Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, September 13, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 1999-01-0542

Optimization of an Electronic-Throttle-Control
Actuator for Gasoline-Direct-Injection Engines
Takehiko Kowatari
Mechanical Engineering Research Laboratory, Hitachi Ltd.

Shigeru Tokumoto and Toshifumi Usui

Automotive Products Division, Hitachi, Ltd.

Reprinted From: Electronic Engine Controls 1999: Sensors, Actuators, and Development Tools
(SP-1418)

International Congress and Exposition

Detroit, Michigan
March 1-4, 1999

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, September 13, 2018

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, September 13, 2018
Optimization of an Electronic-Throttle-Control Actuator
for Gasoline-Direct-Injection Engines
Mechanical Engineering Research Laboratory, Hitachi Ltd.
Copyright © 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
An electronic throttle actuator with a faster response time
and reduced peak current was aimed for the DI-G engine.
An qualitative analysis of the drivetrain of the throttle
actuator is performed. It was found that to obtain faster
response, inertia, motor inductance, and motor resis-
tance need to be reduced, while the reduction gear ratio
has an optimal value. On the other hand, to reduce the
peak current, motor inductance, motor resistance and the
reduction gear ratio must be increased. Based on this
analysis, a more detailed numerical calculation is done
and design parameters are optimized. An actuator with
optimized parameters is prototyped and showed 20%
faster response time and 50% lower peak current.
INTRODUCTION
To control the output power of the spark-ignition engine,
inducted air into the engine needs to be controlled. A
throttle valve, located in the intake duct of the engine, is
used for this purpose. Conventionally, a mechanical link
is attached from the accelerator pedal to the throttle
valve, so that the throttle valve moves in accord with the
driver’s accelerator-pedal input.
However, due to tighter emission regulations, quest for
fuel economy, driveability, and cost reduction, an elec-
tronic throttle control system that provides independent
control of the throttle valve has been developed [1, 2].
The electronic throttle-control system can set the throttle
valve to any desired position, thus making it possible to
optimize the airflow into the engine. Functions of the
electronic throttle-control system include cruise control,
traction control, idle-speed control, and programmable
accelerator-pedal/throttle-valve opening characteristics.
Other functions being proposed are fast catalyst heating,
catalyst protection, and anti-jerking [1]. Furthermore,
since the throttle valve is mechanically decoupled from
the accelerator pedal, engine-control strategies based on
air-flow-rate control are being pursued as well [3, 4, 5].
1
1999-01-0542
Takehiko Kowatari
Shigeru Tokumoto and Toshifumi Usui
Automotive Products Division, Hitachi, Ltd.
The demand for electronic throttle control system has
been increased by the advent of direct-injection (DI) and
lean-burn engines. These engines switch between a sto-
ichiometric mixture under high-load conditions and a lean
mixture under part-load conditions. To avoid undesirable
torque fluctuations and minimize emissions while maxi-
mizing the efficiency of these engines, the throttle valve
needs to be moved as quickly as possible at the transition
from the stoichiometric to the lean mixtures. Therefore,
an throttle actuator with faster response (i.e., the time to
move the throttle valve) is demanded. At the same time,
there is a ever lasting quest for cost reduction. However,
dramatic cost reduction of the actuator itself is difficult.
An approach was taken to reduce overall cost by lowering
the cost of the power electronic circuitry driving the motor
of the actuator. This is done by lowering the maximum
current. The maximum current is generated by the elec-
tromagnetic force of the motor and will be called ‘peak
current’. In this study, an arbitrary goal of 10% faster
response time and 40% reduction of the peak current,
relative to the initially developed electronic throttle actua-
tor is aimed.
Achieving these to goals separately is a simple task. To
simply decrease response time, the electric motor that
drives the throttle valve can be enlarged to produce more
torque. But this strategy has two drawbacks, the first
being size increase and second being increase electric
maximum current. The size increase is critical as the
throttle actuator needs to be compact enough to fit in an
already tight engine room. The current increase conflicts
with cost reduction through the drive circuitry. To simply
reduce current, a smaller motor or a motor with increased
resistance can be used. However, response will suffer by
loss of motor torque.
To achieve the goals, first, an analytical approach is taken
to identify the effect of each drivetrain parameter. Next,
based on the analytical results, a more detailed numeri-
cal analysis is performed.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, September 13, 2018
ELECTRONIC-THROTTLE-CONTROL
ACTUATOR
Fig. 1 shows an example of a electronic-throttle-control
actuator. Fig. 2 shows a schematic 3-D view of the driv-
etrain. The drivetrain of the actuator typically consists of
an DC motor, reduction gears to transmit the motor
torque to the throttle valve shaft, and a return spring as a
fail-safe device. The DC motor was chosen because of
its comparatively high power-to-size ratio and low cost.
The reduction gears are manufactured by metal sintering.
Plastic gears were also studied, but the metal sintered
gears were found to be cost equivalent but more durable.
The return spring has enough torque to return the valve
to a specified position in case the motor fails or
de-energizes.
The torque produced by the motor is enhanced by the
reduction gears. Torque enhancement allows the use of
a small motor while minimizing the possibility of sticking
of the throttle valve from ice and contaminant accumula-
tion. Also, the reduction gears enable the motor to be set
parallel to the throttle shaft for a compact layout.
throttle valve
return spring
reduction gears
DC motor
Figure 1. An example of an electronic throttle actuator
reduction
return
spring gears
throttle DC motor
valve
Figure 2. Drivetrain of throttle actuator
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
EFFECT OF MOTOR PARAMETERS ON THE
RESPONSE TIME – The effects of motor parameters
such as torque coefficient, induced electromagnetic force
2
coefficient Ke, coil resistance R, and coil inductance L on
the response time are investigated using a simplified
model of the actuator shown in Fig. 3. Here the inertia of
the reduction gears are not included since their inertia
becomes comparatively small (order in 1/100), because
of the reduction gear ratio, to that of the inertia of the
motor J. Also, the spring torque Ts can be thought as a
constant with a large amount of pre-load torque Tpl, with
only 1/30th of the pre-load torque added from the sec-
ond term Ksθ (where Ks is the return spring constant
and θ is the throttle valve angle). The equation of motion
of the simplified model can be represented by
JN 2θ

+ CNθ
+ Ts = KtIN (1a)
where
Ts = Ksθ + Tpl (1b)
and
RI + LI
+ KeNθ
= E . (1c)
The first equation, Eq. (1a), represents motion and the
second equation Eq. (1c), represents the electrical bal-
ance. To clarify the effect of the motor parameters, the
above equation is Laplace transformed and written as a
block diagram as shown in Fig. 4. The input is electric
potential E applied to the motor, and the output is the
rotational angle of the throttle valve θ. The overall gain
should be as large as possible, meaning that a small
change of potential results in a large deflection of the
throttle valve thus resulting in a faster response. To
increase the gain, the upper half of the block diagram
should be increased while the lower half should be small
as possible.
It can be seen that inductance L, inertia J, coil resistance
R, spring torque Ts, and electromagnetic force coefficient
Ke should be decreased, while the motor torque constant
Kt should be increased. Since Ke and Kt are propor-
tional, it can also be predicted that there is an optimum
point for these parameters.
Ts: Spring Torque
throttle valve
motor θ
Tm
E J,L,R, N: Gear Ratio
Ke,Kt
C
Tm :Motor Torque (=Kt E/R)
Figure 3. Simplified model of throttle actuator
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, September 13, 2018

CNθ
+ Ts = KtNI (4a)

E + 1 1 + 1 1 1 1 θ
Kt s s and
- L s - J N2

RI + KeNθ
= E (4b)
+ By deleting variable current I from the above equations,
Ks
+ + + the valve speed during opening is represented by the fol-
R Tpl
+ C lowing equation. (Here, the coefficients Kt and Ke are
assumed to be the same, K=Kt=Ke.)
Ke N

Figure 4. Block diagram of simplified model KNE − TsR

θ
= (5)
RCN + K 2 N 2
EFFECT OF REDUCTION GEAR RATIO ON
RESPONSE TIME – To clarify the role of the reduction Using Eq. (5) and evaluating the valve speed to give peak
gear ratio upon the response time, here, the motor current results in the following.
parameters, and the viscous friction coefficient C of the
model shown in Fig. 3 will be ignored. The equation of 1 K ( KNE + TsR ) 
I max = E +  (6)
motion becomes, R RC + K 2 N 
JN 2θ

+ Ts = TmN . (2)
If friction C is neglected, the peak current becomes
The first term is the inertia term, where the motor inertia
is magnified by the reduction gear ratio. The above 2E Ts
equation can be rewritten as, I max = + 2 . (7)
R K N

θ

=
(TmN − Ts) . (3)
Eq. (7) suggests that to decrease peak current, motor coil
JN 2 resistance R, torque constant or induced electromagnetic
force coefficient K, and gear ratio N need to be
This equation suggests that there is a optimum gear ratio increased.
for the motor torque, inertia, and return spring torque .
Fig. 5 shows a typical plot of Eq. (3) when the gear ratio
N is varied. valve maximum velocity
position
potential reversed for deceleration
motor
..
valve acceleration θ

potential
large peak current at deceleration
motor due to combination of
current electromagnetic force and potential

time
reduction gear ratio N Figure 6. Mechanism of current production
Figure 5. Effect of reduction gear ratio on acceleration
SUMMARY OF QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS – The design
EFFECT OF MOTOR PARAMETERS AND REDUCTION parameters for faster response time and lower peak cur-
GEAR RATIO ON THE PEAK CURRENT LEVEL – Fig. rent are summarized in Table 1. These results show that
6 shows a simplified mechanism of the transient current. to achieve the design goals, inertia and spring torque
The peak of the transient current is observed during the should be decreased. However, these parameters have
deceleration of the throttle valve and the motor. This is limits and should not affect other design parameters.
due to the matching of the direction of the potential That is the motor inertia should be reduced as much as
applied to the motor for deceleration and the direction of possible without sacrificing the produced torque. And
the electromagnetic force generated by the rotation of the spring torque should be reduced but needs to be kept
motor. In general, the transition current will be higher if large enough to be able to return the throttle valve in case
the motor speed is faster and the torque constant or the of motor failure.
induced electromagnetic force coefficient is larger. If the As shown in Table 1, other parameters have conflicting
motor speed is assumed to reach a constant value before rends for achieving our desired goals. For example,
the deceleration, the first term of Eq. (1a) and the second motor coil resistance needs to be increased to lower the
term of Eq. (1b) can be omitted and the equation of peak current but at the same time it needs to be
motion becomes decreased to obtain quicker response. The motor induc-
tance should be greater to decrease peak current but

3
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, September 13, 2018

should be smaller to increase response. And reduction

gear ratio should be increased for reducing peak current Table 2. Motor variation for numerical analysis
but to satisfy response time there is an optimal value. Torque
Most of the design parameters have conflicting trends, so Coil resis- con- Induc-
a detailed analysis is required. Motor Type Inertia tance stant tance
A base motor 1 1 1 1
Table 1. Summary of design parameter strategy for B redesigned
motor 0.75 1.74 1.41 2
improved performance.
C improved 0.75 1.74 1.51 2
Faster Response Lower Peak magnet
Design Parameters Time Current increased
D resistance 0.75 2.06 1.51 2
Inertia J smaller smaller
Reduction N optimized value larger
Gear Ratio EVALUATION METHOD – In actual use, the response
Return Spring Ts smaller smaller time and the peak current of the throttle actuator are
Torque heavily dependent upon the control strategy and control
Motor coil R smaller larger hardware. Including the effect of the control strategy is a
resistance complex process and is beyond the scope of this paper.
Motor Torque Kt optimized value larger Therefore, to purely evaluate the effect of mechanical
Constant
design parameters, the throttle actuator is freely run, in
Motor L smaller larger
Inductance the simulation, by a step potential input to the motor. The
throttle actuator model used for the calculation is repre-
sented by Eq. (1). The response time is defined by at the
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
time of reaching 90% of the arbitrary target value.
Table 1 enables us to narrow down the possible design Upon reaching 90% of the target value, the potential
strategies listed below. applied to the motor is reversed to simulate maximum
deceleration command. Since the motor speed is nearly
Inertia: Lower by redesigning the motor rotor while
saturated at the time of potential reversal, maximum cur-
maintaining the torque constant.
rent, i.e. the peak current, is generated.
Reduction gear ratio: Find optimal value that
reduces current and response time.
input potential[V]

valve opening[%]
Response Time
Motor coil resistance: Increase in order to lower
peak current but should be kept small enough for
high toque output for faster response.
Return Spring torque: Lower as much as possible
while maintaining enough torque to return the
throttle valve. 5000
motor speed[rpm]

current[A]

Torque constant: Increase as much as possible while

keeping peak current low.
Inductance: Negligible. (Secondary to Torque
increase and coil resistance).
Several motors designed using the above strategies are
listed in Table 2. Motor A is the motor used in the initially
developed throttle actuator and will be used as the base
motor for deriving other motor specifications. The num-
bers in each column are the ratio of the other motors’
parameters relative to Motor A. Motor B is a redesigned
version of Motor A, where the dimensions remain the
same while inertia is decreased 25% and torque constant
is increased 41% but resistance increases of 74%. Motor
C is a further modification of Motor B in that the shape of
the permanent magnet was improved to increase the
torque constant to 51%. Motor D is a derivative of Motor
C where the coil resistance is increased in order to
decrease peak current.
0
0
Peak Transient
Current
-5000
tim e tim e
Figure 7. Example of calculation result
An example of the calculated results are shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7(a) shows the potential applied to the motor during
the calculation. Fig. 7(b) shows the position of the throt-
tle valve and the response time is indicated by the arrow.
Fig. 7(d) shows the current; the first peak encountered is
from the rush current (i.e., the left-hand side first and sec-
ond terms of Eq. (1b)). There is also a second "peak" on
the negative side (actually, a trough). This peak is gener-
ally larger and is due to the electromotive force generated
by the motor rotational speed and thus will be used to
evaluate the peak current level.

4
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, September 13, 2018
RESULTS: RESPONSE TIME – Fig. 8 shows calcula-
tion result of the response time for each of the motor plot-
ted against the gear ratio. Both axes are normalized by
the initially developed throttle actuator, with normalized
gear ratio of 1 and response time of 1. Our aim is to
obtain 10% faster response time (normalized response
time of 0.9) than the initial actuator, which is shown by
the thick horizontal line.
Of the motors, Motor A shows the quickest response
throughout the gear ratio range shown followed by B, C,
and D. Though this Motor A has a smaller torque con-
stant and large inertia, the coil resistance is small, result-
ing in greater torque production. Motors B and C have
only small differences owing to similar parameters except
a small difference in the torque constant. Motor D has
the slowest response due to large coil resistance result-
ing smaller torque production compared to other motors.
From the plot of Motor A, to reach 0.9 normalized
response time, it can be seen that normalized gear ratios
between 0.1 and 0.85 can be selected. There is a opti-
mum normalized gear ratio near 0.2 (well under the
desired response time). Other motors have similar opti-
mum gear ratio as well. The plot indicates that gear
ratios smaller than the optimum results in sudden rise of
the response time. This rise is due to the decreased
torque for driving the throttle valve. Designing the reduc-
tion gear ratio in this region should be avoided because
the torque driving the throttle valve is small compared to
the return spring. Therefore, the response time can be
greatly affected by small increase of friction or the return
spring force.
To further improve reliability of the actuator, friction
increase by contamination and icing needs to be consid-
ered. To minimize these effects, extra driving torque
(Tex) should be taken in account when determining the
reduction gear ratio. This gear ratio will be termed as
‘minimum recommended reduction gear ratio (Nmin)’.
Since each of the motor produces different amount of
torque, there will be different Nmin for each motor. Nmin
is obtained from the following.
Tex + Ts
N min =
Kt E R
The numerator of represents the total load torque of the
drivetrain. The denominator is the torque produced by
the motor. If the motor produces large amount of torque,
Nmin becomes smaller, such as in the case of Motor A.
In other words, Nmin determines the smallest gear ratio
which can be combined with the motor. Since torque on
the throttle valve shaft is in proportion to the reduction
gear ratio, gear ratios larger than Nmin should be used.
In Fig. 8 , minimum recommended reduction gear ratio
Nmin is indicated by a solid vertical line for each motor
plot. The fastest configuration is given by motor A with a
normalized gear ratio of 0.56 (where the response rate is
0.7 of the initial throttle actuator). The second fastest
configuration (resulting in 13% reduction in response
time) is given by Motor C with a normalized gear ratio of
0.65. Motor B is slightly slower due to the smaller torque
constant; therefore, it has a higher minimum recom-
mended reduction gear ratio. Motor D produces least
torque of the motors and has the highest Nmin.
Dashed vertical line is the maximum gear ratio satisfying
the targeted response time. A gear ratio between these
two vertical lines need to be selected to achieve the arbi-
trary goal of 10% decreased response time (normalized
response time of 0.9). Motor A has the widest gear ratio
range possible, from 0.55 to 0.85. Motor C has a narrow
range from 0.63 to 0.67. Motor B and D cannot satisfy
both criteria ( i.e. targeted response and Nmin ). For
achieving the required response time, Motor A or Motor C
must be chosen.
1.5
motor
1.4 D
initial throttle actuator C
1.3
normalized response time
B
1.2 D
B
1.1
A
1
0.9
0.8
0.7 C target response
0.6
A
0.5
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
normalized gear ratio
Figure 8. Calculation result of response time
RESULTS: PEAK CURRENT – Fig. 9 shows the calcu-
lated peak current plotted against the normalized reduc-
tion gear ratio. The peak current is normalized from the
calculation result of the initial throttle actuator. Here our
goal is to 40% reduction ( normalized value of 0.6 ) of the
peak current. Once again, the solid vertical line indicates
the minimum recommended gear ratio Nmin. The arrows
(8) indicate the normalized gear ratio range satisfying the
targeted current.
Motor A had the fastest response time and was one of
the possible motor, but the peak current is far from satis-
factory. However, the other motors with larger coil resis-
tance than Motor A satisfy the goal. Motor C and B had
similar peak current level, though Motor C with a slightly
larger electromagnetic force coefficient Ke had larger
peak current. Motor D satisfied the target throughout the
calculated gear ratio range.
5
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Thursday, September 13, 2018

increased torque constant by factor of 1.52, increased

1.2
initial throttle actuator resistance by factor of 1.74, and reduced inertia by factor
1 A of 0.75, combined with a reduction gear ratio by factor of
normalized peak current

motor A 0.65 relative to the initial throttle actuator were required

0.8
to satisfy the performance goal. A prototype with this
B
specification was developed and showed 20% faster
0.6 response time and 50% lower peak current.
motor B
D

norm alized throttle -

0.4
-20%
motor C C target
1

valve position
0.2 motor D
optim ized
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
normalized gear ratio
Figure 9. Calculation results of peak current
initial

VALIDATION EXPERIMENT – From the above results, a

throttle actuator with Motor C characteristics and the nor-
0
malized gear ratio of 0.65 was prototyped, which is pre-
dicted to achieve both of the targeted response rate and 0 1
the peak current ( Other motors did not match both of the norm alized tim e
criteria ). From Figures 8 and 9, the predicted perfor- (a) valve movement
mance of the prototype actuator is -10% ( 0.9 normalized
time ) in response time and -45% ( 0.55 normalized peak
current). A controller for driving a initial throttle actuator

norm alized current

was used to drive the prototype. Fig. 10 shows the step 1 initial
response of the prototype. The time scale used in the fig- -50%
ure is normalized according to the response time of the
initial throttle actuator. Throttle valve position is normal-
ized according to the target value. The peak current is 0
normalized by the maximum value observed by the initial
actuator.
The prototype had 20% faster response rate than the ini- optimized
tial actuator exceeding the performance goal of 10%.
-1
The peak current is lower than that of the initial throttle
actuator by 50% (again exceeding the goal of 40%). A 0 1
small overshoot is observed in the response is observed, norm alized tim e
indicating that the controller gain is too high for the
(b) peak current
quicker prototype actuator. By decreasing the controller
gain and sacrificing the response time, peak current can
Figure 10. Experiment Result : Comparison between
be further reduced.
optimized and initial throttle actuator
SUMMARY REFERENCES
An electronic throttle actuator with shorter response time 1. Streib, H. and Bischof, H., Electronic Throttle Control
and a decreased peak current, relative to the initially (ETC): A Cost Effective System for Improved Emissions,
developed electronic throttle actuator, was developed. In Fuel Economy, and Driveability, SAE Paper 960338
the process, first the actuator drivetrain parameters were
qualitatively analyzed. It was found that to obtain faster 2. Mausner, E.S. and Pfalzgraf, M., The VDO Modular Throt-
response, inertia, motor inductance, and motor resis- tle Body Concept for Electronic Engine Control, SAE Paper
tance need to be reduced, while the reduction gear ratio 900782
has an optimal value. On the other hand, to reduce the 3. Bidan, Voverie, and Chaumerliac, Nonlinear Control of a
peak current, motor inductance, motor resistance and the Spark Ignition Engine, LAAS Report 94432, Oct. 1994
reduction gear ratio must be increased. Since these 4. Lenz, U. and Schroeder, D., Transient Air-Fuel Ratio Con-
results show conflicting trends to achieve the target, trol Using Aritificial Intelligence, SAE Paper 970618
parameter optimization was necessary.
5. Ohyama, Y., Ohsuga, M., and Fujieda, M., Air Flow Meter-
Next, several types of motors were selected for parame- ing and Combustion Control for Spark Ignition Engines,
ter optimization. It was predicted that a new motor, with SAE Paper 930215