MAGNETI MARELLI

POWERTRAIN

DIEM
UNIVERSITA DI BOLOGNA

Advanced Modelling of a New Diesel Fast Solenoid

Injector and Comparison with Experiments
G. M. Bianchi, P. Pelloni, S. Falfari, F. Brusiani

DIEM UNIVERSITA DI BOLOGNA

G. Osbat, M. Parotto, Lamberti C.

MAGNETI MARELLI POWERTRAIN

AMESim Users Conference

1/25

OUTLINE
INJECTION SYSTEM SPECIFICATION AND CAE ROLE
MODELING FRAMEWORK
THE INJECTOR CONCEPT
SIMULATIONS VS EXPERIMENTAL
RESULTS (EMI, EVI)

AMESim Users Conference

2/25

Background
Diesel engines are pushed in improvements because
of environment concern-> EURO 5
Great efforts are spent in order to improve quality of mixture ->
INJECTION SYSTEMS ARE A CRITICAL ENGINE COMPONENT
Pilot

Main

Conventional
+60
-60 Pilot Pre

Main

After

Post

2 DIFFERENT DESIGN OPTIONS

FOR COMPLYING WITH:
- Electromagnetic actuation
- Indirect Piezoelectric actuation

-60

TDC

+60

NEW Generation

AMESim Users Conference

3/25

INJECTION SYSTEM SPECIFICATION

FAST AND FLEXIBLE OPERATION WITH A PRECISE CONTROL OF
INJECTION AMOUNT

- Advanced Magnetic solutions

- Reduced weight of moving masses

- Complete control of hydraulics in terms of both
steady and unsteady response of the system

LIMITED DRIFT IN LIFE

LONG-TERM VALUE ON THE MARKET WITH A LOW COSTS IN :
PRE-MARKET: Design and Manufacturing
POST-MARKET: Few replacements due to
- Drift out of expectations
- Failure

AMESim Users Conference

4/25

INJECTION SYSTEM SPECIFICATION

MAGNETI MARELLI HAS STARTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW
INJECTION SYSTEM BASED ON THE MASSIVE USE
OF CAE BEFORE and ALONG WITH EXPERIMENTAL CAMPAIGN:

EXPECTED GOALS FROM CAE USE:

-TIME AND COST REDUCTION OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
CAE MUST PROVIDE A VIRTUAL INJECTOR BEFORE
THE PROTOTYPES ARE MANUFACTURED
- CAE DRIVES TO THE BEST DESIGN COMPROMISE
- FOCUSED EXPERIMENTS CAN BE CARRIED OUT
- IMPROVEMENTS TO DESIGN CAN BE PERFORMED DURING
DEVELOPMENTS STAGES AND PROBLEMS CAN BE PREDICTED
- MANUFACTURING TOLERANCE CAN BE IMPOSED A PRIORI

AMESim Users Conference

5/25

CAE MODELING FRAMEWORK

Full Predictive LUMP/1D Injector and System
model in AMESim integrated by:
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.

2D axial-symmetric electromagnet model

Discharge coefficient evaluation from
3D simulations
Squish sub-model
Poppet sub-model
Thermal sub-model

3D Steady Simulations for the main orifices

design with STAR 3.1 by CD-ADAPCO
Linear analysis for avoiding resonance effect
during engine operation
Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian simulation of
Spray to investigate the nozzle flow properties

AMESim Users Conference

6/25

The Injector Model

PRESENTATION IS FOCUSED ON
CAE SUPPORT ON INJECTOR DESIGN

SAE Paper 2003-01-0006

SUB-MODEL:

Level of detail

ELECTRO-MAGNET.

High

MECHANICAL

High

FLUID-DYNAMICAL

High

AMESim Users Conference

7/25

CAE IN SOLENOID VALVE ANALYSIS

2D Electromagnetic Model
A FEM 2D axial-symmetric model of the electromagnet was
developed by means of Ansys code to overcome difficulties
involved in simulating electromagnetic force trend.

Force

Static Response:Force Vs Ampere-Turns

Experimental gap max

Calculated gap max
Calculated gap min
At

AMESim Users Conference

8/25

CAE IN SOLENOID VALVE ANALYSIS

2D Electromagnetic Model

Predicted vs Measured
Voltage and Current
Dynamic Response

Voltage, Current

Experim ental Voltage

Experim ental Current
Calculated Voltage
Calculated Current

gap max
gap min

Force

Tim e

Predicted Unsteady
Force Trend
Time

AMESim Users Conference

9/25

The Injector Model: Thermal Loading Evaluation

The TARGET was to determine injector thermal loading around coil
The Thermal Resistance R must be evaluated R = Ro [1+ (Tref - Tcoil)]
AMESim Thermal Library was used and properly set
120

Temperature [C]

Experiments were set to

validate the model with
measurents on a excited
solenoid valve ad hoc
assembled and operated

Boundary (Sim)
Coil (Sim)
Boundary (Exp)
Coil (Exp)

100
80
60
40
20
0

Test number

AMESim Users Conference

10/25

3D Approach: CFD simulations

3D CFD study was performed in order to:
Geometry
1. Define the best trade-off between

Costs
Performance

2. Prevent bubble implosion damage

3. Feed the lump model with accurate discharge coefficients
4. Identify the limit on manufacturing tolerance

AMESim Users Conference

11/25

3D Approach: CFD simulations IN SOLENOID VALVE

TARGETS:
1. Discharge coefficient evaluation
2. Identification of the minimum lift after flow chocking
3. Analysis of flow conditions
4. Analysis of border flow conditions at different combination
of manufacturing tolerance bound of inlet orifice fillets
and diameters

AMESim Users Conference

12/25

3D Approach: Solenoid Valve FD simulations

Determination of Discharge Coefficient and Maximum Operating lift
Upstream Pressure: 140 MPa
Klim

70

60

Kcrit
1.8

0.78

1.6

0.72

KA

CdA

0.84

1.4
cdA

0.66

1.2

cdBV
KA

0.6
10

20

30

40
50
60
Ball-valve lift (m)

70

80

90

Full Test conditions:

Outlet pressure: 0.1 MPa
Inlet pressure: ranged from 140 MPa to 5 MPa
Ball-valve heights: 10,20,30,35,40,45,50 m

2.2

Klim

Kcrit

50

1.8

40

1.6

KA

0.9

2.2

Mass flow rate [kg/h]

0.96

30

Mass flow rate

1.4

KA
20
5

15

25
35
Ball-valve lift (m)

45

55

1.2

Maximum Operating Lift

at flow chocking conditions
K=Kcrit

AMESim Users Conference

13/25

3D Approach: Solenoid Valve CFD simulations

Information on Cavitation Effects:
- Erosion in life expected and change of performance
- CFD address Improvements in manufacturing for a longer durability

VALVE AFTER
DURABILITY TEST

SIMULATION

Ba ll-va lve lift 10m

Ba ll-va lve lift 30m

Ba ll-va lve lift 35m

Ba ll-va lve lift 50m

AMESim Users Conference

14/25

The Injector Model Implementation: Squish Sub-Model

Squish sub-model was introduced for simulating
the damping effect of a fluid volume when
compressed by a moving piston against the wall.
This phenomenon is of importance in the
solenoid-valve dynamic behavior.

0.35

Analytical Solution

Simplified Model
Reynolds

dp
d 2u
= 2
dx
dy
Simplified model:

V dp dV
dV
+
= Qi
= Av
B dt dt
dt
i

Squish pressure (bar)

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

0.0001

0.0002

AMESim Users Conference

0.0003
Time (s)

0.0004

0.0005

15/25

The Injector Model Implementation: Poppet Sub-Model

Poppet Valve sub-model: Pressure charge in sac volume and pressure
distribution must be evaluated as accurate as possibile to predict the correct
flow rate during opening and closing phase.
Low velocity Zone

Acceleration Zone

Deceleration Zone

1D flow model based on Bernoulli

Equation is introduced to evaluate
the pressure distribution induced by
flow acceleration and deceleration
along the conical needle seat

Upward force F
AMESim Users Conference

16/25

MAGNETI MARELLI Common Rail Injector

THE CAE FRAMEWORK ALLOWED SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE INJECTOR CONCEPT DRIVING TO THE DEFINITION OF
DIFFERENT PROTOTYPES WHICH ARE STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT

Solenoid Injector characterized by a fast solenoid optimized

with high magnetic forces levels and gradients

Precise control of solenoid valve actuation during closing phase

Reduction of component inertia

Higher quality, control and expected durability of orifice calibration
with lower costs thanks to CAE pre-operation analysis

AMESim Users Conference

17/25

Experimental Conditions Reproducing Injector simulations

The C.R. Injector: Magneti Marelli Prototype
H.P- Pump: CP1- Press. Regulator DRV1
Test Fluid: ISO 4113 OIL, T=40 2 C
EVI test bench
Feeding-Pressure: 160, 80 and 40 MPa
Energizing Time: 1200 and 400 s
Discharging Pressure: 10 MPa
Instantaneous Volumetric Flow rate
EMI 2 test bench
Discharging Pressure: 1 MPa
Integrated Vol. Flow rate recorded over
150 consecutive samples

AMESim Users Conference

18/25

EVI TEST BENCH CONDITION: Prail=160 MPa ET =400 s

40
exp

Flow rate (cm /s)

30

sim

20
10
0
-10
0

0.5

1
Time (ms)

1.5

Experimental VS Predicted Mass Flow Rate

AMESim Users Conference

19/25

EVI TEST BENCH CONDITION: Prail=80 MPa ET =1200 s

40
exp
sim

Flow rate (cm /s)

30
20
10
0
-10
0

0.5

1.5
2
Time (ms)

2.5

3.5

Experimental VS Predicted Mass Flow Rate

AMESim Users Conference

20/25

EVI TEST BENCH CONDITION: Prail=80 MPa ET =400 s

40
exp

Flow rate (cm /s)

30

sim

20
10
0
-10
0

0.5

1
Time (ms)

1.5

Experimental VS Predicted Mass Flow Rate

AMESim Users Conference

21/25

EVI TEST BENCH CONDITION: Prail=40 MPa ET =1200 s

40
exp

Flow rate (cm /s)

30

sim

20
10
0
-10
0

0.5

1.5
2
Time (ms)

2.5

3.5

Experimental VS Predicted Mass Flow Rate

AMESim Users Conference

22/25

EMI
EMI22 TEST
TESTCURVE
BENCH
BENCH EMI
SIMULATIONS
SIMULATIONS
80
160 Simul.

160 Exp.1

Injected volume (mm )

60

80 Simul.
40 Simul.

40

20

80 Exp.1
40 Exp.1
160 Exp.2
80 Exp.2
40 Exp.2

-20
0

200

400

600
ET (s)

800

AMESim Users Conference

1000

1200

23/25

Conclusioni
CONCLUSIONS
A Lump/1D injector Model completely predictive has been setup by means methodology based on integration between 1D
modelling and 3D approach;
3D-CFD simulations were carried out in order to feed 1D
injector model with cavitating critical parameters;
3D-CFD results were also used to get the best trade-off
between costs, performance and geometry addressing injector
concept developments
The CAE Framework proved to be accurate in predicting injector
behavior and predictions lie with experimental error band;

AMESim Users Conference

24/25

CONCLUSIONS
Magneti Marelli new injector proved to perform at the target
required by the strategic designing features imposed by
automotive D.I. Diesel engine development for complying next
emission regulations;
The massive use of CAE before and along with experimental
tests revealed to be the main base for reducing developing time
and for addressing the whole designing scenario.

AMESim Users Conference

25/25