This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Effects of Differential Pressure Sensor Gauge-Lines and Measurement Accuracy on Low Pressure EGR Estimation Error in SI Engines
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published March 28, 2017 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
Low Pressure (LP) Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) promises fuel economy benefits at high loads in turbocharged SI engines as it allows better combustion phasing and reduces the need for fuel enrichment. Precise estimation and control of in-cylinder EGR concentration is crucial to avoiding misfire. Unfortunately, EGR flow rate estimation using an orifice model based on the EGR valve ΔP measurement can be challenging given pressure pulsations, flow reversal and the inherently low pressure differentials across the EGR valve. Using a GT-Power model of a 1.6 L GDI turbocharged engine with LP-EGR, this study investigates the effects of the ΔP sensor gauge-line lengths and measurement noise on LP-EGR estimation accuracy. Gauge-lines can be necessary to protect the ΔP sensor from high exhaust temperatures, but unfortunately can produce acoustic resonance and distort the ΔP signal measured by the sensor. With 30 cm gauge-lines, the lower bound on EGR valve ΔP required to maintain the EGR estimation error within ±1% increases from 4 to 10 kPa which is detrimental to engine efficiency. This paper proposes an extension of a lumped parameter model to correct for the gauge-line distortion of the ΔP signal. This correction lowers the ΔP bound back to 4 kPa. Low pass filtering is required before the differentiation of the noisy ΔP signal within the lumped parameter modeling. Filtering with the appropriate cut-off frequency maintains the ΔP lower bound despite the gauge-lines. Furthermore, a ΔP sensor with the appropriate response mimics the flow inertial lag, and further reduces the ΔP bound to 1, 1.7 and 3 kPa for ΔP sensor accuracies of ±0.1, ±0.25 and ±0.5 kPa respectively.
|Technical Paper||EGR Systems Evaluation in Turbocharged Engines|
|Technical Paper||Improving Transient Torque Response for Boosted Engines with VCT and EGR|
|Journal Article||Impact of Fuel Sensitivity (RON-MON) on Engine Efficiency|
CitationKiwan, R., Stefanopoulou, A., Martz, J., Surnilla, G. et al., "Effects of Differential Pressure Sensor Gauge-Lines and Measurement Accuracy on Low Pressure EGR Estimation Error in SI Engines," SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-0531, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0531.
- Teodosio, L., De Bellis, V., and Bozza, F., "Fuel Economy Improvement and Knock Tendency Reduction of a Downsized Turbocharged Engine at Full Load Operations through a Low-Pressure EGR System," SAE Int. J. Engines 8(4):1508–1519, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-1244.
- Potteau, S., Lutz, P., Leroux, S., Moroz, S. ., "Cooled EGR for a Turbo SI Engine to Reduce Knocking and Fuel Consumption," SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-3978, 2007, doi:10.4271/2007-01-3978.
- Alger, T., Chauvet, T., and Dimitrova, Z., "Synergies between High EGR Operation and GDI Systems," SAE Int. J. Engines 1(1):101–114, 2009, doi:10.4271/2008-01-0134.
- Hoepke, B., Jannsen, S., Kasseris, E., and Cheng, W., "EGR Effects on Boosted SI Engine Operation and Knock Integral Correlation," SAE Int. J. Engines 5(2):547–559, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-0707.
- Zhong, L., Musial, M., Reese, R., and Black, G., "EGR Systems Evaluation in Turbocharged Engines," SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-0936, 2013, doi:10.4271/2013-01-0936.
- Heywood, J. B. Internal combustion engine fundamentals. Mcgraw-Hill New York, 1988.
- Azzoni, P., Minelli, G., Moro, D., and Serra, G., "A Model for EGR Mass Flow Rate Estimation," SAE Technical Paper 970030, 1997, doi:10.4271/970030.
- Liu, F. and Pfeiffer, J., "Estimation Algorithms for Low Pressure Cooled EGR in Spark-Ignition Engines," SAE Int. J. Engines 8(4):1652–1659, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-1620.
- Brewbaker, T. “Multivariable diesel low-pressure EGR controller designed by input-output linearization.” In “American Control Conference (ACC), 2015,” pages 31–37. 2015. doi:10.1109/ACC.2015.7170707.
- Pachner, D. and Beran, J., "Comparison of Sensor Sets for Real-Time EGR Flow Estimation," SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1064, 2016, doi:10.4271/2016-01-1064.
- Liu, F., Pfeiffer, J., Caudle, R., Marshall, P. ., "Low Pressure Cooled EGR Transient Estimation and Measurement for an Turbocharged SI Engine," SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-0618, 2016, doi:10.4271/2016-01-0618.
- Kiwan, R., Stefanopoulou, A. G., Martz, J., Surnilla, G., . “Effects of Differential Pressure Measurement Characteristics on Low Pressure-EGR Estimation Error in SI-Engines.” IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(11):722–729, 2016.
- Nagao, F. and Ikegami, M. “Errors of an indicator due to a connecting passage.” Bulletin of JSME, 8(29):98–108, 1965.
- McKee, R. “Pulsation Effects on Orifice Metering Considering Primary and Secondary Elements.” Proc. of the 22nd Gulf Coast Measurements Short Course, pages 112–118, 1989.
- Botros, K., Jungowski, W., and Petela, G. “Gauge line effects and DP transmitter response to flow pulsation through orifice plate.” Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 3(3):130–144, 1992.