Examples of some diagnostic procedures.
Injection system initial check.
It is assumed that the user is familiar with the user manual and therefore the following procedures does not describe how to operate the device.
Proper pressure drops for one cycle. Orange line accurately visualize pressure drop after injector opening. Initially there is a pre-injection followed by smaller pressure drop and then main injection followed by greater pressure drop. The exact value of pressure drop depends mostly on duration of injector opening. For our consideration, without losing much accuracy we can state that rail pressure drop after injection is proportional to injection duration, more precisely, to real injector opening duration. The dose itself is dependent also on rail pressure value. Measurements are performed in set conditions therefore we can assume that pressure is constant - for given injection.
If we assume that for every 100 us of injection duration the pressure decline by 0.1 MPa, and if the injectors No. 1, 2 and 3 has injection time of 700 us and pressure drop of 0.7 MPa, and injector No. 4 has injection time of 1000 us and pressure drop of 1 MPa, we can clearly state that injection systems operates well, but cylinder No. 4 for some reason develops lower angular acceleration which is later compensated by increasing fuel dose. This acceleration value is usually lower due to lower cylinder compression rate, eg leaky valves or problems with piston-cylinder assembly. For diagnosis to be 100% accurate it is necessary to observe not just one cycle but few or several repeating phenomena.
The most important to remember is that the value of rail pressure drop is directly proportional to the real injector opening duration.
In this graph it is easy to see that pressure drop cause by injector of No. 3 cylinder is significantly greater that pressure drops caused by other injectors. Situation like this occurs then injector leaks fuel to the leak off port or leaks to cylinder depending on injector design. You can see that leak measurements, often inconvenient, can be replaced by examination with EDIA-5 system. In this case the most important thing we get from this measurement is that the No. 3 injector needs maintenance.
The graph below shows that number 2 cylinder injector (yellow) is not operating. Any current change has been detected by the probe. Lack of pressure drop on the rail in the moment the injection should occur is further confirmation. The most common cause of this fault is open injector circuit eg lack of contact in the plug, broken wire, burnt injector solenoid, damaged ECU power stage.
No injection on the No. 2 injector with rapidly increasing rail pressure during engine starting.
The above waveforms shows a case in which the controller 'cut' injection after a sudden pressing and depressing the acceleration pedal. This is one example of how accurately we can analyze the the phenomena occurring in the Common Rail injection system.
EDIA-5 not only enables accurate observation of waveform shapes in injection systems, but also allows you to make accurate measurements. In the above screen shot we can see how to make measurements using markers. Green horizontal markers are for pressure measurement. Markers can be moved freely but in this case they are set to measure the pressure drop during injection in No. 2 cylinder injector. The green box corresponding to horizontal markers shows a value of pressure drop equal to 0.9 MPa.
Violet vertical markers are used to measure time. In the above example they are set to measure the main injection duration in No. 2 injector, which is 580 us. These measurements allow us to precisely determine injection parameters and test rule of pressure drop and injection time proportionality.
For in-depth analysis of injector current waveform the user may use 'Waveform analysis' mode. The graph shows the exact waveform of current changes in injector No. 2. 'Waveform analysis' enables precise measurement and may be useful in determining important parameters such as response times, etc.
EDIA-5 system allows to freely move the individual current change waveforms. Above there is a superimposition of individual injector waveforms, this enables in detail comparison of signals.
The above graph shows one possible waveform placement for comparison. It is clearly visible that No. 4 cylinder injector waveform differ from another. Having in mind that waveforms show control current change, we can conclude that lower current flows through No. 4 injector. Examination has confirmed that in this case the improper contact in plug was responsible for this defect.