See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245391135

Injection diagnosis through common-rail pressure measurement

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering · April 2006
DOI: 10.1243/09544070JAUTO34

CITATIONS READS

36 1,595

4 authors, including:

Jose M Luján Giorgio Rizzoni

Universitat Politècnica de València The Ohio State University
65 PUBLICATIONS   959 CITATIONS    459 PUBLICATIONS   8,436 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RSRG/RESOLVE View project

Age Analysis of Lithium Ion Battery Packs in Electric Vehicles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Giorgio Rizzoni on 01 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile
Engineering
http://pid.sagepub.com/

Injection diagnosis through common-rail pressure measurement

F Payri, J M Luján, C Guardiola and G Rizzoni
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 2006 220: 347
DOI: 10.1243/09544070JAUTO34

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pid.sagepub.com/content/220/3/347

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering
can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pid.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pid.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://pid.sagepub.com/content/220/3/347.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 2006

What is This?

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

 347

Injection diagnosis through common-rail pressure

measurement
F Payri1, J M Luján1, C Guardiola*1, and G Rizzoni2
1CMT – Motores Térmicos, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
2Ohio State University, Ohio, USA

The manuscript was received on 31 January 2005 and was accepted after revision for publication on 28 October 2005.

DOI: 10.1243/09544070JAUTO34

Abstract: Modern diesel common-rail injection systems supply fuel from a high-pressure
vessel. The injection event causes an instantaneous drop in the rail pressure, as the stored
mass is diminished. Pressure variations are also affected by the dynamics of the high-pressure
pump that supplies fuel to the rail to compensate for the emptying process due to the injection.
This paper proposes the possibility of diagnosing the injection process from measurement of
the rail pressure. Different data treatment techniques are explored and evaluated in this paper
to propose an effective method for the diagnosis of common-rail injection systems.

Keywords: diesel engines, common rail, failure detection, injection failure, misfire

1 INTRODUCTION ignition (HCCI) engines need a perfectly controlled

Modern diesel engines have significantly improved
their performance by means of electronic injection.
Today, common-rail systems are well positioned
both in the light- and heavy-duty vehicle markets.
Commercial common-rail engines have injectors
with hole diameters varying from 140 to 200 mm and
injection pressures up to 140 MPa [1, 2]. Common
rail systems have shown a clear tendency towards
increasing injection pressure and decreasing hole
diameters (which for investigation purposes can be
as small as 40 mm [3]).
Common-rail systems allow the usage of very
flexible injection laws. To reduce combustion noise,
it is normal in automotive engines to use a pilot
injection, which consists of injecting a very small fuel
quantity 10–30° before the main injection [4, 5].
Also, post-injections may be used to reduce smoke
emissions [6]. Further, it is also possible to split the
injection into several smaller ones, resulting in
improved efficiency and reduced pollutant formation
[7, 8]. Finally, new homogeneous charge compression
* Corresponding author: CMT – Motores Térmicos, Universidad
Politécnica de Valencia, PO Box 22012 E-46071, Valencia, Spain.
email: carguaga@mot.upv.es
mixture formation during the compression stroke.
With a common-rail system, this goal may be
achieved by performing several injections of small
quantities of fuel.
With such stringent requirements, minor errors in
hole diameter, unavoidable owing to manufacturing
variation and to the accumulation of deposits [9],
result in decreased engine performance and increased
emissions. Another important factor is the dynamic
response of the needle lift mechanism [10, 11]. In
extreme cases, an excessive delay in the opening of
the injector can cause the injection not to take place.
This problem is especially important for injections
of short duration, such as the post-injection, the
pilot-injection and small injections used to enhance
mixture formation and promote quasi-homogeneous
charge conditions.
Two conclusions can be drawn from these
introductory remarks.
1. The number of injections in the new generation of
diesel engines is quickly increasing. Moreover, as
the number of injections increases, the injections
become smaller, since the total mass of injected
fuel must be maintained.
2. Both performance and emissions can be seriously
affected by small faults in the injection system.

JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

348 F Payri, J M Luján, C Guardiola, and G Rizzoni

Since the injection system is critical for emission are controlled by a PC connected to the ECU via a
control, it is necessary to develop algorithms that suitable communication link (ETK port). The rail
check, detect, and correct, if possible, the effects of pressure could be independently controlled. In
its malfunction [12, 13]. The objective of the present addition to the production pressure sensor used by
work is to develop a method for injection diagnosis the ECU for control purposes, the common rail was
in common-rail diesel engines. also instrumented with a research pressure sensor
During the last two decades, several authors have (Kistler 4067A2000 sensor with a 4618A amplifier).
developed algorithms for misfire detection, usually by Injection current and fuel mass flow were also
means of instantaneous crankshaft rotational speed measured for the purpose of locating the injections.
measurement [14–19]; the present work is focused Data were acquired by means of a Yokogawa
on detecting the fault (‘a misfire is happening’) and acquisition system sampling at 100 kHz. A diagram
its possible cause (‘is the injection process correct?’). of the installation is shown in Fig. 1.
For that, the instantaneous measurement of the rail
pressure will be used to reveal whether the injection 2.2 Engine test bench
has taken place.
To emulate real operating conditions, a four-cylinder
As the rail is a high-pressure vessel that supplies
common-rail passenger car engine was used. The
fuel to the injectors, each time an injector opens, the
engine was installed in a dynamic test cell with
rail pressure experiences an instantaneous drop.
an electric dynamometer, as shown in Fig. 2. The
Also, the dynamics of the high-pressure pump that
ECU controlled the injection pressure and the start
supplies fuel to the rail to compensate for the
of injection. Also, the existence and characteristics
emptying process due to the injection will affect
of the pilot injection were determined by the ECU.
the instantaneous rail pressure [20]. A method for
Changes in the engine operating point, defined
isolating the variations due to the injections from
by the engine speed and the accelerator pedal
those due to the fuel supply from the pump is pre-
position, result in the ECU automatically calculating
sented in this paper. The ability to discriminate
and applying new injection settings. To simulate
between different injections in the same cylinder is
injection failures, one of the injectors was completely
also studied. Further, it is shown that it is possible
disconnected in one of the tests.
to diagnose the injection quality on the basis of
measurement of the common-rail instantaneous
pressure obtained with a production pressure sensor.
Finally, the method is shown to be useful even with
small injections (such as pilot injections).

2 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

Two different installations were used. The first is a

common-rail test bench where the injection system
can be tested separately from the engine. After this
initial characterization, a direct injection diesel
passenger car engine with a commercial common-
rail system is used. In this section, both installations
are described.

2.1 Common-rail test bench

A Bosch CP1 common rail is used for the first experi-
ment. The high-pressure pump is driven by a speed-
controlled electric motor. The motor shaft powers
a replica of the engine flywheel which is used to
provide the crankshaft position signal to the fuel
injection system electronic control unit (ECU). A
single injector is driven by the ECU. The number
of injections and their duration and starting point Fig. 1 Common-rail test bench

Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

 Injection diagnosis through common-rail pressure measurement
Fig. 2 Engine test bench
The common-rail system was a Bosch CP2, and
the pressure was measured with the production
sensor used for the rail pressure control (Bosch RDS).
Its gain was 35.7 mV/MPa. This sensor was preferred
to a research-grade pressure sensor since in this way
the diagnosis technique is tested for production con-
ditions, proving that no more expensive sensor is
needed. An oscilloscope was used to measure the
sensor voltage. An angular reference was obtained by
recording the injection current of cylinder 1. Engine
speed, rail mean pressure, and fuel mass flow were
also measured for each test. The sampling frequency
was 50 kHz.
3 SIGNAL ANALYSIS AND PROCESSING
Signal processing is a major focus of the present
work. The rail pressure signal contains both low- and
high-frequency information. Low-frequency signal
components are related to the filling and emptying
of the rail. Higher-frequency information is related
to the injection events. Different data treatment
techniques are explored and evaluated in this paper
to propose an effective method for the diagnosis of
injection systems.
For the first approach, a time–frequency study is
used by means of the spectrogram. The spectrogram
is based on the short-time Fourier transform (STFT)
and is capable of showing local details that may
not be evident when analysed only in the time or
frequency domain. The spectrogram has been widely
used for non-stationary analysis, and its interpretation
JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012
349
and computation are well understood [21]. However,
joint time–frequency analysis techniques are com-
putationally expensive and consequently it is not easy
to apply these methods directly in online diagnosis
algorithms. In the present work, they are only used
in order to reveal interesting features of the measured
signals and to show the most relevant harmonics.
A second approach uses the discrete Fourier
transform (DFT) to analyse the experimental data.
The DFT allows discrimination of the signal contents
at different frequencies. As reciprocating combustion
engines behave periodically with respect to crank-
shaft angular position, this tool may be well suited
to the problem.
The result of the analysis conducted using the
DFT was finally used to design ideal filters. The ideal
filter is a zero-phase filter resulting from the selection
of some terms of the DFT transformation and the
application of the inverse discrete Fourier transform
(IDFT). This type of filtering can only be used offline,
as an entire segment of the signal is required for
calculating the DFT, thus resulting in an algorithm
that is not causal [22]; however, the quality of the
smoothing obtained from such filtering amply com-
pensates for this inconvenience. Furthermore, offline
calculation must be understood here in the sense
that the result is calculated after each engine cycle.
This delay does not affect online use for failure
diagnosis, providing that the diagnostic decision can
be delayed until the end of the cycle. Thus, this
method does not allow corrective intervention to be
applied during a given cycle. It is, however, question-
able whether such intervention would be safe and
desirable – the one-cycle delay penalty is clearly not
a serious shortcoming of this approach.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Common-rail test bench
The first experiments were performed on the
common-rail test bench presented in section 2.1. A
summary of the experiments is presented in Table 1.
The main objective of these tests was to determine
whether the rail pressure variations due to the fuel
injection(s) were measurable. A first experiment was
conducted using the Kistler research-grade pressure
sensor to obtain distortion-free measurements; the
sampling frequency was selected to be 100 kHz to
avoid aliasing effects due to the rail natural frequency,
expected to be in the range of 2250 Hz for longi-
tudinal propagation waves (see below). Figure 3(a)
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
350 F Payri, J M Luján, C Guardiola, and G Rizzoni

Table 1 Operating conditions for the tests performed in the common-rail test bench (BTDC – before
top dead centre)
Rail pressure Pilot i. timing Main i. timing Pilot i. duration Main i. duration Engine speed
#test [MPa] [° BTDC] [° BTDC] [ms] [ms] [rpm]

1 80 – 0 – 1000 2000
2 80 15 0 250 1000 2000

Further, the rail natural frequency can be isolated.

For a rail with characteristic length l and with speed
of sound a, the natural frequency of the rail and
its harmonics are expected to be located at the
frequencies

a
f (k)=k
r 2l

Given the physical length of the rail (0.3 m), and

Fig. 3 Time evolution of the rail pressure for the
common-rail test bench tests: (a) without pilot
injection; (b) with pilot injection. Injections
have been marked with arrows
shows the results of this first experiment. The high-
pressure pump effect on the rail, which appears as a
wave at 3 times the cycle frequency, can be clearly
seen. After the injection pulse, the rail pressure
experiences a significant drop. This pressure drop
could be a useful diagnostic feature of the injection
process. Absence of such a drop when the ECU has
commanded an injection signal would be a clear
indication of a malfunction.
Figure 4(a) depicts the spectrum of the pressure
signal. Since injection is performed in only one of
the injectors, the spectral peaks associated with the
injection are located at the frequencies
f (k)=k f , k=1, 2, …
i 0
where f is the engine cycle frequency. The harmonics
0 in the level plot, indicating significant increase in
due to the dynamics of the high-pressure pump are
located at the frequencies
f (k)=3k f , k=1, 2, …
p 0
estimating the speed of sound in the rail (approxi-
mately 1300 m/s for the working pressure [23]), the
first harmonic can be located at approximately
2250 Hz. The result agrees with the experimental
data, as can be seen in Fig. 4.
Since the injection frequency and the high-pressure
pump rotational speed depend on the engine speed,
the location of the peaks in the spectrum associated
with these phenomena will also be dependent on the
engine speed. If the data acquisition is performed
in the crankshaft angle domain, the peaks will be
located at fixed positions (orders). On the other hand,
the peaks of the rail natural frequencies are related
to the speed of sound and are further pressure and
temperature dependent, since the sound speed
varies slightly with these factors. No interference
between these signal components is expected, given
that the locations of the low-frequency engine speed
dependent peaks and the high-frequency pressure
dependent peaks are sufficiently distant.
The spectrum of the pressure signal does not
clearly reveal local injection events. Thus, time–
frequency analysis was performed by means of
spectrograms. This analysis will help develop criteria
for the isolation of the rail pressure drop due to local
injection events. Figure 5(a) shows the spectrogram
of this first experiment. In this figure it is easy to
distinguish when the injection has occurred, as
the spectrogram reveals an excitation in a wide
frequency band from low frequencies up to 2 kHz.
This excitation is shown as a narrow black region
energy contents in all the affected frequencies.
A crucial question remains to be clarified: although
the previous results have shown that the isolation of

Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

 Injection diagnosis through common-rail pressure measurement
Fig. 4 Spectra of the rail pressure for the common-rail test bench tests: (a) without pilot injec-
tion; (b) with pilot injection
a single injection is possible, it is not clear that such
an strategy can deal with two injections performed
in a short time period. Problems in the detection
are expected, especially when the effect of the
first injection is small compared with that of the
second. This is the case for a pilot injection just a
few degrees before the main injection. To study
this phenomenon, a second experiment with two
injections was performed.
Figures 3(b) and 4(b) show the time evolution and
the spectrum of the pressure signal respectively. In
the case of the time domain plot [Fig. 3(b)], a smaller
drop is observed before the pressure drop due to the
main injection. The spectral plot of Fig. 4(b) does not
show any appreciable difference between the single
and pilot–main injection cases. Figure 5(b) shows the
spectrogram of the signal. In this case, the area with
high-frequency contents is divided into two different
parts: a thin black line caused by the pilot injection
and a wider one related to the main injection. Based
on this last figure, it can be observed that, even when
the detection of the injection process seems to be
possible, discrimination between several injections
will not be easily achievable if these injections are
very near one another.
In the tests performed on the common-rail test
bench, only one injector is working. Thus, the
injection caused a significant drop in the rail pressure
which is compensated for during the rest of the
JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012
351
engine cycle. This situation is rather different from
real operating conditions, where injections are per-
formed in all the cylinders (note that the different
injections will be done at different rail pressures,
as the number of cylinders and the pump strokes
per cycle are primes between them). Thus, as the
emptying and filling process is a main factor in rail
pressure evolution, it is not possible to study the
problem without performing the injection in all of the
cylinders. The next section is devoted to analysing
data obtained under realistic operating conditions.
4.2 Engine test bench
Several experiments were run on the engine test bed,
varying the rail pressure, the engine speed, and the
duration of the main injection and pilot injection. A
condition with no pilot injection was also measured.
Finally, to study the effects of a failure in one
injector, the engine was run with one of the injectors
disconnected. A summary of the experiments is
presented in Table 2. To illustrate the results, only
tests 3, 13, and 15 will be described; these correspond
to experimental points with pilot injection, with a
disconnected injector, and fault free but without pilot
injection respectively (from here on these cases
will be referred to as a, b, and c). All rail pressure
measurements were carried out with the production
Bosch sensor.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
352 F Payri, J M Luján, C Guardiola, and G Rizzoni

sensor compared with the research sensor. Figure 6

Fig. 5 Spectrogram of the rail pressure for the
common-rail test bench tests: (a) without pilot
injection; (b) with pilot injection
In Fig. 6 the time evolution of the signal is
represented for each one of the selected tests. In this
case, the noise is much more evident owing to the
reduced accuracy and resolution of the production
also depicts the results of the application of a low-
pass ideal filter (cutting frequencies above 500 Hz).
In this figure the injection events have been marked
and a pressure drop associated with each injection
is easily distinguished. Additionally, it can be inferred
that the pressure drop is somewhat proportional to
the mass of fuel injected, since the pressure drop is
considerably smaller in the case of the pilot injection.
In Fig. 7 the DFT of the signal is shown. Easily
distinguishable peaks are associated with the injection
events (4 f ) and the rail natural frequency, f . The
0 r
peaks related to the pumping process (3 f ) are
0
masked by the injection-related events, and the only
distinguishable harmonic is the one that is common
to the pumping and the injection process (12 f ).
0
High-frequency noise appears in the 10–20 kHz
band; these peaks could be related to the sensor
characteristics or transverse natural frequencies of
the rail.
The spectrogram (Fig. 8) clearly shows the injection
events in the fault-free tests (cases a and c). As in the
previous section, the injection causes a significant
variation in the signal contents in a wide low-
frequency band. It should be noted that the rail
natural pressure is also excited, causing an increase
in the contents in the f and 2 f region. In the case
r r
of the faulty injector (case b), the discrimination of
the pilot injections corresponding to the cylinders
preceding and following the faulty one (in the firing
order) is not so clear; this effect will be analysed in
the section devoted to STFT analysis.
It should be evident at this point that the rail
pressure is visibly modified by the injection event.
For the moment, only subjective criteria based on
the spectrogram observation have been considered.

Table 2 Operating conditions for the tests performed on the engine test bench
Rail pressure Pilot i. timing Main i. timing Pilot i. duration Main i. duration Engine speed
#test [MPa] [° BTDC] [° BTDC] [ms] [ms] [rpm]

1 30 32.67 −2.3 365 625 1286

2 30 30 −4.99 365 625 1286
3 40 39.4 0.25 360 760 1286
4 44 42.20 1.9 340 870 1286
5 49 43.2 2.85 310 940 1286
6 46.5 32.9 −3 250 550 1750
7 50 42.5 −0.02 265 700 1750
8 64 39.8 1.6 265 860 1750
9 50 36 0.9 225 450 2500
10 60 37 −1.24 205 490 2500
11 67 38.67 −1.33 209 560 2500
12 83 43.9 1.75 200 690 2500
13(*) 41.5 36.5 −0.9 300 620 1286
14 62 44.3 4.5 168 465 3500
15 102 – 7.2 – 588 3500

*One of the injectors was disconnected in order to simulate a severe injection fault.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

 Injection diagnosis through common-rail pressure measurement
Fig. 6 Time evolution of the pressure for the engine
test bench tests: (a) pilot and main injection
(test 3); (b) pilot and main injection with a faulty
cylinder (test 13); (c) main injection only (test
15). The original signal is represented above,
and the filtered signal below. Injections have
been marked with arrows and faulty injections
with crosses
JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012
353
Fig. 7 Spectra of the pressure for the engine test bench
tests: (a) pilot and main injection (test 3);
(b) pilot and main injection with a faulty cylin-
der (test 13); (c) main injection only (test 15)
The objective is now to design an algorithm for the
isolation of the injection events from the rail pressure
measurement. Such an algorithm could be integrated
with the OBD logic for the injection system diagnosis.
Furthermore, if the failure is due to an extremely
short duration of the injection current that does not
effectively open the injector nozzle, then a corrective
action could be taken, progressively increasing the
injection time until a proper injection takes place. In
this last case, the integration of the algorithm in the
control system may improve engine performance.
5 DETECTION ALGORITHM
Different approaches to the design of the detection
algorithm will now be presented. The objective of the
present work is not to present a definitive algorithm
for fuel injection diagnosis, but to provide a pre-
liminary study for further work. It may be that none
of the basic algorithms proposed fits the design
requirements (in terms of robustness, detection
rate, and overdetection rate); in this case it may be
possible to use the integration of different criteria [24].
5.1 DFT analysis
The analysis of the signal spectrum reveals problems
relating to the periodicity of the signal. When there
is a lack of injection in one of the cylinders, the DFT
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
354 F Payri, J M Luján, C Guardiola, and G Rizzoni
Fig. 8 Spectrogram of the pressure for the engine test
bench tests: (a) pilot and main injection (test 3);
(b) pilot and main injection with a faulty cylin-
der (test 13); (c) main injection only (test 15)
can easily reveal it, as a peak appears in the cycle
frequency. However, isolation of local events is poor
owing to the nature of the DFT algorithm.
Returning to Fig. 7 and analysing the low-frequency
band, it can be seen that the total lack of injection
in one of the cylinders can be determined from the
comparison of the peak at the firing frequency (4 f )
0
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012
between cases a and b. However, this may not be a
proper tool to determine the number of injections
per cylinder or if a pilot injection has failed: the
spectrum of case c does not differ qualitatively from
that of case a.
Although the methods proposed in the next
sections show better performance in locating
individual injections, the high accuracy and robust-
ness of this method for detecting the total lack of
injection in one cylinder should be borne in mind.
In addition, if the DFT calculation is applied to a
single frequency, the method is more amenable to
online implementation.
5.2 STFT analysis
As shown earlier in this paper, local injection events
are distinctly revealed by the spectrogram. The
time representation of the spectrogram for a given
frequency (which corresponds to a specified harmonic
of the short-time Fourier transform with the window
moving with time) could be used for diagnosis of the
injection. Also, in this case the computation could
be reasonably fast, since there is no need to calculate
the whole spectrogram but just the STFT component
at the selected frequency (or frequency range).
The specific frequency must be selected in such a
way that the content of the signal at that frequency
is significant only when an injection is taking place.
It is also important that the selected frequency makes
it possible to distinguish several injections performed
by the same injector within a short time. Figure 9
shows an example of the method, where the STFT
content of the signal at 683 Hz is shown. The figure
illustrates that the method works properly except in
the case of pilot injections near the faulty cylinder
(grey arrows in case b). This result is attributed to
the change in rail pressure caused by the total lack
of one injection, as can be observed in Fig. 6(b); the
emptying and filling process masks the effects of
minor (pilot) injections. In case b, the pressure drop
caused by the second and third pilot injections
(numbered in the firing order) is slower and smaller,
thus hindering STFT-based detection. This effect was
also present in the spectrogram of Fig. 8(b).
5.3 Ideal filtering and further differentiation of
the signal
Finally, a low-pass ideal filter was performed using the
DFT. The filtered signal was differentiated in a second
step and its sign was changed (thus marking drops
in the rail pressure as a positive peak in the resulting
JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006
 Injection diagnosis through common-rail pressure measurement
Fig. 9 STFT analysis of the pressure for the engine test
bench tests: (a) pilot and main injection (test 3);
(b) pilot and main injection with a faulty cylin-
der (test 13); (c) main injection only (test 15)
signal). Finally, the proposed diagnosis algorithm
opens a time window each time an injection is per-
formed and checks if a threshold is reached in the
filtered and differentiated signal. The time window
should consider the needle opening delay, which
could exceed a few hundreds of microseconds
depending on the injector model and the operating
conditions.
A convenient selection of the low-pass filter limits
and threshold permits the detection of the different
injections. Figure 10 depicts a case in which the cut-
off frequency was 450 Hz for cases a and b and
500 Hz for case c. It can be seen that it is possible
properly to detect the pilot injection. In the same
way the lack of injection in one of the injectors is
easily detected. It remains to be determined where
the optimum threshold is, and whether it is constant
for different engine operating conditions. Note that,
for the case of the main injections, this method has
a lower signal-to-noise ratio than the STFT-based
method; however, the detection of the pilot injection
is improved in comparison with the previous method.
JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012
355
Fig. 10 Ideal filtering and further derivation of the
pressure for the engine test bench tests:
(a) pilot and main injection (test 3); (b) pilot
and main injection with a faulty cylinder
(test 13); (c) main injection only (test 15)
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A diagnosis principle for the injection process in
common-rail diesel engines, based on the analysis of
slight variations in the rail pressure signal, has been
proposed in this paper.
From measurement of the instantaneous variation
in the common-rail pressure it is possible to detect
when an injection has taken place. The effect of the
injections overlaps that of the pumping process.
However, with proper signal processing, it is possible
to discriminate between effects due to the injection
and to pump pressure fluctuations.
It is possible also to discriminate between different
injections in the same cylinder even when they are
separated only by a few crankshaft degrees. This point
could be crucial for advanced injection techniques
(pilot injection, post-injection, HCCI engines, split
injections, etc.).
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
356 F Payri, J M Luján, C Guardiola, and G Rizzoni
There is a relationship between the pressure drop
in the rail and the quantity of fuel injected. Although
this topic has not been studied specifically, it does
not seem impossible to design fuel mass flowrate
observers from the rail pressure variation. However,
it must be noted that the injector is fitted with a
return line to the low-pressure system; thus, the rail
pressure drop will be affected by the returned fuel
quantity too, and consequently a correction should
be used. This issue should also be considered in the
diagnostic process, as minor defects in the injected
fuel quantity can be hidden by the returned fuel
quantity effect on the rail pressure.
The joint use of ideal (non-causal) filtering and
differentiation of the rail pressure signal seems to be
the best method for the detection of the injection
events from the rail pressure measurement. Further
work must be done to optimize the band-pass
filter and to select the threshold. Also, the extreme
cases must be explored (least separation between
detectable injections, smallest fuel quantity detect-
able, etc.). The STFT method seems most robust for
the detection of the main injection. DFT is effective
in detecting total lack of injection in one cylinder.
The fusion of multiple criteria could be studied for
improving overall detection efficiency.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was partially funded by a PPI-00-02-
1808 UPV grant. The authors are grateful for the
collaboration of the CMT-Motores Térmicos staff,
with special thanks to Antonio Peris for carrying out
the experimental measurements and to Enrique
Moreno for his work on analysing the data.
REFERENCES
1 Hong, H. and Torab, B. Solenoid-operated diesel
injectors for low-viscosity liquid and gaseous fuels.
Proc. IMechE, Part D: J. Automobile Engineering,
2001, 215.
2 Lee, H.-K., Russell, M. F., and Bae, C. S.
Mathematical model of diesel injection equipment
incorporating non-linear fuel injection. Proc. IMechE,
Part D: J. Automobile Engineering, 2002, 216(D3).
3 Baik, S., Blanchard, J., and Corradini, M. Develop-
ment of micro-diesel injector nozzles via MEMS
technology and effects on spray characteristics. SAE
paper 2001-01-0528, 2001.
4 Dürnhold, M., Endres, H., and Frisse, P. Pre-
injection – a measure to optimise the emission
behavior of DI-diesel engine. SAE paper 940674,
1994.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering
Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012
5 Zhang, L. A study of pilot injection in a DI diesel
engine. SAE paper 1999-01-3493, 1999.
6 Benajes, J., Molina, S., and Garcı́a, J. M. Influence
of pre- and post-injection on the performance and
pollutant emissions in a HD Diesel engine. SAE
paper 2001-01-0526, 2001.
7 Glenn, R. and Foster, D. E. The effect of split
injection on soot and NOx production in an engine-
fed combustion chamber. SAE paper 932655, 1993.
8 Beatrice, C., Belardini, P., Bertoli, C., Lisbona, M. G.,
and Rossi Sebastiano, G. M. Diesel combustion
control in common rail engines by new injection
strategies. Int. J. Engine Res., 2002, 3(1).
9 Schmidt, M., Kimmich, F., Straky, H., and
Isermann, R. Combustion supervision by evaluating
the crankshaft speed and acceleration. SAE paper
2000-01-0558. 2000.
10 Ganser, M. A. Common rail injectors for 2000 bar
and beyond. SAE paper 2000-01-0706, 2000.
11 Han, J. S., Wang, T. C., Xie, X. B., Harrington, D. L.,
Pinson, J., and Miles, P. Dynamics of multiple-
injection fuel sprays in a small-bore HSDI Diesel
engine. SAE paper 2000-01-1256, 2000.
12 Directive 98/69/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to
measures to be taken against air pollution by
emissions from motor vehicles and amending
Council Directive 70/220/EEC. L 350/1 Official
Journal of the European Communities, 1998.
13 System requirements for 2004 and subsequent
model-year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and
medium-duty vehicles and engines (OBD II), Title
13, California Code Regulations, Section 1968.2,
Malfunction and Diagnostic, 2003.
14 Freestone, J. W. and Jenkins, E. G. The diagnosis
of cylinder power faults in a diesel engine by fly-
wheel speed measurement. Proc. IMechE, Part D:
J. Automobile Engineering, 1986, 200(D1), 37–43.
15 Williams, J. An overview of misfiring cylinder engine
diagnostic techniques based on crankshaft angular
velocity measurements. SAE paper 960039, 1996.
16 Kim, Y. W., Rizzoni, G., Wang, Y. Y., and Samimy, B.
Analysis and processing of shaft angular velocity
signals in rotating machinery for diagnostic appli-
cations. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics,
Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP 1995, Detroit,
Michigan, May 1995.
17 Azzoni, P., Cantoni, G., Minelli, G., Moro, D.,
Rizzoni, G., Ceccarani, M., and Mazzetti, S. Measure-
ment of engine misfire in the Lamborghini 533 V-12
engine using crankshaft speed fluctuations. SAE
technical paper 950837, 1995.
18 Lee, D. and Rizzoni, G. Detection of partial misfire
in IC engines using a measurement of crankshaft
angular velocity. SAE technical paper 951070, 1995.
19 Connolly, F. and Rizzoni, G. Real time estimation of
engine torque for the detection of engine misfires.
Trans. ASME, J. Dynamic Syst. Measurement and
Control, December 1994, 116(4).
20 Stumpp, G. and Ricco, M. Common rail – an
attractive fuel injection system for passenger car DI
diesel engines. SAE paper 960870, 1996.
JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006
 Injection diagnosis through common-rail pressure measurement 357

21 Cohen, L. Time–frequency analysis, 1995 (Prentice-
Hall).
22 Proakis, J. G. and Manolakis, D. G. Advanced
digital signal processing, 2nd Edition, Vol. 18, 1992
(Macmillan).
23 Ball, S. J. and Trusler, J. P. M. Speed of sound and
derived thermodynamic properties of n-hexane
and n-hexadecane at temperatures between 298 K
and 373 K and pressures up to 100 MPa. 14th
Symposium on Thermophysical Properties, Boulder,
Colorado, 2000.
24 Liu, S., Gu, F., and Ball, A. The on-line detection of
engine misfire at low speed using multiple feature
fusion with fuzzy pattern recognition. Proc. IMechE,
Part D: J. Automobile Engineering, 2002, 216,
391–402.

JAUTO34 © IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by guest on September 6, 2012

View publication stats