Close

Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: ATR Boost Control

              
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    912
    Rep Points
    499.6
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    12 out of 12 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No

    ATR Boost Control

    Ok I won’t mention reps… oops.

    Shout out: Most of the this info I’ve posted before and in the beginning had the help of Carl Morris, Dfv2, Mangler, and some others knocking around ideas… and I think we helped some "certain people" in their understanding of reading logs and understanding 1 table in particular… they will never admit it though. Guess I’m fishing for negs with this comment, but it’s true.

    Here we go…

    We tune by setting a load, which is basically MAF at a certain engine speed. This is determined by MAP and temperature. Boost per load decreases as rpms increase… actually boost per load has a certain correlation in the bottom end, then increases significantly around 3500rpms(IIRC), and then drops rapidly soon after and finally will decrease more steadily with rpm… not very fun if you are a precision kinda person. Anyway, we don’t have direct control over boost… we control req load and some of the WGDC parameters used in hitting these targets. When I say “boost to load” I’m talking req boost to meet req load… but this is NOT stable either as actual load will stray farther from req load “when meeting boost targets”. Likely this is due to Cobb’s interface with the DME not being complete and/or various hidden limits.

    WGDC Tables
    How to read a log: WG base DC is before PID. Potentially WGDC (temp) is included into this value also. Sorry I reviewed this a long time ago and don’t remember my conclusion… but it doesn’t really have any effect in tuning. Mainly make sure WGDC after PID is adding DC and within its limits… too much, or maxed PID could indicate some issue with the hardware. WGDC Bank X is the final output to the solenoids and should be used if comparing to other people, tunes, potential boost issues, run to run, etc.
    Base: a direct correlation to WGDC output in %. But we only have a narrow range to work with as many have experienced. Req MAF is the calculated desired flow through the engine… simply, dependent on rpm/PR. Factor is req MAP / baro. You can log both of these channels for reference and to point you in the right area of the base map.
    Pre-control: basically off boost WGDC… potentially useful in reducing rattle. More closed, faster response. If part throttle is too responsive you could also try reducing it. Zeroing out the entire table will NOT effect DC during spool since this is only at lower loads, but it can effect response. The more closed increases psi available pre-throttle. MAP log channel is pre-throttle pressure. Boost log channel switches between pre/post throttle MAPs.
    Spool: Tough to tell when the DME is using spool tables. You can see spool in the logs. Do a run starting at 3k rpms and take note of the load/MAP channels around 4-4.5k… then do a run starting at 4k and observe the same rpm range. You’ll notice boost to load values being different… IIRC req MAP will be lower at the same req load… it’s pretty easy to see, I just don’t remember the specifics. I assume this is spool to the DME. Doesn’t really effect our tuning at this time with the current ATR knowhow/access.
    Adder (Airflow): adds global WGDC. Reduce for tight, increase for loose WGs.
    Ceiling (Adder): this is the max WGDC that can be added by PID to the base. If maxed you need to increase it. Be careful though, depending on your load targets you could get a substantial increase in boost.
    D-factor Multiplier: in my opinion its easier to adjust the multiplier table then the factor table. D is the anticipated future error… lower will be smoother, but will stray more from the setpoint. Higher will try and keep closer to setpoint.
    NOTE: I’m NOT a PID expert and this info is based on testing one car (mine) and some reading… some info could be incorrect.
    Dynamic: no idea, but a global adjustment of some sort.
    I-factor: factor added in calculating MV based on historical error. Basically reduce value to reduce oscillations and increase value to keep closer to setpoint.
    P-factor: largest contributor to MV… response to immediate error. Same effects as I-factor to oscillations but to a greater degree.
    NOTE: since the DME can over react with overshoots, it could be beneficial to have a higher PID factor with positive boost errors.
    **The last 2 tables I’m not sure… I would be more or less guessing. I asked Cobb in an earlier thread.

    To control the boost based on IATs refer to limit table “load target limit factor (CAT)”. This a multiplier to req load based on IAT. Keep in mind that timing will increase when load is reduced so pay attention to your CAT compensation factor and multipliers.

    A table set I’m very curious about is the “cylinder temp comp”. I believe these have to do with WGDC based on temperature. This could be a very easy way to reduce the overall WGDC if you can’t easily get there by the base table. But I’m only really guessing as I have not tested.

    Now after reading all of the above you could be overwhelmed and much of it maybe due to my poor organization/writing… but I only have so much time to put this together. SO very simply do this:
    Loose WGs: you don’t really have to do much as it should work fairly well with OTS mapping. To improve results increase the “WGDC Ceiling (Adder)” by an additional value of 5 to 10 in the last 2 or 3 cells. As long as you don’t max after PID channel you are basically OK. To further improve you can rescale your WGDC base column to max of around 370 to 400gs and maybe globally increase the base by 20% in the final 2 to 4 columns and rows.
    Tight WGs: much tougher, but first action would be to reduce p-factor and i-factor… maybe start with global multiplier of 0.5 to 0.7. You can also reduce base by 20% at first in the cells mentioned above and then reevaluate.
    NOTE: if you really get into part throttle control then you will have to adjust a larger qty of cells in the base table. Not really necessary with loose WGs.

    Couple of points. I prefer to tune at a lower load range, to ensure that I can hit my targets consistently and smoothly then once I’m successful here I can “turn it up”. The reasoning is that with higher targets you can’t observe the DME’s full reaction, cause it will never hit the targets. Once you can hit targets as desired the more aggressive tuning will perform better… especially at part throttle. The ATR interface has us restricted below a certain max curve in load/boost and its not necessarily just a maximum; it’s scaled based on your setpoints. For example if I target 16psi in top I may hit 15, but if I target 17psi I may hit 15.5. Actually very irritating.

    A comment on boost overshoots. This will happen. An example is once you have built some boost, or holding boost during a shift. A good test to see how severe is stepping the throttle… like 40, 60, 100%... it will really show what areas you need to fine tune. Likely you have to be ok with some overshoot at times. If Cobb can work out the ignition retard torque limits then the overshoots will be less troublesome. Throttle closure is definitely preferred in my opinion over reducing ignition.

    By no means do I know this stuff 100%... I mostly use a stacked combination of Procede/ATR, so I may not have near the tuning/seat time with ATR as others do. So please explain where I could be misleading or incorrect. And definitely add anything I left out, expand on the info, question it, etc.

    phew, that was long.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Roanoke VA
    Posts
    1,574
    Rep Points
    2,110.0
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    22


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I would + rep the $#@! outta this if I could. I'll get you when I can.

    MOTIV750, MOTIV P-1000 PI, MOTIV/FUEL-IT! low pressure fuel system, AEM EMS/COBB AP, Aquamist HFS-3, ETS FMIC, SPEC stage 3+ clutch/SS flywheel, BC Racing coilovers and VMR wheels wrapped in Hankook RS3s.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    102,360
    Rep Points
    24,750.6
    Mentioned
    1581 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    248


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Good stuff, +1.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    471
    Rep Points
    797.8
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    I have to spread rep before I can positive rep you again, thanks again.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,083
    Rep Points
    994.5
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Josh: my RB wastegates are tight even by RB standards. Under no circumstance did I require changing the PID.

    It's really not as difficult as many believe.

    You take a specified load target, log MAF WGDC and observe actual boost pressure and TPS%. Trim MAF WGDC in the cells where you observe throttle closures, pull more if the closures are severe, a little if throttle is trimming slightly under the max of 80-81.. Increase load based on RPM where you would like more boost. Increase WGDC% cap if necessary to hit higher rpm targets (not recommended for stock turbos) .


    I found that it takes at most 3-4 pulls to get it where you need.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,177
    Rep Points
    791.6
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Awesome!!! Wish I could rep you. Appreciate the read. Click here to enlarge

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    375
    Rep Points
    406.8
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Great write up...wish I could Positive rep you!

    When stacking with the procede, are you able to datalog with Cobb still..?
    335XI 6AT 11.87 @ 118mph

    AR 3" Catless DP's | ER FMIC, CP & Tial Q BOV | BMS DCI | Cobb AP | KW V3's | 19" E92 M3 Wheels | M3 Suspenion Bits |

    For Sale:

    - AEM Meth injection system with 5 gal tank
    - NX Express complete wet kit with Plug & Play fuel adapter for BMW 335i

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    196
    Rep Points
    660.5
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Thank you for the write up, pos reps for you

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    912
    Rep Points
    499.6
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by themyst Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Josh: my RB wastegates are tight even by RB standards. Under no circumstance did I require changing the PID.

    It's really not as difficult as many believe.

    You take a specified load target, log MAF WGDC and observe actual boost pressure and TPS%. Trim MAF WGDC in the cells where you observe throttle closures, pull more if the closures are severe, a little if throttle is trimming slightly under the max of 80-81.. Increase load based on RPM where you would like more boost. Increase WGDC% cap if necessary to hit higher rpm targets (not recommended for stock turbos) .


    I found that it takes at most 3-4 pulls to get it where you need.
    Sure, this is a good first effort. I believe some may try this and log in different conditions and need to continually amend the table… so they chase their tails. If you are doing this approach due to spool overshoots, it might be best to put some effort into PID combined with potentially more of a broader base revision instead of individual cells. I suggested your approach for Enrita and I think he had success, but since then I’ve changed my thoughts. Again, my seat time with ATR is not so much.

    I do think your WGs may not be that tight. Do you remember the vacuum reading to seat them… procedure that should be performed before install.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by boosted-M Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Great write up...wish I could Positive rep you!

    When stacking with the procede, are you able to datalog with Cobb still..?
    when utilizing procede you can only log with procede. In map0 (pass through) you can of course log with Cobb.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Jersey
    Posts
    884
    Rep Points
    439.3
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Repped, I love reading tech!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,083
    Rep Points
    994.5
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JoshBoody Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Sure, this is a good first effort. I believe some may try this and log in different conditions and need to continually amend the table… so they chase their tails. If you are doing this approach due to spool overshoots, it might be best to put some effort into PID combined with potentially more of a broader base revision instead of individual cells. I suggested your approach for Enrita and I think he had success, but since then I’ve changed my thoughts. Again, my seat time with ATR is not so much.

    I do think your WGs may not be that tight. Do you remember the vacuum reading to seat them… procedure that should be performed before install.


    when utilizing procede you can only log with procede. In map0 (pass through) you can of course log with Cobb.
    Actually they are extremely tight. Based on the PID gain learned figure from the jb4 and the fact canned standalone cobb maps slam the throttle constantly down low.

    Sorry but this is just again showing you offering advice on something you have no first hand experience with (rb turbos). And again I 100% believe there is zero need to touch the PID tables on this car.

    Besides if you're stacking with procede which has iso boost control this is hardly your field of expertise.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    961
    Rep Points
    1,137.3
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I would rep also but I cant as I need to spread reputation...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    912
    Rep Points
    499.6
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by themyst Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Actually they are extremely tight. Based on the PID gain learned figure from the jb4 and the fact canned standalone cobb maps slam the throttle constantly down low.

    Sorry but this is just again showing you offering advice on something you have no first hand experience with (rb turbos). And again I 100% believe there is zero need to touch the PID tables on this car.

    Besides if you're stacking with procede which has iso boost control this is hardly your field of expertise.
    My seat time is sufficient to understand boost control fairly well, but I know others do have more experience. And yes only with stock turbos. Like I said no prob using your approach first. Tuning maxed out under req load is very different since you easily get outside the OTS base table. If your req/actual boost is matching well during most driving situations… great, although I’m skeptical.

    Anyway, WG stiffness and turbo efficiency are 2 different subjects relating to boost control… although they will have many similarities.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,083
    Rep Points
    994.5
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I wasn't talking about the merits of turbo efficiency I was talking about boost targeting and control.

    In regards to stiffness you pull from the base WGDC table based on TPS% and MAF WGDC monitor. Sloppy/loose wastegates you increase the WGDC% cap and raise the cells in the base WGDC table based on MAF WGDC monitor.

    The PID is the logic based on how the car makes granular corrections based on conditions and learning. If the base is dialed in correctly the PID does not need to be touched.

    If someone wants to spin their turbos past efficiency they are more than welcome to as ATR can allow it to happen.

    I strongly believe much of the information and advice you presented in the OP is not required for proper boost targeting and in some cases incorrect.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Roanoke VA
    Posts
    1,574
    Rep Points
    2,110.0
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    22


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by themyst Click here to enlarge
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    In regards to stiffness you pull from the base WGDC table based on TPS% and MAF WGDC monitor. Sloppy/loose wastegates you increase the WGDC% cap and raise the cells in the base WGDC table based on MAF WGDC monitor.

    The PID is the logic based on how the car makes granular corrections based on conditions and learning. If the base is dialed in correctly the PID does not need to be touched.
    This is the way I've learned to set my "boost targets." Set requested load and then dial in the base table to fix over/under shoots. If I'm getting oscillations I address it through the base table rather than PID.

    However, I LOVE reading/hearing other peoples approaches and methods. It's the only way(other than diving in head first with trial and error) to thoroughly learn something in ATR.

    MOTIV750, MOTIV P-1000 PI, MOTIV/FUEL-IT! low pressure fuel system, AEM EMS/COBB AP, Aquamist HFS-3, ETS FMIC, SPEC stage 3+ clutch/SS flywheel, BC Racing coilovers and VMR wheels wrapped in Hankook RS3s.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    912
    Rep Points
    499.6
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No

    @themyst I have to throw something out here. "Your" boost control process was first explained by me on the forums, along with other things... awhile ago. Not saying I'm the first to understand ATR, but (to my knowledge) the first to explain publicly some of the important aspects. Since then, I have refined my thinking some. My post is a general guide of boost control trying to explain most of the parts. I didn't include everything, nor is it very specific.

    OP Edit: I do have to make a slight correction if someone considers my simplified suggestion for tight WGs. My notes were a little confusing since you cannot copy/paste the p-factor table, so I had to transfer by multipliers. Anyway, start with maybe 10 to 20% reduction in p-factor and half that for I-factor.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •