2009-01-0951

Closed Loop Pressure Control System Development

for an Automatic Transmission

Quan Zheng, Jeremy Kraenzlein and Eunjoo Hopkins

Delphi Corporation

Robert L. Moses and Bret Olson

General Motors Corporation
Copyright © 2009 SAE International

ABSTRACT The objective of this project is to develop a more

This paper presents the development of a transmission
closed loop pressure control system. The objective of
this system is to improve transmission pressure control
accuracy by employing closed-loop technology. The
control system design includes both feed forward and
feedback control. The feed forward control algorithm
continuously learns solenoid P-I characteristics. The
closed loop feedback control has a conventional PID
control with multi-level gain selections for each control
channel, as well as different operating points. To further
improve the system performance, Robust Optimization is
carried out to determine the optimal set of control
parameters and controller hardware design factors. The
optimized design is verified via an L18 experiment on
spin dynamometer. The design is also tested on vehicle.
INTRODUCTION
Current production transmission control utilizes open-
loop control of solenoid pressure, which requires
investment in hardware characterization and testing.
This initial characterization provides good initial pressure
control quality under normal conditions. However, after
the product goes into market, there is no compensation
for any variations of the desired pressure that may be
caused by factors like part-to-part variation, temperature,
transmission fluid quality, system interaction, or system
degradation over time. The alternative to achieve better
pressure control is to add pressure sensors to the
system and employ closed loop control technology to
improve overall pressure control accuracy.
accurate and robust pressure control system by applying
closed loop controls technology. The system includes a
hydraulic module with pressure control solenoids,
pressure sensors, and a production intent transmission
control module. This control strategy uses both feed
forward and feedback controls. The feed forward control
algorithm does large and slow adjustments of the future
baseline, based on past and current data. The closed
loop feedback control algorithm does fast fine-tune
control in real time. These two algorithms compliment
each other to deliver accurate pressure controls over a
wide range of operating conditions.
The control algorithm is developed by using
Matlab/Simulink/Stateflow and run in a dSPACE
AutoBox. The algorithm is tested on actual transmission
hardware on a spin dynamometer. To further improve
the system performance, a Robust Optimization study is
carried out. The optimized system is installed in a test
vehicle.
This paper describes the details of the system setup,
control strategy development, dynamometer and vehicle
testing results, as well as proposed future improvements
for the control system.
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
The configuration of closed pressure control system is
shown in Figure 1, which consists of a Transmission
Control Module (TCM), pressure control solenoids, and
pressure sensors. In this development system, a
dSPACE rapid algorithm development unit is used in
conjunction with a TCM for the control system design.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the
session organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
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.
ISSN 0148-7191
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.
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
SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org *9-2009-01-0951*
Printed in USA
The TCM sends out pressure command for the solenoid This system is installed in a production transmission,
output pressure. The closed loop pressure control and tested on a transmission spin dynamometer. The
system calculates required solenoid current based on spin dynamometer is controlled by the dSPACE unit.
pressure command, pressure sensor feedback, and The spin dynamometer is capable of hot testing. For
operating conditions. cold testing, the spin dynamometer is rolled into a cold
box.
TCM
Supply
Pressure

Analog to Digital

Conditioning
Conversion

Signal
PSup

TCM Hardware PSolMes

Pressure
Sensor
Pressure
Interface
Sensor
iS

Solenoid Driver
PSolAct

Circuit
SPI

To Control Valve
Sense
Resistor

Figure 1 System Configuration

CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN FEEDFORWARD CONTROLLER DESIGN

Figure 2 shows the closed loop control block diagram. In
this design, both feed forward and feedback control are
employed in the design. The solenoid pressure
command is sent by the TCU. The feed forward
control algorithm dynamically learns the open loop map
lookup for pressure-current (P-I) curves. i_sol_OL is the
open loop solenoid control current. i_sol_CL is the
closed loop solenoid control current. The closed loop
controller provides the closed loop current adjustments.
The current controller delivers the current commanded
by the closed loop controls. Pressure sensor 1
measures the actuator feed pressure, and pressure
sensor 2 measures the solenoid output pressure.
As shown in Figure 2, the control system design uses
both feed forward and feedback control. Feedforward
control employs an innovative real-time learning scheme
to adjust solenoid P-I characteristics for all operating
conditions. This real-time feed forward learning
algorithm works seamlessly with the closed-loop control
algorithm to achieve the desired tracking performance.
The feed forward algorithm works by observing both the
output solenoid current commanded after the effects of
feedback control, and the resulting pressure as observed
through the same sensors that are used for feedback
control. Whenever both of these values stand still long
enough for transient effects to decay, the feed forward
records the pressure and current values as an observed
point in a P-I curve graph.

Pressure
Sensor

Solenoid
Output
Pressure
Pressure
Command Feed forward i_sol OL Current Transmission
Solenoid
Control (open loop) + Controller Solenoid
+
i_sol_CL

Closed Loop Temperature

Controller

+ - Pressure
Sensor

Figure 2: Closed Loop Control Diagram

enough for transient effects to decay, the feed forward
records the pressure and current values as an observed
point in a P-I curve graph.
The feed forward control can also distinguish between
points observed during times of rising pressure versus
points observed during times of falling pressure. When
it has enough points of each type, it uses simple
statistical analysis to understand the hysteresis in that
region of the P-I curve. The algorithm then attempts to
determine the center of the solenoid’s hysteresis curve.
This portion of the feed forward algorithm can assist the
feedback control with compensation for hysteresis,
although the feedback portion of the algorithm retains
primary responsibility for hysteresis.
When the feed forward learning algorithm has observed
enough points in any given current range, it adjusts the
pressure in that range to match the observed pressures
after accounting for any hysteretic effects it can observe.
Figure 3 illustrates the adjustment of P-I curves. The
rate of this adjustment is capped to a maximum
adjustment rate, because an abrupt change could
disrupt the feedback control. The newly adjusted P-I
curve becomes the baseline for feedback control going
forward, as the system also continues to observe new
pressures and currents which will be used for the next
adjustment.
own PID controller with multi-level controller gain
selections, which allows greater flexibility for controller
tuning. Due to the complex nature of the system and
proprietary customer design information, base PID
control gain tunings are carried out on transmission spin
dynamometer. In addition to the conventional PID
controller design, robust optimization technique is
utilized to select the optimal set of controller hardware
and control algorithm calibrations. This is explained in
more detail in the next session.
ROBUST OPTIMIZATION
For this project, robust optimization techniques, as
developed by Genichi Taguchi, are used to determine
the optimal settings for the select controller and system
design parameters. The optimal settings of control
factors will result in the design which comes closest to
achieving the “ideal” function for the closed loop
pressure regulation system, which is: Pactual=Pcommanded,
as shown in Figure 4.
IDEAL FUNCTION
Pa: actual pressure
Pc: commanded pressure
Pa
β=1

Learned P-I curve

Pc
Observed Points
Figure 4: Dynamic Ideal Function

CONTROL FACTORS

Table 1 lists the control factors that are initially

Initial P-I curve considered for the robust design study.

Table 1 Control Factors

Present Commanded
Point
Control Factors Levels
1. KI Gain Calibration 2
2. KP Gain Calibration 3
3. Feed Forward 2
Enabled
Figure 3: Illustration of Feed Forward Learning 4. Sensor Type 2
Algorithm 5. Algorithm Factor 1 3
6. Algorithm Factor 2 3
7. Controller Factor 1 2
FEEDBACK CONTROLLER DESIGN 8. Controller Factor 2 3

Feedback control design adopts the conventional PID

control structure. Each pressure control channel has its
An L18 experimental array is selected based on the
number of factors and levels chosen for evaluation.
NOISE ASSESSMENT
Table 2 lists of noise factors that are initially considered
for the study.
Table 2: List of Potential Noise Factors
variance minimally affected by temperature or speed.
Based on this observation, the L18 experiment is
performed at the most convenient temperature and
speed, and the feed forward parameter is enabled for all
18 runs. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the noise test
results with feed forward enabled.
Variance Plotted by Gear State - Rising - Open Loop

Noise Factors

Ve (kPa^2)
1. Supply Pressure Low Temp
2. Temperature High Temp
3. Transmission Input Speed
4. Solenoid Pressure Command
Direction

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed
High

High

High

High
Low

Low

Low

Low
5. Run-to-Run Variation
6. Aged Fluid Gear State Gear State Gear State Gear State
7. Aged Transmission Hardware 1 2 3 4
(sensors, clutches, etc)
Figure 5: Noise Test, Rising Pressure, Open Loop
To reduce the scope of the project, temperature and
transmission input speed are chosen as the primary
noise factors. The solenoid pressure command direction Variance Plotted by Gear State - Falling - Open Loop
is also included as this information can be derived from
the test profile. To further reduce the test effort,
temperature and transmission input speed can be
Ve (kPa^2)

compounded to extract the widest range of response Low Temp

from the transmission control hardware. A full factorial High Temp
test between temperature and speed is performed to
determine how to combine the noise factors. Table 3
shows the noise assessment test plan. Since a control
Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed
High

High

High

High
Low

Low

Low

Low
system, by design, will eliminate any pressure offsets,
variance is used to assess the noise strategy. Gear State Gear State Gear State Gear State
1 2 3 4
Table 3: Noise Assessment Test Plan
Figure 6: Noise Test, Falling Pressure, Open Loop
Low Speed High Speed
Gear State 1 Gear State 1
Low Gear State 2 Gear State 2
Temp Gear State 3 Gear State 3 Variance Plotted by Gear State - Rising
Gear State 4 Gear State 4 Feed Forward Enabled
Gear State 1 Gear State 1
High Gear State 2 Gear State 2
Ve (kPa^2)

Temp Gear State 3 Gear State 3 Low Temp

Gear State 4 Gear State 4
High Temp

The noise assessment test is performed with an open

loop system, with the following results. A combination of
Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed
High

High

High

High
Low

Low

Low

Low

low speed and high temperature results in the largest

amount of variance in the measured pressure. A Gear State Gear State Gear State Gear State
combination of high speed and high temperature results 1 2 3 4
in the smallest amount of variance. At cold temperature
pressure variance is not significantly affected by input Figure 7: Noise Test, Rising Pressure, Feed Forward
speed. Pressure variance at cold temperature is similar Enabled
to the variance observed during high temperature and
high speed. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the noise test
results with open loop.

The noise assessment test is repeated with just the feed

forward portion of the algorithm activated to determine
its impact. The result of this study shows that pressure
 Variance Plotted by Gear State - Falling
The outer array consists of pressure measurements
Feed Forward Enabled from the last three cycles of the test profile, with the
measurements in the rising direction (“U”) separated
from the measurements in the falling direction (“D”). The
pressure measurements are then used to calculate the
Ve (kPa^2)

Low Temp
signal-to-noise ratio (S/N Ratio). Figure 11 shows the
High Temp
L18 summary for Gear State 4. Figure 12 and Figure
13 show the response plots from cycle 5 of Gear State
4.
Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed

Speed
High

High

High

High
Low

Low

Low

Low
Pressure
Gear State Gear State Gear State Gear State
1 2 3 4

Algorthim Calibration 1

Algorithm Calibration 2
Feed Forward Enabled

Pressure Sensor Type

Controller Factor 1

Controller Factor 2
Figure 8: Noise Test, Falling Pressure, Feed
Forward Enabled

K-P Table
K-I Table

Cycle 3

Cycle 4

Cycle 5
P-DIAGRAM
Run A B C D E F G H U D U D U D
Figure 9 shows the final P-diagram after the noise 1 1 1 Y 1 1 1 1 1
assessment experiments are complete. The only noise 2 1 1 Y 2 2 2 2 2
factor that is considered is solenoid pressure command 3 1 1 Y 2 3 3 1 3
4 1 2 Y 1 2 2 1 3
direction since the test temperature and transmission 5 1 2 Y 2 3 3 1 1
input speed are fixed. 6 1 2 Y 2 1 1 2 2
7 1 3 Y 2 1 3 2 3
8 1 3 Y 2 2 1 1 1
9 1 3 Y 1 3 2 1 2
Control Factors 10 2 1 Y 2 3 2 2 1
K-I Gain Level 11 2 1 Y 1 1 3 1 2
K-P Gain Level 12 2 1 Y 2 2 1 1 3
Sensor Type 13 2 2 Y 2 3 1 1 2
Algorithm Calibration Factor 1 14 2 2 Y 2 1 2 1 3
Algorithm Calibration Factor 2 15 2 2 Y 1 2 3 2 1
Controller Factor 1
16 2 3 Y 2 2 3 1 2
Controller Factor 2
17 2 3 Y 1 3 1 2 3
18 2 3 Y 2 1 2 1 1

Desired Actual
Convert pressure command Pressure, Y
Figure 10: L18 Experimental Layout
Pressure, M
into pressure at solenoid
valve. ROBUST EXPERIMENT RESULTS

RESPONSE TABLE AND GRAPH

Noise Factors
1. Solenoid pressure command direction (Up and
Down)
Figure 9: P-Diagram after Noise Experiments
EXPERIMENT LAYOUT
Figure 10 shows the L18 experimental layout for one
gear state. The layouts for each of the four gear states
are identical. The inner array consists of Columns A-H.
Also shown in the figure is the number of levels
assigned to each factor. As previous discussed, Column
C – Feed Forward Enabled, is fixed at “Y” (Yes).
From the response plots of S/N shown in Figure 12, the
best performing combination of factor levels for Gear
State 4 will be A2, B3, D2, E1, F2, and H2. For factor G,
there is a conflict between the results from the rising
pressure direction and the falling pressure direction.
Since the impact is small for both directions, the optimal
choice can be decided based on considerations such as
cost or design simplicity.
The response plots of are shown in Figure 13. The
results show that the closed loop pressure control
system achieves the commanded pressure regardless of
the factor level choice. It is interesting to note that
response plots show the effect of hysteresis.
 S/N

Algorithm Calibration 1

Algorithm Calibration 2
Feedforward Enabled

Controller Factor 1

Controller Factor 2
Sensor Type
K-P Table
K-I Table

Cycle 3

Cycle 3

Cycle 4

Cycle 4

Cycle 5

Cycle 5
Run A B C D E F G H U D U D U D
1 1 1 Y 1 1 1 1 1 -23.17 -23.34 -23.04 -23.39 -23.29 -23.69
2 1 1 Y 2 2 2 2 2 -24.20 -22.58 -23.32 -21.99 -23.39 -21.98
3 1 1 Y 2 3 3 1 3 -24.68 -23.05 -24.76 -22.75 -25.33 -23.79
4 1 2 Y 1 2 2 1 3 -22.71 -24.49 -22.28 -24.08 -22.26 -24.17
5 1 2 Y 2 3 3 1 1 -22.40 -22.57 -22.56 -22.23 -22.63 -22.22
6 1 2 Y 2 1 1 2 2 -22.60 -21.44 -23.36 -22.02 -22.40 -21.44
7 1 3 Y 2 1 3 2 3 -21.82 -21.81 -21.85 -21.51 -21.65 -21.78
8 1 3 Y 2 2 1 1 1 -21.90 -21.31 -21.37 -20.96 -21.72 -21.13
9 1 3 Y 1 3 2 1 2 -21.97 -21.11 -21.96 -21.32 -22.10 -21.32
10 2 1 Y 2 3 2 2 1 -22.07 -22.19 -22.18 -22.25 -22.18 -22.19
11 2 1 Y 1 1 3 1 2 -21.78 -22.63 -21.32 -22.73 -21.83 -22.17
12 2 1 Y 2 2 1 1 3 -21.75 -23.43 -22.42 -22.58 -23.65 -23.53
13 2 2 Y 2 3 1 1 2 -21.02 -21.68 -21.42 -22.04 -21.42 -22.26
14 2 2 Y 2 1 2 1 3 -22.14 -21.10 -22.19 -21.35 -22.33 -20.82
15 2 2 Y 1 2 3 2 1 -23.17 -21.55 -21.68 -21.89 -23.24 -22.31
16 2 3 Y 2 2 3 1 2 -21.11 -20.66 -21.15 -21.18 -21.08 -21.06
17 2 3 Y 1 3 1 2 3 -22.18 -21.37 -21.79 -21.43 -21.95 -21.93
18 2 3 Y 2 1 2 1 1 -20.81 -20.80 -21.05 -20.56 -20.88 -20.82

Figure 11: L18 Summary for Gear State 4

S/N Ratio - Rising Dire ction

-20
B1
B2
B3

D1
D2

E1
E2
E3

F1
F2
F3

G1
G2

H1
H2
H3
A1
A2

-21
S/N

-22

-23

-24

S/N Ratio - Falling Dire ction

-20
B1
B2
B3

D1
D2

E1
E2
E3

F1
F2
F3

G1
G2

H1
H2
H3
A1
A2

-21
S/N

-22

-23

-24

Figure 12: Response Graphs of S/N Ratio – Gear State 4

 - Rising Dire ction

1.10

1.05

S/N
1.00

0.95

0.90

B1
B2
B3

D1
D2

E1
E2
E3

F1
F2
F3

G1
G2

H1
H2
H3
A1
A2
- Falling Dire ction

1.1

1.1
S/N

1.0

1.0

0.9 B1
B2
B3

D1
D2

E1
E2
E3

F1
F2
F3

G1
G2

H1
H2
H3
A1
A2

Figure 13: Response Graph of - Gear State 4

CONFIRMATION RESULTS
Table 4 shows the results of confirmation testing for all
four gear states. Baseline in this case is the
combination of factors that results the most economical
system in terms of both cost and process efficiency. It
should be noted that not all of the gear states show
equal levels of predictability. Part of the reason is the
placement choice of some of the pressure sensors.
Figure 14 shows the partial step test results for open
loop system, the “worst” closed loop system and the
optimal closed loop system. The “worst” closed loop
system here refers to the worst case of closed loop test
case based on robust experiment. It is still a valid closed
loop design. The comparison clearly shows the closed
loop system delivers much better performance in terms
of tracking accuracy. The optimal closed loop design
gives the best overall tracking performance.

Table 4: Confirmation Results

Gear Control Factors Rising Falling

State 1 A B D E F G H Predicted Actual Diff Predicted Actual Diff
Optimal 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 -16.57 -19.29 2.72 -15.75 -18.56 2.80
Baseline 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 -21.74 -20.78 -0.95 -20.22 -20.21 -0.01
Worst 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 -26.43 -21.69 -4.74 -25.35 -20.94 -4.40

Gear Control Factors Rising Falling

State 2 A B D E F G H Predicted Actual Diff Predicted Actual Diff
Optimal 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 -16.52 -16.64 0.11 -16.57 -17.00 0.43
Baseline 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 -18.86 -18.80 -0.06 -18.47 -18.24 -0.23
Worst 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 -21.41 -21.00 -0.40 -20.45 -20.17 -0.28

Gear Control Factors Rising Falling

State 3 A B D E F G H Predicted Actual Diff Predicted Actual Diff
Optimal 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 -17.85 -17.97 0.12 -17.35 -18.76 1.41
Baseline 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 -19.72 -21.43 1.71 -21.05 -21.39 0.34
Worst 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 -23.38 -22.12 -1.26 -24.00 -22.27 -1.72

Gear Control Factors Rising Falling

State 4 A B D E F G H Predicted Actual Diff Predicted Actual Diff
Optimal 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 -20.96 -21.28 0.32 -20.61 -21.21 0.60
Baseline 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 -21.90 -21.85 -0.06 -21.51 -21.86 0.35
Worst 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 -24.37 -23.86 -0.51 -24.23 -22.89 -1.34
 Figure 14: Test Result Comparison

Figure 15 shows the comparison of pressure tracking
errors for open loop, feed forward control only and
closed loop system. The figure shows results from
multiple cycles. Figure 15(a) and 15(b) show the error
comparison for the rising and falling directions
respectively. Open loop error has different levels, which
represent the errors for different command levels. As
.
shown in the figure, open loop system has the biggest
tracking error as expected. The feed forward control
alone brings the tracking error to a much smaller and
consistent levels. The closed loop control system
delivers the best performance, i.e. the smallest tracking
errors.

Solenoid 2 Error - Rising

250

225

200

175

150
Error - KPa

125

100

75

50
CLOSED LOOP FF Only OPEN LOOP
25

-25

-50
yc 10
yc 11

2
yc 13
yc 14
15

yc 10
yc 11
yc 12

3
yc 14
15

0
yc 11
yc 12

3
yc 14
15
yc 1
yc 2
yc 3
yc 4
yc 5
yc 6
yc 7

C cle 8
9

yc 1
yc 2
yc 3
yc 4
yc 5
yc 6
yc 7

C ycl 8
C le 9

yc 1
yc 2
yc 3
yc 4
yc 5
yc 6
yc 7
y 8

C le 9
yc 1

yc 1

yc 1

yc 1
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le

C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
yc e

C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C cle
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
le

C le
C le
C le
C le
le

C le
C le
C le
C le
le
yc

yc

yc
y
yc

yc
C

(a)
 Solenoid 2 Error - Falling

250

225

200

175

150
Error - KPa

125

100

75
CLOSED LOOP FF Only
50
OPEN LOOP
25

0
-25

-50
yc 10
yc 11

2
yc 13
yc 14
15

yc 10
yc 11
yc 12

3
yc 14
15

0
yc 11
yc 12

3
yc 14
15
yc 1
yc 2
yc 3
yc 4
yc 5
yc 6
yc 7

C cle 8
9

yc 1
yc 2
yc 3
yc 4
yc 5
yc 6
yc 7

C ycl 8
C le 9

yc 1
yc 2
yc 3
yc 4
yc 5
yc 6
yc 7
y 8

C le 9
yc 1

yc 1

yc 1

yc 1
C le
C le
C le

C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
yc e

C le
C le
C le
C le

C le
C cle
C le
C le

C le
C le
C le

C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
C le
le

C le
C le
C le
C le
le

C le
C e
C le
C le
le
yc

yc
yc

l
y
yc

yc
C

C
(b)

Figure 15: Tracking Error Comparison for Closed Loop, Feed Forward Control Only and Open Loop Systems

VEHICLE TEST RESULTS

The closed loop pressure control system is installed in a commanded pressures closely. Figure 17 shows the
test vehicle. Figure 16 shows the closed loop pressure pressure tracking results during high throttle upshifts and
tracking during 1-2-3 low to medium throttle upshifts. As downshifts. As shown in the figure, the actual pressure
shown in the figure, both oncoming and offgoing clutch tracks the commanded pressure throughout the whole
solenoid pressures follow their corresponding range.

1->2 shift

2->3 shift

Figure 16: DPRS Vehicle Test Result: 1-2 and 2-3 Upshifts (Low-Medium Throttle)
 Figure 17: Vehicle Test Result: Upshift (High Throttle) and Downshifts
CONCLUSION
A closed loop pressure control system is developed for
an automatic transmission. The control system design
employs both feed forward and feedback controls. The
dynamic feed forward learning algorithm runs real time
and adjusts the solenoid P-I characteristics based on the
learning results. The closed loop algorithm and dynamic
feed forward learning algorithm run seamlessly to
provide accurate tracking performance.
One contribution of this work is to apply Robust
Optimization techniques to optimize controller hardware
and calibration selections. The optimized design is
confirmed by L18 robust experiment carried out on spin
dynamometer. Finally, the optimized design is tested in
vehicle.
This paper presented the complete design process of
the closed loop pressure control system. Future
development includes the fine tuning of the designed
system and making it production ready.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of our
management and our many project team members. In
particular, we would like to thank Lee Nunn and Wade
Roller for build support of test dynamometer and vehicle.
We would also like to thank Randall Dlugoss from
General Motors for vehicle implementation support.
REFERENCES
1. American Supplier Institute, “Robust Engineering”,
Workshop Manuals, 2001
CONTACT
Quan Zheng is a Staff Research Engineer in Delphi
Powertrain Systems. Quan can be reached at:
quan.zheng@delphi.com.
Jeremy Kraenzlein is an Electrical System Engineer in
Delphi Electronics and Safety. Jeremy can be reached
at: Jeremy.J.Kraenzlein@delphi.com.
Eunjoo Hopkins is a Staff Research Engineer in Delphi
Powertrain Systems. Eunjoo can be reached at:
eunjoo.c.hopkins@delphi.com.
Robert (Bob) Moses is a GM Technical Fellow and
engineering group manager for the Advanced Power
Transfer group of General Motors Powertrain. Bob can
be reached at: robert.l.moses@gm.com.
Bret Olson is a Transmission Controls Engineer for the
Advanced Power Transfer group of General Motors
Powertrain. Bret can be reached at bret.olson@gm.com.