Plan for a Simulation-based Design 710 engine Electronic Fuel Injector Chamber pressure

ME6105 Homework 1 Eric Danish edanish3@mail.gatech.edu James Seaton jseaton3@mail.gatech.edu

Presented to: Dr Chris Paredis Date: February 6, 2007

Section 1: Identifying the Decision Situation Description of the Application Domain Reliability and performance are of the highest importance to the railroad industry, so it really comes as no surprise that locomotive engines are expected to function consistently under rigorous conditions. Modeling and analysis of engine subsystems for the purpose of providing components of higher quality can therefore have both a significant and immediate impact. The fuel injection system is a familiar technology providing efficient delivery of fuel to the engine, with an added benefit of controlling performance characteristics. However, the system is not without problems, and steps are to be taken to eliminate issues within the design itself. This study will concentrate specifically on optimization of an electronic unit fuel injector (EUI) used on the 710 model series diesel electric locomotives produced by Electro Motive Diesel (EMD). Description of the System A brief overview of the system follows, and serves as the basis for the model. Fuel is fed through a feed line, and subsequently through the pumping chamber and exit line. The feed line, pumping chamber, and exit line become a trapped volume due to a blocked port condition in response to an electronic control signal. During this state, an applied force via camshaft to a rocker arm translates the plunger in a downward motion on this fixed volume, which rapidly pressurizes to approximately 22,000 psi, thus opening a needle valve allowing injection into the piston cylinder. During injection, the plunger is still moving down until the control valve receives an external signal to stop injecting. The control valve opens, releasing system pressure causing the needle valve to close. Most of any remaining fuel is evacuated from the pumping chamber, returning to the feed line heading toward the control valve and return line. The plunger follows the camshaft profile and retracts at a given velocity. Meanwhile, in a de-energized (open) condition of a control valve, a low pressure fuel supply of approximately 80 psi works to refill the system. This low pressure fuel supply needs to be sufficient in order to fill the system, and yet fast enough to avoid cavitation. This filling action is also slightly impeded by a hammering effect within the system as the control valve opens. The components are shown in Figure 1.

Plunger Feed Line Feed Port Exit Port Figure 1: Cross sectional View of Electronic Unit Injector Pumping Chamber

Description of the Specific Design Decision Currently, there is an issue occurring in the pumping chamber of this injector during operation. Cavitation occurs when the liquid experiences significant low pressure and gaseous voids are formed. When these bubbles collapse, a pressure wave is produced along with high local temperatures, which can cause damage. For reliable performance, it is necessary to maintain positive chamber pressure to avoid these phenomena. The current configuration of components in this system affords alterations to be made within feed-line and feed-port diameter, plunger clearance, and pumping chamber geometries to yield parameters of interest in this particular model. Certain assumptions are to be made in order to avoid over-extending the scope of the study. Plunger travel and velocity should remain constant since alteration would involve camshaft and engine speed changes. The camshaft lift profile is fixed, and a speed of 950 rpm is to be taken as a rigid performance requirement for this type of locomotive. Therefore, injection units of varied geometry are to be simulated upon the premise that all other factors have been optimized. Verification of Decision Scenario An engine design group from EMD works with a group from Bosch to adapt their fuel injection technology to the 710 engine series. The continued development of this system is driven by both sides in a collaborative effort. It is common practice for the results from an investigation such as this to be forwarded to the Bosch group for evaluation and approval. Once each side agrees on a solution, prototypes are made for testing. If testing is successful, the design will move on to serial production. Section 2: Determining an Objectives Hierarchy Modification of existing fuel injector geometry addresses the matter of unreliable or perhaps inconsistent performance standards within this particular system. Obviously, we want to believe that our system contributes a maximum benefit to the performance of the engine as a whole. We demand that the system perform reliably, and that our changes allow the process to run without ever needing to worry about interruption. And finally, we wish to make these changes with the least amount of physical intrusion or effort. To put our fundamental objectives in basic terms, we want performance, reliability, and cost savings; but we require that the product live up to our expectations. A Fundamental Objectives hierarchy is depicted in Figure 2.

Optimize Fuel Injection System

Maximize Reliability

Minimize Cost

Maximize Performance

Reduce Failure Frequency

Reduce Maintenance Functions

Reduce ManufacturingTooling Complexity

Reduce Replacement Complexity

Control Flow Rates

Control Pressure

Reduce Failure Severity

Figure 2: Fundamental Objectives Hierarchy

The Means Objectives seem to be an implementation procedure of the Fundamental Objectives. As stated previously, we want to improve the existing fuel injection system by improving reliability, maximizing performance, and doing so at a minimum cost. The Means Objectives Network is depicted in Figure 3.

Optimize Fuel Injection System

Control Cost Maximize Reliability

Eliminate Failure

Maximize Performance

Simplify Maintenance

Simplify Mfg and Tooling

Eliminate Cavitation

Control Process Variables

Modify Geometry

Figure 3: Means Objectives Network For this study to be of any value, the attributes must be measurable. The goal will be to have no reported field failures due to cavitation in the pumping chamber. The railroads have warranties on components, and failures are cataloged. Parts with high failure rates and bad failure modes are selected for redesign. Next, the cost change must be minimized. This will be measured in dollars, and the goal will be to have no production cost increase for the component. Some cost will be included due to investigation, but this will not be accounted for. Reliability must be maximized, with the

design satisfying failure rate and severity requirements. Performance characteristics are measured via the process variables, in this case pressure and flow through the injector. Section 3: Identifying the Design Alternatives For the design enhancement to be realized, it will be necessary to make modifications at the component level of the system. The changes to be made are basically porting and bore size changes to the injector, as opposed to more drastic measures such as elimination or addition of individual components. Working from the premise that the failure mode of the injector is dependent upon cavitation at the plunger, the parameters of pressure and flow are to be examined at specific points in the system, with a number of configurations with respect to diameter to be analyzed accordingly. The first design alternative will be to vary the feed line diameter. An increase diameter is simply a matter of machining the existing component, whereas a decrease in diameter will likely involve manufacture of a completely new component. The main consideration however, is the effect of the change in pressure and flow leading up to the feed port. The second design alternative is variation of the feed-port diameter. From a tooling standpoint, increasing the port is rather straight-forward, however, decreasing the port diameter could be rather difficult if modification was to be made. Assuming the component is not a cast-material; the area could possibly be welded and re-machined to specification. More likely than not, the component would likely be re-manufactured. Once again, the major focus is upon the effect upon pressure and flow. By increasing the port size, we are in effect increasing the flow rate, but we need to determine whether or not the pressure remains within acceptable levels as a result. The third design alternative entails changes within the pumping chamber geometry itself. Modifications in either direction involve significant tooling alterations. For example, if it is determined that the best results are obtained from increasing the diameter, not only will the bore size need to be increased, but the plunger component itself would most likely need to be re-manufactured. In the other direction, the plunger outer diameter could be turned-down, but a decrease in bore would most likely require complete replacement of the body. In effect, by varying the bore size of the chamber, we will need to identify changes in force at the plunger face and the resultant pressure course in the fluid within this area. The fourth design alternative involves variations of plunger clearance specifications. Of particular interest is the effect of tolerance on the pressure course within the chamber. A tighter tolerance results in a more reliable transmission of force, but what is not known is whether or not the relief provided by a looser tolerance can have detrimental or beneficial outcomes.

Section 4: Identifying the Structure of the Design Problem To gain a better understanding of our design decisions, an influence diagram was utilized, and is depicted as Figure 4. The decision elements represent the aspects we wish to make alterations. Ultimately, our decision on an optimal system configuration will depend upon the decision we make regarding geometry changes within the component. Outcomes will be dependent upon our design decisions beginning with the geometry, either directly or indirectly, such as the case of cost, where an alteration in specifications to reduce cavitation could lead to large scale changes in tooling modifications. The choice of an optimal configuration therefore will dependent upon a weighting of performance versus cost. A chance event in the cost outcome could be a variety of economic factors which are not predictable at this time, such as raw materials. Probably the most difficult aspect of the design decisions will be determination of the best combination of geometries to achieve a desired outcome.

Costs

System Configuration

Economics

Reliability

Performance

Cavitation

Pressure

Feed Line Geometry Feed Port Geometry Plunger Chamber Geometry

Flow Rate

Tooling Change

Plunger Clearance

Figure 4: Influence Diagram

Section 5: Identify the Simulation Scenario for Energy Based Model In order to achieve the design objectives, the system must be modeled in relation to decision alternatives. An energy-based model of the pressure within the pumping chamber will help to predict the occurrence of cavitation. This type of model will effectively describe system tradeoffs and overall performance. It will not model three dimensional effects such as turbulence, vorticity, or shocks, but overall will result in a basic description of the system. The previously stated parameters will be the design alternatives which will be included in the energy-based model. In homework 2, the system model will be addressed. The hydraulic model of the pumping chamber will include velocity and pressure distributions of the flows passing through it. A few assumptions will be made to simplify this problem. The flow will only consist of diesel fuel of uniform composition. Effects that are only modeled in three dimensional computational fluid dynamics packages will be neglected. The control valve and needle valve motions will be assumed to be instantaneous. The plunger travel will have no variation across injection cycles. Regardless of these assumptions, an overall understanding of the dominating factors for this system will be gained. Section 6: Plan Assessment Currently, there is some uncertainty involved with this plan of action. This problem would likely need to be modeled in a 3-D CFD to properly identify all of the pressure dominating effects. We will assume that our model will properly identify the dominating factors and provide an acceptable solution. The system layout includes some complex geometry with very small features. This may be difficult to adapt to Dymola, in which case some simplification of features may be necessary. Extensive adaptation of the current hydraulic models included in the course libraries may also be necessary to achieve this. In addition, there may be system characteristics that we do not yet understand and will not include properly in our modeling. It will be important to anchor the model to current performance if possible. Section 7: Articulate your learning objectives James Seaton During this course, I hope to focus in a few areas. I would like to learn how to properly approach a design problem. I feel that design is a difficult subject to approach properly. If a problem is properly evaluated from the beginning, the designer will likely be much happier with their first result. Also, I would like to learn about system modeling with computation packages, because I would like to get more involved with it in my job. Currently, we are expanding our modeling capabilities and I hope to use this class in order to contribute effectively.

Eric Danish I want to make my job more productive by creating more frequently than repairing. Having a better understanding of system dynamics prior to implementation on the shop floor, or even at some point in the future, is of particular interest since Im often faced with decisions regarding modifications on a regular basis. Therefore, my learning objectives may be stated as follows: 1. To develop rational decision making skills that can be applied to achieve the desired outcome. 2. To gain proficiency in modeling and simulation techniques as a means to create or improve. 3. To gain insight from modeling and simulation effort to create robust designs.