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

net/publication/228645733

Gasoline Fuel Injector Spray Measurement and Characterization–A New SAE

J2715 Recommended Practice

Article · April 2008

DOI: 10.4271/2008-01-1068

CITATIONS READS
56 1,569

9 authors, including:

David Hung David L Harrington

Shanghai Jiao Tong University General Motors Research and Development - Retired
105 PUBLICATIONS   749 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   793 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lee E Markle Joseph Shakal

Delphi University of Wisconsin - River Falls
8 PUBLICATIONS   107 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   173 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Dense spray measurements with phase Doppler View project

Spray Characteristics of Alternative Fuels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Hung on 13 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2008-01-1068

Gasoline Fuel Injector Spray Measurement and

Characterization – A New SAE J2715
Recommended Practice
David L.S. Hung
Visteon Corporation
David L. Harrington
General Motors Corporation (Retired)
Anand H. Gandhi
Ford Motor Company
Lee E. Markle
Delphi Corporation
Scott E. Parrish
General Motors Corporation
Joseph S. Shakal
TSI Incorporated
Hamid Sayar
Siemens Corporation
Steven D. Cummings
Chrysler LLC
Jason L. Kramer
Robert Bosch LLC

Reprinted From: Combustion & Flow Diagnostics & Fundamental Advances

in Thermal & Fluid Sciences, 2008
(SP-2178)

2008 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 14-17, 2008

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2008 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

Gasoline Fuel Injector Spray Measurement and Characterization
– A New SAE J2715 Recommended Practice
Copyright © 2008 SAE International
ABSTRACT
With increasingly stringent emissions regulations and
concurrent requirements for enhanced engine thermal
efficiency, a comprehensive characterization of the
automotive gasoline fuel spray has become essential.
The acquisition of accurate and repeatable spray data is
even more critical when a combustion strategy such as
gasoline direct injection is to be utilized. Without
industry-wide standardization of testing procedures, large
variablilities have been experienced in attempts to verify
the claimed spray performance values for the Sauter
mean diameter, Dv90, tip penetration and cone angle of
many types of fuel sprays. A new SAE Recommended
Practice document, J2715, has been developed by the
SAE Gasoline Fuel Injection Standards Committee
(GFISC) and is now available for the measurement and
characterization of the fuel sprays from both gasoline
direct injection and port fuel injection injectors. A primary
motivation for the development of the standardized
2008-01-1068
David L.S. Hung
Visteon Corporation
David L. Harrington
General Motors Corporation (Retired)
Anand H. Gandhi
Ford Motor Company
Lee E. Markle
Delphi Corporation
Scott E. Parrish
General Motors Corporation
Joseph S. Shakal
TSI Incorporated
Hamid Sayar
Siemens Corporation
Steven D. Cummings
Chrysler LLC
Jason L. Kramer
Robert Bosch LLC
procedures for test configuration, data acquisition, data
reduction and reporting was to achieve significant
reductions in the test-to-test and laboratory-to-laboratory
variabilities of such reported spray data. All of the major
areas of fuel injector spray testing and characterization
are addressed in detail in the document, including spray
imaging, high-resolution patternation and drop sizing by
both phase-Doppler interferometry and laser diffraction.
Valuable lessons regarding the definitions and
interpretations of commonly-used spray parameters were
learned during the development of the J2715 document,
and these are presented and discussed. Based upon
the five years of committee discussions and consensus
decisions, five key recommendations on fuel spray
measurement and characterization are made to the
worldwide automotive industry. The first, and most
important, recommendation is that the Recommended
Practices in SAE J2715 be utilized by the spray
laboratories of all automotive companies and injector
manufacturers in place of the myriad of in-house test
protocols that are currently being used.
To evaluate and quantify the efficacy of the new
Recommended Practices in J2715, a comprehensive
program of round-robin spray characterization tests was
designed, and is currently being conducted in the spray
testing laboratories of six injector manufacturers and
end-users worldwide. This two-year testing protocol will
be completed in mid-2008 and will compare the results of
in-house testing procedures to those obtained using the
J2715 procedures. This round-robin test program is
described in detail, and an informative example of the
initial test results for the direct-injection spray angle and
spray-tip penetration is provided and discussed.
INTRODUCTION
The new SAE J2715 document [1] has been developed
by the SAE Gasoline Fuel Injection Standards
Committee (GFISC), and addresses the subject of
characterizing automotive gasoline fuel sprays. The
document introduces new recommended practices and
definitions to achieve this. The objective of the
development of J2715 is to promote uniformity in this
field throughout the worldwide automotive industry. In
this SAE Recommended Practice document a large
number of detailed test protocols for fuel spray
characterization are developed and promulgated. To
accompany these testing procedures, a specific set of
standardized test conditions are established and uniform
data reduction and reporting procedures are derived.
The SAE GFISC Committee is comprised of
representatives from fuel injector suppliers, vehicle
manufacturers, automotive end users and spray testing
laboratories, many of whom are fuel system specialists
who are concerned with fuel spray measurement and
characterization. With an accurate fuel spray
characterization becoming increasingly important for
combustion system development for both gasoline direct-
injection and port fuel injection applications, the
development of the SAE J2715 standards document was
considered a critical priority for the automotive
community.
SCOPE OF SAE J2715
These new recommended practices apply to the sprays
from automotive fuel injectors that are used in both port
fuel injection (PFI) and gasoline-direct injection (G-DI)
engine applications. The SAE J2715 recommended
practice document contains the detailed background, test
procedures and data reduction protocols for nearly all
fuel spray characterization metrics that are applicable to
automotive applications. It is intended to be utilized in
conjunction with other SAE J documents that address
other (non-spray) injector performance metrics such as
flow curve measurement and leakage testing. These are
SAE J1832 [2] for Port Fuel Injectors and the
forthcoming SAE J2713 for Gasoline Direct Injectors.
PURPOSE OF SAE J2715
The development and publication of the new SAE J2715
Recommended Practice document has six main
purposes. These are, in the chronological order of
development:
1. To standardize the use of nomenclature and
definitions specifically related to automotive gasoline
fuel injector spray measurements.
2. To identify and define the key metrics which
constitute the characterization of automotive
gasoline fuel sprays.
3. To establish detailed test procedures and
recommend test equipment and methods to
measure and quantify these key metrics.
4. To establish recommended procedures for the data
reduction and computation of spray characterization
parameters for automotive gasoline fuel sprays.
5. To establish the detailed protocol and format for
spray data reporting in order to facilitate both the
interpretation and the third-party verification of the
test results.
6. To facilitate the adoption and usage of the gasoline
fuel spray definitions, standard conditions, testing
protocols, data reduction procedures and data
reporting practices in the new SAE J2715 document
by the worldwide automotive industry.
FUEL SPRAY VARIABLES UTILIZED FOR
SPRAY CHARACTERIZATION
The quantification of the characteristics of sprays from
automotive gasoline fuel injectors is a very important, but
specialized, area of measurement. The injection of fuel
in an engine is a very rapid, transient event of a few
milliseconds duration, and the resultant spray of
atomized liquid fuel is not easily characterized.
Parameters such as the mean drop diameter, the spray-
tip penetration, the fuel mass distribution and the cone
angle (or spray angle for G-DI) are critical to the
selection of an injector for a given application. Ideally,
the values would be determined with minimal
measurement error by standardized procedures if the
performance metrics of one injector are to be
meaningfully compared to the performance of another.
Standardized testing protocols are also necessary if the
spray performance parameters being claimed by an
injector manufacturer are to be independently verified by
an end user or third-party test laboratory. Some
measurements, such as those of spray-tip penetration,
involve macroscopic spray parameters, while others,
such as the mean drop size, involve the determination of
microscopic characteristics.
The older and more common type of fuel spray in the
automotive industry is that obtained from the port fuel
injector. This type of injector is discussed in detail in
Reference [2]. This relatively low-pressure unit produces
a fairly coarse spray over a 2 to 15 millisecond time of
injection, and exhibits a mean drop diameter of 50 to 150
microns. In contrast, the spray from the newer gasoline
direct injector produces a much finer spray over a 0.5 to
5.0 ms time of injection, providing a mean drop diameter
of 10 to 25 microns. The fuel pressure utilized in G-DI
injectors normally exceeds 8 MPa, and, for the latest
designs, may exceed 20 MPa. Several important
regions of a developing G-DI fuel spray are schematically
illustrated for a swirl-type injector in Figure 1. There may
or may not be after-injections, ligaments, spray fingers,
or even a prominent sac spray, depending on the basic
design of the injector. These are not the characterization
metrics themselves, but are general descriptors of areas
that may affect the values of the measured spray
parameters.
Figure 1 – Description of Observed Regions of a Transient G-DI Fuel
Spray [3]
Figure 2 depicts a representative set of the G-DI injector
sub-classifications by nozzle design. In addition, there
are newer piezoelectric-actuated G-DI injectors for
gasoline applications. There are corresponding sub-
classifications for PFI injectors that include the common
single spray, dual spray, hollow-cone and vacuum air-
assist types. The details of G-DI injector and spray sub-
classifications are provided in reference [3], which also
documents numerous G-DI spray measurement
techniques and variations in the measured values of
spray characterization parameters for both ambient and
on-engine conditions. In this reference the effects of
wide ranges in the values of non-standard test conditions
on the resultant G-DI fuel spray are illustrated and
discussed, including the effect of variations in fuel
temperature, fuel pressure and downstream ambient
pressure. Reference [4] provides a general overview of
the spray characteristics of atomizing nozzles, not
necessarily just those of automotive injectors. The
emphasis in this reference is upon the physics of how
sprays are formed, and on the parameters that influence
atomization, rather than upon the details of spray
measurement procedures.
Swirl G-DI Injector
Inwardly-Opening
Casting-Net
G-DI Injector
G-DI Injector
Outwardly-Opening
Slit-Type Multi-Hole Air-Assist
G-DI Injector G-DI Injector G-DI Injector
Figure 2 – G-DI Injector Sub-Classification by Nozzle Design [3]
The key metrics of an automotive gasoline fuel spray
have been well established in the automotive industry by
means of both engine testing and computational fluid
dynamics modeling. This is due to the influences of
these parameters on engine operation, combustion and
emissions that have been verified over many years in a
multitude of engine configurations. These key metrics
and the associated parameters for an automotive
gasoline fuel spray are identified and defined in detail in
SAE J2715, and may be summarized as follows:
1. The angular extent of the spray envelope. This is
the Cone Angle for a PFI injector spray, and is the
Spray Angle for a G-DI injector spray.
2. The fuel mass distribution within the fuel spray for a
PFI injector, including the location of the centroid of
that fuel mass relative to the injector axis.
3. The spray-tip penetration characteristics and a key
penetration point for the fuel spray from either a G-DI
injector or a PFI injector.
4. The drop-size distribution, the Sauter mean diameter
(SMD) and the Dv90, or 90% cumulative volume
diameter. The latter two are generally accepted for
automotive fuel spray applications as the most
meaningful statistical parameters derived from the
drop-size distribution. The meanings of the terms
are as follows: the SMD represents the diameter of a
drop having the same ratio of volume to surface area
as the collection of all drops in the measured drop-
size distribution curve; the Dv90 represents the
diameter of a drop for which the volume of all smaller
drops in the measured drop-size distribution curve is
90% of the total volume of all drops in the curve. It is
 a shorthand indicator of the largest drops in a spray
from either a PFI injector or a G-DI injector.
5. Additional parameters that numerically characterize
the resultant spray geometry from injectors having
special features or options, such as a bent-spray
injector (G-DI or PFI) or a PFI dual spray injector.
These parameters are the Cone Bend Angle for a
bent-spray (offset) PFI injector, and the Spray Bend
Angle for a bent-spray G-DI injector. For a PFI dual
spray injector the additional geometric parameters
are the individual Cone Angles of the two plumes
and the Separation Angle between them.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS IN G-DI AND PFI SPRAY
MEASUREMENTS
Automotive gasoline fuel sprays can be characterized by
defining the important spray metrics and then specifying
a series of proven measurement techniques to
numerically quantify those metrics. It is important to
note, however, that certain measurement techniques are
much more suitable for PFI sprays than for G-DI sprays,
and vice versa, due to the nature of the sprays. This is
the result of significant differences between PFI sprays
and G-DI sprays regarding the mean drop size, light
scattering, vaporization rate and penetration distance.
For example, the angular extent of the direct injection
spray (the spray angle) can be best quantified via
imaging, whereas the angular extent of the PFI spray is
best quantified by high-resolution (H-R) mechanical
patternation. Although a single large drop scatters more
light than a single small drop, it may easily be observed
experimentally using a simple strobe light that the
collection of relatively large drops in a PFI spray scatters
significantly less light than the collection of smaller, but
much more numerous, drops in a G-DI spray. As a
result, the imaging of a PFI spray generally yields a
poorly defined spray boundary. This leads to possible
errors in the quantification of PFI spray geometry by
imaging. Hence, with the exception of PFI spray-tip
penetration, imaging of PFI sprays is not recommended
for the determination of spray characterization
parameters. The patternation restrictions regarding G-DI
fuel sprays are discussed in the sub-section on
Patternation Considerations.
and procedure that was reported in the technical
literature was evaluated as to whether it was feasible for
definitive measurement, and as to whether it should be
considered as an accessible and reliable technique. A
number of emerging optical techniques, including optical
patternation, were considered to be still under rapid
development, and were deemed to be not yet suitable for
use in an industry-wide standard.
PULSE WIDTHS AND TIMING CONSIDERATIONS IN
IMAGING
It was apparent in the development of SAE J2715 that
there was little uniformity throughout the automotive
industry in the use of the term “pulse width”, or in the
definition of “time” in presenting spray data such as tip
penetration or spray images. It was ascertained that this
is a contributor to the scatter in the reported spray data
from imaging. This lack of uniformity becomes quite
important for G-DI injection systems, due to the fact that
the pulse-control strategies can be significantly more
complex than those of PFI systems. Many, but not all,
G-DI drivers incorporate a designed driver charge delay
(DCD) time between the initiation of the logic pulse from
the engine control unit (ECU) and the command pulse of
the driver to open the injector. This is normally done to
ensure a maximum voltage level of the driver capacitor
just prior to actuation. The interrelationships of four key
timing traces are illustrated schematically in Figure 3. In
the progression from the ECU logic pulse to the fuel
delivery event there are alterations due to a possible
DCD, as well as the effects of the individual times of
mechanical opening and mechanical closing. The actual
fuel delivery time between the first appearance of fuel at
the injector tip (the SOF; start of fuel) and the end of fuel
(EOF) is not generally equal to either the logic pulse
width or the injection pulse width.

The importance of quantifying the spray delivered by an

automotive gasoline fuel injector has resulted in a
significant number of research projects and technical
developments over the past decade, and a number of
excellent representative papers are listed as references
[5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. In almost all cases the work is an
application of a new measurement tool or technique to
quantify one or more fuel spray metrics that are defined.
This includes the measurement techniques that are
recommended in J2715, as well as planar optical
imaging and the application of optical patternation using Figure 3 – Key Definitions in the Correct Usage of Pulse Width
laser fluorescence. Taken as a whole, these research Terminology
projects on spray characterization do indeed provide
insight into the problem, and all such work is invaluable
to a committee that is attempting to introduce
standardization into that field. Each measurement tool
70There are further important considerations in selecting
a representative time for spray imaging. The primary
electronic logic pulse from the engine controller may be
delayed by the DCD time, following which the actual
injector opening time for the lifting of the injector pintle
from the seat will be delayed by the mechanical opening
time of the injector. The appearance of the first fuel at
the injector tip, which is the initiation of the spray event,
will not occur until these two time periods have elapsed.
The values obtained from spray imaging are significantly
affected by the image time selected, due to the fact that
the spray is rapidly developing (and penetrating) with
time. Hence, the flash time relative to other time
markers in the system electronics must be chosen
carefully, and should be clearly indicated when the
acquired data is reported As the SAE J2715 document
was being developed it became evident that there were
numerous in-house procedures for selecting the time to
use in imaging the spray (the flash time), which included
many combinations of whether or not to account for the
DCD and/or the injector opening time. Therefore, it has
been quite commonplace to not know the precise time
basis that was used in procuring the data when spray
imaging data are being presented. Without such
information the data cannot be verified by retesting.
Thus, there are two basic questions that must be
addressed prior to the imaging of sprays for the
determination of the spray angle, the spray-tip
penetration and the spray bend angle of a G-DI fuel
spray; what precise imaging time is to be used, and
when does that time start? As is evident in the timing
diagrams in Figure 3, the DCD time (if it is present)
should be ascertained and taken into account in
establishing and reporting the time to be employed for
spray imaging, particularly if the initiation of the electronic
trigger phasing is the start of the logic pulse from the
ECU. In the SAE J2715 document these considerations
are fully discussed, and standardized procedures are
recommended. For example, the fundamental imaging
time for a G-DI spray is established as 1.50 ms after the
time of the first appearance of fuel at the injector tip
(SOF), which is independent of the duration of the
mechanical opening time and the presence or absence
of a DCD. This does, however, require a determination
of the time of first fuel relative to the start of the ECU
logic pulse. For PFI injectors the fundamental imaging
time (used if required for penetration only) is specified as
5.0 ms after SOF.
PATTERNATION CONSIDERATIONS
The application of mechanical patternation (mass
collection) to direct injection fuel sprays is not
recommended due to the significant percentage loss of
fuel that is associated with the reduced penetration and
rapid evaporation of the very small drops. This results in
a significant percentage of the fuel in each spray event
that is never collected and measured in the patternator
collection cells. Thus, it is specified in SAE J2715 that
mechanical patternation should not be applied to G-DI
sprays. Mechanical patternation measures the 2-D fuel
mass distribution, and the cone angle is derived from the
radius corresponding to 90% cumulative mass as
measured from the centroid of that distribution. The lack
of a measured mass distribution for a G-DI fuel spray
means that the usual cone angle calculation based upon
such a distribution cannot be conducted, thus, strictly
speaking, there is no known “cone angle” for the spray
from a G-DI injector. The confusion regarding the
angular extent of a G-DI fuel spray is traceable to the
common practice within the industry to use the term
“cone angle” for both PFI and G-DI sprays. For G-DI
sprays, a common industry practice is to obtain a photo
of the spray, measure the angle of the spray boundary at
some distance down from the tip, and then denote this
as the cone angle. It is here emphasized that the value
acquired in this manner does not at all correspond to the
mass-based PFI cone angle, and is not a measurement
of the same physical characteristics. The solution to this
practice that is recommended in SAE J2715 is to create
a new term for the imaged angular extent of the G-DI
spray, as imaged and analyzed according to a strictly
defined protocol. This new recommended term is the G-
DI “Spray Angle”, which is addressed in detail in the
section on G-DI Spray Angle Measurement.
EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROTOCOLS IN SAE
J2715
Detailed test protocols for nearly every fuel spray
characterization variable have been developed, and are
sequentially listed in SAE J2715 according to the class of
injector that is being tested. The test configurations and
procedures for the measurement, data reduction and
reporting of fuel spray characteristics are only briefly
outlined here. The specific details on the test procedure
and data reduction may be found in the SAE J2715
document.
In general, undertaking the task of measuring the key
fuel spray variables such as the mean drop size or the
cone angle is not to be taken lightly. Highly specialized
laboratory facilities, safety equipment and test
instrumentation are required, and, even with such
facilities, significant time may be required to configure
and align the test optics, and to acquire the many data
points. Nearly all fuel spray characterization data is
obtained in dedicated spray laboratories that are also
laser optical laboratories. This implies that the technical
staff conducting the tests must also be highly skilled in
operating the instruments. The level of sophistication for
the required instrumentation is higher for the
measurement of the spray microscopic properties such
as drop sizing than for the overall macroscopic
properties such as spray-tip penetration. For these
reasons, it is recommended in SAE J2715 that spray
testing be done in an order starting with the geometric,
macroscopic characteristics, which are obtained by
imaging or patternation. Once those spray parameters
are determined, the measurements can progress
towards the detailed microscopic measurements, such
as drop sizing. The macroscopic measurements are
generally less difficult to perform and, in addition, can
provide information that significantly facilitates the
microscopic measurements. The order of testing for the
series of complete spray metrics is recommended in
SAE J2715 as follows: For G-DI sprays, imaging should
be performed first, followed by drop sizing. For PFI fuel
sprays, patternation should be the first test, followed by
imaging for penetration (if required), then drop sizing.

SPRAY GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS FOR G-DI USING

IMAGING

Spray imaging is a technique employed to produce a

two-dimensional, static, digital image representing a
three-dimensional, time-varying spray plume. The
primary requirement in determining the spray geometric
parameters is to image the entire spray, which precludes
the use of light-sheet techniques. A uniform light source,
a diffuser, the injector and the camera should be Figure 5 – Spray Imaging - Backlit Image of a G-DI Fuel Spray
configured to generate backlit images with the entire
spray being illuminated (Figure 4). To freeze the motion
of the drops in the spray, a pulsed, triggered light source
of sub-microsecond duration such as a pulsed laser or a
flash lamp is required for use with standard digital SPRAY GEOMETRIC VARIABLES FOR PFI USING
cameras. HIGH-RESOLUTION PATTERNATION

The two-dimensional fuel mass distribution of the spray

Figure 4 – Schematic of the Backlit Imaging Test Configuration
in a plane that is orthogonal to the injector axis can be
ascertained by collecting the liquid drops from a large
number of consecutive fuel spray pulses in the cells of a
mechanical patternator. The term "fuel spray
mechanical patternation" implies an intrusive
measurement of the spray to obtain the distribution of the
fuel mass in two spatial dimensions. Specifically, the
cone angle and other spray geometric parameters of a
PFI injector spray can be computed from the mass
distribution that is obtained. Figure 6 shows a schematic
representation of the test configuration that is used to
measure the mass distribution within the spray of a PFI
injector.

A continuous light source with a camera capable of very

short exposures (such as a gated-intensified camera)
may also be employed. The light (or camera) trigger is
to be activated with adequate time-delay controls from
the injector driver circuit. There are additional
requirements for the electronic system that controls,
synchronizes and properly phases the injection event,
light source and camera shutter. As illustrated in Figure
5, backlit illumination is recommended for more uniform
imaging of the spray, and it is very suitable for the later
determination of the spray boundaries. The data
reduction procedure requires the use of specified image
processing techniques such as subtraction of the non-
spray background image and image thresholding to
locate and define the spray boundaries. Key spray
parameters such as the spray angle, spray bend angle
and the axial spray-tip penetration distance are Figure 6 – Test Configuration for the Measurement of the Mass
determined by spray imaging and image analysis. This Distribution in a PFI Fuel Spray using a High Resolution Patternator
is discussed in more detail in the section on G-DI Spray
Angle Measurement.
The measurement of fuel mass distribution may be
obtained by sensing the volume of liquid fuel in each
collection cell. This is generally done by using another
sensing variable or, in a method that has been generally
superseded, by weighing the fuel that is collected in a
series of precision cells. In automated systems, the fuel
mass in each cell may be computed by means of a
calibration algorithm for capacitance, laser-beam
attenuation or liquid-column-height sensing. The mass
of fuel in each of the 250+ collection cells provides the
two-dimensional distribution of fuel in the collection
plane. This is graphically represented in Figure 7, with
the three shades of gray indicating three ranges of fuel
mass. The key spray parameters that are computed
from the fuel-mass distribution of a H-R patternation test
are the cone angle, the bend angle and the angle of the
fuel-mass centroid relative to the centerline of the
injector electrical connector. An additional (second)
cone angle and a separation angle are also acquired and
reported if the spray is from a dual spray PFI injector.
This is illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 7 – Representation of a Single-Plume Spray Pattern in a High-
Resolution Mechanical Patternator
Figure 8 – Representation of the Separation Angle and the two Cone
Angles in a PFI Dual-Spray Patternation Measurement
Any of the H-R patternator designs represent a
significant enhancement in resolution over the original
SAE eight-ring mechanical patternator that was first
introduced to measure the cone angle of a throttle-body
injector or port-fuel injector more than 20 years ago [2].
In this low-resolution, annular-ring fixture the fuel
collected in each of the eight rings is separately drained
and weighed. This simple patternator is still in limited
use, although it has largely been supplanted by H-R
patternators that have automated computer control.
Application of the eight-ring annular patternator is limited,
as only the PFI cone angle can be obtained, and dual
spray units cannot be evaluated. As compared to the
older eight-ring patternator, H-R patternator designs
having 250 to 625 cells, with spacing between adjacent
cells of 3 to 6 millimeters, exhibit a five-to tenfold
enhancement in the potential measurement resolution of
a fuel mass distribution.
DROP SIZING – LASER DIFFRACTION AND PHASE-
DOPPLER INTERFEROMETRY
The specialized laboratory instruments that have been
developed and applied to the measurement of drops in
automotive fuel sprays may be divided into two major
types: laser diffraction instruments and phase-Doppler
instruments. With the proper selection of optics, either of
these two laser-based instruments may be alternatively
utilized to measure and record the sizes of drops within
any automotive fuel spray, whether PFI or G-DI.
However, there is one important caveat that must be
considered for these alternate measurement techniques;
there is no known conversion or relationship between the
two results. Strictly speaking, the results for the
characteristic drop sizes as determined by laser
diffraction should not be compared directly to the results
obtained by means of phase-Doppler interferometry.
Laser diffraction systems determine the particle
distributions from collected light that has been scattered
by all of the spray drops that are present in a cylindrical
beam of laser light, as illustrated in Figure 9. The
scattered and collected light is used to infer a spatially-
integrated drop-size distribution. The diffracted light from
all of the drops present in the laser beam that are within
the working distance and size range of the receiving
optics is collected in an annular array of photodetectors.
All of this collected light contributes to the determination
of the overall drop-size distribution. Laser diffraction
systems yield an integrated result for the spray in one
measurement, hence the measurement time is relatively
short. It is important to note that variations of key spray
metrics along the laser beam are not obtained, nor is any
information obtained on the drop velocity distribution.
The key spray drop-size parameters obtained using laser
diffraction are the SMD (Sauter mean diameter), Dv50,
and Dv90. The Dv50 and Dv90 are drop diameters that are
defined statistical moments of the drop-size distribution
that indicate the median and largest drops in the spray,
respectively.

Figure 9 – A Laser Diffraction Measurement Configuration for Drop
Size Measurement in Automotive Fuel Sprays
Phase-Doppler interferometry (PDI) is another type of
instrument that can be used to measure the drop-size
distribution of the fuel sprays. Phase-Doppler systems
perform measurements at a point in a spray. This is
accomplished by monitoring the light that is refracted by
the individual drops of a spray that pass through a small
“probe volume” that is illustrated schematically in Figure
10. This is a very small volume that is defined by the
intersection of two, or more, focused laser beams and a
precision optical slit, or spatial filter. Wherever the
probe volume is positioned within a spray, the complex
refracted light signal from an individual drop that passes
through that volume is interpreted, classified and, if it
passes a series of logic tests, is converted to an
accepted drop diameter and placed into a cumulative
database. This database yields the drop-size distribution
for that location at the end of the test. Unlike the laser-
diffraction method of measurement, other locations in the
spray are not interrogated while data at that location is
being acquired. Typically, the probe volume is
sequentially positioned at numerous sequential locations
in the spray, yielding a measured spatial variation in
spray characterization parameters.
The individual measurement locations are specified to be
along a specific straight line, which is designated in SAE
J2715 as the radial scan line, and which normally scans
the distance from the injector centerline to the outer
spray boundary. As a result of having to index the probe
volume through numerous positions in the spray, phase-
Doppler testing is significantly more time consuming than
laser diffraction testing. The key drop sizing parameters
obtained using PDI are the drop-size distribution curves
at key points within the spray, the SMD and the drop
diameter that corresponds to the 90% cumulative volume
point on the drop-size distribution curve, Dv90.
Figure 10 – A phase-Doppler Interferometry Measurement System for
Drop Sizing using a Forward-Scattering Test Configuration
In interpreting the results of drop-size measurements, it
is important to remember that automotive gasoline fuel
sprays are pulsed sprays. The highly transient nature of
a spray pulse is obvious, even with simple visualization
using a strobe light. Although the drop-sizing statistics
that are detailed in the SAE J2715 document are all
based upon time-averaged measurements made over
the entire injection event (in fact, over a large number of
consecutive injection events), there are some PDI and
laser diffraction instrument packages that can perform
time-resolved drop-size measurements. This time-
windowing has the additional capability of measuring only
during brief time intervals within an injection event. This
specialized equipment can differentiate between leading-
edge drops and trailing-edge drops, and can separately
measure the sizes of the main spray drops and the sac
drops. However, such specialized equipment options are
quite complex in application and interpretation. An
additional consideration is that many PDI and laser
diffraction instruments remain in service that do not have
the time-windowing option. One of the goals of the new
J2715 procedures was to have an equipment
requirement that all spray laboratories could meet, and a
test procedure that was not overly complex in
configuration and interpretation. Hence, after much
discussion by the GFISC committee, there was a
consensus that all of the drop-sizing tests in the SAE
J2715 document would be time-averaged, with the time-
windowing option turned off if the drop-sizing equipment
has such an option. With the exception of spray-tip
penetration, this also applies to all of the other tests
within the document. Controls on the air-purging rate of
the spray enclosure are specified to prevent the
measured, time-averaged results from being excessively
influenced by the residual spray droplets. This is
discussed in more detail in the section on Lessons
Learned.
INJECTOR TIP DRIPPAGE DURING REPETITIVE
SPRAY EVENTS
It is noted in SAE J2715 that the test that is developed
for the injector tip drippage rate quantifies the propensity
of portions of the liquid fuel to collect and accumulate on
the injector spray tip during repetitive spray events. This
metric is only applicable to PFI injectors, not G-DI
injectors, and is particularly meaningful for those PFI
injectors having recessed tips or those providing two
spray plumes having wide separation angles. Any fuel
from a spray event that accumulates on the PFI injector
tip will result in imprecise metering. It should be noted
that tip drippage is not the same phenomenon as tip
leakage. The leakage test is not a spray-related test,
and is covered in SAE J1832 [2]. For an injector for
which a small portion of the injected spray adheres to the
tip surface, the liquid fuel accumulation continues until a
critical mass is attained and the forces of adhesion to the
tip surface are overcome by the weight of the fuel. At
this point in time a large drop of liquid fuel falls from the
tip. This drop size is normally hundreds of times larger
than the largest drop in the spray, but is not measured in
the test. For a specific mounting orientation of 45° from
the horizontal, and for the standard operating conditions
that are noted in Table 1, each large drop that falls
during the test period is counted. The characterization
value that is reported is the average periodic drip rate.
STANDARD TEST CONDITIONS
The establishment of standardized test conditions for a
wide variety of test protocols is quite important for
reducing variations in the final test values that are
acquired and reported. The standard values of test
conditions that are recommended in SAE J2715 are
summarized in the second line of Table 1 for all eight test
categories. The specified test fluid, n-Heptane, is
included as one of the standard test conditions. These
standard test conditions for the eight basic categories of
automotive fuel spray characterization were determined
by a consensus of the SAE GFISC Committee
representatives. This was achieved via lengthy
committee discussions that followed a detailed analysis
of each of the eight test categories. Each analysis
considered the values that had historically been used by
each injector OEM and automotive end user.
OVERVIEW AND IMPORTANCE OF ROUND-
ROBIN TESTING
In a general round-robin test program a specific
hardware set is sequentially provided to a series of
testing laboratories. A test procedure is developed and
codified, and each independent test laboratory conducts
the required tests upon the full set of injectors. In a blind
test, such as this particular program, the test results are
not shared among the test laboratories, but are supplied
to a central, non-laboratory administrator who compiles
the results and statistics. The test injectors are then
shipped to the next laboratory. This is continued until all
of the laboratories have completed the testing. The data
are then provided to a central, independent authority
where data reduction, compilation, statistical analyses
and comparisons are conducted according to strict pre-
established procedures. Conclusions are drawn and the
results are shared with all of the participating
laboratories. Round-robin testing is particularly
meaningful for determining laboratory-to-laboratory
variability, and to evaluate the effectiveness of alternate
procedures for test protocols and data reduction. In
attempting to quantify the laboratory-to-laboratory error in
measuring the various fuel spray characterization
parameters, the advantage of having the exact same set
of injectors being evaluated by multiple independent
laboratories is evident. Each laboratory is to first
measure and report the results using their own test
procedures, test fluid and data reduction techniques, for
the unique set of injectors that is supplied sequentially to
each round-robin participant.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ROUND-ROBIN TEST MATRIX
In this specific round-robin test program, the test
protocols are sets of detailed test procedures for all of
the spray characterization variables that are listed in
Table 2. For each parameter, such as the Sauter mean
diameter, the test is to be conducted using two alternate
protocols. The first is the established, in-house
procedure for that parameter at that laboratory. The
second is the new test protocol as specified for that
parameter in SAE J2715. The hardware set consists of
the specific injectors (and associated drivers) that are
listed in Table 3. This set contains a current
representative range of injectors for the worldwide
automotive industry, including G-DI and PFI injectors of
various designs and applications.
Six of the automotive fuel spray laboratories from around
the world are currently participating in this two-year
experimental study. These are the laboratories that are
associated with the co-authors of the paper. Each of the
six laboratories is measuring values for the spray
characterization parameters according to the corporate
in-house test procedures at that lab, using the in-house
designations for the test fluid, test conditions and data-
reduction procedures. Following the completion of
testing according to the corporate in-house procedures,
each lab is to then repeat all of the tests on the same
injectors using the SAE J2715 procedures. The testing
using in-house procedures is to be conducted first, with
the testing using the J2715 protocols being completed by
mid-2008. The J2715 procedures include not only the
specified test protocols, but the standard test conditions
and recommended data-reduction procedures as well.
Each test laboratory is to report the results for both the
in-house corporate procedures and the SAE J2715
procedures to the central data analysis authority. The
matrix of results is then to be processed for each spray
characterization variable in order to obtain both
laboratory-to-laboratory variations and corporate-versus-
J2715 variations. The full results from this two-year
round-robin study will be presented in a separate SAE
paper. Although not the main focus of this particular
paper, some initial round-robin results for G-DI spray
imaging are presented in the following sub-section.
 Table 1 – Summary of Standard Test Conditions for the Characterization of Automotive Gasoline Fuel Sprays

Port Fuel Injection Gasoline-Direct Injection

High- Phase- Phase-
Qualitative Laser Drippage Laser
Resolution Doppler Doppler
Imaging Diffraction Test Imaging Diffraction
Patternation Interferometry Interferometry
Test
n-Heptane n-Heptane
Fluid
Ambient
Temperature 21 ± 2 21 ± 2
(°C)
Ambient
Pressure 100 ± 5 100 ± 5
(kPa)
Fluid
Temperature 21 ± 2 21 ± 2
(°C)
Initial Injector
Temperature 21 ± 2 21 ± 2
(°C)
Fluid
Specified by application to within ±
Pressure Specified by application to within ± 1%
1%
(kPa or MPa)
Injection
Pulse Width 5 ± 0.01 1.5 ± 0.01
(ms)
Injection
1000 ±
Period 1000 ± 0.1 50 ± 0.01 50 ± 0.01
0.1
(ms)
Flow To be reported in mass flow units
To be reported in mass flow units (g/s or mg/pulse)
Measurement (g/s or mg/pulse)
45 ± 1
Injector Axis degrees Vertical unless specified by
Vertical unless specified by application
Orientation from application
vertical
Injector
Electrical Specified by application and to be
Specified by application and to be reported
Connector reported
Orientation
Measurement
Height N/A 100 N/A N/A 50
(mm)
Axial Field
of View 100 N/A 100 N/A
(mm)
6000
Pre-
pulses at
conditioning 2000 pulses at 50 ms period 2000 pulses at 50 ms period
50 ms
or purging
period
 Table 2 – Overview of Primary Spray Characterization Variables

TEST LAB A TEST LAB B TEST LAB C

Figure 11 – Determination of the Spray Angle of G-DI Unit 7 – Photos from the In-House Techniques of Three Spray Laboratories

EXAMPLE OF INITIAL RESULTS FOR SPRAY ANGLE Table 3 – Description of the Round-Robin Test Injectors
AND PENETRATION BY IMAGING

Of necessity, each spray test laboratory has an TEST INJECTOR

SPRAY TYPE DESIGN-INTENT SPRAY
UNIT CLASS
established, in-house procedure for the measurement
1 PFI Injector Single-Spray Narrow ( 7.0 Degrees)
and data reduction of nearly every spray characterization
2 PFI Injector Single-Spray Narrow ( 7.0 Degrees)
variable. One of the early programs to be conducted in 3 PFI Injector Single-Spray Wide (25.0 Degrees)
the round-robin test project was that of measuring and 4 PFI Injector Single-Spray Wide (25.0 Degrees)
reporting the spray angle and spray-tip penetration of a Cone (14.0 Degrees)
specified G-DI injector. This injector is listed in Table 3 5 PFI Injector Dual-Spray
Separation (19.5 Degrees)
as Test Unit 7, and is a pressure-swirl G-DI unit. As of Cone (14.0 Degrees)
6 PFI Injector Dual-Spray
this time, three spray measurement laboratories have Separation (19.5 Degrees)
obtained characterization data on this particular unit. 7 G-DI Injector Pressure-Swirl 55.0 Degrees
8 G-DI Injector Pressure-Swirl 55.0 Degrees

With the exception of a fixed fuel pressure of 8.5 MPa,

each laboratory utilized the set of in-house procedures
specific to that corporation, including the configuration of earlier results using the in-house procedures. The
the test, the specification of the test fluid and the choice measured spray angle for the same exact injector, driver
of imaging method and image processing techniques, as and fuel pressure is seen to range from 37 degrees to 61
would normally be conducted at that laboratory to obtain degrees, and the reported spray-tip penetration varies
the angular extent of the G-DI spray (spray angle) and from 44 mm to 50 mm. The wide range of reported
the spray-tip penetration. parameter values that may be encountered with
automotive fuel sprays, even for the same injector, is
It may be noted in Figure 11 that three different spray made evident by this example.
illumination methods were utilized, with each being the
established imaging method within that laboratory.
Backlighting by means of a Nd-YAG laser was utilized at
Lab A, with copper-vapor-laser backlighting used at Lab Table 4 – Reported Data from Three Test Laboratories for the Spray
Angle and Tip Penetration of Test Unit 7 – Using In-House Testing
B. For Lab C, volume illumination of the entire spray by Methods
means of a strobe light was the method employed. For
purposes of comparison, the three imaged fields of view G-DI SPRAY IMAGING;
have been adjusted so that each is 65 mm horizontal by In-House Test Protocols Round-Robin Spray Test Laboratory Designation
Lab "A" Lab "B" Lab "C"
65 mm vertical. In Lab A the image was taken for a 1.50 Injection Pulse Width
millisecond injection pulse width at a time of 1.50 (ms)
1.50 1.50 0.94

milliseconds after the start of the injection pulse, Image acquired @

1.5 ms after Start 1.5 ms after 1.0 ms after
of Injection Pulse Start of Fuel Start of Fuel
whereas the conditions of a 1.50 ms logic pulse width
Distance(s) for which All Horizontal Pixels
and 1.50 ms after the appearance of first fuel were used Spray Edges were
5.0 and 15.0 mm
- Commercial Image
1.0 and 10.0
from Tip mm from Tip
by Lab B. In Lab C a pre-specified injection pulse width Determined Processing Software
Reported Spray Angle
was not utilized, but, instead, a floating pulse width was 37 61 54
(degrees)
selected that provided a fixed fuel mass delivery of 10.0 Main Tip Penetration
49 50 44
milligrams per injection. This corresponded to an at 1.50 ms (mm)

injection pulse width of 0.940 ms, and the flash time for
spray illumination was 1.00 ms after the first appearance
of fuel.
Two different test fluids were utilized by the three
laboratories; n-Heptane for Lab A and Lab C, and
Indolene for Lab C. The post-processing of the image to
obtain the associated spray angle and spray-tip
penetration was performed according to existing
protocols within each laboratory. In Lab A the spray
boundaries were obtained along two lines orthogonal to
the injector axis at 5 mm and 15 mm from the tip, and
the spray-boundary points on these two lines were used
to define two lines that each formed a half-angle relative
to the injector axis. In Lab C the two selected lines that
were orthogonal to the injector axis were at 1 mm and 10
mm from the tip, and the four points on the spray
boundary defined two lines in space. The absolute angle
between these two lines was measured, and was
designated as the Spray Angle. In Lab B an algorithm
from a commercial image processing program was
utilized. This program effectively uses a line orthogonal
to the injector axis for every horizontal row of pixels in
the image to determine the left and right spray
boundaries at that location. The program then fits a
least-squares straight line through the points defining
both the left and right boundaries. The angle between
the two lines is the reported spray angle. This illustrates
the range of in-house procedures that are currently being
employed.
The reported values for spray angle and spray-tip
penetration are presented in Table 4 for discussion.
Note that these data are the result of testing with in-
house procedures, not with the SAE J2715 procedures.
The results of tests using the J2715 protocols are to be
obtained by mid-2008, and will then be compared to the
None of these three values are inherently "erroneous";
they merely reflect the conditions and procedures that
were used to obtain them. In fact, initial indications show
that a large portion of the variation among laboratories
for the G-DI spray angle is attributable to the lack of
standardized procedures for setting up the test
configuration, selecting the test fluid, specifying the
imaging time relative to the ECU logic pulses, and in
choosing the manner in which the images are to be
interrogated to obtain the angle. A number of these
critical choices that are made at all spray laboratories are
answers to the basic questions of "when do you image
the spray?" and "where do you measure the angle?" The
time of the flash and the distance(s) from the injector tip
must be specified, and each spray laboratory, of
necessity, has an individual set of established guidelines
for this. Even before the flash time is established, an
operational pulse width must be selected when the
injector is being configured for the test. It should be
evident from the example that no spray laboratory can
currently verify the spray measurement claims of another
without obtaining very detailed information on all of the
internal procedures that were used to obtain the reported
performance data. The use of the standardized
techniques provided in SAE J2715 should significantly
improve this situation.
G-DI SPRAY ANGLE MEASUREMENT AS AN
EXAMPLE OF SAE J2715 STANDARDIZATION
The values of the G-DI spray angle and the mean drop
size are arguably the first two spray parameters that are
requested when a particular G-DI injector is being
considered. In fact, G-DI injectors are often sub-
classified and marketed based upon the incremental
value of the spray angle. A particular G-DI injector
design may have a portfolio of available spray angles
(sometimes confusingly denoted as “cone angles”) such
as 30°, 40°, 50° and 60°. In spite of the importance of
this spray metric, it was noted early in the document
development that every worldwide spray laboratory
known to the members of the SAE GFISC Committee,
whether independent or associated with an injector
manufacturer or end-user, have a specific in-house
method for the measurement of the G-DI Spray Angle.
All use spray imaging, but that is the extent of the
similarity.
The SAE J2715 method of image data processing for
quantifying the angular extent of the G-DI spray is
illustrated in Figure 12. By means of a backlit spray
image that is obtained at 1.50 millisecond after the first
appearance of fuel at the tip of a G-DI injector, specific
image processing procedures are utilized to define the
spray edges. Two lines orthogonal to the injector axis at
axial distances of 5 mm and 15 mm from the injector tip
are used to define four points in space on those edges;
two on the right edge and two on the left edge. These
four points are used to define two lines that yield two half
angles relative to the injector axis. The sum of the two
half angles is the SAE J2715 Spray Angle for that G-DI
injector. In surveying the methods that were in use
worldwide, it was found that the combination of variations
in imaging time, edge definition, number of lines and the
distances of lines from the tip resulted in no two methods
being alike. Single-line distances from the tip that are
being used include 1 mm, 5 mm, 10 mm and 15 mm.
This yields a significant variation in the values that are
reported for the angular extent of a G-DI fuel spray.
Figure 12 – Determination of the SAE J2715 Spray Angle and the SAE
J2715 Spray Bend Angle from a Digital Image of the Spray
As briefly discussed in the sub-section on Key
Considerations in G-DI and PFI Spray Measurements,
another problem related to the lack of rigorous, uniform
spray definitions throughout the industry is that of the use
of the term "cone angle". A very detailed procedure for
the determination of the cone angle of a PFI injector is
provided in the SAE J2715 document. This procedure
specifies the use of a high-resolution mechanical
patternator having 250 to 625 collection cells. The
patternator basically measures the two-dimensional
mass distribution of liquid fuel at a specified distance
from the tip. This is recommended as 100 mm in the
new document. Referring back to Figure 8, the cone
angle is defined as the internal angle of a right-circular
cone from the injector tip that will subtend the mass-
percentage circle (MPC) in that plane. The MPC is
computed to contain 90% of the total collected fuel. For
a dual spray unit having two separate and distinct areas
of mass collection, it is 90% of the total fuel in that area.
As mentioned in the sub-section on Key Considerations,
the use of patternation is not recommended for G-DI
sprays, thus no mass distribution of fuel can be obtained
for a G-DI spray. It should be noted that laser-
fluorescence and optical patternation are discussed in
detail in the SAE J2715 document, and are considered
by the SAE GFISC committee as emerging tools that are
still under development, and that will be given
consideration in future revisions of recommended
measurement methods.
LESSONS LEARNED
A number of important lessons were learned in the
research and development phases of the SAE J2715
document. The first lesson was that there were, and still
are, a myriad of different test procedures in the
automotive industry for the determination of nearly every
spray variable that is commonly reported. These
differences are not just in testing procedures, but extend
to test configuration, data reduction and data reporting
procedures as well. One important example of this is the
measurement of the angular extent of the G-DI fuel
spray, which was detailed in the section on G-DI Spray
Angle Measurement.
The second lesson learned was that strict, uniform
definitions of important spray and test configuration
parameters are not currently utilized throughout the
automotive industry. Even a seemingly straightforward
parameter such as the pulse width was found to have
differing definitions, with some laboratories using the
logic pulse, some using the full driver (injection) pulse,
and some subtracting the driver charge delay (DCD) time
if one was present. These differences, of course, result
in variations in the time base, and modify the effective
time for which penetration is reported, as well as the time
at which the flash illumination occurs during the spray
event. A variation in the image flash time will yield
images at differing times of spray development.
A third lesson learned was that the air purge rate for
fixtures that are utilized for drop-size measurements
needs to be significantly higher than is commonly utilized
in most laboratories. The methods used in a number of
spray laboratories today leave the safety air purge rate
as an ad hoc parameter, with the rate normally
undefined, but typically set as low as possible while still
not allowing clouds of fuel droplets to accumulate in the
fixture. An examination of current typical air purge rates
showed that such rates were no doubt adequate from the
safety standpoint of the convection of fuel drops and
vapor from the test fixture, but were inadequate for
avoiding errors in drop-size measurement for some
sprays, particularly G-DI sprays. Such minimal purge
rates allow recirculating drops from the previous injection
to be measured repeatedly because they are not fully
removed from the measurement area before the next
injection event occurs. A procedure for evaluating and
setting the proper air purge rate for drop sizing was
developed, and is detailed in the J2715 document.
SUMMARY
An important new set of detailed Recommended
Practices for the complete characterization of automotive
gasoline fuel sprays has been developed, and is now
available as the SAE J2715 Recommended Practice.
The detailed procedures for test configuration, data
acquisition, data reduction and data reporting that are in
the document apply to fuel sprays from both gasoline
direct injectors and port fuel injectors. These procedures
cover the entire range of spray variables, including drop
sizing, spray geometric parameters, spray mass
distribution, spray-tip penetration and any drippage
associated with repetitive spray events. The adoption
and usage of the standardized protocols in SAE J2715
should enhance the ability to more accurately quantify
injector spray performance metrics and characterize fuel
sprays. This will, in turn, allow for a more meaningful
comparison among injectors. Numerous possible
misunderstandings and potential errors associated with
automotive fuel spray measurement are discussed within
the document, and a careful reading of these
discussions prior to any spray measurements will result
in minimizing such errors.
It is the goal of the SAE Gasoline Fuel Injection
Standards Committee that the spray laboratories of both
injector manufacturers and end-users replace the
numerous in-house measurement procedures to the
greatest extent possible with those documented in SAE
J2715, and that such procedures be specified in injector
spray testing. This degree of standardization in test
conditions, test configurations and test procedures will
provide a level of uniformity that will significantly benefit
the entire industry.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The SAE J2715 Recommended Practice for the
eight automotive fuel spray test categories outlined
in Table 1 should be adopted by the automotive
industry. This encompasses the recommended test
configurations, standard test conditions, test
procedures, data reduction methods and data
reporting formats. The adoption of these
standardized protocols will significantly enhance the
ability of all parties to accurately repeat a spray
measurement, and of a second spray laboratory to
confirm the spray performance claims of a first
laboratory.
2. Mechanical patternation should only be used for
sprays from PFI injectors, whereas imaging should
only be applied to sprays from G-DI injectors. The
one exception to this is the use of imaging for PFI
spray-tip penetration.
3. The term “spray angle” should be applied as the
correct descriptive term for the angular extent of G-
DI fuel sprays, and the term “cone angle” should be
reserved for PFI fuel sprays only. The term “Cone
Angle” implies a spray angular measurement that is
based upon a mass-distribution measurement from
high-resolution mechanical patternation, whereas the
term “Spray Angle” implies data from an image, with
no mass-distribution basis.
4. The reporting of any value for a drop-sizing
parameter of a fuel spray, such as the SMD or the
Dv90, should clearly indicate whether it was obtained
by means of laser diffraction or phase-Doppler
interferometry (commonly referred to as PDI, PDA or
PDPA).
5. The numerical values of drop-sizing parameters that
are obtained by phase-Doppler interferometry should
not be compared to the numerical values for the
same parameters that are acquired by means of
laser diffraction (LD). This is a common
misunderstanding that should not be made, as the
phase-Doppler method is a point measurement and
LD is a line-of-sight or volume measurement. There
is no known relationship to cross-convert between
values measured with the two different methods.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable
assistance of Timothy Cushing, William Humphrey,
Michael Kaput, David Lewis, Brad VanDerWege, Gaetan
Vich, and Min Xu in developing the SAE J2715
Recommended Practice. The valuable assistance of
Patricia Ebejer of the SAE Standards staff in many
meetings and Web conferences is also recognized. It is
important to note and acknowledge the long-term
support of numerous corporations that provided fuel
systems engineers and laser-optical engineers for the
five-year duration of this project. This includes all of the
corporations listed in the co-author’s affiliations, plus
Denso America.
REFERENCES
1. SAE J2715, “Gasoline Fuel Injector Spray
Measurements and Characterizations”, (2007), SAE
International, Warrendale, Pennsylvania
2. SAE J1832, “Low Pressure Gasoline Fuel Injectors”,
(2000), SAE International, Warrendale, Pennsylvania
3. F. Zhou, D. L. Harrington, M-C. Lai; “Automotive
Gasoline Direct Injection Engines”; SAE-R-315,
2002, pp 51-116
4. A. Lefebvre, “Atomization and Sprays”, Hemisphere
Publishing Company, 1989, pp 273-308
5. L. Evers, “Characterization of the Transient Spray
from a High Pressure Swirl Injector”, SAE Technical
Paper 940188 (1994)
6. J. Su, et al., “Towards Quantitative Characterization
of Transient Fuel Sprays using Planer Laser Induced
Fluorescence Imaging”, Proceedings of the ILASS-
America 1998 Conference, pp 106-110 (1998)
7. S. Li, et al, “Spray Characterization of High Pressure
Gasoline Fuel Injectors with Swirl and Non-Swirl
Nozzles”, SAE Technical Paper 981935 (1998)
8. S. Parrish, P. Farrell, “Transient Spray
Characteristics of a Direct-Injection Spark-Ignited
Fuel Injector”, SAE Technical Paper 970629 (1997)
9. C. Bae, et al., “Fuel Spray Characteristics of High
Pressure Gasoline Direct Injection in Flowing Fields”,
th
Proceedings of the 4 JSME-KSME Thermal
Engineering Conference, October 1-6, 2000 (2000)

ADDITIONAL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

ASTM Documents available from ASTM, 100 Barr

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, Tel:
610-832-9585, www.astm.org.

ISO Publications are available from ANSI, 25 West 43rd

Street, New York, NY 10036-8002, Tel: 212-642-4900,
www.ansi.org.

1. ASTM E 799-03, Standard Practice for Determining

Data Criteria and Processing for Liquid Drop Size
Analysis
2. ASTM E 1617-97, Standard Practice for Reporting
Particle Size Characterization Data, 2002
3. ASTM E 1620-97, Standard Terminology Relating to
Liquid Particles and Atomization, 2004
4. ISO 9276-2; Representation of results of Particle
Size Analysis - Part 2: Calculation of Average
Particle Sizes/Diameters and Moments from Particle
Size Distributions, 2001
5. ISO 13320-1, Particle Size Analysis - Laser
Diffraction Methods - Part 1: General Principles,
1999
6. ISO 13322-1, Particle Size Analysis - Image Analysis
Methods - Part 1: Static Image Analysis Methods,
2004

CONTACTS

For additional information:

David Hung – dhung1@visteon.com

David Harrington – harrington@comcast.net

View publication stats