CLL - Minimum lockout parameters & LTFT table setup

[cappo_nz]

Is there any plan to introduce minimum lockouts for the CLL? I would like it to not run in overrun conditions, for example, which would be best achieved by having a minimum TPS or minimum MAP value for CLL operation.

Having a function to auto-set the LTFT axes to match the primary fuel table would be awesome too, and make correcting the primary table from the LTFT table much easier.

G4X AtomX V1.

[Adamw]

You can just put zeros in your 3D trim limit tables where you dont want CLL to operate.  

5 hours ago, cappo_nz said:

Having a function to auto-set the LTFT axes to match the primary fuel table would be awesome too

Not possible as the LTFT table uses a GP table which has a max cell count of 16 x 11, whereas the main fuel table cell count is 22 x 20.  If your Fuel table is 16 x 11 or less then you can use the import/export tool to copy it to the LTFT to get the same axes.

[RyanG]

On 12/29/2022 at 4:28 PM, Adamw said:

You can just put zeros in your 3D trim limit tables where you dont want CLL to operate.  

Same could be said for max rpm and map lockouts though. Feel like an additional minimum map lockout is a neat option and a good reminder during initial setup to make sure it doesn't operate under decel if you don't want it to. When I first looked at CLL I didn't use a 3D trim limit table and forgot about decel. Surely some people would like to be able to just run a simple trim limit value (not 3D), but also have it deactivate under decel? I guess it's irrelevant once the overrun fuel cut is active because a % change of zero is still zero (or the ecu is smart enough to know a cut is active so CLL is disabled).

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, gorto88 said:

or the ecu is smart enough to know a cut is active so CLL is disabled

CLL is disabled when any cut is active

[castillaricardo]

Sorry to bring this thread back, but I'm experiencing an issue with CLL causing small lean spikes after a decel and was looking for minimum lockouts, negative TPS delta lockouts, or some method of fixing these with the current settings.

Sometimes when getting back on the throttle after a decel that didn't engage fuel cut CLL goes to its min clamp and causes a lean spike that makes the car stumble. I do disable CLL during overrun using the 3D tables, but the transition from a disabled cell to a regular cell seem to be the issue. I've added a log and current tune to my shared drive in case you have any suggestions on how to fix these with the current settings. I had made some changes to the tune the car had before I came across this thread. I can take another log tomorrow if that's an issue.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Amu_1gWOWFlvgU7puVEb17N_nLLm?e=sc7hCW

Any chance the minimum lockouts could be reconsidered? Having a negative tps delta lockout that forces CLL to wait for the reactivation delay would help with some of my events.

Thank you,

Ricardo

[Adamw]

Have you tried TPS as the load axis on your trim limit tables?  I would have thought if you zeroed at something like <1% TP when above say 2000RPM would take care of all overrun conditions.

[castillaricardo]

Yes, the tune I had loaded during that log used TPS as the load axis for the trim tables with 0 and 0.5 as the first two break points. One of the changes I made was to MGP as the axis, and I also lowered the TPS delta lockout from 10 to 6.5. Do you think TPS as the load is the better choice?

[castillaricardo]

@Adamw the changes I made helped quite a bit but the issue is still here. I forgot to mention that when I notice this the most is when I don’t close the throttle fully. So for instance going from 20% to %4 then up to 10% throttle, like when throttle steering in an uphill corner. If you have any other pointers I would really appreciate it

[RyanG]

I assumed the TPS/MAP delta limits would've been absolute values, but they're not. I'm using 3D trim limit tables with MGP vs RPM, but having issues when I back off the throttle and it takes a few tenths to drop below -75kpa/idle to where the trim limits are zero for over-run.

Any tips on how to avoid spikes in the CLL control after large negative TPS delta values, while also maintaining a trim limit table based on MGP?

I also noticed I have some sharp spikes of -43 to -44% for a split second when backing off. My trim limit tables have a max of -7% at idle (and less at WOT) so not sure where it's coming from. The CLL status also says "max clamp" in these situations, which is odd.

I've reconfigured my trim limit tables to be MGP vs MAP delta seeming I wasn't varying limits with rpm anyway. I'll have it the same, but run zero's for negative MAP delta values. By the time it gets back to positive delta it will be below my MGP trim limit. See how it goes..

[Adamw]

Can you attach a log.  

[RyanG]

10 minutes ago, Adamw said:

Can you attach a log.  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xh08bzIyCtghgToTsTtKg5Wzj2t2ims1/view?usp=sharing

Happens at 6:45 and 6:55.

[castillaricardo]

18 hours ago, gorto88 said:

I've reconfigured my trim limit tables to be MGP vs MAP delta seeming I wasn't varying limits with rpm anyway. I'll have it the same, but run zero's for negative MAP delta values. By the time it gets back to positive delta it will be below my MGP trim limit. See how it goes..

I tried something as you described but with TPS delta instead and it worked well today. Thanks for that idea.

[Adamw]

17 hours ago, gorto88 said:

Happens at 6:45 and 6:55.

Yeah that doesnt look right.  Can you give me a copy of your tune so I can try to reproduce the same problem.  I just tried duplicating all operating conditions that were present at the time on a simulator and I cant make it do that yet.   

Also, what injectors do you have?  You only have 0.1ms of PW during overrun but it is still too rich?  I dont know of any injector that would even open with 0.1ms effective PW so that would suggest your deadtime is very wrong.  

[RyanG]

36 minutes ago, Adamw said:

Yeah that doesnt look right.  Can you give me a copy of your tune so I can try to reproduce the same problem.  I just tried duplicating all operating conditions that were present at the time on a simulator and I cant make it do that yet.    

No worries, see attached tune that was current at the time of the log:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10lp-z9sPWWhC3Y6wxhP78RT2GhXfB8cN?usp=sharing

[RyanG]

3 hours ago, Adamw said:

Also, what injectors do you have?  You only have 0.1ms of PW during overrun but it is still too rich?  I dont know of any injector that would even open with 0.1ms effective PW so that would suggest your deadtime is very wrong.  

They're Bosch 980cc. Deadtimes set as per data sheet supplied, I used ID1000 pulsewidth adder tables. 

Purchased from: https://golebysparts.au/products/bosch-1000cc-980cc-1150cc-fuel-injector-e85

I did see an older post of yours referenced a Link test car which had these injectors and you had tested them. You said to look at a specific base map, but it's no longer available. Do you have a copy of suitable pulsewidth adder tables for these injectors if ID1000 numbers aren't suitable?

I guess the main variable here would be I don't have a fuel pressure sensor. This will be getting wired in as well as a bunch of others when my expansion loom arrives. I've assumed 43.5psi base pressure (and MAP referenced) as this is what I'm told it should be.

[RyanG]

On 2/11/2023 at 8:28 AM, Adamw said:

Also, what injectors do you have?  You only have 0.1ms of PW during overrun but it is still too rich?  I dont know of any injector that would even open with 0.1ms effective PW so that would suggest your deadtime is very wrong.  

 

On 2/11/2023 at 11:41 AM, gorto88 said:

They're Bosch 980cc. Deadtimes set as per data sheet supplied, I used ID1000 pulsewidth adder tables. 

Purchased from: https://golebysparts.au/products/bosch-1000cc-980cc-1150cc-fuel-injector-e85

I did see an older post of yours referenced a Link test car which had these injectors and you had tested them. You said to look at a specific base map, but it's no longer available. Do you have a copy of suitable pulsewidth adder tables for these injectors if ID1000 numbers aren't suitable?

I guess the main variable here would be I don't have a fuel pressure sensor. This will be getting wired in as well as a bunch of others when my expansion loom arrives. I've assumed 43.5psi base pressure (and MAP referenced) as this is what I'm told it should be.

Taking a closer look, I realised that the map you referenced was G4+, not G4X ("G4+ Storm Black Sample.pclr").

So after installing G4+ software and taking a look, the deadtime table is decent amount different to the data that is supplied by distributors.

However, I think the real problem may be my SPWA table. I evidently missed, or chose to ignore, the red writing in the help file stating SPWA tables vary greatly depending on injectors and blindly copied what was in the help file under the impression that my ~1000cc bosch injectors would be close enough to ID1000's and that ballpark data is better than zero'ing the table. As such, my SPWA table has positive values, not negative (and the Link numbers go to zero at 0ms which I also thought was odd). Seems ID have updated their data since the help file was written too. I also noted that ID1000 numbers are positive and ID1050X are negative, which shows how different they can be.

I'll upload the injector data from the G4+ Storm Black Sample map and see how it goes. I guess this also explains why changes to the target lambda at idle were never close. I need to retune the low cam fuel table anyway as I've made some fairly large changes to the charge temp correction table at lower flow.

[RyanG]

Couldn't seem to get realistic VE numbers at idle with injector data Adam had posted on FB, or in the G4+ storm basemap (they were quite different too?).

Gone back to supplier data (Goleby's) and zero'd the SPWA table. 55-60% VE at idle, 103% VE peak on low cam and 110% peak on high cam. Think I'll leave it at that.

Still have the massive CLL spikes (past trim limits) on deccel though..

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15mEKdZCo8X3JeMFaDvleiPwS-RLttpIj?usp=sharing

[Adamw]

Sorry for the slow reply, I've been busy as with other stuff and havent had time to do justice looking at this again since my last reply.  There is another post poped up in the G4X forum in the last couple of days that has a similar short spike of CLL beyond the trim limits so I suspect there is a bug causing that.  Strangely I haven't seen it happen in my car, the limits are always honoured in that so there is some other factor involved.  Anyhow, the Firmware team know about it now and will take a look when they get a chance.  I will have to have another read through your posts and logs again to bring myself back up to speed on all the details before I can offer much further thoughts.  That may not be for a few days yet.  

[RyanG]

3 minutes ago, Adamw said:

Sorry for the slow reply, I've been busy as with other stuff and havent had time to do justice looking at this again since my last reply.  There is another post poped up in the G4X forum in the last couple of days that has a similar short spike of CLL beyond the trim limits so I suspect there is a bug causing that.  Strangely I haven't seen it happen in my car, the limits are always honoured in that so there is some other factor involved.  Anyhow, the Firmware team know about it now and will take a look when they get a chance.  I will have to have another read through your posts and logs again to bring myself back up to speed on all the details before I can offer much further thoughts.  That may not be for a few days yet.  

The other post is probably mine, so it's potentially specific to how I've got something setup in the tune. No stress, thanks for your help.

[castillaricardo]

It seems the spike happens when the Fuel Calculation goes to ERROR_LOW, in case that helps debug.

[Vaughan]

3 minutes ago, castillaricardo said:

It seems the spike happens when the Fuel Calculation goes to ERROR_LOW, in case that helps debug.

If CL Lambda says remove 100% of the fuel the Fuel Calculation will show error low as there is no no fuel being requested

[castillaricardo]

Just now, Vaughan said:

If CL Lambda says remove 100% of the fuel the Fuel Calculation will show error low as there is no no fuel being requested

ah, makes sense.

[RyanG]

Does anyone at Link have an opinion on transient lockout parameters as absolute values?

I'm struggling a little with transient behaviour. I've been using TPS delta vs MGP for my closed loop trim limits with 'some' success, but what is frustrating is CLL making adjustments shortly after rolling out of the throttle. Zero's in my negative 5 or 10% TPS delta columns lock it out for a split second, but then there is a period while TPS delta is at zero, but MAP is still falling towards vacuum (and within a trim limit range). If I then apply a small amount of throttle (less than tps delta limit) while it is already pulling say 5-7% fuel. It causes a momentary lean spike until the correction comes back down to zero. If transient lockouts were absolute, or better yet, allowed a separate minimum value, the reactivation delay would take care of this. I tried MAP delta, but my signal is a little too choppy. Even a minimum MAP lockout would probably fix this as it would have the reactivation delay after decel.

The root cause is really that my fuel table is too rich on heavy decel, likely due to no SPWA data (or deadtimes that are slightly off). I’ve tried playing with injector data, but then I get VE numbers which don’t seem “right” so went back to supplier deadtimes and zero SPWA. Injectors are Bosch 980cc on a 4 cyl. It happens on both 98 and E85.

My fuel table is within a few percent nearly everywhere except for decel at less than -75kpa. It runs quite well in open loop, but I'd like to run closed loop for some safety and to pickup the slack with IAT fluctuations and heat soak that I haven't quite nailed down on a method to reduce.

Interested to hear some thoughts on negative transient lockouts so a reactivation delay can be used. Perhaps I'm missing something as to why not to implement it (be it firmware/code related or actual engine running).

[dx4picco]

I usually put 0 as trim limit in my overrun trim table cells to avoid trims going negative while doing that. 

Still having rich peak because of wall wetting evaporating, but that's not due to CL

[RyanG]

7 minutes ago, dx4picco said:

I usually put 0 as trim limit in my overrun trim table cells to avoid trims going negative while doing that. 

Still having rich peak because of wall wetting evaporating, but that's not due to CL

Yeah I've done that, but the trim limit tables don't have a reactivation delay, so when I touch the throttle it takes a large amount of fuel out due to the rich overrun.