1. 1  Introduction (10 min)  Experimental Activities (60 min) 3.1 Injector geometry assessment  Yongjin Jung* (KAIST/Sandi), Peter Hutchins (Infineum/ESRF) 3.2 Rate-of-injection  Raul Payri* (CMT), Scott Parrish (GM) 3.3 Spray Visualization (liquid/vapor penetration & angle)  Julien Manin* (SNL), Gilles Bruneaux (IFPEN), Scott Parrish (GM), Luigi Allocca (IM), Josh Lacey (Melbourne) 3.4 Drop size measurement (Phase Doppler Interferometry)  Scott Parrish* (GM)  Modeling Activities (40 min) 3.5 Internal flow modeling using ideal geometry  Ron Grover* (GM) 3.6 Spray modeling  Noah Van Dam* (UW), Tommaso Lucchini (Politecnico di Milano), Sibendu Som (ANL)  Future activities (10 min) *Discussion Leader ECN3 – Spray G Preliminary Program

2. 2 Gasoline Spray (Spray G) Topic 3.2Rate-of-injection Topic 3.2 Rate-of-injection Raul Payri* (CMT) Scott Parrish (GM) Spray G – Rate of Injection

3. 3 Spray G – Injection Rate Control of command signals with Delphi driver + pulse generator. Injector body temperature control. CMT SetupGM Setup Fuel is accumulated in a big volume System for injector temperature control

4. 4 Spray G – Injection Rate (CMT) Methodology Experimental instruments – A commercial EVI-IAV system (Bosch method) is used. – Pressure regulated in the rail. – Additional pressure is measured in the rail with a Kistler sensor – Control of command signals of the injector with driver + pulse generator. Outputs – Injection rate shape. – Total amount of fuel injected.

5. 5 Spray G – Injection Rate (CMT) Mass measured with a gravimetric scale Time [s] ΔP EVI [bar] Injection rate [g/s] Mass-flow meter output signal 50 injections A t : EVI mass flow meter a : speed of sound f(p,T) Time [s] Injection rate [g/s] comparison with Averaged injected mass - EVI

6. 6 Spray G – Injection Rate  Shot to shot dispersion on GM injector 28 Similar results obtained for all injectors in GM or CMT ≈ 310 µs≈ 780 µs Injector 28, Spray G Conditions – Iso- Octane, 20 MPa, 90C, 680 µs, 6 bar column pressure. Rate Meter: IAV (rate tube method)

7. 7 Spray G – Injection Rate (CMT)  Nominal point comparison

8. 8  Rail pressure Influence for injector #26 Spray G – Injection Rate (CMT)

9. 9  Back pressure Influence for injector #26 Spray G – Injection Rate (CMT)  Small variations in BP affect injection dynamics but barely change the total injected mass.  A high BP “smoothes” the opening and closing of the injector.

10. 10 Spray G – Injection Rate (CMT)  Frequency Influence on injection rate At 1Hz (red signal) the injector closes sooner for any ET.

11. 11 Spray G – Injection Rate (CMT)  Frequency Influence CMT vs GM Injector 16 GMInjector 26 CMT

12. 12  CMT Measurement comparison – Energizing time Spray G – Injection Rate (CMT) Mass flow curves at different ET overlap  Robust operation

13. 13  Use of Delphi ECU to assure equal electrical signals in all research participant groups  Injector temperature control is important  Spray “G” injectors perform very well in terms of shot to shot dispersion (all units)  Similar injected quantities for the different injectors, it will be possible to adjust slightly the ET to inject 10 mg in all the cases if it is necessary  Known influence of injection pressure or Energizing Time  Back pressure affects the dynamics of the injector (specially at 20 bar)  Small effect of injection frequency on injection rate  Probably this effect is due to thermal issues in the injector  Very difficult to properly measure 1Hz injection frequency with a gravimetric balance due to the small injected quantity Spray G – Injection Rate (Conclusions)

14. 14  CMT will construct a test rig to measure spray momentum for Spray “G” injector  Compare injection rate derived from spray momentum and measured with injection rate  Periodic check of injection rate after extensive campaigns are performed in high pressure and high temperature vessels  Understand differences in injected quantities between different injector samples (when differences are the order of more than 5%)  Determination of a different energizing time for each injector so that exactly 10 mg/st could be injected  Possible generation of a virtual injector “clean signal” so that modelers could use it Spray G – Injection Rate (Future work)