Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 3311–3323 | Cite as

Model-based optimization of injection strategies for SI engine gas injectors

  • Stefano Beccari
  • Emiliano Pipitone
  • Marco Cammalleri
  • Giuseppe Genchi
Article

Abstract

A mathematical model for the prediction of the mass injected by a gaseous fuel solenoid injector for spark ignition (SI) engines has been realized and validated through experimental data by the authors in a recent work [1]. The gas injector has been studied with particular reference to the complex needle motion during the opening and closing phases. Such motion may significantly affect the amount of injected fuel. When the injector nozzle is fully open, the mass flow depends only on the upstream fluid pressure and temperature. This phenomenon creates a linear relationship between the injected fuel mass and the injection time (i.e. the duration of the injection pulse), thus enabling efficient control of the injected fuel mass by simply acting on the injection time. However, a part of the injector flow chart characterized by strong nonlinearities has been experimentally observed by the authors [1]. Such nonlinearities may seriously compromise the air-fuel mixture quality control and thus increase both fuel consumption and pollutant emissions (SI engine catalytic conversion systems have very low efficiency for non-stoichiometric mixtures). These nonlinearities arise by the injector outflow area variation caused by needle impacts and bounces during the transient phenomena, which occur in the opening and closing phases of the injector. In this work, the mathematical model previously developed by the authors has been employed to study and optimize two appropriate injection strategies to linearize the injector flow chart to the greatest extent. The first strategy relies on injection pulse interruption and has been originally developed by the authors, whereas the second strategy is known in the automotive engine industry as the peak and hold injection. Both injection strategies have been optimized through minimum injection energy considerations and have been compared in terms of linearization effectiveness. Efficient linearization of the injector flow chart has been achieved with both injection strategies, and a similar increase in injector operating range has been observed. The main advantage of the pulse interruption strategy lies on its ease of implementation on existing injection systems because it only requires a simple engine electronic control unit software update. Meanwhile, the peak and hold strategy reveals a substantial lack of robustness and requires expressly designed injectors and electronic components to perform the necessary voltage commutation.

Keywords

Gas injector Injection strategy Spark ignition engine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    M. Cammalleri, E. Pipitone, S. Beccari and G. Genchi‚ A mathematical model for the prediction of the injected mass diagram of a S.I. engine gas injector, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, ISSN: 1738-494X, DOI: 10.1007/s12206-013-0848-6 (2013).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. B. Heywood, Internal combustion engines fundamentals, McGraw-Hill automotive technology series, ISBN 0-07-100499-8 (1988).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bosch Automotive Handbook, Robert Bosch GmbH, ISBN 1-56091-918-3 (1996).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Ainul Ghurri, Kim Jae-duk, Song Kyu-Keun, Jung Jae-Youn and Kim Hyung Gon, Qualitative and quantitative analysis of spray characteristics of diesel and biodiesel blend on common-rail injection system, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 25 (4) (2011) 885–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hyungmin Kim and Kihyung Lee, An investigation on the fuel behaviour for a PFI type motorcycle engine, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 23 (9) (2009) 2507–2513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Yu Liu, J. K. Yeom and S. S. Chung, An experimental study on the effects of impingement-walls on the spray and combustion characteristics of SIDI CNG, Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 26 (8) (2012) 2239–2246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Lino, B. Maione and A. Rizzo, Nonlinear modelling and control of a common rail injection system for diesel engines, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31 (9). September (2007) 1770–1784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2006.06.001, ISSN: 0307-904X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    X. L. J. Seykens, L. M. T. Somers and R. S. G. Baert, Detailed modelling of common rail fuel injection process, Journal of Middle European Construction and Design of Cars, 3 (2–3) (2005) 30. ISSN 1214-0821.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Dat Le, Jin Shen, Neha Ruikar and Gregory M. Shaver, Dynamic modeling of piezoelectric injector-enabled rate shaping, Proceedings of 2013 American Control Conference (ACC) Washington, DC, USA, June 17–19 (2013) 3643–3648. ISSN: 0743-1619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Mehlfeldt, H. Weckenmann and G. Stohr, Modeling of piezoelectrically actuated fuel injectors, Mechatronics, 18 (5–6) June (2008) 264–272. ISSN: 0957-4158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Baratta, A. E. Catania, E. Spessa, L. Herrmann and K. Roessler, Multi-dimensional modeling of direct natural-gas injection and mixture formation in a stratified-charge SI engine with centrally mounted injector, SAE International Journal of Engines, 1 (1). April (2009) 607–626.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Di Cairano, A. Bemporad, I. V. Kolmanovsky and D. Hrovat, Model predictive control of magnetically actuated mass spring dampers for automotive applications, International Journal of Control, 80 (11) (2007) 1701–1716.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    P. Lino, B. Maione, C. Amorese and S. De Matthaeis, Modeling and predictive control of a new injection system for compressed natural gas engines, Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, Munich, Germany, October 4–6 (2006).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Dyntar and L. Guzzella, Optimal control for bouncing suppression of CNG injectors, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control (ASME), 126 March (2004) 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    E. Pipitone and S. Beccari Performances improvement of a S.I. CNG bi-fuel engine by means of double-fuel injection, SAE technical paper 2009-24-0058, DOI: 10.4271/2009-24-0058.
  16. [16]
    E. Pipitone and S. Beccari, Performances and emissions improvement of an S.I. engine fuelled by LPG/gasoline mixtures, SAE technical paper 2010-01-0615, DOI: 10.4271/2010-01-0615.
  17. [17]
    G. Genchi, E. Pipitone, S. Beccari and A. Piacentino, Knock resistance increase through the addition of natural gas or LPG to gasoline: An experimental study, SAE Technical Paper 2013-24-0100, DOI: 10.4271/2013-24-0100.
  18. [18]
    Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, HGTP14N40F3VL/HGT1S14N40F3VLS Data sheet Rev. B1, February (2002).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Beccari
    • 1
  • Emiliano Pipitone
    • 1
  • Marco Cammalleri
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Genchi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemical, Management, Computer and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations