Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering http://pid.sagepub.

com/

A comparison of different algorithms for boost pressure control in a heavy-duty turbocharged diesel engine
J M Lujn, H Climent, C Guardiola and J V Garca-Ortiz Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 2007 221: 629 DOI: 10.1243/09544070JAUTO312 The online version of this article can be found at: http://pid.sagepub.com/content/221/5/629

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering can be found at: Email Alerts: http://pid.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://pid.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://pid.sagepub.com/content/221/5/629.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 2007 What is This?

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

629

A comparison of dierent algorithms for boost pressure control in a heavy-duty turbocharged diesel engine
n1, H Climent1, C Guardiola1, and J V Garc a-Ortiz2* J M Luja 1 CMT Motores Termicos, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain a Meca nica y Construccio n, Universidad Jaime I, Castello n de la Plana 2 Departamento de Ingenier The manuscript was received on 14 March 2006 and was accepted after revision for publication on 24 January 2007. DOI: 10.1243/09544070JAUTO312

Abstract: Boost pressure control is a critical issue in modern diesel engines. Variable-geometry turbines are widely used and are commonly controlled by the electronic control unit. Basic controllers are based on the proportionalintegralderivative (PID) algorithm. On the other hand, many researchers have developed alternative control algorithms, which improve system performance but usually need a higher parameterization cost. However, the penetration of these new algorithms into the automotive industry has not been important to date. In the present paper, a comparison of dierent control algorithms applied to the boost pressure control in a heavy-duty diesel engine is presented. The main objective of the paper is quantifying the benet of implementing advanced control techniques, such as model predictive control. Keywords: diesel engine, variable-geometry turbine, boost pressure control, model predictive control

1 INTRODUCTION Electronic control systems are now widely used in internal combustion engines. These systems give control over dierent system parameters or variables, not only in gasoline engines but also in diesel engines, in which electronic systems have not been extensively used up to now. Some examples of these systems are the exhaust gas recirculation system, the variable-geometry turbine (VGT), and the electronic injection system. The response of the engine (in the form of performance and pollutant emissions) can be improved by appropriate use of control algorithms. New hardware generation is powerful enough for the application of more complex software, in the form of advanced algorithms, so that improved performance can be obtained by simply varying certain elements of the software. In the case of VGT systems, the modication of the geometry of the turbine stator allows the power recovered from the exhaust gases to be varied, and
a Meca nica * Corresponding author: Departamento de Ingenier n, Universidad Jaime I, Campus Riu Sec, Castello n y Construccio n, E-12080, Spain. email: jortiz@emc.uji.es de la Plana, Castello

thus the available power at the compressor, which is mounted together with the turbine in a free-rotating axle. Hence, the boost pressure at the intake manifold pressure can be controlled by means of the position of the VGT. The boost pressure controller modies the VGT position in order to track the boost pressure reference. Since the boost pressure controller performance aects both the boost pressure and the exhaust pressure paths, a non-negligible inuence on engine behaviour is expected from the boost pressure controller selection. In this paper, dierent boost pressure controllers have been tested in order to investigate their eects. Dierent algorithms were compared in terms of engine performance and control engineering parameters. The original controller was based on a proportional integralderivative (PID) algorithm, which is used in most production engines. This controller was selected as the baseline. Although the original PID controller was able to meet the given set point and to keep the system stable around it, some advantages were expected from the use of advanced control algorithms. Hence two model predictive control (MPC) algorithms were tested: generalized predictive control (GPC)
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

630

n, H Climent, C Guardiola, and J V Garc a-Ortiz J M Luja

[1, 2] and dynamic matrix control (DMC) [3, 4]. However, it was always considered that all control algorithms should be programmable in a standard electronic control unit (ECU). Thus, the possibility of improving the system control by maintaining the same hardware was investigated, with changes only in the software and using other control algorithms with better capabilities than the PID algorithm. Model predictive controllers were chosen since they have special properties and, as yet, have not been widely used in engines. The main disadvantage is that they have a slightly higher computational cost than other structures as linear algorithms. Model predictive controllers also give better results. A fuzzy proportionalintegralderivative (FPID) controller was also used as an improvement of the PID controller. In addition, the importance of the injected fuel quantity on the air path system was identied. This inuence was considered by means of a feedforward control action (used in the PID and the FPID controllers) or by means of a measurable disturbance (used in the general predictive and dynamic matrix controllers). Both approaches gain advantage with respect to the internal ECU variables that can be used for improving the air path control. In the case of the feedforward control, static compensation for the injected fuel mass eect is used; in the case of the measurable disturbance approach, the eect of the injected fuel mass is included in the system model (either in the controlled autoregressive

integrated moving-average (CARIMA) model used in GPC [5, 6] or in the integrative action model used in DMC). Hence, eight dierent control algorithms were investigated: PID, FPID, GPC, and DMC, together with the equivalent versions with feedforward, namely PID( ) and FPID( ), or considering a measurable disturbance, namely GPCDM and DMCDM.

2 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP 2.1 The engine The engine used in the experiments was a six-cylinder turbocharged diesel truck engine provided with a common rail injection system. The displacement was 11.2 l, with 2000 N m maximum torque and 300 kW maximum power. The engine was placed on a standard test bench as shown in Fig. 1. A schematic layout is given in Fig. 2, in which all the system connections can be seen. The original engine was equipped with a xedgeometry turbine; thus no control of the boost pressure was possible. A suitable VGT was selected and installed on the engine in order to improve the torque transient response. The VGT was actuated through an electropneumatic system. For that, the logical control action was converted into a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal which regulated the actuation pressure over a pneumatic valve. Finally,

Fig. 1 Engine test bench

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

Heavy-duty turbocharged diesel engine

631

Fig. 2 Schematic test bench layout

the valve displaced a shaft which varied the VGT nozzle geometry, thus varying the engine boost pressure as stated in the introductory section. From a control engineering point of view, the plant was considered as the joint system formed by the engine and the electropneumatic actuation system. Thus, the system input is the PWM signal, which is reasonably equivalent to the logical-level control action signal, and the system control output is the boost pressure. As the original system had no VGT, there was no interference between the standard ECU and the VGT control system. Thus, all boost pressure control was programmed in an additional PXI-based control system (which is described in section 2.2). Each of the controllers was alternatively programmed in this additional system used for control system development purposes. The input variables were the engine speed (obtained from an encoder in the engine crankshaft and a frequency-to-voltage converter) and the measured boost pressure (obtained from a piezoresistive sensor tted in the intake manifold). On the other hand, the
JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

injected fuel quantity was transferred from the ECU. The injected fuel quantity was used for obtaining boost pressure references, and also for performing feedforward control or for providing the disturbance measurement when necessary. Boost pressure control references were obtained on the basis of steady state look-up tables based on engine speed and injected fuel quantity, which were also programmed in the PXI-based control system. Finally, the engine speed and throttle position were closed-loop controlled by the cell control system in order to full the test prole specications. For analysis purposes, all the relevant variables were acquired with 50 Hz sampling frequency, including the torque, boost pressure, exhaust manifold pressure, and engine speed. 2.2 The control system Control algorithms had to be tested on a platform with special characteristics as operative system in real time, capacity for data acquisition, capacity to act on the system, etc. The control platform used in
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

632

n, H Climent, C Guardiola, and J V Garc a-Ortiz J M Luja

this work consists of National Instruments equipment specially chosen for this kind of application. The control system was made up of the following: (a) embedded personal computer controller PXI 8170 RT; (b) Pentium III 850 MHz processor; (c) operative system in real time; (d) high-speed acquisition card 333 ks/s PXI-6052E; (e) high-speed analogical output card 1 ks/s with six-channel PXI-6713; (f) external communication by Ethernet PXI-8211; (g) controller area network communication by PXI8461. This equipment is able to test dierent control algorithms in real time. It has a wide sampling range and many channels, capacity for managing mathematical equations and algorithms, and, to achieve the system inputs, all in real time. ECU sensor signals were replicated when required in order to transfer information to the control development platform.

control actions on the VGT, but it is also strongly inuenced by injected fuel mass [8], which can sometimes have an even greater inuence than the VGT. The use of all inuential inputs is very important if a suitable linear model is to be obtained. The fuel mass is an inuential and measurable disturbance in the system, which is not controlled by the air management control algorithm, but directly controlled by the driver. Another important factor in the identication process is the availability of good-quality data. One of the options cited in the literature as giving the best results is the application of a pseudorandom technique [9, 11] on the system input controlled by the algorithm and application of a random input to the disturbance [7], as can be seen in Fig. 3. It was decided to divide the system into three dierent linear zones and three models were created for each zone: 1000, 1200, and 1400 r/min. The model is described in detail for the case of 1200 r/min. The behaviour of the engine with the application of the inputs described in Fig. 3 is shown in Fig. 4. When the PEM was applied, all models were of the third order and the poles were quite close to each other. The standard state space linear model obtained for 1200 r/min is

3 MODELLING BY SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION As has already been mentioned, linear control algorithms have a low computational cost. One of the most important steps in control engineering is that of obtaining a model of the system. One possibility is the use of models based on equations, extensively described in the literature [7], but all of these have high computational cost. It was nally decided to use a space state model adjusted by means of an identication technique, since this would make it possible to obtain linear models from experimental data. Several algorithms can be used to identify linear models from experimental data. In reference [8], several algorithms are tested and compared. It was decided to use the prediction error method (PEM). This method has been described in detail in reference [9]. If suitable linear models cannot be found, algorithms based on the HamerteinWiener models [10] can be used, or non-linear models. The disadvantages of this latter group are the high computational cost and the diculty of programming them in a commercial ECU. It was very important to use all the signicant model inuence inputs. In the air management system, the most signicant input is the eect of
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

x = k+1

0.983 0.016

0.022 0.008 0.886

0.115 x k 0.002 0.027 0.907

1.7 105 5.1105 5.8 105 2.1 104 5 104 5 104

BG

PWM VGT m f

p = (8.89 1.18 1.2) x k k where x represents the system states, which are not physically interpretable, PWM is the control action VGT over the VGT (in per cent, 0 per cent being fully open and 100 per cent fully closed), m is the injected fuel f quantity (in cubic millimetres per stroke), and p the boost pressure (in bars). The subscript k refers to the time step (with a sample time of 20 ms). Validation tests were carried out in order to check the performance of the tted model. These validation tests were similar to the tests used for the model adjustment process. Both measured and predicted values for the validation test at 1200 r/min are shown in Fig. 5, and the model ts the measured evolution in a reasonable way. Note that the model is able to
JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

Heavy-duty turbocharged diesel engine

633

Fig. 3 Identication test performed at 1200 r/min. The PWM signal is the control action on the VGT, and m is the injected fuel. Unimportant variations in the engine speed are due to f the dynamometer response

Fig. 4 Measured evolution of the boost pressure for the test conditions shown in Fig. 3

predict accurately the system dynamics. Although the mean prediction error was 32 mbar, MPC is mainly based on the dynamic system response, and thus the model was judged valid. Similar results (not shown) were obtained for 1000 and 1400 r/min.
JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

Once the models were tted for each engine speed, they were used to calculate the controller and to simulate the system response. The next step was to obtain the basic algorithm parameters, which were nally tuned online.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

634

n, H Climent, C Guardiola, and J V Garc a-Ortiz J M Luja

Fig. 5 Measured evolution (black curve) and predicted evolution (grey curve) of the boost pressure for the validation test at 1200 r/min

4 CONTROL ALGORITHMS USED Linear control algorithms are easier to implement than non-linear algorithms. However, an engine is a non-linear system, a fact that puts a limit on the application of linear algorithms. After considering the alternatives, it was decided to use linear control algorithms with the application of gain scheduling. In this technique, the system operating area is divided into small more or less linear zones, and linear controllers are used in each area of operation. When another control zone is entered, the active control ceases to be valid and another valid linear controller comes into action. To apply this technique, the dierent control zones must be dened, in which the system must have a reasonably linear behaviour, even if this behaviour is very dierent from that of the other zones. An electronic platform must be used that permits the programming and testing of the dierent algorithms by means of the same sensors and actuators, so that the inuence of each control algorithm on the engine can be studied in isolation. Eight control algorithms were tested. In the rst step, the basic controllers were tested and in the next step the same controllers with disturbance rejection. The PID response was taken as baseline. This was improved by adding feedforward (for measurable disturbance); then gain scheduling by fuzzy logic [12] was tested as a second main algorithm and was also improved with feedforward. In another step, MPC algorithms were also tested, which in fact were GPC and DMC algorithms as representative examples of MPC capabilities. In order to consider disturbance in MPC model predictive controllers, disturbance performance in the model before the optimization process was included. GPCDM and DMCDM algorithms were given in references [2]
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

and [7] and are used in this work, in order to improve the basic algorithms [36]. All the algorithms used included an integral part in their conguration, in order to eliminate errors in steady conditions. Integral action has certain drawbacks when the control action is near the lower and upper limits. The restrained problem has been described in detail in the literature [13] and has generally been solved with genetic algorithms [14], quadratic programming [15, 16], and other methods [17]. However, the most popular technique for avoiding saturation of the controllers is the anti-wind-up method. This technique has an important advantage over the others; it is simple to program and has a low computational cost. This makes it ideal for programming in a commercial ECU. The technique consists of freezing the control action when it tries to exceed the permitted limits until conditions start to move in the opposite direction. Also, the use of restraints could destabilize the control algorithm [1820] and consequently the entire system. However, it is important to use some type of limiting action [21]. Therefore, using an anti-wind-up method permits limiting the control action without risk of destabilizing the system. Finally, controller coecients were varied independently for each working zone, in order to plan the gain scheduling [22] for each algorithm tested. For the PID controllers, each control zone was adjusted with dierent parameters [23]. The PID parameters given by manufacturers were not always the best option, since manufacturers try to obtain a robust controller that can be used on a wide variety of vehicles, but this is not necessarily the most ecient. Therefore, attempts were made to obtain more suitable parameters, with the best possible behaviour. According to the ZieglerNichols [24]
JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

Heavy-duty turbocharged diesel engine

635

experiment [25], the PID proportional parameters were increased until the boost pressure control became unstable, as shown in Fig. 6. The Ziegler Nichols procedure allows PID parameters to be determined from those causing instabilities in the system. This procedure, founded in simple knowledgebased rules, only gives a rst estimate for optimum parameters; thus PID parameters were optimized on the basis of additional experimental tests. Once the baseline was obtained, the next step was to test the fuzzy logic PID algorithm. The MPC algorithms, GPC and DMC, were tested to compare engine behaviours with dierent controllers. Further tests were performed, but this time considering the fuel mass injected as a measurable disturbance. The controllers based on PID technology were complemented by feedforward and measurable disturbance was used in the MPC. Thus the prediction model was richer than the originals.

for approximately 5.5 s. At this point, full load was applied. Every transient nished at about 22.5 s. Results were analysed from two dierent standpoints: system control engineering parameters and engine mechanical parameters. The control engineering parameters studied were as follows: (a) quadratic error ( e2 ), in boost pressure during the transient, which measures the engine performance to reach the set point and was calculated as e2 = ( p p )2 k k,ref k (b) control eort Du2, which measures the smoothness of the control actions for reaching the set point according to Du2 = (PWM PWM )2 VGT,k VGT,k1 k and, as derived from this expression, highfrequency variations; (c) control cost J, which is derived from the two previous indexes and is given by J=a

P P

5 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Transient tests were carried out on the test bench shown in section 2. In all transient tests the boost pressure was controlled by actuating over the VGT nozzle geometry. The European load response (ELR) test was used in all cases. The principal task of the control algorithms is to reach the desired boost pressure as quickly and eciently as possible, without generating excess exhaust gases with optimum engine performance, i.e. maximum torque for minimum fuel. In this section, complete results are given for the 1200 r/min operating zone. The ELR test consisted in pushing throttle torque conditions from about 0 N m to full load in 0.2 s. This means a sudden change from steady conditions at idle speed to full load. The engine was at idle

e2 + l

D u2

(note that MPC algorithms are based on the minimization of this index, which includes both performance ( e2 ) and actuation cost ( Du2 )); for the studied case, the weighting parameters used were a = 1 and l = 0.05; (d) boost pressure overshoot dp, which corresponds to dp = max( p p ) k k,ref In addition to the preceding control-oriented parameters for the evaluation of the control algorithms, the engine behaviour was evaluated through the following parameters:

Fig. 6 Unstable boost pressure control due to excessive proportional constant in the PID controller
JAUTO312 IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

636

n, H Climent, C Guardiola, and J V Garc a-Ortiz J M Luja

(a) maximum exhaust pressure max( p ); e (b) exhaust pressure overshoot dp , with steady cone ditions at the end of the transient as reference; (c) maximum dierence max( p p), between the e boost pressure and the exhaust pressure which gives an idea of pumping losses or pumping mean pressure (PMP) in each test; (d) torque overshoot dT, with steady conditions at the end of the transient as reference. The PMP can be considered as the cost of boosting the engine. Eectively, when the VGT is closed, the turbocharger acceleration produces an increase in the boost pressure, and therefore additional fuel delivery can be injected (as it is limited by the smoke control strategy based on the air mass ow). On the other hand, closer VGT position causes an increase in the exhaust pressure; hence the PMP is increased, aecting both the torque and the engine eciency. The control of boost pressure is therefore a complex

problem, as a compromise solution since both positive and negative eects have to be considered. Figure 7 shows the engine behaviour when controlled by simple control algorithms such as PID, FPID, DMC, and GPC. Figure 8 shows the engine response when the control algorithms considered the amount of injected fuel as a measurable disturbance. Both Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 include information about boost pressure evolution (left-hand top plots), exhaust pressure evolution (left-hand bottom plots), and engine torque (right-hand plots). As can be seen in Figs 7 and 8, the evolution behaviours of the boost pressure at the beginning of all tests were similar, since all were initiated from the same steady conditions and the best way to increase boost is to close the VGT [22, 26, 27], so that all the algorithms take the same decision. Thus, the main dierences between the algorithms were due to the dierent times of opening the VGT and its control during the transient process.

Fig. 7 Evolution of the main signals during the acceleration for four dierent controllers: solid black curve, PID; solid grey curve, FPID; dashed black curve, DMC; dashed grey curve, GPC. Top left, boost pressure (the set point has been marked with a dotted line); bottom left, exhaust pressure; bottom right, torque; top right, zoom in the peak region of the torque evolution
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

Heavy-duty turbocharged diesel engine

637

Fig. 8 Evolution of the main signals during the acceleration for four dierent controllers: solid black curve, PID ( ); solid grey curve, FPID ( ); dashed black curve, DMCDM; dashed grey curve, GPCDM. Top left, boost pressure (the set point has been marked with a dotted line); bottom left, exhaust pressure; bottom right, torque; top right, zoom in the peak region of the torque evolution

Regarding the torque evolution behaviours, as shown in right-hand bottom plots of Figs 7 and 8, they were exactly equal for all tests at the rst part of the transient, which corresponds to the VGT fully closed. Some dierences can be observed just at the moment when the set point was reached, as can be easily observed in the zooms in the right-hand top

plots. With the GPC and FPID, about 10 per cent higher torque was obtained during the process of opening VGT. The overall results are summarized in Table 1. Algorithms that used feedforward are given the symbol ( ). MPC algorithms with disturbance measurement are labelled DM. The parameters given in Table 1

Table 1 Summary of the results for the eight studied controllers

e2 (%)
PID FPID DMC GPC PID( ) FPID( ) DMCDM GPCDM 92.58 70.30 100.00 72.29 69.69 69.72 88.49 66.13

Du2 (%)
7.52 100.00 0.94 0.46 6.36 40.78 0.26 0.52

J (%)
16.86 100.00 11.68 8.24 13.42 45.22 9.81 7.63

dp (%)
40.40 24.10 49.40 6.80 34.10 33.10 39.20 12.60

max( p ) (bar) e
3.309 3.305 3.504 2.840 3.223 3.433 3.220 2.655

dp (%) e
57.57 57.38 66.86 35.24 53.48 63.48 53.33 26.43

max( p p) (bar) e
0.505 0.664 0.610 0.372 0.482 0.702 0.428 0.129

dT (%)
4.15 3.95 9.18 2.47 4.20 4.24 6.56 1.78

JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

638

n, H Climent, C Guardiola, and J V Garc a-Ortiz J M Luja

correspond to the eight parameters previously dened (the rst three columns have been normalized using the worst case as reference).

6 DISCUSSION In a rst step, it must be pointed that, even in its simplest form, the PID controller is able to control the boost pressure correctly for the ELR transient. However, the PID solution is not optimum, since both the boost pressure error e2 and the control eort Du2 are not minimal. In addition an important pressure overshoot is obtained. According to the results of Figs 7 and 8 and Table 1, the system control can be improved by means of the control algorithm. The rst conclusion that can be drawn when analysing the results is that, if the fuel mass is considered in the algorithm, the behaviour is always improved. This fact was observed during the identication process and is logical since, the more information that the algorithm has about the system, the better control it can apply. This is because the air management process is more inuenced by the fuel amount than by VGT control actions. The fuel amount provides energy; this energy goes to the turbine and the turbocharger increases its speed; thus the air management system changes. The delivered fuel quantity therefore has a very strong inuence on the air management system. If this variable is included in control algorithms, better control will be obtained. The analysis of the behaviour of the FPID controller seems to show quite a good response but at the cost of a high control eort. One of the disadvantages of this type of controller is the high overshoot of the exhaust pressure. The control eort is one order of magnitude higher than the baseline controller. However, the greatest disadvantage is their complicated tuning process as it has a large number of independent parameters. Another interesting aspect is that not all the model predictive controllers work better than the existing controllers. For example, the DMC algorithm provided rather doubtful results. This was surprising and could be explained as follows: the prediction model of the DMC algorithm is considered to be highly sensitive to non-linearities in the system. This algorithm nds it dicult to predict engine behaviour and therefore does not take the right decisions. However, the predictive control GPC algorithm is based on the CARIMA model and is more robust to system non-linearities.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

The best all-round algorithm was the GPCDM. The most signicant dierence between algorithms can be seen in the exhaust pressure in Figs 8 and 9. This parameter indicates the eort made by the engine to control the air path since a high exhaust pressure has a negative inuence on engine torque. The air management system (and consequently various engine parameters) was strongly inuenced by the controller used. One of the most susceptible to this inuence is the PMP, which also aects the engine torque, boost pressure, etc. If an overshoot occurs, it will produce an exhaust pressure peak and pumping losses. This fact produced less eciency and torque during transient conditions.

7 CONCLUSION Eight control algorithms were tested, including simple types and others with disturbance rejection. PID and FPID algorithm have the same architecture, and disturbance measurements were carried out by means of the same procedure: feedforward. Two linear MPC algorithms were also tested, which gave very dierent results. Therefore it is reasonable to think that the prediction model is an important parameter to consider when choosing an algorithm. All the control algorithms were tested on the same engine applying the highly dynamic ELR test, from which the norms are taken. There were various reasons for using model predictive controllers instead of other controllers: rst, they have more system information available than PID controllers, and their design is based on a quadratic cost function with a greater physical meaning than the PID controller, which is based on the Evans root locus modication. However, not all model predictive controllers behave satisfactorily. In this case the GPC algorithm is based on a CARIMA model that assumes non-linearities in the system and thus performs better. Another MPC advantage is the possibility of working with restraints that can be included in the optimization process. Although the best restraints were not found in this work owing to the sample time, it has been demonstrated that the system can be controlled by appropriate control algorithms that are not necessarily complicated control platforms. The proposal suggested is to change some lines of the program code in the ECU control program in order to achieve better control of engine performance and torque, as well as lower inlet and exhaust air pressures.
JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

Heavy-duty turbocharged diesel engine

639

One of the most important improvements in this work is the incorporation of fuel mass into the control algorithm. The injected fuel mass has revealed itself as a key variable for improving the controller performance, as the boost pressure is greatly aected by the variation in the injected fuel mass. Finally, it has been shown that the control algorithm has no eect on the engine when it is working in steady state conditions, and it is only in transient conditions that the comparative advantages of the individual algorithms can be noted.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was partially nanced by the Spanish a through research Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnolog project COASIS (Desarrollo de una plataforma de control avanzado de sistemas en motores Diesel turboalimentados) (DPI2003-08320-C02-02).

REFERENCES
1 Bego, O., Peric, N., and Petrovic, I. Decoupling multivariable GPC with reference observation. In Proceedings of the Tenth Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference (MELELON 2000), 2000, pp. 819822 (IEEE, New York). 2 Camacho, E. F. and Bordons, C. Model predictive control, 1999 (Springer, Berlin). 3 Cutler, C. R. and Ramaker, B. L. Dynamic matrix control a computer control algorithm. In Proceedings of the 86th AIChE National Meeting, Houston, Texas, USA, April 1979, paper 51b (American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York). 4 Prett, D. M., Ramaker, B. L., and Cutler, C. R. Dynamic matrix control method. US Pat. 4349869, 1982. 5 Clarke, D. W., Mothadi, C., and Tus, P. S. Generalized predictive control Part I. The basic algorithm. Automatica, 1987, 23(2), 137148. 6 Clarke, D. W., Mothadi, C., and Tus, P. S. Generalized predictive control Part II. Extension and interpretation. Automatica, 1987, 23(2), 149160. a-Ortiz, J. V. Aportacio n a la mejora del 7 Garc n de aire en motores Diesel control de la gestio turboalimentados mediante distintos algoritmos cnica Superior de de control. Report, Escuela Te cnica de Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad Polite Valencia, Spain, 2004.
JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

n, J. M., Guardiola, C., Garcia-Ortiz, J. V., 8 Luja and Salcedo, J. V. Identicacion lineal del comportamiento del sistema de renovacion de la carga de un motor diesel turboalimentado con sistema de EGR. In XV Congreso Nacional de Ingenieria nica, 2002. Meca 9 Zhu, Y. and Backx, T. Identication of multivariable industrial process, for simulation, diagnosis and control, 1993 (Springer, Berlin). 10 Gomez, J. C. and Baeyense, E. Identication of nonlinearities systems using orthonormal bases. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Intelligent systems and control, Tampa, Florida, USA, November 2001, pp. 126131 (International Association of Science and Technology for Development, Calgory, Alberta). 11 Luo, X. Analysis of automatic control system for deposition of CIGS lms. Report, Colorado School of Mines, Colorado, Illinois, USA, 2002. 12 Wijetunge, R. S., Brace, C. J., Hawley, J. G., and Vaughan, N. D. Fuzzy logic control of Diesel engine turcharging on exhaust gas recirculation. In Proceedings of the UKACC International Conference on Control (CONTROL 2000), Mini-Symposium on Engine control systems, Cambridge, UK, September 2000 (IEE, IMechE, Inst MC). 13 Soeterboek, R. Predictive control, a unied approach, 1992 (Prentice-Hall, Cambridge). 14 Martinez, M., Senent, J. S., and Blasco, F. X. Generalized predictive control using genetic algorithms GAGPC. Engng Applic. Artif. Intell., 1998, 11(3), 355368. 15 Garcia, C. E. and Morshedi, A. M. Quadratic programming solution of dynamic matrix control (QDMC). Chem. Engng Commun., 1986, 46, 7387. 16 Mahfouf, M. and Linkens, D. A. Constrained multivariable generalised predictive control (GPC) for anaesthesia: the quadratic programming approach (QP). Int. J. Control, 1997, 67(4), 507527. 17 Chow, C. and Clarke, D. W. Actuator nonlinearities in predictive control advances in model-based predictive control, 1994, 245 pp. (Oxford University Press, Oxford). 18 Havlena, V. and Kraus, F. J. Receding horizon MIMO LQ controller design with guaranteed stability. Automatica, 1997, 8, 15671570. 19 Rossiter, J. A., Gossner, J. R., and Kouvaritakis, B. Constrained cautious stable predictive control. IEE Proc. Part D: Control Theory Applic., 1992, 144(4), 313323. 20 Zheng, A. and Morari, M. Stability of model predictive control with soft restraints. In Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Conference on Decision and control, Orlando, Florida, USA, 1994, pp. 10181023 (IEEE, New York). 21 Tsang, B. A. and Clarke, D. W. Generalized predictive control with input constraints. IEE Proc. Part D: Control Theory Applic., 1988, 135, 451460. 22 Camacho, E. F., Berenguel, M., and Rubio, F. R. Application of a gain scheduling generalized
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012

640

n, H Climent, C Guardiola, and J V Garc a-Ortiz J M Luja

23

24 25

26

27

predictive controller to a solar power plant. Control Engng Practice, 1994, 2(2), 227238. Van Nieuwstadt, M. J., Kolmanovsky, I. V., Moraal, P. E., Stefanopoulou, G., and Jankovic, M. EGRVGT control schemes: experimental comparison for a high-speed diesel engine. Control Systems Mag., 2000, 20(3), 6379. Ziegler, J. G. and Nichols, N. B. Optimum setting for automatic controllers. Trans. ASME, 1942, 64, 759768. ODwyer, A. and Ringwood, J. V. A classication of techniques for the compensation of time delayed processes. Part 1: Parameter optimised controllers. In Modern applied mathematical techniques in circuits, systems and control, 1999, pp. 176186 (World Scientic and Engineering Academy and Society, Dallas, Texas). n, J. M., Bermu dez, V., and Benajes, J., Luja Serrano, J. R. Modelling of turbocharged diesel engines in transient operation. Part 1: insight into the relevant physical phenomena. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part D: J. Automobile Engineering, 2002, 216, 431441. Payri, F., Benajes, J., Galindo, J., and Serrano, J. R. Modelling of turbocharged diesel engines in transient operation. Part 2: wave action models for calculating the transient operation in a high speed direct injection engine. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part D: J. Automobile Engineering, 2002, 216, 479493.

APPENDIX Notation DM DMC e2 ECU ELR FPID GPC J m f MPC p p e PEM PMP PWM T VGT d Du2 disturbance measurement (used with GPC and DMC) dynamics matrix control quadratic error in boost pressure electronic control unit European load response feedforward (used with PID and FPID) fuzzy proportionalintegralderivative generalized predictive control cost index injected fuel quantity model predictive control boost pressure exhaust manifold pressure prediction error method pumping mean pressure pulse width modulation torque variable-geometry turbine overshoot control eort

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part D: J. Automobile Engineering

JAUTO312 IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com by Ibrahim Shalaby on October 16, 2012