Proceedings
Proceedingsof
ofthe
theASME 2010 Internal Combustion Engine Division Fall Technical Conference
ASME2010
September12-15,
September 12-15,2010,
SPARK ADVANCE REAL-TIME OPTIMIZATION BASED ON COMBUSTION ANALYSIS
Enrico Corti
DIEM - University of Bologna - Italy
ABSTRACT
Future emission regulations could force manufacturers to
install in-cylinder pressure sensors on production engines. The
availability of such a signal opens a new scenario in terms of
combustion control: many settings that previously were
optimized off-line, can now be monitored and calibrated in real-
time. One of the most effective factors influencing performance
and efficiency is the combustion phasing: in gasoline engines
Electronic Control Units (ECU) manage the Spark Advance
(SA) in order to set the optimal combustion phase.
SA optimal values are usually determined by means of
calibration procedures carried out on the test bench by changing
the ignition angle while monitoring Brake and Indicated Mean
Effective Pressure (BMEP, IMEP) and Brake Specific Fuel
Consumption (BSFC). The optimization process relates BMEP,
IMEP and BSFC mean values with the control setting (SA).
However, the effect of SA on combustion is not deterministic,
due to the cycle-to-cycle variation: the analysis of mean values
requires many engine cycles to be significant of the
performance obtained with the given control setting.
This paper presents a novel approach to SA optimization,
with the objective of improving the performance analysis
robustness, while reducing the test time. The approach can be
either used in the calibration phase or in on-board applications,
if the in-cylinder pressure signal is available: this would allow
maintaining the optimization active throughout the entire
engine life.
The methodology is based on the observation that, for a
given running condition, IMEP can be considered a function of
a single combustion parameter, represented by the 50% Mass
Fraction Burned (50%MFB). Due to cycle-to-cycle variation,
many different MFB50 and IMEP values are obtained during a
steady state test carried out with constant SA, but these values
are related by means of a unique relationship. The distribution
on the plane IMEP-MFB50 forms a parabola, therefore the
optimization could be carried out by choosing SA values
maintaining the scatter around the vertex. Unfortunately the
distribution shape is slightly influenced by heat losses (i.e., by
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
ICEF2010
2010,San
SanAntonio,
Antonio,Texas
Texas,- USA
ICEF2010-35134
ICEF2010-
Claudio Forte
DIEM - University of Bologna - Italy
SA): this effect must be taken into account in order to avoid
over-advanced calibrations.
SA is then controlled by means of a PID (Proportional
Integer Derivative) controller, fed by an error that is defined
based on the previous considerations: a contribution is related
to the MFB50-IMEP distribution, and a second contribution is
related to the net Cumulative Heat Release (CHRNET)-IMEP
distribution. The latter is able to take into account for heat
losses.
Firstly, the methodology has been tested on in-cylinder
pressure data, collected from different SI engines; then, it has
been implemented in real-time, by means of a programmable
combustion analyzer: the system performs a cycle-to-cycle
combustion analysis, evaluating the combustion parameters
necessary to calculate the target SA, which is then actuated by
the ECU. The approach proved to be efficient, reducing the
number of engine cycles necessary for the calibration to less
than 1000 per operating condition.
INTRODUCTION
Spark Ignition engines performance are influenced by
combustion phasing and duration: these parameters are related
to the Spark Advance setting. The SA is usually controlled in
open loop: a calibration phase is therefore required, to
determine optimal SA values, that will be used by the ECU in
open loop control during engine operation. The process is
usually carried out on the test bench, keeping the engine in
steady conditions for many engine cycles (sometimes many
thousands), to filter out the effect of cycle-to-cycle variation.
Data are usually collected following a speed-load matrix: for
each breakpoint defining the engine operating condition many
tests are carried out, with different SA values. SA sweeps must
be performed for different engine speed, load, and, sometimes,
oil/water temperature, gasoline temperature, etc. The mapping
operation is time-consuming, and, especially in racing
applications, very expensive, due to the short engine life and
1 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 the risk of exploring dangerous (knocking) running conditions
during the sweep.
The paper aim is to show how combustion information can
be used for a real-time optimization of control parameters.
Combustion parameters could be gathered by means of an in-
cylinder pressure sensor, but the same approach could be
applied to data estimated using methodologies based on the
analysis of other signals, as shown in [1-4]. The outcome is to
shorten calibration time (for example: SA calibration) and to
allow a continuous optimization of engine performance
throughout its life, taking into account ageing effects. The
approach is based on a dynamic observation of the combustion
process, which makes it different with respect to other fast but
static techniques ([5-6]). The proposed SA calibration
methodology determines the optimal control setting by means
of a controller regulating SA, based on indicated parameters
information. The controller input (error) is based on the
relationship between the combustion phase (MFB50) and the
performance indicator (IMEP), so that the combustion phase
target values change automatically according to the engine
running condition. This feature allows converging to optimal
SA values without previous information on the engine, using a
single fast and robust test, with the controller requiring SA
variations until it has reached the optimal setting. Furthermore,
the methodology is robust with respect to external disturbances
(oil and water temperature, engine ageing) since it is not
sensitive to IMEP absolute value, but to its relationship with
MFB50. The methodology has been first presented in [7]: this
paper shows how it can be improved taking into account for
heat losses, and applied in real-time.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
To highlight the effect of SA on combustion development,
tests have been carried out on the test bench in steady state
conditions, on three different PFI (Port Fuel Injected) gasoline
engines: a 1.2 liters 4 cylinders, a turbocharged 8 cylinders 3.2
liters and a 4 cylinders race unit.
Engine speed was kept constant by means of the eddy-
current brake controller; a motor driving the throttle was
feedback controlled, based on the intake manifold pressure, to
set engine load. Intake manifold pressure and temperature, Air
to Fuel Ratio (AFR), coolant and oil temperatures have been
maintained constant during the tests.
Each test, counting from 1000 to 2000 engine cycles, has
been executed holding a different SA value. In-cylinder
pressure was measured by means of Kistler 6117BCD15
measuring spark plugs and 5064B21 charge amplifiers. Angular
position tracking has been carried out by means of a Sensor
Instrument FIA-F optical sensor, coupled to a crankshaft-
mounted measurement disk with 120 markers per revolution.
The in-cylinder pressure signals have been sampled @ 100kHz,
while the angular reference signal (encoder) has been detected
by means of a timer-counter digital channel, with a 10 MHz
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
clock. All the signals have been sampled using a National
Instruments cRIO System.
The in-cylinder pressure signals have been low-pass filtered
by means of an anti-aliasing analog filter set @ 20 kHz: the
filter delay has been compensated in order to avoid referencing
errors. A 3 kHz zero-delay low-pass 4th order Butterworth
digital filter has been used for IMEP and net Cumulative Heat
Release calculations, in order to eliminate the combustion
chamber resonance effect. The above procedure allows
isolating the mean combustion chamber conditions contribution
to CHR and indicated work trends, while rejecting the
components related to local pressure oscillations.
Sampled data have been used to setup the methodology and
define the controller structure. The system has then been tested
in real time on the 1.2 liters 4 cylinders gasoline engine. The
same system used for the acquisitions can implement the real-
time evaluations necessary to define the controller input.
In-cylinder pressure signals are sampled, filtered, placed on
the angular domain and used for the cycle-by-cycle indicating
analysis, thanks to the FPGA hardware [8]. Finally, a SA
controller is implemented for each cylinder: the loop on the
ignition command is closed by means of a programmable ECU,
reading the controllers requests for SA variations and actuating
the corrected values.
SA EFFECT ON COMBUSTION
In [7], the influence of SA on the combustion process has
been synthesized, using a single parameter. The approach was
based on the hypothesis that all the terms defining the mass
fraction burned curve in equation 1, could be considered
functions of a single parameter (MFB50). Basically, this
hypothesis corresponds to the observation that the combustion
progress in SI engines cannot be modified selectively by means
of the SA: if the phase changes, the shape is also influenced.
mw +1
 θ −θ SOC 
− a⋅ 
 ∆θ 
xb = 1 − e (1)
On the other hand, SA effect on combustion is not
deterministic: maintaining a given SA value, the MFB50 will
show a given distribution, depending on the operating
conditions (speed, load, AFR, etc.).
The analysis lead to the conclusion that the calibration of
control parameters influencing the combustion characteristics
can be performed by analyzing the trend relating the parameters
to optimize (e.g., IMEP) with the unique combustion tracer
(e.g., MFB50). Figure 1 shows an example of IMEP-MFB50
distribution obtained with a SA sweep: the best SA maintains
the scatter of the cycle-to-cycle IMEP data near to the top of
the curve, thus optimizing the engine performance.
This simplified approach, however, does not consider some
facets of the phenomenon. First of all, Figure 1 shows that the
2 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 clouds referring to different SA are partially superimposed: if WOT@4000rpm, cyl 2
two cycles obtained with different SA have the same MFB50, 0
probably they will have different combustion duration. The
same MFB50 could be the result of a slow-combustion high-SA
cycle, or a fast-combustion low-SA cycle. -5

MFB5 [°]
WOT@4000rpm, cyl 2
13 -10
12.8 ADV=29°
ADV=32°
12.6 ADV=35° -15
ADV=38°
12.4 ADV=41°
ADV=44° -20
12.2 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
IMEP [bar]

38
12

36

Combustion Duration [°]

11.8

11.6 34
11.4
32
11.2
30
11
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
MFB50 [°]
28 ADV=29°
ADV=32°
Figure 1: relationship between IMEP and MFB50 26 ADV=35°
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
distributions ADV=38°
70
ADV=41°
Moreover, the indicated work is remarkably influenced by ADV=44°
65
heat losses: this phenomenon is not entirely represented by
Rohr Peak [J/°]

MFB50, as great part of the heat is transferred to the cylinder

walls in the later portion of the combustion [11], when
temperature is higher.
Finally, MFB50 does not take into account directly for
combustion inefficiencies and crevices filling-emptying effects.
Figure 2 shows mean values of MFB5, combustion duration
(defined as MFB90-MFB5) and Rate of Heat Release (ROHR)
peak for different MFB50 classes. The three combustion
observers are strictly related to the three free coefficients
appearing in Equation 1: θSOC, ∆θ, and mw. Even though the
three parameters almost show a linear dependence on MFB50,
the effect of SA is still evident.
These considerations highlight the risk of under-
parametrization in the description of IMEP by means of
MFB50 alone. The hypothesis of a unique IMEP-MFB50
distribution, could be unacceptable when the desired result in
terms of optimal SA must be very precise: assuming that for a
given operating condition all the cycles can be represented by
the same curve in the plane IMEP-MFB50 would lead to ignore
the differences between cycles showing the same combustion
phase, and, for example, different duration.
60
55
50
45
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
MFB50 [°]
Figure 2: Wiebe function parameters vs. MFB50
This slight inaccuracy could result in setting a sub-optimal
SA value. Figure 3 shows how the distribution can change with
SA variations: a calibration process targeted at the MFB50
corresponding to the maximum of the curve, could lead to a
sub-optimal SA. The selected SA could center the distribution
around the maximum, but the IMEP values could be lower than
those obtained with other non-centered distributions. This
behavior is highlighted by the comparison of the two plots in
Figure 3: the top one represents the IMEP values corresponding
to given MFB50 classes, for different SA levels; the bottom one
shows the mean IMEP values obtained in the same SA sweep,

3 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 as a function of the corresponding mean MFB50 values. The 1/3 load max, 2/3 rpm max
most centered distribution is clearly that obtained with 14° SA, 7.4
while the optimal SA (best mean IMEP) is value is 12.5°. This dADV=-8°
dADV=-4°
inconsistency is due to the fact that, as the distribution gets near
7.35 dADV=0°
to the top, the mean value corresponding to a given MFB50

mean IMEP [bar]

dADV=+4°
class decreases. This is a consequence of the under- dADV=+8°
parametrization of the combustion process: the IMEP values
7.3
corresponding to combustions obtained with different SA
showing the same MFB50 are slightly different. Neglecting this
phenomenon results in a slight SA overestimation. 7.25
WOT@1000rpm, cylinder 6
10.2
7.2
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
10 mean MFB50 [°]
8
9.8
7.5
9.6
IMEP [bar]

IMEP [bar]
ADV=5° 7
9.4
ADV=6.5°
ADV=8° 6.5
9.2
ADV=9.5°
9 ADV=11°
6
ADV=12.5°
8.8 ADV=14°
ADV=15.5° 5.5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
8.6 120
10 15 20 25 30 35
MFB50 class [°]
100
10.2
Engine Cycles

10 80

9.8 60
mean IMEP [°]

9.6 40

9.4 20

9.2 0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
9 MFB50 class [°]

8.8 Figure 4: race engine part load-high speed behavior

8.6
10 15 20 25 30
mean MFB50 [°]
Figure 3: IMEP values vs. MFB50 class
Another situation where the simplified approach fails in
orienting the calibration process happens as SA effect on the
combustion phase begins to vanish: sometimes the operating
conditions force to use very advanced ignitions, especially at
high speed-low load, when the combustion speed could be very
low. Then it could happen that the optimal combustion phase
cannot be reached: as SA is increased, the decreasing in
MFB50 is small, while its standard deviation starts increasing.
35 This behavior is clearly represented in Figure 4, that shows
the results of a SA sweep carried out at medium speed-low load
for a race engine. The upper plot indicates that with a large SA
span the combustion phase changes slightly: the highest value
of mean IMEP obtained with a given SA corresponds to a mean
MFB50 value of 22°. On the center plot, however, it appears
that the most efficient MFB50 class is the one set near 15°.
Once again, the approach based on the distribution seems to be
inconsistent with results based on mean values. In this case the
explanation can be found looking at the bottom plot: as the
ignition reaches extreme values, the MFB50 standard deviation
increases, giving rise to both very advanced and very retarded
combustions. The global effect is to lower IMEP as SA reaches
high values, even if the best placement of the distribution

4 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 scatter in the plane IMEP-MFB50 has not been reached. The
best combustion phase in this case simply cannot be achieved.
IMEP MODELING
As already mentioned, the objective of the present
calibration approach is to infer the distance of the actual
condition from the optimum by analyzing the target variable
(IMEP) distribution with respect to combustion observers: this
‘trend analysis’ can replace the standard statistical method,
which requires more data (i.e., more time). In the previous
paragraph it has been shown that an IMEP model based on a
single parameter (MFB50) could result is slightly over-
advanced calibrations. However, the same approach of the
trend analysis can be applied on more sophisticated models.
Nonetheless, it is worth trying to reduce the number of
parameters in the IMEP model, since the calibration process
has to be solved in real-time. The simplest option could be to
way, it explicitly takes into account for heat losses and crevices
filling-emptying effects. The non-linear relationship between
CHRnet and MFB50 represented in figure 5 confirms that the
Cumulative Heat Release allows introducing information that is
not carried by MFB50. A positive side effect of introducing
CHRnet in the IMEP model is that its value is affected by
knocking combustions, as shown in [7, 12]: this feature
prevents the SA controller from requiring potentially dangerous
values.
WOT@1000rpm, cylinder 6
10.5
10
9.5

IMEP [bar]
add terms appearing in the Wiebe function, such as duration ADV=5°
(∆θ) or start of combustion (θSOC) but other solutions should be ADV=6.5°
taken into account, in order to maximize the amount of 9 ADV=8°
information added to the model. ADV=9.5°
ADV=11°
Generally speaking, the combustion effect on IMEP can be 8.5 ADV=12.5°
synthesized by means of the heat release equation ([11]): ADV=14°
15.5°
dQch dQht dm γ dV 1 dp (2)
− − (h'−u + cvT ) ⋅ cr = p + V 8
900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150
dθ dθ dθ γ − 1 dθ γ − 1 dθ
CHRnet [J]
The first member of equation (2) is often referred to as ‘net
1150
heat release’: it can be evaluated based on the indicated
pressure information, and it is influenced by the combustion
energy release rate (i.e., by the Wiebe function parameters), by 1100
the heat transferred to the cylinder wall, by the crevices filling-
emptying effects and by the combustion inefficiency. Equation
(2) can then be re-written as: 1050
CHRnet [J]

dQn 1 dp γ dV (3)
− V = p
dθ γ − 1 dθ γ − 1 dθ 1000

IMEP is related to indicated work, which means that it can

be introduced in the equation: 950
 γ − 1 dQn 1 dp  1
 ∫ γ dθ dθ − ∫ γ V dθ dθ  V = IMEP
(4)
  d 900
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
While the second term in equation (4) depends on the MFB50 [°]
pressure trace evolution in the angular domain, the first term is
strictly related to the net cumulative heat release defined as: Figure 5: IMEP-CHRnet and CHRnet-MFB50 trends

CHRnet = ∫ dQn (5)
This means that CHRnet, together with MFB50, could be a
suitable parameter for the application of the trend analysis
methodology. The net Cumulative Heat Release adds important
information to the combustion analysis carried out by means of
MFB50. CHRnet is intrinsically sensitive to combustion
inefficiencies, causing the term dQch to decrease. In the same
dθ
The reason of the non-linear relationship between MFB50
and CHRnet can be ascribed to the different heat losses effects
on the two parameters: on the CHRnet side the effect is linear,
on the MFB50 side not only the effect is non-linear (heat losses
depend on temperature, that is non-linearly related to
combustion phase), but there is also a lack of sensitivity, due to
the fact that the majority of the heat losses take place in the
second part of the combustion.

5 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 These considerations suggest to consider the IMEP as Finally, a confirmation that the couple MFB50-CHRnet is a
dependent on two factors: the first one (CHRnet) is sensitive to correct choice to represent IMEP, comes from the application
the amount of energy that the combustion actually delivered of the Response Surface Methodology (RSM). Since the
(taking into account for various type of losses), the second one objective is to model IMEP by means of combustion observers,
(MFB50) is sensitive to the percentage of the available energy the task can be carried out by means of black box models: in
converted to indicated work. the process, it is possible to select the most representative
parameters by means of reduction methodologies [13]. The
WOT@1000rpm, cylinder 6 approach can be applied to the cycle data collected during a SA
10.4 sweep. Many models can be defined, involving two combustion
10.3
parameters among those that are considered the most
ADV=12.5° significant: MFB50, MFB5, duration, ROHR peak and CHRnet.
10.2 ADV=14° The model showing the lower mean square error throughout the
whole engine operating range is based on MFB50 and CHRnet,
10.1
confirming the previous physically-based remarks.
IMEP [bar]

10
SA CONTROLLER
9.9
A fast and robust calibration requires the SA to be changed
9.8 rapidly and coherently with IMEP variations: the operation is
carried out by means of a PID [14, 15] controller, whose input
9.7 must be sensitive to the distance from the optimal SA, and to
9.6
the direction the SA shall be changed. As a result of the
preceding discussion, the error input of the PID controller
9.5 should depend both on MFB50 and CHRnet, and it should tend
950 1000 1050 1100
CHR [J]
to zero as the IMEP is maximized (optimal SA). Since the
net
calibration operation should be fast, the number of engine
10.4 cycles available to build the distributions will be low;
10.3 moreover, the data will be affected by experimental errors.
Finally, the calculations must be carried out in real-time: the
10.2 definition of an error based on a complex IMEP model is not
worthy. The IMEP can then be expanded in Taylor series near
10.1
the values (MFB50*, CHRnet*) and stopped at the first term:
IMEP [bar]

10 ∂IMEP ∂IMEP
IMEP = IMEP * +
∂MFB50
(
⋅ MFB50 − MFB50* + )
∂CHRnet
(
⋅ CHRnet − CHRnet
*
)
9.9
(6)
9.8
The expression should be applied for small MFB50 and
9.7 CHRnet variations, so the data used to evaluate the error should
be obtained with the same SA. Equation (6) can be
9.6 reformulated as
*
9.5 IMEP − IMEP * ∂IMEP ∂IMEP CHR net − CHR net
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 = + ⋅
MFB50 [°] MFB 50 − MFB 50 * ∂MFB 50 ∂CHR net MFB 50 − MFB 50 * (7)

Figure 6: IMEP-CHRnet and IMEP-MFB50 trends
Figure 6 shows that the information gained from the two
distribution is complementary: the IMEP-MFB50 trace is still
not perfectly centered, suggesting a SA increase (corresponding
to a MFB50 decreasing), the IMEP-CHRnet trace is already
descending, pointing out that for further SA increasing (causing
CHRnet to decrease) the IMEP would decrease. A possible
interpretation is that the IMEP component taking into account
the conversion from actual energy to indicated work would
benefit of a further advance, while the component taking into
account for the energy actually released would be
disadvantaged due to the increase in heat losses.
The first member of equation (7) quantifies the IMEP
variation with respect to MFB50 within the linearization
interval: it takes into account for the effect of CHRnet, that is
neglected in the partial derivative (first term of the second
member), and it is useful to evaluate the direction and amount
of the SA shift needed to improve IMEP. Positive values of this
ratio mean that IMEP can be increased by retarding the
combustion (i.e., increasing MFB50), negative values require to
advance the combustion (lowering MFB50). As long as MFB50
is related to SA, the input error of the SA PID controller can be
defined as the first term of equation (7), changed in sign.

6 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ∂IMEP ∂IMEP CHR net − CHRnet
* control action must be determined quickly, but the error
e=− − ⋅ associated to a given SA setting should be repeatable, to reduce
∂MFB 50 ∂CHRnet MFB 50 − MFB 50 * (8) undesired oscillations in the controlled variable. Both the error
The partial derivatives could be evaluated by interpolating eN fluctuations (precision) and the controller response depend
the IMEP-MFB50 and IMEP-CHRnet distributions: the simplest on the number of engine cycles N: a good definition of the error
option is to use the interpolating lines (quadratic or cubic allows achieving moderate fluctuations with a small number of
functions could also be used, anyway the derivative would cycles.
depend on the interpolation coefficients). In this case equation WOT@4000rpm, N=25 Cycles
(8) becomes 0.15
*
CHR net − CHR net 0.1
e = − m IMEP ,MFB 50 − m IMEP ,CHRnet ⋅
MFB 50 − MFB 50 *
(9)
0.05

[bar/°]
The terms mIMEP,MFB50 and mIMEP,CHRnet are the angular
coefficients of the interpolating lines: they must be evaluated 0

25
on the basis of several engine cycles. The error will always

e
refer to the last N cycles, being N the number of cycles used for -0.05
the interpolations. The mean error over N cycles is represented
by the following expression: -0.1

*
1 CHRnet − CHRnet
e N = − mIMEP,MFB 50 N
− m IMEP,CHRnet
N
⋅
N
∑ MFB50 − MFB50 * 0 200 400 600 800 1000
(10) WOT@4000rpm, N=75 Cycles
0.15
The last term in equation (10) is the average angular
coefficient of the line connecting the point representing a given 0.1
cycle to that representing the mean value of the last N cycles, in
the plane MFB50-CHRnet. This term could reach very high 0.05
values when the MFB50 is very close to the reference MFB50*.
e75 [bar/°]

In order to avoid numeric errors it can be replaced by means of 0

the angular coefficient of the line interpolating the last N cycles
in the same plane. -0.05
The error input for the SA PID controller will then be
-0.1
defined as

eN = −mIMEP,MFB 50 − mIMEP,CHRnet ⋅ mCHRnet ,MFB 50 (11) 0 200 400 600 800 1000
N N N
WOT@4000rpm, N=125 Cycles
Finally, the error should be normalized with respect to the 0.15
mean IMEP, evaluated over the N cycles used for the
interpolations: in this way the error will be representative of the 0.1
IMEP relative variation obtained advancing or retarding the
combustion. 0.05
e125 [bar/°]

− mIMEP , MFB 50 − mIMEP ,CHRnet ⋅ mCHRnet ,MFB 50 0

eN % = N N N (12) ADV=29°
mean( IMEP) N ADV=32°
-0.05
ADV=35°
The switch from absolute to relative IMEP is useful to avoid ADV=38°
a load dependent behavior of the controller: without the error -0.1
ADV=41°
normalization the amplitude of SA variations required by the ADV=43°
controller would depend on the IMEP absolute value variations, 0 200 400 600 800 1000
forcing the controller dynamics to depend on load (small SA Engine Cycles
variations at low load, big variations at high load).
Figure 7: PID error input for different SA and N values
In order to be used for SA calibration, the error must change
sign for a SA setting corresponding to the maximum IMEP; Figure 7 shows how the error patterns obtained for different
furthermore, the controller must have a stable behavior and a SA change with the number of cycles N used for the
fast response: once a SA value has been set, the consequent interpolations. It is noteworthy that a positive value means that

7 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 SA must be increased, a negative value means that SA must be
decreased. The fact that the traces referring to different SA
values superimpose is not a problem, as long as they maintain
the same sign: the error sign determines the direction of
required SA variations. In figure 7 (center and bottom plot) the
error sign is positive when the SA is set to 29°, 32° and 35°,
and negative for SA values above 41°. The number of cycles N
used for the interpolations is crucial in determining the error
fluctuations: in the upper plot it is possible to notice that during
the tests the errors evaluated using with interpolation on 25
cycles (e25) change sign with different SA values. This behavior
would force to use small gain in the PID controller, in order to
avoid SA oscillations, worsening its dynamic performance. It is
better to improve the error stability by increasing the number of
cycles N used for the interpolation, which corresponds to apply
stronger corrections based on more reliable but ‘slower’
information. A value between 50 and 100 can be considered
acceptable.
WOT@4000rpm
13.2
13
12.8
IMEP [bar]
which means that the error absolute value minimization would
correspond to the maximum IMEP. An important feature of the
controller consists in its robustness towards external factors,
such as temperature or lambda variations: while the IMEP trace
shows a peak out of trend for cylinder 4 at 41° SA, the error
value is not influenced at all by the disturbance. The same can
be said about the last SA step, where cylinders 2, 4, 5, 6 IMEP
values are out of trend: even if the error seems to be affected,
its sign remains negative, meaning that SA must be reduced.
A two stage controller has been developed, in order to
obtain a good compromise between a fast response and a stable
behavior: the first stage is based on a simple proportional
controller, acting when the error absolute value exceeds a given
threshold. The second stage is based on a PID controller [15]
that calculates the correction in background, even when its
output is ignored due to high error values; the PID is turned on
as the error falls below the threshold. The integral component
reset is triggered by the detection of changes in the operating
condition (speed, load) or in AFR: the SA correction is
maintained to zero, up to the moment when a steady state
condition is detected. After that, the controller will wait to
accumulate the number of cycles (N) necessary for the
evaluation of the error, then it will start requiring SA variations.
The controller is also switched off as SA stops working as a

combustion phase control parameter: it has been shown

12.6 previously that sometimes over-advanced combustions may
cause MFB50 standard deviation increasing, so that it would be
12.4 better to reduce SA even if the IMEP-MFB50 distribution has
not been centered around its maximum. The standard deviation
12.2 analysis would require many engine cycles, therefore the
condition is recognized by comparing the SA variations to the
12 corresponding MFB50 variations. When the ignition angle
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
tends to be ineffective in setting the combustion phase, it means
0.1
Cyl1
that the small MFB50 reduction obtained by advancing most of
Cyl2 the cycles is compensated by its large increase for a few cycles.
Cyl3 Once the condition is recognized, a standard calibration
0.05 approach, based on mean values, is applied.
Cyl4
mean error [bar/°]

Cyl5
Cyl6 RESULTS
0 The SA PID controller has been designed based on sample
data, then it has been implemented in a real-time controller.
The controller receives combustion data from an indicating
-0.05 system cycle by cycle, evaluates the interpolation based on a
configurable number of engine cycles, and finally requires SA
variations to the ECU. The automatic calibration system has
-0.1 been applied to correct open loop SA values of a 1.2 liters
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 gasoline engine running on the test bench. The results shown in
SA [°]
the followings have been obtained setting to 100 the number of
cycles used for the interpolations.
Figure 8: IMEP and error trend for different SA values
Figure 9 shows the controller action in three different
The average error value for a given test is representative of engine running conditions: even without a careful tuning of the
the benefits obtained reducing (or increasing) SA: figure 8 controller settings, the calibration system proved to be effective
shows a comparison between the typical IMEP(SA) trace and in the determination of the optimal SA. From the moment the
the mean error(SA) trace. They give the same information, controller is activated, the optimal SA is reached in a few

8 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 seconds even if the base SA is very retarded: the different 22°@2400rpm
16
traces represent repetitions that converge to the same SA value,
confirming the robustness of this approach. In the upper plot 14
(Test 2) it can be seen that the controller is de-activated during
12
the test, and then suddenly re-activated, bringing SA to the
previous value.

delta ADV [°]

10

15°@1500rpm, AFR=14.6 8 AFR=14.6

20 AFR=13.2
Test 1 6
Test 2
15 Test 3 4
deltaSA [°]

2
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Engine Cycles
5
Figure 10: controller behavior in different AFR conditions
0
0 5 10 15 Figure 11 shows how the controller acts on SA, modifying
35°@3500rpm, AFR=14.6
20 the combustion phase, and therefore the IMEP.
15°@1500rpm AFR=14.6
20
15
deltaSA [°]

15
10
SA [°]

10
5

5
0
0 5 10 15
38°@4500rpm, AFR=14.6
10 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
40
8
deltaSA [°]

6 30
MFB50 [°]

4 20

2
10

0
0 5 10 15
Time [s] 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Figure 9: controller performance on the test bench

4.4
Figure 10 shows the controller behavior during several tests 4.2
IMEP [bar]

carried out with the same speed and load condition, but with
different AFR. The effect of AFR on the optimal SA is 4
evident: the leaner the composition, the slower the combustion, 3.8
the higher the optimal SA. The system can thus be used for
complex calibration operations, with multi-dimensional control 3.6
matrixes; SA optimization over a speed, load, AFR matrix is a 3.4
possible application, but other examples can be added: injection 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Engine Cycles
pattern in direct injection engines VVT and EGR settings,
influence the combustion process, and their calibration tasks Figure 11: effects of controller action on IMEP and MFB50
could benefit of the proposed approach.

9 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 CONCLUSIONS for Control Purpose Using Dedicated Signal Processing
Platform, Presented at the SAE World Congress, 2008-01-
The paper presents a control parameters calibration 0790, 2008.
methodology based on the analysis of combustion: the [4]. Rivara N., Dickinson P., Shenton A., Peak Pressure
approach can be used for performance optimization purposes, Position Control of Four Cylinders Through the ion
and it has been applied to design and test an automatic SA Current Method, Presented at the SAE World Congress,
calibration system. The considerations regarding the 2009-01-0235, 2009.
combustion process are based on data referring to three [5]. Patterson G. J., A Technique for Processing Cylinder
different SI engines. The SA automatic calibration system has Pressure and Test Bed Data Sets for Engine Speed-Sweep
been implemented in a real-time controller, able to Tests to Allow Reduced Testing Time With Enhanced
communicate with an indicating system and to require SA Interpretation of Results, presented at SAE Motorsports
variations to the engine ECU. 2008 Conference, SAE2008-01-3006, 2008.
In the first part of the paper some issues concerning a [6]. Haskara I., Zhu G. G., Daniel C. F., Winkelman J. On
simplified approach that was previously proposed are Combustion Invariance for MBT Timing Estimation and
discussed: since they are originated by an under- Control, presented at ICEF2004 ASME Fall Technical
parametrization of IMEP, a more sophisticated model is Conference, ICEF2004-835, 2004.
proposed in the dedicated section. The objective is to define the [7]. Corti E., Forte C., A Statistical Approach to Spark Advance
most appropriate model inputs, since they are the observers of Mapping, ICES2009-76111, Presented at the ASME ICES
the phenomenon. In fact, the model is expanded in Taylor Spring Technical Conference, 2009.
series and used to fit experimental data, determining the [8]. E. Corti, D. Moro, L. Solieri, Real-Time Evaluation of
direction and amplitude of SA variations. This is accomplished IMEP and ROHR-Related Parameters, presented at SAE
by means of a two-stage controller, based on a proportional step ICE 2007 International Conference, SAE2007-24-0068,
acting when SA is far from the optimal value, followed by a 2007.
PID, refining the SA optimization. The controller section [9]. Wiebe I. I., Semi-Empirical Expression for Combustion
describes the details of the calibration algorithm. Rate in Engines, Proceedings of Conference on Piston
Engines, USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, pp.185-
The results refer to a real-time application of the automatic 191, 1956.
SA calibration system: the tests performed on a 1.2 liters [10]. Jante A., The Wiebe Combustion Law (Das Wiebe-
gasoline engine, show that the methodology allows for fast and Brenngesetz, ein Forschritt in der Thermodynamik der
robust calibrations. The same approach can be applied to the Kreisprozesse von Verbrennungsmotoren),
calibration of other parameters affecting the combustion. Kraftfharzeugtechnik, vol. 9, pp. 340-346, 1960.
CONTACT [11]. Heywood J.B.; Internal Combustion Engine
Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, 1988.
Enrico Corti [12]. N. Cavina, E. Corti, L. Solieri, A Heat Flux Damages-
Affiliation: DIEM, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Related Index, presented at the ASME ICES Congress,
University of Bologna ICES2006-1425, 2006.
Viale Risorgimento, 2 [13]. R. Meyers, D. C. Montgomery, C. Anderson-Cook,
40136 Bologna – Italy Response Surface Methodology, Wiley and sons, 2009,
ISBN 0470174463
e-mail: enrico.corti2@ unibo.it [14]. G. Franklin, J. D. Powell, A. Emani-Naeini, Feedback
Control of Dynamics Systems, Prentice Hall PTR, 2006.
ISBN-10: 0131499300; ISBN-13: 9780131499300.
REFERENCES [15]. G. Goodwin, S. F. Graebe, M. E. Salgado, Control
System Design, Prentice Hall, 2001. ISBN-10:
[1]. Ponti F., Ravaglioli V., Serra G., Stola F., Instantaneous 0139586538; ISBN-13: 9780139586538.
Engine Speed Measurements and Processing for MFB50
Evaluation, presented at the SAE World Congress, 2009- NOMENCLATURE
01-2747, 2009.
[2]. Hamedovic H, Raichle F., Breuninger J, Fischer W., a Wiebe function parameter
Dieterle W., Klenk M., Bahme J F., Imep Estimation and ADV Spark Advance
In-cylinder Pressure Reconstruction for Multi-cylinder SI AFR Air to Fuel Ratio
Engine By Combined Processing of Engine Speed and One BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
Cylinder Pressure, Presented at the SAE World Congress, BMEP Brake Mean Effective Pressure
2005-01-0053, 2005. CHRnet Net Cumulative Heat Release
[3]. Guillemin F., Grondin O., Chauvin J., Nguyen E., cv Specific Heat (constant volume)
Combustion Parameters Estimation based on Knock Sensor e Error (controller input)

10 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 eN Error evaluated on a buffer of N cycles
eN% Error evaluated on a buffer of N cycles,
normalized with respect to IMEP
ECU Electronic Control Unit
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation
h’ Enthalpy of the gases trapped in the crevices
or in the cylinder
IMEP Indicated Mean Effective Pressure
γ Specific heat ratio
mIMEP,MFB50 angular coefficient of the line interpolating
the distribution (IMEP, MFB50)
mCHR,MFB50 angular coefficient of the line interpolating
the distribution (CHRnet, MFB50)
mIMEP,CHR angular coefficient of the line interpolating
the distribution (IMEP, CHRnet)
mcr mass flowing from the cylinder into the
crevices
mW Wiebe function parameter
MBT Maximum Brake Torque
MFB50 Angular position corresponding to: fuel Mass
Fraction Burned = 50%
N Number of engine cycles used for the
evaluation of the error
P In-cylinder pressure
PFI Port Fuel Injection
PID Proportional-Integer-Derivative (controller)
Qch Heat released by the combustion
Qht Heat transferred to the cylinder walls
Qn Net released Heat
ROHR Rate Of Heat Release
RSM Response Surface Methodology
SI Spark Ignition
SA Spark Advance
T In-cylinder temperature
u specific internal energy of the charge
V Cylinder volume
Vd Cylinder displacement
VVT Variable Valve Timing
xb Mass Fraction Burned
∆θ Combustion Duration
θ Crankshaft Angle
θ SOC Angle corresponding to the Start of
Combustion

11 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/30/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use