Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 23
Author Topic: ME7.9.10 - Understanding the torque model  (Read 30369 times)
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #165 on: April 10, 2018, 11:57:18 AM »

For completeness, 2nd gear log. I also now see looking at all this carefully that I operate very close to the edge of KFMIOP which in stock form goes only to 191%, when boost / RL overshoots I end up behind its edge. So need to fix this too.

I am having so much fun with this Cheesy
Logged
gt-innovation
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +29/-11
Online Online

Posts: 321


« Reply #166 on: April 10, 2018, 12:37:35 PM »

Thanks for the feedback! Yes, the current version is now 2-stage, retard and then shortly after cut through szout_w, with a configurable margin. Good hint on the two values for retard (though right now I have a f(RPM) map for retard, so if LC and NLS have different RPM levels I can achieve the same effect).

Duty cycle for turbo is also now implemented (probably a good idea to have two different ones for LC/NLS?), but not yet tested at all, I still wait for results from a prior version. With load limiting - I can do it, but then I have to return the question to you that you asked me in another thread "why bother?", perhaps in not that strong form Wink How does the ECU insanity in this situation manifest itself? I did not get any ill-effect reports from Teo (yet), so I wonder if it's worth the effort. (And also playing with requested load may effectively mean throttle plate interventions). I have the difficulty here of not being able to test it myself with my own logging and all, so I work half blind - with your support and report of test results from geographically distant places.

My lc/nls function will act also as a traction control algo so even though rlmxs_w didn`t do what i thought it would do back then i kept it.

As for the Nls it does not need any boost regulation.The amount of time needed to shift a gear shouldn`t exceed a certain number (80 to 250ms) otherwise it stops from being a flat shift function.

As for the thread and how you progressed so far i would say "Keep up" posts like this are making everyone better.
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #167 on: April 10, 2018, 01:22:06 PM »

My lc/nls function will act also as a traction control algo so even though rlmxs_w didn`t do what i thought it would do back then i kept it.

Not my intention to go that far, so I leave this part at peace, I hope the factory ASR can do some work for this.

As for the thread and how you progressed so far i would say "Keep up" posts like this are making everyone better.

I am not a pro, nor I intend to be (too late for that), not having to worry about income from this makes things easier, I am happy to see that people are happy.
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #168 on: April 10, 2018, 01:32:30 PM »

Now back to my boost overshooting and throttle interventions. It is more or less clear that I exceeded the DPSRSRSDKU (20kPa) limit of allowable deviation of the actual intake pressure to desired. The ECU takes the minimum of the factor in FPSRSDKU and the offset in DPSRSRSDKU to make this check. Had the factor (1.2) been used in my situation I would be good to go from 220kPa desired to 264 actual, but with the offset the max is 240 which I hit (checked the precise values in the log, they are just above 20kPa difference).

Theory part over, will raise this to a modest 25kPa and see what happens, not sure when though... Also all this rambling does not change the fact that the boost controller sucks.
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #169 on: April 13, 2018, 01:21:57 PM »

Got a very decent result, boost and boost control wise. I increased DPSRSRSDKU to 25kPa, loosened up adaptation ranges for the boost controller (modified DPWGPUSFN from 6kPa to 30kPa, DPWGPUSFX from 30kPa to 50kPa, FKDPWGPUMN from 1.0 to 0.9, FKDPWGPUMX from 1.0 to 1.1, so essentially enabled slope adaptation for higher ranges). Made a couple of warm up pulls and then four 3rd gear pulls with high boost mode, two 2nd gear in high boost, two 3rd gear pulls with factory / normal boost, and checked the high boost onset in the 5th gear. All 3rd high boost pulls have almost identical boost onsets, see the picture, and in general I get repeatable results. No throttle interventions. The lower boost onset lost its spike in 3rd (which I take as a good thing), and it is almost ideal in the 5th.

That's the boost, the fuel needs sorting out and ignition I guess too, not only for my tune, but also for stock. Fuel requests from KFLBTS (despite pre-fueling with LAMFA set to 11.5 AFR) hits as low as 9.2 AFR. Needless to say, this is felt strongly when driving (in fact, the car feels more sluggish with high boost than factory). Sorting this out is no problem, but mounting my Zeitronix contraption is still pending, so I still don't know actuals. With ignition - Teo tells me he notices considerable knock retards on factory calibrations, and looking at the spikes on the actual torque in my logs it's probably the case here too. I need to log knock retards to see what's going on, this is my next step (would be done already, but my logging parameters are hard coded in the bin and my logging app, both have to be fixed).

 
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #170 on: April 13, 2018, 02:44:15 PM »

Just looking at the requested AFRs and my stock KFLBTS KFFDLBTS, DLBTS I blindly estimate I have up to -5 degrees ignition retards. I now got extremely curious, and I will stop speculating until I see the actual data.
Logged
teobolo
Full Member
***

Karma: +6/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« Reply #171 on: April 13, 2018, 03:08:51 PM »

i think it will also help if you raise  PVDEMX & PSREMX(lets say to 300kpa ) ,i assume it will be your next limitation .
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #172 on: April 14, 2018, 02:05:36 AM »

So, there are considerable ignition pulls, up to -6 on stock boost (stock everything in fact), up to -7.5 on high boost. And -2.25 is almost guaranteed, but this is not so bad and does not cause drastic AFR modifications.

Will post logs when I clean them up and look more carefully, but it sounds like KFZW tuning time. .
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #173 on: April 14, 2018, 02:36:46 AM »

Logs attached from all my pulls today. The picture is the living proof of a throttle cut on a stock boost setting. Even though I raised the overshot limit to 25kPa, yet again the ECU managed to hit it  (log shows max of 28kPa) :/ Surprisingly, the boost onset on a high boost 3rd gear pull was now by-the-book (see the picture). So it can as well be boost control adaptation loosening result.



Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #174 on: April 14, 2018, 10:47:17 AM »

Tried with reduced ignition, still strong ignition pulls, even up to 8 degrees with basic factory boost. Still horrible boost onset with overshot on factory boost setting. The boost control slope adaptation parameter that I freed sits at 1.0, which means the adaptation cannot help the boost controller. Ignition pull with higher boost was somewhat better this time, but still seeing -6 and heavily affecting requested AFR. Retards when pulling in 5th through boost onset very reasonable and very nice boost onset. Moreover, since I brought the whole ignition down (I essentially copied one from factory 150hp bin, which is generally lower and did some localised mods), the car felt more sluggish in low / mid range.

Thus my conclusions for today:

1. Nothing will help this bloody boost controller, it cannot even keep the factory stuff in line. prj said so before, now I am signing under this Wink But it does its job, marginally.

2. Either the factory KFZW is way way off (but the values seem very reasonable to me, I think I have seen higher values on other turbo FIRE engines, will have to check that too) or the knock sensor setup / knock control calibration is crap and it picks up false positives. I know the knock control setup is configured differently on 150hp+ versions, but I really can't be bothered now to check it out.

3. Point 2. can be only resolved with steady state dyno and live ignition mods. Don't have the possibility or time to do it any time soon.

I will ponder on this a bit more, but otherwise I think I leave my tune as finished, I now reverted back to stock KFZW and otherwise I like my logs.

Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #175 on: April 15, 2018, 01:25:21 PM »

Did some more ignition experiments and studying of factory maps. No matter what I do I get ignition pulls, and extra fuel from DLBTS and KFFDLBTS. The only way to solve the overfueling is to kill / reduce KFFDLBTS (which BTW adds fuel even when there are no retards). There is big mess with ZW factory calibrations on these engines. I can understand non trivial KFZW changes between two engines with slightly different cams, but I cannot understand (1) 6 degrees of difference in many spots of KFZWOP between my 120hp bin and Esseesse bin. (2) RL axis limit of 191% in KFZWOP on Esseesse. This ECU requests way more than 191% RL and as load increases the (zwopt-zw) starts to seriously drift away. This results in large fuel additions through DLBTS. And yes, KFZWOP is a byte-based map on many bins limiting RL to 191%, but not on the Esseesse bin where it is word based with full RL range. Rambling over. Due to lack of dyno access I decided to leave ZW stock and only brought down KFFDLBTS a bit to get more reasonable fuel requests at high loads.

Also did some experiments with P modifications in the boost PID controller, increasing it makes it worse, decreasing it heavily (only tried heavily so far, following much lower values in some other stock calibrations) does weird things (long amplitude floating, not that surprising perhaps) in some cases, make things better in some other cases, so more experimentation with decreasing is needed.

Finally, Teo tells me the newest version of the LC/NLS works great, but now I have to also review other proposals for extensions given here, before I post anything.
Logged
prj
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +269/-15
Offline Offline

Posts: 3374


« Reply #176 on: April 16, 2018, 02:21:25 AM »

I don't see a single full pull in the csv's. Every pull ends at 4500 rpm? Why???

There is no actual ignition angle in the logs.
There is no actual WGDC in the logs.

Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #177 on: April 16, 2018, 02:59:15 AM »

I don't see a single full pull in the csv's. Every pull ends at 4500 rpm? Why???

Lack of legal possibilities to make a 3rd gear pull to red-line, I could only do it on motorway, but there I cannot stop / slow down to start low. I made a couple of 2nd gear pulls, but they are worthless for proper diagnosis. Also, I was mostly interested in boost onset and mid range behaviour in any case, the boost increase / tune at higher end is marginal (~ +10kPa)

There is no actual ignition angle in the logs.

True, I ended up in this zw tuning mess unwillingly, I planned to leave everything stock there and play with boost only. In midst of all this I added the retards, but forgot zw. I will do it though, good point.

There is no actual WGDC in the logs.

So what is "WG Duty Cycle" then? Did I get something wrong? It is even on the screenshots...
Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #178 on: April 16, 2018, 10:14:32 AM »

I logged zwout, but it still does not answer what's going on with the retards (which this time are very mild compared to what I have seen before, and probably acceptable). Attached log is stock boost (and practically everything else), zwout roughly follows KFZW but is spiked with retards all over the place depending for which cylinder the logger caught it. I do not see anything surprising in zwout values if I factor out the retards (and hence I deemed logging it not crucial). In general, this particular log is probably OK, but one with -6 or -8 pulls is not IMO, and these were happening.

That brings me to another thing - the service on my spark plugs is due (this is planned as soon as parts arrive), and I already had problems with miss-fires in winter on cold starts in -20 temperatures. Last time the plugs were serviced was by an incompetent Fiat dealer, I am now ready to believe I have wrong plugs (will know when I take them out). My knowledge about how knock control reacts to wrong or worn out plugs is non-existent, but perhaps that could be it...

EDIT: It seems I am chasing a ghost, found one parameter in the definition that suggest this magnitude of retards on high load is normal (for this engine). On a 155hp that has overboost setup by factory the parameter WKRMAVOBMX defining max mean knock retard is set to 5.25*, on my bin it says 3.75*. Picked up a couple of random high boost spots in my logs and I do not exceed the 3.75* mean threshold. Besides, overboost wasn't ever cut anywhere, that would show in the requested boost line.

Nevertheless, I find it weird.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 12:30:35 PM by woj » Logged
woj
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #179 on: April 18, 2018, 01:49:12 PM »

The new LC/NLS procedure for t-jet. Files provided for one particular bin (to be found earlier in the thread with the first LC/NLS version). This one has essentially everything I could think of (but not the stuff for automatic gearboxes gt-innovation suggested), refer to parameter descriptions in the XDF file to see how all this works. In short, all is configurable (can switch on/off LC and NLS separately, NLS gear dependence, WGDC, retard (2 stage), CC stalk setup, etc. etc.).

The parameter values are default, they need to be tailored to your needs (for example, Teo reported that for his big turbo -10 retard worked best). Some things have not been tested apart from not bricking the ECU (but again, I cannot even guarantee that). That is - CC stalk setup has not been tested by anyone (due to lack of thereof), and turbo DC functionality either (but that was a trivial addition).

Source file added for reviewing, it has grown to a size and complexity that guarantee bugs.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 23
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.023 seconds with 17 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0s, 0q)