Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Internal Combustion Engine Division Spring Technical Conference

ICES2012
May 6-9, 2012, Torino, Piemonte, Italy

ICES2012-81176

FLUID-DYNAMIC CHARACTERIZATION OF A CNG INJECTION SYSTEM

Mirko Baratta Daniela Misul Ezio Spessa

IC Engines Advanced IC Engines Advanced IC Engines Advanced
Laboratory (ICEAL) Laboratory (ICEAL) Laboratory (ICEAL)
Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy

Giuseppe Gazzilli Andrea Gerini

Centro Ricerche Fiat (CRF) Centro Ricerche Fiat (CRF)
Orbassano (TO), Italy Orbassano (TO), Italy

ABSTRACT in turn appeared to reduce for increasing engine power outputs.

A renewed interest in CNG fuelled engines, which has
recently been boosted by the even more stringent emissions
regulations, has generated considerable R&D activity in the last
few years. In order to fulfill such limits, most current CNG
vehicles combine advanced technical and control solutions
such as VVA intake systems, new turbocharging solutions,
enhanced ECU strategies, etc. The present work focuses on the
complete fluid-dynamic characterization of a gaseous injection
system so as to support the design of the related control module
and devices. To that end, a numerical investigation into the
fluid-dynamic behavior of a commercial CNG injection system
has been extensively carried out by means of the GT-POWER
code.
A detailed geometrical model including the rail, the
injectors as well as the pipe connecting the pressure regulator
to the rail has been built in the GT-POWER environment. The
model has been validated by comparing the experimental to the
numerical outputs for the rail pressure and for the injected mass
quantity. The model has hence been applied to the prediction of
the pressure waves produced by the injection event and of their
effect on the actually injected fuel mass. Moreover, the
influence of the pressure regulator dynamics has been assessed
by simulating the impact on the system behavior of a pressure
noise downstream from the regulator. Finally, the possibility of
reducing the rail volume, thus enhancing its dynamic response,
has been investigated.
The results have shown a good agreement between the
predicted and the measured rail pressure and injected fuel mass
flow rates over a wide range of engine operation conditions.
Moreover, the dynamic simulations sketched a dependence of
the injected fuel mass on the average rail pressure level, which
在不同的发动机工况下，预测的气轨压力与实测的气轨压力和喷射燃
料流量之间有很好的一致性，并且动态模拟还勾画出了注入燃料质量
与平均气轨压力水平的关系。
Finally, the reduction in the rail volume has proved not to
significantly affect the injected mass flow rate.
INTRODUCTION
CNG engines are retaining an increasing interest for
automotive applications due to the even more stringent
emissions regulations. Natural gas engines generally show very
low emissions of reactive hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide as
well as of particulate matter. Natural gas also offers a number
of technical and economic advantages. The technical
advantages include zero evaporative emissions, exceedingly
low photochemical reactivity, reduced cold-start and low-
temperature emissions and its compatibility with the lean-burn
technology [1]. Moreover, the global reserves of methane are
estimated to be several orders of magnitudes larger than those
of oil [2]. Still, the relatively low energy density of natural gas
has penalized the CNG engine penetration in the automotive
market with respect to gasoline or Diesel engines [3].
In order to further boost the advantages featured by natural
gas, different engine design parameters should be properly
optimized. More specifically, a factual improvement in the
CNG engine performance, emission and durability can be
achieved provided that a dedicated gas injection system is
adopted [4, 5]. The first generation fueling systems were
derived from the gasoline engine and exploited a simple mixer
system. Still, this resulted in excessively low engine volumetric
efficiencies, thus leading to poor engine performance. Port
injection and direct injection systems were hence considered in
order to boost the CNG advantages. As a matter of fact, port
injection systems proved to reduce the CNG engine output by
10 to 14% with respect to production gasoline engines [1], as

1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 compared to the 10 to 30% power reduction induced by the
mixer systems. NG requires higher injection timings with
respect to gasoline and injection generally takes place while the
intake valves are open. This allows for charge stratification in
the cylinder and consequently influences the engine torque. As
a matter of fact, a strong dependency of the engine torque and
efficiency on the injection timing was demonstrated [3]. The
use of direct injection system was also thoroughly investigated
in order to evaluate its potential in increasing the engine
volumetric efficiency, thus allowing for a better fuel economy
[6]. It was demonstrated that the injection timing can strongly
influence the intensity of the mixture stratification before
ignition, thus affecting the deployment of the combustion
process and the behavior of the CNG-DI engine.
As far as the CNG injection system is concerned, specific
attention also needs to be paid to the injectors design. As a
matter of fact, the commonly used solenoid injectors undergo
remarkable stresses, resulting in wear and, consequently, in loss
of calibration. The above described negative effect is reduced
by the use of a liquid fuel thanks to its inner lubricating
properties. Hence, the use of a gaseous fuel such as natural gas
sets the need for dedicated materials and components [7].
Moreover, specific injection control strategies should be
purposely developed.
Finally, considerable R&D activity was carried out so as to
investigate the effects of the gas pressure on the injection
system behavior [5, 8]. For a given amount of fuel mass, a
lower rail pressure results in an increased injection window.
Thus, injection mainly occurs during the engine intake stroke
and the volumetric efficiency is reduced. This in turn leads to
lower engine power output at low and intermediate engine
speeds, i.e. at speeds where the volumetric efficiency appears
to be the key factor to determine the engine performance.
Conversely, high speed performances are controlled by the air-
fuel mixing rate, this latter being enhanced by the longer
injection duration induced by the lower rail pressure.
Therefore, the engine behavior can be optimized by properly
controlling the injection pressure [8]. To that end, a thorough
fluid-dynamic characterization of the natural gas injection
system is strongly recommended if an appropriate design of the
related control module and devices is to be achieved.
NOMENCLATURE
bmep: brake mean effective pressure
bmep0: brake mean effective pressure reference value
(barycenter value)
CNG: Compressed Natural Gas;
DI: Direct Injection;
ECU: Electronic Control Unit;
p: pressure;
N: engine speed;
N0: engine speed reference value (barycenter value).
INJECTION SYSTEM
Compressed natural gas is safely stored at a pressure of
200 bar in the vehicle fuel tank. The high pressure natural gas
Steel bending pipe
Fuel
hose
CNG
injectors
Gauged
orifice
Rail
Figure 1 – GT-POWER model map.
flows through a gas pressure regulator so as to reduce the gas
pressure down to 9 bar. As the fuel expands through the
pressure regulator, the temperature sensibly drops due to the
Joule-Thomson cooling effect. To actually prevent the fuel
system from freezing, the pressure regulator is heated by the
engine coolant. Moreover, the fuel delivery pipe features a
temperature sensor and a pressure transducer that supply the
inputs required for the ECU control strategies. As a matter of
fact, the injection timings mapped in the ECU are adjusted
according to the rail pressure and temperature in order to
compensate for the injected fuel mass.
MODEL DESCRIPTION
The above described injection system has been modeled at
ICEAL (Internal Combustion Engines Advanced Laboratories)
of Politecnico di Torino with GT-POWER v7.0, a 1-D
simulation tool licensed by Gamma Technologies. The GT-
POWER model map is shown in Fig. 1.
The GT-POWER model has been built according to the
geometry marked by the technical drawings from the injection
system supplier. Each system component has been properly
characterized in terms of its specific geometric features such as
length, diameter, bend radius, etc. Moreover, joints and
connections have been carefully designed so as to account for
the concentrated losses induced by the sudden changes in the
flow section. The distributed losses have in turn been estimated
by suitably setting the pipes surface roughness.
As depicted in Fig. 1, the system downstream from the
pressure regulator is made up of:
• a steel bending pipe; 并根据其长度、直径、弯曲半径等具
体几何特征对系统各部件进行了适当
• a steel fuel hose; 的表征，并对接头和连接件进行了精
心设计，以考虑流动截面突然变化引
起的集中损失。反过来，通过适当设
置管道表面粗糙度来估算管道表面粗
糙度。

2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 • a gauged orifice sited at the end of the hose; 3
• a short straight steel pipe connecting the orifice to
the rail;
• the injectors rail; N2
• the CNG injectors. 2.25

The pressure regulator has not been explicitly considered

bmep/bmep 0
in the GT model. As a matter of fact, a defined environment has
been used to represent the fluid pressure and temperature 1.5
downstream from the pressure regulator. A constant pressure N1
level has hence been used to model steady state operation
whereas the regulator dynamic behavior has been subsequently
simulated by introducing pressure disturbances at the pipe inlet 0.75 W2 W1 O E1 E2
(see ‘Results and Discussion’ section) so as to properly
reproduce the pressure fluctuations inevitably induced by the S1
regulator functioning.
Since a thorough and detailed fluid-dynamic simulation of S2
0
the injection system was required and given the impact of the 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
injector fluid-dynamics on the system behavior, the standard N/N 0
GT injector component has been replaced by a pipe coupled
with a gauged orifice. The former is meant to simulate the fuel Figure 2 – Test matrix.
path inside the injector body whereas the latter represents the the injector dynamics during the opening as well as during the
injector outflow cross section. The orifice diameter has been closing phase have been properly accounted for in the
determined by running the model under steady state conditions definition of the lift profile.
so that the calculated injector mass flow rate matched the
experimental one for the given rail pressure. To that end, the MODEL VALIDATION
GT-Power ‘Optimizer’ tool has been used. The above described GT model has been run so as to
It is worth highlighting that the engine featuring the reproduce the system behavior at any of the test matrix point. It
considered injection system has not been represented in the GT is worth observing that the considered set of experimental
model. Therefore, a driver has been adopted in order to convert points is actually representative of the whole engine operating
the GT-POWER time simulation domain into a crank angle range. Specific attention has been paid to the model outputs as
based domain, thus allowing for properly phasing the injection far as the injection times and the cumulative fuel masses are
events with respect to the considered engine speed. concerned. To that end, the previously calculated nominal
The experimental test matrix consisted of 9 points acquired injection times have been properly adjusted so as to achieve a
at different loads and speeds, as depicted in Fig. 2. The tests reasonable matching with the injected mass flow rates. As a
have been carried out at the CRF (Centro Ricerche Fiat) matter of fact, the injection time theoretical calculations were
laboratories. The engine outputs as well as the model results initially performed assuming steady state operations and
have been normalized to those pertaining to the test matrix constant rail pressure. Hence, since the model is actually
barycenter due to a confidentiality agreement. At each test capable of reproducing the dynamics of the injection system,
point, the nominal injection time has been evaluated on the the so calculated injection times had to be fitly modified to
basis of the engine brake specific fuel consumption. Moreover, account for such phenomena.

Table 1 – Comparison between injection pulse widths. Table 2 – Comparison between injected fuel amounts.

Experimenta
ECU GT POWER Simulated
Error l injected Error
Test point pulse width pulse width Test point injected mass
[%] mass [%]
[μs] [μs] [mg/cycle]
[mg/cycle]
W2 10500 10462 0.36 W2 26.1 25.8 1.15
S2 3750 3877 3.39 S2 7.50 7.40 1.33
O 10600 9992 5.73 O 24.8 23.6 4.84
N2 22300 23889 7.13 N2 59.8 59.5 0.50
E2 10720 10703 0.16 E2 26.7 26.8 0.37

3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 1.2 experimental and the modeled pressure, the cumulative fuel
mass difference highlighted in Table 2 consistently corresponds
to the pulse width mismatch.
Normalized p rail [-]

1.1 experimental simulated
1
0.9
0.8
W2 S2 O N2
Test point
Figure 3 – Comparison between experimental and
simulated average rail pressure.
Table 1 reports the injection pulse width used for the GT
POWER simulations and those implemented by the engine
ECU for some of the considered operating points. A general
good agreement between the experimental values and the
simulation output can be inferred for all of the considered
point, i.e. at any load or speed. It is also worthwhile pointing
out that the percentage error ranges around 3% with a peak
value of 7.1% at point N2. The high matching between the
experimental setting and the model set up also reflects on the
rail pressure levels. Figure 3 compares the average rail pressure
levels measured at the location where the fuel pipe connects to
the rail (red bars) to those produced by the simulations (green
bars). As a matter of fact, minor differences are to be observed
at any operating point. As previously stated, the pressure values
have been normalized to the nominal rail pressure
corresponding to the test matrix barycenter.
Finally, it is worth underlining that, for the barycenter
point, given a quasi-perfect agreement between the
The so validated model has hence been used to reproduce
the fluid-dynamic behavior of the CNG injection system under
on-engine operations.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As a first step, a sensitivity analysis has been carried out
with respect to two of the system main geometric parameters,
such as the rail volume and the gauged orifice diameter. The
simulation cases have been distinctly performed for the two
parameters so as to properly separate the effects induced by
E2 each of the latter.
As a second step, the model has been used to test the
system behavior induced by pressure oscillations in the
upstream environment. The latter were meant to properly
reproduce the factual operating mode of the pressure regulator.
As a matter of fact, despite a constant design downstream
pressure value, the regulator inevitably induces some
disturbances in the regulated pressure. Thus, a variable
sinusoidal input signal has been substituted to the upstream
environment constant pressure level which was previously used
for the validation. Different frequencies as well as amplitudes
have hence been tested.
Sensitivity analysis: rail volume
The rail volume is one the injection system main design
parameters. Still, some specific constraints should be
encountered when choosing a proper value. As a matter of fact,
the rail length is committed to the injectors sites distance on the
engine intake apparatus. Moreover, its cross section diameter is
strictly correlated to the limits deriving from the engine
positioning in the vehicle bonnet. Finally, it is worth recalling
that the rail holds a potentially explosive gas volume at a
relatively high pressure. Thus, the rail volume should be held
down for safety reasons.

1.02 1.02
0.7 0.7
Normalized injected mass [-]

Normalized injected mass [-]

0.85 0.85
.1.0 .1.0
1.01 1.2 1.01
1.2
1.4 1.4

1 1

0.99 0.99

0.98 0.98
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
bmep/bmep 0 [-] N/N 0 [-]

Figure 4 – Effect of the rail diameter on the injected-fuel Figure 5 – Effect of the rail diameter on the injected-fuel
amount for fixed engine speed (N = N0). amount for fixed engine load (bmep = bmep0).
气轨体积是喷射系统的主要设计参数之一，但在选择合适的值时，应遇到一些具
体的约束。事实上，气轨长度是与发动机进气装置上的喷油器位置距离有关的。
此外，它的横截面直径与发动机在汽车发动机罩中的定位所产生的限制密切相
关。最后，值得回顾的是，气轨在相对较高的压力下可容纳潜在的爆炸性气体体
积。因此，出于安全考虑，气轨体积应保持在较低的水平。
4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Normalized D rail
0.7 0.85 .1.0 1.2 1.4
1.05
Injection 1 Injection 2 Injection 1 Injection 2 Injection 1 Injection 2
Normalized p rail [-]

1.025

0.975

0.95
0 180 360
θ [deg CA]
W2
Figure 6 – Rail pressure time histories for different rail volumes in the indicated test points.
Slight variations in the rail volume have been produced by
correspondingly modifying the rail diameter. Figures 4 and 5
display the influence of the rail volume on the injected mass for
constant engine speed and load, respectively. The charts in Fig.
6 represent the corresponding rail instantaneous pressure as a
function of the crank angle for three of the considered test
points. The different symbols and colors adopted refer to the
different ratios of the modified volume to the nominal one
specified in the legend. More specifically, the blue triangles
(Figs. 4-6) and the blue line (Fig 6) represent the design
operating conditions of the injection system. The model outputs
have been normalized to those pertaining to the base volume
configuration. The solid black line represents the injection
events.
An increase in the rail volume (purple triangles and light
blue squares) clearly reduces the pressure oscillations
amplitude as opposed to the pressure waves amplification
induced by the rail volume reduction (green dots and red
diamonds) (Fig. 6). Still, the effects related to the volume
increase appear to be stronger with respect to those deriving
图6中的气轨体积的增加（紫色三角形和浅蓝色正方形）明显减少了压力振荡幅度，
相反的，由轨道体积减小引起的压力波放大(绿点和红点）
1.2
Normalized injected mass [-]
540 720 0 180 360 540 720 0 180 360 540 720
θ [deg CA] θ [deg CA]
O E2
from a volume reduction. It is also worth observing that the
engine speed is progressively increased at constant load as one
moves from point W2 to point E2 (see Fig. 2). As a
consequence, the high frequency components of the pressure
waves are correspondingly damped (Fig. 6). Finally, despite the
highlighted dynamic behavior, small differences can be
observed as far as the injected fuel mass is concerned, both at
constant speed (Fig. 4) and load (Fig. 5).
Sensitivity analisys: guaged orifice diameter
The gauged orifice is meant to disengage the fuel pipe
behavior ahead of the rail from the injector rail functioning.
The sensitivity analysis has been aimed at detecting the specific
diameter capable of achieving an effective disengagement
between the two abovementioned environments, still retaining
the capability of minimizing the pressure drop of the fuel
flowing through.
Results similar to those produced in the previous
subsection have been obtained and are presented in Figs. 7 to 9.
More specifically, Figs. 7 and 8 display the influence of the
1.2

Normalized injected mass [-]

1 1

0.8 0.8
.0.50 .0.50
.0.73 .0.73
.1.0 .1.0
0.6 0.6 .1.50
.1.50
.2.0 .2.0

0.4 0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
bmep/bmep 0 [-] N/N 0 [-]

Figure 7 – Effect of the gauged-orifice diameter on the Figure 8 – Effect of the gauged-orifice diameter on the
injected-fuel amount for fixed engine speed (N = N0). injected-fuel amount for fixed engine load (bmep = bmep0).

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Normalized D orifice
.....
0.5 0.73 .1.0 1.5 .2.0
1.2
Injection 1 Injection 2 Injection 1 Injection 2
Normalized p rail [-]

Injection 1 Injection 2
0.8

0.6

0.4
0 180 360
θ [deg CA]
S2
Figure 9 – Rail pressure time histories for different gauged-orifice diameters in the indicated test points.
orifice diameter on the injected mass at constant speed (Fig. 7)
and load (Fig. 8) whereas the charts in Figure 9 depict the rail
instantaneous pressure as a function of the crank angle for three
of the considered test points. Similarly to the rail volume
sensitivity analysis, the different symbols and colors refer to the
different ratios of the orifice diameter to the nominal one
specified in the legend. Once more, the blue triangles (Figs. 7-
9) and the blue line (Fig. 9) depict the base configuration used
for the model outputs normalization.
The orifice diameter variation outlines an inverse effect
with respect to the rail volume. As a matter of fact, the gauged
orifice diameter mainly affects the average pressure values
whereas it scarcely influences the wave amplitudes (Fig. 9).
Such a behavior is more and more evident as the engine load
increases at constant speed moving from point S2 to point N2
(see Fig. 2). As a matter of fact, as the engine load is
augmented, the injection time and the injected fuel mass
increase, thus enlarging the effect of the pressure drops across
540 720 0 180 360 540 720 0 180 360 540 720
θ [deg CA] θ [deg CA]
O N2
the orifice on the rail average pressure (Fig. 9). As a
consequence, the injected fuel mass progressively diminishes at
high loads as the diameter is correspondently reduced (Fig. 7).
Moreover, the adoption of a modified-to-nominal diameter ratio
of 0.5 has proved to lead to consistent reduction in the injected
fuel masses as the engine speeds up at constant load (red
diamonds in Fig. 8). This is mainly to be ascribed to a higher
incidence of the losses on the rail average pressure at higher
speeds for low orifice diameters. The baseline diameter (blue
triangles) appears to represent the best trade-off value between
the need to properly disengage the two abovementioned
environments and the requirement for reduced pressure losses.
Disturbances simulation
Frequencies ranging from 2 to 2000 Hz have been tested
for a given amplitude at any of the experimental point whereas
a thorough investigation into the amplitude variation effects has
been carried out at the matrix barycenter. Figures 10 and 11

1.02 1.02
0 Hz
Normalized injected mass [-]
Normalized injected mass [-]

2 Hz
20 Hz
1.01 1.01 200 Hz
2000 Hz

1 1
0 Hz
2 Hz
0.99 20 Hz 0.99
200 Hz
2000 Hz
0.98 0.98
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
bmep/bmep 0 [-] N/N 0 [-]

Figure 10 – Effect of the noise frequency downstream from Figure 11 – Effect of the noise frequency downstream from
the pressure regulator on the injected-fuel amount for fixed the pressure regulator on the injected-fuel amount for fixed
engine speed engine load
(N = N0, normalized noise amplitude: 0.011). (bmep = bmep0, normalized noise amplitude: 0.011).

6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 3 – Injected fuel mass absolute percentage variation
at the matrix barycenter for different wave amplitudes
Normalized amplitude
bmep/bmep0 = 1;
[bar]
N/N0 = 1
0.1 0.5 0.7
Injected mass
percentage 0.14 0.73 1.09
variation
report the effects of the frequency on the injected mass at
constant speed and at constant load, respectively. The plots
highlight a decreasing influence of the noise frequency on the
injected mass for values ranging from 200 to 2000 Hz at any
load or speed. As a matter of fact, at high frequencies, the
injected mass corresponds to the base quantity, thus leading to
almost nil percentage variations. Consistently, the pressure
waves obtained at such high frequencies are almost perfectly
overlapping the base line representing the model output for a
constant pressure in the upstream environment (the results are
not presented for the sake of conciseness). Such a behavior
would indicate a damped frequency response of the system as a
whole. Moreover, a frequency of 2 Hz leads to injected fuel
masses lower with respect to the base configuration as the load
is increased at constant speed, thus suggesting a slightly lower
rail average pressure level. Conversely, a frequency of 20 Hz
assesses higher injected fuel masses at any load for the given
engine speed, in turn corresponding to slightly higher rail
average pressure levels. Finally, a non-well defined trend
emerges for the injected fuel mass at the two previously
considered frequency values as the engine speeds up (Fig. 11).
This is most likely to be ascribed to the combined effects of the
engine speed on the system dynamic behavior and of the
variable timing of the injection event with respect to the
instantaneous pressure value in the rail, i.e. the pressure
upstream from the injector.
1.05
Injection 1 Injection 2
Normalized p rail [-]
1.025
1 1
0.975
0.95
0 180 360 540
θ [deg CA]
Figure 12 – Rail pressure time histories for different noise
frequencies downstream from the pressure regulator
(N = N0, bmep = bmep0, normalized noise amplitude: 0.011).
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Table 3 summarizes the results obtained for the inject mass
at the barycenter point as the wave amplitude is progressively
increased. The pressure dynamic behavior at the test matrix
barycenter is depicted as a function of the crank angle for
different frequencies and amplitudes in Figs. 12 and 13,
1 respectively. The colors and the symbols used in Figs. 12 and
13 retain the explicative meaning of the previous sub-sections.
1.42 More specifically, the base configuration is represented by the
blue triangle together with the blue line and corresponds to the
output of the model for constant pressure in the upstream
environment. It is worth recalling that the model outputs have
been normalized to those pertaining to the base configuration.
Slight differences can be observed in Fig. 12 as the noise
frequency rises from 2 to 20 Hz (green dots and red diamonds,
respectively). Conversely, frequencies ranging from 200 to
2000 Hz produce rail pressure time histories almost perfectly
overlapping the base line of the model. This is consistent with
the small variations in the injected mass flow rate evidenced in
Figs. 10 and 11 for the barycenter point. Moreover, as far as the
rail pressure is concerned, the behavior previously described
for the injected fuel masses for a given engine speed at the two
considered frequencies of 2 Hz and 20 Hz is to be clearly seen
in Fig. 12.
As far as the amplitude is concerned, slight variations were
observed for the injected mass flow rate (Table 3) as well as for
the rail dynamic behavior (Fig. 13).
CONCLUSION
A thorough and detailed fluid-dynamic simulation of the
injection system was carried out within the GT-POWER
environment. The simulations were performed so as to evaluate
the impact of the injector fluid-dynamics on the system
behavior. A sensitivity analysis was carried out with respect to
the rail volume and the gauged orifice diameter. The simulation
cases were distinctly performed for the two parameters, so as to
properly separate the effects induced by each of the latter.
0 Hz 1.1
2 Hz .0.00
Injection 1 Injection 2 .0.011
20 Hz
.0.056
Normalized p rail [-]
200 Hz
1.05 .0.078
2000 Hz
.0.11
0.95
0.9
720 0 180 360 540 720
θ [deg CA]
Figure 13 – Rail pressure time histories for different noise
amplitudes downstream from the pressure regulator
(N = N0, bmep = bmep0, noise frequency: 100 Hz).
7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
 Finally, the influence of pressure oscillations in the upstream
environment on the system behavior was extensively
investigated in terms of disturbances frequency and amplitude.
The main results can be summarized as follows.
• An increase in the rail volume clearly reduces the
pressure oscillations amplitude as opposed to the
pressure waves amplification induced by the rail
volume reduction. However, small differences can be
observed as far as the injected fuel mass is concerned.
测孔直径主要影响气
• The gauged orifice diameter mainly affects the
轨平均压力值，但对 average rail pressure values whereas it scarcely
波幅影响不大，因此 influences the wave amplitudes. As a consequence, the
，随着直径的相应减
小，注入燃料质量逐 injected fuel mass progressively diminishes as the
渐减小，设计直径是 diameter is correspondently reduced. The design
喷油器轨有效脱离燃
油管道行为的最佳值 diameter proved to be the optimal value for an
，但对压力降的影响 effective disengagement of the injector rail from the
仍然较小。
fuel pipe behavior, still attaining minor effects on the
pressure drops.
• The dynamic behavior induced by the high frequency
模拟压力调节器工作
的高频扰动所引起的 disturbances introduced to simulate the pressure
动态行为再现了在上 regulator functioning reproduces the model output for
游环境下恒定压力的
模型输出，从而表明 a constant pressure in the upstream environment, thus
了系统的阻尼频率响应suggesting a damped frequency response of the
。就振幅而言，在重心system. As far as the amplitude is concerned, slight
点处的注入质量流量有
轻微的变化。 variations were observed for the injected mass flow
rate at the barycenter point.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The support of Metatron Spa in the pressure regulator
characterization is acknowledged.
8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/19/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
REFERENCES
[1] Catania, A.E., Misul, D., Spessa, E., Martorana G.,
“Conversion of a Multivalve Gasoline Engine to Run on CNG,”
SAE 2000 Transactions, Journal of Engines, Vol. 109, pp. 809-
817, 2001.
[2] Kvenvolden, K. A., “Natural Gas Hydrate Occurrence
and Issues,” Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. on Natural Gas Hydrates, New
Paltz, NY, 1993.
[3] Dyntar, D., Onder, C., Guzzella, L., “Modeling and
Control of CNG Engines”, SAE Paper No. 2002-01-1295,
2000.
[4] Middleton, T., Khatri D.S, “NaturalGas Injection
System for Buses and trucks:Performance and Future
Emissions normsare achievable”, SAE Paper No. 2007-26-026,
2007.
[5] Middleton, A., Neumann, B., Khatri, D.S.,
“Development of Dedicated CNG Engine with Multipoint Gas
Injection System”, SAE Paper No. 2008-28-0014, 2008.
[6] Huang, Z., Shiga, S., Ueda, T., Nobuhisa, J.,
Nakamura, H., Ishima, T., Obokata, T., Tsue, M., Kono, M., “A
basic behavior of CNG DI combustion in a spark-ignited rapid
compression machine”, JSME International Journal, Series B:
Fluids and Thermal Engineering, Vol. 454, pp. 891-900, 2002.
[7] Liu, C. Y., Chen R., Hussain, S. F., “Development of
Gaseous Injector for Propane and CNG, Part I”, SAE Paper No.
981355, 1998.
[8] A-Rashid A-Aziz, Firmansyah, “The Effect of Fuel
Rail Pressure on the Performance of a CNG-Direct Injection
Engine”, SAE Paper No. 2009-01-1498, 2009