SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2002-01-0213

Numerical Analysis of High-Pressure

Fast-Response Common Rail Injector Dynamics
G. M. Bianchi, S. Falfari and P. Pelloni
DIEM - University of Bologna

Song-Charng Kong and R. D. Reitz

University of Wisconsin, Madison

Reprinted From: Diesel Fuel Injection and Sprays 2002

(SP–1696)

SAE 2002 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 4-7, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or
108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for
general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for
resale.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright ©2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

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. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

Numerical Analysis of High-Pressure
Fast-Response Common Rail Injector Dynamics
Copyright © 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc
ABSTRACT
Managing the injection rate profile is a powerful
tool to control engine performance and emission levels.
In particular, Common Rail (C.R.) injection systems
allow an almost completely flexible fuel injection event in
DI-diesel engines by permitting a free mapping of the
start of injection, injection pressure, rate of injection and,
in the near future, multiple injections. This research
deals with the development of a network-based
numerical tool for understanding operating condition
limits of the Common Rail injector. The models simulate
the electro-fluid-mechanical behavior of the injector
accounting for cavitation in the nozzle holes. Validation
against experiments has been performed. The model
has been used to provide insight into the operating
conditions of the injector and in order to highlight the
application to injection system design.
INTRODUCTION
A commitment to CO2 reduction as well as the
EURO 4 (2005) and EURO 5 (2008) standards are
pushing the passenger car fleet toward DI Diesel
engines. These engines show the greatest potential in
fuel consumption, and in emission reduction at lower
costs. Simultaneously, increasing efforts are spent in
developing HCCI combustion concepts because it
provides theoretically very low engine-out emissions
levels with about the same DI diesel engine efficiency.
Since HCCI combustion is considered in a medium to
long term perspective and GDI engines are still
somewhat under development, research is putting
attention on Diesel engine technology development. DI
Diesel engine development for complying with standards
is seen possible at relatively lower costs since the
starting base is very promising. The intrinsic lower fuel
consumption has been coupled in the last few years to
powerful and emission-less engines thanks to
developments in injection system technology. It is well
known that the first generation of DI Diesel engine
equipped with a high-pressure injection system has met
quite easily EURO 3 mandatory requirements. The same
technology has difficulty in meeting EURO 4. In order to
2002-01-0213
G.M. Bianchi, S. Falfari and P. Pelloni
DIEM - University of Bologna
Song-Charng Kong and R.D. Reitz
University of Wisconsin, Madison
comply with EURO 4, technology development is mainly
oriented to improve extensively and fundamentally the
C.R. injection system design. Depending on vehicle
weight other techniques are also under development to
meet EURO 4: swirl-control ducts, cooled and high-rate
EGR, DPF, DeNOx Catalysts. Since the exhaust
treatment technologies still need to be well consolidated,
current efforts are focused on improvements in engine-
out emissions. The results achieved by using high-
pressure injection systems have revealed that injection
control is the most efficient means to achieve the
simultaneous reduction of NOx and soot level emissions,
because the improved air-fuel mixing allows the use of
higher EGR rates. In other words, the high-pressure
injection makes the diesel combustion move toward a
more homogeneous combustion typical of HCCI
combustion concepts. Pressure can be selected to be
independent of engine speed, and as a function of
engine parameters.
Despite this development, further steps forward
are required for injection systems to comply with EURO
4 and EURO 5 mandatory requirements without
penalties in engine performance. Among high-pressure
injection systems, the Common Rail seems to be more
suited for that goal thanks to its flexible injection
parameter mapping [1,2,3,4,5]. The two concepts
available in the short-term period for DI Diesel engines
are the reduction of the nozzle flow rate, without penalty
on engine power delivered, and the possibility to control
the heat release rate through the use of multiple
injections. The reduction of the nozzle flow rate requires
an increase of injection pressure up to 160-180 MPa to
maintain a short injection duration for guaranteeing the
fixed total injected fuel mass. The multiple injection
concept, which has been determined to provide a
beneficial reduction of the ignition delay, goes further
with respect to current Pilot+Main injections. The idea is
to split the injection in more than two pulses, with
particular attention on a main injection with a reduced
dwell time, as shown in previous work by the authors [7].
The challenge now is to enhance the response capability
of the system in order to perform multiple injections over
the widest possible range of engine operating conditions.
A reduction of the minimum hydraulic dwell time
between two consecutive injections below 500 µs is the
main goal [6,7]. This must be accomplished in
conjunction with the capability of performing stable and
repeatable consecutive injections at different timings and
achieving stable and repeatable control of the small
amount of fuel injected during pilot and post-injections
[4,5]. A precise control of the injection quantity and the
possibility to choose the best timing can allow reducing
emissions and BSFC.
The multiple injection strategy is currently limited
by the performance of the conventional electro-injectors
adopted in mass-production engines [5,7,8,9]. The
relatively long capacitor recharge time typically does not
allow actuation of two consecutive needle lifts below
1000 µs. Hydraulic instability of the injector increases
further this limit to 1800 µs in order to keep low the
standard deviation of the fuel mass injected over
consecutive engine cycles. Imarisio et al. [6] have
recently developed a second generation of C.R. injection
system capable of splitting the main injection in a
sequence of three consecutive injections while
maintaining the same capability for pilot and post
injection. In order to comply with this target, modification
to the electronic injector driving circuit had to be
performed. The new circuit can actuate two consecutive
main injections with a minimum dwell time of about 250
µs. No data are reported on standard deviations over
more injection cycles and over pilot, pre-main, main,
after-main and post injection. Simultaneously the authors
[10,11] presented the performance of a new driving
circuit capable of reducing the minimum switching time
of the solenoid valve. Thanks to a reduction in the
capacitor recharge time, which allowed a sharper
voltage profile, a reduction of actuation time was
achieved. Other works have revealed that a different
approach for reducing the injector response time is to
move towards piezo-electric actuators [4]. This solution
has been under development but it seems only to be
feasible in a medium to long term period. Most current
efforts are spent in improving the conventional solenoid
valve dynamics, which seems to be much more cost-
effective and feasible in a short time period development
effort.
CONTRIBUTION OF THE WORK
The aim of this work is to further contribute in
the development of fast injectors to conceive a new fast-
response injector by improving the electronic-control and
the mechanical and fluid dynamical behavior of C.R.
injectors. This purpose is accomplished by using
numerical simulation in order to get a fundamental
insight in the injector behavior. The approach is based
on the development of a network-model of the injector
through the Matlab-Simulink environment [11]. The
model accurately accounts for injector electronics,
mechanics and fluid dynamics sections and operating
characteristics. A 1st generation mass-production Bosch
injector (Figure 1) equipped with a VCO nozzle has been
used to develop and experimentally validate the model.
Then simulations have been carried out in order to
investigate the limits of the injector under fast actuation
operating conditions like those occurring during multiple
injections. The driving pulses for operating multiple
injections were derived from those allowed by a fast-
response electronic driving circuit already designed and
experimentally tested by the authors [10,11]. This
solution operates at a higher voltage level (i.e., 100 V)
than the standard driving circuit (i.e., 75 V) allowing the
anchor to be driven faster than the current solution.
Numerical results highlighted that improvements to
internal injector fluid dynamics and mechanics are
required in order to shorten the minimum hydraulic dwell
between two consecutive injections down to 200-300 µs
under stable and repeatable injection conditions.
INJECTOR MODEL
In order to study the behavior of the 1st
generation C.R. mass-production Bosch injector, shown
in Figure 1, a network electro-fluid-mechanical model
has been developed. Governing equations have been
solved in the Matlab/Simulink environment [11]. The
model is constituted of three sub-models for the
electronics, mechanics and fluid dynamics simulation.
Nozzle cavitation is accounted for by using the model by
Von Kuensberg et al. [15]. Model inputs are the injector
geometry, feed pipe pressure, engine chamber pressure,
physical properties of the liquid fuel and the current
profile. The monitoring outputs are the elements lift,
velocity and acceleration, pressure traces in different
volumes inside the injector, instantaneous volumetric
and mass flow rates based on the actual discharge
coefficient. The fluid bulk modulus variation with
pressure was not taken into account, as well as possible
effects of pressure waves inside pipes. The dynamic
viscosity is assumed to be constant too. Forces due to
the pressures on the surfaces, to the spring load and
pre-load, to friction and collisions between the elements
were considered.
Figure 1: The 1st generation C.R.: mass-production
Bosch injector
ELECTRICAL SUB-MODEL
The electrical sub-model was presented,
developed and validated by the authors [10]. Based on
this work, the electrical behavior of the control circuit can
be modeled by the equations [10]:
 dφ
v = ri +
dt
which is the governing equation of the electrical circuit,
and where r is the electrical resistance, v the voltage and
φ is the total magnetic flux. Since the current i is a non-
linear function of the anchor position, x, and magnetic
flux (i.e., i=f(x,φ)), as proposed by Filicori et al. [12] for
modeling variable-reluctance motors, the current can be
expressed as the sum of two terms: one, which depends
on the reluctance, and the other that represents a purely
non-linear term:
i = J ( x) ⋅ φ + W (φ )
where J(x) represents a position-dependent term
associated with the air-gap reluctance and W(φ)
describes the non-linear effects in the iron part of the flux
path related to magnetic saturation. The non-linear term
W(φ) may be expressed by a monotonic function:
K constant, F0 is the total spring pre-load and F is the net
W (φ ) = ∑ γ nφ n
n =1
where γ n represents the coefficients and n the order of
the expansion, respectively. The new expression for i is:
K modeled through four masses (Figure 2) and the nozzle
i = G ( x) ⋅ φ + ∑ γ nφ n
n=2
where the first-order term of the polynomial expansion
has been included in the term G(x) [12], i.e.,
G ( x) = J ( x) + γ 1
The expressions for G(x) and W(φ) are:
G ( x) = −19.2 ⋅107 x + 5056
W (φ ) = 6.43 ⋅1015 φ 5 − 2.95 ⋅1013 φ 4 + 4.71 ⋅1010 φ 3
−2.9 ⋅10 φ + 6137.4φ
7 2
Finally, according to Filicori et al. [12], the
magnetic force F may be evaluated as:
1  dG  2
F =−  φ
2  dx 
MECHANICAL SUB-MODEL
Measurements have been performed in order to
evaluate the real injector mechanical characteristics to
be used in the model. The sub-model accounts for the
following forces:
(1)
• Internal elastic and viscous actions;
• Impact actions;
• Electro-magnetic actions;
• External elastic actions;
• Hydraulic actions.
Each injector component is modeled like a
mass-spring-damper assembly (as shown in Figures 2
and 3), i.e., like a simple forced harmonic oscillator.
Every single element of the injector is assumed to have
one or more masses, depending on its dimensions. As
shown in Figure 2 for the injector needle, a spring and a
(2) damper links two masses to model internal actions. The
basic equation for the single mass-spring-damper
assembly is:
mx + cx + ( kx + F0 ) = F (9)
where m is the mass of the moving components, c the
viscous damping coefficient, k the spring elastic
(3) force applied to the mass along the injector axis
direction. This model is more complex than the model
shown in the previous work [10] because the forces
induced by pressure and the friction between the
elements are accounted for in the present model. In
detail, as shown in Figure 3, the pin and the anchor were
assumed to consist of two masses. The needle was
(4) was assumed to have two masses (see Figure 4). The
mechanical sub-model was able to reproduce any mass
compression by means of this modeling strategy.
The internal elastic and viscous forces are the
actions generated between the masses in which each
element of the injector has been subdivided and the
(5)
baseline equations are:
Felastic = kint ( x1 − x2 ) (10)
(6)
Fviscous = kviscous ( x1 − x2 ) (11)
where kint is the stiffness of the element between two
(7)
masses m1 and m2, and kviscous is the damping element.
The internal actions are assumed to occur along the
axial direction, and the expression for kint is:
EA
kint = (12)
L
(8)
where E is the elasticity modulus, A is the transversal
cross-section area of each element and L is its length. In
order to take into account the internal viscous actions,
the most common expression for kviscous is:
kviscous = 2 ⋅ ξ kint M (13)
where ξ is a damping coefficient (0.001 to 0.01) and M
has available value in the model. In case of viscous
action between two masses, M is the mean mass; in
case of viscous action between the element and the
stop, M is the mass of the element only (see Figure 3).
The impact action baseline equation is:

F = kx (14)

together with the conditions:

x ≤ b or x ≥ b (15)

where k is the block stiffness (about three orders of Figure 2: Schematic of injector needle with four masses
magnitude larger than the internal stiffness of the
blocked element) and b is the stroke of the block (i.e., its
value shows when the contact between the stop and the
element starts).

The expression for the magnetic force F is like

that proposed in Ref. (8) and the model has been
described by means of the expressions shown in the
previous work by the authors [10].

The external elastic actions have been

generated by the springs of the injector, so their
expression is:
Figure 3: The model of the injector upper part
F = kx + F0 (16)

where k is the stiffness of the spring and F0 is its pre-

load, expressed by:

F0 = kx0 (17)

where x0 is the initial compression of the unloaded

spring. In order to evaluate k, the equation is:

Figure 4: The model of the injector lower part

G⋅d4
k= (18)
8 ⋅ I f ⋅ D3

where G is the tangential modulus of elasticity, d is the

coil diameter of the spring, If is the number of spirals and
D is the mean diameter of the spring.

FLUID-DYNAMIC SUB MODEL

The injector has been assumed to be constituted

of inter-connected chambers (see Figures 5 and 6). The Figure 5: The injector chambers in the model
hydraulic line simulation is quite complex because many
processes are involved. In this model wave effects in the
connection pipes were not considered because the wave
characteristic travel time is much shorter than the
injector actuation time and their amplitude is negligible.
The basic equation of this sub-model is the mass
conservation equation:

Nozzle
Figure 6: Schematic of the fluid-dynamical model
V dp dV
+ = ∑ Qi (19)
B dt dt i
where V is the initial volume of each chamber, B is the
bulk modulus, Qi is the inlet or outlet volumetric flow
rate, dV/dt is the pumping effect. The volumetric flow
rate depends on the flow regime. Under laminar flow
conditions (i.e., leakage):
b ⋅ h3
Q= ∆p (20)
12 ⋅ µ ⋅ l
where b is the leakage perimeter, h is its height, l is its
length and µ is the dynamic viscosity. Under turbulent
flow conditions:
2 ⋅ ∆p
Q = Cd ⋅ A ⋅ (21)
ρ U mean = Cd ⋅ U Bernoulli = Cd ⋅
where Cd is a discharge coefficient (0.56 to 0.62) which
has been evaluated by taking into account the open
literature and by comparing the results with a fluid-
dynamic model built on the AMESim Code [32]. A is the
flow cross-section area and ρ is the fuel density.
Depending on the leakage amplitude, the expression for
volumetric flow rate could be (20) or (21): in the sub
model during the nozzle opening and closing period
there is a change from (20) to (21) and vice versa.
Finally, the pumping effect dV/dt is evaluated by the
following expression:
Q = A⋅v (22)
where A is the moving element cross-section area and v
is its velocity. Obviously the pumping effect exists only
when there is a moving element in a chamber, like a
piston in a cylinder.
The boundary condition for pressure assumes a
constant value set equal to the nominal rail pressure.
Investigations of the effect of pressure variation in time
in the rail volume have been considered in [33].
CAVITATION SUB-MODEL
In order to evaluate the effective instantaneous
nozzle discharge coefficient, and therefore the effective
injection velocity and the effective flow exit area, a
cavitation sub-model was introduced. Due to the high
injection pressure of Common Rail systems, cavitation is
very likely to occur inside the nozzle. In this model only
cavitation phenomena inside the nozzle were
considered: the extensions to other orifices (i.e.,
between the control chamber and solenoid valve) and to
the high-pressure pipes is in progress. The model
formulation and approach are the same as those
proposed by Von Kuensberg et al. [15]. Cavitation zones
are assumed to occur instantaneously, as soon as the
local fluid pressure reaches the vapor pressure [16]. The
input parameters to the model are the ideal volumetric
flow rate, fuel vapor pressure and chamber pressure,
physical properties of the liquid fuel and hole geometrical
characteristics (i.e., L/D ratio and R/D ratio, where D is
the geometrical hole diameter, L is the hole length and R
is the inlet radius of the hole nozzle [15]).
Because of the losses, the mean mass flow rate
through the nozzle can be expressed as:
2∆p
m = Cd ⋅ Ageo ⋅ ρl ⋅ (23)
ρl
In this case the mean velocity Umean is lower
than the ideal Bernoulli velocity:
2∆p
(24)
ρl
It is possible to note in relations (23) and (24)
that in order to evaluate the nozzle discharge coefficient
the injection mass flow rate was firstly evaluated and
then a fictitious mean velocity was estimated based on
the geometrical flow exit area. In the present nozzle flow
model, the instantaneous discharge coefficient is first
estimated from the following expression:
1
Cd = (25)
K inlet + f ⋅l D +1
where Kinlet is a tabulated inlet loss coefficient [15], which
depends on nozzle inlet geometry, and f is a Reynolds
number function, which takes into account laminar and
turbulent flow regimes:
f = max(0.316 ⋅ Re −0.25 , 64 Re) (26)
 The flow velocity at the vena contracta is further shown in Figure 7. Measurements have been provided
evaluated as: by VM–Motori and have been obtained using a Bosch
Injector Test bench. A 1st generation mass-production
U mean injector installed on 2.5 liter D.I. Diesel engine has been
U vena = (27) used. Three different injection pressures (i.e., 250, 800,
CC 1300 bar) and different mass injected amounts (different
loads) were considered, as summarized in Table 1. An
−0.5 EMI measurement instrument was used to collect data
 1  2  and to measure the fuel amount injected during both the
Cc =   − 11.4 ⋅ R D (28) pilot and main injections. The mean value and the
 C0   standard deviation were evaluated on 1000 samples.
The current driving profiles used in simulations are the
where C0 is a tabulated contraction coefficient [15]. C0 is same as adopted by VM-Motori for ECU CR engine
assumed equal to 0.62 because of the sharp-edge inlet mapping: they are depicted in Figures 9, 10 and 11 and
(i.e., for the injector considered R/D is equal to 0.032). they are referred to as CASE 16, CASE 1 and CASE 6 in
Table 1, respectively. CASE 16 will be used for detailed
Based on the vena contracta velocity, the static discussion and investigation in the following. The
pressure at the vena contracta can then be calculated: chamber and injector back-pressure were maintained at
1 bar. Experimental standard deviation was measured
varying from 34.47 to 2.9 for the pilot and from 3.61 to
ρl 2
pvena = p1 − ⋅U vena (29) 0.24 for the main injections, depending on the injection
2 pressure and amount of fuel injected, as shown in Figure
8. The operating point at 250 bar was experimentally
If pvena is lower than pvapor, it is assumed that found to be particularly unstable with a standard
cavitation has occurred and the upstream pressure p1 deviation close to 35%. This is because the nominal rail
and the discharge coefficient Cd will be re-evaluated. pressure of 250 bar is very close to the minimum value
required for opening the needle.
In the cavitating case the nozzle exit conditions
can be obtained by applying momentum equilibrium Injection Nominal injected Nominal injected
between the vena contracta and the nozzle exit: Case Pressure fuel mass for fuel mass for
[bar] pilot pulse [mg] main pulse [mg]
1 250 0.12 -
p2 − pvapor
U eff = U vena − (30) 2 250 - 7.94
ρl ⋅U mean 3 250 - 20.21
4 800 1.45 -
5 800 - 39.55
U mean 6 800 - 51.47
Aeff = Ageo (31) 7 1300 1.79 -
U eff 8 1300 - 50.35
9 1300 - 67.73
10 250 0.17 8.31
4 ⋅ Aeff
Deff = (32) 11 250 0.17 20.62
π 12 800 1.61 39.37
13 800 1.56 51.70
14 1300 1.95 1.98
Ueff, Aeff and Deff are effective exit velocity, flow area and
15 1300 2.34 49.06
flow diameter, respectively. P2 is the combustion
16 1300 2.15 66.81
chamber pressure, which is assumed equal to 4 MPa in
Table 1: Test conditions: nominal rail pressure and
the present study. When the present injector dynamic
injected fuel mass
model is coupled with an engine CFD code, p2 will be
supplied from the CFD code, while Ueff, Aeff and Deff will
be used to initialize the spray drop conditions for the Other critical conditions for the control of the fuel
drop atomization model [16]. injected occur during pilot injections when small amounts
of fuel are injected because the solenoid valve and
needle behave according ballistic dynamics. As a
Details of the nozzle flow cavitation model can
consequence, the disagreement between the numerical
be found in the original literature [15,16]. The model has
prediction and measurements is therefore bigger at low
been tested simulating CASE 16 (referenced later in
loads (i.e., 250 bar) and for pilot pulses (Figure 7). The
Table 1).
model performs much better at high pressure and during
the main pulses when the fuel mass injected is above 12
VALIDATION OF THE MODEL mg. In these conditions, the model presents an average
error of the predicted fuel injected in main pulses that is
The model has been validated by comparisons about 5.0%. Reducing the error further is quite difficult
with measurements in terms of fuel mass injected, as because of the complexity of the injector model, which
makes small errors in the sub-model enlarge when an 20

overall parameter such as the mass injected is

considered. 10

It is to be noticed that the maximum voltage 0

level used with the 1st generation injector is about 75V

percent error %
and the corresponding current level is 22A, as shown in -10 Pilot
Main
Figure 12 for CASE 16. The predicted current profile at
1300 bar, corresponding to the experimental driving -20

pulse of Figure 9, is shown in Figure 13. The maximum

-30
current level is about 28A and the predicted trace is
quite similar to the measurements shown in Figure 12. -40

Once the current has excited the solenoid valve, the

induced magnetic force (Figure 14) pushes up the -50

anchor and the pin (Figure 15). When the voltage goes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

to zero, the current goes to zero too. The magnetic force Figure 7: The percent error between predicted and
(Figure 14) is zero only when the current reaches its measured injected fuel mass
zero value. Then the anchor returns back to its initial
position. As a consequence there is a delay between the 40

instant when the voltage drops to zero and the instant

35
when the magnetic force on the anchor ends. When the
solenoid valve is excited, the anchor is pushed up by the 30

Standard deviation %
magnetic force, the ball sphere opens and then the 25
pressure drops in the control chamber, as is seen in Pilot
Figure 16 where the predicted pressure evolution is 20
Main
plotted versus time. As one can see in Figure 16, the 15
pressure in the control chamber drops down to 800 bar
10
during pilot injection and then it recovers the initial value
before main injection starts. During the main pulse, the 5

pressure drops down again to 700 bar.

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

It is to be noticed that, especially during the main Test number

injection, ripples affect the pressure recovery from the
minimum pressure to the initial value. This pulsating
phenomenon is caused by the pumping effect of the Figure 8: Standard deviation associated with the
injector needle, previously pointed out by Digesu et al. experimental measurements
[13]. As a consequence, the pressure in the
accumulation volume is greater than the pressure in the 100

control chamber. Two competing forces are generated in

80
the axial direction causing the injector needle to move
up, as shown in Figure 17, where the evolution in time of 60
injector and nozzle needle lifts are plotted. It is possible
to see that the injector needle upper part is compressed 40
Voltage [V]

by the above-mentioned forces when the solenoid valve

is closed. This compression causes a little delay 20

between the injector needle lift and the nozzle needle lift.
0
The maximum injector needle stroke is 0.2 mm and it
reaches this lift only for the main pulses. The injector -20
needle lift causes a local reduction of the control volume,
thus causing the pressure to increase up to 1150 bar. -40
When the injection ends, the magnetic force goes to
-60
zero and the ball sphere closes. The pressure increases
0,000 0,002 0,004 0,006 0,008 0,010
in the control chamber again up to the initial rail pressure
Time [s]
(Figure 16) and the injector needle is pushed down to its
closed position.
Figure 9: Experimental driving pulse – CASE 16
 100

80

60

40
Voltage [V]

20

-20

-40

-60
0,000 0,000 0,001 0,001 0,002 0,002 0,003 0,003 0,004
Time [s]

Figure 10: Experimental driving pulse – CASE 1 Figure 13: Predicted current profile – CASE 16

100

80

60

40
Voltage [V]

20

-20

-40

-60
0,000 0,000 0,001 0,001 0,002 0,002 0,003 0,003 0,004
Time [s]

Figure 11: Experimental driving pulse – CASE 6 Figure 14: Predicted magnetic force – CASE 16

25

20

15
Current [A]

10

0
0,000 0,002 0,004 0,006 0,008 0,010
Time [s]

Figure 15: Predicted anchor and pin displacement

Figure 12: Experimental current profile – CASE 16 versus time

Figure 16: Predicted control chamber pressure profile
versus time
Figure 17: Injector and nozzle needles displacement
predicted by the model
Figure 18: Solenoid valve
Some features of the solenoid valve are shown
in Figure 18. Currently the solenoid valve of the 1st CR
injector generation consists of a pin, an anchor and a
spring (called pin-spring) between the pin and anchor.
This design replaced a former one where the anchor and
pin constituted a single component [5]. This update was
necessary to reduce the probability of the ball-valve re-
opening caused by the valve bouncing back against its
stop because of its non-zero impact velocity, as reported
by Ficarella et al. [5]. The two-component-configuration
allows reducing the impact energy since the kinetic
energy of the pin can be absorbed by the spring. It is to
be noticed that the pin undergoes an extra-
displacement, as previously highlighted by the authors
[10], when the anchor is opening. When the anchor is
closing, initially there is a compression of the pin-spring,
and then the anchor gets to its zero position, after some
ripples caused by the above-mentioned spring.
Some discussion of the influence of the
cavitation sub-model is now presented. As one can see
in Figure 19, the Bernoulli velocity is the maximum
velocity, while the effective injection velocity Ueff is bigger
than the nozzle mean flow velocity Umean. This trend is
physically justified because the cavitation phenomenon
induces a contraction of the effective flow exit area and
for constant mass flow rate the effective injection velocity
must increase. In Figure 20 the Reynolds number shows
that the flow is laminar or turbulent depending on the
injection velocity, as one can expect. Figures 21 shows
the evolution in time of the instantaneous discharge
coefficient. Analyzing the predicted Cd trace it is seen
that its values are quite similar to the values assumed in
mathematical models. The discharge coefficient has a
higher value for inlet injection velocity of about 100 m/s,
then it decreases when the velocity is above 300 m/s,
when cavitation may have occurred. It can be seen that
there are some oscillations in the discharge coefficient
profiles caused by injection velocity oscillations. The
initial value for Cd is 0.95 when the injector needle first
opens and it is very close to the result of Von Kuensberg
et al. [15]. This result indicates the importance of
accurately predicting the discharge coefficient during
injection. By means of this cavitation model it is possible
to evaluate the effective injection velocity, effective flow
exit area and flow diameter when the mass flow rate is
known. Thus it seems to be very helpful because these
parameters strongly affect the fuel drop atomization and
the combustion process, and of consequence the
exhaust emissions.
MECHANICAL AND FLUID DYNAMICAL LIMITS OF
1ST GENERATION C.R. INJECTORS WITH
ADVANCED CONTROL ACTUATION
After the above validation, the present injector
model has been used to investigate injector behavior
when operating with multiple injections, i.e., with fast
actuation driving pulses. Imarisio et al. [6] and Bianchi et
al. [10,11] have clearly showed that a new electronic
driving circuit must be designed to control a fast-
response injector capable of multi injection strategies. In
particular, the main limitations of the 1st generation ECU
was the long recharging time required by capacitor.
Other limits were due to the relatively low voltage
applied to the solenoid coil (i.e., 75 V) compared to the
maximum voltage limits of the component. Bianchi et al.
[10,11] designed and experimentally tested a new
injector electronic driving circuit capable of operating
with a minimum dwell between two electrical pulses of
about 15 µs. This characteristic cannot be
straightforwardly transferred to a similar minimum
hydraulic dwell time between two consecutive injections
because of mechanical and fluid dynamical phenomena
that cause a delay between the start of the command
electric pulse and the actual injection flow rate start or
end. For the simulations of multiple injections the driving
electrical pulse profiles generated by the advanced
circuit designed by Bianchi et al. [11] were used as input.
Figure 23 shows a sketch of the new electronic
injector driving circuit. The injector was supplied with a
voltage of 100 V, significantly higher than the
conventional one of 75 V. This allowed a much sharper
current rise and drop. In the previous work the authors
[10] have shown that a higher value of voltage doesn’t
influence the force since iron saturation occurs. Thanks
to advanced electronic characteristics, an optimized
voltage profile was conceived in order to achieve a
better control of the solenoid valve closure. This
optimized profile, shown in Figure 24, was designed with
the focus on reducing the time required for the opening
and closing phases, thus especially resulting in a better
control of very small amounts of fuel injected. At the
beginning a positive voltage is applied to excite the
solenoid coil and to generate a magnetic force greater
than the actual one. Then a negative voltage (both equal
to 100 V) is used to reduce as quickly as possible the
current in the solenoid and hence to close the solenoid
valve. The negative voltage allows one to reduce as
quickly as possible the current in the solenoid. As a
consequence the valve closes more quickly, so the force
goes to zero. The corresponding predicted current profile
is presented in Figure 25. By means of dwell time
variation between the positive and the negative profiles,
it is possible to obtain a split injection in two or more
pulses. By means of this new optimized voltage profile, it
has been clear that it is possible to reduce the total
opening and closing time of the injector, and therefore
the interval of time between two consecutive injections,
thanks to the greater magnetic force.
For simulations, a three-pulse injection strategy
at a nominal rail pressure of 1300 bar has been
considered in conjunction with minimum dwell times of
1000, 800, 600 and 300 µs between consecutive
electrical pulses. It must be pointed out that the actual
minimum dwell time, recommended by Bosch, for 1st
generation mass-production injectors is 1800 µs.
Calculations reveal that the 1st generation C.R.
injectors seem to be able to operate under stable
conditions until 0.8 ms of minimum dwell with a fast-
response driving circuit of the solenoid valve, as shown
by calculations. It is to be noticed that the minimum dwell
is defined as occurring between the start of the electrical
driving pulse of two consecutive injections: this is an
electrical time. Figure 26 shows the driving pulse profile
with a dwell of 0.8 ms. As one can see in Figure 27, the
volumetric flow rate is the same for both the two main
injections which have the same electrical pulse, with two
equal main pulses. The anchor and pin present the
same dynamics during the consecutive main injections,
as one can note in Figure 28. The evolution of pressure
in the control chamber is almost the same during the two
main injections (Figure 29). The little difference in the
pressure evolution results in a slightly different needle lift
in time during the second main injection. In particular,
the higher pressure oscillation in the control chamber
during the recovery phase of the main injection interrupts
the needle closing for a very short time with a negligible
influence on the volumetric mass flow rate. It is to be
noticed that the voltage profile, shown in Figure 26, ends
at 2800 µs, while the anchor (Figure 28) closes only
after 700 µs (i.e., at 3500 µs).
These figures show that it is electronically
possible to perform an injection strategy with more
injection pulses with a relatively short dwell between two
consecutive injections. Actually, despite the fact that the
electronic circuit allows operation with much shorter
minimum dwells, limits still remain in the mechanical and
fluid dynamical behavior. A dwell time of 800 µs is
feasible since the injector seems to have enough time to
recharge its capacitor fluid volumes. As previously
mentioned, the target for a new generation of fast-
response injector is a minimum dwell time shorter than
500 µs. Therefore, two further simulations have carried
out by considering two shorter dwell times of 600 and
300 µs. The corresponding electrical driving pulses are
plotted in Figures 31 and 32, respectively.
When a dwell of 600 µs is considered, the
simulations reveal that improvements of the driving
circuit are strongly limited by the fluid-dynamic behavior
of the injector. In particular, when reducing the dwell
between pulses, the second main injection becomes
influenced by the first main injection. In particular, the
volumetric flow rate is particularly unstable at the
beginning of the second main pulse, as shown in Figures
33 and 34. The reason for this behavior can be attributed
to the very short time available to the injector for
recovering the initial conditions, especially the control
chamber pressure, as visible in Figure 35. For
completeness in Figure 36, the anchor, injector and
nozzle needle lift evolution in time are depicted. Figure
35 reveals clearly that the control chamber pressure
does not operate under stable conditions between the
first and second main pulse. This results in a different
evolution of the needle lift in the two main injections
because different differences of pressures act on the
injector needle, as one can see in Figure 36. Oscillation
in control the chamber volume cannot be attributed to
different solenoid valve dynamics. In fact, the anchor lift
is unaffected by the dwell time and its lift profile remains
similar during the two main pulses.
Figure 19: Comparison between different injection Figure 22: Predicted effective flow exit area to
velocity definitions - CASE 16 geometrical flow exit area ratio- CASE 16

i
T1
DR vs
is D2

B + Boost vc S
- Converter D1 DR T2
C

x1 x2
Injector Control
Unit

Figure 23: The new electronic driving circuit

Figure 20: Reynolds number in nozzle hole - CASE 16

Figure 21: Nozzle hole discharge coefficient Cd - Figure 24: Generic optimized pulse drive - 1Pilot+1Main
CASE 16
 Figure 25: Predicted current profile - 1Pilot+1Main
Figure 28: Anchor and pin lifts 1Pilot+2Main
Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=800µs

Figure 26: Imposed driving pulse - 1Pilot+2Main Figure 29: Control chamber pressure trace
Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=800µs Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=800µs

Figure 27: Volumetric flow rate - 1Pilot+2Main Figure 30: Nozzle needle and injector needle lifts
Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=800µs 1Pilot+2Main Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=800µs

Figure 31: Imposed driving pulse - 1Pilot+2Main
Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=600µs
Figure 32: Imposed driving pulse - 1Pilot+2Main
Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=300µs
Figure 33: Predicted volumetric flow rate - 1Pilot+2Main
Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=600µs
The remarkable pressure ripple can be
reasonably caused by the relatively long time allowed by
the feeding orifice that is connected to the pre-chamber,
fed at almost the same rail pressure, and the control
chamber. The diameter of the hole is a critical parameter
because it comes from a compromise. It must guarantee
that the pressure drop is concentrated in that region on
the one hand, and a relatively short pressure recovery
time in the control chamber when the sphere valve
closes, on the other hand.
When the minimum dwell is 300 µs, the
simulations have revealed that it is not possible to
operate at this dwell time since the injector does not
close between the two injections and, as a
consequence, the injected fuel mass is not controllable.
It is seen in Figure 37 that the volumetric flow rate is
totally uncontrollable. In fact in Figure 38 it is possible to
see that the anchor does not have enough time for
closing and then opening again. This affects the pin lift,
whose evolution is different for each main pulse. The
main consequence is the loss of control of the pressure
recovery in the control chamber, as shown in Figure 39.
The pressure recovers its initial value of 1300 bar only
for a short time between the pilot and first main pulses,
then the maximum pressure value is 1200 bar. Since the
pressure in the accumulation volume (Figure 40) is
greater than the one in the control chamber during the
time interval between the two main pulses, the nozzle
needle cannot close properly against its seat, as one can
see in Figure 41. However between the pilot and first
main pulses the control chamber pressure reaches 1300
bar as does the accumulation volume pressure: by
means of the different surface areas on which these
pressures act, the nozzle needle closes after the pilot
pulse.
For the sake of completeness it can be
demonstrated through Figure 42 that using a dwell time
of 1000 µs or longer, all unstable phenomena are
eliminated and the two main injections can provide the
same flow rate. It must be pointed out that the influence
of the dwell time on the injection quantity is investigated
in detail in [33]. Therefore all conclusions drawn in the
present analysis come from the focus on injector
behavior for a given and constant feed rail pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
In order to perform an in depth study of the 1st
generation C.R. injector a mathematical model has been
developed that uses the Matlab/Simulink environment.
This model accounted for electrical, mechanical and fluid
dynamical behaviors. A cavitation sub-model is included.
The simulation results were successfully
compared to measurement data: the average error
between the experimental injected fuel mass and the
simulated injected fuel mass for a main pulse was about
5.0%.
An optimized voltage profile, obtained by a new
driving circuit, was proposed in order to drive the injector
faster and to reduce the minimum dwell time between Rail System (CR-System) for Passenger Car DI
two consecutive pulses. Diesel Engines; Experiences with Application for
Series Production Projects”, SAE Paper 1999-01-
Based on the capability of the injector driving 0191, 1999.
circuit, a sensitivity analysis has been performed in order [9] Pierpont, D. A., Montgomery, D.T., Reitz, R.
to investigate the limits of the injector under fast- D.,”Reducing Particulate and NOx Using Multiple
response operation, i.e., a 1PILOT+2MAIN injection Injections and EGR in a D.I. Diesel Engine”. SAE
strategy. The two main injections operate with the same Paper 940897, 1994.
driving pulse (i.e., the same fuel injected). Three [10] Bianchi, G.M., Pelloni, P., Filicori, F., and Vannini,
different minimum dwells were considered for an G., “Optimization of the Solenoid valve Behavior in
injection pressure of 1300 bar. Common-Rail Injection Systems”, SAE Paper
2000-01-2042, 2000.
The model has shown that using the new [11] Bianchi, G.M., Falfari, S., Pelloni P., Filicori, F.,
voltage profile the minimum dwell for stable injector Milani, M., “Development of a Dynamic Model for
operating conditions is about 800 µs, while the circuit is Studying the 1st Generation of Common Rail
capable of generating two consecutive pulses with an
Injectors for HSDI Diesel Engines”, ICE, 2001,
interval up to 15 µs. Capri 2001.
Reducing the dwell down to 600 and 300 µs
reveals that at 600 µs the injector needle closes but
does not provide repeatable main injections. At 300, the
injector needle has a ballistic behavior because of the
unstable pressure recovery of the control chamber. The
result is that the injector needle does not close and the
fuel continues to exit from the nozzle holes between the
two main injections.
The simulations indicate that using a fast-
response driving circuit, the injector actuation capability
can be improved by a drastic optimization of the
mechanical and fluid dynamical design of the
components.

REFERENCES

[1] European Patent No. 0 426 205, 1993.

[2] Stumpp, G., Ricco, M., “Common-Rail – An
Attractive Fuel Injection System for Passenger
Car DI Engines”, SAE Paper 960870, 1996. Figure 34: Zoom of the volumetric flow rate during the
[3] Boehner, W., and Hummel, K., ”Common Rail beginning of the second pulse Pinj= 1300 bar
Injection System for Commercial Diesel Vehicles”, - Dwell=600µs
SAE Paper 970345, 1997.
[4] Renner, G., Koyannagi, K., and Maly, R.R.,”Effect
of Common Rail Injector Design on the Emission
Characteristics of Passenger Car DI Engines”,
Proceedings of “The fourth International
Symposium COMODIA 98”, pp.477-482, 1998.
[5] Ficarella, A., Laforgia, D., and Landriscina, V.,
”Evaluation of Instability Phenomena in a
Common Rail Injection System for High Speed
Diesel Engines”, SAE Paper 1999-01-0192, 1999.
[6] Imarisio, R., Ricco, M., Rossi Sebastiano, G.M.,
“Multiple Injection, a cost effective solution for
emission reduction of Common Rail DI Diesel
Engines”, Aachener Kolloquium Fahrzeug-und
Motorentechnik 2000.
[7] Bianchi, G.M., Pelloni, P., Corcione, F.E., and
Luppino, F., “Numerical Analysis of Passenger
Car HSDI Diesel Engines with 2nd Generation of
Common-Rail Injection Systems: The Effect of the Figure 35: Predicted control chamber pressure versus
Multiple Injections on Emissions”, SAE Paper time. Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=600µs
2001-01-1068, 2001.
[8] Flaig, U., Polach, W. And Ziegler, G., ”Common
Figure 36: Anchor, Injector needle and nozzle needle Figure 39: Control chamber pressure trace Pinj= 1300
lifts. Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=600µs bar - Dwell=300µs

Figure 37: Predicted volumetric flow rate - 1Pilot+2Main Figure 40: Predicted pressure in accumulation chamber
Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=300µs Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=300µs

Figure 38: Anchor and pin lifts 1Pilot+2Main Figure 41: Injector needle and nozzle needle lifts
Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=300µs Pinj= 1300 bar - Dwell=300µs
 Rate Control”, SAE Paper 981927, 1998.
[24] Bianchi, G.M., Pelloni, P., Corcione, F.E., and
Luppino, F., “On the Optimum Combustion
Chamber for the 2nd Generation of Common Rail
Injection Systems”, SAE 2000-01-1068, 2000.
[25] Badami, M., Nuccio, P., Trucco, G., “Influence of
Injection Pressure on the Performance of a DI
Diesel Engine with a Common Rail Injection
System”, SAE Paper 1999-01-0193, 1999.
[26] Desantes, J.M., Arrègle, J., Rodriguez, P.J.,
“Computational Model for Simulation of Diesel
Injection Systems”, SAE Paper 1999-01-0915,
1999.
[27] Blevins, J.A., Wagner, D.A., “An Experimental
Investigation on Determining Diesel Injector Flow
and Transient Characteristics Using High
Response Pressure Measurements”, SAE Paper
1999-01-0197, 1999.
Figure 42: Comparison between volumetric mass flow
[28] Herrmann, H.O., Körfer, T., “Recent and Future
rates at dwell time of 600 and 1000 µs
Developments in Diesel Engine Technology”, ATA
vol.53, 2000.
[12] Filicori, F., Lo Bianco, C.G., and Tonielli, A.,
[29] Kollmann, K., “Development Trends for Diesel-
”Modeling and Control Strategies for a Variable
Powered Passenger Cars”, ATA vol.53, 2000.
Reluctance Direct-Drive Motor”, IEEE
[30] Imarisio, R., Rossi Sebastiano, G.M., “Potential of
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 40,
Future Common Rail DI Diesel Engines”, ATA
No. 1, February 1993, 1993.
vol.53, 2000.
[13] P. Digesu, Ficarella, A., Laforgia, D., Bruni, G.,
[31] Herzog, P.L., “Exhaust Aftertreatment
and Ricco, M., ”Diesel Electro-Injector: A
Technologies for HSDI Diesel Engines”, ATA
Numerical Simulation Code”, SAE Paper 940193,
vol.53, 2000.
1994.
[32] Borghi, M., Milani, M., Piraccini, M.,”Dynamic
[14] Hiroyasu, H., “The structure of fuel sprays and the
Analysis of Diesel Engine Common Rail Injection
combustion processes in diesel engines”, ICE-
System. Part I: The Injector Dynamics”
Vol.31-1, 1998 Fall Technical Conference, ASME
ASME IMECE 2001, November, 2001, New York.
1998.
[33] Bianchi, G.M., Falfari, S., Pelloni P., Filicori, F.,
[15] Von Kuensberg Sarre, C., Song-Charng Kong,
Milani, M., “A Numerical and Experimental Study
Reitz, R.D., “Modeling the Effects of Injector
on the Possible Improvements of C.R. Injectors",
Nozzle Geometry on Diesel Sprays”, SAE Paper
SAE 2002-01-0500, March 2002.
1999-01-0912, 1999.
[16] Zhu, Y., Reitz, R.D., “Modeling Fuel System
Performance and its Effect on Spray
Characteristics”, SAE Paper 2000-01-1253, 2000.
[17] Guerrassi, N., P. Dupraz, ”A Common-Rail
Injection System For High Speed Direct Injection
Engines”, SAE 980803, 1998.
[18] Funai, K., Yamaguchi T., Itoh, S. “Injection Rate
Shaping Technology with Common-Rail Fuel
System (ECD-U2)”, SAE Paper 960107, 1996.
[19] Nehmer, D. A. and Reitz, R. D., “Measurements of
the Effects of Injection Rate and Split Injections on
Diesel Engine Soot and NOx Emissions”, SAE
Paper 940668, 1994.
[20] Tow, T., Pierpont, D. A., Reitz, R. D.,”Reducing
Particulates and NOx Emissions by Using Multiple
Injections in a Heavy Duty D.I. Diesel Engine”,
SAE Paper 940897, 1994.
[21] Chan, M., Das, S. Reitz, R. D.,” Modeling Multiple
Injection and EGR Effects on Diesel Engine
Emissions, SAE Paper 972864, 1997.
[22] Han, Z., Uludogan, Ali, Hampson, G.J and Reitz,
R. D., ”Mechanism and NOx Emissions Reduction
Using Multiple Injection in a Diesel Engine”, SAE
Paper 960633, 1996.
[23] Ganser. M.A.,”Common Rail Injector with Injection