Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

Analysis and Optimization of an Electronic Throttle for Linear Operating Modes

Joöko Deur * , Danijel Pavković * , Nedjeljko Peri ć ** , and Martin Jansz ***

* Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, I. Lu č i ć a 5, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia; Tel. +385-1-6168-372, Fax. +385-1-6168-351, josko.deur@fsb.hr; Tel. +385-1-6168-325, Fax. +385-1-6168-351, danijel.pavkovic@fsb.hr

** Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Unska 3, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia; Tel. +385-1-6129-855, Fax. +385-1-6129-809, nedjeljko.peric@fer.hr

*** Ford Motor Company Ltd., Product Development Europe, Dunton Technical Centre, Laindon, Basildon, Essex SS15 6EE, UK; Tel. +44-1268-40-4821, Fax. +44-1268-40-4796, mjansz@ford.com

Keywords

Automotive components, automotive applications, control, DC machines, motion control, servo drives.

Abstract

Electronic throttles are increasingly being used in automotive systems in order to improve vehicle driveability, fuel economy, and emissions. The paper presents an analysis of the electronic throttle body linear model. The analysis results in simplifications of the process model structure and controller optimization procedure. A method of identification of the simplified process model is outlined. A linear feedback/feedforward throttle position controller is algebraically optimized according to the damping optimum. The linear controller is extended with a gain scheduling algorithm, in order to deal with different process parameters for the regions below and above the limp-home position. The proposed controller represents a core of the overall nonlinear electronic throttle control strategy which also includes friction and limp-home compensators. The designed control system is examined by computer simulation and experiment.

Introduction

Electronic throttle is a DC servo drive which needs to provide precise positioning of the engine throttle plate. The advantages of the electronic throttle compared to the traditional "mechanical throttle" include: (i) possibility of implementation of engine-based vehicle dynamics systems including traction control, and (ii) improvement of vehicle emissions, fuel economy, and driveability.

In comparison with a traditional DC or AC servo drive (see e.g. [1]), the electronic throttle includes some specific design characteristics such as the absence of the inner current control loop, the use of a potentiometer as a position sensor, and the presence of a return spring which constrains the throttle motion. Therefore, the standard servo-controller cascade structure and related design methods [1] cannot be directly applied to the electronic throttle.

An electronic throttle control strategy can generally be divided in two modules: (i) a linear feedback controller extended with a linear feedforward compensator, and (ii) compensators of emphasized nonlinear effects such as friction or limp-home nonlinearity. Design of linear feedback/feedforward controller is considered in this paper, as a part of more comprehensive research activities on development of the overall nonlinear control strategy [2,3]. A PID throttle position controller extended with a linear feedforward term is utilized rather than some more advanced controllers (e.g. those presented in [4,5]), because it is widely used and well-understood in the automotive practice, and is well-fitted to the relatively simple electronic throttle body (process) model. PID controller gain scheduling is applied, in order to adapt the controller to the change of return spring stiffness while the throttle passes through the limp-home position.

An analysis of the linear process model is carried out, with the aim to simplify the process model, process identification procedure, and controller design. An algebraic method of controller design according to the damping optimum [6] is proposed. The behavior of the designed control system is examined by computer simulation and experiment.

Process model

A schematic of the electronic throttle control system is shown in Fig. 1. The system consists of the electronic throttle body, a MOSFET chopper, and a microcontroller system. The electronic throttle body includes a throttle valve which controls the air mass flow into the engine manifold. The throttle valve is driven by a DC drive and constrained by a dual return spring. The return spring returns the throttle into its initial position (so-called limp-home position) in the case of power supply failure, thus enabling the driver to limp the vehicle home. The throttle position is measured by a potentiomenter.

The block diagram of the electronic throttle body+chopper model (the process model) is shown in Fig. 2. The process model consists of the well-known linear model of DC motor [1], and the nonlinear friction and return spring models. The process is in the linear operating mode, if the following two conditions are satisfied:

(i)

(ii)

if the following two conditions are satisfied: (i) (ii) > ∆ ω ⇒ m f =

if the following two conditions are satisfied: (i) (ii) > ∆ ω ⇒ m f =

> ∆

ω

m

f

= ±M

C

> ∆

θ

m

s

= K

s

(no operation in the zero-speed (stiction) region),

K

l

θ (no operation in the limp-home region).

The process is close to the linear operating mode even if the condition (i) is not satisfied (e.g. for the pointing control task), provided that the changes of armature voltage u a are large enough to efficiently overcome stiction (the large signal operating mode).

Fig. 3a shows the linear portion of the process model. The relatively low load torque m L due to air mass flow is omitted in Fig. 3a. The gain K s represents the return spring stiffness coefficient outside the limp-home region. It is usually much larger in the region below the limp-home position (θ < θ LH ) than in the region above the limp-home position [3].

Process analysis

The DC motor armature dynamics is very fast; i.e. the armature time constant T a in Fig. 3a is very small (typically less than 1 ms [3]). Since such a small value of T a is much smaller than the equivalent time constant of the closed-loop system, the armature dynamics may be neglected and represented by the pure armature gain K a (Fig. 3b). If the back electromotive force u emf is referred to the second left- hand summation point in Fig. 3a, it represents a damping path with the equivalent damping coefficient (Fig. 3b)

K

d

= K

a

K K

t

v

.

(1)

Since the damping coefficient K d is much larger than the viscous friction damping b (K d >> b) [10], the coefficient b may also be neglected (cf. Fig. 3b and 3a).

ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY CONTROLLER throttle return θ i gearbox valve spring R a µC u
ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY
CONTROLLER
throttle
return
θ
i
gearbox
valve
spring
R
a
µC
u
M
a
CHOPPER
θ
potentiometer

Fig. 1. Functional scheme of electronic throttle.

K v u emf m L - - u u i m ω θ θ
K
v
u
emf
m
L
-
-
u
u
i
m
ω
θ
θ
a
+
K
a
m
+
1
m
1
m
a
K
K
K
ch
t
l
1+ T s
-
Js + b
s
a
M
m
S
M C
f
ω
+
+
s
m
s
K
l
θ
LH

u, u a , u emf - commanded signal, armature voltage, and back electromotive force; i a - armature current; m m , m s ,m f , m L - motor, spring, friction, and load torque; θ m ,θ - motor and throttle position; ω m - motor speed; K ch - chopper gain; K a , K t , K v - armature, torque, and voltage gain; J - total moment of inertia referred to motor shaft; 1/K l - gear ratio; θ LH - limp-home position; M C , M S - Coulomb and breakaway friction.

Fig. 2. Block diagram of process model.

K v u emf - u u K i m m + a + 1
K
v
u emf
-
u
u
K i
m m
+
a +
1 ω
m
1
θ m
θ
a a
K
K
K ch
l
1+ T s
t Js + b
s
a
-
m
s
K
K
s
l
K K K a v t - u u i m + 1 ω 1
K
K K
a
v
t
-
u
u
i
m
+ 1
ω
1
θ
θ
a
m
m
m
K a
K
K ch
a K
t
l
- Js
s
m
s K
K
s
l
K
K K
a
v
t
-
u
u
i
m
+
1
ω
1
θ
θ
a
a
m
m
m
K a K
K
K ch
t
l
Js
s

b

c

a

Fig. 3. Illustration of simplification of linear process model.

The transfer function of the process model in Fig. 3b is given by

G

p

( ) =

s

θ

(

s

)

=

K

ch

K

a

K K

t

l

 
 

(

 

)

 

Js

2

+

K

 

K K

s

2

u

s

d

s

+

l

.

(2)

If the transfer function (2) has conjugate-complex poles, the process response can be characterized by

undesired weakly-damped oscillations caused by the return spring compliance. However, if the electromotive force-related damping K d is large enough, the poles of transfer function (2) assume real values, and the throttle response oscillations are completely damped. The condition for the aperiodic response is, thus, given by

K d

K

2 K J l s
2
K
J
l
s

.

(3)

In respect to condition (3), the following relation has been found to be valid for the particular electronic throttle body [7,3]:

K d

/

(

K

) 2 K J l s
)
2
K
J
l
s

5.6 = 

1.4

>>

>

1,

1, for

for

θ θ

>

LH

θ θ

<

LH

.

Hence, the process has indeed aperiodic behavior.

If the condition (3) is largely satisfied, i.e. if

K d

>>

K

2 K J l s
2
K
J
l
s

(4)

(5)

(as it is the case for θ > θ LH , Eq. (4)), the damping path in Fig. 3b is so stiff that the influence of return spring compliance to the process dynamic behavior may be neglected. In other words, the return spring feedback path m s (θ) in Fig. 3b may be disconnected, which leads to the simplified process block diagram shown in Fig. 3c. The simplified process has integral+lag behavior described by the transfer function

G

p

( ) =

s

θ

(

s

)

K

p

=

u

(

s

)

(

T

em

s

+

1)

s

,

(6)

where the gain K p and the electromechanical time constant T em are given by

K

=

K

ch

K

l

p K

v

T

em

=

J

K

d

.

,

(7)

(8)

Process identification

A detailed experimental identification of the linear and nonlinear process dynamics is presented in [3].

Identification of linear dynamics includes a multi-step identification method based on the physical

model form, and single-step methods based on the continuous-time and discrete-time input-output model forms. Identification of continuous-time integral+lag type model form (6) is outlined here.

Fig. 4 (dashed lines) shows the experimental response of the throttle speed with respect to step change U of the commanded signal u, for an operating point above the limp-home position (θ > θ LH ). The speed signal is reconstructed by time-differentiation of the measured position signal. According to the model (6), the speed response is described by the first-order lag transfer function G pω (s) = ω(s) / u(s) = sG p (s) = K p /(T em s+1). The process gain is estimated as K p =ω ss / U, where ω ss is the response steady- state value (Fig. 4). Depending on whether the steady-state speed measurement noise is frequent or sporadic (Fig. 4), the steady-state value ω ss is determined as a mean or median value of the steady- state response, respectively. The electromechanical time constant T em is estimated numerically to a value which minimizes the least-squares criterion applied to the measured and predicted speed responses ([3]; Fig. 4).

a

4

3

2

1

0

ω [rad / s] ω ss measurement prediction
ω
[rad / s]
ω
ss
measurement
prediction

0 123456

Normalized time

7

6

4.5

3

1.5

b

0

ω [rad / s] ω ss 0 123456 7
ω
[rad / s]
ω
ss
0
123456
7

Normalized time

Fig. 4. Measured and predicted speed step responses for cases of frequent (a) and sporadic noise (b).

Controller design

The controller is designed with respect to linear operating modes of the process. It is extended with friction and limp-home compensators in [2,7], in order to provide desired (linear-like) behavior of the control system for nonlinear operating modes as well.

Controller structure

The structure of the proposed electronic throttle controller is shown in Fig. 5. The controller consists of a PID feedback controller, a feedforward controller (FFC), and a gain-scheduling algorithm. The PID controller is given in a modified form [8,9], where the proportional (P) and derivative (D) terms act to the measured throttle position signal θ only. The modified PID controller structure (applied to the integral+lag type process model (6)) can provide optimal closed-loop system behavior with respect to both reference and disturbance (e.g. friction or load torque), without the presence of undesired overshoot of the step response with respect to reference θ R [8,9]. The gain-scheduling algorithm adapts the controller parameters to the change of return spring stiffness coefficient while the throttle passes through the limp-home position. The feedforward controller introduces a zero in the closed-loop transfer function, thus resulting in decrease of the response time with respect to reference.

Gain scheduling θ LH - + ∆ LH z −1 [ K T T ]
Gain scheduling
θ LH
-
+
∆ LH
z −1
[
K
T
T
]
R
I
D
z
[
K
T
T
]
R
I
D
reset
integrator
P
u
θ
P
K
R
D
u
+
T
z
−1
D
+
D
K
R
T
z
I
U
FFC
max
u
θ
-
1 − z
− z
-
T
z
I
u
R
F z
ff
+
K
R
1 − z
− z
+
T
z
−1
ff z
F
I

PID controller

θ >θ

LH

θ <θ

LH

Fig. 5. Block diagram of controller.

Optimization of PID controller

The PID controller parameters are determined according to the damping optimum [6,9]. The control system is optimized in the continuous-time domain. For the purpose of quasi-continuous optimization, the discrete-time PID controller in Fig. 5 is replaced with its continuous-time counterpart. Further, the sampler and the zero-order-hold element, as well as the time-differentiator used in the controller derivative term, are approximated with the first-order lag term with the time constant T / 2 (T - sampling time) [9]. These parasitic delays, together with the motor armature delay, are approximately described by an equivalent first-order unity-gain process lag term with the time constant

T T

Σ

=

a

+

T

.

(9)

Adding the parasitic lag term to the transfer function (2) yields the overall process transfer function

with

G

p

(

K

p 2

a

p

1

a

p

2

s

) =

θ

(

s

)

=

K

p 2

(

u s

)

(

T

Σ

s

+

1)(

a

p

2

s

2

+

a

p 1

s

+

1)

,

=

K

ch

K

a

K

t

K K

s

l

=

=

K

d

K

s

K

J

2

l

K

s

K

2

l

,

.

,

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

The corresponding transfer function of the equivalent continuous-time system is

G

c (

s

) =

θ

(

s

)

θ

R

(

s )

=

1

a p

2

T T

Σ

I

s

4

+

(

a p

2

+ a

p

1

T

Σ

T

I

s

3

+

)

(

K

R

K

p

2

T

D

+

a

p

1

+

T

Σ

T

I

s

2

1 + K

+

)

R K

p 2

K

R

K

p 2

K

R

K

p 2

K

R

K

p 2

K

R

K

p 2

T I s + 1

(14)

The fourth-order characteristic polynomial of the damping optimum is defined as [6,9]:

N

(

s

)

= D

3

2

D

2

3

4

D T

4

e

s

4

+ D

2

2

3

D T

3

e

s

3

2

+ D T

2

e

s

2

+ T s +

e

1

.

(15)

Equating the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of transfer function (14) with the corresponding coefficients of characteristic polynomial (15), and rearranging, yields the following equations for the closed-loop equivalent time constant T e , and the controller parameters K R , T I , and T D :

1 T

Σ

T

e

=

K

R

D

=

2

D D

3

4

1

 

a

1

+ T

Σ

T

em

/

T

em

+ T

Σ

K p 2

p 1

D

2

2

2

D T

3

e

K

R K

p 2

T =

I K

1+ K

R

p 2

T

e

,

,

1

 

,

T

D

=

1

  T

   D

+

T

Σ

em

K

R

K

p 2

p

1

2

D T

3

e

a

1

  − T

Σ


.

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

If all the characteristic ratios D 2 , D 3 , and D 4 are set to the optimal value of 0.5, the closed-loop system will have a fast quasi-aperiodic reference step response with overshoot of approx. 6% and risetime t 1 1.8T e [6,9]. The usual requirement on the electronic throttle control system is that the reference step response has an aperiodic form (i.e. no overshoot allowed). The fastest (boundary) aperiodic response is obtained by decreasing the dominant damping ratio D 2 to the value D 2 0.37. Eq. (16) gives the minimum equivalent time constant T e for well-damped response. The time constant T e can be arbitrarily increased above this minimum value, e.g. in order to decrease noise in the commanded signal u.

The above optimization procedure can be repeated for the simplified integral+lag process model (6) extended with the parasitic process lag term with the time constant T Σ . The parasitic time constant T Σ is much less than the electromechanical time constant T em [10]. Therefore, the time constant T Σ may be lumped to the time constant T em , thus preserving the simple integral+lag form of the process model:

G

p

(

s ) =

θ

(

s

)

K

p

u s

(

)

[T

(

em

+

T

Σ

)

s

+

1

]s

.

(20)

Applying the optimization procedure results in the following simple expressions for the controller parameters [10]:

K

* 1 T

em

+ T

Σ

R

=

K

p

D

2

2

2

D T

3

e

,

*

T

I

*

T D

= T

e

,

=

D T 1

2

e

D

T

D T

3

e

Σ

2

em

+ T

 

 

(21)

(22)

,

(23)

where the equivalent time constant T e is chosen to a value greater or equal to that given by Eq. (16).

The use of Eqs. (21)-(23) should be preferred compared to Eqs. (17)-(19), because they have simpler forms and are based on the simple integral+lag process model which is simply identified. These advantages are particularly emphasized for auto-tuning electronic throttle applications. However, Eqs. (21)-(23) are somewhat inaccurate for throttle operations below the limp-home position (θ < θ LH ), because they have been derived based on the assumption of negligible return spring influence. Thus, it would be convenient to correct Eqs. (21)-(23) so that more accurate results according to Eqs. (17)-(19) are obtained. The final relations between the two sets of equations can be expressed as:

K

R

= K

*

R

− ∆K

R

T

I

T

D

=

=

*

T

I

(1

a

)

*

D

T

aT

Σ

,

1 a

,

,

where the coefficients K R and a are given by:

K

a =

 

2

u

 
 

K

s K

l

 

R

=

K

p K

d

=

θ

,

D

2

2

2

D T

3

e

K K

s

2

l

=

D

2

2

D T

3

e

2

K

u

K

d

(

T

em

+

T

Σ

)

T

em

+

T

Σ

p

θ

.

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

The coefficient u / θ = K s K l /(K ch K a K t ) in Eqs. (27) and (28) represents the slope of the process static curve u(θ) [3], which is different for the regions below and above the limp-home position.

Hence, the accurate controller parameters for any operating point can be conveniently calculated by using the simple equations (21)-(23) and the correction formulae (24)-(26), based on the process parameters obtained by simple experimental identifications of integral+lag process dynamics and process static curve.

Optimization of feedforward controller

The feedforward controller introduces a zero (z ff in Fig. 5) in the closed-loop transfer function. This zero should be located near the closed-loop poles, in order to provide compensation of the reference response delay caused by the poles. The zero can be optimized according to the general design method based on the magnitude optimum [11]. This method provides optimal quasi-aperiodic reference step response of the overall closed-loop system, with an overshoot of approximately 5%. The method is modified here in order to meet the requirement for the aperiodic reference step response.

The non-dominant characteristic ratio D 3 is decreased to 0.4 in order to additionally damp the closed- loop system (note that the dominant ratio D 2 has been decreased to 0.37). The feedforward controller zero is then set to the value

z

ff

=

e

2.04

T

/

T

e

.

(29)

This value corresponds to the dominant closed-loop pole, i.e. the zero-pole canceling approach is applied. The filter pole z F (Fig. 5) is set to zero in this paper (the dead-beat feedforward controller).

Gain-scheduling algorithm

Analysis presented in the previous section has implied that the return spring feedback can be neglected for operations above the limp-home position θ LH . The same is not valid for operations below the limp- home position, because the spring is much stiffer in this region. It has been shown in [7] that the particular electronic throttle has 25% larger response time in the region θ <θ LH , if it is optimized for the region θ >θ LH . In order to provide optimal throttle behavior for the both operating regions, it is convenient to change the controller parameters while the throttle passes through the limp-home position. This is achieved by the gain scheduling algorithm illustrated in Fig. 5.

There are two sets of optimal controller parameters, which correspond to the different process parameters in the regions θ <θ LH and θ >θ LH . The actual controller parameters are set to one of predetermined parameter sets, based on the simple relay logic shown in Fig. 5. The relay function includes a hysteresis, in order to avoid chattering of the actual parameters and the commanded signal.

When the actual controller parameters are switched from one to the other parameter set, the commanded signal u changes abruptly. The proportional term u P = K R θ dominantly contributes to the abrupt change of the commanded signal. In order to provide a smooth transition through the limp- home zone, it is proposed to apply a simple integrator-reset intervention [7]

u

I k (k 1) = u (k 1) +

I

[K

R

(k) K

R

(k 1)] (k 1)

θ

,

(30)

where the superscript k on the left-hand side of Eq. (30) denotes that the integrator value calculated in the previous ((k-1)-th) sampling interval is reset in the k-th interval, before it is used to update the controller output in the k-th interval.

Simulation and experimental results

Fig. 6 shows the experimental step responses of the electronic throttle control system for different operating points and different step changes of the position reference. The process practically operates in the linear mode due to relatively large reference steps θ R 10 o (no significant friction influence to the system transients) and θ > θ LH (no limp-home effect). Similar aperiodic responses are observed for all the operating conditions. The settling time t 95% is approx. 115 ms for θ R = 10 o . It is somewhat larger for θ R > 50 o due to the controller saturation effect. Simulation results in Fig. 7 indicate similar settling time of the response with respect to the disturbance (the load step at t = 0.25 s).

Comparative simulation responses shown in Fig. 7 illustrate the possibility of improvement of the control system performance with respect to both reference and disturbance by decreasing the sampling time T. Decrease of the sampling time implies decrease of the control system equivalent time constant T e (see Eqs. (16) and (9)), which results in decrease of the control system response time. However, this possibility of improving the control system performance is limited due to the influence of noise in the measured position signal, which is transferred to the commanded signal u (see experimental results in Fig. 8) and causes transmission (and potentiometer) wear and "loud" operation. The minimum equivalent time constant T e for "quiet" drive operation has been found to be approx. 35 ms, which corresponds to the settling time of approx. 80 ms (Figs. 7 and 8). Additional decrease of the settling time (but only with respect to the reference) to the value of 50 ms is possible by including the feedforward controller (Figs. 7 and 8). In the large signal operating mode (reference step changes θ R > 10 o ), the feedforward controller could not speed-up the reference response due to the controller saturation.

Conclusion

Analysis of the electronic throttle body linear model has shown that this model may be approximated by a simple integral+lag term for operations above the limp-home position. This simplification facilitates process identification and control system design. The PID electronic throttle position controller has been optimized according to the damping optimum, thus resulting in simple algebraic equations for the controller parameters. Simple algebraic corrections of these equations have been proposed, in order to obtain optimal control system behavior for operations below the limp-home position as well. A gain-scheduling algorithm changes the controller parameters while the throttle passes through the limp-home position. The presented controller optimization procedure together with the related identification technique is suitable for the application in auto-tuning electronic throttle strategies.

The behavior of the proposed electronic throttle control system has been verified by computer simulation and experiment. It has been shown that the decrease of sampling time results in faster control system response (higher bandwidth) with respect to both disturbance and reference. However, this possibility of the control system performance improvement is limited by the influence of noise. The response time with respect to reference can additionally be decreased in the small signal operating mode by introducing a simple, lead-lag feedforward controller.

The optimized controller represents a core of an overall nonlinear electronic throttle control strategy [2], which also includes compensation of friction and limp-home nonlinear effects.

Acknowledgment

The support from Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI, USA, and the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia is gratefully acknowledged.

70

60

50

40

30

θ θ , [°] R θ R θ t [s] 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
θ θ
,
[°]
R
θ
R
θ
t [s]
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
θ θ , [°] R 80 70 60 50 40 30 t [s] 0 0.5
θ θ
,
[°]
R
80
70
60
50
40
30
t [s]
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
a
b

Fig. 6. Experimental step responses of control system (T = 5 ms; no feedforward controller (FFC)).

θ[°]

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

u[V]

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

∆ θ = 5° ∆m R L t [s]
∆ θ
= 5°
∆m
R
L
t [s]
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 T = 5ms, w/o FFC T = 2ms, w/o FFC
0 0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
T
= 5ms, w/o FFC
T
= 2ms, w/o FFC
T
= 2ms, w/
FFC
t [s]
0 0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4

Fig. 7. Comparative simulation responses for different controller structures and parameters.

References

36

34

32

30

4

3

2

1

0

θ [°] θ R T = 5ms, w/o FFC T = 2ms, w/o FFC T
θ [°]
θ
R
T
= 5ms, w/o FFC
T
= 2ms, w/o FFC
T
= 2ms, w/
FFC
t [s]
0 0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
u[V]
T = 5ms, w/o FFC
t [s]
0 0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
4 u[V] T = 2ms, w/o FFC 3 2 t [s] 1 0 0 0.05
4
u[V]
T
= 2ms, w/o FFC
3
2
t
[s]
1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
u[V]
4
T
= 2ms, w/
FFC
3
2
t
[s]
1
0
0 0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Fig. 8. Comparative experimental responses for
different controller structures and parameters.

[1]

Leonhard, W.: Control of Electrical Drives, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1985.

[2]

Deur, J., Pavković , D.: Design and Experimental Verification of an Electronic Throttle Control Strategy,

[3]

Internal memorandum 12/15/01, University of Zagreb, Croatia, 2001. Pavković , D., Deur, J.: Experimental Identification of an Electronic Throttle Body, Internal memorandum

[4]

10/27/01, University of Zagreb, Croatia, 2001. Song, J.-B., Byun, K.-S.: Throttle Actuator Control System for Vehicle Traction Control, Mechatronics,

[5]

Vol. 9, pp. 477-495, 1999. Yokoyama, M., Shimizu, K., Okamato, N.: Application of Sliding-Mode Servo Controllers to Electronic

[6]

Throttle Control, Proc. of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 1541-1545, 1998. Naslin, P.: Essentials of Optimal Control, Chap. 2, Iliffe Books Ltd, London, 1968.

[7]

Deur, J., Pavković , D.: Design and Experimental Verification of an Electronic Throttle Control Strategy,

[8]

Internal memorandum 12/15/01, University of Zagreb, Croatia, 2001. Astrˆm, K. J., Wittenmark, B.: Computer Controlled System, Prentice-Hall, London, 1984.

[9]

Deur, J.: Design of linear servosystems using practical optima, Internal memorandum 04/19/2001

(translation of Chap. 3 of Ph. D. Thesis by J. Deur), University of Zagreb, Croatia, 2001. [10] Deur, J., Pavković , D.: Analysis and Optimization of Electronic Throttle Control System, Internal memorandum 03/20/01, University of Zagreb, Croatia, 2001. [11] Deur, J., Peri ć , N., Stajić , D.: Design of Reduced-Order Feedforward Controller, UKACC International Conference on CONTROL '98, pp. 207-212, Swansea, UK, 1998.