Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2008-01-1016

Engine Torque Control Variation Analysis

Michael Livshiz, Minghui Kao and Anthony Will
Powertrain Engineering – General Motors Corporation

Reprinted From: Electronic Engine Controls, 2008

(SP-2159)

2008 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 14-17, 2008

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2008 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
Engine Torque Control Variation Analysis
Michael Livshiz, Minghui Kao and Anthony Will
Copyright © 2008 SAE International
ABSTRACT
The growing complexity of engine control systems and
integration with transmission and vehicle dynamics controls
systems have lead to the use of torque-based engine control.
Torque-based control enables flexibility and expandability of
the powertrain control system structure. It allows various
engine actuation technologies (active fuel management (AFM),
cam phasing, supercharger, etc.) to be easily incorporated, and
to enable a simpler control structure than current production
controls. Torque-based control structure is developed to
coordinate and achieve better engine, transmission, hybrid, and
vehicle dynamics controls.
This paper describes the role of Engine Torque Control in a
torque-based control system. It gives an overview of Engine
Torque Control architecture with main elements, and discusses
control system requirements. Engine Torque Control
performance, defined by the engine torque transient response,
has direct impact on qualities of torque based control, such as
vehicle response, drivability and fuel economy. The engine
torque transient response must be independent of control
system, plant, and environmental variations. An accurate plant
model of a powertrain system has been developed, presented,
and tuned with a development vehicle data. This model is used
to study the influence of parameter variation on the control
system. The Engine Torque Control algorithm model used for
Rapid-Prototyping Controls is connected with the powertrain
plant model through a control interface model.
This paper characterizes an Engine Torque Control transient
response in terms of classical control theory metrics such as
overshoot, steady state error, and response time. The influence
of both environmental and system parameters on the control
system transient response characteristics is considered. The
parameter variation and simulation Design of Experiment
(DOE) runs were chosen by control design team and torque
control experts. The torque response data collected on
development vehicle is used to verify integrity of the
simulation results. This paper provides simulation results
illustrating how transient torque response performance is a
function of system variations.
2008-01-1016
Powertrain Engineering – General Motors Corporation
INTRODUCTION
Torque-based vehicle and powertrain control systems were
introduced in [1, 2] where a hierarchical control strategy for
powertrain functions was described. These two papers laid the
foundation of the torque-based powertrain control. In the
torque-based powertrain systems the main control parameter is
an engine or vehicle torque. The coordination between engine,
transmission and brakes is done through this variable. The
coordination between various engine and transmission
actuators is also accomplished through this torque variable.
BOSCH ME7 engine control system was discussed in [3] as
new approach to the engine torque-based control at the time.
This system enables the separation of engine torque control
from other vehicle control systems. It had centralized torque
and air to fuel ratio management. It provided engine control
dealing with EGR, non EGR, cam phasing, and non cam
phasing actuators. The control structure was expandable and
flexible. The torque-based engine management system was
also described in [4] where the authors considered the charge
and ignition timing control, and some aspects of actuators
coordination. The powertrain management was described in [5,
6], where authors introduced standards and interfaces for
powertrain control. Coordinated powertrain torque control
became the standard for automotive industry nowadays. All
powertrain control suppliers develop solutions to provide
coordinated powertrain torque control in one form or another.
Engine torque control is the main enabler of torque based
architecture. Engine torque control provides coordination of
engine actuators (throttle position, spark advance, cam phaser
positions and others) to achieve torque requested by driver or a
vehicle subsystem. It is used both in torque control and in
speed control operation modes. In speed control mode, torque
control system provides actuator controls to achieve requested
engine speed under coast down and steady state idle.
Engine torque control consists of feedforward and feedback
subsystems providing transient and steady state engine
performance controls. Feedforward engine torque control
provides us with calculation of desired actuator positions to
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
produce requested torque value. Engine torque control with
desired state calculation is described in [7], where
compressible flow equation is utilized to calculate desired
throttle position. The torque based calculations of desired
manifold pressure and desired air per cylinder are inputs into
compressible flow equation. Modern engine control may
utilize many different air induction devices such as mixture
motion control, port deactivation, variable intake manifold
valves, cam phasers, and other devices. They all must be
coordinated to achieve requested engine torque. The
coordinated engine torque control structure is discussed in [8].
Supercharged and turbocharged engine torque control system
can utilize the same engine torque control structure with the
minimum modifications. Engine torque feed-forward control
can employ desired manifold pressure to schedule boosted
supercharger and turbocharger actuators. One example of the
torque control structure to control supercharged engine is
shown in [9]. Feedback system corrects feed-forward
subsystem based on estimated torque. Mathematical
description of engine torque control structure will be shown in
the following section.
There are many possible combinations of engine actuators
used in modern engine torque control. The goal of this paper is
to provide the readers with the methodology to analyze an
engine (with any combination of actuators) torque transient
control behavior under variations of system parameters and
environmental conditions. In this paper, the requirements for
engine torque control are specified based on vehicle torque
response needs. The main parameters affecting requirements
are specified. Their influence on engine torque control
transient behavior is analyzed using control simulation. It is
also very important to inform the readers of this paper that the
authors are merely showing a methodology used in developing
a torque based control system. This methodology includes a
model-based engine torque control architecture with a set of
calibration tools. This common architecture is applicable to
conventional (fixed cam spark ignition, port fuel injected)
engines as well as the most complex engines (such as those
with independent cam phasing, turbo or supercharging, direct
injection, and active fuel management). The most significant
aspect of this approach is that the engine torque control
architecture is common; hence it is independent of the engine
complexity. A common calibration process and common
software are now possible with this particular control
architecture which offers significant benefits in terms of
production implementation.
ENGINE TORQUE CONTROL ARCHITECTURE
In this section, the authors give an overview of the developed
engine torque control architecture to control an engine with
any combination of actuators. The detailed implementation of
engine torque control is not the subject of this paper. However,
references describing detailed implementation of engine torque
control with various engine configurations are provided. The
authors describe mathematically their method of estimating
and controlling engine torque.
Figure 1 presents the block diagram of engine torque control
architecture. It has two inputs: slow and fast torque requests
(Treq_s and Treq_f). The outputs of the control system are
throttle position (TPS), intake and exhaust cam positions
(ICAM and ECAM), boost actuator (Bp), and spark advance
(S). Primarily, the throttle, intake cam, exhaust cam, and boost
actuators (outputs) are used for slow torque requests, yet for
fast torque requests, spark control is employed.
Throttle(TPS)
Intake
Treq_s Slow Torque Control (ICAM)
Exhaust
(ECAM)
Boost (Bp)
Treq_f Spark (S)
Fast Torque Control
Figure 1 - Engine Torque Control Architecture
One of key elements of the engine torque control is engine
torque estimation. There are many papers and patents
describing torque estimation strategies [10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. In
[14], the authors used the crankshaft speed as the input of
observers which estimate torque. They considered several
engine models with the different level of complexity. In [15]
the two other methods of torque estimation are considered.
The first method utilizes the measured engine block vibration
to reconstruct the in-cylinder pressure. The second method is
based on the difference between the measurement of the
crankshaft velocity and model. However these methods are
computationally intensive and require a powerful electronic
engine control module, not available for production-intended
automotive application in the near future. Besides, they do not
consider cylinder air rate, spark advance and other important
variables as inputs needed for engine torque control. An
alternative to the above approaches using crankshaft speed
reconstruction is a strategy utilizing main control parameters
affecting an engine torque.
In Bosch control system [3], indicated torque calculation is
based on the major variables such as relative cylinder charge,
air to fuel ratio and ignition timing. The engine losses caused
by the gas exchange and friction are calculated separately. In
[10] the combination of physical and regression models are
used to compute an engine torque based on Wiebe function.
The regression method is used to approximate physical
equations describing torque production [17] as a function of
system sensitivities in [11, 12, 13].
The torque based system has the following requirements for
the engine torque estimation model:
- Torque model must be invertible (i.e., for a given
engine torque, control inputs such as the desired
cylinder air rate and spark advance can be computed).
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
- Torque model must be scaleable (i.e., new actuators
used in future engine torque control systems can be
added with minimum changes in the software and
calibration process).
- Torque model must be accurate (i.e., it meets
particular drivability and fuel economy requirements).
The regression based model is easy to invert and expand. The
right choice of model order is an enabler to satisfy the
accuracy requirements. Furthermore, the engine torque model
calibration is directly obtained from the regression model
without additional development.
An engine torque model may be represented in the either of the
following forms:
­ gas engine. This drives the need for sensitivity functions which
° f A ( R, A, ICAM , ECAM , S , AF , E %, AFM , Toil , B)
°
Tbr = ® or
° f P ( R, P, ICAM , ECAM , S , AF , E %, AFM , Toil , B)
° function of cam position for a given speed and load. Equations
¯ 2-3 and 2-4 are still valid, and furthermore the sensitivity
In equation 2-1, Tbr is engine brake torque, R is engine RPM,
A is cylinder air rate, P is manifold pressure, AF is air to fuel
ratio, E% is percentage of ethanol in fuel, AFM is indicating
cylinder deactivation mode, Toil is an engine oil temperature,
B is barometric pressure. The functions fA and fp are cylinder
air rate and manifold pressure based torque models,
respectively.
For torque control derivation, one can assume that the engine
operates under normal ambient pressure and temperature.
Also, it is assumed that AFM is disabled and intake and
exhaust cam phasing positions are fixed. The torque equations
can be reduced to:
­ f A (R, A, S )
° Treq _ s − bs * S − bR
Tbr = ® or
° f p ( R, P, S )
¯
In particular, the manifold pressure based torque model may
be presented:
. equation to compute desired throttle area.
Tbr = f p ( R , P, S ) =
a p ( R ) * P + a s ( R) * S + a R ( R )
For this model, the coefficients (ap, aS, aR) are the torque
sensitivities corresponding to changes in manifold pressure,
spark advance, and offset, respectively.
Cylinder air rate based torque model may be presented:
.
Tbr = f A ( R, A, S ) =
(2-4)
bA ( R) * A + bs ( R) * S + bR ( R )
For this model, the coefficients (bA, b5, bR) are the torque
sensitivities corresponding to the change in cylinder air rate,
spark advance, and offset, respectively.
Equations 2-3 and 2-4 are valid for any gas engine. Hence, any
new actuator, any new actuator combination, or engine
operation mode (such as for ethanol fuel) may be included
easily in the engine torque control architecture. In general,
with each additional actuator to an engine torque control
system (or changing an engine operation mode such as for
ethanol fuel use) usually requires that a new sensitivity
function be computed. Further, an engine with ethanol fuel has
very different combustion properties as compared to a regular
are specific to a given fuel type (E85 vs. conventional fuel).
For example, an engine with dual equal cam phasers, the
relationship between cylinder air rate and spark advance is a
(2-1) ( )
functions a p , as , aR , bA , bs , bR will be functions of RPM
and intake position (i.e., ap = f(R, ICAM)). In the case of dual
independent cam phasers, the sensitivity functions will be
functions of RPM, intake, and exhaust phaser positions (i.e., ap
= f(R, ICAM, ECAM)). The sensitivity function is increased by
one degree of freedom.
Each engine torque model is strategically used in the engine
torque control scheme. One is based on manifold pressure and
the other is based on cylinder air rate may be used for torque
security system. The main cylinder air rate based model is
compared with manifold pressure based model to determine if
abnormal torque requests or behaviors are present in the
control system. Cylinder air rate based torque model is used to
compute desired cylinder air rate (DA) based on desired slow
torque request as shown in the following equation.
(2-2) DA = f (Treq _ s , R, S ) = (2-5)
bA
Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) module transforms desired
cylinder air rate into throttle position using compressible flow
(2-3)
DA ⋅ R ⋅ Rm * Tamb
Area = (2-6)
§P·
k ⋅ B ⋅ Φ¨ ¸
©B¹
In Equation (2-6),Rm and Tamb are universal gas constant
and ambient air temperature. Air density factor Φ is a
function of pressure ratio across throttle plate. The coefficient
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
k is depending on numbers of engine cylinders and unit
conversion. Conversion of desired throttle area to desired
throttle position is non linear. The desired throttle area
equation (2-6) has two internal feedbacks delaying engine
torque response – manifold pressure and engine speed. The
manifold pressure rise will be defined by intake manifold
pressure time constant. Manifold pressure is a dominant factor
in delaying an engine torque response. Hence, desired
manifold pressure is used in engine torque control system
instead of measured pressure. Desired manifold pressure (DP)
can be computed [7] by using equation (2-3) which describing
manifold pressure based torque model.
Treq _ s − as * S − aR
DP = f (Treq _ s , R, S ) =
aP
Figure 2 shows the block diagram of slow engine torque
control system [8]. One of elements of this architecture is an
inverse transformation of torque to desired pressure and
desired cylinder air rate. The first order polynomial torque
model presented here is readily invertible. Of course, the
accuracy of this model can be improved by using second order
polynomial model. The inverse of the second-order model is
more difficult to obtain because it involves solving a function
with squared parameters in order to compute the desired
manifold pressure and desired cylinder air rate. In this paper, a
first order model is presented for the sake of simplicity.
However, a second-order model is used in the control system
implementation.
Manifold
RPM
Boost
DP Control
Pressure Base
Treq_s Inverse Torque
+ PI +
- + Model
Tcorr
Throttle
Test Control
Cylinder
Air Rate Base
Inverse Torque
Model DA
CAM Phaser
Control
RPM
Figure 2 – Slow Engine Torque Control Architecture
Cam phaser control system consists of two main functions.
First main function is the steady state intake and exhaust cam
phaser schedules (equations 2-8 and 2-9: f I , f E ) designed
based on dynamometer torque data for engine performance
and emission. The second function is intake and exhaust cam
actuation. For engine torque control analysis, the actuation
may be represented as first order response model.
ICAM = f I ( R, DA)
ECAM = f E ( R, DA)
The engine torque control with turbocharger does not require
any engine torque control structure or engine torque estimation
modifications. Effects of turbocharging are already included in
the air estimation. The bypass is controlled based on the model
of pre-throttle pressure defined by engine speed, desired air
per cylinder and desired manifold pressure. The engine torque
control with turbocharging is described in [16] with details.
The engine torque control with supercharger will require
changes of both torque estimation and control. The friction
torque must include additional losses in supercharger. They
may be calculated as a function of pressure drop across the
throttle and engine speed. In the compressible flow equation
(2-6) desired manifold pressure must be replaced by desired
(2-7) pre-supercharged pressure, which may be calculated as a
function of desired manifold pressure, engine speed, measured
manifold and pre-throttle pressures. The control of super
charger bypass is calculated as a function of desired manifold
pressure, desired air per cylinder and engine speed. The engine
torque control structure with supercharger is described in [9].
Some modern engines use AFM to optimize vehicle fuel
economy. An engine with reduced number of cylinders has
different MBT spark values. Hence, it also has different
relationship between cylinder air rate and spark advance for
given engine torque and speed. Using AFM does not require
any modification of the engine torque control structure, but
different sensitivities in torque model are needed.
To compensate torque errors in the control system, a PI
controller for slow torque request is used. Torque
Bp
compensation or correction Tcorr can be presented as in
equation (2-10). The variables ( Test , k p , ki ) are the
estimated engine torque, proportional gain and integral gain
TPS respectively.
Tcorr = Treq _ s + k p ⋅ (Treq _ s − Test ) + ki * ³ (Treq _ s − Test )dt
ICAM
(2-10)
ECAM
RPM Spark Smax
A Control
+ S
+
Treq_s Cylinder Air Rate dSt
based Inverse +
-
Torque Model
Treq_f Cylinder Air Rate
based Inverse
Torque Model
Figure 3 – Fast Engine Torque Control Architecture
(2-8)
Figure 3 shows the block diagram of fast torque control. If
(2-9) Treq _ s , Treq _ f are equal, spark advance S is equal to
S max (close to MBT). The difference between slow and fast
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
torque requests caused by torque request leads to torque
management spark retard (dSt). The final spark is described in
equation (2-11).
S = S max + dSt
dSt = f A−1 (Treq _ s , R, A) − f A−1 (Treq _ f , R, A)
As it was shown in this paper the relationships between main
engine parameters and torque control are very nonlinear. It is
impossible to design such control system and to analyze its
performance without nonlinear physical powertrain plant
model. In the next section, we will consider a powertrain
model that includes all essential nonlinear elements for torque
control system analysis. An engine with dual equal phaser is
considered in this paper. However as it was shown above the
same control structure may be used to control an engine with
any combination of actuators.
PLANT AND TORQUE CONTROL ALGORITHM
SIMULATION APPROACH
In this section, the engine, transmission, and vehicle plant
models used for the simulation analysis are discussed. Plant
and control interface models are created to translate plant
outputs to ECM (Engine Control Module) equivalent
variables. Key behavioral algorithms (spark controls, cam
phaser controls, etc.) are modeled to provide proper inputs to
drive Torque Control algorithm. Descriptions of Engine
Torque Controls are given in the previous section. Production
intent Engine Torque Control Model created in Simulink is
used in this project. Outputs of the Torque Controls are used to
drive plant model inputs through the interface model. Key
plant and algorithm ECM TCM (Transmission Control
Module) variables are collected in Vehicle to verify the overall
integrated simulation model. Nominal simulation results with
key control variables are verified for key behavior, before
running parameter variation and simulations.
PLANT MODEL DESCRIPTION
The plant models developed are Control-Oriented Models
targeted for embedded controls simulations (Hardware-in-the-
Loop, Software-in-the-Loop, Algorithm Development, Control
Variation Study, etc.). Details of the model equations are
described by the authors in [17]. The engine model is a mean-
value engine model with modulated cylinder-by-cylinder
torque behavior. There were many papers describing the
engine models for powertrain control [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24]. One of the first engine plant models for control design
was developed by Dobner [18]. Many papers [21, 25, 26, 27,
28] describing transmission models including model of torque
converters, transmission mechanical system and drivetrain. In
[21] authors developed powertrain model consisting of engine,
transmission and drivetrain models, and different nonlinear
elements of powertrain models were presented. Even with
wealth of many publications in powertrain modeling area with
conventional spark ignition engines, there are special needs to
accurately model engine air volumetric efficiency and torque
with modern engine actuators (cam phasing, variable valve
timing, AFM, Intake Manifold Tuning (IMTV), etc.).
(2-11) In a modern electronic engine control system, an engine is
presented as a plant with these major inputs: Spark, electronic
controlled throttle, cam phasing (dilution), fuel injection, and
AFM. It has four fundamental outputs: manifold pressure
(MAP), mass air flow (MAF), torque and RPM. The models
described in these papers are nonlinear and physical based,
with mean value key engine behavioral characteristics. Engine
has three major dynamics: manifold filling, torque production,
and crankshaft rotation. The manifold filling time delay is a
function of geometry and other parameters of the engine,
properties of throttle body, and ambient temperature and
pressure. The manifold pressure dynamics are influenced
mainly by incoming throttle flow and outgoing cylinder mass
air flow.
Intake manifold filling dynamics (equation 3-1) is derived
based on Ideal Gas Law and First Law of Thermodynamics, as
first order manifold pressure differential equation. Mass air
flow into the cylinder is based on speed density calculation
[17, 29]. Physics-based and regression-based volumetric
efficiency (Ve) models are developed internally to account for
key actuator input influences (Intake Cam Phaser, Exhaust
Cam Phaser, IMTV, AFM, etc.). These more elaborated Ve
model and equations are needed for accuracy as compared to
traditional table lookup or curve fitting approaches. Ve is
function of engine RPM and MAP in a conventional mean-
value modeling approach.
The engine air flows into the cylinders are important to model
and predict engine torques and air-fuel ratio. Physics-based Ve
is modeled as function of engine RPM, MAP, intake air
temperature, exhaust back pressure, exhaust temperature,
coolant temperature, intake cam phasing angle, exhaust cam
phasing angle. The equations are derived based on energy
conservation and heat transfer with some simplifications.
Matlab based optimization tools are developed to find and
adjust physics-based coefficients with a user selected cost
function (percentage errors or absolute errors). The modeled
Ve is compared with the engine test data in Matlab, and users
can analyze modeling results with Matlab plots. In addition, a
regression-based Ve model is created as extension of
conventional Ve curve fitting. The fitting coefficients are now
multi-dimension table lookups. Matlab tools are developed
similar to Physics-based Ve model.
R ⋅T
Pm = m m (m tps − m cyl ) (3-1)
Vm
Vd ⋅ηvol ⋅ Pm ⋅ N eng
m cyl = (3-2)
120 ⋅ Rm ⋅ Tm
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
Once engine volumetric efficiency [29] is accurately modeled,
the mass flow into the cylinder m cyl can be calculated using
the speed density calculation. The m tps is throttle mass flow
rate into the intake manifold which is calculated by using one
dimensional compressible flow equation [29] as function of
throttle position (effective throttle area) and pressure ratio
across throttle plate. By using equations 3-1 and 3-2, MAP
Pm and APC charge can be calculated.
Torque production is a function of intake manifold pressure,
air mass per cylinder, engine speed, spark advance, barometric
pressure, fuel injection, cam phasing, AFM, and delays
associated with the combustion process. The friction torque
can be modeled as function of RPM, manifold pressure, and
AFM, assuming that the exhaust plenum pressure is small.
The engine brake torque may be written in the following form:
Tbr
= Tind ( N eng , Pm , S , APC , ICAM , ECAM , AFM ) − T fr ( N eng , Pm , AFM )
= Tbr ( N eng , Pm , S , APC, ICAM , ECAM , AFM )
(3-3)
Engine brake torque can be modeled as regression-based
model with barometric pressure correction. Matlab tools for
getting regression coefficients can be obtained by using steady
state dynamometer data. Again, similar to Ve model, Matlab
optimization scripts are developed to optimize torque accuracy
with a torque accuracy cost function defined by using GM
engine torque estimation specification. Engine crankshaft
inertia is assumed to be constant to simplify the simulation
equation. Crankshaft dynamic with varying inertia equation is
available and discussed in [20]. Total engine inertia including
flywheel, damping element, torque converter pump, and
accessory are represented as lumped inertia. Engine net torque
can be calculated with engine brake torque, accessory load
torque, and torque converter load torque from transmission. By
using Newton’s Law for the Engine Crankshaft Speed
Dynamics, engine RPM can be calculated by integrating
engine acceleration (torque divided by inertia). Engine RPM is
used in other part of engine model, and input to transmission
torque converter model.
The transmission model is based on [17]. Transmission
gearbox and corresponding clutch activation hydraulics for
gear shifts can be modeled as in [21, 25, 26, 27, 28]. Usually
the transmission mechanical can be modeled as lever diagram
[26, 27]. Dynamic equations for different operational gears
and during gear shifts can be derived. Hydraulic network for
clutch engagement can be modeled as one-dimension hydraulic
flow equations and clutch pressure to clutch torque
relationship. The model complexity needs depend on the target
of the analysis. For the Engine Torque Control development, it
is determined that the behavioral transmission models like in
[17, 21] are suitable.
Engine is connected to transmission geartrain via a hydraulic
torque converter. In [17], Kotwicki torque converter model
(regression based) is used to determine load torque to the
engine, and input turbine torque to the transmission geartrain.
In this paper, torque static bench spin test data (speed ratio,
torque ratio, etc.) are directly used in Simulink table lookup to
calculate pump load torque and turbine input torque. Torque
converter lockup clutch (TCC) is used in automatic
transmission to bypass torque converter hydraulics to lower
energy loss in the torque converter. Clutch torque is modeled
function of clutch pressure, clutch effective area, clutch
friction coefficient, and clutch slip. Transmission ratios in the
model are determined based on commanded gear from shift
control algorithm, with behavioral shift time delay and shift
time. Detailed of the transmission behavioral model is
described in [17]. Vehicle model used is a one degree-of
freedom (DOF) vehicle dynamic model commonly used for
powertrain control development [17, 21, 25, 26, 27]. Detailed
vehicle dynamic model equations with higher DOF can be
found in [30].
The engine and transmission plant models used for CTC
variation analysis are parameterized for GM High-Value V6
and four speed automatic transmission. The following figures
are model simulation results compared with instrumented
ECM TCM data collected on a development vehicle. The
vehicle data is collected with key maneuvers to cover wide
range of operations for torque control and plant model
simulation verification. Vehicle data is also used to tune the
overall vehicle model transient performance.
The overall powertrain and vehicle Simulink model is
connected with the following input data streams in Matlab
workspace.
Commanded Throttle Percent
Commanded Air Fuel Ratio
Final Spark Advance
Inlet Air Temperature
Commanded Cam Phaser Positions
Commanded TCC Pressure
Transmission Line Pressure
Transmission Commanded Gear
Vehicle Speed in KPH
The following key outputs are collected in Matlab workspace
after the simulation runs.
MAF, g/sec
MAP, kPa
Engine RPM
Engine Torque, Nm
Engine APC, mg
Transmission Input Speed, RPM
Transmission Output Speed, RPM
Figures 4, 5, and 6 show good agreements between data
collected on development vehicle and plant model simulations.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

E ngin e Torque Nm TORQUE CONTROL ALGORITHM SIMULATION

300

P lan t Sim Engine torque control algorithm contains two main

E CM To rq ue
250
subsystems: engine torque estimation and engine torque
control. The engine torque estimation is used because engine
200
torque sensors are not available in production intended
vehicle. Engine torque estimate is calibrated by engine torque
150
calibration engineers, and accuracy is within the engine torque
Nm

error specification. Engine torque estimate is then used as

100
achieved torque, and used to calculate torque errors in
50
reference to desired torque commands. The algorithm
Simulink model is provided by engine torque control algorithm
0
development engineer. The production ECM calibrations are
converted to Matlab format to be used in Simulink. The
50 100 150 2 00 250 algorithm model functionality and key test behavior are similar
Time (S ec ond )
to the model used to autocoded production C code. Vehicle
Figure 4 – Engine Brake Torque Comparison transient tests are conducted to verify torque control algorithm
functionality in PC simulation environment. For the targeted
engine torque variation study, some of the algorithm model
inputs are constant through out the maneuver. These inputs are
M AF g/sec
assigned constant values based on ECM variables collected in
90
P lan t Sim
development vehicle. There are key inputs from other part of
80
E CM MA F
ECM controls: Fuel Controls, Spark Controls, Cam Phaser
Controls, Mass Air Flow and Air Per Cylinder Estimation,
70
Driver Torque Request Controls, etc. Key outputs are desired
60 throttle area to ETC controls, final spark command to Spark
Controls, engine managed (actual torque), and engine
50
unmanaged torque (engine air flow torque without torque
g/se c

40 reduction).
30
Torque Control key variables are collected in the development
20 vehicle similar to the data in plant model section. Several
10
torque request step responses are commanded for generating
test data to verify simulation algorithm model. Figure 7 shows
0
50 100 150 2 00 250 results of a 150 Nm torque request, engine managed torque
Time (S ec ond )
and engine unmanaged torque. During this specific vehicle
Figure 5 – Engine Mass Air Flow Comparison test, transmission gear shifts occur at about 6.5 and 8.5
seconds. The engine torque reductions are requested by TCM
during the gear shifts. Several key closed-loop related torque
control variables within the algorithm model are collected to
MAP kP a
generate plots to compare with vehicle data. Simulation
1 00
P lan t Sim
engineer, algorithm development engineer, and torque control
E CM MA P specialist are working together to make sure torque control
90
algorithm model is functioning correctly, and satisfactory for
80
variation study.

70
kPa

60

50

40

30

20
50 100 150 2 00 2 50
Time (S e c ond )

Figure 6 – Engine Manifold Air Pressure Comparison

 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

algorithm model, AF ratio schedule and Spark controls

180
algorithm models are included to provide appropriate inputs to
160 torque control algorithm. Cam phaser schedules and dynamics,
engine RPM and MAP processing, cylinder air estimation to
140
generate APCs, shift schedules, and ETC models are also
120
included in interface model.

Some of the variation statistics and dynamics are obtained

Nm

100
Requeste d To rqu e
Mana ged Tor que from signal delivery sub-system (SDSS) analysis [31] team.
80 Unmana ged Tor que
These behavioral models derived from SDSS detailed plants
60
are suitable for variation study, and the parameter variations
are added in related model blocks. The key plant model
40 parameter variations and algorithm parameter variations are
chosen, and inserted as percentage or absolute variations to
20
2 3 4 5 6
Time (S e c ond )
7 8 9 10 nominal values in overall simulation model. Potentially, there
are thousands simulation runs required for a particular DOE
Figure 7 – Engine Torque Control Outputs simulation for the study. This drives the requirement that the
overall model shall run on a PC at speeds at least as fast as
real-time.

maf
AF_Ratio 180
maf_tps_gps AFR command
af_command MAF_g/s Spark
Final_Spark_Advance TPS Area
[ctc_throttle] maf_cyl_gps 160
throttle_percent SparkLimitMin
Spark_Minimum
spark_advanceMAF_cyl_g/s map_plant Spark_Unmanaged SpkAdvNoRtds
140
spark_final Trq Req, Nm
map SparkAsCalUnmng
Baro, kPa Spark_Run M ng Trq , Nm
-C- engine_rpm SparkFinal
SparkRun 120
Patm, kPa MAP rpm MAP M AF , g/sec
Tamb
-C- apc_plant MAP M AP , kP a
Engine_RPM trq_unmng 100
Tatm, DegC icam Engine RPM
RPM 50 Driver_Pedal Oil_Temp EngTrqUnmng
ecam TPS Position 80
pedal Baro
final_spark2plant EngOil T
Brake01 trq_brake ICAM
apc
brake Baro 60
grade kph_plant ECAM trq_mng
0 EngTrqActual
ICAM
prtccsig kPa brake_torque apc_desired APC 40
Grade
0 ECAM
IAT
prline kPa prndl DesiredEngTrqFinal
TCC_Pr -C- 20
gear APC_Desired
900 desired gear kph Drive APC
ctc_tps_area ETC_PCT_TPS
Line Pr 0
IAT 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Plant Model Torque Control Model Time (S e c ond )
Plant+Algo Interface
gear kph
[ctc_throttle]

trq_demand
Figure 9 – Torque Control Simulation Results for a 170
1
0.004s+1
Nm Torque Request
Step

Figure 9 shows results for a 170 Nm torque request to the

Figure 8 – Overall Simulation Model for Variation Study overall simulation. Matlab scripts are developed to run the
overall Simulink model (Figure 8) in batch mode. Key
variables are connected to Matlab Workspace blocks to keep
CONTROL INTERFACE AND OVERALL SIMULATION simulation results after each runs. The simulation results are
MODEL FOR VARIATION STUDY saved with variation names and values, key plant model
outputs, and key torque control algorithm variables. The
With plant and algorithm models discussed, an interface model simulation plots are also generated by the scripts and saved as
is needed to complete the overall simulation model. This picture files in corresponding variation analysis folders. By
interface model contains other neighboring engine subsystem using this approach, thousands of simulation runs can be
control algorithms, and translation of plant variables to and executed within just a couple of hours, and results are ready
from torque controls. Figure 8 shows top level of the overall for further transient torque response characterization.
integrated simulations.

Plant Model receives inputs (Fuel, Throttle Percent, Spark, RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA
Intake Cam Phasing Angle, and Exhaust Cam Phasing Angle)
from interface model, and generates closed-loop responses The validated simulation model with its integrated control
(MAF, MAP, RPM, APC, Vehicle Speed) for interface system and plant model is the virtual test bed used in the
algorithm models. Figure 8 shows these key interactions variation studies. A set of key model parameters (complete
among plant, interface, and algorithm models. In interface their tolerance band) were identified by our torque control
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
experts as the most significant sources of system variation with
respect to system response. Namely, those parameters are:
temperature, spark, cam phasing angle, throttle position,
volumetric efficiency, air-fuel ratio, air per cylinder and
barometric pressure. The impact on system performance of
four parameters is presented here: variation due to cam
position, barometric pressure, throttle position, and air per
cylinder. The barometric pressure variation in kPa is added to
plant model input. For cam phaser cam position, the variation
in degree cam angle is added to the plant model. Flow
variation in g/sec is added to throttle flow equation in the
engine model. Air per cylinder is a calculated value based on
mass air flow measurement, and the variation in percent of this
estimate is added in the algorithm model.
Figure 10 – Torque Response Characteristic for Damped
Response Case
A DOE study was conducted where the parameters were
systematically varied (swept) to assess their individual effect
on the torque error response to a step input (in desired torque).
At this stage of system development, neither drivability nor
any other human factor related metrics is considered in
assessing the torque response. In particular, the responses were
evaluated only using metrics used in classical control systems
evaluation for second order systems: steady-state error, rise
time, and over-shoot. These response characteristics are
illustrated in Figure 10. The rise time, overshoot and steady-
state error are computed relative to the steady-state linearity
specification.
RESULTS OF VARIATION STUDY
The four parameters referenced in the previous section were
systematically varied and torque response performance was
evaluated in a DOE based simulation study. A set of
MATLAB scripts were developed to post-process the
simulation results. These scripts produced plots which show
the torque response characteristics (overshoot, rise time, and
steady-state error).
As previously mentioned, step responses to the overall system
model were conducted. The initial torque value is in the
neighborhood of 30 Nm which corresponds to the vehicle
under idle operation. The simulation study consists of three
torque step inputs of 100, 170 and 250 Nm. These steps in
torque represent a small, medium and large engine torque
request, respectively. In each of these cases, the barometric
(atmospheric) pressure is varied ± 20 kPa from the nominal
barometric pressure of 80 kPa. In this work, nominal does not
mean normal operating region, but it represents the analytical
mid-point around which the variation is evaluated. Sweeping
the barometric pressure over this particular range does not
correspond to normal vehicle operation. Yet, the system
developers wanted this wide range for specific analytical
considerations not discussed in this paper (other barometric
variation ranges centered at 64 kPa and 100 kPa were
considered). The system response, for the three distinct torque
steps, to this variation is captured in Figures 11 – 13. Notice
that there is a family of responses curves shown on each
figure. Each trace represents a particular barometric pressure.
Commanded Torque 100 Nm with BARO = 80 kPA ± 20kPA
140
120
Commanded BARO = 100 kPa
Torque
100
Torque (Nm)
BARO = 80 kPa
80
BARO = 60 kPa
60
40
20
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
seconds
Figure 11 – Torque Response 100 Nm with Barometric
pressure swept ± 20 kPa from 80 kPa nominal
Figure 11 represents a small step response in engine torque.
With increasing barometric pressure, the less damped is the
system response. Consequently, with increasing barometric
pressure, over shoot increases and rise time decreases.
Comparing this response with the other higher torque
commands, the system behavior is less damped overall.
A larger commanded torque response (170 Nm command) is
shown in Figure 12. The system response for this command
differs from the previous case. Notice that when the barometric
pressure is lowest, i.e. in the neighborhood of 60 kPa that the
engine and control system cannot generate the commanded
170 Nm. However, when the barometric pressure approaches
the other extreme value of 100 kPa, the system generates an
engine torque in excess of the commanded value. The effect of
the barometric pressure on the steady-state error, percent
overshoot and rise time is depicted in the plots in Figure 13 for
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

250 Nm torque request. The plots show that the rise time pressure ratio, the closer the engine is to saturation with
decreases and overshoot increases, as the barometric pressure respect to power generation.
is swept ±20 kPa from nominal (80 kPa).
Torque Step = 170 Nm with BARO variation

SS error [Nm]
60
170 Nm with BARO = 80 kPA ± 20 kPa
250
BARO = 100 kPa 40

20
200

Commanded 0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Torque
100

Rise Time [sec.] % Overshoot

Torque (Nm)

150

50
BARO = 80 kPa
BARO = 60 kPa 0
100

-50
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
50 0.2

0.15
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Seconds
0.1
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Baromometer [kPa]
Figure 12 – Torque Response 170 Nm with Barometric
pressure swept ± 20 kPa from 80 kPa nominal
Figure 14 – Torque Response Characteristics as functions
of barometric pressure – 170 Nm case
250 Nm with BARO = 80 kPA ± 20 kPa
300

Figure 14 depicts the 170 Nm step torque response

Commanded
characteristics for a barometric pressure sweep of ± 20 kPa
250
Torque

200
starting from 80 kPa. Note that the minimum and maximum
values for the steady-state error, rise time and overshoot can
Torque (Nm)

BARO = 100 kPa

150 be readily obtained from these plots. These particular metrics

BARO = 80 kPa
are summarized for the 170 Nm case and found in Table 1.0.
100 The entries to this table were obtained from a simulation study
BARO = 60 kPa
where the barometric pressure (BARO), air per cylinder
50
(APC), cam phaser position (CAM) and throttle flow (TPS)
were swept over a particular range of interest. As before, the
0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 barometric pressure range was ± 20 kPa from the 80 kPa
Seconds
nominal value. The APC range was ±10% of the nominal
value. The CAM phaser range was ± 8° of the nominal cam
Figure 13 – Torque Response 250 Nm with Barometric phaser position. Finally, the TPS range was ±5g/sec of the
pressure swept ± 20 kPa from 80 kPa nominal nominal throttle flow. These parameter variation ranges were
selected to be representative of the actual tolerance band. This
summary contains just the affect of applying the variation
However for a commanded torque of 250 Nm and the same separately. Combinations of variation were evaluated, but not
barometric pressure variation, the response differs significantly presented here.
from the others. Note that the lighter damping present in the
other two cases is not present here. In fact the response TABLE 1 System Response 170 Nm
appears much more damped and has a response characteristic
that resembles a 1st order system. As in the 170 Nm case, for System Response Characteristic (170 Nm Step)
lower values of barometric pressure, the system can not Steady-State
generate the commanded torque. Similarly, for the larger Variation % Overshoot Rise Time (s) Error (Nm)
values of barometric pressure, the system produces min max min max min max
significantly more torque than the commanded torque. BARO -19.576 56.413 0.106 0.18125 2.660 48.311

Overall, the step responses for the 100, 170 and 250 Nm APC -0.403 8.031 0.250 0.444 4.080 8.709
torque commands produce very different responses when
subject to changes in barometric pressure. As the commanded CAM 6.144 14.900 0.181 0.313 2.596 5.174
torque value increases, the system response is - in general -
more damped. Larger torque request requires a larger desired
TPS 6.067 19.23578 0.163 0.513 2.979 5.902
pressure ratio which in turn requires larger desired throttle
opening. The closer the engine operates to the maximum
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018
From the table, there are several conclusions which can be
drawn. A few are given below:
1. Among all the sources of variation, overshoot, settling time
and rise time are impacted most significantly by barometric
pressure variation.
2. The second leading significant source of variation is from
throttle position input.
3. Negative values of % Overshoot readily show that the
system is torque limited (i.e. the system can’t generate the
amount of torque demanded.).
A true Monte Carlo/Pareto analysis where combinations of
variation are evaluated is one of the next steps in this work.
Since this simulation model runs fast (better than real-time),
parameters affecting the performance can be randomly varied.
Resulting, the correlation between the performance variation
and each of the independent parameters can be made. These
results can be presented as a type of “statistical sensitivity”.
However, understanding the individual effects of the
independent parameters provides insight that can aid the
system developer in many ways.
CONCLUSIONS
The torque based powertrain control system is a main enabler
for rapidly evolving powertrain technologies to improve fuel
efficiency and to lower automotive engine emissions. The
central part of torque based powertrain control system is an
engine torque control. The engine torque control architecture
described in this paper enables us to control an engine with
various combinations of actuators. This paper demonstrates a
methodology to analyze an engine transient torque response
under different environment and system variations. The
developed models of Engine Torque Control and powertrain
system may be easily modified to incorporate various
combinations of engine actuators such as turbocharger,
superchargers, active fuel management, cam phasers and
others. This paper discusses an engine torque response
evaluation criteria and shows responses being different for
different levels of torque requests. It compares the influence of
system and environmental parameters on the engine torque
transient responses. The results of engine torque control
variation analysis are used as requirements for sensors,
actuators and base engine design. They also enable us to
evaluate engine torque control robustness.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to give special thanks to several of their GM
colleagues. They are grateful to Jeff Kaiser and Richard Jess
for the help and advice in both practical implementation of
engine torque control and variation study. For engine plant
model development, the authors would like to thank Dr. Rong
Zhang and Dr. Raymond Turin (GM R&D) in deriving
physics-based air flow volumetric efficiency model and
scripts. Finally, model calibration help from Dr. YoungJoo
Lee and Myrna Sultan are appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. H-M. Streib, R. Leonhard “Hierarchical Control Strategy
for Powertrain Functions,” SAE Paper No. 925052, 1992.
2. Frieder Keller and others, “Electronic System for a Motor
Vehicle,” U.S. Patent No. 5351776, 1994.
3. J. Gerhardt, H. Hönninger and H. Bischof, “A New
Approach to Functional and Software Structure for Engine
Management Systems -BOSCH ME7,” SAE Paper No.
980801, 1998.
4. N.Heintz and others, “An Approach to Torque-Based
Engine Management Systems,” SAE Paper No. 2001-01-
0269, 2001.
5. B. Mencher, H. Jessen, L. Kaiser and J. Gerhardt,
“Preparing for CARTRONIC - Interface and New
Strategies for Torque Coordination and Conversion in a
Spark Ignition Engine-Management System,” SAE Paper
No. 2001-01-0268, 2001.
6. M. Sans, “Generic Integrated PowerTrain Management
IPM Interface as a Standard,” SAE Paper No. 2001-
0101326, 2001.
7. M. Livshiz, S. Chynoweth “Engine Torque Control with
Desired State Estimation”, US patent 6840215B1, 2005
8. M. Livshiz, S. Chynoweth, J. Kaiser, R. Clutz, D. Dibble,
B. Younessi “Coordinated Engine Torque Control”, US
patent 7021282B1, 2006
9. M. Livshiz, S. Chynoweth “Torque Control of
Supercharged Engine”, US Patent 6895946B1, 2005
10. M. Katsumata, Y. Kuroda, A. Ohata “Development of an
Engine Torque Estimation Model: Integration of Physical
and Statistical Combustion Model”, SAE 2007-01-1302
11. N. Amano “Method of Calculating Engine Torque”, US
patent 6704639, 2004
12. M. Livshiz et al “Torque estimation for engine speed
control”, US patent 5577474, 1996
13. M. Livshiz et al “Torque Estimator for Engine Speed and
Torque control”, US patent 6704638, 2004
14. S. Drakunov, G. Rizonni, Y.-Y Wang “On Line
Estimation of Indicated Torque in IC Engines using
Nonlinear Observers”, SAE950840
15. P. Azzoni at al “Engine and Load Torque Estimation with
application to electronic throttle control”, SAE 980795
16. M. Livshiz et al “Torque Control of Turbocharged
Engine”, US Patent Pending-11/531568, Sept. 2006.
17. M. Livshiz, M. Kao, and A. B. Will “Validation and
Calibration Process of Powertrain Model for Engine
Torque Control Development,” SAE 2004-01-0902, 2004
18. D. J. Dobner, “A Mathematical Model for Development
of Dynamic Engine Control”, SAE Paper No. 800054,
1980.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, August 09, 2018

19. J. J. Moskwa and J. K. Hedrick, “Modeling and DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS

Validation of Automotive Engines for Control Algorithm
Development,” ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, AF Air Fuel Ratio
Measurement and Control, Vol. 114, June 1992.
AFM Active Fuel Management
20. M. Kao and J. J. Moskwa, "Turbocharged Diesel Engine
Modeling for Nonlinear Engine Control and State A Cylinder Air Rate
Estimation," ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, APC Air Per Cylinder
Measurement, and Control, Vol. 117, March, 1995.
21. D. Cho and J. K. Hedrick, “Automotive Powertrain B, BARO Barometric Pressure
Modeling for Control,” ASME Journal of Dynamic Bp Boost Actuator Pressure
Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol. 111, December,
DOE Design of Experiment
1989.
22. A. G. Stefanopoulou, J. A. Cook, J. W. Grizzle, and J. S. ECM Engine Control Module
Freudenberg, “Control-Oriented Model of a Dual Equal ECAM Exhaust Cam Phasing Angle, Degree Cam Angle
Variable Cam Timing Spark Ignition Engine,” ASME
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Vol. 120, June, 1998. ETC Electronic Throttle Control
23. R. Turin, J. Mills, S. Fowler, and C. Myers, “Enabling
IMTV Intake Manifold Tuning Valve
Virtual Development for Practical Engine Control,” SAE-
2005-01-0320, 2005. ICAM Intake Cam Phasing Angle, Degree Cam Angle
24. R. Turin, M. Chang, R. Zhang, and O. H. Dagci, “A MAF Intake Manifold Air Flow Rate
Three-Pillar Framework for Model-Based Engine Control
System Development,” SAE-2007-01-1624, 2007. m tps Throttle Air Flow Rate
25. Q. Zheng, K. Srinivasan, and G. Rizzoni, “Dynamic
Modeling and Characterization of Transmission Response m cyl Engine In-Cylinder Air Flow Rate
for Controller Design,” SAE Paper No. 981094, 1998.
26. K. Hebbale and C.-K. Kao, “Adaptive Control of Shifts in MAP, P, Pm Intake Manifold Air Pressure
Automatic Transmissions,” Proceedings of the
MBT Minimum Spark Advance for Best Torque
Symposium on Advanced Automotive Technologies,
DSC-Vol. 56, ASME International Mechanical Rm Gas Constant
Engineering Congress and Exposition, San Francisco,
California, 1995. R, N eng Engine Speed in RPM
27. A. K. Tugcu, K. V. Hebbale, A. A. Alexandridis, and M.
Karmel, “Modeling and Simulation of the Powertrain S Engine Spark Advance
Dynamics of Vehicles Equipped with Automatic SDSS Signal Delivery Sub-System
Transmissions,” Proceedings of ASME Symposium on
Tbr Engine Brake Torque
Simulation of Ground Vehicles and Transportation
Systems, ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Anaheim, Tind Engine Indicated Torque
California, Dec. 1986. Tfr Engine Friction Torque
28. K. Hagiwara, S. Terayama, Y. Takeda, K. Yoda and S.
Suzuki, “The Development and Utilization of Hardware- Toil Engine Oil Temperature
in-the-Loop Simulation for the Development of an TCC Torque Converter Lockup Clutch
Automatic Transmission Control System,” SAE Paper No.
TCM Transmission Control Module
2002-01-1255, 2002.
29. J. B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Tamb Ambient Air Temperature
Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill, 1988.
30. T. D. Gillespie, Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, Tm Intake Air Temperature
Published by SAE, 1992.
31. D. M. Bogden, M. R. Grimes, L. H. Michaels, and R. W. TPS Throttle Position
Amann “Robust Electronic Control System Design Vd Displacement Volume
Requires Signal Delivery Analysis,” 2004-01-0892, 2004
Ve η vol volumetric Efficiency

CONTACT Vm Lumped Intake Manifold Volume

E-mail: Michael.Livshiz@GM.COM