Fuel Pump speed control

Fuel Pump speed control

Author
Discussion

Steve_D

Original Poster:

13,737 posts

257 months

Saturday 16th October 2010
quotequote all
Does anyone have info on available makes of Fuel Pump speed controllers?
I have seen the Aeromotive version ($337) but have had no sucess finding any other makers.

Also a version that provides more variation than just slow or fast would be good.

Not being an electronics expert I understand that it has to be PWM but don't know what data/signal these devices use to trigger them.

Thanks in advance.
Steve

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 16th October 2010
quotequote all
You're going to struggle a bit with that (which is why i made my own!)

A "returnless" system basically has a fuel rail pressure sensor, that is monitored, and the value compared to a target fuel pressure (which may vary with rpm/load/starting etc etc). The error between these is used (typically by a feed forward PI controller) to generate a pwm signal to drive the fuel pump speed (pump speed = supply voltage (minus losses), pump load (i.e. pressure) = supply current, so a high frequency pwm (which the Inductance of the pump armature smooths to dc) with a varying mark/space ratio will effectively generate a smoothly varying pump speed, and hence fuel deleivery quantity) Most returnless systems still have a pressure regulator, but it is mounted within the tank (or even the pump) and it is set higher than the greatest pressure ever demanded, and just smooths out pressure spikes from any poor control responce. Also, a pressure accumulator with a spring plunger makes life much easier for any control (during dynamic conditions) as it effectively softens the systems volume to pressure characteritics.

Many production cars now have there own returnless systems, look for words like FPCM (Fuel pump control module) etc, but generally the pump modules are fairly dumb, they are really just an amplifier, and the engine ecu usually does the control calcs etc. Also, if you use a OEM module you will have to hack the CAN signals to make it work, (and have some controller to generate these signals. I believe that some GM/SAAB vehicles do have a hard wired FPCM, that takes a TTL level PWM signal in rather than anything on CAN.

I'm not sure if any of the aftermarket ECU's (except Pi which does) currently have FPCM strategy availible also??

Any system you get/make etc, will need to be calibrated to your particular fuel system, usually by tuning the gains of the PI controller, and probably by setting the open loop feedforward mapping to get it in the ballpark (so the PI just deals with the dynamic components)

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 16th October 2010
quotequote all
Also should note that most OEM systems do not attempt to control fuel injector delta pressure, just rail pressure, and hence your ecu mapping will need to accomondate the change in IDP with changeing MAP.

(you can get a system to control IDP, but you will end up needing an extra solenoid "dump" valve to rapidly reduce system pressure on tip-outs (otherwise the only way you can lower system pressure is to "use" fuel by injecting it)

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 16th October 2010
quotequote all
AND: (lol)

The Aeromotive controller doesnt do "pressure" control as such, it just outputs a pump voltage dependant upon rpm. So you still need a normal "return" fuel system with std reg etc. It would help a little a low loads to reduce fuel cycled massflow, but you could probably get much the same effect by just using 2 parallel smaller pumps and switching one off at idle with a simple throttle switch etc!

stevieturbo

17,229 posts

246 months

Saturday 16th October 2010
quotequote all
Steve_D said:
Does anyone have info on available makes of Fuel Pump speed controllers?
I have seen the Aeromotive version ($337) but have had no sucess finding any other makers.

Also a version that provides more variation than just slow or fast would be good.

Not being an electronics expert I understand that it has to be PWM but don't know what data/signal these devices use to trigger them.

Thanks in advance.
Steve
I used the Aeromotive one for a while, the terminals are crap push on spades, which inevitably led to them overheating due to the high currents involved.

Wouldnt reccomend it.

But do you really need a controller ? How many pumps, or what size of pumps are you using ?

Steve_D

Original Poster:

13,737 posts

257 months

Saturday 16th October 2010
quotequote all
stevieturbo said:
...I used the Aeromotive one for a while, the terminals are crap push on spades, which inevitably led to them overheating due to the high currents involved.

Wouldnt reccomend it.

But do you really need a controller ? How many pumps, or what size of pumps are you using ?
There looks to be a MkII version with screw terminals which may be to address the problems you had.

I'm looking at this following a thread in the Ultima forum where some are experiencing fueling problems with temperature. The problem goes away for a while if you switch tanks (twin tank system) which leads me to think the fuel is getting hot in low demand situations. It is a return system so the tank of fuel is also heating up. As these engines are typically in the 600hp bracket with pump output at 200ish LPH a whole tank of fuel will pass through the fuel rail every 12 minutes.
Most, I believe, are running one pump probably the Bosch 044.

An added benefit would be reduced pump noise.

Steve

buggalugs

9,243 posts

236 months

Saturday 16th October 2010
quotequote all
I was just wondering what other advantages there are for manufacturers to use an ECU controlled fuel pump above the reduced noise that Steve mentions above. A traditional system with a regulator in it seems so simple and suited for the job that I guess there must be some pretty big advantages to be had for them to move away from that.

stevieturbo

17,229 posts

246 months

Saturday 16th October 2010
quotequote all
I run a pair of 044's all the time. Ive never experienced any problems. Longest run during normal driving might be say 3-4 hours continuous at a time.

Whilst I do have a cooler on the return line, it is very badly situated, and probably doesnt offer much cooling.

I also log fuel temperature, and it really doesnt change that much. I think the hottest Ive seen...due to heat soak would be around 50degC. As soon as the pumps are running, it immediately drops again to around 30degC, and that was a very hot sunny day at Elvington.

andygtt

8,344 posts

263 months

Saturday 16th October 2010
quotequote all
very interested in this myself, I decided to use a single Aeromotive A1000 rather than two 044's and am changing the rail to be a flow through type but im worried about slow speed reliability and heat build up.

On the std noble the 044's do tend to get very loud after an hr or two of driving


anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 17th October 2010
quotequote all
buggalugs said:
I guess there must be some pretty big advantages to be had for them to move away from that.
The biggie is the evaporative emission test, where fuel upheat is THE major factor in sizing the carbon canister. Less heat = smaller canister, and a smaller canister = less evap fuel vapour to purge during the subsequent drive cycle.

Also it reduces costs and cruicially build time/complexity, and the "overpressure "logic allows for a longer fuel PW at low load (so the injectors are not operated in their non linear region)


There is also a small electrical power saving (economy increase) and the potential to remove a small cabin NVH issue (generally not an issue with modern in-tank pumps / plastic tanks etc)


In a purely motorsport or performance applicaion, it significantly increases pump durability, because you actually only run it totally flat out at high rpm /power (obviously this is more of an advantage say in stage rallying than circuit racing etc!) and it allows better control of rail pressure, as a high flow pump will be lifting the prv a large distance off it's seat,(sometimes even choking it) so the spring rate in the prv becomes an issue)

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 17th October 18:11

stevieturbo

17,229 posts

246 months

Sunday 17th October 2010
quotequote all
andygtt said:
very interested in this myself, I decided to use a single Aeromotive A1000 rather than two 044's and am changing the rail to be a flow through type but im worried about slow speed reliability and heat build up.

On the std noble the 044's do tend to get very loud after an hr or two of driving
A1000 will be a lot louder than the 044.

What is the makeup of your tank etc ? What capacity ? Fuel requirements for the engine ?

andygtt

8,344 posts

263 months

Monday 18th October 2010
quotequote all
stevieturbo said:
andygtt said:
very interested in this myself, I decided to use a single Aeromotive A1000 rather than two 044's and am changing the rail to be a flow through type but im worried about slow speed reliability and heat build up.

On the std noble the 044's do tend to get very loud after an hr or two of driving
A1000 will be a lot louder than the 044.

What is the makeup of your tank etc ? What capacity ? Fuel requirements for the engine ?
we discussed my requirements at length on another thread smile

By very loud, i was actually meaning after a couple of hrs of normal driving they start to getting significantly louder... if its an overflow issue or fuel heating up then two pumps will make it much worse unless I change the system.

buggalugs

9,243 posts

236 months

Monday 18th October 2010
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
buggalugs said:
I guess there must be some pretty big advantages to be had for them to move away from that.
The biggie is the evaporative emission test, where fuel upheat is THE major factor in sizing the carbon canister. Less heat = smaller canister, and a smaller canister = less evap fuel vapour to purge during the subsequent drive cycle.

Also it reduces costs and cruicially build time/complexity, and the "overpressure "logic allows for a longer fuel PW at low load (so the injectors are not operated in their non linear region)


There is also a small electrical power saving (economy increase) and the potential to remove a small cabin NVH issue (generally not an issue with modern in-tank pumps / plastic tanks etc)


In a purely motorsport or performance applicaion, it significantly increases pump durability, because you actually only run it totally flat out at high rpm /power (obviously this is more of an advantage say in stage rallying than circuit racing etc!) and it allows better control of rail pressure, as a high flow pump will be lifting the prv a large distance off it's seat,(sometimes even choking it) so the spring rate in the prv becomes an issue)

Edited by Max_Torque on Sunday 17th October 18:11
Interesting thanks smile

turbonutter

496 posts

207 months

Thursday 16th December 2010
quotequote all
Just seen this thread & With my car I am using a FueLab Prodigy injection pump. this has two speeds that are switchable or if your ecu has a PWM output spare you can control between min and max as you like.

I was planning to just switch low to high speed at a set RPM & or Boost.

The car isn't finished yet, so i cant comment on the pumps performance.

Cheers
Neil

toger13

118 posts

173 months

Friday 17th December 2010
quotequote all
I have a Aeromotive A1000 in an Aeromotive fuel cell and I confirm its stupidly loud lol

Im running it just relayed though with out a controller, so might contemplate getting one later on

Si

andygtt

8,344 posts

263 months

Monday 20th December 2010
quotequote all
so you submersed the pump in a fuel cell, did you rubber mount it?

Still interested in a fuel pump controller lol

toger13

118 posts

173 months

Monday 20th December 2010
quotequote all

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 7th January 2011
quotequote all
Hey all,

Now that christmas etc is out of the way, i finally have some time to look at perhaps producing a low series run of my fuel pump controller, with that in mind, can anyone interested in the subject rate the following features for me:

(0 = don't bother, 10 = must have!)


1) CAN enabled (so you can control / data log via CAN

2) speed control for a seperate(additional to main pump control) lift pump (10A max)

3) Voltage output (0-5v) for current "fuel pressure" (saves having to have another sensor for your EMS to read)

4) Crash switch input (inertia switch signal to shut off pump(s) in event of crash etc)

5) pump fault output signal (to dash lamp or even relay to cut engine etc)

6) Control of a "pressure drop valve" to allow easy system bleeding (for returnless systems) and also more accurate pressure control on negative throttle conditions(otherwise you have to wait for the engine to use the fuel to drop the pressure)

7) MAP sensor voltage input to allow "load dependant" pressure setpoint (and Fuel injector deltaP output signal for ems etc)

8) Main pump voltage boosting (approx 20V max output) to allow main pump to "overrange" as required

9) MIL spec connectors (some more reliability, MUCH more cost!)

Thanks in advance!



Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 7th January 18:04

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 7th January 2011
quotequote all






stevieturbo

17,229 posts

246 months

Friday 7th January 2011
quotequote all
Whilst it really isnt something I'd be interested in myself....

If the limitations of the unit may be 20A.

I guess it wouldnt really cost much more to add a further high power driver if 2 pumps were required ?

If going to the trouble of building a controller for a high powered fuel system, there is a good chance more than one high pressure pump may be needed.

Given most cars will have an ecu....is an inertia switch needed ?

CAN....how many people are really likely to use this over conventional stuff ? Although no idea how much cost it would add.

I take it the return solenoid is actually the FPR ?

And with regards to the siwrl tank. Is there anything here to ensure the swirl tank remains full. ie, could there be a warning system, or some system in place to ensure it IS always kept full, or warning issues should the level drop for whatever reason