Search Results

Modern diesel systems have come to rely on fuel systems with the capacity for high injection pressures. The benefits of such high pressures include improved tolerance for EGR, reduced emissions and improved performance. Current production fuel systems have typical capacities to 2500 bar, when a decade ago 1800 bar was a typical limit. Following the trend, this paper investigates the effect of rail pressures up to 3000 bar on a 1.5L single cylinder research engine. The injector nozzles tested include two variations in flow rate, the number of holes, and spray cone angle. In addition to fuel rail pressure, the effects of intake swirl, excess-air ratio, EGR, and injection timing are evaluated at speed and load points representative of A100, B100, and C100 test conditions of the U.S. EPA on-highway 13 Mode test cycle.

Increasing fuel injection pressure has enabled reduction of diesel emissions while retaining the advantage of the high thermal efficiency of diesel engines. With production diesel injectors operating in the range from 300 to 2400 bar, there is interest in injection pressures of 3000 bar and higher for further emissions reduction and fuel efficiency improvements. Fundamental understanding of diesel spray characteristics including very early injection and non-vaporizing spray penetration is essential to improve model development and facilitate the integration of advanced injection systems with elevated injection pressure into future diesel engines. Studies were conducted in an optically accessible constant volume combustion vessel under non-vaporizing conditions. Two advanced high pressure multi-hole injectors were used with different hole diameters, number of holes, and flow rates, with only one plume of each injector being imaged to enable high frame rate imaging.

The cost of fuel for commercial trucks is second only to labor in the total vehicle operating costs. Therefore, technologies that reduce fuel consumption can have a significant impact on the bottom line for both trucking fleets and owner/operators. Quantifying the fuel savings associated with different technologies, however, is complicated by many factors, and short-term testing often cannot adequately quantify small changes in fuel consumption that, over time, can add up to substantial cost savings on a vehicle. For example, fuel economy gains of less than one percent may not be reliably measurable using fuel tests, and variable environmental and use factors can cast some doubt on the appropriateness of short-term testing.

In order to improve the accuracy of vehicle simulation under transient cycle conditions and thus predict performance and fuel consumption, consideration of the complete system engine/drivetrain/vehicle is necessary. The coupling of otherwise independent simulation programs is therefore necessary for the vehicle and engine. The description of thermally transient processes enables the calculation of the heat balance of the engine, which in turn enables the simulation of warming up operation. Through consideration of the engine warming up process, the quality of the prediction of fuel consumption and emissions is improved. The combination of the simulation programs CRUISE and BOOST to determine the engine heat balance has proven to be successful for the analysis of transient drive cycles.