2012 American Control Conference

Fairmont Queen Elizabeth, Montréal, Canada

June 27-June 29, 2012

Air-to-Fuel Ratio Control with Adaptive Estimation of Biofuel

Content for Diesel Engine LNT Regeneration
Xuefei Chen1, Yueyun Wang2, Ibrahim Haskara2, and Guoming Zhu1

Abstract—This paper presents a method of controlling the
air-to-fuel ratio (AFR) based upon an adaptively estimated
biodiesel fuel content for a diesel engine equipped with the
lean NOx trap (LNT) aftertreatment system. The fuel content
(or percentage of biodiesel fuel) is estimated by an adaptive
estimation scheme based upon the exhaust oxygen sensor
signal during the normal engine operations and during the
LNT regeneration when the AFR is controlled in a closed loop.
The engine system was modeled by a third order linear system
in this study. A Linear Quadratic optimal tracking controller
was used to regulate the engine AFR to the desired level
during the LNT regeneration period. The closed loop system
robustness with respect to the air flow measurement error and
the fuel content estimation error is also analyzed. Three
adaptive control schemes were studied through simulations,
and the best performance was obtained for the dual-gain
scheme, where the low adaptive estimation gain is used during
normal engine operations and high gain is used during the
LNT regeneration.
I. INTRODUCTION
W ITH the growing concern of global energy crisis and
global warming, new technologies are developed for
diesel engines with the prime focus on the closed loop
combustion control [1], exhaust emission aftertreatment and
control, alternative fuel technology, and so on.
The interest of biodiesel fuel is due to the fact that it is
renewable with low emissions [2], [3] such as particulate
matters (PM). Biodiesel is commonly blended with
petroleum based diesel. Because its physical properties and
chemical compositions are quite different from the
petroleum based diesel [4]-[6], as a result, the blend of
biodiesel and petroleum based diesel has quite different
combustion characteristics. In order to optimize the
combustion process for a given biodiesel blend, it is
necessary to identify the biodiesel fuel content so that the
combustion process can be optimized through fuel injection
timing and mass.
There are several approaches that can be applied to
estimate the fuel content. Reference [7]-[9] estimates the
Manuscript received September 23, 2011.
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI 48824 (emails: chenxuef@msu.edu and zhug@msu.edu for Chen
and Zhu, respectively)
2
General Motors Company, Global Research and Development, 30500
Mound Road, Warren, MI 48090 (emails: yue-yun.wang@gm.com and
ibrahim.haskara@gm.com for Wang and Haskara, respectively)
fuel content based upon the oxygen sensor signals, reference
[10] proposes to use the in-cylinder pressure signal, the
ionization signal is also used to estimate the fuel content in
[11], and the ionic polymer-metal composite beam sensor is
used to estimate the fuel content through identifying the fuel
viscosity in [12]. In this paper, the oxygen sensor signal is
used to adaptively estimate the biofuel content for a flex fuel
diesel engine. The similar technique has been used for
gasoline engines [9]. However, the AFR (air-to-fuel ratio) of
gasoline engines is usually maintained at a given level (e.g.,
stoichiometric) through the closed loop AFR control, while
diesel engines usually do not regulate AFR due to their
unthrottle operation. This introduces an additional degree of
difficulty to estimate the fuel content since it has to be
completed with the AFR fluctuation. It will be even more
challenging with an aging oxygen sensor that has slow
transient response. However, during the regeneration of the
diesel LNT (lean NOX Trap) aftertreatment system, the
engine AFR is controlled in a closed loop for flex fuel diesel
engines, which provides an opportunity to accurately
estimate the fuel content.
The LNT technology is designed to significantly reduce
the NOx (nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide) emissions for
lean burn engines, such as diesel engines [13]-[15]. In order
to reduce the NOx emissions, an LNT catalyst is utilized to
store the NOx emissions during the lean operation, and
when the stored NOx reaches a certain level, the LNT needs
to be regenerated through the rich AFR operation. During
the short rich operation period, the LNT catalyst releases its
stored NOx and regenerates its storage capacity, where the
stored NOx is converted into non-polluting nitrogen due to
the rich AFR.
For a diesel engine, the rich AFR can be achieved either
by using post injection [16] or by extending the main
injection [17]. The quantity of post injection or extended
main injection needs to be controlled in a closed loop to
regulate the AFR to the desired level based upon the oxygen
sensor signal. The control strategies for closed loop AFR
control have been widely studied; see [9] for PI control, [18]
for sliding mode control, and [19] for adaptive control. In
this paper, an adaptive LQ tracking controller is proposed
for biodiesel engines to regulate the AFR during the LNT
regeneration process, the biodiesel fuel content is estimated
using a gradient based adaptive law [20]. In order to
eliminate the steady state error, an integral action was

978-1-4577-1096-4/12/$26.00 ©2012 AACC 4957

introduced in the LQ controller. The diesel engine system is is the stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratio for the given biodiesel
modeled in this paper as a third order linear time invariant blend. The injected fuel m fuel is calculated based upon the
system with a transport delay between the engine
measured charged mass mˆ air and the estimated fuel gain
combustion chamber and the exhaust manifold, exhaust
manifold filling dynamics and the oxygen sensor dynamics. α̂ as shown below,
For this study, a recorded experimental AFR trace, along mˆ air
m fuel = u, (2)
with the mass air flow trace, was used, so that the engine ασ DS
ˆ
throttle control is not considered. where, u is the equivalence fuel to air ratio calculated by
In this paper, the robustness of the closed loop system in the controller, and will be defined in the following section.
the presence of the system uncertainties is studied using the Assuming that transport delay between the cylinder and
unstructured parameter variation robustness analysis [21] exhaust manifold can be modeled using the first order
for the system uncertainty introduced by the mass air flow dynamics as below
measurement error and adaptive estimation fuel content 1
error. Three adaptive control schemes were studied through G1 ( s ) = , (3)
1 + τ1 s
simulations with respect to the tracking and adaptive
estimation performance. Experiment validation and where τ 1 is the time constant for transport delay time and it
potential implementation into the lean burn engine control is a function of engine speed. The exhaust manifold filling
system will be studied in the future. dynamics is modeled as the first order dynamics as follows
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 1
II the system model is discussed and Section III presents the G2 ( s ) = , (4)
1 +τ 2s
proposed adaptive estimation and control algorithms. The
where τ 2 is the charge filling dynamics time constant and is
stability analysis is described in Section IV, and Section V
adds the simulation results. Finally, the conclusions and a function of the effective length of the exhaust manifold
future work are addressed in Section VI. and the exhaust flow rate. The oxygen sensor dynamics is
also modeled as the first order dynamics as below
1
G3 ( s ) = , (5)
II. SYSTEM MODELING 1 + τ 3s
The engine system is modeled as a direct fuel injection where τ 3 is the time constant of the sensor dynamics. Note
engine with the exhaust manifold filling dynamics and
that τ 3 increases as the sensor gets old.
oxygen sensor dynamics see in Figure 1, where the physical
engine dynamics is shown in the solid box. To simplify the Therefore, the system transfer function from input
control design process, the engine model describes the equivalence ratio U ( s ) to the equivalence ratio Y ( s )
dynamics from u to x3 . In the actual application the control measured by the oxygen sensor is
input will be converted into the fuel mass m fuel based upon ασ DS M fuel ( s )
Y ( s) = X 3 (s) = , (6)
(1 + τ 1 s )(1 + τ 2 s )(1 + τ 3 s ) mair
the measured air charge mass mˆ air and adaptively estimated
fuel content αˆ . where M fuel (s ) is the Laplace transformation of m fuel .
Equation (7) can also be expressed as
1 mˆ air α
Y ( s) = U (s )
u mˆ air m fuel ασ DS Φ x1 x2 x3
(1 + τ 1 s )(1 + τ 2 s )(1 + τ 3 s ) mair αˆ
ασ
ˆ DS mair (7)
1
= (1 + δ )U ( s ),
(1 + τ 1 s )(1 + τ 2 s )(1 + τ 3 s )
Figure 1. Engine system modeling where U (s ) is the Laplace transformation of u , and
The input Φ is the equivalence fuel-to-air ratio defined by mˆ air α
m fuel δ= − 1 represents the system uncertainty due to the
Φ= σ DS ⋅ α , (1) αˆ mair
mair
estimation error of the fuel content α̂ and measurement
where mair is the air mass charged into the cylinder; σ DS is error of the air charge mass mˆ air . In addition, the fuel
the stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratio for the conventional injection shot-to-shot variations are modeled as the system
diesel (14.6); and α is the stoichiometric gain between noise input w , and the oxygen sensor measurement noise is
σ represented by v . This leads to the following nominal state
diesel and biodiesel blend defined by α = BD , where σ BD
σ DS space model with δ = 0 ,

4958
 xɺ = Ac x + Bc u + Bc w where
, (8) σ DS 1
y = Cc x + v N ( s) = , φ (s ) = N ( s) M fuel ( s) .
where (1 + τ 1 s)(1 + τ 2 s)(1 + τ 3 s) mair
 1  Discretizing transfer function N ( s ) defined in equation
− 0 0  1 (11) yields the following discrete transfer function
 τ1  τ 
 1 1   1 1
Ac =  − 0  , Bc =  0  , Cc = [ 0 0 1] . X 3 ( z) = α N (z) M fuel ( z ) = α Z ( z ) (12)
m .
 τ2 τ2    air

 1 1  0 Based upon the gradient method introduced in [20] that

 0 −   
 τ3 τ 3 
The linear system (8) is then discretized into the
following discrete state space model with a sample period of
0.025 s.
x( k + 1) = Ax(k ) + Bu ( k ) + Bw( k )
. (9)
y(k ) = Cx (k ) + v( k )
Note that, both the input noise {w(k ), k = 0,1,...} and
measurement noise {v(k ), k = 0,1,...} are assumed to be zero
mean and mutually independent random vectors such that
E{w( k )} = 0, W = E{w( k ) w(k )} > 0, k = 0,1,...
(10)
E{v( k )} = 0, V = E{v(k )v (k )} > 0, k = 0,1,...
where W and V are the corresponding covariance matrices.
III. CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
The proposed control algorithm used to regulate the
combustion air-to-fuel ratio with the presence of unknown
biodiesel blend is an adaptive LQG tracking controller as
shown in Figure 2, where the adaptive scheme is used to
estimate the fuel gain α (or content); the Kalman state
estimator is used to estimate system state vector x , and the
optimal LQ tracking controller is used to track the desired
equivalence ratio r based upon the estimated states.
x̂
u m fuel x3
α̂
Figure 2. Adaptive LQG tracking control system
A. Adaptive Fuel Gain Estimation
In equation (6), the injected fuel mass is calculated; the
air mass can be measured by a mass flow sensor; and
state x3 is the fuel-to-air ratio measured by the oxygen sensor
at the exhaust manifold. The only unknown term is the fuel
gain α . Reorganize equation (6) into the below form,
1
X 3 (s) = α N ( s) M fuel ( s ) = αφ ( s ), (11)
mair
4959
minimizes the instantaneous cost
( x (k ) − αˆ ( k − 1) z ( k )) 2
J (αˆ ) = 3 , (13)
2m 2 (k )
where z ( k ) is the inverse “z” transformation, the adaptive
law is obtained as
αˆ (k − 1) + Γε (k ) z ( k ), for ∀αˆ ∈ [α , α ]
αˆ ( k ) =  , (14)
 αˆ ( k − 1), otherwise
where constant α and α represents the lower bound and
upper bound of the estimated αˆ (k ) respectively; m2 (k ) is
also chosen to guarantee the bounded estimation of αˆ (k ) ;
Γ is the adaptive gain; and ε (k ) is defined by
x3 ( k ) − αˆ (k − 1) z ( k )
ε (k ) = . (15)
m 2 (k )
where m2 (k ) = 1 + 0.01z T (k ) z (k ) is chosen to guarantee the
bounded estimation of αˆ (k ) .
The convergence of the estimate α̂ is guaranteed by the
persistent exciting φ (t ) , the inverse Laplace transform of
φ ( s) in ( 11) , because for ∀ m fuel > 0 , there always exists
t + T0
∫t
φ (τ )φ T (τ )dτ ≥ T0ξ for some ξ > 0 , T0 > 0 , and ∀t ≥ 0 .
B. Kalman State Estimation
The Kalman state estimation is a stochastic filter that
provides the optimal state estimation for a linear system
subject to Gaussian noise inputs. For a given initial state
xˆ(0) and the current measurement y(k ) , the Kalman
estimate states can be expressed in the following form
xˆ ( k + 1) = Axˆ ( k ) + Bu (k ) + K f [ y ( k + 1) − Cxˆ (k )]. (16)
The Kalman filter gain K f can be calculated from the
following equation
K f = HC T [CHC T + V ]−1 , (17)
where the state error covariance matrix H is solved by the
following algebraic Riccati equation
H = A[ H − HC T (CHC T + V ) −1 CH ] AT + BWBT . (18)
C. LQ Tracking Control with Integral
In this section, an LQ controller was developed to track
the desired equivalence fuel to air ratio. In order to
eliminate the steady state error, an integral control was
introduced into the LQ controller by defining the tracking
error e(k ) as ACL =
e( k + 1) = e( k ) + y (k ) − r ( k ) = e( k ) + Cx (k ) − r ( k ). (19)  A −(1 + δ ) BK x −(1 + δ ) BK e 
T  A − K C 
Augmenting state vector xɶ ( k ) = [ x( k ) e( k ) ] yields the  K CA f 
 f
− (1 + δ )( B + K f CB ) K e .
following state equation −(1 + δ )( B + K f CB) K x
 
xɶ (k + 1) = Axɶ ɶ (k ) + Bu
ɶ (k ) + dr ( k )  C 0 1 
, (20)
y(k ) = Cxɶ ɶ (k ) For the robust stability analysis, the closed loop system (27)
with r = 0 is investigated as follows
 A 03×1  ɶ  B  ɶ 03×1 
where Aɶ =   , B =  0  , C = [C 0], d =  −1  . xCL ( k + 1) = ACL xCL ( k ). (28)
 C 1     
Define
The cost function of the LQ controller is defined as
A0 =
 N −1 
J = E ∑ [ xɶ (k )T Qxɶ ( k ) + u (k )T Ru ( k )] , (21)  A − BK x − BK e 
N →∞
k =0   
 K CA A− KfC (29)
where the weights Q , and R are given so that Q = QT ≥ 0 , − ( B + K f CB) K e  ,
 f −( B + K f CB ) K x 
and R = RT > 0 . Then, the optimal control is  
ɶ ɶ ( k ) + K r ( k ),  C 0 1 
u ( k ) = − Kx r (22)
 03×3 − BK x − BK e 
where Kɶ = [ Bɶ SBɶ + R ] Bɶ SAɶ , and S is the solution to the
T −1 T

∆A =  03×3 −( B + K f CB ) K x −( B + K f CB) K e  ,
algebraic Riccati equation (30)
 01×3 01×3 0 
S = Aɶ T [ S − S ( Bɶ ( Bɶ T SBɶ + R ) −1 Bɶ T S ] Aɶ + Q. (23)
K in equation (22) is calculated by K = [ Bɶ T SBɶ + R]−1 Bɶ T F ,
r r 1 so that ACL can be expressed as ACL = A0 + δ∆A.
with F1 = −[ I − Aɶ T + Aɶ T SF3 F2 ]−1 Aɶ T SF3 F2 d , where I is an Note that the discrete time system (28) is stable
identity matrix, F2 = Bɶ T R −1 Bɶ , and F3 = [ I + F2 S ]−1 . with δ = 0 , and there is a unique symmetric positive
definite solution satisfying the following Lyapunov equation
Partition the state feedback matrix Kɶ = [ K x K e ] , and
P = A0T PA0 + Qp (31)
replace x(k ) with Kalman state estimate xˆ(k ) in xɶ (k ) , then,
for any positive definite matrix Q p . Let matrix T be the
the LQG control law can be expressed below
u = − K x xˆ(k ) − Ke e(k ) + K r r. square root of P such that P = T * T T , and consider system
(24) −1
(28) in the following new coordinate with x (k ) = T xCL (k ) ,
x (k + 1) = Ax ( k ), (32)
IV. SYSTEM ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS −1 −1
where A = T ACLT = T ( A0 + δ∆A)T = A0 + δ∆A. Since the
In this section, the robust stability of the closed loop coordinate transformation does not affect stability, for the
system in the presence of system uncertainty δ is analyzed, system (28) to be stable, below inequality shall be satisfied
where the system noise input w and the oxygen sensor A = A0 + δ∆A ≤ A0 + δ ∆A < 1. (33)
measurement noise v in equation (9) are ignored in the
following analysis. Using the control u defined in equation In addition, note that
2
(24), equation (9) can be expressed as A0 = T −1 A0TT T A0T T −T = 1 − λ (Q p P −1 ), (34)
x( k + 1) = Ax( k )
(25) where λ (Qp P −1 ) is the minimum eigenvalue of Q p P −1 .
+ B [ − K x xˆ(k ) − K e e(k ) + K r r ] (1 + δ ),
Based upon (33), there is
where the estimated state x̂ can be expressed as
δ ∆A < 1 − A0 = 1 − (1 − λ (Q p P −1 ))1/ 2 . (35)
xˆ ( k + 1) = Axˆ ( k ) + K f [Cx (k + 1) − Cxˆ (k )]
(26) Also, since
+ B [ − K x xˆ( k ) − K e e( k ) + K r r ] (1 + δ ).
∆A ≤ T −1 ∆A T = [σ (T )]−1σ ( ∆A)σ (T ), (36)
Write equation (25), (26), and (19) into the state space form
xCL ( k + 1) = ACL xCL (k ) + BCL r, the maximum perturbation for the closed loop system (28)
(27)
to be stable has to satisfy the following condition
where 1/2
 σ ( P) 
 x (k )   (1 + δ ) BK r  σ (δ∆A) < 1 − (1 − λ (Qp P −1 ))1/ 2    , (37)
xCL (k ) =  x (k )  , BCL (k ) =  (1 + δ )( B + K f CB) K r  ,
 ˆ    σ ( P) 
 e(k )   −1  where σ [⋅] represents the maximum singular value.

4960
 V. SIMULATION VALIDATION
For this study the AFR was switched to the closed loop
control only during the LNT regeneration, while the
Kalman state estimation updates the estimated state vector
under all engine operational conditions. Three adaptive
estimation schemes were used in the simulations as follows:
1) Regular scheme: the fuel content estimation is
updated for adaptive control all the time.
2) Semi-active scheme: the fuel content estimation is
active only during the LNT regeneration process.
3) Dual-gain scheme: same as the regular scheme, the
only difference is that two adaptive estimation gains
are used, where the small gain is used under the open
loop AFR operation and the large gain during the
LNT regeneration.
In the simulation, a recorded diesel engine AFR signal
was used as the reference input, along with the mass air
The adaptive gain Γ was chosen to be 0.8. The four-second
LNT regeneration occurs every 60 seconds. During the
regeneration, the normalized AFR was regulated to be
slightly less than one by closed loop control. Since the
adaptive estimation was always active, the biofuel content
was identified within one second right after the fuel switch.
However, with the aged oxygen sensor that adds additional
modeling error for the adaptive estimation, the selected
adaptive gain ( Γ = 0.8 ) cannot provide a stable fuel gain
estimation, see Figure 4 for the simulation results with an
aged oxygen sensor ( τ 3 = 0.3 ). It can be seen that the fuel
content estimation does not converge; indicating that the
adaptive gain is too large for the aged oxygen sensor.
4
Reference λ
Actual λ
2

λ
flow signal. The time constants in the system were
0 LNT regeneration
measured based on a 0.4liter single cylinder engine running 1.05
Reference fuel gain
at 1500rpm with the load at 5bar IMEP. The excitation
Fuel gain
1 Estimated fuel gain
0.95 Identify fuel within 1s
noise covariance matrices W and V were selected assuming Fuel switch
0.9
that the exciting noise w is usually much larger than the 0.85
90 110 130 150 170 190
measurement noise v . The LQ control weighting matrices Time(s)
Q and R defined in equation (21) were selected based upon Figure 3. Regular scheme with a new oxygen sensor ( τ 3 = 0.2 )

the closed loop system response time and its relative

4
stability. Table 1 provides the system modeling and control Reference λ
Actual λ
parameters used in the following simulations. 2
λ

TABLE 1: SIMULATION PARAMETERS 0 Estimated fuel

1.05 gain disturbance
σ DS σ BD τ1 τ2 τ3 Reference fuel gain
Fuel gain

1 Estimated fuel gain

0.95
14.6 12.56 0.08S 0.06S 0.2S 0.9 Fuel switch
0.85
Q R W V 90 110 130 150 170 190
Time(s)
Figure 4. Regular scheme with an aged oxygen sensor ( τ 3 = 0.3 )
 1 0.012 0.012 0.012 
 0.012 1 0.012 9.6 
 100 1 0.0005 4
 0.012 0.012 250 60  Reference λ
  Actual λ
 0.012 9.6 60 2.6  2
λ

The calculated controller is given in (38), which leads to 0 AFR error Reference fuel gain
1.05 Estimated fuel gain
the tolerable system perturbation δ∆A equal to 7.4 ×10−5 ,
Fuel gain

1
0.95 Identify fuel within 1s
K x = [0.3426 0.2944 1.1345] after start regeneration
0.9 Fuel switch
K e = 0.1526 . (38) 0.85
90 110 130 150 170 190
K r = 2.2992 Time(s)
Figure 5. Semi-active scheme with an aged oxygen sensor ( τ 3 = 0.3 )
The remaining section studies the three adaptive
In order to make the adaptive estimation converge during
schemes. For simplicity, the engine equivalence (fuel-to-air)
the open loop AFR operation, the second adaptive control
ratio Φ is converted into the normalized air-to-fuel ratio λ
scheme estimates the fuel content only during the LNT
in the simulation plots. Note that Φ = 1 / λ . In this study, regeneration with the same adaptive gain as used in scheme
the stimulation was started with the conventional diesel 1; see Figure 5 for the simulation results. It can be observed
( α = 1 ), and then switched to the biodiesel ( α = 0.86 ) at that the biodiesel fuel content was converged within one
120th second. second following the LNT regeneration after the fuel
Figure 3 shows the simulation results of the regular switch. The advantage of this scheme is that it stopped the
scheme (scheme 1) with the test oxygen sensor τ 3 = 0.2 . adaptive estimation during the open loop AFR operation to

4961
avoid divergence, while the disadvantage is that the fuel
content will not be updated until the next LNT
regeneration, which leads to large engine fuel and torque
control error.
The third adaptive control scheme combines the
advantages of the previous two schemes. It uses a small
adaptive estimation gain ( Γ = 0.005 for this simulation)
during the open loop AFR operation and a large adaptive
estimation gain ( Γ = 0.8 ) during the LNT regeneration.
Figure 6 shows the simulation results of the dual-gain
scheme. The AFR represented by the dotted line is the fuel
gain estimated under the same conditions as these in Figure
5. It is obvious that the small adaptive gain used during the
open loop AFR operation is capable of providing an
accurate estimation of the fuel content before the next
regeneration even though the convergence is slow. Note that
in an actual engine operation, the fuel content change will
not be in a step and it will vary relatively slowly. Therefore,
the performance of the third adaptive control scheme will
even be better.
4 4, July, 2009, pp. 988-993.
Reference λ
Actual λ
λ
2
0 AFR error gradually decreasing
Reference fuel gain
1 content in flex-fuel vehicles using an exhaust gas oxygen sensor: model,
Fuel gain
Estimated fuel gain without MAF error
Estimated fuel gain with 3% MAF error
0.9 3% fuel gain
estimation error
0.8
90 110 130 150 170
Time(s)
Figure 6. Dual-gain scheme with an aged oxygen sensor ( τ 3 = 0.3 )
The AFR trace represented by the dashed line in Figure 6
is the estimated fuel content with 3% mass air flow sensor
error, leading to about 3% fuel content estimation error.
However, the AFR control was still accurate due to the LQ
tracking control with an integrator.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
This paper proposes to use the LQ optimal tracking
scheme to regulate the diesel engine AFR (air-to-fuel ratio)
during the LNT regeneration period based upon the
adaptively estimated biodiesel fuel content. The closed loop
system robustness is studied under engine mass air flow
sensor error and the adaptive estimation error. Three
adaptive control schemes were studied in simulations, and
the optimal strategy is the dual-gain scheme that uses the
low adaptive gain during the open loop AFR operation and
the high gain during the LNT regeneration. The future
work is to continue improving the adaptive control scheme
by studying the effect of actuator saturation and to validate
the developed control scheme in a dynamometer test
environment for a lean burn engine.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project is supported by General Motors under contract
number GB821-NV.
REFERENCE
[1] D. Schiefer, R. Maennel, and W. Nardoni, “Advantages of diesel engine
control using in-cylinder pressure information for closed loop control,”
SAE 2003-01-0364, 2003.
[2] J. Szybist, J. Song, M. Alam, and A. Boeham, “Biodiesel combustion,
emission and emission control,” Fuel Processing Technology vol. 88,
2007, pp.676-691.
[3] A. Demirbas, “Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel,” Energy
Policy, vol.35, 2007, pp.4661-4670.
[4] J. McCrady, A. Hansen, and C. Lee, “Modeling biodiesel combustion
using GT-Power,” An ASABE Meeting Presentation, Paper Number:
076095.
[5] D. Snyder, G. Adi, M. Bunce, and G. Shaver, “Fuel blend fraction
estimation for fuel-flexible combustion control: uncertainty analysis,”
Journal of Control Engineering Practice, vol. 18, April, 2010, pp. 418-
432.
[6] J. McCrady, A. Hansen, C. Lee, “Combustion and emissions modeling
of biodiesel using GT-Power,” An ASABE Meeting Presentation, Paper
Number: 084045, June, 2008.
[7] D. Snyder, G. Adi, M. Bunce, C. Satkoski, and G. Shaver, “Steady-state
biodiesel blend estimation via a wideband oxygen sensor,” The ASME
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, vol. 131, no.
[8] D. Snyder, G. Adi, M. Bunce, C. Hall and G. Shaver, “Dynamic exhaust
oxygen based biodiesel blend estimation with an extended Kalman
filter,” In proceedings of 2010 American Control Conference,
Baltimore, MD, June, 2010.
[9] K. Ann, A. Stefanopoulou, and M. Jankovic, “Estimation of ethanol
tuning and sensitivity.” In Proceedings of Dynamic Systems and
Control Conference (DSCC08), Ann Arbor, MI, 2008.
[10] K. Ahn, A. Stefanopoulous, L. Jiang, and H. Yilmaz, “Ethanol content
190 estimation in flex fuel direct injection engines using in-cylinder pressure
measurements,” SAE 2010-01-0166, 2010.
[11] C. Daniels, G. Zhu, W. Mammen, and M. Zhang, “Virtual flex fuel
sensor for spark ignition engines using ionization signal,” U.S. Patent
7921704B2, April 12, 2011.
[12] X. Chen, G. Zhu, X. Yang, D. Hung, and X. Tan, “Model-based
estimation of flow characteristics using an ionic polymer-metal
composite beam,” IEEE Trans. Mechatronics., submitted for
publication.
[13] J. Sun, Y. Kim, and L. Wang, “Aftertreatment control and adaptation for
lean burn engine with HEGO sensors,” International Journal of
Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, vol.18, 2004 pp.145-166.
[14] J. Parks, S. Huff, J. Pihi, J. Choi, and B. West, “Nitrogen selectivity in
Lean NOx Trap catalysis with diesel engine in-cylinder regeneration,”
SAE 2005-01-3876, 2005.
[15] Y. Kim, J. Sun, and L. Wang, “Optimization of purge air-to-fuel ratio
profiles for enhanced Lean NOx Trap control.” Proceeding of the 2004
American Control Conference, Boston, MA, vol.1, 2004, pp 132-137.
[16] Y. Wang, and I. Haskara, “Method and apparatus for controlling engine
operation during regeneration of an exhaust aftertreatment system.” U.S.
Patent 0078167, April 3, 2008.
[17] P. Witze, S. Huff, J. Storey, and B. West, “Time-resolved laser-induced
incandescence measurements of particulate emissions during enrichment
for diesel Lean NOx Trap regeneration.” SAE 2005-01-0186, 2005.
[18] S. Pace, and G. Zhu, “Air-to-fuel ratio and dual-fuel ratio control of an
internal combustion engine,” SAE 2009-01-2794, 2009.
[19] V. Jones, B. Ault, G. Franklin, and J. Powell, “Identification and air-fuel
ratio control of a spark ignition engine,” IEEE Trans. Control Systems
Technology, vol. 3. no. 1, March 1995, pp.14-21.
[20] P. Loannou, and B. Fidan, Adaptive Control Tutorial, SIAM, 2006,
pp91-121.
[21] M. Corless, G. Zhu, and R. Skelton, “Improved robustness bounds using
covariance matrices.” Proceeding of the 28th Conference on Decision
and Control, Florida, Dec.1989.
4962