Research Papers: Internal Combustion Engines

A Statistical Approach to Spark Advance Mapping

[+] Author and Article Information
Enrico Corti1

Department of Mechanical, Aerospace Nuclear Engineering and Metallurgy (DIEM), University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italyenrico.corti2@unibo.it

Claudio Forte

Department of Mechanical, Aerospace Nuclear Engineering and Metallurgy (DIEM), University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italyclaudio.forte@mail.ing.unibo.it


Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 132(8), 082803 (May 27, 2010) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000294 History: Received May 21, 2009; Revised May 23, 2009; Published May 27, 2010; Online May 27, 2010

Engine performance and efficiency are largely influenced by combustion phasing. Operating conditions and control settings influence the combustion development over the crankshaft angle; the most effective control parameter used by electronic control units to optimize the combustion process for spark ignition engines is spark advance (SA). SA mapping is a time-consuming process, usually carried out with the engine running in steady state on the test bench, changing SA values while monitoring brake mean effective pressure, indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP), and brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC). Mean values of IMEP and BSFC for a test carried out with a given SA setting are considered as the parameters to optimize. However, the effect of SA on IMEP and BSFC 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. Finally, other elements such as engine or components aging, and disturbances like air-to-fuel ratio or air, water, and oil temperature variations could affect the tests results; this facet can be very significant for racing engine testing. This paper presents a novel approach to SA mapping with the objective of improving the performance analysis robustness while reducing the test time. The methodology is based on the observation that, for a given running condition, IMEP can be considered a function of the combustion phasing, represented by the 50% mass fraction burned (MFB50) parameter. Due to cycle-to-cycle variation, many different MFB50 and IMEP values are obtained during a steady state test carried out with constant SA. While MFB50 and IMEP absolute values are influenced by disturbance factors, the relationship between them holds, and it can be synthesized by means of the angular coefficient of the tangent line to the MFB50-IMEP distribution. The angular coefficient variations as a function of SA can be used to feed a SA controller, able to maintain the optimal combustion phasing. Similarly, knock detection is approached by evaluating two indexes; the distribution of a typical knock-sensitive parameter (maximum amplitude of pressure oscillations) is related to that of CHRNET (net cumulative heat release), determining a robust knock index. A knock limiter controller can then be added in order to restrict the SA range to safe values. The methodology can be implemented in real time combustion controllers; the algorithms have been applied offline to sampled data, showing the feasibility of fast and robust automatic mapping procedures.

Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Combustion phasing, duration, and shape as a function of MFB50

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Relationship between IMEP and MFB50 distributions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

IMEP versus MFB50 cycle-to-cycle variations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

m and IMEP evolution over the tests (moving average over 20 cycles)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

MAPO versus CHRNET distributions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

CHRNET distributions with different SA

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Ratio between range and standard deviation for CHRNET, over 1000 engine cycles

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Relationship between MAPO and CHRNET standard deviations, range, and mean values

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Knock controller input

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

SA control for optimal IMEP

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Simulations superimposition

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

IMEP and BMEP mean values

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

SA control with both the controllers activated




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In