2005-01-3757
Cam-Phasing Optimization Using Artificial Neural Networks as
Surrogate Models—Maximizing Torque Output
Copyright © 2005 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Variable Valve Actuation (VVA) technology provides
high potential in achieving high performance, low fuel
consumption and pollutant reduction. However, more
degrees of freedom impose a big challenge for engine
characterization and calibration. In this study, a
simulation based approach and optimization framework
is proposed to optimize the setpoints of multiple
independent control variables. Since solving an
optimization problem typically requires hundreds of
function evaluations, a direct use of the high-fidelity
simulation tool leads to the unbearably long
computational time. Hence, the Artificial Neural
Networks (ANN) are trained with high-fidelity simulation
results and used as surrogate models, representing
engine’s response to different control variable
combinations with greatly reduced computational time.
To demonstrate the proposed methodology, the cam-
phasing strategy at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) is
optimized for a dual-independent Variable Valve Timing
(VVT) engine. The optimality of the cam-phasing
strategy is validated with engine dynamometer tests.
INTRODUCTION
Conventional Spark Ignition (SI) engines have a limited
number of independent variables requiring proper
control, such as spark timing, fuel injection amount and
external Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) [1]. However,
ever increasing market and regulatory pressures create
an incentive to utilize additional devices allowing
improved performance. Recently, Variable Valve
Actuation (VVA) technology is being increasingly utilized
for production due to its advantages in adjusting the gas
exchange process to optimize engine performance for a
wide range of conditions experienced by the engine
during realistic driving conditions, and hence increasing
torque generation, improving fuel economy and reducing
pollutant emissions [2-11]. With VVA technology, valve
timing, lift and duration become independent control
1
Bin Wu, Robert G. Prucka and Zoran S. Filipi
The University of Michigan
Denise M. Kramer and Gregory L. Ohl
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
variables. Other technologies, such as Swirl Control
Valves (SCV) [12, 13] and cylinder deactivation [14],
increase the total number of degrees of freedom further.
The evolution of diesel engines has the same tendency.
For example, EGR [15, 16], Variable Geometry Turbo-
charging (VGT) [17] and multiple injections [18, 19] all
introduce extra independent control variables.
While advanced hardware with additional degrees of
freedom provides more flexibility for improving engine
performance, achieving the full potential of the hardware
is a big challenge. The goal of engine calibration is to
search for the optimal setpoint combination of all
independent control variables. In the case of a
conventional engine, this is typically determined through
systematic experimentation in the test cell. However,
with the increased number of variables the size of the
problem increases exponentially. Hence, techniques
have been proposed to automate and expedite engine
data acquisition [20-24]. In addition, Design of
Experiments (DOE) algorithms [25] are widely used to
reduce the total number of experiments, and
consequently the cost and time devoted to engine
mapping [26-30]. Nevertheless, searching for the
optimum in the test cell might be impractical and very
expensive in the case of the large number of degrees of
freedom, and a simulation based methodology could
greatly facilitate the process.
As the number of independent control variables
increases, algorithms based on parametric studies and
simple interpolation do not provide any means for
locating the optimum, especially when complex
nonlinear constraints are applied. Numerical optimization
is necessary for calibrating high-degree-of-freedom
engines. Gradient-based numerical algorithms [31]
require continuous predictions instead of discrete
experimental points. Hence, a suitable engine model is
a prerequisite for developing an optimization framework
for engine calibration.
In the past, empirical models were often generated to
represent the engine response. Statistical regression
analysis was most commonly used to build the empirical
models [26, 27, 32]. Statistical regression was also used
to model the effect of local variables (e.g. spark timing)
in a two-stage empirical model [28, 29, 33]. Two-stage
empirical models split independent control variables into
two different groups to reduce the number of
independent variables in each stage. Although the
splitting eases the problem, the exponentially increasing
trend accompanying any data-driven algorithm is not
changed fundamentally and further increase of
independent variables would present a challenge.
In this study, a simulation-based optimization framework
is developed to calibrate high-degree-of-freedom
engines. The key component in the framework is the
mapping relationship from independent control variables
to engine performance. This relationship should be
represented by engine models capable of providing a
high degree of predictiveness combined with fast
execution speed. These two requirements are typically
opposing each other. A two-step process is proposed to
satisfy the conflicting demands. Firstly, we develop a
high-fidelity simulation tool with a full predictive
capability of quantifying the trends of engine
performance in response to different control variable
combinations. The full simulation tool relies on detailed
physical models and requires relatively long computation
time. However, a typical optimization procedure
requires hundreds of function evaluations, thus a much
faster model needs to be developed as a replacement or
a surrogate. We propose using Artificial Neural
Networks (ANN) [34] for that purpose. ANNs are very
computationally efficient models capable of learning
from training samples, and subsequently approximating
the desired input/output relationship. Thus, a high-
fidelity engine simulation tool, and a set of high-speed
ANN surrogate models trained with simulation results
are key enablers of the simulation-based optimization
framework.
High-fidelity simulations have been considered as a tool
facilitating engine calibration in the past, but in contexts
different than proposed here. Fu et al. [35] used an
engine simulation tool to investigate intake and exhaust
cam-phasing at part load, but relied on parametric
studies and iso-contour plots to determine desirable
settings. Bozza et al [36, 37] used a one dimensional
engine model for comparing VVA strategies and defined
a generic optimization problem with up to nine variables.
However, only reduced problems with one to three
independent variables were solved. Sellnau and Rask
[38, 39] developed a simulation-based engine calibration
procedure and conducted optimization of intake valve
opening and switching between low- and high- lift lobes,
but did not consider the exhaust cam-phasing. As the
number of degrees of freedom increases, it’s the
combination of high-fidelity and surrogate models that
can unlock the full potential of simulation-based
optimization.
2
As fast and compact surrogate models, ANNs have
been used to replace time-consuming computational
tasks and expedite complicated simulations.
Papadimitriou et al used ANNs to replace
computationally intensive components, such as intake
and exhaust manifold, of a one-dimensional engine
simulation tool [40]. High-speed ANN models were also
used for On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) fault detection
[41, 42]. Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) simulation is
another suitable application exploiting the computation
efficiency of ANN models [43, 44, 45]. The application of
ANN models for real-time estimation of mass air flow
rates through the engine with a dual-independent cam-
phasing system has been demonstrated in previous
studies [63, 64].
To demonstrate the proposed algorithm, we select a
dual independent VVT engine as an example of high-
degree-of-freedom engines. For this engine, the primary
independent control variables include intake cam-
phasing, exhaust cam-phasing, spark timing and fuel air
equivalence ratio (Phi), while engine speed and torque
command are determined by interaction with the driver,
transmission and other torque consumers. The scope of
this paper is limited to Wide Open Throttle (WOT) only,
for which the engine torque is maximized at selected
engine speeds by ensuring minimum inlet restriction.
Although all four independent variables are optimized
simultaneously, more emphasis is placed on cam-
phasing optimization, since camshaft positions affect
filling of the cylinder in a very direct way.
The paper is organized as follows. The optimization
framework is proposed and described first. Next, the
high-fidelity simulation tool is built and used for pre-
optimality studies. The high-fidelity simulation results
enable establishing benchmarks for subsequent
validation of ANN predictions and optimization results.
The procedure for training the ANN surrogate models
and determining the best network structure and size
follows. Then, the optimization problems are formulated
and solved to maximize wide-open throttle torque.
Finally, the optimization results are validated with engine
dynamometer tests. Further discussions are presented
to address practical issues before offering conclusions.
OPTIMIZATION FRAMEWORK
Figure 1 illustrates the optimization framework proposed
for calibrating high-degree-of-freedom engines. The
graph consists of two parts. The top part shows steps for
building computationally efficient ANN surrogate models,
and the bottom part shows the use of ANN surrogate
models in optimization. Developing fast ANN models is a
prerequisite for optimization application, since the latter
often requires a large number of predictions in their
search for the optimum of the objective function.
The first step in building the ANN surrogate models is to
acquire hardware specifications and geometric
information for the target engine from component
 Hardware
tests
Component High-Fidelity DOE
geometry Simulation Sampling
Operating Speed & Load
point
ANNs for
Objective
ANNs for
Constraint 1
Engine Responses
Optimization
objective &
Satisfied?
constraints
Y
Figure 1 Optimization framework for calibrating independent control variables in high-degree-of-freedom engines
drawings and other design documentation. Secondly, a
high-fidelity simulation tool is developed to model the
target engine. The simulation tool is based on physical
principles, real engine geometry and phenomenological
models. The model constants are determined with the
aid of experimental data. The advantage of using the
high-fidelity tool is that only a limited number of engine
experiments can provide sufficient data for determining
model coefficients. It can also enable inclusion of
design features that might not be available in hardware.
Depending on specific goals of the calibration problem,
the simulation tool can be tailored to include details at
different levels and retain proper fidelity. After the high-
fidelity simulation tool is built and validated, it is used to
predict the engine’s response under various operating
conditions. Benchmarks of high-fidelity simulation results
are built to check and validate ANN behavior in the
subsequent steps.
In the third step, the input combinations of high-fidelity
runs are determined with a Design-Of-Experiments
(DOE) algorithm - Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) [46,
47]. LHS generates input combinations by assuming
uniform distribution of all independent variables within
their respective ranges. The assumption of uniform
distribution leads to input combinations covering the
entire operating space evenly, which improves the
efficiency of sampling process. The full simulation
results are then used for training ANN surrogate models
that are capable of predicting engine responses. Several
High-speed ANN
Surrogate
Models for both
the optimization
objective and
constraints
Optimizer
Control
Variable
Setpoints
ANNs for
Constraint 2
…
Update
N Setpoints (SQP)
Optimized
Setpoints
multi-input-single-output ANNs are used instead of using
one multi-input-multi-output ANN. Each ANN models
one variable formulated as a part of the optimization
objective or constraints. This has proven to be beneficial
for overall accuracy of ANN models. It also provides
more flexibility for adding or removing engine
performance variables from the formulation of
optimization problems.
Once the ANN surrogate models are trained and
validated against full simulation benchmarks, they are
employed to optimize independent control variables, as
shown in the bottom part of Figure 1. We use engine
speed and torque command to define the engine’s
operating point. Hence, the setpoints of independent
control variables are optimized at any given combination
of engine speed and torque command. The optimizer
calls ANN surrogate models to obtain engine responses.
The engine’s responses are then used to evaluate the
objective function and constraints. If the convergence
criteria are not satisfied, the optimizer will update the
values of independent control variables and the ANN
surrogate models will be called again. The process
iterates until the optimization objective is achieved and
all constraints are satisfied. To solve a typical
optimization problem, the ANN surrogate models are
called and evaluated hundreds of times, thus precluding
the use of high-fidelity full simulations directly and
justifying the up-front effort of developing surrogate
models.
3
HIGH-FIDELITY SIMULATION TOOL
The engine used in this study is a production-style 2.4
liter, in-line four cylinder dual overhead camshaft
(DOHC) engine manufactured by DaimlerChrysler. Each
cylinder has two intake valves and two exhaust valves.
The engine was originally designed as a conventional
fixed-cam engine. However, the prototype VVT version
is equipped with intake and exhaust cam-phasers.
Intake and exhaust camshaft positions are
independently controlled with vane type hydraulic
actuators. It’s worth noting that all other parts, such as
intake/exhaust manifolds, ports, camshaft lobe profiles,
cylinder head and pistons, are not redesigned and
optimized for VVT operation. Therefore, demonstrating
or evaluating the maximum potential of VVT is not the
intention of this study, rather the methodology to
maximize the torque output of the given configuration.
For the VVT engine, we use Intake Centerline Location
(ICL) and Exhaust Centerline Location (ECL) to
represent the intake and exhaust camshaft positions
respectively. As shown in Figure 2, ICL is defined as the
distance between the top dead center (TDC) and the
centerline of intake camshaft lobe; and ECL is defined
as the distance between TDC and the centerline of
exhaust camshaft lobe. They both are measured in
crank angle (CA) degrees. Before adding the cam-
phasers, the default camshaft positions were: ICL0=115
degrees ATDC and ECL0=111 degrees BTDC. The cam-
phasing range with the prototype VVT system is ±15
degrees for both intake and exhaust. The main
specifications of the target engine are listed in Table 1.
The effects of cam-phasing on engine performance stem
primarily from the change of engine breathing behavior.
Since the ultimate goal in this study is cam-phasing
optimization, it is essential to accurately model the
engine’s intake and exhaust process. A high-fidelity
simulation tool is based on a co-simulation approach
that combines the strength of the commercial code
Ricardo WAVE® in gas dynamics modeling and the
strength of the quasi-dimensional Spark Ignition
Simulation (SIS) in combustion modeling. WAVE [48, 49]
has been widely used and validated for engine
performance predictions [50-52]. In this study, it is used
to model gas dynamics in the intake and exhaust
systems from air filter to tailpipe. SIS is a research code
written in FORTRAN language that has been refined
over time and used routinely at the University of
Michigan for a variety of simulation studies. Availability
of its source code provides flexibility to revise and tailor
the program as needed [53, 60, 61].
Quasi-dimensional SI simulation (SIS) is based on the
mass and energy conservation and the
phenomenological models for turbulence, combustion
and heat transfer in the cylinder, represented with a set
of first-order, simultaneous ordinary differential
equations. The details have been described previously
by Filipi and Assanis [53]. The combustion sub-model is
4
Figure 2 Definition of intake and exhaust camshaft
positions
Table 1 Critical parameters of the target VVT engine
Displacement 2.4 liters
Bore/Stoke 87.5/101.0 mm
Compression Ratio 9.4:1
Max. Intake Valve Lift 8.25 mm
Max. Exhaust Valve Lift 6.52 mm
Default Intake Valve Timing 51o ABDC/ 1o
Closes/Opens/ Centerline BTDC/ 115o ATDC
Default Exhaust Valve Timing 9o ATDC/ 51o
Closes/Opens/ Centerline BBDC/ 111o BTDC
Default Valve Overlap 10o @ 0.5 mm lift
Allowed Intake Cam-phasing
±15o Crank Angle
Range
Allowed Exhaust Cam-phasing
±15o Crank Angle
Range
based on the turbulent flame entrainment model
proposed by Tabaczynski [54,55] and further refined by
Poulos and Heywood [56]. The combustion model is
complemented by a single-zone turbulence model [57-
59], which calculates crank-angle resolved global
turbulent flow field parameters throughout the whole
cycle. The interaction between the spherical flame front
and the combustion chamber walls defines the flame
area, and the geometric information about the
combustion chamber is taken into account within the
framework of a time-based code. The effect of air/fuel
ratio and residual on the rate of entrainment and burn-up
is accounted for by the laminar flame speed term, which
is particularly important in case of potentially increased
overlap leading to large quantities of residual. In its
various evolutions, the simulation has been used in 2-
and 4-valve SI engine turbocharger matching studies
[53], in valve event optimization [60], and in optimizing
stroke-to-bore ratio for SI engine design [61].
In SI engines, knock is an important factor limiting
engine torque at low speeds. Spark timing is often
retarded and/or mixture is enriched to suppress knock.
In order to be able to consider knock as a constraint, this
study uses WAVE’s knock model for predicting knock
intensity [62]. The knock intensity is defined as the
mass fraction of unburned mixture when auto-ignition
happens. The effects of cam-phasing on knock in a VVT
engine can be magnified due to the possibility of running
with increased amounts of hot internal residual.
The WAVE and SIS models are coupled at intake and
exhaust valves as interfaces. A top level program is
developed in C++ to integrate the WAVE and SIS
models by feeding WAVE results of valve mass flow
rates to SIS, and SIS results for burning rate back to
WAVE. Limited experimental data are acquired to
identify model coefficients such as flow coefficients (Cd)
of intake and exhaust valves, turbulence dissipation
constant, heat transfer correlation coefficient, and
engine friction model coefficients. Previous studies have
demonstrated that the high-fidelity simulation tool is
capable of capturing air flow rate accurately [63, 64].
More details about the high-fidelity simulation tool for the
2.4 L engine are available in the previous publication
[63] and references therein.
The effort and cost associated with development of the
high-fidelity code is more than offset by savings in the
subsequent optimization process, as well as by its ability
to provide a wealth of information even beyond what the
experimental setup can deliver. For example, internal
EGR is hard to measure directly, and yet it plays a
critical role in explaining the VVT engine’s capability of
increasing WOT torque and fuel economy, and reducing
NOx emissions.
Figures 3 to 5 show examples of high-fidelity simulation
results at 2000 rpm, WOT. In Fig 3(a), the torque
contours are plotted with respect to intake and exhaust
camshaft positions, with spark timing and fuel/air
equivalence ratio (Phi) being fixed. In Fig 3(b), the
torque contours are plotted with respect to spark timing
and Phi for fixed ICL and ECL at default value
respectively. The equivalence ratio is varied from
stoichiometric to rich, due to the focus of this study on
WOT. To generate each graph, high-fidelity simulations
(a)
Figure 3 High-fidelity simulation benchmark of WOT torque at 2000rpm: (a) plotted as a function of intake and
exhaust camshaft positions; (b) plotted as a function of spark timing and fuel/air equivalence ratio
5
are run in a 7 x 7 grid. Further investigation shows that
WOT torque is primarily determined by the amount of
trapped air, when other operating parameters are fixed
at desired values or within normal range. The amount of
trapped air directly depends on intake and exhaust
camshaft positions, as illustrated by Figures 4 and 5.
In Fig. 4(a) and (b), engine torque and air flow rate are
plotted as a function of intake camshaft position. The
direct correlation between torque and air flow rate is
shown clearly. Both air flow and torque are very
sensitive to variations of intake cam phasing. This
emphasizes the fact that maximum performance
depends on both the throttle position and camshaft
position; hence, a wide open throttle is only a
prerequisite for reaching maximum performance. In Fig.
4(c) and (d), the mass flow rate through intake and
exhaust valves are plotted at three different intake
camshaft positions. Advancing intake timing at low
engine speed traps more air in the cylinder since less
fresh charge is pushed back before intake valve closes
(IVC), as shown in Fig. 4(c). Although early intake valve
opening (IVO) leads to longer valve overlap and larger
reverse flows through both intake and exhaust valves
during valve overlap, the effect on total air intake is less
than the advantage of early IVC. Thus, engine torque at
this speed is maximized with the most advanced intake
camshaft position of ICL=100 degrees ATDC.
Similar graphs are plotted in Figure 5 as exhaust
camshaft position is changed, while intake camshaft
position and other independent variables are fixed.
However, Figs. 5(a) and (b) show that engine torque and
air flow rate are much less sensitive to variations of ECL
than ICL, at least at the given speed of 2000 rpm. The
relatively flat lines make it hard to pinpoint the optimal
value of exhaust camshaft position. The mass flow rates
plotted in Fig. 5(c) and (d) confirm above observation.
Retarding exhaust timing results in re-induction of
exhaust gas when exhaust valve closing (EVC) is
substantially after TDC. In contrast, advancing exhaust
(b)
timing and closing exhaust valves before TDC results in
re-compression of residual gas and larger reverse flow
through intake valves. Both retarding and advancing
exhaust timing lead to larger residual fraction. This in
turn displaces fresh air and reduces engine torque. In
addition, early exhaust valve opening (EVO) reduces
expansion stroke length and expansion work.
Consequently, the optimal tradeoff is achieved in
between, for ECL=116 degrees after top dead center.
Although the effects of exhaust camshaft position on
engine torque seem negligible at 2000 rpm, it is not
necessarily true at other speeds. Retarding the exhaust
event at higher speeds proved to be beneficial due to
relatively longer expansion stroke and less significant re-
induction of exhaust gas.
After examining and validating the behavior of the high-
fidelity simulation tool, the tool is used to build
benchmarks similar with the contour graphs in Figure 3.
A series of high-fidelity simulation benchmarks are built
for different engine performance variables as functions
of different combinations of independent variables.
Together with other criteria, these benchmarks are used
to determine the best ANN network structure in the
following section.
ANN SURROGATE MODELS
For the target VVT engine, we identify four independent
control variables at WOT for any given engine speed:
intake cam-phasing, exhaust cam-phasing, spark timing
and Phi. Hence, the WOT torque is fundamentally a
function of five independent variables when engine
speed is taken into account. Figure 6 illustrates the
input/output relationship that the ANN surrogate model
will approximate.

Figure 4 High-fidelity simulation results at 2000rpm, WOT: (a) torque vs. intake camshaft position; (b) air flow rate
vs. intake camshaft position; (c) intake mass flow rate vs. crank angle at selected intake camshaft positions; (d)
exhaust mass flow rate vs. crank angle at selected intake camshaft positions

Figure 5 High-fidelity simulation results at 2000rpm, WOT: (a) torque vs. exhaust camshaft position; (b) air flow rate
vs. exhaust camshaft position; (c) intake mass flow rate vs. crank angle at selected exhaust camshaft positions; (d)
exhaust mass flow rate vs. crank angle at selected exhaust camshaft positions
6
 Figure 6 ANN surrogate model for engine torque at
wide-open-throttle

Using Latin Hypercube Sampling technique, a set of

1025 different input combinations are generated, for
which high-fidelity simulations are run. The sampling
process is automated by using iSIGHT®. iSIGHT parses
input files, runs simulations, and saves results desired.
The sampling ranges of all inputs are listed in Table 2. Figure 7 Training neural networks with different
We intentionally select relatively large ranges to ensure network structures and sizes: (a) mean squared error
that all applicable input combinations are encompassed. for training samples vs. network size; (b) mean
The high-fidelity simulation results are split randomly into squared error for testing samples vs. network size.
two subsets: one subset (95% of all samples) for training
Table 2 Ranges of inputs to ANN surrogate models
ANNs and the other subset (the remaining 5%) for
testing generalization during training. The training Lower Upper
procedure determines the values of weights and biases Variable Unit
bound bound
for all neurons in the network. All ANNs are trained with degree
the trainbr function in Matlab Neural Network Toolbox, ICl 95 135
ATDC
which exploits Bayesian regularization to reduce degree
overfitting [65]. The overfitting can be described as the ECL 91 131
BTDC
occurrence of undesirable fluctuations of output data for degree
inputs different than those used in training. It often Spark -60 10
ATDC
happens as the consequence of imposing too severe
Phi 1.0 1.5 -
accuracy limits.
Speed 600 6500 rpm
A procedure for determining the optimal network
structure has been developed in our previous studies
[63, 64]. The same procedure is followed in this paper. The following criteria are used to select the best
We train networks with one, two and three hidden layers, network:
and consider different number of neurons in hidden • Small training mse for good fitting accuracy;
layers. The prediction accuracy of any ANN model is • Small testing mse for good generalization accuracy;
then evaluated using the mean squared errors (mse). • Good match with high-fidelity simulation
However, before the decision about the ANN benchmarks;
architecture is made, the risk of overfitting and the
deterioration of generalization quality are considered. • No overfitting – assessed based on high-fidelity
predictions.
The following ANNs are trained and shown in Figure 7: The first two criteria are quantitative and easy to
one hidden layer networks 5-4-1, 5-6-1, …5-28-1; two implement utilizing plots like those given in Fig. 7.
hidden layer networks 5-3-3-1, 5-4-4-1, …5-10-10-1; and Overall, both fitting accuracy and generalization
three hidden layer networks 5-3-3-3-1, 5-4-4-4-1, …5-8- accuracy are improved by increasing network size, as
8-8-1. The convention allowing description of network indicated by decreasing mse’s plotted in Figure 7(a) and
structure with a sequence of numbers is that the first and (b). However, the decreasing rate diminishes and it is
last numbers represent the number of inputs and outputs hard to distinguish two networks with negligible
respectively. Each number in the middle represents the difference in mse’s if only the mse criteria are used.
number of hidden neurons in a corresponding hidden The third and fourth criteria are somewhat subjective,
layer. The mean squared errors for training samples and but important for making the final selection. Comparing
testing samples are plotted against network size in ANN predictions with high-fidelity simulation results can
Figure 7(a) and (b), respectively. The training and be of great help in assessing overall features of the
testing mse are largely regarded as indicators of fitting surrogate model. As network size grows, we keep
accuracy and generalization accuracy of the ANN. checking ANN predictions against high-fidelity
Figure 7 displays how mse’s vary with architecture and benchmarks until we get a satisfying match, both
network size, which is quantified by the total number of qualitatively and quantitatively. In other words, we
connecting weights and neuron biases. ensure that there is no local anomaly at any given point.
7
Figure 8 compares the predictions of ANN 5-10-10-1 for
WOT torque with the high-fidelity simulation results
shown previously in Figure 3. Obviously, the operating
conditions were exactly the same. Clearly, ANN
predictions match high-fidelity benchmarks very well and
demonstrate features important for optimization, such as
the same locations of maximum torque points.
Comparison with other benchmarks confirmed
advantageous behavior of ANN 5-10-10-1. Smooth
surfaces as those shown in Figure 8 indicate that there
is no overfitting. Overfitting is usually accompanied with
random, un-explained fluctuations. Hence, the 5-10-10-1
network is selected as the preferred network for WOT
torque. Please see reference [64] for the example of
overfitting and measures to reduce it.
OPTIMIZATION USING ANN SURROGATE
MODELS
For WOT operation, engine performance is assigned the
highest priority. Therefore, the optimization objective is
to maximize torque generation, within given constraints
such as exhaust temperature limit or prevention of
knock. The optimization problem is formulated as
follows:
Maximize : Obj = Torque( x; Speed )
x = ( ICL, ECL, Spark , Phi )
Subject to :
100 ≤ ICL ≤ 130 degree ATDC
96 ≤ ECL ≤ 126 degree BTDC (1)
− 50 ≤ Spark ≤ 0 degree ATDC
1.0 ≤ Phi ≤ 1.3
Texh ( x; Speed ) ≤ 850o C
K i ( x; Speed ) ≤ 0.1
(a)
Figure 8 Comparison of high-fidelity simulation and ANN model predictions of WOT torque at 2000 rpm, plotted as a
function of: (a) intake and exhaust camshaft positions; (b) spark timing and fuel/air equivalence ratio
8
In above equation, Texh represents exhaust temperature;
K i represents knock intensity; x represents four
independent variables, while engine speed is regarded
as a given parameter. The first four constraints
represent the allowed ranges for all four independent
variables. The constraint on exhaust temperature is
introduced to protect the catalyst from overheating. The
last constraint prevents unrealistic spark timing that
leads to excessive knock.
In Equation 1, Torque , Texh , and K i are functions of
independent variables and speed. Three ANN surrogate
models are constructed to model these functions. The
preferred network structures are 5-10-10-1, 5-11-11-1
and 5-11-11-1 respectively. The ANN surrogate models
are inserted into the optimization framework shown in
Figure 1. The optimization problem is solved at 100
equally spaced speeds between 1000 and 6000rpm.
The optimized results of all four independent variables
are subsequently plotted as dotted lines in Figure 9. In
Fig. 9(b) and (d), the lines of ECL and Phi show a sharp
fluctuation around 2000 rpm, which is obviously
undesirable from the point of view of driveability. Having
access to the high-fidelity simulation allowed detailed
analysis of the anomaly. It is found that the fluctuation is
mainly due to the insensitivity of engine torque with
respect to ECL and Phi. As shown in Figure 3(a) and
(b), as well as Figure 5(a), the gradients along ECL and
Phi axes are very small in the area surrounding the
maximum torque point. This causes difficulty for the
optimizer to locate the optimum.
To overcome the problem, two extra terms are added to
penalize the sudden drastic changes of ECL and Phi
between two adjacent speeds. The optimization
objective is revised as follows:
(b)
 Objk = Torque( x; Speed k ) +
(2)
C1 ECLk − ECLk ±1 + C2 Phik − Phik ±1
Where, subscript k indicates the index of optimization
problem in the speed sequence. Depending on whether
the optimization problems are solved in ascending or
descending order of speed, the sign in the penalty terms
can be either “-” or “+”. In this study, the optimization
problems are solved in both directions and the average
of the two results is reported in Figure 9 (solid lines).
The constant coefficients C1 and C2 are tuned to
generate smooth ECL and Phi results without noticeable
deterioration of WOT torque. The lower range constraint
on ICL is active at low engine speeds, as shown in Fig.
9(a). Relaxing the lower range constraint of ICL could
therefore increase WOT torque further at low engine
speed. The optimized results of other three independent
variables are well within the allowed range.
The VVT engine’s performance with the optimized
control variables is given in Figure 10. For comparison
purposes, we optimize spark timing and Phi for the fixed-
camshaft baseline engine using the same ANN
surrogate models and optimization algorithm, while fixing
intake and exhaust camshaft position at default values.
In Figure 10, we use solid lines to represent the VVT
engine with optimized camshaft positions and dotted
lines to represent the baseline engine with default
camshaft positions. As shown in Fig. 10(a), VVT
Figure 9 Optimized independent variables at different engine speeds: (a) intake camshaft position; (b) exhaust
camshaft position; (c) spark timing; (d) fuel/air equivalence ratio
9
increases WOT torque at low and medium speeds. The
difference in WOT torque diminishes around 4900 rpm
where the optimized camshaft positions are very close to
their default values. Fig. 10(b) compares the power
generated by the two engine configurations. In Fig.
10(c), the constraint on exhaust temperature becomes
active at speeds above 4500 rpm for both engine
configurations. In contrast, the constraint on knock
intensity is active at low speeds, as shown in Fig. 10(d).
Compared with the fixed-cam engine, the VVT engine is
more likely to knock because early intake valve closing
increases the engine’s effective compression ratio. As
shown in Fig. 9(d), the combustion is enriched at low
speeds to reduce knock sensitivity and at high speeds to
cool down the exhaust. As a result, both constraints are
fully satisfied.
EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION AND PRACTICAL
IMPLEMENTATION
Engine dynamometer tests are carried out in the W.E.
Lay Automotive Laboratory at the University of Michigan
to validate the optimization results. All experiments are
done at steady state after the engine is well warmed.
The first part of the experimental work compares engine
performance with the optimized and default camshaft
positions and quantifies the gain in performance. The
relative fuel/air equivalence ratio is fixed at Phi=1.11, the
spark timing corresponds to the optimized value, and the
speed is varied up to 3600 rpm due to hardware
 Figure 10 Comparison of engine performance with optimized and default camshaft positions: (a) engine torque; (b)
engine power; (c) exhaust temperature; (d) knock intensity
limitations. The tests cover the speed range where
tangible torque improvement is achievable. The
experimentally determined torque increase with the
optimized camshaft is compared to corresponding
predicted values in Figure 11. The overall measured
magnitude of the increase is very much in line with
simulation results, as well as the overall shape of lines
as a function of speed. The latter confirms the ability of
the model to accurately predict relative effects of cam-
phasing on engine torque – a critical feature given its
intended use within the optimization framework.
Figure 11 Comparison of measured and predicted
torque increases with the optimized cam phasing at
wide open throttle.
10
The second part of the experimental plan is designed to
validate the optimality of the optimized camshaft
positions. In this part, the intake and exhaust camshaft
positions are swept in turn, while air/fuel ratio and spark
timing were kept fixed. Tests are performed at three
engine speeds: 1200, 2000 and 3600 rpm. Figure 12
displays the test results. In the top graph (Fig. 12(a)),
intake camshaft position varies within the allowed range
and exhaust camshaft position is fixed at the optimized
value. In the bottom graph (Fig. 12(b)), exhaust
camshaft position changes while intake camshaft is
fixed. In both graphs, the optimized positions of
intake/exhaust camshaft are marked with thick solid
bars. The optimized positions coincide with, or are very
close to the best positions suggested by the
experimental curves. Considering the ±1% tolerance in
torque measurement, this effectively verifies the
optimality. In addition, it confirms the ability of the full
simulation model to reliably predict the relative effects of
cam-phasing, irrespective of possible small
discrepancies in absolute values.
While the simulation-based approach allows optimizing
camshaft positions, a practical implementation will still
require follow-up experiments to account for modeling
inaccuracy. The emphasis in this study is on modeling
the gas exchange process accurately, and simulations
have demonstrated sufficient fidelity for optimizing the
cam-phasing strategy. However, careful validation of
the combustion or the knock sub-models might not
 Figure 12 Experimental validation of the optimality of intake and exhaust camshaft positions: (a) intake cam-
phasing sweep; (b) exhaust cam-phasing sweep. Optimized camshaft positions are marked with thick solid bars.
always be possible due to development time constraints
and unavailability of test data. In that case, the absolute
values of spark timing are not directly applicable. Once
the optimized camshaft positions are validated and fixed,
follow-up experiments could easily fine-tune the two
remaining independent variables. This coincides with
the current practice for conventional, fixed camshaft
engines, and hence would not require changes of
existing calibration procedure.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper proposes an optimization framework and a
simulation-based approach for calibrating high-degree-
of-freedom engines. The high-fidelity simulation tool is
developed first as a virtual engine, capable of modeling
the relationship between independent variable setpoints
and engine performance. After identifying model
coefficients with a limited set of experimental
measurements, the tool can be used to create any
desired set of data and simulate new designs not yet
available in hardware. However, the prospect of
executing the simulation hundreds of times within the
optimization framework imposes a need for much faster
and yet accurate surrogate models. The artificial neural
networks (ANN) are used to create such computationally
efficient models. The ANNs are trained on operating
11
points chosen by a design-of–experiments technique
and produced by high-fidelity simulations.
The computational speed of neural networks allows
solving optimization problems with various formulations
of optimization objectives and constraints. This study
demonstrates the use of the proposed algorithm for
maximizing the WOT torque of the prototype VVT engine
with dual-independent cam-phasers. The independent
variables are: intake cam-phasing, exhaust cam-
phasing, spark timing and fuel-air equivalence ratio. The
following steps are demonstrated:
• Pre-optimality studies to illustrate sensitivities of the
system to changes of main parameters.
• Generating benchmarks with high fidelity simulations
and using them to determine optimal network
structures for ANN surrogate models.
• Formulating the objective function and solving the
optimization problem for the WOT operation with the
aid of ANN surrogate models.
The optimality of cam-phasing results is subsequently
verified using hardware experiments. The magnitudes
of predicted relative engine torque improvements in the
low- to medium-speed range are confirmed as well. The
main effect comes from optimized intake valve closing
time.
The application of the proposed algorithm to part load
conditions, using fuel efficiency as an objective function
and emissions as constraints is pursued as the next step.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the contribution of Roger Vick,
Fadi Kanafani, Michael Prucka, Eugenio DiValentin, of
Daimler Chrysler in developing the component modules
for the engine simulation tool and other technical
support.
REFERENCES
1. Gumbleton, J.J., Bolton, R.A. and Lang, H.W.
“Optimizing Engine Parameters with Exhaust Gas
Recirculation”, SAE Technical Paper No. 740104,
1974.
2. Hong, H., Parvate-Patil, G.B. and Gordon, B.
“Review and Analysis of Variable Valve Timing
Strategies-Eight Ways to Approach”, Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, Vol. 218, No.
10, 2004, pp1179-1200.
3. Hannibal, W., Flierl, R., Stiegler L. and Meyer R.
“Overview of Current Continuously Variable Valve
Lift Systems for Four-Stoke Spark-Ignition Engines
and the Criteria for Their Design Ratings”, SAE
Technical Paper No. 2004-01-1263, 2004.
4. Gray, C. “A review of variable engine valve timing”,
SAE Technical Paper No. 880386, 1988.
5. Ahmad, T. and Theobald, M.A. “A survey of variable-
valve-actuation technology”, SAE Technical Paper
No. 891674, 1989.
6. Dresner, T. and Barkan P. “A review of variable
valve timing benefits and modes of operation”, SAE
Technical Paper No. 891676, 1989.
7. Flierl, R. and Fluting, M. “The Third Generation of
Valvetrains—New Fully Variable Valvetrains for
Throttle-Free Load Control”, SAE Technical Paper
No. 2000-01-1227, 2000.
8. Nakamura, M., Hara, S., Yamada, Y., Takeda, K.,
Okamoto, N. and Hibi, T. “A Continuous Variable
Valve Event and Lift Control Device (VEL) for
Automotive Engines”, SAE Technical Paper No.
2001-01-0244, 2001.
9. Asmus, T.W. “Perspectives on applications of
variable valve timing”, SAE Technical Paper No.
910445, 1991.
10. Ma, T.H. “Effect of variable engine valve timing on
fuel economy”, SAE Technical Paper No. 880390,
1988.
12
11. Bohac, S. and Assanis, D. “Effects of Exhaust Valve
Timing on Gasoline Engine Performance and
Hydrocarbon Emissions”, SAE Technical Paper No.
2004-01-3058, 2004.
12. Nishizawa, K., Mitsuishi, S., Mori, K. and Yamamoto,
s. “Development of Second Generation of Gasline P-
ZEV Technology”, SAE Technical Paper No. 2001-
01-1310, 2001.
13. Nishizawa, K., Momoshima, S. and Koga M.
“Nissan’s Gasoline SULEV Technology”, SAE
Technical Paper No. 2000-01-1583, 2000.
14. Leone, T.G. and Pozar, M. “Fuel Economy Benefit of
Cylinder Deactivation—Sensitivity to Vehicle
Application and Operating Constraints”, SAE
Technical Paper No. 2001-01-3591, 2001.
15. Jacobs, T., Assanis, D. and Filipi, Z. “The impact of
exhaust gas recirculation on performance and
emissions of a heavy-duty diesel engine”, SAE
Technical Paper No. 2003-01-1068, 2003.
16. Schubiger, R., Bertola, A. and Boulouchos, K.
“Influence of EGR on combustion and exhaust
emissions of heavy-duty DI diesel engines
equipped with common-rail injection systems”, SAE
Technical Paper No. 2001-01-3497, 2001.
17. Hawley, J.G., Wallace, F.J., Cox, A., Horrocks, R.W.
and Bird, G.L. “Reduction of steady-state NOx levels
from an automotive diesel engine using optimized
VGT/EGR schedules”, SAE Technical Paper No.
1999-01-0835, 1999.
18. Badami, M., Mallamo, F., Millo, F. and Rossi, E.E.
“Influence of multiple injection strategies on
emissions, combustion noise and BSFC of a DI
common-rail diesel engine”, SAE Technical Paper
No. 2002-01-0503, 2002.
19. Montgomery, D. T. and Reitz, R. D. “Effects of
Multiple Injections and Flexible Control of Boost and
EGR on Emissions and Fuel Consumption of a
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine”, SAE Technical Paper
No. 2001-01-0195, 2001.
20. Vora, L.S. “Computerized Five Parameter Engine
Mapping”, SAE Technical Paper No. 770079, 1977.
21. Tennant, J.A., Giacomazzi, R.A., Powell, J.D. and
Rao, H.S. “Development and Validation of Engine
Models via Automated Dynamometer Tests”, SAE
Technical Paper 790178, 1979.
22. Hochschwarzer, H, Kriegler, W. and Schon M. “Fully
Automatic Determination and Optimization of Engine
Control Characteristics”, SAE Technical Paper
920255, 1992.
23. Kampelmuhler, F. T., Paulitsch, R. and Gschweitl, K.
“Automatic ECU-Calibration—An Alternative to
Conventional Methods”, SAE Technical Paper
930395, 1993.
24. De Salis, R. “Automated Data Screening for Steady-
State Engine Mapping”, SAE Technical Paper
930394, 1993.
25. Wu, C.F.J. and Hamada, M.: Experiments: Planning,
Analysis, and Parameter Design Optimization, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, ISBN 0-471-25511-4,
2000.
26. Mallamo, F., Badami, M. and Millo, F. “Application of
the design of experiments and objective functions for
the optimization of multiple injection strategies for
low emissions in CR diesel engines”, SAE
Technical Paper No. 2004-01-0123, 2004.
27. Roepke, K. and Fischer, M. “Efficient Layout and
Calibration of Variable Valve Trains”, SAE Technical
Paper 2001-01-0668, 2001.
28. Flint, S. and Causey P. “Use of Experimental Design
and Two Stage Modeling in Calibration Generation
for Variable Camshaft Timing Engines”, Design of
Experiments (DOE) in der Motorenentwicklung,
Expert Verlag, ISBN 3-8169-2271-6, 2003, pp57-77.
29. Morton, T., Connors, R., Maloney, P. and Sampson,
D. “Model-Based Optimal Calibration of a Dual
Independent Variable Valve-Timing Engine“, Design
of Experiments (DOE) in der Motorenentwicklung,
Expert Verlag, ISBN 3-8169-2271-6, 2003, pp77-85.
30. Figueres, F. and Yannick, R. “Multiple Diesel Vehicle
Calibration Based on Space-Filling DoE and Kriging
Modelization“, Design of Experiments (DOE) in der
Motorenentwicklung, Expert Verlag, ISBN 3-8169-
2271-6, 2003, pp143-154.
31. Papalambros, P.Y. and Wilde, D.J., Principles of
Optimal Design: Modeling and Computation, 2nd
edition, Cambridge University Press, New York,
2000.
32. Mencik, Z. and Blumberg, P.N. “Representation of
Engine Data by Multi-Variate Least-Squares
Regression”, SAE Technical Paper No.780288,
1978.
33. Guerrier M. and Cawsey P. “The development of
model-based methodologies for gasoline IC engine
calibration”, SAE Technical Paper No. 2004-01-
1466, 2004.
34. Mehrotra, K., Mohan, C. K., and Ranka S., Elements
of Artificial Neural Networks, the MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, ISBN 0-262-13328-8,
1997.
35. Fu, H., Chen, X., Mustafa, E., Trigui, N., Richardson,
S. and Shilling. I. “Analytical Investigation of Cam
Strategies for SI Engine Part-Load Operation”, SAE
Technical Paper No. 2004-01-0997, 2004.
13
36. Bozza, F., Gimelli, A. and Tuccillo, R. “The Control
of a VVA-Equipped SI Engine Operation by Means
of 1D Simulation and Mathematical Optimization”,
SAE Technical Paper No. 2002-01-1107, 2002.
37. Bozza, F., Gimelli, A., Senatore, A. and Caraceni, A.
“A theoretical comparison of various VVA systems
for performance and emission improvement of SI-
engines”, SAE Technical Paper No. 2001-01-0670,
2001.
38. Sellnau, M. and Rask, E. “Two-Step Variable Valve
Actuation for Fuel Economy, Emissions, and
Performance”, SAE Technical Paper No. 2003-01-
0029, 2003.
39. Rask, E. and Sellnau, M. “Simulation-Based Engine
Calibration: Tools, Techniques, and Applications”,
SAE Technical Paper No. 2004-01-1264, 2004.
40. Papadimitriou, I., Warner, M., Silvestri, J., Lennblad,
J. and Tabar, S. “Neural Network-Based, Fast-
Running Engine Models for Control-Oriented
Applications”, SAE Technical Paper No. 2005-01-
0072, 2005.
41. Grimaldi, C. N. and Mariani, F. “On-board Diagnosis
of Internal Combustion Engines: a New Model
Definition and Experimental Validation”, SAE
Technical Paper No. 970211, 1997.
42. Grimaldi, C. N. and Mariani, F. “OBD Engine Fault
Detection Using a Neural Approach”, SAE Technical
Paper No. 2001-01-0559, 2001.
43. Krug, C., Liebl, J., Munk, F., Kammer, A. and Reuss,
H.-C. “Physical Modelling and Use of Modern
System Identification for Real-Time Simulation of
Spark Ignition Engines in All Phases of Engine
Development”, SAE Technical Paper No. 2004-01-
0421, 2004.
44. Winsel, T., Ayeb, M., Theuerkauf, H. J., Pischinger,
S., Schernus, C. and Lutkemeyer, G. “HiL-
Calibration of SI Engine Cold Start and Warm-up
Using Neural Real-Time Model”, SAE Technical
Paper No. 2004-01-1362, 2004.
45. Ayeb, M., Lichtenthäler, D., Winsel, T. and
Theuerkauf, H. J. “SI engine modeling using neural
networks”, SAE Technical Paper No. 980790, 1998.
46. McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J. and Conover, W.J. “A
comparison of three methods for selecting values of
input variables in the analysis of output from a
computer code”, Technometrics, Vol. 21, No. 2, May
1979, pp. 239-245.
47. Lunani, M., Sudjianto, A. and Johnson, P.L.
“Generating efficient training samples for neural
networks using Latin Hypercube sampling”,
Proceedings of the 1995 Artificial Neural Networks in
Engineering (ANNIE’95), St. Louis, MO, USA, Nov.
12-15, 1995, pp. 209-214.
48. WAVE V5 Engine Reference Manual, Ricardo
Software, Ricardo, Inc., November, 2002.
49. WAVE V5 Basic Reference Manual, Ricardo
Software, Ricardo, Inc., November, 2002.
50. Morel, T., Flemming, M. and LaPointe, L. A.
“Characterization of Manifold Dynamics in the
Chrysler 2.2l S.I. Engine by Measurements and
Simulation”, SAE Technical Paper No. 900679,
1990.
51. Wren, C. S. and Johnson, O. “Gas Dynamics
Simulation for the Design of Intake and Exhaust
Systems—Latest Techniques”, SAE Technical
Paper No. 951367, 1995.
52. Millo, F., Ferraro, C. V. and Pilo, L. “A Contribution
to Engine and Vehicle Performance Prediction”, SAE
Technical Paper No. 2000-01-1266, 2000.
53. Filipi, Z., and Assanis, D.N. “Quasi-dimensional
computer simulation of the turbocharged spark-
ignition engine and its use for 2- and 4-valve engine
matching studies”, SAE Technical Paper No.
910075, SAE 1991 Transactions, Volume 100,
Section 3, 1991.
54. Tabaczynski, R.J., Ferguson, C.R. and
Radhakrishnan, K. “A turbulent entrainment model
for spark-ignition engine combustion.” SAE
Technical Paper No. 770647, 1977.
55. Tabaczynski, R.J., Trinker, F.H. and Shannon, B.A.
“Further refinement and validation of a turbulent
flame propagation model for spark-ignition engines”,
Combustion and Flame, Vol. 39, No. 2, 1980, pp.
111-121.
56. Poulos, S.G. and Heywood, J.B. “The effect of
chamber geometry on spark-ignition engine
combustion”, SAE Technical Paper No. 830334,
1983.
57. Tennekes, M. and Lumley, J.L., A First Course in
Turbulence, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1972.
58. Blizard, N.C., and Keck, J.C. “Experimental and
theoretical investigation of turbulent burning model
for internal combustion engine.” SAE Technical
Paper No. 740191, 1974.
14
59. Agarwal, A., Filipi, Z. S., Assanis, D. N. and Baker,
D.M. “Assessment of Single- and Two-Zone
Turbulence Formulations for Quasi-Dimensional
Modeling of Spark-Ignition Engine Combustion.”
Combustion Science and Technology, Vol. 136, 1-6,
1998, pp. 13–39.
60. Filipi, Z. "Investigation of Variable Valve Area
Strategies for a Turbocharged SI-Engine",
Proceedings of the IMechE 1994-6, 5th International
Conference on Turbocharging and Turbochargers,
London, 1994, pp. 93–102.
61. Filipi, Z.S. and Assanis, D.N. ”The Effect of Stroke-
to-Bore Ratio on Combustion, Heat Transfer and
Performance of a Homogeneous-Charge Spark-
Ignited Engine of Given Displacement”, International
Journal of Engine Research, Volume 1, No. 2,
JER0500, London, 2000, pp. 191-208.
62. Ho, S. Y. and Kuo, T. “A Hydrocarbon Autoignition
Model for Knocking Combustion in SI Engines.”
SAE Technical Paper No. 971672, 1997.
63. Wu, B., Filipi, Z., Kramer, D.M., Ohl, G.L., Prucka,
M.J. and DiValentin, E. “Using Neural Networks to
Compensate Altitude Effects on the Air Flow Rate in
Variable Valve Timing Engines”, SAE Technical
Paper No. 2005-01-0066, SAE Transactions,
Journal of Engines, 2005.
64. Wu, B., Filipi, Z. S., Assanis, D. A., Kramer, D.M.,
Ohl, G.L., Prucka, M.J. and DiValentin, E. “Using
artificial neural networks for representing the air flow
rate through a 2.4 liter VVT engine”, SAE Technical
Paper No. 2004-01-3054, SAE Transactions,
Journal of Engines, 2004.
65. Demuth, H., and Beale, M., Neural Network Toolbox
User’s Guide (Version 4), Mathworks Inc., 2002.
CONTACT
Prof. Zoran Filipi
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan
2031 W. E. Lay Automotive Lab
1231 Beal Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2133
filipi@umich.edu