Search Results

A very important component of an accurate steady state and transient air/fuel (A/F) ratio control strategy is the transient fuel compensation (TFC) substrategy. This is the part of an engine control algorithm which cancels the fuel film dynamics and makes it possible to place injected fuel into the intake manifold (or close to the intake ports or valves) of a spark ignition (SI) engine at the correct time and location. This paper presents the results of a very large series of experiments conducted with the same engine with either a throttle body (TBI) (or central fuel injection (CFI)) manifold or with a multi-point port injection (MPI) (or electronic fuel injection (EFI)) manifold. These experiments have shown that in some practical applications it may be necessary to model the intake manifold as a two time constant dynamic system rather than as a single differential equation system.

In an earlier paper one of the authors of this paper (E. Hendricks and co-authors) treated the question of obtaining correct steady state and transient control of the air/fuel (A/F) ratio of an SI engine. This study was based in part on simulations conducted with a dynamic engine model developed earlier and in part on experimental results. The main conclusions were that conventional control strategies (Speed-Throttle, Speed-Density and Mass Air Flow (MAF)) cannot give proper A/F control because of 1. sensor and anti-aliasing filter time constants and 2. improper or lacking compensation for manifold fuel film and (air) filling dynamics. In this paper, the results of a long series of experiments conducted with the control systems above are to be presented. Both central fuel injection (CFI) (or throttle body (TBI)) and electronic fuel injection (EFI) (or multipoint (MPI)) manifolds have been investigated.

Mean Value Engine Models (MVEMs) are dynamic models which describe dynamic engine variable (or state) responses as mean rather than instantaneous values on time scales slightly longer than an engine event. Such engine variables are the independent variables in nonlinear differential (or state) equations which can be quite compact but nevertheless quite accurate. One of the most important of the differential equations for a spark ignition (SI) engine is the intake manifold filling (often manifold pressure) state equation. This equation is commonly used to estimate the air mass flow to an SI engine during fast throttle angle transients to insure proper engine fueling. The purpose of this paper is to derive a modified manifold pressure state equation which is simpler and more physical than those currently found in the literature. This new formulation makes it easier to calibrate a MVEM for different engines and provides new insights into dynamic SI engine operation.

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.

Because there are no production-type sensors which are able to measure the flow directly at the intake port, it is becoming common practice to use models of varying complexity to infer the port air mass flow from other measurements. Given the tight requirements of modern air/fuel ratio (AFR) control strategies, the accuracy of these models needs to be better than ever, during steady-state of course (though λ feedback strategies are by design very robust), but mainly during transient operation. This paper describes why conventional models might be inaccurate during engine transients.