Injector Control Options

From DIY contraptions to sophisticated FreeEMS-specific designs! Plus general hardware development!
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Re: Injector Control Options

Post by Fred »

Delta wrote:Sorry should have clarified - applies full battery voltage and limits to 4-5A for 4-5ms then drops the limit to 1-1.5A.
Still, if the injector is fully open at 1.0 ms and any physical bounce ends shortly afterwards what do you gain by continuing to pump current into it and dissipate power into the fuel?
You will actually find that most low Z injectors at around 4ohms will not make the full 4A.
Sure :-)
The distinct advantage of using discrete components is that you can CHANGE anything you like about the peak and hold setup. By adjusting 2 resistors you can change the peak/hold current limits. By adjusting a resistor + capacitor you can change the peak time. etc etc. This means the drivers will work off a single pin, and can drive both low Z and high Z injectors with the same layout, and could conceivably drive any new type of injector even if it requires say 8A/2A hold or direct injection where the peak current are very high etc.
Fair enough, it would be nice to configure the limits independently, but on the other hand that makes it more complex for noobs. I guess it would be easy enough to spec a selection of common setups in the instructions for various injectors.

With the lm1949 you can adjust the hold current but the peak current is fixed at 4 times the hold current. Additionally, if I read it correctly (may not have) then when it hits the peak it falls immediately back to holding whereas I can see it might be nice to hit a limit and stay on a little longer at that limit.

Fair points, looking forward to seeing it in the flesh :-)

Fred.
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
User avatar
Delta
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:04 pm
Location: Perth, WA, Australia

Re: Injector Control Options

Post by Delta »

Image

In this configuration it will run anything from High Z injectors down to Low Z at 1mH and 0.5Ohms, no changes necessary at all.
For high Z injectors it will function like a saturation driver. For Low Z it will 4A/1.2A Peak/hold. Just add microcontroller ;)

If you adjust R6 & R11 you adjust the hold and peak current limits. R9 and C2 set the peak time.

Mosfets M1 & M3 only draw about 1mA so can be very cheap devices (I've seen the same sort of configuration with BJT's driving the FET - but they have poor temp characteristics). If we use a normal MOSFET for M2 then U1 connects as shown. If we use an Auto/OmniFET then U1's Vcc should be connected to 5V rather than Vbat. R8 & R10 will have to be 1W resistors.

Feel free to chuck something similar into another simulator and see if it works how you need it to.

EDIT: Fixed some awful spelling - it would appear I'm seriously tired
davebmw
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 331
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:58 pm
Location: South Wales, UK

Re: Injector Control Options

Post by davebmw »

The problem with the circuit you have simulated it that after the initial pulse of current the hold current is achieved by holding the MOSFET in a half open state.
this will inevitably dissipate loads of power into the MOSFET. If after the initial pulse of get open juice is fired the MOSFET goes into 10% PWM then the dissipation is very minimal dictated by Rds on of the MOSFET.
93'BMW 325is M50B25TU, Rebuilt 06/06, JE10.5:1, polish&port. Scorpion BB, K&N CAI, TEJ21 WBO2, '07 M3 Evo 18" 225F, 255R, EBC Kevlar, Bilstien Sprint, Polyflex. Head rebuild Oct'08, OEM+FSE FPR, MS2v3.0_DJB Custom, Extra 2.0.1
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Re: Injector Control Options

Post by Fred »

davebmw wrote:If after the initial pulse of get open juice is fired the MOSFET goes into 10% PWM then the dissipation is very minimal dictated by Rds on of the MOSFET.
Jean seems to think that the power dissipation is similar and just moved to the flyback/shunt/spike control circuitry instead. That doesn't seem intuitive to me, but I can see that it is possible. What are your thoughts on PWM with some sort of noise suppression etc Dave?
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
davebmw
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 331
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:58 pm
Location: South Wales, UK

Re: Injector Control Options

Post by davebmw »

I'm going to run something through a simulator now and see what it comes up with.

Snubbing all the crap that kicks back from PWM driving inductances can be tricky but I'm sure i can whip up something. I'll be back in an hour or so......
93'BMW 325is M50B25TU, Rebuilt 06/06, JE10.5:1, polish&port. Scorpion BB, K&N CAI, TEJ21 WBO2, '07 M3 Evo 18" 225F, 255R, EBC Kevlar, Bilstien Sprint, Polyflex. Head rebuild Oct'08, OEM+FSE FPR, MS2v3.0_DJB Custom, Extra 2.0.1
User avatar
Delta
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:04 pm
Location: Perth, WA, Australia

Re: Injector Control Options

Post by Delta »

davebmw wrote:The problem with the circuit you have simulated it that after the initial pulse of current the hold current is achieved by holding the MOSFET in a half open state.
this will inevitably dissipate loads of power into the MOSFET. If after the initial pulse of get open juice is fired the MOSFET goes into 10% PWM then the dissipation is very minimal dictated by Rds on of the MOSFET.

Ermm no. The current is limited by holding the mosfet near its threshold voltage, by driving towards + when current is lower than 1.2A, then driving the gate low again when it is above 1.2A - while it may look like the gate is set at a fixed voltage thats not the case. A comparator cannot remain at a fixed voltage (which is whats driving the gate). it drives towards either rail. The voltage at the base of the solenoid indicates that the mosfet is infact turning on and off quickly.

I had another circuit where I was doing the on - pwm. But that requires the CPU to support it in software (meaning different software for saturation vs peak/hold), or we need an external PWM driver. Also while yes some extra heat comes from the rapid switching and partially open gate in the mosfet - try simulating whats required to keep the injector current freewheeling while you PWM to keep it at 1A and simultaneously supress the 500-1000V it generate each time you turn it off - basically you dissipate about 10-20W in a resistor while a large capacitor supresses the voltage spike and buffers the coil current. The low resistance required to empty the capacitor which is supporting your freewheeling in a reasonable time to stop the injector overrunning is far more wasteful heat wise than the MOSFET being part open and will probably require several 5/10W resistors (very large) in parrallel.

If you can come up with a reasonable design that allows a simple pulse width output without PWMing during the pulse, that uses PWM to set hold current, and doesn't require massive wattage resistors.....then bring it on.....as I can't think of a way to do it hahaha. I'll even supply my half finished circuit if you like.

The LM19?? sorry can't remember it off the top of my head doesn't support MOSFET's as the low side driver directly, only BJT/Darlington Pair. Driving it through a two resistor network to allow switching still doesn't allow driving mosfets.......not sure why this part was chosen as a candidate if were using mosfets????

Sure you can drive that current through a resistor pair, feed an op amp and switch a mosfet with it - but it has a current output at zero input voltage according to the datasheet, which will mean offsetting a voltage first, then amplifying it to drive the fet. Its possible, but will be a pain, in the end you'll have as many components as my layout.
davebmw
LQFP144 - On Top Of The Game
Posts: 331
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:58 pm
Location: South Wales, UK

Re: Injector Control Options

Post by davebmw »

OK Delta I have to admit thats got me a bit beaten :mad: I can't improve on what you have done there it has excellent noise rejection and does what it should.
The only real problem I can see in the final application is the RF emanating from the cables running up to the injectors from the EMS, unless you build in localized snubber circuit to absorb the spurious RF noise.
This shouldn't be a problem the same 1K/20n combination should kill the nasty stuff and prevent radiation to local signal/sensor cables.
Also the supply rail for U1 should be on the clean supply, but thats just me being bloody picky!
This will be an interesting one to trial on a bench with some real injectors and a metre of cable in between. :)
93'BMW 325is M50B25TU, Rebuilt 06/06, JE10.5:1, polish&port. Scorpion BB, K&N CAI, TEJ21 WBO2, '07 M3 Evo 18" 225F, 255R, EBC Kevlar, Bilstien Sprint, Polyflex. Head rebuild Oct'08, OEM+FSE FPR, MS2v3.0_DJB Custom, Extra 2.0.1
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Re: Injector Control Options

Post by Fred »

Delta wrote:while it may look like the gate is set at a fixed voltage thats not the case. A comparator cannot remain at a fixed voltage (which is whats driving the gate). it drives towards either rail. The voltage at the base of the solenoid indicates that the mosfet is infact turning on and off quickly.
I didn't pick up on that either Image
<snip>The low resistance required to empty the capacitor which is supporting your freewheeling in a reasonable time to stop the injector overrunning is far more wasteful heat wise than the MOSFET being part open and will probably require several 5/10W resistors (very large) in parrallel.
Any chance of a rerun of that in more plain terms for me please? Image
The LM19?? sorry can't remember it off the top of my head doesn't support MOSFET's as the low side driver directly, only BJT/Darlington Pair. Driving it through a two resistor network to allow switching still doesn't allow driving mosfets.......not sure why this part was chosen as a candidate if were using mosfets????
This is my fault, I (wrongly apparently) assumed that it would just work. I'm sorry for causing confusion there. Image

Well done! Now, what sort of dissipation are we talking in this circuit and how large are the snubber components? Can you run through some more details of this setup? I think I like it, looking forward to seeing Jean's response!

Fred.
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
User avatar
Delta
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:04 pm
Location: Perth, WA, Australia

Re: Injector Control Options

Post by Delta »

Fred wrote:
Delta wrote:while it may look like the gate is set at a fixed voltage thats not the case. A comparator cannot remain at a fixed voltage (which is whats driving the gate). it drives towards either rail. The voltage at the base of the solenoid indicates that the mosfet is infact turning on and off quickly.
I didn't pick up on that either Image
<snip>The low resistance required to empty the capacitor which is supporting your freewheeling in a reasonable time to stop the injector overrunning is far more wasteful heat wise than the MOSFET being part open and will probably require several 5/10W resistors (very large) in parrallel.
Any chance of a rerun of that in more plain terms for me please? Image
The LM19?? sorry can't remember it off the top of my head doesn't support MOSFET's as the low side driver directly, only BJT/Darlington Pair. Driving it through a two resistor network to allow switching still doesn't allow driving mosfets.......not sure why this part was chosen as a candidate if were using mosfets????
This is my fault, I (wrongly apparently) assumed that it would just work. I'm sorry for causing confusion there. Image

Well done! Now, what sort of dissipation are we talking in this circuit and how large are the snubber components? Can you run through some more details of this setup? I think I like it, looking forward to seeing Jean's response!

Fred.
The snubber resistors should be 1W for safety, and the Capacitors should be non-polarised and rated to 100V - once again for safety. The diode in the DRC network should be able to support a flow of 10A peak and say 2A continuous (just incase someone wants 8A/2A).

To explain what happens when you do on-pwm is quite difficult - I wasn't very clear, so I'll try again hahha.

Basically at the beginning of the cycle the FET is turned on, which causes current to rise proportional to the inductance and resistance in the injector. When you get to 4A (in this case) it regulates it to 4A by switching the fet on and off, and then after some period (or as soon as you reach the 4A in some systems) it switches on and off at a rate that lowers the limit to 1A. Now - when the FET is switched off without any other components two things happen - The current stops flowing through the inductor - which causes the second thing - the voltage at the bottom of the inductor (which wants current to continue flowing) rises sharply (1-1.5kV). This spike is very destructive (although in the case of the autofet it won't spike high due to a reverse biased shottky diode being part of the bulk - but this diode has a capacitance to ground which is undesired). so we need to reduce it (preferably to below the autofets shottky barrier). Most people do this by using a reasonable sized capacitor. Each time switching occurs (which is frequent if your doing PWM to limit current) the capacitor absorbs current so that the voltage doesn't rise to high. (this means a very large capacitor is required - but we'll come to that later) You then need a way to discharge the capacitor. This is done by connecting a resistor in parallel to the capacitor. If the capacitor is very large, the resistor has to be very small to discharge it quickly meaning massive power. (once again more on this later) The resistor capacitor network also supresses ringing - ie it damps the oscillations that occur when you switch it off completely as its trying to basically make the voltage on both sides of the network equal. So that takes care of the ringing and the spikes. During the off time of the PWM the inductor still needs to have 1A flowing through it - or the injector pintle will close and we will need 4A again to open it. To achieve this you need a flyback diode. If you just connect a diode, then the capacitance built up at the junction of the diode and its freewheeling ability, means all thats removing power from the system is the resistance of the inductor - as when freewheeling most current flow through the diode rather than through the RC network. This means turn off time is greatly increased. To counter this, we have another Resistor limiting the freewheel current - this however means that the current lowers too quickly, so we take advantage of the fact that the voltage spikes when the inductor is turned turned off to store a large amount of current current in the diode side also. The size of the capacitor to alow this current flow is quite large. The over all capacitance has to be large (but its mostly on the diode side and used to keep the inductor open) so the RC snubber can have a lower capacitance and hence higher shunt resistor value - this means small power loss as we supress ringing, and fast response to spike voltage. The DRC network has a much larger capacitor but a much smaller resistor, however because the diode forces this side to shunt to the voltage rail, at turn off time after the transient spike has been eliminated it can dissipate to BOTH the inductor AND the RC network. This decreases final turn off time.

To allow all this to happen without having huge current draw through the DRC side the mosfet must be held close to its on position and switched in and out of the on position very quickly - infact as fast as possible while keeping current at the desired limit. The only was to achieve this (as I now know) is to use a fast op-amp or comparator to quickly drive it to the on position, then back down to near the threshold. At lower currents its possible to do it many ways, but when this much current is flowing around the loop you either have to switch very fast - or have HUGE power ratings on the snubber and RCD snubber networks so you can switch slowly and still keep the inductor current flowing.
davebmw wrote:Also the supply rail for U1 should be on the clean supply, but thats just me being bloody picky!
Like I said, if your driving a normal MOSFET then you leave it attached to Vbat - I don't have an autofet in the LTspice simulator so I sim like that. If we're driving an AutoFET then yeah it will be powered by 5V.


I hope that explains this a little better.....if not..then ummm...I'm stuck hahaha.
User avatar
jharvey
1N4001 - Signed up
Posts: 1607
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:17 pm

Re: Injector Control Options

Post by jharvey »

Nice spice, looks like linears spice tool.

Running the MOSFET non saturated... I see potential for the op-amp to oscillate, many have hard to predict holes and poles that often vary from batch to batch. Although most times it doesn't happen in a voltage follower, there is the potential for hard to predict and troubleshoot problems on the current feedback path.

Here's a thought, when in the full open state, the resistance is about 3R (12/4), then it goes to 10R (12/1.2). The power dissipated by the MOSFET when in the hold pattern is about 10 watts (1.2^2 * 7R). 10 watts by 6 driving circuits is a fair bit of power to have in the ECU.

If we had two digi lines from the MCU that drove two injector drive circuits, one with a power resistor and one with out, we could run the FET's saturated, avoiding oscillation issues. The resistor could also be made external to the ECU keeping the heat away.
Post Reply