Concurrent WAVE/Matlab Simulink Simulation Applied to HSDI Diesel ECU Calibration Richard Osborne Ford Motor Company (Diesel

Engineering) Dunton Engineering Centre Basildon UK Abstract This paper describes an application of an engine cycle simulation code (WAVE) in co-simulation with a control and dynamics modelling package (Matlab Simulink) to provide total vehicle system modelling capability. The models presented form the basis of an Analytical Calibration CAE toolset allowing the definition of many electronic control unit (ECU) calibration parameters in the CAE environment. Results are presented for a medium capacity, automotive high speed direct injection (HSDI) turbo-charged diesel, fitted with a variable geometry turbine (VGT). These show a high predictive accuracy for engine mass air flow (MAF) and intake manifold pressure (MAP) during transient conditions. The aim of the technique is to reduce the amount of dynamometer-based and vehicle calibration and this is demonstrated by analytically calibrating the ECU to improve vehicle performance. Introduction Total vehicle system modelling including engine, vehicle and ECU components has been available as a design and development tool to Ford Diesel Engineers for some time. Applications have included exhaust gas re-circulation (EGR) control strategy and hardware definition [1], VGT/EGR controller design [2,3] and vehicle driveability (i.e. performance feel and drive line oscillation). These models have traditionally been implemented in a control system modelling environment such as Matlab Simulink. The numerical solvers in these tools are not optimized for engine cycle simulation and therefore the representation of the engine models usually contain minimal physical content and are heavily reliant on empirical data in either interpolation tables or regression format. A typical model may include a filling and emptying or mass and energy conservation approach to capture the dynamic behaviour of the intake and exhaust systems with cycle-averaged cylinder mass fluxes defined by experimentally obtained volumetric efficiency data [1]. These models are often referred to as mean value types as they resolve cycle averaged rather than crank angle based quantities. Mean value models have the advantage of close to real time execution speeds but the disadvantage of requiring re-mapping of engine parameters whenever significant hardware changes are made during the engine development process. The empirical content is usually based on steady-state engine data which may be erroneous in the heavily transient situations which these models are required to simulate. This is particularly apparent for turbo-charged engines where engine inlet and exhaust conditions differ widely from transient to steady state conditions due to turbo-lag. Engine simulation packages such as WAVE are widely used in industry to aid engine design and development, having the advantage of being able to capture engine flow through intake and exhaust systems, with user input of the system geometry and flow data for valves and ports. Primarily this is due to the 1-D compressible flow formulation being able to simulate the gas-dynamic or wave action present in the system. State and velocity throughout the system are also predicted with crank angle based resolution rather than mean cycle values. Because of the reduced empiricism required to characterize the mass flow through the engine system, cycle simulation models such as WAVE have higher ability to capture transient engine behaviour than their mean-value counterparts. The following is an outline description of a total vehicle system model using WAVE as the engine model. This is followed by comparison of simulation output for MAF and MAP against data obtained from in-vehicle sensor outputs. Comparative results for transient torque behaviour are presented as a before and after using the model as a controller design and re-calibration tool.

Analytical Calibration Model The ability to couple control and vehicle simulation with engine cycle simulation has been enabled by the Matlab/WAVE link. The link follows standard Matlab S-function protocol and usage is detailed in the WAVE user manual. Figure 1. shows the top-level view of the model as implemented in Simulink with three major systems i.e. vehicle drive-line, engine model (WAVE) and controller (ECU). The WAVE model is signified by the W icon, entitled HSDI Diesel. The Simulink environment not only allows logical, hierarchical structuring of the model but also offers a user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI) in which the various parts of the system can be viewed. The simulation is executed in the normal manner by choosing start from the pull-down menu system. During simulation data is exchanged at appropriate execution time steps to and from WAVE. Data exchange is categorized into two main groups i.e. sensors where data is transferred from WAVE to Simulink and actuators where data is transferred from Simulink to WAVE. The ECU outputs in figure 1. are shown connected to the Unit Conversion and Actuator Dynamics block and allow control of the EGR valve, injected fuel quantity, VGT and start of injection. The unit Conversion and Sensor Dynamics block shows sensor output to Simulink and includes mass air flow, intake manifold absolute pressure and engine speed. In addition an actuator is provided to allow instantaneous engine torque as calculated in WAVE to be fed to the vehicle/drive line model. The engine speed output of the drive line model is connected as a sensor to define engine speed in the WAVE model. Figure 2. Shows the WAVEBUILD representation of the engine model used in this study. The basic configuration of the engine is a 4 cylinder, 4 valve per cylinder HSDI unit. The full vehicle intake system is modelled, including air cleaner, inter-cooler, compressor, intake manifold and associated ducting. The exhaust system includes the manifold and variable geometry turbine. EGR is modelled by interconnection of intake and exhaust systems. Inlet and exhaust valve effective flow areas and maps specifying turbine and compressor data were prepared as an input to WAVE as described in the user manuals. The DI diesel Wiebe combustion block was specified and calibrated to provide the correct engine brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and pre-turbine temperatures against steady-state dyno data. The ECU model is a Simulink representation of the appropriate control strategy and includes fuel quantity, start of injection, EGR and VGT features. The proprietary nature of the ECU control strategy precludes further description in this paper. The vehicle/drive line model shown in figure 1. uses a lumped parameter approach in which vehicle sprung and unsprung masses are defined separately. Drive line stiffness and losses are characterized as well as tyre slip. This type of model has a proven accuracy within Ford as a vehicle performance indicator and is able to predict driveability attributes such as drive line tip-in/tip-out oscillation. Results Due to time constraints not allowing an appropriate calibration of the vehicle model, the following results do not include simulations with the vehicle model enabled. In all cases measured engine speed was defined as an input to the simulation. Two vehicle drive test cases were chosen to provide validation data for the model. Test 1 0% pedal position deceleration to 1250 rpm engine speed followed by 100% pedal position tip-in from 1250rpm engine speed accelerating to 4000 rpm engine speed in second gear (clutch engaged throughout). Test 2 0% pedal position deceleration to 1250 rpm engine speed followed by 100% pedal position tip-in from 1250 rpm engine speed to 4200 rpm engine speed, followed by 0% pedal position tip-out and deceleration in third gear (clutch engaged throughout).

Test 1 results are presented in figure 3a and 3b. The lower graph in figure 3a plots engine speed and measured and predicted controller fuel demand against time. The upper graph shows measured and predicted MAP and MAF and predicted VGT actuator rod position. MAP and MAF measured values are taken directly from signal-conditioned output of the in-vehicle sensors which were already present as part of the engine ECU implementation. Figure 3b includes plots of measured and predicted ECU signals from a PID (proportional + integral + derivative) controller within the ECU strategy. Test 2 results are given in figures 4a and 4b and follow the same format as the Test 1 results. Figure 5 shows the before and after result of re-calibrating the ECU in the CAE model on predicted engine brake torque output during an in-gear acceleration. Discussion The validation results in figures 3a and 4a show excellent overall agreement between predicted and measured quantities. The discrepancies for MAF and MAP in the period 0 to 0.5 seconds are a result of model settling time from initial conditions. Predictive errors in fuel demand during the tip-in period can be explained by incomplete implementation of the fuel quantity strategy in the ECU model. At this stage of model development, small errors in MAF and MAP prediction have to be interpreted with care. This is because no special attempt has been made to model the hysterisis associated with in-vehicle MAP and MAF sensors. Future work is planned to correct this omission. The ECU signal results (figures 3b and 4b) also prove the model has a high degree of predictive accuracy. As for the MAF and MAP results model settling time is evident during the period 0 to 0.7 seconds. Although some steadystate error is noticeable in the proportional and integral terms of the controller, the dynamic response is accurately captured. This is demonstrated by the high accuracy of prediction for the derivative terms. The noticeable degradation in predictive accuracy from Test 1 (2nd gear) to Test 2 (3rd gear) is primarily due to the non-linearity of the actuator used to drive VGT vane position (The dynamic response of the actuator was calibrated against Test1 and left unchanged for Test 2). Future models will incorporate a higher level of physical interpretation of the VGT actuator. A major advantage of CAE based ECU calibration compared to dynamometer/vehicle methods is the ability to analyze many of the inter-dependent engine system parameters that are difficult to measure. This is particularly true for temperatures and instantaneous gas composition (e.g. EGR percentage) under transient conditions. The ECU recalibration carried out as part of this study was a result of using the model to understand the differences between transient and steady-state operating conditions. The ECU re-calibration produced up to a 32 % improvement in predicted torque output with a considerable increase in torque rise rate from 1600 rpm to 2300 rpm (see figure 5). The irregularity in engine torque output between 1250 rpm and 1750 rpm is a result of drive line oscillation. The ECU re-calibration has since been implemented in-vehicle and has delivered a maximum of a 34% improvement in single gear acceleration tests. A disadvantage of the use of WAVE as an engine model compared to mean value models is the computational runtime overhead. The simulations used to provide the validation results in this paper executed at approximately a factor of 200 over real time on an SGI Indigo2 workstation. Although in some applications it may be possible to trade-off run-time against predictive accuracy the current performance is considered inadequate for tasks such as certification drive cycle calibration work. Future studies will involve reducing the complexity of the WAVE engine model until an acceptable balance between accuracy and execution time is realized. WAVE will also be used to provide high accuracy data for input to mean value models. Although considerable CAE effort was invested in model validation, the ECU re-calibration task including CAE analysis and vehicle tests were carried out within 15 working days. This represents a considerable time and cost saving over test-based calibration methods.

Conclusions WAVE and Matlab Simulink in concurrent simulation has provided a powerful analytical calibration tool for Ford Diesel Engineering. Initial validation has shown a high degree of predictive accuracy for MAF and MAP under transient conditions without resorting to the normal level of empiricism associated with total vehicle system models. The analytical ECU calibration process has successfully been applied and has delivered real-world performance benefits in vehicle tests.

References 1. Lancefield T., Cooper L. and French B., Designing the Control and Simulation of EGR, Automotive Engineer, February/March 1996. 2. van Nieuwstadt M., Moraal, P., Kolmanovsky, I., Stefanopoulou, A., Criddle, M. and Wood, P., A Comparison of SISO and MIMO Designs for EGR-VGT Control of a High-Speed Diesel Engine., IFAC Workshop on Adavances in Automotive Control, Mohican State Park, Ohio, U.S.A., February 1998. 3. Kolmanovsky, I., Moraal, P., van Nieuwstadt M. and Stefanopoulou, A., Issues in Modeling and Control of Variable Turbocharged Diesel Engines., 18th IFIP Conference, 1997.

Figure 1. Top Level View of SIMULINK Model

Figure 2. WAVEBUILD Representation of Engine Model.