Comparison of Different Techniques for Characterizing the Diesel Injector Internal Dimensions

  • F. J. Salvador
  • J. Gimeno
  • J. De la Morena
  • M. Carreres


The geometry of certain parts of diesel injectors is key to the injection, atomization and fuel-air mixing phenomena. Small variations on the geometrical parameters may have a strong influence on the aforementioned processes. Thus, OEMs need to assess their manufacturing tolerances, whereas researchers in the field (both experimentalists and modelers) rely on the accuracy of a certain metrology technique for their studies. In the current paper, an investigation of the capability of different experimental techniques to determine the geometry of a modern diesel fuel injector has been performed. For this purpose, three main elements of the injector have been evaluated: the control volume inlet and outlet orifices, together with the nozzle orifices. While the direct observation of the samples through an optical microscope is only possible for the simplest pieces, both Computed Tomography Scanning and the visualization of silicone molds technique have proven their ability to characterize the most complex internal shapes corresponding to the internal injector elements. Indeed, results indicate that the differences observed among these methodologies for the determination of the control volume inlet orifice diameter and the nozzle orifice dimensions are smaller than the uncertainties related to the experimental techniques, showing that they are both equally accurate. This implies that the choice of a given technique for the particular application of determining the geometry of diesel injectors can be done on the basis of availability, intrusion and costs, rather than on its accuracy.


Injector Metrology Orifices 



This work was partly sponsored by "Ministerio de Econom ía y Competitividad", of the Spanish Government, in the frame of the Project "Estudio de la interacción chorro-pared en condiciones realistas de motor", Reference TRA2015-67679-c2-1-R.


  1. 1.
    Mobasheri R, Peng Z, Mostafa S (2012) Analysis the effect of advanced injection strategies on engine performance and pollutant emissions in a heavy duty DI-diesel engine by CFD modeling. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 33(1):59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dhar A, Agarwal AK (2015) Experimental investigations of the effect of pilot injection on performance, emissions and combustion characteristics of Karanja biodiesel fuelled CRDI engine. Energy Convers Manag 93:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mohan B, Yang W, Chou SK (2013) Fuel injection strategies for performance improvement and emissions reduction in compression ignition engines—a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 28(x):664–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petrovic V, Bracanovic Z, Grozdanic B, Petrovic S, Sazhin S, Knezevic D (2015) The design of a full flow dilution tunnel with a critical flow venturi for the measurement of diesel engine particulate emission. FME Trans 43(2):99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ilić Z, Rasuo B, Jovanović M, Janković D (2013) Impact of changing quality of air/fuel mixture during flight of a piston engine aircraft with respect to vibration low frequency spectrum. FME Trans 41(1):25–32Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luján JM, Tormos B, Salvador FJ, Galgar K (2009) Comparative analysis of a DI diesel engine fuelled with biodiesel blends during the European MVEG-A cycle: Preliminaru study I. Biomass & Bioenergy 33(6–7):941–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Postrioti L, Mariani F, Battistoni M (2012) Experimental and numerical momentum flux evaluation of high pressure diesel spray. Fuel 98:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Payri R, Salvador FJ, Gimeno J, Venegas O (2016) A technique to match the refractive index of different diesel fuels with the refractive index of transparent materials to improve the experimental visualization. Exp Tech 40(1):261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duran SP, Porter JM, Parker TE (2015) Ballistic imaging of diesel sprays using a picosecond laser: characterization and demonstration. Appl Opt 54(7):1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Payri R, Salvador FJ, Gimeno J et al (2011) Flow regime effects on non-cavitating injection nozzles over spray behavior. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 32(1):273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koukouvinis P, Gavaises M, Li J, Wang L (2016) Large Eddy simulation of diesel injector including cavitation effects and correlation to erosion damage. Fuel 175:26–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Som S, Aggarwal SK (2010) Effects of primary breakup modeling on spray and combustion characteristics of compression ignition engines. Combust Flame 157(6):1179–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salvador FJ, De la Morena J, Martínez-López J, Jaramillo D (2017) Assessment of compressibility effects on internal nozzle flow in diesel injectors at very high injection pressures. Energy Convers Manag 132:221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salvador FJ, Gimeno J, de la Morena J, Martí-Aldaraví P (2012) Using one-dimensional modelling to analyze the influence of the use of biodiesels on the dynamic behaviour of solenoid-operated injectors in common rail systems: Results of the simulation and discussion. Energy Convers Manag 54(1):122–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taghavifar H, Khalilarya S, Jafarmadar S, Baghery F (2016) 3-D numerical consideration of nozzle structure on combustion and emission characteristics of DI diesel injector. Appl Math Model 40(19–20):8630–8646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Edelbauer W (2017) Numerical simulation of cavitating injector flow and liquid spray break-up by combination of Eulerian–Eulerian and volume-of-fluid methods. Comput Fluids 144:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salvador FJ, Carreres M, Jaramillo D, Martínez-López J (2015) Comparison of microsac and VCO diesel injector nozzles in terms of internal nozzle flow characteristics. Energy Convers Manag 103:284–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salvador FJ, Martínez-López J, Romero JV, Roselló MD (2013) Study of the influence of the needle eccentricity on the internal flow in diesel injector nozzles by computational fluid dynamics calculations. Int J Comput Math 91, no. June:24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Payri R, Salvador FJ, Carreres M, De la Morena J (Apr. 2016) Fuel temperature influence on the performance of a last generation common-rail diesel ballistic injector. Part II: 1D model development, validation and analysis. Energy Convers Manag 114:376–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salvador FJ, Hoyas S, Novella R, Martinez-López J (2011) Numerical simulation and extended validation of two-phase compressible flow in diesel injector nozzles. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part-D-J Automob Eng 225(D4):545–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Satkoski C, Shaver G (2011) Piezoelectric fuel injection: pulse-to-pulse coupling and flow rate estimation. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 16(4):627–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferrari A, Mittica A (2016) Response of different injector typologies to dwell time variations and a hydraulic analysis of closely-coupled and continuous rate shaping injection schedules. Appl Energy 169:899–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Payri R, Salvador FJ, Gimeno J, De la Morena J (2011) Analysis of diesel spray atomization by means of a near-nozzle field visualization technique. At Sprays 21(9):753–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li T, Moon S, Sato K, Yokohata H (Feb. 2017) A comprehensive study on the factors affecting near-nozzle spray dynamics of multi-hole GDI injectors. Fuel 190:292–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yu W, Yang W, Zhao F (2017) Investigation of internal nozzle flow, spray and combustion characteristics fueled with diesel, gasoline and wide distillation fuel (WDF) based on a piezoelectric injector and a direct injection compression ignition engine. Appl Therm Eng 114:905–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salvador FJ, Carreres M, Crialesi-Esposito M, Plazas AH (2017) Determination of critical operating and geometrical parameters in diesel injectors through one dimensional modelling, design of experiments and an analysis of variance. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part D J Automob EngGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Macian V, Bermúdez V, Payri R, Gimeno J (2003) New technique for determination of internal geometry of a diesel nozzle with the use of silicone methodology. Exp Tech 27, no April:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Piano A, Millo F, Postrioti L, Biscontini G, Cavicchi A, and Pesce FC, (2016) “Numerical and experimental assessment of a solenoid common-rail injector operation with advanced injection strategies,” SAE Int J Engines 9(1)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mitroglou N, Lorenzi M, Santini M, Gavaises M (2016) Application of X-ray micro-computed tomography on high-speed cavitating diesel fuel flows. Exp Fluids 57(11):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kastengren AL, Tilocco FZ, Powell CF, Manin J, Pickett LM, Payri R, Bazyn T (2012) Engine combustion network (ECN): measurements of nozzle geometry and hydraulic behavior. At Sprays 22(12):1011–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Otsu N (1979) A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 9(1):62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. J. Salvador
    • 1
  • J. Gimeno
    • 1
  • J. De la Morena
    • 1
  • M. Carreres
    • 1
  1. 1.CMT-Motores TérmicosUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations