MS-II Closed Loop Boost Control - PID - Page 8 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


MEGAsquirt A place to collectively sort out this megasquirt gizmo

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-09-2011, 11:53 PM   #141
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,982
Total Cats: 10
Default

i need an ms3 microsquirt module
miatauser884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 12:05 AM   #142
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 248
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djp0623 View Post
That would be super.
Lucky. I had 4 bytes of flash left in page 5 where the boost control settings live. I only needed 2 bytes. I've both fixed the feature in MS3 so it works as an offset from the target (when boost gets above target - this setting, PID activates, and before that the valve remains closed), and backported it to ms2.

I'll need to do a quick bench test before giving it to you. I should have time to fire up my bench and do a quick test tomorrow evening.

Ken
muythaibxr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 12:19 AM   #143
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,982
Total Cats: 10
Default

nice, cant wait to tune. Snowing now, so it will be a day or two.
miatauser884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 09:40 AM   #144
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 248
Total Cats: 0
Default

Cool, That gives me time to more thoroughly bench test.

Ken
muythaibxr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 09:44 AM   #145
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,872
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djp0623 View Post
i need an ms3 microsquirt module

sometimes I wonder why they didn't do that in the first place... considering you need little off the mainboard (kinda making the v3.0 board useless/extra) and the ms3x is connected by ribbons. Just need to combine them on one board and add the power input circuit and blamo!
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 10:36 AM   #146
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,982
Total Cats: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
sometimes I wonder why they didn't do that in the first place... considering you need little off the mainboard (kinda making the v3.0 board useless/extra) and the ms3x is connected by ribbons. Just need to combine them on one board and add the power input circuit and blamo!
Well, I kinda feel like the diypnp gys got the shaft considering how soon ms3 came out after these. I guess at the end of the day I don't need all of the features, but it is becoming obvious that the MS2 is at the end of its road as far as software evolution due to it's memory allocation.

There has to be a way to upgrade a DIYpnp to MS3
miatauser884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 10:53 AM   #147
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,872
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

they've been working on it from what I hear.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 12:09 PM   #148
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 248
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djp0623 View Post
Well, I kinda feel like the diypnp gys got the shaft considering how soon ms3 came out after these. I guess at the end of the day I don't need all of the features, but it is becoming obvious that the MS2 is at the end of its road as far as software evolution due to it's memory allocation.

There has to be a way to upgrade a DIYpnp to MS3
Actually, the MS3 was in planning before James and I ever heard of the DIYPNP. It was a surprise to us around the megameet in '09 when we got our first MS3s for testing, and Jerry introduced the DIYPNP with the uSquirt module.

The MS3 actually started real planning in '08 at that megameet, but even before that James had ms2/extra ported to the new chip and running on a demo board connected to a v3 board. That was in summer of '07.

Ken
muythaibxr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 12:33 PM   #149
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,872
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

yeah, the DIYPNP is based around the microsquirt...which was already in existence.

they just need more MS3Xcrosquirt
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 12:52 PM   #150
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,982
Total Cats: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
they just need more MS3Xcrosquirt
As soon as there is one that plugs into my diypnp, then I'm on it.

Put me on the list for testing

I think I said earlier that what I have is plenty, but I like having all of the latest and greatest software/hardware. That's why I'm running the 3.1 code.

How hard would it be to make a harness that plugged an MS3 into the ecu port so that I could just unplug my diypnp and have an MS3 take its place?

It seems like that would be pretty easy.

Jump on it Brain.....quasi plug and play MS3 for those that already have a diypnp.
miatauser884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 01:29 PM   #151
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muythaibxr View Post
If you look at any of the equations in the site I listed, they all have the I term looking like "I * error" which is essentially what you're saying is a "real" P term.
I *have* been staring at the equation in the link you gave:
http://bestune.50megs.com/typeABC.htm

However what I missed was the part halfway down starting with the statement "the fact that the setpoint should be removed from the P-term and D-term because otherwise the P-term will become an infinity (a Dirac function) and so will the D-term if there is a step change in SP. Therefore, the traditional PID equations (1) and (2) should be changed to"

And then it shows the P and D terms changed to Kp*MAP and Kd*d(MAP)/dt

Which BTW automatically makes it a type C. I don't know if you mean you took the above equivalent-to-type-C and further "type-B-fied" it.

My original statement, that it relies on I to find the "correct" duty cycle, stands. You need a large I to find it quickly (so the duty cycle ramps quickly), and large I tends to cause instability. (I'm assuming you start from 0 duty cycle whenever the target transitions from off boost into boost)

As for the P term appearing to be backwards, that's because you do the P term as

Pterm = Kp * -MAP

So as 'I' works its way up and boost increases, the Pterm reduces duty cycle, which is what it's supposed to do, but it goes from 0 to more negative, explaining why it seems backwards - that more P slows the boost rate of rise. This is as opposed to the P term initially producing a positive number to get a large duty cycle, and diminishing as boost rises.

This is akin to a standard PID wherein the P initially produces a large positive number, but the 'I' has a large negative number preloaded into it (= to -P) which cancels the initial P, resulting in zero CO whenever the loop is intialized.

I suggest changing the P term to the standard approach
P = Kp*E
and initialize the I term to -P whenever the target transitions into boost, in order to prevent the windup problem in the same way. This also changes your loop from type C to type B, so that a step up in target while in boost already, will force the P term to add duty cycle. (You will also need to clip the P term).



Quote:
The complaint I got from this guy was that a slow rise to target helped him maintain traction (autocross or track racing I think)... a fast rise to target broke his rear tires loose. He didn't want to have to control it with his right foot

Ken
I hope other users, with TPS controlled boost target, know how to use their right foot properly.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 01:34 PM   #152
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,982
Total Cats: 10
Default

Quote:
I hope other users, with TPS controlled boost target, know how to use their right foot properly.
Now way, it's like navigating without a gps.

Big sign says "this way to your destination" but gps says go "this way" then we have an internal struggle.

Agree, we can't let technology override common sense and good practice.
miatauser884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 01:39 PM   #153
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Can someone post a datalog 1-2-3 or at a 2-3 or 3-4 shift?
I'm curious what duty cycle does when boost target steps up at high RPM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 01:42 PM   #154
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,872
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djp0623 View Post
Jump on it Brain.....quasi plug and play MS3 for those that already have a diypnp.

Talk to Ben, I know they were fooling with the idea.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 01:42 PM   #155
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,982
Total Cats: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Can someone post a datalog 1-2-3 or at a 2-3 or 3-4 shift?
I'm curious what duty cycle does when boost target steps up at high RPM.
I will when I get home. I actually have one taken while I was tuning this. It is not with the PID tuned to perfection.
miatauser884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 02:13 PM   #156
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 248
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
I suggest changing the P term to the standard approach
P = Kp*E
and initialize the I term to -P whenever the target transitions into boost, in order to prevent the windup problem in the same way. This also changes your loop from type C to type B, so that a step up in target while in boost already, will force the P term to add duty cycle. (You will also need to clip the P term).
Honestly, the way I have it now works fine if it's tuned well. I think sometimes tuning PID throws people for a loop (though I've tailored my manual to explain how to tune it even with the behavior being a little different from standard PID). What you are suggesting there is essentially what I already have for the I term (again since it's CO = CO + PID). There isn't a windup problem on the I term also because of the way I did this. I don't think it makes sense to have both P and I essentially work out to the same math.

I essentially took what they had for "type B" there on that site, and implemented it. I had actually started with type C, but that made P term unresponsive to target changes, and I thought it was a good idea for the algorithm to respond to target changes, so type B it is.

Further testing by people (even on this forum) showed that type B worked better than type C had, so I stuck with type B.

As a result, we already get good response when the target changes (even with P only) because P incorporates the setpoint. For example, if you're in boost, and you lift off the throttle, dropping the target, the wastegate will open very quickly as a result of P, then the I part of PID will get you the rest of the way to the target.

Quote:
I hope other users, with TPS controlled boost target, know how to use their right foot properly.
We actually support a 3D table with TPS vs RPM... this one user just didn't *want* to control his right foot properly (believe me, that was the first thing I suggested).

Ken
muythaibxr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 02:16 PM   #157
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 248
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djp0623 View Post
I will when I get home. I actually have one taken while I was tuning this. It is not with the PID tuned to perfection.
I'd say wait till you have PID tuned.

That way the P term will be responding to the initial target change instead of it all being the I term.

(previously when I used a type C loop, the P term would not have responded, and it would've been all I term; I switched to type B in order to make P respond to target changes).

Braineack looks to have his tuned pretty well, so it might be worthwhile to show what his does with a target change once already in boost.

Ken
muythaibxr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 02:19 PM   #158
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,872
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

if you notice my log the boost increase towards redline, i have that built into my targets map. it's nice.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 04:31 PM   #159
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Brain do you have logs showing a couple of upshifts? I'm curious how quickly duty cycle ramps up. If you look at my logs on page 6, duty hits 100% then ramps down pre-emptively before hitting target 9from the D), to prevent overshoot.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2011, 04:34 PM   #160
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muythaibxr View Post
I essentially took what they had for "type B" there on that site, and implemented it.
Are you talking about the type B eqn near the beginning of the article, or one of the equations in the middle, where the setpoint info is gone from the D and P?

Quote:
We actually support a 3D table with TPS vs RPM... this one user just didn't *want* to control his right foot properly (believe me, that was the first thing I suggested).

Ken
You didn't cripple the algorithm for everyone else, just for this one guy, did you?
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Gemini - Turbo Civic on the Cheap Full_Tilt_Boogie Build Threads 58 12-13-2017 10:04 PM
Another Cast Manifold Corky Bell Prefabbed Turbo Kits 18 11-22-2016 10:01 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM
Time to start learning and play with tuning The Gleas MEGAsquirt 3 10-01-2015 10:30 AM
Bad head gasket or ? shooterschmidty Engine Performance 8 09-30-2015 11:28 PM


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:07 AM.