فایل ورد کامل راه حل کنترل حذف تلاطم ترکیبی برای سیستم زمان بندی متغیر سوپاپ موتورهای بنزینی

توجه : به همراه فایل word این محصول فایل پاورپوینت (PowerPoint) و اسلاید های آن به صورت هدیه ارائه خواهد شد

این مقاله، ترجمه شده یک مقاله مرجع و معتبر انگلیسی می باشد که به صورت بسیار عالی توسط متخصصین این رشته ترجمه شده است و به صورت فایل ورد (microsoft word) ارائه می گردد

متن داخلی مقاله بسیار عالی، پر محتوا و قابل درک می باشد و شما از استفاده ی آن بسیار لذت خواهید برد. ما عالی بودن این مقاله را تضمین می کنیم

فایل ورد این مقاله بسیار خوب تایپ شده و قابل کپی و ویرایش می باشد و تنظیمات آن نیز به صورت عالی انجام شده است؛ به همراه فایل ورد این مقاله یک فایل پاور پوینت نیز به شما ارئه خواهد شد که دارای یک قالب بسیار زیبا و تنظیمات نمایشی متعدد می باشد

توجه : در صورت مشاهده بهم ریختگی احتمالی در متون زیر ،دلیل ان کپی کردن این مطالب از داخل فایل می باشد و در فایل اصلی فایل ورد کامل راه حل کنترل حذف تلاطم ترکیبی برای سیستم زمان بندی متغیر سوپاپ موتورهای بنزینی،به هیچ وجه بهم ریختگی وجود ندارد

تعداد صفحات این فایل: ۲۵ صفحه

در این مقاله،  استراتژی HDRC  برای سیستم زمان بندی متغیر سوپاپ با مکانیزم هیدرولیک مغناطیسی ارائه شده است.تأثیر فشار سوخت و درجه حرارت بر رفتار پاسخ VVT از یک مدل ایستا و ساده بوده که براساس آن یک کنترل سوخت به جلو را برای اطمینان از پاسخ سریع طراحی کرده است. همه تردیدهای باقی مانده و پویایی , بیش از حد,  دشواری را در مدل نشان می دهد. آنها تخمین زده شده اند و در زمان واقعی توسط یک کنترل LADC مرتبه اول , لغو شده اند واین نشان می دهد که توانایی حذف اغتشاش وجود دارد . HDRC , متغیر بوده با یک کنترل دستی مورد مقایسه قرار گرفت که نتایج نشان داد که یک مزیت قابل توجه در سرعت پاسخ و نیرومندی فشار روغن و تغییرات سرعت موتور وجود دارد . به همین ترتیب , توانایی حذف اغتشاش نیز نشان داده شده است و با استفاده از جبران اختلال درADRC بوده و آن برای حل مشکلات کنترل VVT امیدوار کننده است. 

عنوان انگلیسی:A hybrid disturbance rejection control solution for variable valve timing system of gasoline engines~~en~~

Introduction Timing for the opening and closing of valves in gasoline engines, determined by the relative angle of the crankshaft and camshaft, is essential for the gas exchange process. For optimal fuel efficiency and engine performance, valve timing must vary as engine rotational speed varies. The traditional fixed valve timing system is unable to provide appropriate matching between the valve train and the engine at different operation conditions. This phenomenon leads to unwanted pumping loss, resulting in deteriorated fuel economy. To alleviate this problem, electro-hydraulic variable valve timing (VVT) optimizes the gas-exchange process providing about 3–۵% fuel-saving potential for traditional sparkignited (SI) gasoline engines [1]. Further improvements to fuel economy can be achieved if homogenous charge compression ignition (HCCI), a new concept in combustion, can be realized by VVT, reducing the amount of pumping loss caused by low intake manifold pressure [2]. To improve SI combustion and make HCCI realizable, the valve timing fluctuation should be 711 in crankshaft angle (1CA) [3] even in the face of disturbances such as speed and oil pressure variations. Electro-hydraulic VVT is challenging to control because of the low sampling rate which is limited by the engine speed. A pair of position sensors, one for the crankshaft and one for the camshaft, measures the valve timing when the engine runs. Constrained by the practical sensors in production engines, the valve timing can only be fed back between one and eight times per engine cycle. Thus, the resulting sample rate can fall below 5 Hz at low engine speed, and varies with engine speed. Also challenging to control are the strong disturbances that exist in the VVT system in production engines, which are difficult to measure or model. The pressure difference between two oil chambers, supplied by the crankshaft driven oil pump, results in an engine speed-related driven force. Although the pressure difference can be controlled by a proportional solenoid, the response varies with the battery voltage leading to a time-variant actuator dynamic. Likewise, the frequent inverse force from the valve spring significantly disturbs valve timing [4]. The time delay and nonlinear characteristics of the hydraulic system also present control challenges to VVT control. Various solutions to the aforementioned problems have been reported for VVT control. To deal with the disturbance from oil pressure variation caused by engine speed fluctuation, gainscheduling PID according to engine speed is investigated. However, it was found that there are times, such as when the oil temperature is low, when the engine is cold, slow response or oscillation could take place [5] using this solution. This is because the oil flow resistance varies with oil temperature, changing the oil pressure difference inside the cam phaser, i.e., the driving force of valve timing. Consequently, the controller gain becomes inappropriate under varied system dynamics. To compensate for this influence from oil temperature, an estimation algorithm for pressure difference inside the cam phaser is designed, based on which PID gain-scheduling is adopted. However, utilizing this algorithm, the controller stability could be poor in steady state condition if the controller gain is set very large to improve the response in the transient state [6]. Accordingly, a PID gainswitching solution based on steady and transient state detection is proposed [6]. Although these kinds of controllers can compensate for the disturbances, such as the engine speed, oil pressure, as well as oil temperature, they usually require time-consuming parameter optimization. Another possible choice is to use feedforward control based on various kinds of models such as the neural network model [7], the discrete nonlinear model [8], and the power-oriented graphs (POG) model [9]. However, these models are usually too complex for an engine control unit (ECU) application due to the computational burden upon the processor. To summarize, the dilemma is between the strong disturbances, the low sampling rate, and the limited disturbance rejection ability of existing PI controllers. Gain-scheduling PI control and dynamic model based feed-forward control can alleviate the dilemma, but suffer from time-consuming parameter optimization limiting their appeal for practical application.

$$en!!