SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES 2008-01-0941

The Impact of Injection Strategies on

Emissions Reduction and Power
Output of Future Diesel Engines
Gavin Dober, Simon Tullis, Godfrey Greeves, Nebojsa Milovanovic,
Martin Hardy and Stefan Zuelch
Delphi Diesel Systems

Reprinted From: Diesel Fuel Injection and Sprays, 2008

(SP-2183)

2008 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 14-17, 2008

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2008 SAE International
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.

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

Printed in USA

The Impact of Injection Strategies on Emissions Reduction
and Power Output of Future Diesel Engines
Gavin Dober, Simon Tullis, Godfrey Greeves, Nebojsa Milovanovic,
Copyright © 2008 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Future light, medium and heavy duty diesel engines will
need to satisfy the more stringent emission levels (US
2014, Euro 6, etc.) without compromising their current
performance and fuel economy, while still maintaining a
competitive cost. In order to achieve this, the Fuel
Injection Equipment (FIE) together with the pressure
charging, cooling system, exhaust after treatment and
other engine sub-systems will each play a key role. The
FIE has to offer a range of flexible injection
characteristics, e.g. a multiple injection train with or
without separation, modulated injection pressures and
rates for every injection, higher specific power output
from the same injector envelope, and close control of
very small fuel injection quantities.
The aim of this paper is to present Delphi’s
developments in fuel injection strategies for light and
medium duty diesel engines that will comply with future
emission legislation, whilst providing higher power
density and uncompromised fuel economy.
INTRODUCTION
The market improvement of Diesel vehicles is closely
linked to the continuous improvement in its perception to
customer and benefits such as drivability, increased
power density and improved fuel consumption. One of
the main contributors to this is significant improvement in
Fuel Injection Equipment (FIE). During the recent years,
sales of passenger cars powered with direct injection
Common Rail (CR) FIE have gained a noticeable
increase in market share in Europe to over 50% (or more
than 8 million vehicles annually) [1].
Diesel engines for passenger cars, medium and heavy
duty vehicles and off-road applications need to meet
future stringent emission regulations, as proposed in
areas such as the USA, Japan and Europe. In particular
there is a need to reduce the emissions of NOx and
particulate matter (PM) over the appropriate emission
test cycle.
2008-01-0941
Martin Hardy and Stefan Zuelch
Delphi Diesel Systems
In general it is beneficial to further develop the diesel
engine combustion system to provide further reductions
in engine-out NOx and PM emissions, even when
exhaust aftertreatment systems are to be used. For
example, in-cylinder combustion improvements can help
to reduce the urea consumption needed for the Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system and/or reduce the
required frequency of regeneration for a Diesel
Particulate Filter (DPF) system. Also there is a
continuing demand to increase the engine torque and
rated power output and to reduce the engine fuel
consumption which also impacts CO2 emissions.
The search for better combustion in the field of diesel
engines has been strongly linked to the capability of the
FIE to generate high injection pressures which gives
faster fuel-air mixing and lower soot formation allowing
an overall better emissions and performance trade off.
CR systems provide a significant increase in injection
pressure capability compared with previous rotary and
inline pump systems and also provide electronic control
of the level of injection pressure across the engine speed
and load range [2].
The CR system can also provide a flexible choice of
multiple injections that can be used to explore potential
benefits including a pilot that is necessary to mitigate the
tendency for higher combustion noise with the relatively
square diagram of a CR system. Also multiple injections
can be used to facilitate various forms of advanced
combustions (low temperature, premixed or partially-
premixed) to achieve very low NOx and soot at least for
part load conditions [3, 4].
The performance of the CR system has been continually
refined over the last several years. In order to maintain
precise injection control and minimize dispersion
between vehicles, innovative software strategies have
been developed including Accelerometer Pilot Control
(APC) and Individual Injector Calibration (I3C) [5].
Simultaneously there is a continuous request to increase
the maximum pressure capability of CR systems. The
latest light duty systems are capable of 2000bar, and will FUEL INJECTION EQUIPMENT
be capable of > 2000bar in the near future.
The FIE used were Common Rail systems with the
The aim of this paper is to present developments in FIE maximum pressure of 2000bar. The pump was a three-
and fuel injection strategies for light and medium duty plunger Diesel Fuel Pump (DFP 3 family) [7], which was
diesel engines that will comply with future emission electrically driven on engine 1 and engine mounted on
legislation, whilst providing higher power density and engine 2. As flow rates through the pump are four times
uncompromised fuel economy. lower than normal on a single cylinder engine some
uncertainty exists over the friction characteristics with the
EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND engine driven pump. For this reason only indicated
PROCEDURES specific performance is presented with engine 2.
TM
ENGINE SET-UP The fuel injectors used were: Multec Solenoid Injector
(DFI 1 family) and a Direct Acting Injector (DFI 3 family).
Two single cylinder engines with similar configurations The operational schematics of these injectors are shown
were used for test work presented here. The engine in Figure 1.
details are listed in Table 1. The engines versions 1 and
2 used for this work both have a 4-valve cylinder head DFI 1 Concept DFI 3 Concept
with variable swirl capability although the lowest level of Balanced Servo Solenoid Direct Acting Control
swirl (∼ 2.0 on the momentum meter method) was used Actuator
for tests presented here. The engines were run with an (Solenoid)
external pressure charging system to control the boost
pressure, temperature and Exhaust Gas Recirculation Piezo-
(EGR) level. Values were chosen based on a 2.0 and ceramic
Pressure
2.1 litre, 4cylinder, Variable Geometry Turbine (VGT) Acutator
Balanced
equipped engine. Comparisons have been made Valve
between these engines and multi-cylinder engines to
estimate a friction correction factor [6]. This factor has
Low
been applied to all estimates of BMEP. High Pressure
Pressure Return Motion
Control Amplifier
Table 1. Engine details
Engine 1 Engine 2 Control
Piston
Engine Type 4 stroke diesel 4 stroke diesel Needle
Needle
Light Duty Light Duty
Nozzle
Direct Injection Direct Injection Nozzle
1 cylinder 1 cylinder,
Spray
Research Research
Bore x Stroke 85 x 89 mm 85 x 94 mm
Swept Volume 0.5 litres 0.533 litres
Compression TM
Ratio 16.5:1 16:1 Figure 1. Multec Solenoid and Direct Acting CR
Injectors
Cylinder-head 4 valve 4 valve
variable swirl variable swirl TM
Fuel Injection Common Rail Injectors: MULTEC DFI 1 INJECTOR – This solenoid injector is
TM
-Multec Solenoid (DFI 1 family) based on a unique design with balanced servo valve
-Direct Acting (DFI 3 family) technology. The small size of this valve/actuator allows it
to be packaged in-line and in close proximity to the
Pump Mounting Electrically Engine mounted
needle providing fast actuation and precise metering.
Driven
With this approach closing and opening of the servo
valve can be completed, depending on model (DFI 1.1 –
The engines were mounted on a steady state test bed 1.5), within 100-250 μsec [5]. This performance, with the
and were fully instrumented for the measurement of proven durability of the solenoid actuation principle, is
performance, smoke (AVL 415S heated smoke meter for equal or better than the servo-piezo driven injector
filter smoke number - FSN) and gaseous emissions technologies currently available. The compact DFI 1
(Horiba MEXA 7100 DEGR). Fuel consumption was injector requires less force to operate (20N) and
measured by a gravimetric method (using an AVL 733 therefore less energy, so the standard voltage supply of
fuel meter). The CO2 measurements were made in the 12 V available from the battery is sufficient. The
exhaust and were used to calculate changes of airflow, elimination of the control piston (a device that connects
and hence levels of EGR. The soot emissions were not the control chamber with the needle-Figure 1) provides
measured directly but estimated from the smoke using the potential to reduce back-leakage, which improves
the AVL correlation.
hydraulic efficiency and reduces the amount of cooling
required on the fuel return path.
DIRECT ACTING DFI 3 INJECTOR – In comparison to
conventional servo (solenoid or piezo) hydraulic
injectors, the DFI 3 operates with completely different
technology. This technology eliminates the usual four-
step servo hydraulic concept (actuation of the
solenoid/piezo, opening the servo valve, release of the
pressure from the control chamber through a
restriction/orifice and opening the needle) down to a
single step: The direct actuation of the needle through a
hydraulic amplifier by a piezo-ceramic actuator (Figure
1).
The DFI 3 concept allows both a fast and controlled
opening and closing of the nozzle needle independent of
rail pressure. This is possible because unlike a servo-
controlled injector, the force change needed for needle
opening is provided by a piezo-actuator that is decoupled
from the rail pressure supply. It is therefore possible to
adapt the force change delivered by the actuator
electronically as required. This leads to an improved
multiple injection capability. This injector contains an
The overall result is an injection rate which approaches
an ideal square wave. This provides the potential for
much better spray formation, particularly at low rail
pressures and for very small injection quantities (0.5
mg). It also allows a shorter injection period for the
same rail pressure and injection quantity [5].
Another advantage of the volume of fuel in the injector
and the absence of a back-leak is a reduction in the size
of pressure oscillations in the pipe leading into the
injector. When combined with the fast needle speed,
which is independent of rail pressure, the interaction
between pilot quantity and separation and main quantity
is reduced (Figures 3 and 4). This feature increases the
flexibility of operation of the injection in terms of the
range and number of injections. Pilot-main separation
can consequently be varied to find the optimum
separation from a combustion stand-point rather than the
optimum from a hydraulic stand-point.
60 2000
Servo injector
Direct acting
50
1600

Injection rate (mg/ms)

internal volume of fuel, and does not have any back-leak.

Rail pressure (bar)

The absence of a back-leak simplifies the installation 40
1200
and eliminates the need for fuel return lines and fuel
coolers even when operating at 2000 bar. It also 30
reduces the parasitic losses in the high pressure pump 800
thus giving a potential fuel economy benefit. 20

Hydraulic performance of DFI3 –The hydraulic 10

400
performance of the direct acting injector DFI 3 is
improved over servo injectors. The maximum needle
0 0
speed approaches 3 m/s while servo injectors normally
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
operate at approximately 1 m/s. The needle speed of
Time after start of Injection (ms)
DFI3 is not dependent on rail pressure and so is
maintained even at very low rail pressures (Figure 2).
The other feature to note is the maintenance of high line Figure 3. Pressure drop in high pressure pipe at entry to
pressure, on the entrance to the injector, even after the the injector at 2000 rpm
start of injection (Figure 3). This is due to a volume of
fuel stored within the injector, and due to the absence of
a back-leak from the injector. The improved stability of 38
rail pressure then leads to a consistent injection rate for
the full injection duration (Figure 2).
34
D e liv ery (m g )

30

Servo Injector
26
Direct Acting

22
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Hydraulic separation (ms)

Figure 4. The effect of pilot-main separation on total fuel

quantity at constant demand
Figure 2. Injection rate at different rail pressures and
constant duration with DFI3
Engine performance of DFI3 – With the square rate
profile the injector can provide more fuel in a shorter
period of time, which leads to an enhancement in the
engine performance as can be seen from results in
Figure 5. The results were obtained on Engine 1 for full
load rated speed at constant maximum cylinder pressure
and exhaust temperature.
imply benefits for the injection of small quantities at low
rail pressures as a much greater proportion of the fuel
will be injected with a fully open needle and consequently
with the best spray structure when compared to a servo
injector.
1.2

SMOKE (FSN)
0.9
The fast operation of the nozzle needle brings an
improvement in the spray momentum, which in turn 0.6
increases the rate of fuel break-up and air entrainment.
0.3

244 0.0
Servo Injector
BSFC (g/kWh)

240 Direct Acting 4500

CO [ppm]
236 -3% 3000

232 1500

228 0

1.5 1800
Sm oke (FSN)

-30%

THC [ppm]
1.0 1200

0.5 600

0.0 0

19.0 234
BM EP (bar)

ISFC [g/kWh]

18.5
+5%
226
18.0
218
17.5

17.0 210
1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44

Rail Pressure (bar) NOx [ppm]

DFI3 - single injection - 600bar RP - EGR swing

Figure 5. Engine performance comparison servo injector DFI3 - triple injection - 850bar RP - EGR swing
vs direct acting at 4200rpm

This improves the mixing within the fuel jet (i.e.
increasing the rate of fuel-air mixing) and hence reduces
the smoke emissions (Figure 5). This feature, together
with a needle speed which is independent of the rail
pressure, gives an additional freedom for the engine
calibration to achieve emission targets without
compromising fuel consumption
As the emissions legislative cycles (NEDC, FTP and
Japan 10-15) are largely concentrated in the part load
region, then there is a scope for improvement in
emissions with using different injection, air and EGR
strategies. This will be explained in more detail later in
the text.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
MULTIPLE EARLY INJECTIONS
Two of the key features of the direct acting injector, as
previously discussed, are the independence of the
needle speed from rail pressure and a very low
interaction between injection events. These features
Figure 6. 1380rpm, 1.1bar BMEP: Reduction of THC and
CO at equivalent smoke with triple injection strategy
(Injection timings vary with EGR over the range of
18ºBTDC to 1ºBTDC)
Furthermore, the low interaction allows an increase in the
flexibility in delivery of multiple injection events and the
minimum separation time between two injections can, if
necessary be reduced even to 0 μsec [5]. This gives the
potential to perform close coupled multiple injections (i.e.
‘injection trains’) that could be more suitable for the
advanced types of combustion (low temperature,
premixed, partially premixed, etc.). Some of these results
are presented in Figures 6 and 7, which show very low
NOx concentrations achieved using an advanced type of
combustion. The tests were performed on Engine 2 with
the DFI 3. Minimum NOx emissions were reached using
very high levels of EGR (43% - 64%) and by injecting
early enough so as to avoid diffusion combustion. This
was all done at a constant boost pressure and
combustion timing.
 Reducing the rail pressure effects the penetration of the
0.4 spray, thus effecting mixing, but it also typically lowers
the momentum and mixing energy. This can result in an
SMOKE (FSN)

0.3
increase in the soot emission [8]. An alternative solution
0.2 is to use a multiple injection strategy to reduce
penetration. This can also be done in conjunction with
0.1 reduced rail pressures (∼250 bar instead of 450 bar) for
the lowest load (Figure 6) or at increased rail pressures
0.0 as the load increases (Figure 7). With triple injection but
with the lower rail pressure the THC is reduced by ~ 55-
4500
60% and CO by ~ 25-40% dependent on EGR when
CO [ppm ]

3000 compared with a single injection strategy. As expected

the noise is also reduced by ~5dBA and specific fuel
1500 consumption is improved by ~ 8%. This improved
performance is attributed to a more even fuel-air mixture
0 with the multiple injection strategy.
1800
With triple injection at 2.5bar BMEP the rail pressure was
THC [ppm]

increased up to 850bar (Figure 7). Higher rail pressures

1200
were more advantageous at the higher loads to increase
600
the rate of fuel-air mixing before combustion begins.
This calibration produced an improvement in emissions
0 over the single injection strategy. CO was reduced by ~
0-20% and THC by ~ 40-60% dependent on EGR level.
265 Noise was also reduced by ~ 0-2dB, which was a smaller
ISFC [g/kWh]

amount than at the lower load and probably due to the

250 higher injection pressures. Specific fuel consumption
was also improved in the range of ∼ 0-2%. These
235
improvements are attributed to the increased freedom in
220 the separations between the multiple injections as
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 subsequent injections are relatively independent of the
NOx [ppm] previous injection [5].
DFI3 - single injection - 250bar RP - EGR swing
DFI3 - triple injection - 250bar RP - EGR swing
5.0

4.0
S M OKE [FS N]

Figure 7. 1480rpm, 2.5bar BMEP: Improvement in THC

3.0
emissions with triple injection strategy (injection timings
vary with EGR over the range of 28ºBTDC to 4ºBTDC) 2.0

1.0
As can be seen in the results, the emissions of THC and
CO are several times higher than would be produced 0.0
with conventional combustion. A typical solution is to
use after treatment (Diesel Oxidation Catalyst) to clean 210
IS FC [g/kW h]

up these emissions, however this can be difficult when

the loads and hence the exhaust temperatures are very 200
low. The increase in THC and CO emissions is a result
of generally lower combustion temperatures with 190
advanced types of combustion using high EGR for very
low NOx. Also since the fuel is injected early it has time 180
to mix before combustion starts. Inevitably, some fuel 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
NOx [ppm]
may mix to an over-lean condition (i.e. lean pocket of
Ref - Std Boost - 930bar RP
over-mixed fuels can exist) and not reach a high enough
DFI3 - Std Boost - 800bar RP
temperature giving a source of high THC and CO [8, 9]. DFI3 - Std Boost - 1250bar RP - EGR swing
Also with very early injection there is the possibility of DFI3 - Adv Boost - 1200bar RP - EGR swing
liquid impingement depending on test conditions. DFI3 - Adv Boost - 1600bar RP - EGR swing
Therefore, a fine control is required over the injection DFI3 - Adv Boost - 2000bar RP
timing and the mixture formed to avoid excessively high
THC and CO. Ideally this can be achieved using
different injection strategies. This approach was trialed Figure 8. 1935rpm, 9.1bar BMEP: Potential for ultra-low
on this engine with both a variation of rail pressure and NOx at mid load
multiple injection strategies.
 At medium to high loads a more conventional 0.0020
combustion strategy has to be used. However, the use

Weighted Soot (g/km)

DFI1, Nozzle flow 0.6l/min
of high levels of cooled EGR still allows very low NOx 0.0015
DFI3, Nozzle flow 0.8l/min
levels to be reached although there is a more typical NOx
0.0010
– Soot trade-off (Figure 8) [10]. The improvements in
the NOx-Soot trade-off are due to the improved opening 0.0005
and closing characteristics of the direct acting injector.
For the same smoke level and a lower rail pressure NOx 0.0000
can be reduced by ∼15% (from 180ppm to 153ppm) by

Weighted NOx (g/km)

0.0045
using more EGR. This is possible since the DFI 3
injector provides higher spray momentum, particularly 0.0030
during the opening and closing phases of the injection
event and therefore allows additional EGR to be 0.0015
tolerated. A small increase in rail pressure allows further
increase in EGR and improves NOx to 110ppm. 0.0000

Weighted CO (g/km)
0.15
A 2-stage turbo charging system might be expected to
allow an increase in the absolute inlet manifold pressure 0.10
from 1.7bar to 2.2bar. This increased boost allows an
increase in the maximum EGR from 26% to 38%, which 0.05

enables a further NOx reduction to 70ppm at 1200bar rail

0.00
pressure and while keeping soot constant. Increasing
the rail pressure reduces the NOx further and finally with

Weighted HC (g/km)
0.06
the system maximum of 2000bar and high levels of
boost EGR may be increased to 45%, which reduces 0.04

NOx to less than 30ppm.

0.02

There is, as expected, a noise penalty to using such high 0.00

rail pressures but this exercise is intended to
demonstrate the possibilities rather than attempting to be
a final solution. It is also important to note that indicated
specific fuel consumption (ISFC) does not deteriorate as
the NOx is lowered. It does instead show a strong
improvement of up to 10% over the reference. However,
due to the increase in pump parasitic losses with the
higher rail pressures, the actual brake specific
improvement is likely to be only around half this value.
MULTI-MODE CYCLE SIMULATION
An engine optimization was performed with both injectors
(DFI1.3 and the DFI3) with the objective of meeting
forthcoming worldwide emissions levels and minimizing
the need for NOx after-treatment. The NEDC emissions
cycle was simulated with 12 key steady state modes. It
can be seen that both injectors gave good results (Figure
9).
The DFI3 offers additional benefits in both NOx and soot
over a range of different speeds and loads, even when it
uses a larger nozzle size (0.8 l/min vs 0.6 l/min). This
makes DFI3 more suitable for a range of challenging
high performance/high vehicle weight applications, and
gives the potential for reductions in CO2 emissions.
The only apparent deficiency of the DFI3 system is at
mode11. It should be pointed out that this is a medium
load point of 7.4bar BMEP where the size of the nozzle is
of critical importance. The DFI3 suffers somewhat
because of the choice of a larger nozzle flow.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Test Mode
Figure 9. NEDC simulated vehicle performance with 12
modes, (Engine 1, engine-out emissions; class C,
1600kg vehicle mass)
It should be noted that these results only show the
potential of both injectors to achieve forthcoming
emissions level. To do so robustly across millions of
vehicles and over the life of the vehicles, still requires
development and validation in transient controls, closed
loop strategies and tolerance reduction which will be
explored in future papers.
RATE SHAPING
As indicated earlier in this paper, when using an injector
with a very fast needle opening and closing (i.e. speed of
∼ 3 m/s) there is a slightly higher level of noise when
compared to a servo system with the same injection
strategy. The reason for the higher noise is an increase
in the fuel quantity injected during the ignition delay
period and consequently a larger proportion of premixed
combustion. It is possible to mitigate this with multiple
injections. As DFI3 has potential for multiple injections
with a short separation time, then there is the possibility
to increase the number of pre-injections (to 2 or 3) to
reduce noise [11]. However, this introduces additional
calibration work which it would be better to avoid.
Since the actuation of the needle is only dependent on
the piezo-ceramic stack voltage then a large amount of
freedom is available to control the opening and closing
rates of the injector. A first attempt at a noise reducing Table 2. Emissions and Noise with dual opening injection
strategy was to slow the opening rate of the injector by rates
using the conventional approach of slowing down the
needle opening velocity. The results were shown to Injection NOx Smoke Noise THC Delivery
reduce noise, however they also increased the soot. Rate (ppm) (FSN) (dBA) (ppm) (mg)
This is assumed to be due to deterioration in spray Normal 371 0.143 93.7 99 38.8
momentum efficiency, during the low/slow needle lift Slower 371 0.151 92.6 105 38.7
period that led to poor fuel-air mixing inside the Slowest 371 0.154 89.5 99 38.7
combustion chamber, as was also discussed by Reitz et
al [12]. The effect of this strategy is illustrated in Figure 11 and
Table 2. The results, obtained at 2800rpm and 10.4bar
It was subsequently postulated that noise could be BMEP, show a 4.2dBA reduction in combustion noise at
reduced independently of smoke by using a dual opening equivalent NOx with little or no change in smoke
rate strategy. Initially the injector would be opened fast performance.
and then the needle velocity would be slowed (Figure
10). It was anticipated that this would allow a 102
minimization of the momentum efficiency loss and of the

Combustion noise (dBA)

poorly formed sprays at the start of injection, but still Normal Pilot-Main Separation = 0.22ms
maintain enough needle seat throttling to reduce the 98 Slower
quantity of fuel injected during the ignition delay. This Slowest
would then lead to a reduction in the amount of noise
produced without compromising mixing. 94

90

86
0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32
Pilot Quantity (ms)

Figure 12. Effect of pilot quantity and dual opening rate

on noise at 1400rpm, 3.4bar BMEP (Engine 1)

102
Com bustion noise (dBA)

Normal Pilot-Main Separation = 0.16ms

Figure 10. Hydraulic test bench data for dual opening Slower
98
rate strategy at 1200bar Slowest
120
94
Normal
C y lin d e r P re s s u re (b a r)

100 Slower
Slowest 90
80
86
S ta c k V o lta g e

60 0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32

Pilot Quantity (ms)
40
Figure 13. Effect of pilot quantity and dual opening rate
20 on noise at 2150rpm, 7.4bar BMEP (Engine 1)
-20 -10 0 10 20 30
This noise benefit extends to using pilots as can be seen
Crank Angle Degrees (ATDC) in Figures 12 and 13. The new strategy leads to a lower
minimum noise level at both low and medium loads.
Figure 11. Dual opening rate at 2800rpm/10.4bar BMEP Additionally the injector control is more robust with the
(1000bar rail pressure; Engine 1) level of noise being less sensitive to the pilot quantity.
CONCLUSIONS
TM
The existing Common Rail Multec DFI 1 family and
next generation Direct Acting DFI 3 family have been
designed to minimize the need for NOx after-treatment
for forthcoming emission regulations. The DFI 3 is
particularly suitable for the high power and performance
heavier-vehicle applications demanded by the market.
The key attributes of the Direct Acting system are as
follows:
• Designed for 2000 bar capability
• Fast needle operation resulting in simultaneous
power increase and soot and NOx emissions
reduction.
• Enhanced multiple injection capability (0.5 mg
minimum quantity and 0μs separation)
• Variable needle velocity capability, hence enabling
various rate shaping capabilities
• No back-leak, hence operations without back-leak
lines
• Potential for operation without a fuel cooler
• The potential for improved fuel consumption
• Operation with the existing pump capacity
common rail development for the Multec™ diesel
common rail system. In: Internal Combustion
Engines: Performance, Fuel Economy and
Emissions, 11. – 12.12.2007. Editor: IMechE London
2007
8. Khan I M, Greeves G, Wang C H T, “Factors
affecting smoke and gaseous emissions from direct
injection engines and a method of calculation”, SAE
730169.
9. Miles, P., Sources and mitigation of CO and UHC
emissions in low-temperature diesel combustion
regimes: Insights obtained via homogeneous reactor
modeling, DEER 07 Conference, Detroit, 13-16
August, 2007.
10. Heywood J B, Internal combustion engine
fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988.
11. G. Bression, D Soleri, S Savy, S Dehoux, D Azoulay,
H Hamouda, L Doradoux, B Bastardie, N Lawrence
“Reduction of THC and CO emissions at low load for
HCCI diesel combustion”, 6th Symposium towards
clean diesel engine – Napoli, June 20-22nd 2007.
12. H Juneja, Yl Ra and R D Reitz, “Optimization of
Injection Rate Shape Using Active Control of Fuel
Injection” SAE 2004-01-0530.

These potentials provide a competitive advantage for

CONTACT
next generation of passenger car diesel engines in
competition with turbo charged downsized gasoline Gavin Dober, PhD BEng, BSci
engine and improved hybrid engines. Senior Development Engineer
Combustion Department
Delphi Diesel Systems
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Courteney Road
Gillingham
The authors would like to thank Detlev Schoeppe, Kent, UK
Engineering Director for his support and comments. ME8 0RU
Thanks are also due to AVL GmbH for their excellent Email: gavin.dober@delphi.com
work in generating the results presented from engine 2. Tel +44(0)1634 874639
REFERENCES
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS
1. US DoE, FreedomCAR & vehicles technologies
Program, fact sheet no. 481, Aug 2007.
ATDC After Top Dead Centre
2. Ganser M A, “Common rail injectors for 2000 bar
and beyond”, SAE 2000-01-0706.
BMEP Brake Mean Effective Pressure
3. Montgomery D T, Reitz R D, “Effects of multiple
injections and flexible control of boost and EGR on
BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
emissions and fuel consumption of a heavy-duty
diesel engine”, SAE 2001-01-0195, 2001.
BTDC Before Top Dead Centre
4. Hardy W L, Reitz R D, “An experimental investigation
of partially premixed combustion strategies using
CO Carbon Monoxide
multiple injections in a heavy-duty diesel engine”,
SAE paper 2006-01-0917.
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
5. Schoeppe D, Spadafora P, Guerrassi N, Greeves G,
Guerts D, “ Diesel common rail technology for future
CR Common Rail
high power and low emission standards “, Dresden
2005.
DEG Degrees
6. Tullis S, Greeves G, HSDI emission reduction with
common rail FIE, IMechE 1999 S492/S18.
DPF Diesel Particulate Filter
7. Jorach, R. W.; Schöppe, D.; Nevard, R. T.;
Thornthwaite, I. R.; Wilson, N. D.: Delphi’s 2000 bar
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation
FC Fuel Consumption

FIE Fuel Injection equipment

FSN Filter Smoke Number

IMEP Indicated Mean Effective Pressure

ISFC Indicated Specific Fuel Consumption

I3C Individual Injector Calibration

NEDC New European Drive Cycle

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen

PM Particulate Matter

PPM Parts Per Million

RP Rail Pressure

RPM Revolutions Per Minute

RS Rig swirl number

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

SFC Specific Fuel consumption

TDC Top Dead Center

THC Total Hydrocarbon

VGT Variable Geometry Turbine