Ronny Lindgren

Effects of Injector Parameters on Mixture Formation for Multi-Hole Nozzles in A Spray-Guided Gasoline DI Engine

This paper focuses on ways of improving the spray formation from spray-guided multi-hole gasoline direct injection injectors. Work has been done both experimentally using laser diagnostic tools and numerically using Computational Fluid Dynamics. Laser Induced Exciplex Fluorescence (LIEF) measurements in a constant pressure spray chamber and optical engine measurements have shown that injectors with 6-hole nozzles and 50-degree umbrella angles are unsuitable for stratified combustion because they produce steep air-fuel ratio gradients and create a spray with overly-deep liquid fuel penetration as well as presence of liquid fuel around the spark plug. In order to study injector performance, numerical calculations using the AVL FIRE™ CFD code were performed. The numerical results indicate that by increasing the injector umbrella angle, the extent of piston wall wetting can be decreased. Also, changing the pattern of holes in the nozzle changes the spray pattern, enabling its optimization with respect to ignition and flame propagation. Furthermore, PDA and Direct Imaging experiments showed that increasing the l/d ratio by reducing the hole diameter resulted in a decrease in the mean droplet sizes (D32). The spray angle was found to increase with decreasing l/d ratios. It has also been shown that by choosing a suitable l/d ratio it is possible to control the local AFR and cross-flow velocity at the spark plug. Copyright

Multi-hole Injectors for DISI engines: Nozzle Hole Configuration Influence on Spray Formation

High-pressure multi-hole injectors are one candidate injector type for closed-spaced direct injection (DI) gasoline engines. In such a system, the spark plug must be located close to the spray and, during stratified operation, the spray is ignited very soon after the fuel droplets have been vaporized. Thus there are very high demands on the sprays used in such a system. An additional challenge is the positioning of the spark plug relative to the spray; both consistent ignitability and the absence of liquid fuel droplets must be achieved. Many injector parameters influence spray formation; for example, hole diameter, length to hole diameter ratio, nozzle hole configuration etc. This paper investigates the spray formation and spray induced air movement associated with rotational symmetrical and asymmetrical nozzle hole configurations. Four different nozzles with different hole configurations and umbrella angle were investigated both experimentally and numerically in a heated/ pressurized spray chamber. Their influence on spray formation, spray induced air motion, cross-flow velocity, fuel/air ratio, turbulence and cycle-to-cycle variations were studied. It was found that rotational symmetrical configurations produce non-coherent isolated clouds of fuel. If an asymmetrical configuration is used instead (holes positioned along a horseshoe-shaped arc) then, by choosing the injector configuration carefully, it is easier to obtain a coherent fuel cloud; this also facilitates better control over the conditions at the spark plug, for example the fuel/air ratio, cross-flow velocity and turbulence. Furthermore, asymmetrical nozzles benefit from smaller fuel gradients and enhanced mixing between spray plumes as a result of shorter spray plume distance and improved spray-induced air motion. All the nozzles tested produced partially premixed vapor clouds, with cycle-to-cycle variations. These variations may be an important issue for ignition stability in a closed-spaced combustion system.

The Influence of Injector Deposits on Mixture Formation in a DISC SI Engine

This paper presents a follow on study from earlier work investigating the influence of fuel parameters on the deposit formation and emissions from a direct injection stratified charge spark ignition engine. It was shown that injector fouling was the main reason for the increase in unburned hydrocarbon emissions and spray visualizations supported these results. The hypothesis is that the deposit buildup in the injector caused the increased hydrocarbon emissions due to an increased wall film formation. To further verify the findings, Phase Doppler Anemometry measurements at simulated engine conditions, were performed. Measurements recorded on the injector axis 20 mm downstream from the injector orifice, showed that the initial pre-jet velocity was 30% higher and the drop mean diameter was 5% larger in the case of a used injector compared to a new injector. Based on these investigations, spray files were set-up in the 3-D CFD-code AVL FIRE. A moving calculation mesh, capturing the main geometrical features from the Mitsubishi GDI® combustion system, was created. With this calculation mesh, the influence of important parameters on the mixture formation was studied for the two injectors. Simulations showed that the mass of fuel captured in the wall film with a new injector was equivalent to 10% of the total injected fuel mass. With a fouled injector this rose to around 30%. This supports the hypothesis that the injector fouling makes a significant contribution to the increased amounts of hydrocarbon emissions found in engine tests.

Modeling Gasoline Spray-Wall Interactions and Comparison to Experimental Data

The effects of a gasoline spray impinging on a heated surface were investigated under simulated engine conditions in an earlier study. The data from the experimental investigation have now been compared to results obtained from Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) simulations generated using several different numerical models for spray-wall impingement found in the literature. It was found that the models based on single-drop experiments do not predict the outcome of spray impingement well in some respects. Their major drawback was that the predicted diameter distributions of the reflected drops in the secondary spray were shifted downwards from the measured drop size distributions. The tested models predicted the normal velocity component relative to the wall well. However, they were less good at capturing the tangential velocity component relative to the wall. Since the models did not capture the velocities in the tangential direction correctly, the spread of the secondary spray above the wall was under-predicted.