See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228418995

An Analytical and Experimental Study of a High Pressure Single Piston Pump for
Gasoline Direct Injection (GDi) Engine Applications

Article · April 2009

DOI: 10.4271/2009-01-1504

CITATIONS READS

10 9,454

5 authors, including:

Sudhakar Das
Independent Consultant
13 PUBLICATIONS 135 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sudhakar Das on 20 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM

2009-01-1504

An Analytical and Experimental Study of a High Pressure Single Piston Pump for
Gasoline Direct Injection (GDi) Engine Applications

Timothy D. Spegar, Shi-Ing Chang and Sudhakar Das

Delphi Corporation

Eugene Norkin and Robert Lucas

Stanadyne Corporation

Copyright © 2009 SAE International

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

In recent years, gasoline direct injection (GDi) engines
have been popular due to their inherent potential for
reduction of exhaust emissions and fuel consumption to
meet stringent EPA standards. These engines require
high-pressure fuel injection in order to improve the
atomization process and accelerate mixture preparation.
The high-pressure fuel pump is an essential component
in the GDi system. Therefore, understanding the flow
characteristics of this device and its associated behavior
is critical for improving the performance of this category
of engines.
In this paper, the fluid flow characteristics in a high-
pressure single-piston pump for use in GDi engines are
analyzed using 1-D LMS Imagine.Lab AMESim system
and 3-D Ansys Fluent computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) models. The flow rate of the fuel pump under
various cam speeds has been examined along with
characteristics of the pump's control valve. A injected engines [2].
comparison of model predictions with experimentally
obtained data shows reasonably good agreement.
Similar analytical techniques may be used in modeling
other pump details and may also be extended to
adjacent components for simulation of the entire fuel
system. Further improvements to the pump model are
planned to correlate results more closely with test data
with the eventual goal of facilitating pump design activity
leading to improvements in pump and overall fuel system
performance.
Combined with other internal combustion engine
advances, GDi technology is regarded as an enabler to
achieving increasingly demanding fuel economy,
performance and emissions requirements of gasoline
engines. In general, direct injection is capable of
reducing emissions and improving cylinder charging due
to its fully independent management from the air flow
process [1]. Various emissions-reducing strategies have
been proposed and/or implemented for GDi applications,
however all rely on the ability to precisely control the
timing and amount of fuel metered per engine cycle.
These benefits, along with improved fuel atomization due
to high injection pressures, can be employed to reduce
wall wetting, accelerate catalyst light-off and decrease
cycle-to-cycle variations in combustion quality. Cylinder
charging improvements are a consequence of charge
cooling by fuel vaporization within the cylinder yielding up
to a 10% increase in volumetric efficiency over port fuel
Beyond the numerous efforts to adapt normally-aspirated
PFI automotive engines to GDi, a significant amount of
recent work is focused on using GDi technology to
facilitate downsizing to small-displacement turbocharged
engines [3-5]. GDi can assist overcoming some of the
traditional disadvantages of turbocharged engines
(namely turbo lag, poorer fuel economy and narrowed
emissions potential) to provide viable engine solutions.
Further work is underway to develop ethanol-fuelled GDi
turbocharged engines [6, 7]. For non-automotive
applications such a motorcycles, generators, etc., GDi

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of
the session organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE.
ISSN 0148-7191
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of
the paper.
SAE Customer Service: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org *9-2009-01-1504*
Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
Printed in USA
 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM
solutions are being considered, though their execution
may prove to be more difficult due to more stringent cost
and packaging requirements [8]. Thus, significant
evidence exists for advancing the understanding of GDi
systems and components to further realize their benefits
to internal combustion engines.
The benefits of simulating engineered systems and
components have been well-recognized. Often,
simulation is aimed at the reduction in the number of
"design-build-test" cycles prevalent in typical product
development activities. Specifically, evaluating design
concepts prior to fabricating and testing prototypes
reduces development time and costs. Additionally,
details of product performance may be garnered from a
simulation model which would otherwise be difficult or
impossible to measure nonintrusively in a physical part.
A GDi fuel system is depicted in Figure 1 [9]. As with a
port fuel-injected engine, a low pressure lift pump is
required to deliver fuel from the tank to the engine.
However, with a GDi system, a secondary high pressure
pump is needed to raise the fuel pressure to levels for
direct injection into the combustion chamber. Upon
exiting the high pressure pump, fuel is delivered to the
common rail(s) via a high pressure line(s) and then to the
injectors. To manage the rate of fuel delivery, either 1) a
flow control valve may be placed in the pump (as shown
in Fig. 1), or 2) excess fuel delivered to the rail may be
returned to the low pressure portion of the fuel system by
a regulator in the fuel rail.
cam-driven high
pressure fuel pump
high pressure control
common
fuel line valve
rail
injector
fuel tank w/ low
pressure lift pump
Figure 1. GDi fuel system mechanization. Adapted
from [9].
Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
A study of a single-piston high pressure pump with an
integral flow control valve will be presented in this work.
Many GDi systems employ a single-piston pump
because of their relative simplicity and reduced number
of components. However the reciprocating action of the
piston, typically driven by an extra cam lobe on the
engine camshaft, produces relatively pronounced
pressure pulsations in both the low and high pressure
segments of the fuel system. Figure 2 presents an
example of test results of the crank-angle-resolved
pressure history in various parts of a fuel system
operating at a nominal pressure of 10 MPa. The highest
transient pressure pulses encountered at the pump outlet
occur at the beginning of the pumping process
(described below) as fuel is initially delivered to the fuel
rail. There are three primary pulses within one engine
cycle (720° crank angle), thus denoting there are three
lobes on the pump cam. The pulses of lower magnitude
are indicative of pressure oscillations in the high
pressure line triggered by the pumping event. All of
these pulsations can initiate structural failure of rail
components and injectors, increase cylinder-to-cylinder
variations in fuel delivery, hydraulically lock the fuel
injectors or generate audible underhood noise. A small-
diameter orifice placed at the inlet to each fuel rail may
be employed to effectively limit pulsation levels in the fuel
rails, however studies have suggested that this tends to
increase the pulsation levels in the high pressure line
between the pump and rails. This is the situation
presented in Figure 2 where the pressure fluctuations,
much lower in the fuel rail, are due mainly to injector
opening and closing events and the step changes are
pressure changes associated with the addition or
14 1400
pressure (MPa)
12 1200
10 1000
8 800
pressure (kPa)
6 600
4 400
2 200
0 180 360 540 720 900
crank angle degrees (ATDCC cylinder #1)
high pressure pump outlet pressure
fuel rail pressure
high pressure fuel pump inlet
chassis fuel line pressure - at tank
Figure 2. Measured pressure history within a GDi
fuel system operating at 2000 engine rpm (erpm) and
2 ms injector pulse width.
 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM

removal of fuel from the rail due to pumping events or control valve
fuel outlet
injections, respectively. Although the higher pulsation armature plate pumping
in check
levels in the high pressure line are manageable through rod chamber
purposeful engineering and analysis of the fuel line, valve
decreasing the magnitude of the pump-generated
pulsations would provide a more effective solution
benefiting the entire fuel system.

Figure 2 also shows the pressure variations in the low

pressure (inlet) side of the pump. The pressure rises fuel out
coinciding with the start of the pumping event because to rail
the fuel cannot enter the pump during this process.
However, the inlet pressure drops once the fuel may
enter during the charging part of the cycle. These
pressure variations propagate back toward the fuel tank
control
possibly leading to audible noise emanating from the pressure
valve
chassis fuel lines or damage and subsequent failure of relief
assembly
the lift pump or other tank module components [10]. valve

Previous simulations of the pump along with the high plunger

pressure side of a GDi system have been performed [9].
This is a prudent choice since, as noted above, the
effects of pump behavior are experienced throughout the
entire fuel system. Nonetheless, the focus of this work is
on the high pressure pump with the intention of using the
results as a springboard to improved system simulation.
SINGLE PISTON HIGH PRESSURE PUMP
CONFIGURATION
Figure 3 portrays the generic arrangement of
components which comprise the high pressure fuel
pump. As shown, the pump is in its pumping state where
the armature rod has been retracted to the left by the
magnetic field produced by the solenoid current in the
control valve assembly. This allows the control valve
plate to seat with the aid of a spring and fuel pressure in
the pumping chamber thus sealing the pumping chamber
from the low pressure (inlet) side of the pump. As the
plunger rises, pressurized fuel unseats the outlet check
valve permitting high pressure charging of the fuel rail.
When the plunger descends, the pressure in the
pumping chamber falls below the fuel inlet pressure and
the control valve plate unseats permitting fuel to
replenish the pumping chamber. Concurrent with this
action, the high pressure at the pump outlet closes the
outlet check valve maintaining rail pressure and the
solenoid current has been interrupted releasing the
armature rod.
During the beginning of the plunger stroke, the control
valve plate is held open to the right by the armature rod
and armature spring allowing the fuel in the pumping
chamber to be pumped back to the fuel inlet. At the
desired lift position the armature rod is retracted by the
solenoid, the control valve plate seats, and the remaining
fuel in the pumping chamber is delivered to the fuel rail.
The timing of the control valve plate closing is governed
by the anticipated fuel required by the injectors and
pressure measured by a sensor in the fuel rail.
cam motion
Figure 3. High pressure fuel pump schematic shown
in the pumping state.
Not shown in the schematic are two gas-filled
diaphragms present in the low pressure side of the pump
which help damp pressure pulsations from the pump
from propagating back to the low pressure fuel system.
The remaining main component of the high pressure
pump is the integral pressure relief valve. The valve
limits pressure in the fuel rail by flowing a portion of the
fuel back to the pumping chamber. Its presence is
required to relieve pressure in the fuel rail caused by hot
soak conditions, by a sudden decrease in commanded
injector flow, or by a failure mode inadvertently delivering
excessive fuel to the rail.
EXPERIMENTAL ARRANGEMENT AND TEST
CONDITIONS
The pump testing was carried out in an idealized
simulated engine environment using an electric motor to
drive the 3-lobed pump cam as seen in Figure 4. High
pressure lines and fuel rail conduits with representative
lengths and diameters but without injectors were used to
replicate a V8 engine fuel system. A pressure regulator
simulated injector flow from the rails and maintained the
high pressure at an established value. Thus, pump fuel
delivery volume could be varied over a wide range at
constant system pressure. Though intended primarily for
gasoline and ethanol applications, standard Viscor
1487AW calibration fluid conforming to ISO 4113 was
used for this level of testing.

Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM

control valve
driver pressure B D F H
transducers acceler-
P

arbitrary units
P ometer A C E G

GDi
pump M
rail
conduits motor
-30 0 30 60 90
cam angle (degrees)
filters
cam lift
supply
control valve current
tank
armature rod displacement
control valve plate displacement

pressure flow Figure 5. Typical control valve behavior at 2000 prpm

meter and high fuel delivery.
regulator
valve plate reaches its closed position. In these
scenarios, "D" will occur prior to "C" and the response
time of the control valve plate will be slightly less than the
Figure 4. Schematic of test configuration.
armature rod response time.
Two sets of tests were performed with this hardware,
Prior to the closing of the control valve plate, the
each at a single nominal system pressure of 12 MPa.
pressure in the pumping chamber is relatively low
The first measured fuel delivered per cam revolution,
because the pump is either recharging with fuel during
armature response time and control valve plate response
the plunger descending motion or returning surplus fuel
time at 500, 1500 and 3000 pump rpm (prpm) for
to the supply tank during the plunger ascending motion.
nominal low, medium and high pump delivery volumes.
A pressure transducer and an oscilloscope were used to
The second set simply measured the delivery volume per
monitor this pressure and, when the pressure suddenly
cam revolution over the operable range of control valve
climbed, this indicated the time at which the control valve
phase angles at 300, 1000, 2000, and 3000 prpm. As an
plate closed with respect to the initiation of the control
example, Figure 5 shows simulated results of the control
valve current. To measure the armature rod response
valve behavior explaining phase angle and its
time, an accelerometer was affixed to the control valve
relationship to control valve data for the case of 2000
and its output connected to the oscilloscope to detect the
prpm and high fuel delivery. Phase angle is the number
time of impact of the armature rod at the end of its travel.
of cam degrees measured from minimum cam lift to
In reality, the impact of the control valve plate can
where the control valve signal is initiated. In Figure 5,
occasionally also be observed, but comparison of the
this value is approximately -25° corresponding to point
accelerometer signal with the pressure transducer signal
"A". As the current increases in the solenoid, the
eliminates any ambiguity in response time measurement.
magnetic force rises and is sufficient to initiate
movement of the armature rod at "B". The control valve
plate also begins to move at "B" due to its spring force, It should be noted in Figure 5 that the control valve
fluid pressure, and since the armature rod is no longer current reaches a maximum value independent of the
holding it in its open position. armature or control valve plate motion. This is
attributable to supplying the control valve with a nominal
two-step signal. Initially, a high voltage is provided which
The armature rod continues to move until "C", its fully
causes the current to increase to a point where the
retracted position. In this example, the control valve
magnetic field produced by the solenoid is high enough
plate displacement lags the armature rod displacement
to initiate armature movement. (The finite rise and fall
and does not fully close until "D". In other cases, if the
times of the current are consequences of the electrical
force due to pressure on the control valve plate is large,
control component characteristics and solenoid
the control valve plate will remain in contact with the
inductance.) After the armature begins to move, the
armature rod during its movement up until the control
voltage is decreased to minimize overheating of the
control valve but to a level where armature movement
Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM
and retraction is maintained. Referring again to Figure 5,
the signal to the control valve is terminated at "E"
allowing the armature spring to return the armature to its
initial position. However, the armature only travels until it
hits the control valve plate at "F" where the pumping
chamber pressure on the plate keeps the armature and
plate stationary. Lastly, due to the armature spring and
the decrease in pressure in the pumping chamber
because of the descending plunger, the armature and
plate begin to move at "G" and return to their original
positions at "H" where charging of the pumping chamber
can occur in preparation for the next pumping event.
ONE-DIMENSIONAL SYSTEM MODEL
Figure 6 shows the topmost level of the AMESim model
of the test arrangement. The simulated fuel rail
assembly, timing and supply pump portions of the model
are represented by standard Hydraulic, Hydraulic
Component Design, and Signal, Control and Observers
library components in the AMESim software. The control
valve is actuated by a two voltage level electrical control
component which provides the nominal two-level current
pulse defined and timed by two engine control unit (ECU)
supercomponents. The control valve and pump models
are represented here as supercomponents with the
intention of concealing proprietary features of the actual
hardware; details pertinent to this discussion are
provided below where necessary. Figure 7 illustrates the
primary makeup of the control valve supercomponent
without revealing the various hydraulic components
control valve
control valve timing
supercomponent
and power supply
pump super-
component
system and
simulated rail supply
cam timing
assembly pump
Figure 6. High level AMESim system model.
Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
simulating flow within the fuel passages of the valve. Two
mass components with friction effects interacting
between each other through an elastic contact model
represent the separate armature rod and control valve
plate physical components. In addition to friction and
elastic contact, the masses are influenced by the forces
due to model components representing the solenoid,
springs and hydraulic elements. For the chosen
AMESim solenoid model, force and inductance data files
are required to establish the solenoid behavior. These
files consist of tabulated force and inductance values as
a function of solenoid ampere-turns and solenoid-to-
armature air gap and were developed using Ansoft
Maxwell 2D electromagnetic field simulation software
[11].
As depicted in Figure 3, the control valve plate and seat
configuration is essentially a simple poppet-style valve. A
standard AMESim poppet with plain seat component was
used to predict resulting forces due to fluid pressure on
the valve. However, the model does not calculate the
additional jet forces on the valve which are a
consequence of the fluid accelerating around the
perimeter of the plate. To account for the jet forces,
Fluent CFD software was used to model the three-
dimensional flow around the plate at various distances
from the seat and flow rates to thus predict this additional
effect. As can be seen in Figure 7, the AMESim model
monitors the plate position and flow past the plate and
calculates the jet force using the fluid density and a
functional form which is an equation fit to the CFD data.
Further details of the development of the control valve
model are discussed in the section below. The pump
supercomponent is also comprised of standard AMESim
Hydraulic, Hydraulic Component Design, Mechanical,
and Signal, Control and Observers library components.
All springs and fluid passages in the pump are
represented as well as masses of the plunger and outlet
check valve to include their inertial effects. As the outlet
armature
rod elastic
to solenoid contact
driver
plate to spring and
hydraulic force
components
to spring and flow past plate
hydraulic
force
components solenoid
jet force measurement of
calculation flow past plate
Figure 7. Principal components of the AMESim
control valve model.
 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM
check valve is actually a plate held to its seat by a spring
rather than a traditional ball check valve, jet forces were
accounted for in a similar fashion as for the control valve
plate and will also be discussed below.
Additionally, an effort was made to capture the various
energy losses within the pump. For example, fluid
friction losses were mainly accounted for using standard
AMESim orifice components to model points of minimum
flow area within the pump flow passages. The plunger-
to-bore interface was modeled with a standard
component model which considers the changing contact
length and determines the leakage and viscous friction
arising from fuel in the clearance gap. It should be noted
that the lubricity of gasoline-based fuels is generally less
than diesel fuels, requiring a larger clearance to
effectively lubricate the plunger within the bore. Though
all of the mechanical components of the cam and
follower system were not included, standard cam design
formulas using hardware dimensions and friction
coefficients were added in the pump model to calculate
such effects as drive torque, power and cam contact
stresses [12].
Although the pressure relief valve and the inlet-side gas-
filled diaphragms are modeled within the pump
supercomponent, attempts to predict and correlate their
behavior with testing or other analytical tools has not
been undertaken as of this writing. No testing or
analyses were performed at conditions which would
activate the pressure relief valve, so its effect on
simulated or actual pump behavior is reduced to only the
presence of the additional small fluid volume of the
passages leading to and from its location.
As the 1-D AMESim model does not generally account
for 3-D geometry effects on the flow, either test data or
advanced simulation data can be used as reference
points for AMESim. Further, AMESim models can be
modified to match these reference data. The CFD
simulations described below were aimed at modifying
and improving 1-D AMESim system model for better
prediction of pressures, forces and flow rates in the fuel
system.
THREE-DIMENSIONAL PUMP COMPONENT
MODELS
As the flow through the pump is transient depending both
on time varying boundary conditions and flow domain
geometry, it is readily seen that its analysis by CFD
would be very complicated and time consuming. As an
initial step, CFD has been used to model two of the
pumps critical components, the control valve and the
outlet check valve. It was chosen to model these at
steady state conditions and use the results as input to
the AMESim model as mentioned above.
CONTROL VALVE - As previously described, the control
valve must be capable of flowing fuel in two different
directions. During the charging or plunger downward
stroke, the valve must not pose a significant restriction to
Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
flow so the pumping chamber can fill completely with
fuel. Otherwise, the pump may not be able to supply
adequate fuel for high demand conditions. Conversely,
the valve must also be able to allow the fuel in the
pumping chamber to return to the low pressure side of
the pump during the plunger upward stroke prior to
energizing the control valve such as during nominal or
low demand situations. During this so-called "bypass"
flow condition, hydraulic forces on the control valve plate
can be high but must be overcome by the armature
spring to keep the control valve plate from prematurely
closing.
To minimize the plate hydraulic forces and the charging
and bypass flow restrictions, numerous CFD analyses
were carried out during the development of the control
valve. The CFD code, Fluent, was used to simulate
steady state flow at various lift values of the control valve
plate employing a realizable k-ε turbulence model and an
incompressible working fluid having density and dynamic
3 2
viscosity of 712 kg/m and 0.00045 N-s/m , respectively,
to represent the properties of gasoline. For bypass flow
simulation, the inlet boundary condition of 15 L/min, the
maximum estimated to be encountered by this valve,
was imposed. For the outlet, a pressure boundary
condition of 500 kPa was imposed as a typical pressure
which would be supplied to the low pressure side of the
pump from the system lift pump. To simulate charging
flow, the inlet boundary condition was set to 500 kPa
since the lift pump is now supplying fuel to the pump.
The associated outlet boundary condition was set to 100
kPa.
Figure 8 shows the velocity distribution for a typical
charging flow simulation through an early design level
control valve. At the charging flow boundary conditions
cited above, a flow rate of 15.1 L/min and a plate force of
16.3 N were predicted. The plate force calculation using
Fluent is the summation of both pressure (normal) and
viscous (tangential) forces over the surface elements of
armature rod
velocity
(m/s)
19.7
flow in
17.7
15.8
13.8
control
valve high
11.8 plate velocity
9.85 flow
7.88
5.91
flow out
3.94
1.97
0
Figure 8. Sample CFD flow results for the control
valve at a fixed control valve plate displacement.
 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM
the plate which are consequences of the pressure drop
across the plate and the jet forces produced by the fluid
accelerating around the plate. The analysis was
performed for various plate positions and both flow
directions. After verifying the validity of the model by
comparing the predicted flow rate values with test
results, the contribution to force due to the jet forces was
established as a functional form dependent upon the
fluid density, plate position and flow rate past the valve.
Using this function, the jet forces were thus able to be
accounted for in the AMESim model as illustrated in the
previous section. Under the modeled conditions, the
magnitude of the jet force can be as much as one-fourth
of the net force due to pressure in the adjacent
chambers as determined by the standard AMESim
component models alone. The jet force always acts to
close the valve, regardless of flow direction, and reaches
a maximum at full valve opening.
OUTLET CHECK VALVE - Flow domains corresponding
to eight valve displacements from 0.02 mm to 0.7 mm
from its closed position were meshed using the
commercial grid generator ANYSYS Gambit 2.4. Within
the check valve displacement region, a hexahedral mesh
was created, as shown in Figure 9, maintaining at least
two layers of cells. Though it is recognized that more
layers are required to capture the details and effects of
the boundary layer flow along the plate surface, the
produced mesh was deemed sufficient to comprehend
the general nature of the three dimensional flow around
the valve. Outside the displacement region, a tetrahedral
mesh was developed due to the complex geometry of
the flow passages in the region.
valve
displacement
valve geometry
hexahedral
mesh of flow
domain near
valve
Figure 9. Mesh structure near outlet check valve.
Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
From preliminary AMESim simulations modeling the
outlet check valve as a simple poppet valve, it was found
that the pressure loss across the check valve was
frequently less than 200 kPa. Therefore, inlet and outlet
pressure boundary conditions for the CFD analysis were
applied corresponding to 50, 100, 150 and 200 kPa
pressure drops from an inlet pressure of 12 MPa, the
nominal pressure chosen for this study.
Figure 10 shows an example of the predicted flow field
around the outlet check valve for the case of 100 kPa
pressure drop at a valve displacement of 0.1 mm from its
closed position. At first glance it appears that cavitation
may occur in regions about the check valve which could
cause excessive flow noise or erosion. However it must
be remembered that flow through the check valve occurs
at approximately 12 MPa, well above pressures typical of
producing fuel cavitation.
Predicted flow values for the various test cases are
shown in Figure 11 using both CFD and AMESim with its
standard component models. In the AMESim model, the
outlet check valve is treated as a simple poppet valve
whose flow area is annular which increases linearly with
valve lift. For the CDF results, above 0.5 mm of check
valve lift, flow appears to become independent of
displacement, most likely due to a limiting annular flow
area between the outside diameter of the check valve
and the outer wall of the flow passage. Additionally,
even at lower lifts the AMESim model results exceed the
CFD results likely because the standard AMESim poppet
valve model does not comprehend the flow losses
associated with the requirement that the flow must turn
at a right angle immediately after issuing from the valve-
to-seat flow area.
velocity
outer wall of
f low passage
(m/s)
15.5
14.0
12.4
10.9
valve seat
9.32 surf ace
7.76
check valve
6.21
4.66
f low in
3.11
1.55
0.12
Figure 10. Sample flow velocity field near the outlet
check valve at steady state conditions.
 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM

12 4
50 kPa - CFD 50 kPa - CFD
50 kPa - AMESim 50 kPa - AMESim
100 kPa - CFD 100 kPa - CFD
10 100 kPa - AMESim 100 kPa - AMESim
150 kPa - CFD 150 kPa - CFD
150 kPa - AMESim 3 150 kPa - AMESim
200 kPa - CFD
8 200 kPa - CFD

check valve force (N)

200 kPa - AMESim
200 kPa - AMESim
flow (L/min)

6
2

1
2

0
0.20.00.30.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0
check valve lift (mm)
0.2 0.3 0.0
0.4 0.1
0.5 0.6 0.7
Figure 11. Flow rate predictions past outlet check check valve lift (mm)
valve using CFD and AMESim analyses.
Figure 12. Predicted net check valve force using
CFD and AMESim analyses.
Figure 12 shows the net force on the check valve as force
determined from the same CFD and AMESim analyses. flow
lookup
At zero displacement (closed valve), the net force was table
determined simply by calculating the net effect of
pressure applied to each side of the valve without any
flow. At the maximum displacement of 0.7 mm,
anomalous calculated force values were encountered in
the CFD results stemming from contact of the check
valve with the flow boundary in the computational
domain, so extrapolated values from the lower lifts were
variable
plotted and used in the subsequent work. Forces
calculated by the AMESim model are essentially orifice with
constant throughout the lift range since they are only a lookup table
consequence of the pressures of the surrounding check
chambers' pressures applied over fixed areas. valve
mass
To use these results in the AMESim pump model, a Figure 13. AMESim model of the outlet check valve
technique similar to that used with the control valve was
based on CFD results.
used. The check valve spring and mass component
were retained, but the original poppet valve component
model was replaced by a variable orifice and variable RESULTS
force generator driven by lookup tables populated with
the CFD results as depicted in Figure 13. The flow As stated beforehand, one set of pump tests consisted of
through the variable orifice is determined through use of measuring fuel delivery at low, medium and high delivery
the lookup table entries by the pressure values in its rates at various pump speeds. Fuel delivery is presented
adjoining chambers and the displacement of the check as a percent of the theoretical maximum fuel volume
valve mass. Concurrently, the check valve displacement capable of being delivered in one cam revolution. This
is the position where the spring force balances the maximum is defined as the volume swept by the plunger
hydraulic force as determined by the force lookup table. throughout its stroke times the number lobes on the cam.
For pressure differences beyond the range of values Since the closing point of the plate defines the amount of
analyzed in CFD, the lookup tables' outputs are fuel remaining in the pumping chamber and thus the
estimated by AMESim by extrapolation. theoretical quantity that will be delivered, the model
response time was adjusted to match the test response

Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM

time as described below to calibrate the control valve defined making it seem that the viscous effects have not
model. been fully considered.

Figure 14 presents the test and simulation results of Using the same correction value throughout, Figure 14
control valve plate response time for 10%, 50% and 90% shows the agreement with testing with the simulation
nominal delivery at 12 MPa at 500, 1500 and 3000 prpm, slightly under predicting response time at low and
where the response time is defined as the time from the medium delivery (except for medium delivery at 3000
initiation of the control valve current to the instant of full prpm) and slightly over predicting for high fuel delivery
control valve plate closure (A-D in Figure 4). For each except at 3000 prpm, where the deviation was greater.
simulation, the control valve phase angle was set to the With the control valve response time correlated with
value measured in the corresponding test. The model experiment, predicted fuel delivery should match well
response time was adjusted to match the test response with test results. Figure 15 shows the delivery results
time through specifying the mass model's coefficient of corresponding to the data in Figure 14. The model is
viscous friction parameter as a single non-zero value seen to over predict fuel delivery at the low and medium
which would give the best agreement over all pumping delivery categories but the results are mixed at the high
conditions. Thus, the pairs of test and simulation values delivery cases. At the low and medium delivery cases,
are not expected to match exactly. The viscous effects the over prediction follows the response time under
should be represented fully by the CFD correction with prediction by the following reasoning. If the control valve
no need for the viscous friction parameter (indeed, the plate closes sooner in the cycle, more fuel will be trapped
required fine-tuning was minimal), however there are a in the pumping chamber and subsequently delivered to
few possible explanations for the additional effects. the fuel rail. This reasoning is also supported by the
Firstly, the motion of the valve plate spring through the 3000 prpm high delivery case where an over predicted
fluid and its subsequent viscous forces which would response time yields a lower delivery since less fuel
decrease the valve response time are not modeled, would be trapped in the pumping chamber. However the
though this effect is estimated to be small. Secondly, the argument does not hold for the remaining 3000 prpm
valve plate has several small protrusions about its cases suggesting response time is not the only factor
perimeter which keep the plate centered in its bore but determining fuel delivery.
still allow fuel to flow past when it is partially or fully open.
The protrusions' contact with the bore may be generating For a fixed pump cam speed, there exists a maximum
frictional forces, and in hindsight perhaps the model's phase angle for which fuel delivery takes place. As the
Coulomb friction force should have been adjusted. phase angle decreases, fuel delivery increases and
Finally, the threshold force required to unseat the plate asymptotically reaches a maximum value. Additional
from its stops in the open position may be ill testing and simulation was performed over the entire
range of these phase angle extremes for 300, 1000,
4.5
control valve plate response time (ms)

2000 and 3000 prpm. Figure 16 presents the delivery

4.0 100%
fuel delivery (% of maximum)

3.5
80%
3.0
60%
2.5

2.0 40%

1.5
20%
1.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
pump rpm 0%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
low delivery - test low delivery - simulation
pump rpm
med. delivery - test med. delivery - simulation
high delivery - test high delivery - simulation low delivery - test low delivery - simulation
med. delivery - test med. delivery - simulation
high delivery - test high delivery - simulation
Figure 14. Control valve plate response time:
testing and simulation at low, medium and high Figure 15. Fuel pump delivery: testing and
delivery. simulation at low, medium and high delivery.

Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM

results for both testing and simulation in phase angle to backflow from the outlet side of the pump when the
increments of five cam angle degrees. Though the plunger begins its downward motion reducing overall
agreement is respectable, there are a number of pump efficiency [9]. Additionally, a delayed opening of
characteristics in the graph which can suggest the control valve plate can restrict the charging function
improvements in the correlation of the model with of the pump which can also lead to reduction in the
experiment. pump's efficiency. Since the measured and simulated
control valve plate response times correlate well,
Testing shows that the pump's maximum delivery perhaps these phenomena are occurring in the real
expressed as a percent of the theoretical maximum is a pump and are not accounted for to the degree which
approximately 93% at the higher cam speeds but drops would render the calculated delivery values generally
to about 90% at 300 prpm. Though the simulation lower to better match the test data.
calculations at 1000 and 2000 prpm are also about 93%,
the trend is reversed for the extreme pump speeds With the significant deviation in behavior between the
where delivery is under predicted at 3000 prpm but over CFD and AMESim standard models of the pump valves,
predicted at 300 prpm. With the exception of 3000 prpm it was surprising to see that there was negligible
at higher delivery values, the pump model calculates difference in predicted fuel delivery between the use of
delivery greater than measured in the testing. Also, note standard and CFD-corrected AMESim analyses. For
that the maximum control valve phase angle at which example, since the jet force on the control valve plate
pumping occurs is greater by several cam degrees for always assists closure of the valve, it is expected that
the simulations than for testing. elimination of the jet force would increase the plate
closing response time resulting in less fuel delivered.
Previously it was mentioned that the closing point of the Upon close scrutiny of the data, a negligible increase in
control valve plate dictates the theoretical amount of fuel the response time was observed, but not enough to
which will be delivered by the pump. This assumes that affect the fuel delivery. The jet force, capable of being
all of the fuel captured in the pumping chamber is up to one-fourth of the pressure-induced forces, in
pumped out through the outlet check valve. Actually, actuality is only a small fraction of the total forces on the
some fuel remains in the finite dead volume of the valve. Specifically, the plate is also influenced by its
pumping chamber above the top of the plunger at its spring force as well as the spring, hydraulic and
maximum height. More precisely, the theoretical amount magnetic forces imparted through the armature rod via
is the volume swept by the plunger over the remainder of the elastic contact. Additionally, the effect of the
its upward stroke. As discussed by Hiraku, et al., a slow improved outlet check valve model was not observed in
closing response time of the outlet check valve can lead the pump delivery results, however its consequences
were realized in other significant ways. Namely, the
100%
added flow restriction as determined by CFD has
generated an increase in the maximum pressure
achieved in the pumping chamber of up to 3.8 percent,
fuel delivery (% of maximum)

80% seen in the medium and high flow cases at 3000 prpm.
The primary effects of the increased pressure are
increased 1) peak pump cam drive torque, 2) peak
60% contact force between the pump cam and follower, and
3) power required to drive the pump. The magnitudes of
these effects were observed to increase by 3% to 4%,
40% and since they are important to the practical integration
of the pump with the engine, warrant further
investigation.
20%
CONCLUSION

The fundamentals of the operation of single-plunger high

0% pressure fuel pumps have been offered for the reader to
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 gain an understanding of their function. Testing and
control valve phase angle (cam degrees) simulation data have been presented and discussed for
a range of pump speeds and delivery values. Due to
test - 300 prpm simulation - 300 prpm limitations of some of the 1-D hydraulic model
test - 1000 prpm simulation - 1000 prpm
components, CFD has been employed to account for
test - 2000 prpm simulation - 2000 prpm
test - 3000 prpm simulation - 3000 prpm
additional effects and the results have been used to
augment the 1-D model.

Though the delivery predictions of the model correlate

Figure 16. Fuel pump delivery: testing and acceptably with test results, there is opportunity for
simulation over capable range of pump. improvement. One aspect of test data which was not
evaluated was the detailed pressure signals measured in
Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
 Licensed to Southwest Research Institute
Licensed from the SAE Digital Library Copyright 2011 SAE International
E-mailing, copying and internet posting are prohibited
Downloaded Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:46:43 AM
the pumping chamber and downstream of the pump exit.
The pumping chamber pressure trace was used to
determine the time when the control valve plate closes.
Similarly, the pumping chamber and pump exit pressure
signals can be used to determine the time when the
outlet check valve opens and then closes. Such
information can be used to validate the check valve
portion of the model which would provide an additional
correlated aspect of the pump operation. Also, no
analysis of the opening response time of the control
valve plate has yet been considered. This investigation
is warranted though due to its effect on charging
efficiency of the pump as previously cited.
Further work is planned to fully model the remainder of
the internal pump flow using CFD at steady state. Such
an analysis can reveal flow restrictions which can be
added to the 1-D model to improve its capability.
Additionally, CFD analyses through the low pressure
portions of the pump would be capable of indicating the
potential regions for cavitation, thus leading to
improvements in the pump's internal geometry, flow
generated noise and cavitation induced damage. These
efforts are intended to support the continuing goal of
improving the predictability of overall fuel system
characteristics such as pressure pulsation levels, audible
noise and cylinder-to-cylinder fuel distribution
inconsistency.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks are due to Francisco Morales cuevas,
Santos Burrola and their colleagues at Delphi's Mexico
Technical Center for their work in development of the
GDi pump control valve.
REFERENCES
1. Achleitner, E.; Bäcker, H. and Funaioli, A. "Direct
Injection Systems for Otto Engines," 2007-01-1416,
SAE International, Warrendale, PA, 2007.
2. Eichlseder, H.; Baumann, E.; Müller, P. and Rubbert,
S. "Gasoline Direct Injection – A Promising Engine
Concept for Future Demands," 2000-01-0248, SAE
International, Warrendale, PA, 2000.
3. Bandel, W.; Fraidl, G.K.; Kapus, P.E.; Sikinger, H.
and Cowland, C.N. "The Turbocharged GDI Engine:
Boosted Synergies for High Fuel Economy Plus
Ultra-low Emission," 2006-01-1266, SAE
International, Warrendale, PA, 2006.
Author:Gilligan-SID:13924-GUID:41965464-129.162.1.32
View publication stats
4. Woldring, D.; Landenfeld, T. and Christie, M.J. "DI
Boost: Application of a High Performance Gasoline
Direct Injection Concept," 2007-01-1410, SAE
International, Warrendale, PA, 2007.
5. Korte, V.; Blaxill, H.; Hancock, D. and Fraser, N.
"Advanced Downsizing of SI Engines: Promising
Technology for Better Fuel Economy and Lower CO2
Emissions," SIA "The Spark Ignition Engine of the
Future: Technologies to Meet the CO2 Challenge"
Conference, Strasbourg, France, November 28-29,
2007.
6. Kapus, P.E.; Fuerhapter, A.; Fuchs, H. and Fraidl,
G.K. "Ethanol Direct Injection on Turbocharged SI
Engines – Potential and Challenges," 2007-01-1408,
SAE International, Warrendale, PA, 2007.
7. Fraidl, G.K.; Kapus, P.E.; Prevedel, K. and
Fürhapter, A. "GDI Turbo: The Next Steps," 28th
International Vienna Motor Symposium, Vienna,
Austria, April 26-27, 2007.
8. Cathcart, G.; Houston, R. and Ahern, S. "The
Potential of Gasoline Direct Injection for Small
Displacement 4-Stroke Motorcycle Applications,"
2004-32-0098, SAE International, Warrendale, PA,
2004.
9. Hiraku, K.; Tokuo, K. and Yamada, H. "Development
of High Pressure Fuel Pump by Using Hydraulic
Simulator," 2005-01-0099, SAE International,
Warrendale, PA, 2005.
10. Private communication with potential customer, April
2008.
11. Ansoft Maxwell Field Simulator v12 User’s Guide
REV1.0 ed. Ansoft Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA,
2008.
12. Oberg, E. et al. Machinery's Handbook, 27th ed.
Industrial Press, Inc., 2004.
CONTACT
For additional information, please contact Timothy D.
Spegar, Ph.D. at:
Delphi Corporation
Technical Center Rochester
M/C 146.HEN.515
5500 West Henrietta Road
West Henrietta, NY 14586-9701 USA
timothy.d.spegar@delphi.com