Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2004-01-1264

Simulation-Based Engine Calibration:

Tools, Techniques, and Applications
Eric Rask and Mark Sellnau
Delphi Research Labs

Reprinted From: Variable Valve Actuation 2004

(SP-1829)

2004 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 8-11, 2004

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

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
Fax: 724-772-4891
Tel: 724-772-4028

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISBN 0-7680-1319-4
Copyright © 2004 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, Friday, August 10, 2018
Simulation-Based Engine Calibration:
Tools, Techniques, and Applications
Copyright © 2004 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Calibration of engine management systems requires
considerable engineering resources during the
development of modern engines. Traditional calibration
methods use a combination of engine dynamometer and
vehicle testing, but pressure to reduce powertrain
development cost and time is driving development of
more advanced calibration techniques. In addition,
future engines will feature new technology, such as
variable valve actuation, that is necessary to improve
fuel economy, performance, and emissions. This
introduces a greater level of system complexity and
greatly increases test requirements to achieve
successful calibrations.
To address these problems, new simulation tools and
procedures have been developed within Delphi to rapidly
generate optimized calibration maps. The objective of
the work is to reduce calibration effort while fully
realizing the potential benefit from advanced engine
technology. The procedure utilizes GT Power engine
simulation software and engine models validated
through limited dynamometer testing.
A front end to GT Power was written to automatically call
GT Power executables and produce the calibration
dataset. Several methods were used to accelerate the
simulation process. Calibrations are optimized using an
additional software tool that includes a weighted-
optimization scheme. User-defined constraints may be
applied during optimization for cam phaser position,
combustion dilute limits, exhaust temperature or any
other variable defined in the engine model. The overall
procedure includes vehicle simulation using ADVISOR
to estimate fuel economy and emissions for the drive
cycle.
This paper describes the simulation tools and
procedures, and presents calibration results for a
modern V6 engine equipped with two-step VVA and
intake cam phasing. Preferred two-step switching
schedules and cam phaser position maps are presented.
1
2004-01-1264
Eric Rask and Mark Sellnau
Delphi Research Labs
INTRODUCTION
A variety of variable valve actuation (VVA) systems are
emerging in the marketplace for spark-ignited engines.
These systems may be as simple as variable valve
timing control (VVT) for the intake valves, or may be as
complex as fully flexible valve lift and timing control for
both intake and exhaust. Because of the additional
degrees of freedom (DOF) that these systems present,
calibration complexity of these systems is greatly
increased. For instance, an engine map comprised of
100 operating points with 12-intake valve timing
possibilities may require 1200 points to analyzed.
Whereas the same map with 12 intake and 12 exhaust
valve timings may require 14,400 points to be analyzed.
Further complexity is introduced to the system if variable
valve lift (VVL), variable intake manifold (VIM), port
throttling (PDA), exhaust gas recirculation (EGR),
variable nozzle turbochargers (VNT), or combinations of
these, are employed.
Conventional calibration methods rely on dynamometer
mapping and transient vehicle testing to arrive at a
powertrain calibration in a manner that is generally
considered somewhat of an art. However, as powertrain
complexity is increased, the calibration process, its
duration, and its cost; grow exponentially with the
number of DOF. Even for relatively simple systems,
achievement of optimized calibrations may become
impractical to accomplish.
There are several ways that powertrain calibration and
optimization problems have been approached in recent
years. Many of these techniques deal with statistical
methods such as Design of Experiments (DOE)[1-8] and
Response Surface Modeling (RSM)[9], or use of artificial
neural networks (ANN)[10,11,12]. The goal of these
techniques is to significantly decrease dynamometer test
requirements by generating mathematical models of the
engine outputs using a smaller subset of dynamometer
tests. Once these mathematical models have been
determined, the calibration maps can be optimized using
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018
techniques such as “simulated annealing” [13] or other
“gradient procedures” [4,9,11].
Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) tools have recently
been applied to simulate and optimize calibrations of
advanced powertrains. Simulation-based calibration
(SBC) has been enabled by improvements in simulation
software as well as continuous advancements in
computing technology, but complex interactions between
the engine, engine control unit (ECU), and the vehicle
make this a challenging modeling task. Burk, Jacquelin,
and Wakeman [14,15,16] used 1-D cycle simulation
(WAVE) [17] and i-Sight [13] to develop a calibration
methodology for spark-ignited engines with cam
phasers. Edwards et al. [18] used 1-D cycle simulation
with DOE to study feasibility of a Miller Cycle on a
heavy-duty turbo-charged truck engine. Osborne [19,20]
applied 1-D cycle simulation in co-simulation with
Matlab Simulink [21] to analytically calibrate a medium-
duty, turbo-charged diesel engine.
The objective of the current work is to develop a
methodology for simulation-based calibration in an
automated software tool. Results from the work include
1) methods to significantly accelerate 1-D cycle
simulation for rapid grid data collection, and 2) efficient
optimization methods for large engine datasets. These
methods were integrated into an efficient, user-friendly
Figure 1. Methodology for Simulation-Based Calibration (SBC)
2
software tool, and applied to calibration of a modern V6
engine equipped with two-step valve lift control and
intake cam phasing.
METHODOLOGY
The overall methodology for simulation-based calibration
is shown in Figure 1. As a first step, engine
dynamometer pretesting is necessary to develop and
validate the engine model. Pretesting is a relatively
limited exercise but is important to achieve a high fidelity
engine model. The engine model is then processed
using a front end to the 1-D cycle simulation, which is
designed to rapidly and automatically produce the
calibration dataset. GT Power software [22] was used
exclusively in this work. Once the calibration dataset is
generated, optimization is conducted in two steps. The
phaser schedule optimizer (PSO) parses the calibration
dataset for each cam profile per the specified
optimization criteria. The cam schedule optimizer (CSO)
then compares results for each cam profile. The result
is optimized values of cam lift and timing over the
operating map. The optimized calibration is then
processed in ADVISOR [23] to estimate fuel economy
and NOx emissions for the specified vehicle model and
drive cycle.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

Application of user-defined constraints in the ENGINE SIMULATION TOOLS

optimization process is a vital utility of the tool.
Application of constraints is needed to provide realistic
limitations on engine components, such as cam phasers.
Another important constraint for spark-ignited engines is
combustion dilute limits. The front end employs a “flame
speed correlation method” [24] to estimate combustion
dilute limits.
The overall procedure can be used iteratively to study
the impact of engine calibration on fuel economy and
emissions before actual vehicle testing. For example,
cam phaser default positions and authority are key
component design parameters for many advanced
engines. Yet, the impact of phaser default and authority
on fuel economy, emissions, and performance is very
difficult to determine experimentally. Using SBC, a
range of optimization constraints for cam phasers (for
example) may be specified during calibration
optimization. In this way, the functional relationship
between phaser design specifications and vehicle fuel
economy and emissions can be predicted. Similar
relationships between phaser design and vehicle
performance may also be determined.
Another use of SBC is for optimization of the calibration
map for sometimes conflicting optimization objectives.
This necessitates simultaneous optimization for two or
more optimization criteria or parameters. For example,
a 60 percent weighting factor could be specified to
maximize fuel economy, while a 40 percent weighting
factor could be specified to minimize NOx emissions.
Used iteratively in a parameter study, the loss function
between fuel economy and NOx, for instance, can be
determined. Many interesting scenario studies can be
easily performed using one calibration dataset. A more
detailed description of simulation-based calibration tools
and procedures may be found in the following
paragraphs.
Front End Description
An important step in SBC is the generation of the
calibration database (see Figure 1). This is a complex
task due to the immense volume of data that must be
simulated and recorded. As a means to improve the
efficiency and accuracy of this process, a front end was
developed to automate the simulation execution and
data collection process. The front end was written using
Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications [25] and linked to
Microsoft Excel [26], Matlab, and GT Power to transition
seamlessly from an input spreadsheet, that defines the
operating grid, to formatted simulation output data.
Automation of simulation execution also enables
subsequent automation of the calibration optimization
process. For background information about the front
end, see reference [24].
The general flow of the SBC approach used in this work
is to complete an intake valve opening timing (IVO)
sweep for a given intake cam profile, exhaust cam
profile, exhaust valve opening timing (EVO), and desired
set of engine speed-load points. This “single profile-
EVO” at a time procedure allows some optimization to
be completed while other profiles-EVOs are being
simulated. With this approach in mind, the input
spreadsheet was split into three sections: Engine Setup,
IVO Array, and Speed-Load Array. An example
spreadsheet can be seen below in Figure 2. In the
Engine Setup section, the user inputs the engine and
friction files, cam profiles, EVOs, spark retard, valvetrain
follower types, and output filename. The IVO Array
contains the range of IVO values to be simulated.
Similarly, the Speed/Load Array consists of the desired
brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) values for each
desired engine speed.

Interpolator Setup File

Engine File C:\VVA_EMR\Engines\3.5L V6 DICP Model(24Feb3).dat Spark Retard 0
Int 1 Profile C:\VVA_EMR\cams\TK6Nv1_7.0.prn Int Follower r
Int 2 Profile C:\VVA_EMR\cams\TK6Nv1_7.0.prn Exh Follower r
Ext 1 Profile C:\VVA_EMR\cams\Line6Pexh_9.51.prn Save GPX (y/n) n
Ext 2 Profile C:\VVA_EMR\cams\Line6Pexh_9.51.prn
Friction File C:\VVA_EMR\Friction\V6 Friction Finder(5Aug02).xls
Exh 1 Opening 125 Engine Setup Speed/Load
Exh 2 Opening
Save File As
125
V6 7PCM
Array
IVO (CAD)(L=0) Engine Speed (RPM) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2000
280 Load Range (kPa) (BMEP or NMEP) 100 100 100 100 100 100
285 200 200 200 200 200 200
290 300 300 300 300 300 300
295 400 400 400 400 400 400
300 500 500 500 500 500 500
305 600 600 600 600 600 600
310 700 700 700 700 700 700
315 IVO Array 800 800 800 800 800 800
320 900 900 900 900 900 900
325 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
330 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200
335
340
345
350
355
360

Figure 2. Input Spreadsheet for the Front End.

3
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018
Single IVO
and RPM
Input Throttle
Spreadsheet Hook
Figure 3. Calculation Process Used in Front End.
The simulation is started by specifying the input
worksheet (file) and executing the macros. The data is
processed in two steps: the Throttle Sweep phase and
the Final Interpolate/Output phase. The general flow of
the process is shown in Figure 3.
At each speed and IVO combination a throttle sweep is
run to generate the simulation output over the range of
desired loads. Once the throttle sweep phase has been
completed for every speed and IVO combination, the
Final Interpolate/Output phase accesses this raw data
and processes it to be used in the calibration database.
The whole process is then repeated for different profiles
and EVO values using a different input spreadsheet.
Within this process there are a few noteworthy features,
which significantly accelerate generation of the
calibration database. These features are discussed in
the following sections.
1000
800
BMEP (kPa)
600
400
200
0
0 20
Throttle Diameter (mm)
Figure 4. Example of Throttle Response Curve Generated with the Front End.
All Profiles/EVO
Simulated
All IVO/RPM (N)
Simulated Final
Calibration
Interpolate/
Database
(Y) Output
(Y)
(N)
Throttle and Output Interpolation
Throttle hooks are performed for the entire range of
desired loads for each IVO and RPM combination. This
processing order allows the use of interpolation to speed
up the throttle iteration process. In conventional
simulation, the throttle is iterated at each point to
converge on the desired load. This technique has fairly
high overhead since all iterations are forgotten once the
desired value has been reached. By applying the
Matlab PCHIP (piece-wise cubic hermite interpolating
polynomial) to the throttle sweep as it collects data, the
throttle response curve for a given IVO/RPM
combination can be reasonably estimated. With this
estimated response curve, the proper throttle values can
be estimated much more quickly. Experience has
shown that the number of simulation calls may be
reduced about 2.8 times relative to conventional
methods for a throttle sweep with eight desired loads. A
typical throttle response curve is shown in Figure 4.
40 60 80
4
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018
Interpolation has also been employed to calculate the
output values from the raw throttle sweep data. Within
the throttle sweep, a +/- 5-kPa tolerance is used. It has
been found that engine output data within these ranges
can be acceptably interpolated (less than 1% error)
using the PCHIP function. This relatively loose
tolerance allows the desired throttle responses to be
determined quickly. Both of these interpolation
techniques significantly reduce the simulation time of a
calibration database while insignificantly reducing
accuracy.
Simulation Restrictions (Real Time)
The inclusion of real-time simulation restrictions during
simulation also enables significant timesavings. These
restrictions observe the current dilution and laminar
flame speed during simulation convergence and stop the
simulation and throttle sweep if these quantities are
exceed acceptable ranges. This allows a significant
amount of unnecessary simulations to be skipped. For
example, at low engine speeds, many very advanced
IVO values have very low laminar flame speeds and
high dilution values. The real-time restrictions would
skip these unrealistic points, which are also very
computationally intensive.
To use these constraints in the throttle sweep format, a
subtle processing order rule was implemented. The
throttle sweep must start with the highest load values
and go to the lower load values. This is done since the
dilution will increase and laminar flame speed will
decrease with any further throttle reduction. Using this
approach, a large number of unnecessary simulations
may be skipped without skipping the useful operating
points. These restrictions are an efficient way to ensure
the majority of the simulation time is spent on creating
realistic calibration data.
Limitations of Methodology
Given proper simulation procedures and model
validation, these techniques provide an efficient and cost
effective supplement to traditional calibration techniques.
However, the methodology does have some limitations.
The current work uses steady state simulation to
address steady state calibration issues and does not
treat transient, cold start, or engine warm-up
phenomenon. The method could be extended to
address transient effects by use of co-simulation.
The quality of the analysis is limited by the fidelity and
accuracy of the engine model and simulation tool. For
example, current modeling techniques are lacking in
terms of hydrocarbon emissions (HC) predictive
capability. Also, the engine model has to contain
enough physical representation to be sensitive to engine
control and actuator changes, and also quantitatively
predict sensor signals as inputs to the controller.
Therefore, it is crucial to have a high fidelity validated
engine model as well as an engine pretest that spans a
meaningful range of operating conditions.
5
OPTIMIZATION TOOLS
Phasing Schedule Optimizer
Once the data creation process has been completed, the
next task is to find the optimal phasing schedule for each
point on the operating map. This task involves
optimization of one or more quantities subject to design
and operating constraints. The design constraints used
are the intake and exhaust phaser authority, the intake
and exhaust phaser default positions, and the minimum
RPM for intake and exhaust phaser operation. The
operating constraints are selectable from all simulation
output parameters.
The Phasing Schedule Optimizer (PSO), shown below in
Figure 5, is used to optimize the phasing schedule for
each intake cam profile in an efficient manner. For each
operating point on the engine map, the PSO parses the
calibration dataset and determines the optimal phasing
per the specified optimization criteria. The following
sections discuss the important features of the PSO in
greater depth.
Phaser Restrictions (A):
An optimal VVA strategy will often require a large range
of phasing values over the engine map. This may not be
feasible or may require a more expensive phaser. To
address these issues in the phasing schedule
optimization, the Phaser Restrictions section of the PSO
(see section labeled with an “A”) allows the user to input
the possible phasing ranges for both the intake and
exhaust valves. For example, in the PSO example
shown in Figure 5, the intake and exhaust phasers are
limited to the ranges of 300 to 350 and 105 to 155 crank
degrees, respectively.
Phaser Defaults (B):
In addition to the general range of the phasers, there is
often a minimum speed required to generate enough oil
pressure to actuate the phasers. The Phaser Defaults
section allows the user to input the minimum engine
RPM to enable control for each phaser. At engine
speeds less than the minimum, the default phasing is
used. At speeds greater than the minimum speed, the
optimal phasing is used.
Related Quantity Restrictions (C):
In addition to the phaser constraints, the PSO allows the
user to specify constraints on any other output
parameter from the simulation. These are termed
quantity restrictions. To enable a quantity restriction, the
user selects the quantity, constraint value and the type
of constraint. For example, in Figure 5, the user has
selected to only use phasing possibilities that have
Laminar Flame Speeds greater than 0.45 m/s. Other
examples of quantity restrictions include total charge
dilution, EGR level, and exhaust temperature.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

A C

Figure 5. Input Template for Phaser Schedule Optimizer (PSO)

Figure 6. Input Template for Cam Schedule Optimizer (CSO) Tool

6
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018
Weighted Sorting (D):
As mentioned previously, the main task of the PSO is to
find the optimal phasing schedule for a given set of
optimization criteria. The Weighted Sorting section of
the PSO is where the quantities to be optimized are
specified. Optimization may be performed using any
parameter from the simulation output as well as any
combination of parameters. For example, one might
optimize brake efficiency and NOx emissions with the
relative weights of 0.6 and 0.4, respectively. By
including multiple parameters in the optimization, the
optimization will typically yield a more realistic optimal
phasing that does not greatly sacrifice one quantity for
the sake of slightly improving another.
Cam Schedule Optimizer
Once the optimal phasing schedules for each cam
profile have been determined, the next step to optimize
calibration of a VVA system is to find the optimal cam
profile at each point on the engine map. Using the
output from the PSO, the Cam Schedule Optimizer
(CSO) determines the best overall cam settings from a
given set of optimal phasing maps.
The CSO, shown in Figure 6, only has two inputs for
optimization: Steps Used in Switch Sort, and Switching
Criteria. The Steps Used (section A in Figure 6) allows
the user to specify which cam profiles will be included in
the optimization process. This enables calibration for 2-
Step lift systems or more complicated fully flexible VVA.
The Switching Criteria section is similar to the Weighted
Sorting section of the PSO, and enables optimization to
be carried out using a variety of simulation parameters.
CASE STUDY FOR 2-STEP VVA SYSTEM
The techniques developed in this work were applied to
optimize the calibration of a naturally aspirated, spark-
ignited V6 engine that was equipped with two-step VVA
and intake cam phasing. A description of this engine
may be found in reference [24]. The purpose of this
optimization exercise was to determine which lift profiles
and phaser schedules produce the highest brake
thermal efficiency for the operating map. It was also
necessary to determine where, on the operating map, to
switch between the low-lift cam (LLC) and the high-lift
cam (HLC).
The optimization was performed for engine speeds from
800 to 7000 rpm, and loads from 100 to 900 kPa net
mean effective pressure (NMEP). Table 1 summarizes
the valve lift profiles used, the optimization criteria, and
the constraints applied during the optimization process.
Results of the simulation and optimization process are
shown in Figures 7 through 14. Each figure includes a
dashed line superimposed on the operating map that
indicates the cam profile switch line. The switch line
7
Parameter Values Units
Low Lift Cam Profiles 4, 5, 6, 7 mm
High Lift Cam Profile 10.95 mm
IVO Range 280 to 350 CAD atdcf
Min. RPM for Phaser 800 rev/min
Min. Flame Speed 0.45 m/s
Optimization Criteria Max. Brk Th. Eff. %
Table 1. Parameters Specified for Calibration
Optimization of Two-Step VVA System.
represents the ideal boundary between operation on the
LLC and operation on the HLC. For discussion
purposes, only the results for a LLC of 4mm and the
HLC of 10.95mm are presented. While results are
exemplary for LLC of 4mm, improved results for other
LLC may be achieved [24].
As shown in Figure 7 for IVO, the procedure determined
that the LLC (4mm profile) would generally be used only
for loads less than 500 to 600 kPa NMEP. The data in
Figure 7 shows that the intake phaser is mildly advanced
for operation on the LLC, but may be advanced to as
much as 280 to 290 CAD for operation on the HLC. The
close spacing of contour lines around the switch line
indicates that the cam phaser must move quickly during
transitions from the LLC (4mm) to the HLC. This
highlights possible transient issues in the calibration
during switch transitions.
MAP for the operating map is shown in Figure 9. The
data shows a large operating region below the switch
line for which MAP is greater than 90 kPa. This
indicates significant unthrottling of the engine occurs
during operation on the LLC.
Figure 13 shows the reduction of pumping mean
effective pressure (PMEP) for the engine with two-step
valve lift control compared to the baseline engine with
conventional fixed cams. For a large portion of the
region below the switch line, PMEP is reduced up to 80
or 90 percent, indicating that two-step lift control can be
effective in reducing gas exchange losses. The impact
of this PMEP reduction on brake thermal efficiency
(BTE) is shown in Figure 14. As expected, the largest
BTE improvement occurs at the lowest loads. At 200-
kPa load, between 1000 and 2000 rpm, the data shows
that BTE was improved over 16 percent relative to the
conventional fixed-cam baseline.
Overall, use of simulation-based calibration has been
shown to be an effective tool to generate base
calibrations for modern engines equipped with VVA
systems.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

Intake Valve Opening (CAD atdcf)

Switch
Line

Figure 7. Intake Valve Opening Timing for the Operating Map

Spark Timing (CAD atdcf)

Figure 8. Spark Timing for the Operating Map

MAP (kPa)

Figure 9. Manifold Absolute Pressure for the Operating Map

8
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

Total Dilution (%)

Figure 10. Total Charge Dilution for the Operating Map

Net Thermal Efficiency (%)

Figure 11. Net Thermal Efficiency for the Operating Map

BSNOx (g/kW-Hr)

Figure 12. Brake Specific Oxides of Nitrogen for the Operating Map

9
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

Pumping Work Reduction (%)

S witch
Line

Figure 13. Pumping Work Reduction Relative to the Fixed-Cam Engine for the Operating Map

BTE Improvement (%)

Figure 14. Improvement of Brake Thermal Efficiency for the Operating Map

10
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Simulation tools have been developed to rapidly
generate and optimize calibration maps for complex
powertrain systems. The work essentially creates a
“virtual dynamometer”, and can be used to supplement
other automated online calibration techniques. The
focus of this work was to accelerate generation of the
calibration dataset. Due to the highly nonlinear behavior
of engine operating characteristics, it is believed that
large databases may be necessary to achieve accurate
calibration maps. It is hypothesized that future
advances in computer technology will enable this “virtual
dyno” technique to produce a large grid of accurate data
without a large time issue. Additionally, many
computers can be run in parallel to also enhance the
speed of simulation. Although the current work focuses
on generation of large calibration databases, it may also
be combined with DOE techniques for further efficiency
improvements to the overall process.
These simulation and optimization tools have been
applied to generate an optimized base calibration for a
naturally aspirated, spark-ignited, V6 engine equipped
with a two-step VVA system and intake cam phasing.
The methodology can be used to investigate a wide
variety of engine operating strategies in a
comprehensive manner.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Mr. Jim Niemeier of the
Delphi Valvetrain Product Team, Mr. Gary Abusamra of
the Delphi Forward EMS Team, and Dr. Mark Krage of
Delphi Research Labs for their support and guidance
over the course of this work.
CONTACT
For additional information,
Mark Sellnau
mark.sellnau@delphiauto.com
Delphi Research Labs
51786 Shelby Parkway
Shelby Twp., MI 48315
Eric Rask
erask@umich.edu
College of Engineering
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
REFERENCES
1. Seabrook, J., et al., “Applications of Advanced
Modeling Methods in Engine Development,” Paper
No. C606/028/2002 IMECHE 2002.
11
2. Raynaud, Y., et al., “Application of Adaptive Online
DOE Techniques for Engine ECU Calibration,” 2002
IMECHE Conference on Statistics and Analytical
Methods in Automotive Engineering.
3. Stuhler, H., et al., “Automated Model-Based GDI
Engine Calibration Adaptive Online DOE Approach,”
SAE Paper 2002-01-0708, 2002.
4. Roepke, K., and Fischer, M., “Efficient Layout and
Calibration of Variable Valve Trains,” SAE Paper
2001-0668, 2001.
5. Ward, M.C., et al., “Bayesian Statistics in Engine
Mapping,” Paper No. C606/020/2002, IMECH E,
2002.
6. Accelerated Powertrain Calibration with DOE, AVL
FOCUS Magazine, 1/03, pg 30,31, May 2003.
7. Butler, K., “Virtual Partner; Automotive Powertrain
Calibration Finally Becomes a Virtual Reality”,
Engine Technology International, Issue 2/03, 2003.
8. Haines, S. N. M., et al., “The Application of an
Automatic Calibration Optimization Tool to Direct-
Injection Diesels”, Statistics for Engine Optimization,
Professional Engineering Publishing Ltd, London,
2000.
9. Stinstra, E., et al., “Design Optimization: Some
Pitfalls and Their Remedies,” Centre for Quantitative
Methods, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
10. Lowe, D., et al., “Validation of Neural Networks in
Automotive Engine Calibration,” Artificial Neural
Networks, 7-9July, 1997. Conference Publication
No. 440, IEE, 1997.
11. Mitterer, A., and Zuber-Goos, F., “Model-Based
Optimisation – a New Approach Towards Increasing
Efficiency in Control-Unit Calibration,” ATZ 102,
(2000) 3.
12. Meyer, S., and Greff, A., “New Calibration Methods
and Control Systems with Artificial Neural
Networks,” SAE Paper 2002-01-1147, 2002.
13. i-SIGHT Version 6, Engenious Software Manual,
2001.
14. Burk, R., Jacquelin, F., and Wakeman, R., “Using
Co-Simulation Methods to Establish Variable Valve
Actuation Hardware Specifications and Control
Strategies,” Paper No. 2001-ICE-427, ICE-Vol. 37-3,
2001, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
2001.
15. Jacquelin, F., Burk, R., and Wakeman, R., “Cam
Phaser Actuation Rate Performance Impact on Fuel
Consumption and NOx Emissions Over the FTP-75
Drive Cycle,” SAE Paper 2003-01-0023, 2003.
16. Burk, R., et al., “A Contribution to Predictive Engine
Calibration based on Vehicle Drive Cycle
Performance,” SAE Paper 2003-01-0225.
17. WAVE Users Manual, Ricardo Consulting
Engineers, 2002.
18. Edwards, S.P., et al., “The Role of Statistics in the
Engine Development Process,” Statistics for Engine
Optimization, Professional Engineering Publications,
Ltd, London, 2000.
19. Osborne, R., “Concurrent WAVE/Matlab Simulink
Simulation Applied to HSDI Diesel ECU Calibration,”
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Friday, August 10, 2018

Proceedings of the Fourth Ricardo Software

International User Conference, Detroit, March 1999.
20. Osborne, R.P., “Total Vehicle System CAE Modeling
Applied to Electronically Controlled Diesel Engine
ECU Calibration,” Paper C587/004/2000, IMechE,
2000.
21. MATLAB Version 6 Users Manual, The Math Works,
Inc., 2001.
22. GT Power Software, Version 5.2, Gamma
Technologies, Inc, Westmont, Illinois, June 2002.
23. ADVISOR 3.2, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Advanced Vehicle Simulator Program,
2002.
24. Sellnau, M., and Rask, E., “Two-Step Variable Valve
Actuation for Fuel Economy, Performance and
Emissions,” SAE Paper 2003-01-0029, 2003.
25. Microsoft Visual Basic for Windows 2000, Microsoft
Corporation, 2002.
26. Microsoft Excel for Windows 2000, Microsoft
Corporation, 2002.

NOMENCLATURE

ANN Artificial Neural Networks

ATDCf After Top Dead Center Firing
BMEP Brake Mean Effective Pressure
CAD Crank Angle Degrees
CAE Computer Aided Engineering
CSO Cam Schedule Optimizer
DOE Design of Experiments
DOF Degrees of Freedom
ECP Exhaust Cam Phaser
ECU Engine Control Unit
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation
EVO Exhaust Valve Opening
GA Genetic Algorithms
HC Hydrocarbon Emissions
HLC High-Lift Cam Profile
ICP Intake Cam Phaser
IVO Intake Valve Opening
LLC Low-Lift Cam Profile
NMEP Net Mean Effective Pressure
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions
RPM Revolutions per Minute
PCHIP Piece-wise Cubic Hermite Interpolation
Polynomial
PDA Port Deactivation
PMEP Pumping Mean Effective Pressure
PSO Phaser Schedule Optimizer
RPM Revolutions per Minute
RSM Response Surface Modeling
SBC Simulation-Based Optimization
VIM Variable Intake Manifold
VNT Variable Nozzle Turbocharger
VVL Variable Valve Lift
VVT Variable Valve Timing
VVA Variable Valve Actuation

12