of heat release rate at constant fuel consumption at high speed and high load conditions

-10 12 g/h PM g/kwh ISFC 10 8 6 4 240 220 200 180

fixed at 40MPa (which showed the best results in the middle-speed tests), the HPCR pressure was 90 or 110MPa, and the CR switching time was set at 5.3 (0.5ms @1760rpm) ASOI. Figure 9 shows the NOxfuel consumption and NOxPM trade-offs, and Figure 10 shows the injection rate and injector inlet pressure for three constant start-of-injection cases. Compared to the conventional CRS, Figure 9 shows that NCRS NOx levels are remarkably lower, more so for the 90MPa HPCR case. Fuel consumption was almost the same as with the conventional CRS in the high NOx side, while the effects of injection rate control come into play at NOx levels under 100g/h. On the other hand, PM emissions were significantly worse for both NCRS conditions (with 90MPa HPCR pressure). However, at 110MPa, peak PM emissions were about 40% lower than the 90MPa HPCR 6

50 NOx

100 g/h

150

Figure 12:

Effect of valve opening velocity on NOx-fuel consumption and NOx-PM trade-offs at high speed and high load conditions

Injection Rate Injector Inlet Pressure mm3/deg Pressure MPa

150 100 50

Ne = 1760rpm, LPCR : 40MPa

NCRS 110MPa (Normal)

0 NCRS 90MPa 10 Conventional CRS (Rapid Valve 8 Opening Velocity) 6 4 2 0 -10 0 10 20 30 Relative Crank Angle deg Effect of valve opening velocity on injection rate at high speed conditions

Figure 13:

2000 1500

Cylinder Pressure MPa

10 8 6 4 2 0

NCRS 90MPa 1000 (Rapid Valve Opening Velocity) 500

200 100 0

Conventional CRS

Lift mm

0.5 0.0 -20

NCRS 110MPa (Normal)

0 20 Crank Angle

40 deg

60

Figure 14:

Effect of switching valve opening velocity on heat release rate at constant Injection timing at high speed and high load conditions

diffusion combustion is somewhat higher than with conventional CRS, but the heat release tail is similar for all three cases. One cause of the PM deterioration may be that the decline in heat release rate during the initial stage of diffusion combustion. If upward slope of the injection rate prior to the main part of injection can be increased, it is expected that the heat release rate at the initial stage of diffusion combustion will also be higher. To increase injection rate just after switching valve opens, it is needed that the switching valve is full-lifted as soon as possible, avoiding choke of fuel flow at the switching valve. Effects of a rapid valve opening velocity, therefore, were investigated. Figure 12 shows the NOx-fuel consumption and NOx-PM trade-offs, while Figure 13 shows the 7

Rate of Heat Release J/deg

300

Mean Gas Temp. K

Ne = 1760rpm, = 1.52 Inj.Timing = 4 ATDC LPCR : 40MPa

2500

injection rate and inlet pressure for three constant start-of-injection cases. Figure 14 shows the cylinder pressure, heat release rate, and mean gas temperature for the 4 ATDC injection timing case. The LPCR pressure was 40MPa, and two HPCR pressures were used: 90MPa with a rapid valve opening velocity (NCRS-R), and 110MPa with the normal valve opening velocity (NCRS-N). The comparison of them clearly shows the effects of a rapid valve opening velocity. The figure also shows the corresponding conventional CRS case for comparison. The trade-offs in Figure 12 show very similar NCRS trends, in spite of the different HPCR pressures. Specifically, constant injection timing exhaust emissions and fuel consumption are nearly identical. This shows that the 90MPa HPCR pressure with NCRS-R can result in the same PM as the 110MPa HPCR pressure with NCRS-N. That is, increasing the injection rate slope after switching is equivalent to another 20MPa of HPCR pressure. Looking at the injection rate in Figure 13, the following differences are noticed: the 110MPa HPCR pressure injection rate in the latter half of injection is notably higher. Also, the injection rate during the 5.3 to 10 ATDC period is much higher for the NCRS-R than the NCRS-N. This is a result of the higher switching valve velocity, because the HPCR pressure is lower. The effect on heat release rate can be seen in Figure 14, where the NCRS-R injection rate during start of the main part of injection is higher. Thus even though the injection rate during the latter half of main injection is lower, the heat release rate during the first half of diffusion combustion is larger, resulting in a shorter combustion period, compared to NCRS-N. Because of this, it can be concluded that even though the injection rate during the latter half of main part of injection was lower than that of NCRS-N, PM and fuel consumption were not harmed. The above results show that increasing the switching valve opening velocity is an effective means to offer further diffusion combustion control. Thus, even with high-speed/high-load operation, if the optimum switching valve opening velocity and HPCR pressure are selected, it is still possible to improve the NOx-fuel consumption, and NOx-PM trade-offs. This is an important merit of the NCRS. In the next stage of this project, it is planned to investigate effects of the injection rate shape control parameters in more detail, look for the optimum injection rate shape depending on the engine operating condition, and clarify the advantages of injection rate control by the NCRS.

CONCLUSION
The fuel pressure supplied to the injector was altered during the injection period, making control of the injection rate shape possible. A new injection system with this feature, called the NCRS, was designed and fabricated. An investigation of various injection rate control strategies

and their influence on heat release rate, exhaust emissions, and fuel consumption showed the following results: 1) Using a single cylinder research diesel engine, it was found possible to control the heat release rate with the NCRS. The NCRS low (LPCR) and high (HPCR) pressure common rail pressures were found to be an important parameter of the NCRS for injection rate control. The LPCR pressure influenced the heat release process through premixed combustion, and the HPCR pressure influenced the heat release process through the diffusion combustion. 2) Compared to a conventional CRS, the medium-speed/high-load NOx-fuel consumption and NOx-PM trade-offs were both improved. Constant ISFC NOx was improved by 22%, and constant NOx fuel consumption was improved by 2.6%. It was possible to show the effects of injection rate shape control on exhaust emissions. 3) In the high-speed/high-load region, both trade-offs were improved by increasing the injection pressure during the former half of the main part of injection. The initial diffusion combustion rate could be increased by increasing the switching valve opening velocity, to increase the injection rate slope leading to the main part of injection. 4) The combustion system of the test engine used here was designed and optimized for a conventional CRS. Even so, the results shown here indicated a significant reduction in emissions. It may therefore be expected that flexible NCRS injection rate control would yield even better results when used with a combustion system designed for a NCRS. Moreover, in order to realize the optimum injection rate shape, which will be a function of the engine operating condition, and to clarify the full effects of injection rate control on exhaust emissions and performance, it is necessary to continue and expand the study of NCRS.

[6] Gill, D.W., and Herzog, P.L., Fuel Injection Equipment Requirements for Low Emissions DI Diesel Engines, SAE 933373. [7] Beidl, C.V., Gill, D.V., Cartellieri, W., and Rust, A., Impact of Emissions and Fuel Economy Requirements on Fuel Injection System and Noise of HD Diesel Engines, SAE 980176. [8] Erlach, H., Chmela, F., Cartellieri, W., and Herzog, P., Pressure Modulated Injection and its Effect on Combustion and emissions of a HD Diesel Engine, SAE 952059. [9] Coldren, D.R., and Moncelle, M.E., Advanced Technology Fuel System for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines, SAE 973182. [10] Wakisaka, Y., Azetsu, A., Oikawa,C., Effect of Fuel Injection Rate Shaping on Spray Combustion-Effect of Slope of Injection Rate Rise on Spray Combustion, 9737563, The 14th Internal Combustion System Symposium, Japan. [11] Takahashi, S., Satoh, K., Itoh, T., Nishimura, T., and Yokota, K., Effect of Fuel Injection Rate on Combustion and Emissions in a DI Diesel Engine, 9737635, The 14th Internal Combustion System Symposium, Japan. [12] Kohketsu, S., Tanabe. K., and Mori, K., Flexibly Controlled Injection Rate Shape with Next-Generation Common Rail System for Heavy Duty DI Diesel Engines, SAE 2000-01-0705. [13] Shundoh, S., Komori, M., Tsujima, K., and Kobayashi, S., NOx reduction from Diesel Combustion using Pilot Injection with High-Pressure Fuel Injection, SAE 920461.

REFERENCES
[1] Funai, K., Yamaguchi, T., and Itoh, S., Injection Rate Shaping Technology with a Common Rail Fuel System (ECD-U2), SAE 960107. [2] Kato, T., Koyama, T., Sakai, K., Mori, K. J., and Mori, K. Z., Common Rail Fuel Injection System for Improvement of Engine Performance for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines, SAE 980806 [3] Yamaki, Y., Mori, K. Z., Kamikubo, H., Kohketsu, S., Mori, K. J., and Kato, T., "Application of Common Rail Fuel Injection System to a Heavy Duty Diesel Engine", SAE 942294 [4] Fujino, Y., Itabashi, K., Kamikubo, H., and Takami, K., New Mitsubishi V-8 19 liter Turbocharged and Intercooled Diesel Engine, SAE 971673. [5] Herzog, P.L., Burgler, L., Winkelhofer, E., Zelenka, P., and Catellieri, W., NOx Reduction Strategies for DI Diesel Engines, SAE 920470. 8