Search Results

The OBD II and EOBD legislation have significantly increased the number of system components that have to be monitored in order to avoid emissions degradation. Consequently, the algorithm design and the related calibration effort is becoming more and more challenging. Because of decreasing OBD thresholds, the monitoring strategy accuracy, which is tightly related with the components tolerances and the calibration quality, has to be improved. A model-based offline simulation of the monitoring strategies allows consideration of component and sensor tolerances as well as a first calibration optimization in the early development phase. AVL applied and improved a methodology that takes into account this information, which would require a big effort using testbed or vehicle measurements. In many cases a component influence analysis is possible before hardware is available for testbed measurements.

Worldwide OBD legislation has and will be tightened drastically. In the US, OBD II for PC and the introduction of HD OBD for HD vehicles in 2010 will be the next steps. Further challenges have come up with the introduction of active exhaust gas aftertreatment components to meet the lower future emission standards, especially with the implementation of combined DPF-De-NOx-systems for PC and HD engines. Following such an increase in complexity, more comprehensive algorithms and software have to be developed to cope with the legislative requirements for exhaust gas aftertreatment devices. The calibration has to assure the proper functionality of OBD under all driving situations and ambient conditions. The increased complexity can only be mastered when new and efficient tools and methodologies are applied for both algorithm design and calibration. Consequently, OBD requirements have to be taken into account right from the start of engine development.

At the moment the documentation of failure inhibition matrices and the fault path management for different controller types and different vehicle projects are mainly maintained manually in individual Excel tables. This is not only time consuming but also gives a high potential for fault liability. In addition there is also no guarantee that the calibration of these failure inhibition matrices and its fault path really works. Conflicting aims between costs, time and fault liability require a new approach for the calibration, documentation and testing of failure inhibition matrices and the complete Diagnostic System Management (DSM) calibration. The standardization and harmonization of the Diagnostic System Management calibration for different calibration projects and derivates is the first step to reduce time and costs. Creating a master calibration for the conjoint fault paths and labels provides a significant reduction of efforts.