Search Results

Many existing production engine controllers use event (or constant crank angle increment) based sampling and computation systems. Because the engine events are synchronized to the internal physical processes of an engine, it is widely accepted that this is the most logical approach to engine control. It is the purpose of this paper to deal with this assumption in detail and to illuminate various failures of it in practical systems. The approach of the paper is in terms of overall general control system design. That is to say that the problem of event based engine control is considered as a general control problem with its standard components: 1. modelling (engine plus actuator/sensor), 2. specification of desired performance goals, 3. control system design method selection and 4. experimental testing.

In an earlier paper, some of the authors of this paper pointed out some of the difficulties involved in event based engine control. In particular it was shown that event based (or constant crank angle) sampling is very difficult to carry out without running into aliasing and sensor signal averaging problems. This leads to errors in reading the air mass flow related sensors and hence inaccurate air/fuel ratio control. The purpose of this paper is first to demonstrate that the conjectures about the operator input spectrum in a vehicle do actually obtain during vehicle operation in realistic road situations. A second purpose is to extend earlier modelling work and to present an approximate physical method of predicting the level of engine pumping fluctuations at any given operating point. The physical method given is based on a modification of the Mean Value Engine Model (MVEM) of a Spark Ignition (SI) engine presented previously.

In general most engine models for control applications have been constructed using regressions fitting and measured engine data. Such techniques have also been used to model the dynamic performance of engines. Unfortunately regression equation models are very complex and do not show directly the physical reality from which they emerge. This has for example made it impossible to write down explicitly the dymanic equations for, for example, the air exchange process in an SI engine in any form other than as the manifold pressure state equation. In recent a publication a Mean Value Engine Model (MVEM) has been constructed for an SI engine which is physically based and which has a simple physical form which can be immediately understood and manipulated.

With the tightening of exhaust emission standards, wide bandwidth control of the air/fuel ratio (AFR) of spark ignition engines has attracted increased interest recently. Unfortunately, time delays associated with engine operation (mainly injection delays and transport delays from intake to exhaust) impose serious limitations to the achievable control bandwidth. With a proper choice of sensors and actuators, these limitations can be minimized provided the port air mass flow can be accurately predicted ahead in time. While the main objective of this work is to propose a complete AFR controller, the main focus is on the problems associated with port air mass flow prediction.

An important element in nearly all engine control systems is the lambda control feedback system and its associated switching exhaust gas oxygen sensor (EGO). This feedback loop is necessary to keep the mean value of the normalized air/fuel ratio close to one. This is a necessary condition for proper operation of the three-way catalyst systems which are a part of nearly all production emissions control systems. Currently many systems are based on using classical proportional-integral (PI) controllers in lambda control feedback loops which are self-oscillating. Proper design of such systems is dependent on knowing the time delay between the injection time and the time when a corresponding signal appears at the engine exhaust EGO sensor. Recently a new method of designing the vital larnbda control loop has emerged which is claimed to be very robust with respect to the injection/exhaust time delay.