Fuel injection for future high-speed engines

Diesel engine manufacturers in both propulsion and genset applications are concerned with the
development aim of low fuel consumption, reliability, and long service life. Other important issues are low
soot, NOx, CO, particle emissions, and good dynamic characteristics; noise levels are also becoming
increasingly important.
To achieve these reuirements more accurate control is reuired of the timing, uantity and
shape of the fuel in!ection is reuired.
"odern design has moved towards the use of electronics to achieve this.
Unit Injector
Conventional in!ection systems with mechanical action include inline pumps, unit pumps with
long #$ fuel lines and in!ectors. % cam controls the in!ection pressure and timing, while the fuel volume is
determined by the fuel rac& position. The need for increased in!ection pressures in more modern designs
means that the variable time lag introduced by distortion of the pipewor& and compressibility of the fuel
cannot be accounted for. Therefore this type of design is losing favour
Unit Injector
% comparison between unit pump and unit in!ector systems has been made assuming the unit
in!ector drive adopts the typical camshaft'pushrod'roc&er arm principle. (ith the aid of simulation
calculations the relative behaviour of the two systems was investigated for a specified mean in!ection
pressure of ))*+bar in the in!ector sac. The time,averaged sac pressure is a determining factor in fuel
mixture preparation, whereas the freuently used maximum in!ection pressure is less meaningful.
The pressure in a unit pump has been found to be lower than in a unit in!ector, but because of
the dynamic pressure increase in the #$ fuel line, the same mean in!ection pressure of ))*+ bar is
achieved with less stress in the unit pump.
(ith the unit in!ector, the maximum sac pressure was )-.+ bar,some -+ bar higher than the
unit pump. To generate ))*+ bar the unit in!ector needed /.*&(,some -0 more power. During the
ignition delay period, )1.*0 of the cycle related amount of fuel was in!ected by the unit pump as against
2.30 by the unit in!ector. The former is, therefore, the overall more stiffer system.
Translating the pressure differential at the no44le orifice and the volume flow into mechanical
energy absorbed, the result was a higher efficiency of 130 for the unit pump, compared to 1-0 for the
unit in!ector.
5rom the hydraulic aspect, the unit pump offers benefits in that there is no transfer of mechanical force
between the pushrod drive to the cylinder head and less space is needed for the fuel in!ector which gives
better design possibilities for inlet and exhaust systems
(ith conventional systems, the volume of fuel in!ected is controlled by the fuel rac&, and
matching the individual cylinders reuires the appropriate engineering effort. The effort increases
considerably if the in!ection timing is done mechanically.
Unit pump with solenoid valve control.
The engineering complexity involved in being able to freely select fuel in!ection and timing can
be considerably reduced by using a solenoid valve to effect time,oriented control of fuel uantity. To
produce minimum fuel in!ection uantity, extremely short shift periods must be possible to ensure good
engine speed control. %ctivation of the individual solenoid valves and other prime functions, such as
engine speed control and fuel in!ection limitation , are effected by a microprocessor controlled engine
control unit 67C89. Optional ad!ustment of individual fuel in!ection calibration and in!ection timing is thus
possible with the in!ection period being newly specified and realised for each in!ection phase; individual
cylinder cut out control is only a uestion of the software incorporated in the 7C8.
(ith cam,controlled in!ection systems, the in!ection pressure is dependant on the pump
speed and the amount of fuel in!ected. 5or engines with high meps in the lower speed and low,load
ranges, this characteristic is disadvantageous to the atomisation process as the in!ection pressure drops
rapidly. %d!usting the in!ection timing also influences the in,system pressure build,up, e.g. if timing is
advanced, the solenoid valve closes earlier, fuel compression starts at lower in!ection pressures which, in
turn, is detrimental to mixture preparation.
To achieve higher in!ection pressures extremely steep cam configurations are reuired. %s a
result, high torue pea&s are induced into the camshaft which involves a compensating amount of
engineering effort regarding the dimensioning of the camshaft and the gear train, and may even reuire a
vibration damper.
:o while the solenoid valve controlled system has a number of advantages it retains the
disadvantages of the conventional systems. ;n the search for a flexible in!ection system this system only
represents a half step.
Common rail injection system (CRIS)
(ith the C<;: the #$ pump delivers fuel to the rail which is common to all cylinders. 7ach
in!ector is actuated in seuence by the 7C8 as a function of the cran&shaft angle. The in!ector opens when
energised and closes when deenergised. The amount of fuel per cycle is determined by the time
differential and the in,system pressure. The actual in,system pressure is transmitted to the control unit
via a pressure sensor and the rail pressure is regulated by the 7C8 via the actuator in the fuel supply to
the #$ pump. 5or rapid load shedding the pressure regulator restricts the #$ pump to a maximum of
)//+bar, compared to the specified )1++bar
(ith this system the in!ector incorporates several functions. The no44le needle is relieved by a
solenoid valve and thus opened by the fuel pressure. The amount of fuel in!ected during the ignition delay
period is regulated by the no44le opening speed. %fter the control valve is deenergised as additional
hydraulic valve is activated which ensures rapid closure of the needle valve and. Therefore minimum
smo&e index. (ith this servo,assisted in!ector the opening and closing characteristics can be ad!usted
individually and effected extremely precisely. ;t is capable of extremely high reaction speeds for
controlling minimum fuel uantities during idle operation or pilot in!ection.
Compared to a conventional system the pumping force is considerably lower, with pressure
generation accomplished by a multi,cylinder, radial,piston pump driven by an eccentric cam. $ressure
control is realised by restricting the supply flow. =ocating the high,pressure pump on the cran&case
presents no problems while the fuel in!ection control cams are deleted from the camshaft which can
therefore be dimensioned accordingly. 5uel uantity in!ected is determined by the 7C8 and is a function of
desired and measured engine speed. The C<;: allows very fast response times in the region of )+ms
;n the event of single in!ector failure the in!ector is shut off via the shut off valve. This allows
the remaining cylinders to be operated in a get you home mode.
The C<;: system offers the best characteristics and costing for future #igh speed engine
in!ection systems.