Patent Abstract:
A method and apparatus for controlling the operation of a “lean-burn” internal combustion engine in cooperation with an exhaust gas purification system having an emissions control device capable of alternatively storing and releasing NO x  when exposed to exhaust gases that are lean and rich of stoichiometry, respectively, determines a performance impact, such as a fuel-economy benefit, of operating the engine at a selected lean operating condition, with due consideration of the periodic rich operating condition necessary to release stored NO x  from the device. The method and apparatus further determine a measure representative of the instantaneous NO x -storing efficiency of the device. The method and apparatus enable the selected lean operating condition as long as the determined performance impact and the determined device efficiency are each above respective predetermined minimum levels.

Full Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     1. Field of the Invention 
     The invention relates to methods and apparatus for controlling the operation of “lean-burn” internal combustion engines used in motor vehicles to obtain improved engine and/or vehicle performance, such as improved vehicle fuel economy or reduced overall vehicle emissions. 
     2. Background Art 
     The exhaust gas generated by a typical internal combustion engine, as may be found in motor vehicles, includes a variety of constituent gases, including hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO x  ) and oxygen (O 2 ). The respective rates at which an engine generates these constituent gases are typically dependent upon a variety of factors, including such operating parameters as air-fuel ratio (λ), engine speed and load, engine temperature, ambient humidity, ignition timing (“spark”), and percentage exhaust gas recirculation (“EGR”). The prior art often maps values for instantaneous engine-generated or “feedgas” constituents, such as HC, CO and NO x , based, for example, on detected values for instantaneous engine speed and engine load. 
     To limit the amount of feedgas constituents that are exhausted through the vehicle&#39;s tailpipe to the atmosphere as “emissions,” motor vehicles typically include an exhaust purification system having an upstream and a downstream three-way catalyst. The downstream three-way catalyst is often referred to as a NO x  “trap”. Both the upstream and downstream catalyst store NOX when the exhaust gases are “lean” of stoichiometry and release previously stored NO x  for reduction to harmless gases when the exhaust gases are “rich” of stoichiometry. 
     Significantly, each purge event is characterized by a fuel “penalty” consisting generally of an amount of fuel required to release both the oxygen stored in the three-way catalyst, and the oxygen and NO x  stored in the trap. Moreover, the trap&#39;s NO x -storage capacity is known to decline in a generally-reversible manner over time due to sulfur poisoning or “sulfurization,” and in a generally-irreversible manner over time due, for example, to component “aging” from thermal effects and “deep-diffusion”/“permanent” sulfurization. As the trap&#39;s capacity drops, the trap is “filled” more quickly, and trap purge events are scheduled with ever-increasing frequency. This, in turn, increases the overall fuel penalty associated with lean engine operation, thereby further reducing the overall fuel economy benefit of “running lean.” 
     In order to restore trap capacity, a trap desulfurization event is ultimately scheduled, during which additional fuel is used to heat the trap to a relatively-elevated temperature, whereupon a slightly-rich air-fuel mixture is provided for a relatively-extended period of time to release much of the stored sulfur and rejuvenate the trap. As with each purge event, each desulfurization event typically includes the further “fuel penalty” associated with the initial release of oxygen previously stored in the three-way catalyst and the trap. Accordingly, the prior art teaches scheduling a desulfurization event only when the trap&#39;s NO x -storage capacity falls below a critical level, thereby minimizing the frequency at which such further fuel economy “penalties” are incurred. 
     Unfortunately, as a further impact of trap sulfurization, empirical data suggests that a trap&#39;s instantaneous NO x -storage efficiency, i.e., its instantaneous ability to incrementally store NO x , is increasingly affected by trap sulfurization as the trap begins to fill with NO x . Specifically, while a trap&#39;s instantaneous efficiency immediately after a trap purge event is believed to remain generally unaffected by trap sulfurization, the instantaneous efficiency begins to fall more quickly, and earlier in the fill event, with increasing trap sulfurization. Such reduced trap efficiency leads to increased instantaneous NO x  emissions, even when the trap is not yet “filled” with NO x . 
     Accordingly, it is possible for the condition of a lean NO x  trap deteriorate such that continued lean-burn operation either reduces overall vehicle fuel economy or increased overall vehicle emissions. What is needed, then, is a method and apparatus for controlling a lean-burn engine that prohibits lean engine operation when lean-burn operation is likely to have such a negative performance impact. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     It is an object of the invention to provide a method and apparatus for controlling a lean-burn internal combustion engine of a motor vehicle to prohibit lean engine operation when such lean engine operation is likely to generate a negative performance impact, such as a reduced overall vehicle fuel economy or increase overall vehicle emissions. 
     In accordance with the invention, a method and apparatus is provided for controlling a lean-burn engine which prohibits lean-burn operation when a measure representing a performance impact, such as a determined measure of fuel economy benefit relative to stoichiometric engine operation, and a measure of trap NO x -storage efficiency, sampled once per trap fill/purge cycle at end of fill cycle, fall below respective calibratable threshold values. Preferably, the determination of the performance impact includes determining a relative cost due to periodically purging the trap of stored NO x , as well as the determination of the performance improvement likely to be obtained upon initiating a trap decontamination event, such as desulfurization of the trap. 
     Other objects, features and advantages of the present invention are readily apparent from the following detailed description of the best mode for carrying out the invention when taken in connection with the accompanying drawings. 
    
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
     FIG. 1 is a schematic of an exemplary system for practicing the invention; 
     FIGS. 2-7 are flow charts depicting exemplary control methods used by the exemplary system; 
     FIGS. 8A and 8B are related plots respectively illustrating a single exemplary trap fill/purge cycle; 
     FIG. 9 is an enlarged view of the portion of the plot of FIG. 8B illustrated within circle  9  thereof; 
     FIG. 10 is a plot illustrating feedgas and tailpipe NO x  rates during a trap-filling lean engine operating condition, for both dry and high-relative-humidity conditions; and 
     FIG. 11 is a flow chart depicting an exemplary method for determining the nominal oxygen storage capacity of the trap. 
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT 
     Referring to FIG. 1, an exemplary control system  10  for a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine  12  of a motor vehicle includes an electronic engine controller  14  having a processor (“CPU ”); input/output ports; an electronic storage medium containing processor-executable instructions and calibration values, shown as read-only memory (“ROM”) in this particular example; random-access memory (“RAM”); “keep-alive” memory (“KAM”); and a data bus of any suitable configuration. The controller  14  receives signals from a variety of sensors coupled to the engine  12  and/or the vehicle as described more fully below and, in turn, controls the operation of each of a set of fuel injectors  16 , each of which is positioned to inject fuel into a respective cylinder  18  of the engine  12  in precise quantities as determined by the controller  14 . The controller  14  similarly controls the individual operation, i.e., timing, of the current directed through each of a set of spark plugs  20  in a known manner. 
     The controller  14  also controls an electronic throttle  22  that regulates the mass flow of air into the engine  12 . An air mass flow sensor  24 , positioned at the air intake to the engine&#39;s intake manifold  26 , provides a signal MAF representing the air mass flow resulting from positioning of the engine&#39;s throttle  22 . The air flow signal MAF from the air mass flow sensor  24  is utilized by the controller  14  to calculate an air mass value AM which is indicative of a mass of air flowing per unit time into the engine&#39;s induction system. 
     A first oxygen sensor  28  coupled to the engine&#39;s exhaust manifold detects the oxygen content of the exhaust gas generated by the engine  12  and transmits a representative output signal to the controller  14 . The first oxygen sensor  28  provides feedback to the controller  14  for improved control of the air-fuel ratio of the air-fuel mixture supplied to the engine  12 , particularly during operation of the engine  12  at or near the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio (λ=1.00). A plurality of other sensors, indicated generally at  30 , generate additional signals including an engine speed signal N and an engine load signal LOAD in a known manner, for use by the controller  14 . It will be understood that the engine load sensor  30  can be of any suitable configuration, including, by way of example only, an intake manifold pressure sensor, an intake air mass sensor, or a throttle position/angle sensor. 
     An exhaust system  32  receives the exhaust gas generated upon combustion of the air-fuel mixture in each cylinder  18 . The exhaust system  32  includes a plurality of emissions control devices, specifically, an upstream three-way catalytic converter (“three-way catalyst  34 ”) and a downstream NO x  trap  36 . The three-way catalyst  34  contains a catalyst material that chemically alters the exhaust gas in a known manner. The trap  36  alternately stores and releases amounts of engine-generated NO x , based upon such factors, for example, as the intake air-fuel ratio, the trap temperature T (as determined by a suitable trap temperature sensor, not shown), the percentage exhaust gas recirculation, the barometric pressure, the relative humidity of ambient air, the instantaneous trap “fullness,” the current extent of “reversible” sulfurization, and-trap aging effects (due, for example, to permanent thermal aging, or to the “deep” diffusion of sulfur into the core of the trap material which cannot subsequently be purged). A second oxygen sensor  38 , positioned immediately downstream of the three-way catalyst  34 , provides exhaust gas oxygen content information to the controller  14  in the form of an output signal SIGNAL 0 . The second oxygen sensor&#39;s output signal SIGNAL 0  is useful in optimizing the performance of the three-way catalyst  34 , and in characterizing the trap&#39;s NOX-storage ability in a manner to be described further below. 
     The exhaust system  32  further includes a NO x  sensor  40  positioned downstream of the trap  36 . In the exemplary embodiment, the NO x  sensor  40  generates two output signals, specifically, a first output signal SIGNAL 1  that is representative of the instantaneous oxygen concentration of the exhaust gas exiting the vehicle tailpipe  42 , and a second output signal SIGNAL 2  representative of the instantaneous NO x  concentration in the tailpipe exhaust gas, as taught in U.S. Pat. No. 5,953,907. It will be appreciated that any suitable sensor configuration can be used, including the use of discrete tailpipe exhaust gas sensors, to thereby generate the two desired signals SIGNAL 1  and SIGNAL 2 . 
     Generally, during vehicle operation, the controller  14  selects a suitable engine operating condition or operating mode characterized by combustion of a “near-stoichiometric” air-fuel mixture, i.e., one whose air-fuel ratio is either maintained substantially at, or alternates generally about, the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio; or of an air-fuel mixture that is either “lean” or “rich” of the near-stoichiometric air-fuel mixture. A selection by the controller  14  of “lean burn” engine operation, signified by the setting of a suitable lean-burn request flag LB_RUNNING_FLG to logical one, means that the controller  14  has determined that conditions are suitable for enabling the system&#39;s lean-burn feature, whereupon the engine  12  is alternatingly operated with lean and rich air-fuel mixtures for the purpose of improving overall vehicle fuel economy. The controller  14  bases the selection of a suitable engine operating condition on a variety of factors, which may include determined measures representative of instantaneous or average engine speed/engine load, or of the current state or condition of the trap (e.g., the trap&#39;s NO x -storage efficiency, the current NO x  “fill” level, the current NO x  fill level relative to the trap&#39;s current NO x -storage capacity, the trap&#39;s temperature T, and/or the trap&#39;s current level of sulfurization), or of other operating parameters, including but not limited to a desired torque indicator obtained from an accelerator pedal position sensor, the current vehicle tailpipe NO x  emissions (determined, for example, from the second output signal SIGNAL 2  generated by the NO x  sensor  40 ), the percent exhaust gas recirculation, the barometric pressure, or the relative humidity of ambient air. 
     Referring to FIG. 2, after the controller  14  has confirmed at step  210  that the lean-burn feature is not disabled and, at step  212 , that lean-burn operation has otherwise been requested, the controller  14  conditions enablement of the lean-burn feature, upon determining that tailpipe NO x  emissions as detected by the NO x  sensor  40  do not exceed permissible emissions levels. Specifically, after the controller  14  confirms that a purge event has not just commenced (at step  214 ), for example, by checking the current value of a suitable flag PRG_START_FLG stored in KAM, the controller  14  determines an accumulated measure TP_NOX_TOT representing the total tailpipe NO x  emissions (in grams) since the start of the immediately-prior NO x  purge or desulfurization event, based upon the second output signal SIGNAL 2  generated by the NO x  sensor  40  and determined air mass value AM (at steps  216  and  218 ). Because, in the exemplary system  10 , both the current tailpipe emissions and the permissible emissions level are expressed in units of grams per vehicle-mile-traveled to thereby provide a more realistic measure of the emissions performance of the vehicle, in step  220 , the controller  14  also determines a measure DIST_EFF_CUR representing the effective cumulative distance “currently” traveled by the vehicle, that is, traveled by the vehicle since the controller  14  last initiated a NO x  purge event. 
     While the current effective-distance-traveled measure DIST_EFF_CUR is determined in any suitable manner, in the exemplary system  10 , the controller  14  generates the current effective-distance-traveled measure DIST_EFF_CUR at step  220  by accumulating detected or determined values for instantaneous vehicle speed VS, as may itself be derived, for example, from engine speed N and selected-transmission-gear information. Further, in the exemplary system  10 , the controller  14  “clips” the detected or determined vehicle speed at a minimum velocity VS_MIN, for example, typically ranging from perhaps about 0.2 mph to about 0.3 mph (about 0.3 kmfhr to about 0.5 km/hr), in order to include the corresponding “effective” distance traveled, for purposes of emissions, when the vehicle is traveling below that speed, or is at a stop. Most preferably, the minimum predetermined vehicle speed VS_MIN is characterized by a level of NO x  emissions that is at least as great as the levels of NO x  emissions generated by the engine  12  when idling at stoichiometry. 
     At step  222 , the controller  14  determines a modified emissions measure NOX_CUR as the total emissions measure TP_NOX_TOT divided by the effective-distance-traveled measure DIST_EFF_CUR. As noted above, the modified emissions measure NOX_CUR is favorably expressed in units of “grams per mile.” 
     Because certain characteristics of current vehicle activity impact vehicle emissions, for example, generating increased levels of exhaust gas constituents upon experiencing an increase in either the frequency and/or the magnitude of changes in engine output, the controller  14  determines a measure ACTIVITY representing a current level of vehicle activity (at step  224  of FIG. 2) and modifies a predetermined maximum emissions threshold NOX_MAX_STD (at step  226 ) based on the determined activity measure to thereby obtain a vehicle-activity-modified NO x -per-mile threshold NOX_MAX which seeks to accommodate the impact of such vehicle activity. 
     While the vehicle activity measure ACTIVITY is determined at step  224  in any suitable manner based upon one or more measures of engine or vehicle output, including but not limited to a determined desired power, vehicle speed VS, engine speed N, engine torque, wheel torque, or wheel power, in the exemplary system  10 , the controller  14  generates the vehicle activity measure ACTIVITY based upon a determination of instantaneous absolute engine power Pe, as follows: 
     
       
           Pe=TQ*N*k   I , 
       
     
     where TQ represents a detected or determined value for the engine&#39;s absolute torque output, N represents engine speed, and k I  is a predetermined constant representing the system&#39;s moment of inertia. The controller  14  filters the determined values Pe over time, for example, using a high-pass filter G 1 (s), where s is the Laplace operator known to those skilled in the art, to produce a high-pass filtered engine power value HPe. After taking the absolute value AHPe of the high-pass-filtered engine power value HPe, the resulting absolute value AHPe is low-pass-filtered with filter G 1  (s) to obtain the desired vehicle activity measure ACTIVITY. 
     Similarly, while the current permissible emissions lend NOX_MAX is modified in any suitable manner to reflect current vehicle activity, in the exemplary system  10 , at step  226 , the controller  14  determines a current permissible emissions level NOX_MAX as a predetermined function f 5  of the predetermined maximum emissions threshold NOX_MAX_STD based on the determined vehicle activity measure ACTIVITY. By way of example only, in the exemplary system  10 , the current permissible emissions level NOX_MAX typically varies between a minimum of about 20 percent of the predetermined maximum emissions threshold NOX_MAX_STD for relatively-high vehicle activity levels (e.g., for many transients) to a maximum of about seventy percent of the predetermined maximum emissions threshold NOX_MAX_STD (the latter value providing a “safety factor” ensuring that actual vehicle emissions do not exceed the proscribed government standard NOX_MAX_STD). 
     Referring again to FIG. 2, at step  228 , the controller  14  determines whether the modified emissions measure NOX_CUR as determined in step  222  exceeds the maximum emissions level NOX_MAX as determined in step  226 . If the modified emissions measure NOX_CUR does not exceed the current maximum emissions level NOX_MAX, the controller  14  remains free to select a lean engine operating condition in accordance with the exemplary system&#39;s lean-burn feature. If the modified emissions measure NOX_CUR exceeds the current maximum emissions level NOX_MAX, the controller  14  determines that the “fill” portion of a “complete” lean-burn fill/purge cycle has been completed, and the controller immediately initiates a purge event at step  230  by setting suitable purge event flags PRG_FLG and PRG_START_FLG to logical one. 
     If, at step  214  of FIG. 2, the controller  14  determines that a purge event has just been commenced, as by checking the current value for the purge-start flag PRG_START_FLG, the controller  14  resets the previously determined values TP_NOX_TOT and DIST_EFF_CUR for the total tailpipe NO x  and the effective distance traveled and the determined modified emissions measure NOX_CUR, along with other stored values FG_NOX_TOT and FG_NOX_TOT_MOD (to be discussed below), to zero at step  232 . The purg-estart flag PRG_START_FLG is similarly reset to logic zero at that time. 
     Refining generally to FIGS. 3-5, in the exemplary system  10 , the controller  14  further conditions enablement of the lean-burn feature upon a determination of a positive performance impact or “benefit” of such lean-burn operation over a suitable reference operating condition, for example, a near-stoichiometric operating condition at MBT. By way of example only, the exemplary system  10  uses a fuel efficiency measure calculated for such lean-burn operation with reference to engine operation at the near-stoichiometric operating condition and, more specifically, a relative fuel efficiency or “fuel economy benefit” measure. Other suitable performance impacts for use with the exemplary system  10  include, without limitation, fuel usage, fuel savings per distance traveled by the vehicle, engine efficiency, overall vehicle tailpipe emissions, and vehicle drivability. 
     Indeed, the invention contemplates determination of a performance impact of operating the engine  12  and/or the vehicle&#39;s powertrain at any first operating mode relative to any second operating mode, and the difference between the first and second operating modes is not intended to be limited to the use of different air-fuel mixtures. Thus, the invention is intended to be advantageously used to determine or characterize an impact of any system or operating condition that affects generated torque, such as, for example, comparing stratified lean operation versus homogeneous lean operation, or determining an effect of exhaust gas recirculation (e.g., a fuel benefit can thus be associated with a given EGR setting), or determining the effect of various degrees of retard of a variable cam timing (“VCT”) system, or characterizing the effect of operating charge motion control valves (“CMCV,” an intake-charge swirl approach, for use with both stratified and homogeneous lean engine operation). 
     More specifically, the exemplary system  10 , the controller  14  determines the performance impact of lean-burn operation relative to stoichiometric engine operation at MBT by calculating a torque ratio TR defined as the ratio, for a given speed-load condition, of a determined indicated torque output at a selected air-fuel ratio to a determined indicated torque output at stoichiometric operation, as described further below. In one embodiment, the controller  14  determines the torque ratio TR based upon stored values TQ i,j,k  for engine torque, mapped as a function of engine speed N, engine load LOAD, and air-fuel ratio LAMBSE. 
     Alternatively, the invention contemplates use of absolute torque or acceleration information generated, for example, by a suitable torque meter or accelerometer (not shown), with which to directly evaluate the impact of, or to otherwise generate a measure representative of the impact of, the first operating mode relative to the second operating mode. While the invention contemplates use of any suitable torque meter or accelerometer to generate such absolute torque or acceleration information, suitable examples include a strain-gage torque meter positioned on the powertrain&#39;s output shaft to detect brake torque, and a high-pulse-frequency Hall-effect acceleration sensor positioned on the engine&#39;s crankshaft. As a further alternative, the invention contemplates use, in determining the impact of the first operating mode relative to the second operating mode, of the above-described determined measure Pe of absolute instantaneous engine power. 
     Where the difference between the two operating modes includes different fuel flow rates, as when comparing a lean or rich operating mode to a reference stoichiometric operating mode, the torque or power measure for each operating mode is preferably normalized by a detected or determined fuel flow rate. Similarly, if the difference between the two operating modes includes different or varying engine speed-load points, the torque or power measure is either corrected (for example, by taking into account the changed engine speed-load conditions) or normalized (for example, by relating the absolute outputs to fuel flow rate, e.g., as represented by fuel pulse width) because such measures are related to engine speed and system moment of inertia. 
     It will be appreciated that the resulting torque or power measures can advantageously be used as “on-line” measures of a performance impact. However, where there is a desire to improve signal quality, i.e., to reduce noise, absolute instantaneous power or normalized absolute instantaneous power can be integrated to obtain a relative measure of work performed in each operating mode. If the two modes are characterized by a change in engine speed-load points, then the relative work measure is corrected for thermal efficiency, values for which may be conveniently stored in a ROM look-up table. 
     Returning to the exemplary system  10  and the flow chart appearing as FIG. 3, wherein the performance impact is a determined percentage fuel economy benefit/loss associated with engine operation at a selected lean or rich “lean-burn” operating condition relative to a reference stoichiometric operating condition at MBT, the controller  14  first determines at step  310  whether the lean-burn feature is enabled. If the lean-burn feature is enabled as, for example indicated by the lean-burn running flag LB_RUNNING_FLG being equal to logical one, the controller  14  determines a first value TQ_LB at step  312  representing an indicated torque output for the engine when operating at the selected lean or rich operating condition, based on its selected air-fuel ratio LAMBSE and the degrees DELTA_SPARK of retard from MBT of its selected ignition timing, and further normalized for fuel flow. At step  314 , the controller  14  determines a second value TQ_STOICH representing an indicated torque output for the engine  12  when operating with a stoichiometric air-fuel ratio at MBT, likewise normalized for fuel flow. At step  316 , the controller  14  calculates the lean-burn torque ratio TR_LB by dividing the first normalized torque value TQ_LB with the second normalized torque value TQ_STOICH. 
     At step  318  of FIG. 3, the controller  14  determines a value SAVINGS representative of the cumulative fuel savings to be achieved by operating at the selected lean operating condition relative to the reference stoichiometric operating condition, based upon the air mass value AM, the current (lean or rich) lean-burn air-fuel ratio (LAMBSE) and the determined lean-burn torque ratio TR_LB, wherein 
     
       
           SAVINGS=SAVINGS +( AM*LAMBSE *14.65*(1 −TR   —   LB )). 
       
     
     At step  320 , the controller  14  determines a value DIST_ACT_CUR representative of the actual miles traveled by the vehicle since the start of the last trap purge or desulfurization event. While the “current” actual distance value DIST_ACT_CUR is determined in any suitable manner, in the exemplary system  10 , the controller  14  determines the current actual distance value DIST_ACT_CUR by accumulating detected or determined instantaneous values VS for vehicle speed. 
     Because the fuel economy benefit to be obtained using the lean-burn feature is reduced by the “fuel penalty” of any associated trap purge event, in the exemplary system  10 , the controller  14  determines the “current” value FE_BENEFIT_CUR for fuel economy benefit only once per “complete” lean-fill/rich-purge cycle, as determined at steps  228  and  230  of FIG.  2 . And, because the purge event&#39;s fuel penalty is directly related to the preceding trap “fill,” the current fuel economy benefit value FE_BENEFIT_CUR is preferably determined at the moment that the purge event is deemed to have just been completed. Thus, at step  322  of FIG. 3, the controller  14  determines whether a purge event has just been completed following a complete trap fill/purge cycle and, if so, determines at step  324  a value FE_BENEFIT_CUR representing current fuel economy benefit of lean-burn operation over the last complete fill/purge cycle. 
     At steps  326  and  328  of FIG. 3, current values FE_BENEFIT_CUR for fuel economy benefit are averaged over the first j complete fill/purge cycles immediately following a trap decontaminating event, such as a desulfurization event, in order to obtain a value FE_BENEFIT_MAX_CUR representing the “current” maximum fuel economy benefit which is likely to be achieved with lean-burn operation, given the then-current level of “permanent” trap sulfurization and aging. By way of example only, as illustrated in FIG. 4, maximum fuel economy benefit averaging is performed by the controller  14  using a conventional low-pass filter at step  410 . In order to obtain a more robust value FE_BENEFIT_MAX for the maximum fuel economy benefit of lean-burn operation, in the exemplary system  10 , the current value FE_BENEFIT_MAX_CUR is likewise filtered over j desulfurization events at steps  412 ,  414 ,  416  and  418 . 
     Returning to FIG. 3, at step  330 , the controller  14  similarly averages the current values FE_BENFIT_CUR for fuel economy benefit over the last n trap fill/purge cycles to obtain an average value FE_BENEFIT_AVE representing the average fuel economy benefit being achieved by such lean-burn operation and, hence, likely to be achieved with further lean-burn operation. By way of example only, in the exemplary system  10 , the average fuel economy benefit value FE_BENEFIT_AVE is calculated by the controller  14  at step  330  as a rolling average to thereby provide a relatively noise-insensitive “on-line” measure of the fuel economy performance impact provided by such lean engine operation. 
     Because continued lean-burn operation periodically requires a desulfurization event, when a desulfurization event is identified as being in-progress at step  332  of FIG. 3, the controller  14  determines a value FE_PENALTY at step  334  representing the fuel economy penalty associated with desulfurization. While the fuel economy penalty value FE_PENALTY is determined in any suitable manner, an exemplary method for determining the fuel economy penalty value FE_PENALTY is illustrated in FIG.  5 . Specifically, in step  510 , the controller  14  updates a stored value DIST_ACT_DSX representing the actual distance that the vehicle has traveled since the termination or “end” of the immediately-preceding desulfurization event. Then, at step  512 , the controller  14  determines whether the desulfurization event running flag DSX_RUNNING_FLG is equal to logical one, thereby indicating that a desulfurization event is in process. While any suitable method is used for desulfurizing the trap  36 , in the exemplary system  10 , the desulfurization event is characterized by operation of some of the engine&#39;s cylinders with a lean air-fuel mixture and other of the engine&#39;s cylinders  18  with a rich air-fuel mixture, thereby generating exhaust gas with a slightly-rich bias. At the step  514 , the controller  14  then determines the corresponding fuel-normalized torque values TQ_DSX_LEAN and TQ_DSX_RICH, as described above in connection with FIG.  3 . At step  516 , the controller  14  further determines the corresponding fuel-normalized stoichiometric torque value TQ_STOICH and, at step  518 , the corresponding torque ratios TR_DSX_LEAN and TR_DSX_RICH. 
     The controller  14  then calculates a cumulative fuel economy penalty value at step  520 , as follows: 
     
       
           PENALTY=PENALTY +( AM /2 *LAMBSE *14.65*(1 −TR   —   DSX   —   LEAN ))+( AM /2 *LAMBSE *14.65*(1 −TR _DSX_RICH)) 
       
     
     Then, at step  522 , the controller  14  sets a fuel economy penalty calculation flag FE_PNLTY_CALC_FLG equal to logical one to thereby ensure that the current desulfurization fuel economy penalty measure FE_PENALTY_CUR is determined immediately upon termination of the on-going desulfurization event. 
     If the controller  14  determines, at steps  512  and  524  of FIG. 5, that a desulfurization event has just been terminated, the controller  14  then determines the current value FE_PENALTY_CUR for the fuel economy penalty associated with the terminated desulfurization event at step  526 , calculated as the cumulative fuel economy penalty value PENALTY divided by the actual distance value DIST_ACT_DSX. In this way, the fuel economy penalty associated with a desulfurization event is spread over the actual distance that the vehicle has traveled since the immediately-prior desulfurization event. 
     At step  528  of FIG. 5, the controller  14  calculates a rolling average value FE_PENALTY of the last m current fuel economy penalty values FE_PENALTY_CUR to thereby provide a relatively-noise-insensitive measure of the fuel economy performance impact of such desulfurization events. By way of example only, the average negative performance impact or “penalty” of desulfurization typically ranges between about 0.3 percent to about 0.5 percent of the performance gain achieved through lean-burn operation. At step  530 , the controller  14  resets the fuel economy penalty calculation flag FE_PNLTY_CALC_FLG to zero, along with the previously determined (and summed) actual distance value DIST_ACT_DSX and the current fuel economy penalty value PENALTY, in anticipation for the next desulfurization event. 
     Returning to FIG. 3, the controller  14  requests a desulfurization event only if and when such an event is likely to generate a fuel economy benefit in ensuing lean-burn operation. More specifically, at step  336 , the controller  14  determines whether the difference by which the maximum potential fuel economy benefit FE_BENEFIT_MAX exceeds the current fuel economy benefit FE_BENEFIT_CUR is itself greater than the average fuel economy penalty FE_PENALTY associated with desulfurization. If so, the controller  14  requests a desulfurization event by setting a suitable flag SOX_FULL_FLG to logical one. Thus, it will be seen that the exemplary system  10  advantageously operates to schedule a desulfurization event whenever such an event would produce improved fuel economy benefit, rather than deferring any such decontamination event until contaminant levels within the trap  36  rise above a predetermined level. 
     In the event that the controller  14  determines at step  336  that the difference between the maximum fuel economy benefit value FE_BENEFIT_MAX and the average fuel economy value FE_BENEFIT_AVE is not greater than the fuel economy penalty FE_PENALTY associated with a decontamination event, the controller  14  proceeds to step  340  of FIG. 3, wherein the controller  14  determines whether the average fuel economy benefit value FE_BENEFIT_AVE is greater than zero. If the average fuel economy benefit value is less than zero, and with the penalty associated with any needed desulfurization event already having been determined at step  336  as being greater than the likely improvement to be derived from such desulfurization, the controller  14  disables the lean-burn feature at step  344  of FIG.  3 . The controller  14  then resets the fuel savings value SAVINGS and the current actual distance measure DIST_ACT_CUR to zero at step  342 . 
     Alternatively, the controller  14  schedules a desulfurization event during lean-burn operation when the trap&#39;s average efficiency η ave  is deemed to have fallen below a predetermined minimum efficiency η min . While the average trap efficiency η ave  is determined in any suitable manner, as seen in FIG. 6, the controller  14  periodically estimates the current efficiency η cur  of the trap  36  during a lean engine operating condition which immediately follows a purge event. Specifically, at step  610 , the controller  14  estimates a value FG_NOX_CONC representing the NO x  concentration in the exhaust gas entering the trap  36 , for example, using stored values for engine feedgas NO x  that are mapped as a function of engine speed N and load LOAD for “dry” feedgas and, preferably, modified for average trap temperature T (as by multiplying the stored values by the temperature-based output of a modifier lookup table, not shown). Preferably, the feedgas NO x  concentration value FG_NOX_CONC is further modified to reflect the NO x -reducing activity of the three-way catalyst  34  upstream of the trap  36 , and other factors influencing NO x  storage, such as trap temperature T, instantaneous trap efficiency η inst , and estimated trap sulfation levels. 
     At step  612 , the controller  14  calculates an instantaneous trap efficiency value η inst  as the feedgas NO x  concentration value FG_NOX_CONC divided by the tailpipe NO x  concentration value TP_NOX_CONC (previously determined at step  216  of FIG.  2 ). At step  614 , the controller  14  accumulates the product of the feedgas NO x  concentration values FG_NOX_CONC times the current air mass values AM to obtain a measure FG_NOX_TOT representing the total amount of feedgas NO x  reaching the trap  36  since the start of the immediately-preceding purge event. At step  616 , the controller  14  determines a modified total feedgas NO x  measure FG_NOX_TOT_MOD by modifying the current value FG_NOX_TOT_as a function of trap temperature T. After determining at step  618  that a purge event has just begun following a complete fill/purge cycle, at step  620 , the controller  14  determines the current trap efficiency measure η cur  as difference between the modified total feedgas NO x  measure FG_NOX_TOT_MOD and the total tailpipe NO x  measure TP_NOX_TOT (determined at step  218  of FIG.  2 ), divided by the modified total feedgas NO x  measure FG_NOX_TOT_MOD. 
     At step  622 , the controller  14  filters the current trap efficiency measure measure η cur , for example, by calculating the average trap efficiency measure η ave  as a rolling average of the last k values for the current trap efficiency measure η cur . At step  624 , the controller  14  determines whether the average trap efficiency measure η ave  has fallen below a minimum average efficiency threshold η min . If the average trap efficiency measure η ave  has indeed fallen below the minimum average efficiency threshold η min , the controller  14  sets both the desulfurization request flag SOX_FULL_FLG to logical one, at step  626  of FIG.  6 . 
     To the extent that the trap  36  must be purged of stored NO x  to rejuvenate the trap  36  and thereby permit further lean-burn operation as circumstances warrant, the controller  14  schedules a purge event when the modified emissions measure NOX_CUR, as determined in step  222  of FIG. 2, exceeds the maximum emissions level NOX_MAX, as determined in step  226  of FIG.  2 . Upon the scheduling of such a purge event, the controller  14  determines a suitable rich air-fuel ratio as a function of current engine operating conditions, e.g., sensed values for air mass flow rate. By way of example, in the exemplary embodiment, the determined rich air-fuel ratio for purging the trap  36  of stored NO x  typically ranges from about 0.65 for “low-speed” operating conditions to perhaps 0.75 or more for “high-speed” operating conditions. The controller  14  maintains the determined air-fuel ratio until a predetermined amount of CO and/or HC has “broken through” the trap  36 , as indicated by the product of the first output signal SIGNAL 1  generated by the NO x -sensor  40  and the output signal AM generated by the mass air flow sensor  24 . 
     More specifically, as illustrated in the flow chart appearing as FIG.  7  and the plots illustrated in FIGS. 8A,  8 B and  9 , during the purge event, after determining at step  710  that a purge event has been initiated, the controller  14  determines at step  712  whether the purge event has just begun by checking the status of the purge-start flag PRG_START_FLG. If the purge event has, in fact, just begun, the controller resets certain registers (to be discussed individually below) to zero. The controller  14  then determines a first excess fuel rate value XS_FUEL_RATE_HEGO at step  716 , by which the first output signal SIGNAL 1  is “rich” of a first predetermined, slightly-rich threshold λ ref  (the first threshold λ ref  being exceeded shortly after a similarly-positioned HEGO sensor would have “switched”). The controller  14  then determines a first excess fuel measure XS_FUEL_ 1  as by summing the product of the first excess fuel rate value XS_FUEL_RATE_HEGO and the current output signal AM generated by the mass air flow sensor  24  (at step  718 ). The resulting first excess fuel measure XS_FUEL_l, which represents the amount of excess fuel exiting the tailpipe  42  near the end of the purge event, is graphically illustrated as the cross-hatched area REGION I in FIG.  9 . When the controller  14  determines at step  720  that the first excess fuel measure XS_FUEL_ 1  exceeds a predetermined excess fuel threshold XS_FUEL_REF, the trap  36  is deemed to have been substantially “purged” of stored NO x , and the controller  14  discontinues the rich (purging) operating condition at step  722  by resetting the purge flag PRG_FLG to logical zero. The controller  14  further initializes a post-purge-event excess fuel determination by setting a suitable flag XS_FUEL_ 2 _CALC to logical one. 
     Returning to steps  710  and  724  of FIG. 7, when the controller  14  determines that the purge flag PRG_FLG is not equal to logical one and, further, that the post-purge-event excess fuel determination flag XS_FUEL_ 2 _CALC is set to logical one, the controller  14  begins to determine the amount of additional excess fuel already delivered to (and still remaining in) the exhaust system  32  upstream of the trap  36  as of the time that the purge event is discontinued. Specifically, at steps  726  and  728 , the controller  14  starts determining a second excess fuel measure XS_FUEL_ 2  by summing the product of the difference XS_FUEL_RATE_STOICH by which the first output signal SIGNAL 1  is rich of stoichiometry, and summing the product of the difference XS_FUEL_RATE_STOICH and the mass air flow rate AM. The controller  14  continues to sum the difference XS_FUEL_RATE_STOICH until the first output signal SIGNAL 1  from the NO x  sensor  40  indicates a stoichiometric value, at step  730  of FIG. 7, at which point the controller  14  resets the post-purge-event excess fuel determination flag XS_FUEL_ 2 _CALC at step  732  to logical zero. The resulting second excess fuel measure value XS_FUEL_ 2 , representing the amount of excess fuel exiting the tailpipe  42  after the purge event is discontinued, is graphically illustrated as the cross-hatched area REGION II in FIG.  9 . Preferably, the second excess fuel value XS_FUEL_ 2  in the KAM as a function of engine speed and load, for subsequent use by the controller  14  in optimizing the purge event. 
     The exemplary system  10  also periodically determines a measure NOX_CAP representing the nominal NO x -storage capacity of the trap  36 . In accordance with a first method, graphically illustrated in FIG. 10, the controller  14  compares the instantaneous trap efficiency η inst , as determined at step  612  of FIG. 6, to the predetermined reference efficiency value η ref . While any appropriate reference efficiency value η ref  is used, in the exemplary system  10 , the reference efficiency value η ref  is set to a value significantly greater than the minimum efficiency threshold η min . By way of example only, in the exemplary system  10 , the reference efficiency value η ref  is set to a value of about 0.65. 
     When the controller  14  first determines that the instantaneous trap efficiency η inst  has fallen below the reference efficiency value η ref , the controller  14  immediately initiates a purge event, even though the current value for the modified tailpipe emissions measure NOX_CUR, as determined in step  222  of FIG. 2, likely has not yet exceeded the maximum emissions level NOX_MAX. Significantly, as seen in FIG. 10, because the instantaneous efficiency measure η inst  inherently reflects the impact of humidity on feedgas NO x  generation, the exemplary system  10  automatically adjusts the capacity-determining “short-fill” times t A  and t B  at which respective dry and relatively-high-humidity engine operation exceed their respective “trigger” concentrations C A  and C B . The controller  14  then determines the first excess (purging) fuel value XS_FUEL_ 1  using the closed-loop purge event optimizing process described above. 
     Because the purge event effects a release of both stored NO x  and stored oxygen from the trap  36 , the controller  14  determines a current NO x -storage capacity measure NOX_CAP_CUR as the difference between the determined first excess (purging) fuel value XS_FUEL_ 1  and a filtered measure O 2 _CAP representing the nominal oxygen storage capacity of the trap  36 . While the oxygen storage capacity measure O 2 _CAP is determined by the controller  14  in any suitable manner, in the exemplary system  10 , the oxygen storage capacity measure O 2 _CAP is determined by the controller  14  immediately after a complete-cycle purge event, as illustrated in FIG.  11 . 
     Specifically, during lean-burn operation immediately following a complete-cycle purge event, the controller  14  determines at step  1110  whether the air-fuel ratio of the exhaust gas air-fuel mixture upstream of the trap  36 , as indicated by the output signal SIGNAL 0  generated by the upstream oxygen sensor  38 , is lean of stoichiometry. The controller  14  thereafter confirms, at step  1112 , that the air mass value AM, representing the current air charge being inducted into the cylinders  18 , is less than a reference value AMref, thereby indicating a relatively-low space velocity under which certain time delays or lags due, for example, to the exhaust system piping fuel system are de-emphasized. The reference air mass value AM ref  is preferably selected as a relative percentage of the maximum air mass value for the engine  12 , itself typically expressed in terms of maximum air charge at STP. In the exemplary system  10 , the reference air mass value AM ref  is no greater than about twenty percent of the maximum air charge at STP and, most preferably, is no greater than about fifteen percent of the maximum air charge at STP. 
     If the controller  14  determines that the current air mass value is no greater than the reference air mass value AM ref , at step  1114 , the controller  14  determines whether the downstream exhaust gas is still at stoichiometry, using the first output signal SIGNAL 1  generated by the NO x  sensor  40 . If so, the trap  36  is still storing oxygen, and the controller  14  accumulates a measure O 2 _CAP_CUR representing the current oxygen storage capacity of the trap  36  using either the oxygen content signal SIGNAL 0  generated by the upstream oxygen sensor  38 , as illustrated in step  1116  of FIG. 11, or, alternatively, from the injector pulse-width, which provides a measure of the fuel injected into each cylinder  18 , in combination with the current air mass value AM. At step  1118 , the controller  14  sets a suitable flag O 2 _CALC_FLG to logical one to indicate that an oxygen storage determination is on-going. 
     The current oxygen storage capacity measure O 2 _CAP_CUR is accumulated until the downstream oxygen content signal SIGNAL 1  from the NO x  sensor  40  goes lean of stoichiometry, thereby indicating that the trap  36  has effectively been saturated with oxygen. To the extent that either the upstream oxygen content goes to stoichiometry or rich-of-stoichiometry (as determined at step  1110 ), or the current air mass value AM rises above the reference air mass value AM ref  (as determined at step  1112 ), before the downstream exhaust gas “goes lean” (as determined at step  1114 ), the accumulated measure O 2 _CAP_CUR and the determination flag O 2 _CALC_FLG are each reset to zero at step  1120 . In this manner, only uninterrupted, relatively-low-space-velocity “oxygen fills” are included in any filtered value for the trap&#39;s oxygen storage capacity. 
     To the extent that the controller  14  determines, at steps  1114  and  1122 , that the downstream oxygen content has “gone lean” following a suitable relatively-low-space-velocity oxygen fill, i.e., with the capacity determination flag O 2 _CALC_FLG equal to logical one, at step  1124 , the controller  14  determines the filtered oxygen storage measure O 2 _CAP using, for example, a rolling average of the last k current values O 2 _CAP_CUR. 
     Returning to FIG. 10, because the purge event is triggered as a function of the instantaneous trap efficiency measure η inst , and because the resulting current capacity measure NOX_CAP_CUR is directly related to the amount of purge fuel needed to release the stored NO x  from the trap  36  (illustrated as REGIONS III and IV on FIG. 10 corresponding to dry and high-humidity conditions, respectively, less the amount of purge fuel attributed to release of stored oxygen), a relatively repeatable measure NOX_CAP_CUR is obtained which is likewise relatively immune to changes in ambient humidity. The controller  14  then calculates the nominal NO x -storage capacity measure NOX_CAP based upon the last m values for the current capacity measure NOX_CAP CUR, for example, calculated as a rolling average value. 
     Alternatively, the controller  14  determines the current trap capacity measure NOX_CAP_CUR based on the difference between accumulated measures representing feedgas and tailpipe NO x  at the point in time when the instantaneous trap efficiency η inst  first falls below the reference efficiency threshold η ref . Specifically, at the moment the instantaneous trap efficiency η inst  first falls below the reference efficiency threshold η iref , the controller  14  determines the current trap capacity measure NOX_CAP_CUR as the difference between the modified total feedgas NO x  measure FG_NOX_TOT_MOD (determined at step  616  of FIG. 6) and the total tailpipe NO x  measure TP_NOX_TOT (determined at step  218  of FIG.  2 ). Significantly, because the reference efficiency threshold η ref  is preferably significantly greater than the minimum efficiency threshold η min , the controller  14  advantageously need not immediately disable or discontinue lean engine operation when determining the current trap capacity measure NOX_CAP_CUR using the alternative method. It will also be appreciated that the oxygen storage capacity measure O 2 _CAP, standing alone, is useful in characterizing the overall performance or “ability” of the NO x  trap to reduce vehicle emissions. 
     The controller  14  advantageously evaluates the likely continued vehicle emissions performance during lean engine operation as a function of one of the trap efficiency measures η inst , η cur  or η ave , and the vehicle activity measure ACTIVITY. Specifically, if the controller  14  determines that the vehicle&#39;s overall emissions performance would be substantively improved by immediately purging the trap  36  of stored NO x , the controller  14  discontinues lean operation and initiates a purge event. In this manner, the controller  14  operates to discontinue a lean engine operating condition, and initiates a purge event, before the modified emissions measure NOX_CUR exceeds the modified emissions threshold NOX_MAX. Similarly, to the extent that the controller  14  has disabled lean engine operation due, for example, to a low trap operating temperature, the controller  14  will delay the scheduling of any purge event until such time as the controller  14  has determined that lean engine operation may be beneficially resumed. 
     Significantly, because the controller  14  conditions lean engine operation on a positive performance impact and emissions compliance, rather than merely as a function of NO x  stored in the trap  36 , the exemplary system  10  is able to advantageously secure significant fuel economy gains from such lean engine operation without compromising vehicle emissions standards. 
     While an exemplary system and associated methods have been illustrated and described, it should be appreciated that the invention is susceptible of modification without departing from the spirit of the invention or the scope of the subjoined claims.

Technology Classification (CPC): 5