ARTICLE IN PRESS

Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230

www.elsevier.com/locate/conengprac

Modelling and predictive control of a new injection system for

compressed natural gas engines
Paolo Linoa,, Bruno Maionea, Claudio Amoreseb,1
a
Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica, Politecnico di Bari, via Re David 200, 70125 Bari, Italy
b
ICMEA Srl, Via Mongelli 11, I-70033 Corato, Italy
Received 22 November 2006; accepted 24 January 2008
Available online 17 March 2008

在装有共轨喷射系统的内燃机中，空气/燃料混合物的精确计量严格依赖压力调节，特别是压缩天然气(Cng)喷射系统的精确计量是很难达到的，因为
Abstract 气体的压缩性使得燃料输送过程更加复杂，由于控制器设计需要喷射系统的模型，本文提出了一种基于物理的状态空间模型。一种新颖的CNG喷射系
统，模型参数只依赖于定义良好的几何数据和燃料特性，通过对不同工况下的仿真和实验结果进行比较，验证了该模型的有效性
In internal combustion engines equipped with the common rail injection system the accurate metering of the air/fuel mixture strictly
depends on the pressure regulation. Accuracy in metering is difficult to be achieved especially for compressed natural gas (CNG)
injection systems, as the gas compressibility makes the fuel delivery process more complex.
Since the controller design requires a model of the injection system, this paper presents a physics-based state-space model of an
innovative CNG injection system. The model parameters only depend on well defined geometrical data and fuel properties. Comparing
simulation and experimental results in different operating conditions validates the model.
Further, the proposed model is used for designing a generalized predictive controller for the injection pressure regulation, which is
implemented in few steps. Experimental results show the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Injection pressure control; Common rail; Modelling injection systems; Compressed natural gas; Polluting emissions reduction; Predictive
control

1. Introduction Graboski, Alleman, Herring, & Nelson, 1999). Their

Because of combustion processes, thermal engines of
vehicles release gases and particulate into the atmosphere.
Even if the recent application of electronics and control has
improved the efficiency of engine operation, the level of the
exhaust gases in the atmosphere keeps on rising, as the
number of vehicles increases continuously. Recently, to
reduce pollutants (CO, NOx , HC) and particulate in the
atmosphere, manufacturers have experimented engines
employing alternative fuels, e.g. compressed natural gas
(CNG) (International Gas Union, 2005; Weaver, 1989).
Namely, CNG can keep the emission limits within
international prescriptions (e.g. EURO 4 in Europe)
and can also restrain the operation costs (McCormick,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 80 5963851; fax: +39 80 5963410.
E-mail addresses: lino@deemail.poliba.it (P. Lino), maione@poliba.it
(B. Maione), claudio.amorese@icmea.it (C. Amorese).
1
Formerly with Centro Ricerche FIAT S.C.p.A., Valenzano Branch,
Str. P.le Casamassima Km 3, 70010 Valenzano, Italy.
further advantages are that the global reserves of methane
are estimated to be much larger than the oil reserves
(Dyntar, Onder, & Guzzella, 2002) and that natural gases
are a resource well distributed worldwide (Kvenvolden,
1999). Hence, even if CNG requires large spaces for high
autonomy and for achieving acceptable refuelling dis-
tances, few European countries pay attention to the
technologies improving performances of the CNG-pow-
ered vehicles.
As with gasoline engines, CNG engines require a
particularly efficient metering to limit the emissions
(McCormick et al., 1999). At present, the regulation of
the injection pressure of the fuel is based on a mechanical
technology which is affected by some limitations yielding
inaccurate metering. E.g. with such systems it is not
possible to change the injection pressure at will, except in
the initial tuning phase; disturbances are poorly compen-
sated; the quality of pressure response to abrupt changes in
the injected fuel quantity is poor (Amorese, De Matthaeis,
De Michele, & Satriano, 2004; Pan, Li, & Hussain, 1998).

0967-0661/$ - see front matter r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2008.01.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230
Recently, to overcome these difficulties, the FIAT Re-
search Center, Valenzano branch, Italy, experimented an
innovative common rail injection system for CNG engines
(Amorese et al., 2004; Maione et al., 2004), in which an
Electronic Control Unit (ECU) controls the opening/
closing rate of the electro-valve feeding the rail to achieve
an effective control of the pressure in the rail and, hence, an
accurate metering of the fuel by means of the electronically
driven injectors. In addition, this controller can modify the
working point of the pressure in the rail, for adapting it to
the changes of load, to the request of acceleration, etc.
This paper describes a model-based, predictive control of
the pressure in common rails of injection systems for GNG
engines. Obviously this technique is closely dependent on
the assumed process model, which is the main block of the
predictive control. In other words, only a model generating
accurate output predictions fits the purpose (Qina &
Badgwell, 2003; Rossiter, 2003). Unfortunately, there are
relatively few papers which describe modelling and control
of injection systems for CNG engines. On the contrary,
similar problems are frequently considered for diesel
engines, so that many methodologies can be transferred
to CNG injection systems. In particular, a well known
modelling method (Heywood, 1988; Streeter, Wylie, &
Bedford, 1998), also used in this paper, splits the system
into its main volumes and describes the continuous flow of
the fluid through these volumes. However, if the fuel
compressibility and the pipeline flexibility are taken into
account, the description is often in terms of partial
differential equations (PDE) (Catania, Dongiovanni, Mit-
tica, Negri, & Spessa, 1996; Cantore, Mattarelli, & Boretti,
1999; Ficarella, Laforgia, & Landriscina, 1999; Hountalas
& Kouremenos, 1998; Kouremenos, Hountalas, & Kour-
emenos, 1999). These detailed models are useful to
diagnose faults and to explore different system configura-
tions and alternative geometrical and functional designs,
etc. However, for control problems, they are too complex
and contain too large amount of parameters to be useful.
Fortunately, a recognized and important property of
feedback control is that one can often achieve satisfactory
levels of performance by means of relatively simple models,
provided that they capture the relevant features of the
controller design. In the proposed study, for designing a
model-based predictive controller, there is no need to
describe all the physics and internal behaviour of the
injection process to get a model providing reliable
prediction. Namely, only the more significant character-
istics can be taken into account leaving most secondary
effects un-described mathematically. In this way, without
losing essential validity, the injection system can be
represented by ordinary differential equations (ODE)
(Aespy, Engja, & Skarboe, 1996; Desantes, Arregle, &
Rodriguez, 1999; Fuseya, Nishimura, Sato, & Tanaka,
1999; Gauthier, Sename, Dugard, & Meissonnier, 2005;
Morselli, Corti, & Rizzoni, 2002), by transfer function
(Kuraoka, Ohka, & Ohba, 1989), or state-space description
(Lino, Maione, & Rizzo, 2007; Maione et al., 2004). Since
1217
the simplicity is a focal point, this paper is specifically
aimed at defining a simple enough control-oriented model,
which at the same time ensures reliable data used to design
a predictive control law. All assumptions are clearly
specified at each stage of the modelling procedure. Final
results are validated by comparison with experimental
data.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes
the new CNG common rail injection system. Section 3
develops the state-space model of the injection system used
in Section 4 to derive the predictive control law for the
injection pressure regulation. In Section 5, both experi-
mental and simulation results are presented to validate the
proposed model and to evaluate the controller perfor-
mances. Section 6 gives the conclusions.
2. The CNG injection system
The main elements of the CNG injection system of Fig. 1
are a fuel tank storing high pressure gas, a pressure
reducer, a common rail and six electro-injectors. The fuel
coming from the tank supplies the pressure reducer before
reaching the common rail and feeding the electronically
controlled injectors. By supplying gas to the intake
manifolds, injectors lead to the proper air/fuel mixture.
Note that the large volume of the common rail helps in
damping the oscillations due to the operation of both
pressure controller and injectors. Namely, combining the
electronic control of rail pressure with optimum design of
the rail volume reduces the pressure oscillations inside the
rail and leads to a more accurate fuel metering. More
precisely, since the pressure ratio between the intake
manifold and the rail pressure is below the so-called
‘‘critical value’’, the flow rate depends only on the rail
pressure (see Section 3 for details). Hence, the injected fuel
amount can be metered acting on rail pressure and
injection timings, which are precisely driven by the ECU.
The output of a piezo-resistive pressure sensor inside the
rail is processed to drive the injectors and then to close the
loop with the pressure reducer consisting of two chambers.
The inflow section of the main chamber is variable with the
axial displacement of a spherical shutter over a conical
seat. The pressure of the second (control) chamber is
regulated by a solenoid valve. A piston placed between
these chambers varies the shutter opening, which controls
the fuel flow rate. When the solenoid valve is opened, the
fluid increases the pressure on the upper surface of the
piston, which is pushed down together with the shutter.
Consequently, more fuel enters the main chamber and
forces the pressure to increase. When the solenoid valve is
closed, the pressure on the upper side of the piston
decreases. Since the direction of the resulting force is
upward, the piston moves up and allows a preloaded spring
to close the shutter of the main chamber.
The solenoid valve, which admits the fluid in the control
chamber, encompasses an electromagnet and a moving
anchor integral with a spherical shutter. With the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1218 P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230

pressure
solenoid
reference
valve
ECU

p1 pressure
sensor

tank control
chamber

pressure
bypass p2
sensor
orifice

common rail
piston

main rod
chamber
shutter
injectors
pressure reducer

p0 pressure
sensor

Fig. 1. Block scheme of the CNG common rail injection system.

non-energized electromagnet, a preloaded spring acting

H K L
against the hydraulic force takes shutter and anchor closed, AHK
m· HK m· KL
and prevents the gas from flowing into the control
chamber. As the field circuit of the electromagnet is pH, VH, TH pK, VK, TK pL, VL, TL
energized, the magnetic force overcomes the spring pre-
load: the anchor and the poles come together and the Fig. 2. Computation of flows and pressure dynamics in control volumes.
pressure force moves the sphere unfolding the supply
orifice. With the de-energized circuit, the anchor is forced
down and the shutter is pushed against the seat. In this rather than a state variable, as it is almost constant in short
way, varying the duty cycle of the driving current during a time intervals. A measure of the tank pressure is always
control period makes the valve opened and closed in turn, available on board as it is related to the fuel supply.
so as to control the chamber pressure. To maintain an
equilibrium condition in steady state operation, the fuel in 3.1. Theoretical issues
the control chamber is sent to the main circuit through a
suitably calibrated bypass orifice (Fig. 1). The schematization of control volumes (H, K, L) in
Fig. 1 makes the presentation of the physical relationships
3. State-space modelling of the injection system among variables easier. So consider the restriction of Fig. 2
sketching a valve or an orifice connecting H and K. Let pH
The model of the CNG injection system considers two and pK be the pressures determining the flow rate m _ HK
control volumes, i.e. the control chamber circuit and the through the orifice. Two cases can be considered. In the
common rail circuit (including the main chamber and first one, when pK =pH Xð2=ðg þ 1ÞÞg=ðg1Þ , where g is the heat
the common rail). By assumption, in both volumes the capacity ratio, the mass flow rate through the restriction is
pressure distribution is uniform, and the elastic deforma- a nonlinear function of pH and pK , given by (Zucrow &
tions of solid parts due to pressure changes are negligible. Hoffman, 1976)
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
"  ffi
In addition, injection and rail pressures are assumed to be u
u 2=g  ðgþ1Þ=g #
equal, so that electro-injectors are not modelled apart, but 2g pK p
m_ HK ¼ cd1 pH AHK t  K .
they are included in the rail circuit as electronic valves. RT H ðg  1Þ pH pH
Since the temperature is also considered constant in the
whole injection system, the dynamics is completely defined (1)
by the pressure variations with time in the control volumes. In Eq. (1), AHK is the minimal flow section, perpendicular
The tank pressure plays the role of a maintenance input to flow direction, R the gas constant, T H the absolute
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230 1219

temperature, cd 1 is an experimental coefficient to account where possible changes due to mechanical part motions
for non-uniform mass flow rates (Mulemane, Han, Lu, (for example in the main and control chambers) are
Yoon, & Lai, 2004). neglected, without sensibly affecting the model accuracy.
The second case, when pK =pH oð2=ðg þ 1ÞÞg=ðg1Þ (‘‘criti- Hence the perfect gas law (Streeter et al., 1998; Zucrow &
cal value’’), is the usual situation considered in this paper. Hoffman, 1976), p ¼ rRT ¼ mRT=V , leads to
Then the expression of the mass flow rate becomes (Zucrow RT K
& Hoffman, 1976) p_ K ¼ _ HK  m
ðm _ KL Þ. (4)
VK
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ðgþ1Þ=ðg1Þ The integration of (4) yields the pressure in the generic
g 2
m_ HK ¼ cd2 pH AHK , (2) control volume. Eqs. (1)–(2) are used to model the common
RT H g þ 1
rail injection system presented in Figs. 1 and 3.
which is independent of pK (‘‘critical flow condition’’).
Now, if m_ HK and m _ KL are the mass flow rates in and out 3.2. Injection system modelling
of the container K of volume V K , and rK is the gas density,
it holds (see Fig. 2): Let p0 , p1 , p2 , p3 be the pressures in the tank, in the
control chamber circuit, in the main circuit and in the
dðrK V K Þ dr intake manifold, respectively. To derive the system state
_ HK  m
m _ KL ¼ ¼ VK K , (3)
dt dt equations, pressures p1 and p2 are chosen as state variables.
Then p_ 1 and p_ 2 are expressed in terms of the differences
between the mass flow rate flowing in and that flowing out
LEGEND of their corresponding volumes, according Eq. (4). Eqs. (1)
Flow direction and (2) are used to express the mass flow rates in terms of
Mechanical motion the pressures. Note that the flow sections are affected by
p1 direction
m· 12 Pressure forces
the mechanical parts motion, which is influenced by the
p1 direction pressures in the control volumes.
m· 01
From Fig. 3, m _ 02 , m
_ 12 , m
_ 23 are the flows affecting the
p0
main circuit. The flow between the tank and the main
_ 02 , depends on the instantaneous flow section A02 ,
circuit, m
S1 p1
p1 thus on the shutter and the piston axial displacement hs .
m· 12 The shutter and piston dynamics can be described by
applying the Newton’s second law of motion to the forces
S2 p2 p
m· 23 2
acting upon each of them. Let hs ¼ 0 when the shutter is
closed, and hs 40 when the shutter and the piston move
hs down. To calculate the forces acting on the shutter, by
m· 02
S0 assumption, the pressure gradient p0  p2 is fully applied
p0 on the inlet minimal section (Figs. 3 and 4(a)). The force F 0
p3 due to p0 , acting on the lower spherical cap portion of the
shutter surface S 0 , can be computed as follows. Since the
Fig. 3. Block scheme of the injection system showing the fuel flows and direction of pressure forces is normal to the shutter surface,
the hydraulic forces involved. the overall pressure force in the motion direction is

main chamber p2
ds 5
s 4.5
exact
4
Inlet section [mm2]

hs 3.5
3
dsM 2.5
approximated
90-s dsm 2
ls
d0 / 2 1.5
 1
d
0.5
dS 0
p0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Shutter displacement [mm]

Fig. 4. Computation of the pressure reducer inlet section, A02 , and of the pressure forces acting on the shutter: (a) valve geometry; (b) comparison of
accurate and approximated computation.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1220 P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230

obtained by integrating the elementary contribution
depending on the angle y:
dF 0 ¼ p0 dS cos y.
Since the elementary surface is
d0 1 A01 ¼
dS ¼ pd 0 sin y dy ¼ pd 20 sin y dy,
2 2
the substitution of (6) in (5) gives
dF 0 ¼ 12p0 pd 20 sin y cos y dy.
Hence, the integration within the angular interval ½90 
bs ; 180 yields
Z 180
1 by the following equation (Streeter et al., 1998):
F0 ¼ p0 pd 20 sin y cos y dy
90bs 2
1 m_ 12 ¼ cd cL A12
¼  p0 pd 20 cos2 bs . (8)
4
The pressure p2 applies on the surface S2 including the
piston bottom surface and the upper spherical cap surface
of the shutter, so that the resulting force F 2 is the sum of
two opposite contributions. By assuming the rod base
surfaces negligible, the former contribution is p2 S1 ,
because the bottom and the top surfaces of the piston are
approximately equal. As for F 0 , the latter contribution is
obtained by integrating the elementary force p2 dS cos y
within the angular interval ½0; 90  bs . Therefore, the
overall force due to p2 is
Z 90bs
1 simplification does not introduce a considerable error, as
F 2 ¼  p2 S 1 þ p2 pd 20 sin y cos y dy
0 2
 
1
¼  p2 S 1  pd 20 cos2 bs .
4
Finally, the force F 1 ¼ p1 S1 due to p1 applies on the piston
upper surface S 1 .
Summing up, if the viscous friction term, the piston and
the shutter inertias are neglected in comparison with the
large pressure forces, the force balance gives
F 0 þ F 1 þ F 2  ks hs  F s0  F c ¼ 0,
where ks is the spring constant and F s0 is the spring
preload, i.e. the force applied by the spring when the
shutter is closed. Finally, the coulomb friction F c is
assumed to be constant and evaluated experimentally.
Hence, hs is obtained by solving (10), allowing to compute
the main circuit minimal inlet section A01 by means of
simple geometrical considerations.
The flow section A01 , perpendicular to the flow direction,
is the lateral surface of a truncated cone (see Fig. 4(a)). If bs
is the slope of the conical seat, d 0 the shutter diameter, the
cone slant height l s and the upper base diameter d m s are,
respectively,
(
l s ¼ hs sin bs ;
(11)
dm s ¼ d 0 cos bs
and the lower base radius is given by
dM m
s ¼ d s þ 2l s cos bs ¼ d 0 cos bs þ hs sin 2bs . (12)
(5)
Finally, it is straightforward to calculate the inlet section:
p m p
ðd þ d M s Þl s ¼ ð2d 0 cos bs þ hs sin 2bs Þhs sin bs
(6) 2 s 2
p
’ d 0 hs sin 2bs . (13)
2
The last expression on the right side of (13) follows by
(7) neglecting the h2s -term: a simplification justified by the
small value of hs (Fig. 4(b)).
Since the flow m _ 12 between the control and the main
circuits is approximately stationary, it can be determined
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p2
ðp  p2 Þ, (14)
RT 1
where cL takes into account the effect of kinetic energy
losses in the bypass orifice minimal section A12 and in the
pipe cranks. Eq. (14) assumes that no reversal flows
occur.
In dependence of engine speed and load, the ECU sets
the injectors opening time intervals. The whole injection
cycle takes place in a 720 interval, with a delay between
each injection command that depends on the number of
injectors. Since this model neglects the injectors opening
and closing transients, only two conditions can occur:
injectors closed, or opened with a flow section A23 . This
the transients expire within 1 ms, while reduces the system
order and computational effort, because it is not necessary
(9) to calculate the shutter axial displacement and speed. Since
critical flow condition always holds, the injection mass flow
m_ 23 must be calculated by (2) with AHK ¼ ET inj  A23 , and
where ET inj (injectors energizing time) is the injectors
timing, normalized with respect to the injection cycle
duration. More in detail, if n is the number of injectors,
ET inj is a square signal of amplitude f1; 2; . . . ; ng depending
(10) on the number of injectors simultaneously opened, and on
the period variable with the engine speed.
The pressure dynamics within the control chamber
circuit depends on the incoming flow from the tank m _ 01 ,
and the outgoing flow towards the main circuit m _ 12 .
The displacement of the shutter driven by the solenoid
valve regulates the flux m _ 01 . Since its inertia is
negligible, the inlet section of the valve can be considered
completely opened or completely closed, depending
on the actual driving current (energized/not-energized
circuit). With this assumption, the value of the inlet
section can be calculated by using (13) (being the shutter
and seat geometries the same as in Fig. 4(a), with the
appropriate sizes) and by putting hs ¼ ET sv  hmax , where
ET sv (solenoid valve energizing time) is a square signal,
assuming values in f0; 1g, representing the valve energizing
conditions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230 1221

Table 1 refers to a current working point. This simplification is

Model notation justified because the control action has to keep the pressure
Symbol Description
close to a reference value, in dependence of the working
conditions set by the driver power request, speed and load.
a1 , b0 , b1 Coefficients of the family of ARX models Moreover, with a linearized model it is possible to apply
A Flow section surface across two control volumes ðm2 Þ well known linear design techniques. Then the linear
A, B, C State, input and output matrices of the linearized model
continuous-time models are sampled to implement a
Aði;jÞ , Bði;kÞ Elements of A and B, respectively
H, K, L Generic control volumes
discrete control with the ECU microcontroller.
cij Generic coefficient of the nonlinear state-space model The linearization of (15) with respect to x and u yields
cd , cL Discharge coefficient and kinetic energy losses coefficient    
qf qf
dms , ds
M Radiuses of upper and lower bases of the conical inlet section _ ¼
dxðtÞ dxðtÞ þ duðtÞ ¼ AdxðtÞ þ BduðtÞ,
(m) qx x;u qu x;u
ET inj , Injectors and solenoid valve normalized energizing times
(16)
ET sv
f Vector nonlinear function of the state-space model where dxðtÞ ¼ xðtÞ  x, duðtÞ ¼ uðtÞ  u, and f is the vector
F 0 , F 1 , F 2 Pressure forces (N) nonlinear function of the state-space model. A and B are,
F c , F s0 Coulomb friction force and spring preload (N)
hs Shutter axial displacement (m)
respectively, the state and the input matrices, stemming
ks Spring constant ðN m1 Þ from linearization. Choosing dx2 ðtÞ as output gives
ls Slant height of the pressure regulator conical inlet section (m) dyðtÞ ¼ CdxðtÞ, where C ¼ ½0 1 is the output matrix. The
m Fuel mass (kg) computation gives the following elements Aði;jÞ and Bði;kÞ of
m_ Flow rate between two control volumes ðkg s1 Þ matrices A and B:
n Number of injectors
p Gas pressure within the control volume ðN m2 Þ x2
Að1;1Þ ¼ c12 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ,
R Universal gas constantðJ mol1 K1 Þ 2 x2 ðx1  x2 Þ
S Surface subjected to the action of pressure p ðm2 Þ
x1  2x2
t Time variable Að1;2Þ ¼ c12 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ,
tc , tph Period and hold phase duration of ET sv (s) 2 x2 ðx1  x2 Þ
tj Injectors opening time interval (s) x2
T Temperature (K) Að2;1Þ ¼ c21 c24 p0 þ c23 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ,
u, x, y Input, state and output variables of state-space models 2 x2 ðx1  x2 Þ
u, x Elements of u and x, respectively x1  2x2
u, x Input and state vectors of state-space models Að2;2Þ ¼ c21 c25 p0  c22 u2 þ c23 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (17)
u, x Vectors of equilibria inputs and states
2 x2 ðx1  x2 Þ
V Volume ðm3 Þ and
bs Slope of the conical seat (rad)
g Heat capacity ratio Bð1;1Þ ¼ c11 p0 ,
d Variation operator
y Angle (rad) Bð1;2Þ ¼ 0,
r Gas density ðkg m3 Þ Bð2;1Þ ¼ 0,
u Engine speed (rpm)
Bð2;2Þ ¼ c22 x2 . (18)
One of the signals affecting the working condition is the
With x1 ¼ p1 , x2 ¼ p2 , u1 ¼ ET sv , u2 ¼ ET inj , tank pressure, which is approximatively constant within a
Eqs. (3)–(14) can be rewritten in a state space form: large time interval. On the contrary, the valve and injectors
8 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
> x_ 1 ðtÞ ¼ c 11 p ðtÞu 1 ðtÞ  c 12 x2 ðtÞ½x1 ðtÞ  x2 ðtÞ; driving signals, u1 and u2 , respectively, result from
< 0
modulation of discrete values and cannot be used directly
x_ 2 ðtÞ ¼ c21 p0 ðtÞ½c24 x1 ðtÞ  c25 x2 ðtÞ  c26 p0 ðtÞ  c27  (15)
>
: pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi into the model equations to determine the equilibrium
c x ðtÞu ðtÞ þ c
22 2 2 23 x ðtÞ½x ðtÞ  x ðtÞ;
2 1 2 pressures. For this reason, instead of the instantaneous
values, their mean values within an injection cycle are
where cij are constant coefficients (Tables 1 and 3). The
considered. In particular, the driving current duty cycle is
system of nonlinear equations (15) completely describes the
assumed as input signal u1 , while the ratio between the
system dynamics in terms of control volume pressures.
injection time interval and the duration of whole injection
cycle, multiplied by the number of injectors, is considered
4. A generalized predictive control law for the rail pressure
as the input u2 . Given the engine speed u in rpm, the
regulation
number of injectors n and the injectors opening time
interval tj , the input u2 can be computed as
4.1. Model linearization and discretization
u
u2 ¼ n  t j  . (19)
To design a controller for the rail pressure, the state 120
equations (15) are linearized around different equilibrium Applying a backward difference method to (16) leads to a
points. Hence each tuning of the controller parameters 1  2 discrete transfer-function matrix, whose elements
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1222 P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230
give the relationship between the output yðp2 Þ and the
inputs du1 and du2 , respectively. Considering du1 as the
control signal, it is possible to derive a family of
AutoRegressive eXogenous (ARX) models suitable for
the controller design from the first element of the transfer-
function matrix. With some notational abuse, dropping the
symbol d and using uðtÞ instead of u1 ðtÞ, and regarding t as
the discrete-time variable, yields
ð1  a1 q1 ÞyðtÞ ¼ ðb0 q1  b1 q2 ÞuðtÞ,
where q1 is the shift operator.
4.2. Controller design
Model predictive control techniques predict the output
from a process model and then impress a control action
able to drive the system to a reference trajectory (Rossiter,
2003). The control action is applied to systems represented
by an AutoRegressive Integrated eXogenous (ARIX)
model:
Aðq1 ÞyðtÞ ¼ Bðq1 Þuðt  1Þ þ xðtÞ=D,
where xðtÞ is a zero mean white noise, Aðq1 Þ and Bðq1 Þ
are polynomials in q1 of degrees na and nb, respectively,
and D is the discrete derivative operator ð1  q1 Þ. The j-
step division of 1 by DAðq1 Þ gives the following
Diophantine equation:
1 ¼ E j ðq1 ÞAðq1 ÞD þ qj F j ðq1 Þ,
where E j ðq1 Þ and qj F j ðq1 Þ are, respectively, the quotient
and the remainder polynomials of ðj  1Þth and ðj þ naÞth
order. By putting together the previous equations it can be
calculated the system output in j steps:
yðt þ jÞ ¼ F j ðq1 ÞyðtÞ þ E j ðq1 ÞDBðq1 Þuðt þ j  1Þ
þ E j ðq1 Þxðt þ jÞ.
Since the last term in (23) only refers to future noise
samples, it cannot be known in advance, so putting G j ¼
E j ðq1 ÞBðq1 Þ gives the following equation of the j-step
optimal predictor:
^ þ jjtÞ ¼ G j ðq1 ÞDuðt þ j  1Þ þ F j ðq1 ÞyðtÞ,
yðt
1 1
where G j ðq Þ and F j ðq Þ are polynomials of degrees ðj þ
nb  1Þ and na, respectively. Let rðt þ jÞ be the component
of yðt þ jÞ depending on known values at time t:
rðt þ 1Þ ¼ ½G 1 ðq1 Þ  g10 DuðtÞ þ F 1 ðq1 ÞyðtÞ,
rðt þ 2Þ ¼ ½G 2 ðq1 Þ  q1 g21  g20 qDuðtÞ þ F 2 ðq1 ÞyðtÞ,
..
. determines the final linear model for control, also taking in
rðt þ jÞ ¼ ½G j ðq1 Þ  qðj1Þ gj;j1      gj0 
qj1 DuðtÞ þ F j ðq1 ÞyðtÞ,
1 1 ðnbþj1Þ
where G j ðq Þ ¼ gj0 þ gj0 q þ    þ gj;nbþj1 q . increasing the number of operating conditions for the
Then it is possible to express (24), for j ¼ 1; . . . ; N, in the
matrix form y^ ¼ G~u þ r, where y^ ¼ ½yðt ^ þ 1Þ; . . . ;
^ þ NÞT , u~ ¼ ½DuðtÞ; . . . ; Duðt þ N  1ÞT , r ¼ ½rðt þ 1Þ;
yðt
. . . ; rðt þ NÞT and G is a lower triangular N  N matrix,
whose elements are Gðl; mÞ ¼ gl;lm for lXm, and Gðl; mÞ ¼
0 for lom (Rossiter, 2003).
If w ¼ ½wðt þ 1Þ; wðt þ 2Þ; . . . ; wðt þ NÞT is a sequence of
future reference-values, a cost function taking into account
the future errors, i.e. the difference between future output
and reference values, and the control action variations can
(20)
be introduced:
J ¼ EfðG~u þ r  wÞT ðG~u þ r  wÞ þ l~uT u~ g, (26)
where l is a sequence of weights on future control actions.
The minimization of the cost function J with respect of u~
gives the optimal control law for the prediction horizon N:
u~ ¼ ðGT G þ lIÞ1 GT ðw  rÞ. (27)
Since the first element of u~ is DuðtÞ, the current control
action is
(21) uðtÞ ¼ uðt  1Þ þ gT ðw  rÞ, (28)
where gT is the first row of ðGT G þ lIÞ1 GT ; at each step
the first computed control action is applied and then the
optimization process is repeated after updating all vectors.
By placing infinite weights on control changes after N U
steps, where N U is the control horizon, all next control
actions are taken to be equal to uðt þ N U Þ. A higher value
(22) for N U results in a more active control action, while a
lower value reduces the computational effort, as u~ reduces
to a N U  1 vector. Obviously a good choice puts the
prediction horizon equal to the system rise time. The above
concepts are applied to design a GPC for the rail pressure
considering the family of ARX models (20), because it
belongs to the class represented by (21). It can be shown
(23) (Rossiter, 2003) that the resulting control law becomes
DuðtÞ ¼ k1 wðtÞ þ ðk2 þ k3 q1 ÞyðtÞ þ k4 Duðt  1Þ, (29)
where ½k1 ; k2 ; k3 ; k4  depends on N and N U (Table 2).
A simple scheduling strategy based on a sensitivity
analysis of linear model coefficients has been implemented
(24) in simulation, consisting in what follows. A fixed value of
the prediction error is chosen to select the linear model
used to compute the controller parameters. Simulation and
experimental tests point out that the tank pressure is the
main variable affecting controller performances, allowing
to set different main families of sub-models. The pressure
drop between control chamber and common rail is
approximately constant apart the operating condition,
thus only x2 is considered for scheduling. Finally, u2
mind that Að2;2Þ (and thus u2 ) had a weaker influence on the
model coefficients. The complete set of GPC parameters
can be computed off-line and stored in a look-up table as a
(25)
function of the chosen operating conditions. Clearly,
scheduling strategy would require a larger amount of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230 1223

memory to store controller parameters, though not performances. Due to safety reasons, air replaced CNG
increasing the computational effort. as test fluid during the experiments, without substantially
Since the GPC law gives the change with respect of the affecting the fluid-dynamic behaviour. Table 3 compares
previous control action, it is necessary to integrate (29) to the values of model parameters for the two cases. Fig. 5
apply the whole input. The control action is bounded in the shows the experimental setup consisting of three main
range [0%, 100%], thus an anti wind-up system to avoid subsystems, namely the common rail injection system, a PC
undesired oscillations in the control loop has been systems equipped with a 250 MHz dSPACEs board
introduced. (ds1104) and a PC system equipped with a National
Instruments acquisition board. Moreover, a programma-
ble MF3 development master box took the role of ECU.
5. Simulation and experimental results The test rig replaced the fuel tank with a compressor,
providing air at a constant input pressure p0 , and included
5.1. Experimental set-up an injection system with prototype injectors, designed to
operate within a 4–20 bar pressure interval, and sending air
This section describes the validation experiments of the to a discharging manifold. Two different configurations
proposed model and the evaluation of the controller were considered during tests, using n ¼ 4 and 6 injectors,
respectively. The former refers to open loop operations,
Table 2
carried out to collect data for model validation, the latter
GPC notation
refers to closed loop operations, to evaluate the controller
Symbol Description performances.
The system operating conditions were determined by the
AðÞ, BðÞ, EðÞ, F ðÞ, GðÞ Polynomials of ðq1 Þ
engine driving shaft speed u (engine speed in the following),
g Subsidiary column vector for computation of u
E Expected value the intake manifold air flow, which varies with engine load
G Matrix composed of elements of GðÞ and power request, the input air pressure p0 and the
J Cost function instantaneous rail pressure p2 . Since the test rig did not
k GPC gains include the driving shaft and the intake manifold, the
N, N U GPC prediction and control horizons
engine speed and load signals were artificially generated by
q1 Discrete time shift operator
r ¼ ½rðÞ Column vector of known components of y the National Instrument PC system using the labVIEWs
u~ ¼ ½DuðÞ Column vector of future control actions software. To inject the proper fuel amount corresponding
w ¼ ½wðÞ Column vector of future reference values to the actual working conditions, the ECU imposed the
y^ ¼ ½yðÞ
^ Column vector of predicted outputs injection timings, in terms of opening time interval tj (as a
D Discrete derivative operator function of engine load and rail pressure) and frequency
l Sequence of weights on future control actions
xðÞ Zero mean white noise n  u=120 (as a function of engine speed), by drawing the
appropriate values from a look-up table. Eventually, tj

Table 3
Nonlinear model parameters

Symbol Description Value (CNG) Value (air)

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ðgþ1Þ=ðg1Þ
c11 2.00 1.53
cd;01 A01 2
gRT
V1 gþ1
c12 cd;12 A12 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2.40 1.79
V1 5 RT
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ðgþ1Þ=ðg1Þ
c21
cd;02 pd s sin bs 2 1:70  104 1:30  104
gRT
V2 gþ1
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ðgþ1Þ=ðg1Þ
c22 2.47 1.89
cd;23 A23 2
gRT
V2 gþ1
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
c23 cd;12 A12 2 8:11  102 6:04  102
RT
V2 5
c24 S1 2:02  108 2:02  108
ks
c25 S1 1 1:99  108 1:99  108
 pd 2 cos2 bs
ks 4ks 0
c26 1 3:39  1010 3:39  1010
pd 2 cos2 bs
4ks 0
c27 F s0 1:06  103 1:06  103
ks
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1224 P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230
Fig. 5. The experimental setup.
could be set independently from the working conditions
during open loop operations.
The rail pressure reference, which was established by the
ECU depending on the engine speed and load, was sent to
the dSPACE PC system to drive the solenoid valve by
means of a 24 V power driver, both in open loop and closed
loop operations. Alternatively, the dSPACE Control Desk
software was capable of artificially generating the rail
pressure reference bypassing the ECU. The 24 V power
driver properly supplied the solenoid valve by performing a
peak-hold modulation through a 30 kHz TTL signal
(Fig. 5). The resulting driving current, which was applied
for a tph time interval to the valve electromagnetic circuit,
consisted of a 1.6 ms peak phase followed by a variable
duration hold phase, of 6 and 3.5 A amplitudes, respec-
tively. The valve control period tc was defined as the time
interval between two leading edges of the current signal, set
to 50 and 100 ms during the closed loop and open loop
experimental tests, respectively. Finally, the hold phase
duration was regulated by varying the tph =tc ratio, namely
the control signal duty cycle.
During closed loop operations, the control algorithms
implemented in the MATLAB/Simulinks environment
imposed the signal duty cycle. The dSPACE code generator
compiled the Simulink program and then the real-time
executable code was downloaded to the board memory.
Then the board processor received the feedback from the
rail pressure sensor and applied the appropriate control
action to the solenoid valve. The signals were processed
using the 16 bit A/D-D/A converters that are integrated in
the dSPACE board. During open loop operations, the
control signal duty cycle was artificially generated bypass-
ing the controller.
5.2. Model validation
The solution of (15) in the MATLAB/Simulink environ-
ment enabled the comparison between simulation and
experiments. The data necessary for the model validation
were obtained in open loop operations with the deactivated
pressure controller by properly generating the driving
signal of the solenoid valve. With a constant 40 bar input
pressure p0 , three cases covering typical operating condi-
tions were analysed: (a) with constant injection timings and
varying duty cycle, (b) with both duty cycle and injection
timings held constant, (c) with both duty cycle and
injection timings varying.
Firstly, with constant injectors driving command, the
system response to step variations of the duty cycle of the
valve driving signal was determined. Fig. 6 compares
simulation results with the performed experiments. The
operating conditions were a 2400 rpm engine speed and
8 ms injectors exciting time interval, when two pairs of
opposite duty cycle step variations were applied (3–9%,
9–3%, 3–12%, 12–3%), at 1.5, 28, 56.8, 82.8 s time
instants, respectively. With a positive step variation, the
pressure increased in the control chamber (see Fig. 6(a)),
making the regulator inlet section to stay open longer.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230 1225

x1 (control chamber pressure) [bar]

14 14

12 12

x2 (rail pressure) [bar]

10 experimental 10
experimental
8 8

6 6

4 4
simulated
simulated
2 2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [s] Time [s]
x1 (control chamber pressure) [bar]

13.6 12.7
simulated
simulated

x2 (rail pressure) [bar]

13.4 12.5

13.2 12.3

13 12.1

12.8 experimental 11.9

experimental
12.6 11.7
80 80.1 80.2 80.3 80.4 80.5 80 80.1 80.2 80.3 80.4 80.5
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 6. Simulation and experimental results with duty cycle step variations and constant injectors driving signal: (a) control chamber pressure; (b) rail
pressure; (c) detail on control chamber pressure; (d) detail on rail pressure.

As a consequence of the larger mean air inflow coming pressure disturbances propagating towards the rail was not
from the compressor, the rail pressure raised (see Fig. 6(b)). taken into account. In addition, the distributed losses along
Conversely, with a negative step reducing the duty cycle, the pipes connecting common rail and pressure reducer
both the control chamber and the rail pressures fell to were neglected. However, a detailed representation of these
lower levels. As shown in Fig. 6(c), the pressure in the phenomena would require a PDE description without
control chamber had an oscillating behaviour within the adding essential information useful for control.
control period: the pressure increased (decreased) when the In a second test, duty cycle was held constant (9%),
solenoid valve was open (closed). Shortening the control while engine speed and injection timings varied. Figs. 7(a)
period could smooth away these pressure variations. and (b) depict model output in terms of control chamber
The waves amplitude difference between experiment and rail pressures. Simulation started from a steady state
and simulation in Fig. 6(c) is mainly due to model condition corresponding to a u ¼ 2200 rpm engine speed
simplifications. In fact, by introducing both the second and tj ¼ 3 ms injectors exciting time interval. At time 4.5 s,
order dynamics of solenoid valve shutter and piston, a 4000 rpm speed step was applied, and the injection time
better results can be obtained. Obviously, introducing interval was raised to 11 ms. In these conditions, the
these high order dynamics increases the model complexity, current duty cycle was no longer able to maintain the initial
resulting in a higher order controller. On the other rail pressure, because of the increased amount of injected
hand, the oscillating behaviour should not affect the air. Besides, the air flow between main circuit and control
prediction, which is computed on the base of mean value chamber made the control chamber pressure to decrease.
inputs. At time 21 s a complete cut-off was applied, i.e. the
Moreover, higher frequency, superimposed rail pressure injectors were kept closed in the whole injection cycle. So
oscillations due to injections within a cycle occurred (see control chamber and rail pressures raised because the air
Fig. 6(d)). In this case, simulation results exhibited wider was no more sent to the discharging manifold. Finally, at
oscillations than experiments, synchronously with the time 29 s, u and tj were taken back to initial values. Results
solenoid valve operations. Modelling assumptions, indeed, show that the model approximates the real system
considered the reducer main chamber and the common rail behaviour both during the steady state condition and
as a whole control volume. Consequentially, the decou- during the cut-off transient, even though it had a smoother
pling effect of the main chamber volume with respect to dynamics, probably due both to unmodelled nonlinearities
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1226 P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230

14 14

x1 (control chamber pressure)

12 12

x2 (rail pressure) [bar]

10 experimental 10
experimental
[bar] 8 8

6 6

4 4
simulated simulated
2 2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 7. Simulation and experimental results with a constant duty cycle and when applying step variations of engine speed and injection time interval: (a)
control chamber pressure; (b) rail pressure.

12 12
x1 (control chamber pressure)

simulated
simulated
10 x2 (rail pressure) [bar] 10
8 8
[bar]

6 6
4 4
2 experimental 2
experimental

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time [s] Time [s]

7 14
υ (engine speed) [rpm x 1000]

6 12
u (duty cycle) [%]

5 10
4 8
3 6
2 4
1 2
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 8. Simulation and experimental results when varying duty cycle and engine speed, with a constant tj : (a) control chamber pressure; (b) rail pressure;
(c) engine speed; (d) control signal duty cycle.

(as the pressure discontinuity at time 6 s testifies) and 5.3. Controller performances
imperfect parameters tuning.
Finally, the system behaviour for a constant load (resulting The tuning of the controllers was referred to models
in a 3 ms opening time interval), while varying engine speed linearized at the starting equilibrium point, according to
and solenoid valve driving signal was evaluated. The engine design steps of Section 4. However, the values of the
speed was composed of ramp profiles (Fig. 8(c)), while the controller parameters was not scheduled during experi-
duty cycle changed abruptly within the interval ½1%; 13% ments. Namely, the set relevant to initial working condition
(Fig. 8(d)). Figs. 8(a) and (b) show the accordance of the was only considered, as preliminary results on the test
resulting dynamics with the expected behaviour. A maximum bench were satisfactory. Two different experiments allowed
error of 10% confirms the model validity. to evaluate the controller performances for different engine
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230 1227

24 30

tj (injection time interval) [ms]

20 25

x2 (rail pressure) [bar]

16 rail pressure
20

12 15

8 10

4 pressure reference
5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time [s] Time [s]

2 50
υ (engine speed) [rpm x 1000]

1.8 40

u (duty cycle) [%]

1.6 30

1.4 20

1.2 10

1 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 9. System response for speed and load ramp variations, in presence of a GPC with N ¼ 5 (0.25 s) and N U ¼ 1 (0.05 s): (a) rail pressure; (b) injectors’
exciting time interval tj ; (c) engine speed; (d) control signal duty cycle.

load and speed, letting the ECU to generate the appro- Analogous working conditions were reproduced in a test
priate injection timings and rail pressure reference, and where a classical PI controller tuned by a trial and error
imposing the rail pressure reference with constant speed approach and including a simple anti-wind-up system
and load manually. replaced the GPC (Fig. 10). In this case, the imposed
The first experiment was performed increasing and engine speed profile was more favourable than in the
decreasing ramp profiles of the engine speed and load, previous one (being the speed bounded within the
and a GPC with a N ¼ 5 (0.25 s) prediction horizon and a 950–1600 rpm interval, see Fig. 10(c)), so it produced a
N U ¼ 1 (0.05 s) control horizon. The rail pressure reference smaller pressure disturbance due to air injection. Fig. 10(a),
was provided by the ECU in dependence of the current clearly shows good tracking performances of the PI
working conditions set by the National Instrument PC controller during the rising transient, and at the same time
system and had a sort of ramp profile as well. The input air a considerable undershoot of the rail pressure before to
pressure coming from the compressor was always 30 bar. reach the steady state condition, with a large settling time.
Fig. 9 shows the engine speed accelerating from 1000 to In the second experiment the controller performances
1800 rpm and then decelerating to 1000 rpm, within a 20 s were evaluated by applying a step reference variation
time interval (Fig. 9(c)). With a ramp slop not exceeding a taking engine load and speed constant, as well as a
certain value, the control action guaranteed a good constant input pressure from the compressor. As stated
reference tracking (Fig. 9(a), during time intervals [0, 14] earlier, in this experiment, the reference pressure was
and [22, 40]). Starting from time 14 s, owing to the manually generated, and it was no more set by the ECU
request of a quick pressure reduction the control depending on the engine speed and load. Figs. 11 and 12
action closed the valve completely (Fig. 9(d)) by imposing depict the system behaviour in presence of the GPC and the
a duty cycle equal to zero. Thanks to injections, the rail classical PI controllers, respectively. Fig. 11(a) refers to a
pressure (Fig. 9(a)) decreased to the final 5 bar reference step reference variation from 5 to 20 bar, while keeping a
value, with a time constant depending on the system constant 1460 rpm engine speed (Fig. 11(c)) and a 30 bar
geometry. Due to the saturation of the actuation input pressure. The ECU reduced the injection time
variable the maximum error amplitude could not further interval from the initial 19–4 ms (Fig. 11(b)), so that the
decrease. Fig. 9(b) shows the injectors’ exciting time during same air amount was injected during a cycle when the rail
the experiment. pressure raised. Fig. 11(d) shows that the control action
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1228 P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230

24 30

tj (injection time interval) [ms]

20 25

x2 (rail pressure) [bar]

16 rail pressure 20

12 15

8 10

4 pressure reference 5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time [s] Time [s]

1.8 50
υ (engine speed) [rpm x 1000]

1.6 40

u (duty cycle) [%]

1.4 30

1.2 20

1 10

0.8 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 10. System response for speed and load ramp variations, in presence of a standard PI: (a) rail pressure; (b) injectors’ exciting time interval tj ; (c)
engine speed; (d) control signal duty cycle.

24 50
tj (injection time interval) [ms]

20
x2 (rail pressure) [bar]

40
16
30
pressure reference
12
20
8
rail pressure
4 10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time [s] Time [s]

2 50
υ (engine speed) [rpm x 1000]

1.8 40
u (duty cycle) [%]

1.6 30

1.4 20

1.2 10

1 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 11. System step response for a 1460 rpm engine speed, in presence of a GPC with N ¼ 5 (0.25 s) and N U ¼ 1 (0.05 s): (a) rail pressure; (b) injectors’
exciting time interval tj ; (c) engine speed; (d) control signal duty cycle.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230 1229

24 50

tj (injection time interval) [ms]

x2 (rail pressure) [bar]
20 pressure reference 40
16
30
12
20
8 rail pressure
10
4

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Time [s] Time [s]

2 50
υ (engine speed) [rpm x 1000]

1.8 40

u (duty cycle) [%]

1.6 30

1.4 20

1.2 10

1 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 12. System step response for a 1330 rpm engine speed, in presence of a standard PI: (a) rail pressure; (b) injectors’ exciting time interval tj ; (c) engine
speed; (d) control signal duty cycle.

during the rising transient was the maximum possible. parameters appear unsuited to enable good performances
Moreover, the step response presented a negligible over- in every working condition.
shoot, and the limited amplitude pressure oscillations close
to set-point were basically due to the injection process. 6. Conclusion
Clearly, increasing prediction horizon could result in a
sluggish response, while further experiments may show that The work presented in this paper investigated the
increasing the control horizon does not result in a better feasibility of the electronic control of the injection pressure
rail pressure behaviour. in a new common rail injection system for CNG engines.
As for the PI controlled system, the experimental test Better performances were obtained by taking advantage of
was performed by applying a 7–15 bar step variation some well-established diesel technologies. The main im-
(Fig. 12(a)), considering a constant 1330 rpm engine speed provements consist in a better fuel metering and in the
(Fig. 12(c)) and a 100 bar input pressure. Further, the capability of on-line adaption of the injection pressure to
injection time interval was reduced from 40 to 15 ms by the different operating conditions. Even though a direct
ECU to keep the injected fuel amount constant. Fig. 12(d) assessment has not been performed in the present work,
shows that owing to the higher input pressure a reduced other authors proved that performances and pollutant
control effort was necessary to maintain the pressure at set emissions reduction can benefit from a precise control of
point. Even though conclusive remarks cannot be drawn the injection pressure.
due to different operational conditions, it seems that the To develop a control law for the injection pressure
GPC enables a better closed loop dynamics than the PI. In regulation, a model of the injection system in state-space
this case, the rise time was considerably longer than the form was presented. The parameters of the model were
GPC case, and the system response showed a 17% directly known or easy determined by geometrical data. The
overshoot. However, it must to be underlined that the comparison of simulation results with experimental data
higher input pressure could have negatively influenced the showed that the system dynamics was modelled with a good
system overshoot, as more air could enter the control accuracy and for a wide range of operating conditions. The
chamber for the same control action, while the higher load, proposed model was used to design a generalized predictive
which resulted in a longer tj (Fig. 12(b)), could have controller for the injection pressure control. Experimental
increased the system rise time. In the end, the PI results confirmed the effectiveness of the approach.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1230 P. Lino et al. / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 1216–1230
In conclusion, the model simplicity makes it suitable for
on-line use or for inclusion in a complete engine model for
emissions control. Moreover, the proposed GPC law seems
promising with respect to the classical PI, also in view of
the development of nonlinear predictive control strategies.
Future developments would also consider the MIMO
control of injection pressure and injectors timings under
a common control law.
References
Aespy, V., Engja, H., & Skarboe, L. V. (1996). Fuel injection system
design, analysis and testing using bond graph as an efficient modeling
tool. SAE Paper 962061.
Amorese, C., De Matthaeis, S., De Michele, O., & Satriano, A. (2004).
The gaseous fuel option: LPG and CNG. In Procedings of the
international conference on vehicles alternative fuel system & environ-
mental protection, Dublin, Ireland.
Cantore, G., Mattarelli, E., & Boretti, A. (1999). Experimental and
theoretical analysis of a diesel fuel injection system. SAE Paper 1999-
01-0199.
Catania, A. E., Dongiovanni, C., Mittica, A., Negri, C., & Spessa, E.
(1996). Study of automotive diesel injection-system dynamics under
control. SAE Paper 962020.
Desantes, J. M., Arregle, J., & Rodriguez, P. J. (1999). Computational
model for simulation of diesel injection systems. SAE Paper 1999-01-
0915.
Dyntar, D., Onder, C., & Guzzella, L. (2002). Modeling and control of
CNG engines. SAE Paper 2002-01-1295.
Ficarella, A., Laforgia, D., & Landriscina, V. (1999). Evaluation of
instability phenomena in a common rail injection system for high speed
diesel engines. SAE Paper 1999-01-0192.
Fuseya, T., Nishimura, T., Sato, Y., & Tanaka, H. (1999). Analysis on
common-rail injector using bond graph simulation program. SAE
Paper 1999-01-2936.
Gauthier, C., Sename, O., Dugard, L., & Meissonnier, G. (2005).
Modelling of a diesel engine common rail injection system. In
Proceedings of the 16th IFAC world congress, Prague, Czech Republic.
Heywood, J. (1988). Internal combustion engine fundamentals. New York,
USA: McGraw-Hill.
Hountalas, D. T., & Kouremenos, A. D. (1998). Development of a fast
and simple simulation model for the fuel injection system of diesel
engines. Advances in Engineering Software, 1(29), 13–28.
International Gas Union (2005). Global opportunities for natural gas as a
transportation fuel for today and tomorrow. Report on study group 5.3
‘‘Natural gas vehicles (NGV)’’.
Kouremenos, D. A., Hountalas, D. T., & Kouremenos, A. D. (1999).
Development and validation of a detailed fuel injection system
simulation model for diesel engines. SAE Paper 1999-01-0527.
Kuraoka, H., Ohka, N., & Ohba, M. (1989). Application of H-infinity
optimal design to automotive fuel control. In Proceedings of American
control conference, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.
Kvenvolden, K. A. (1999). Natural gas hydrate occurrence and issues.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 715, 232–246.
Lino, P., Maione, B., & Rizzo, A. (2007). Nonlinear modelling and control
of a common rail injection system for diesel engines. Applied
Mathematical Modelling, 9(31), 1770–1784.
Maione, B., Lino, P., De Matthaeis, S., Amorese, C., Manodoro, D., &
Ricco, R. (2004). Modeling and control of a compressed natural gas
injection system. WSEAS Transactions on Systems, 3(5), 2164–2169.
McCormick, R. L., Graboski, M. S., Alleman, T., Herring, A. M., &
Nelson, P. (1999). In-use emissions from natural gas fueled heavy-duty
vehicles. SAE Paper 1999-01-1507.
Morselli, R., Corti, E., & Rizzoni, G. (2002). Energy based model of a
common rail injector. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on control
applications, Glasgow, Scotland.
Mulemane, A., Han, J. S., Lu, P. H., Yoon, S. J., & Lai, M. C. (2004).
Modeling dynamic behavior of diesel fuel injection systems. SAE
Paper 2004-01-0536.
Pan, C. P., Li, M. C., & Hussain, S. F. (1998). Fuel pressure control for
gaseous fuel injection systems. SAE Paper 981397.
Qina, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (2003). A survey of industrial model
predictive control technology. Control Engineering Practice, 7(11),
733–764.
Rossiter, J. A. (2003). Model-based predictive control: A practical
approach. New York, USA: CRC Press.
Streeter, V., Wylie, K., & Bedford, E. (1998). Fluid mechanics (9th ed.).
New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Weaver, C. S. (1989). Natural gas vehicles—a review of the state of the art.
SAE Paper 892133.
Zucrow, M., & Hoffman, J. (1976). Gas dynamics. New York, USA:
Wiley.