Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021
A Structure and Calibration Method for Data-
Driven Modeling of NOX and Soot Emissions from a
Diesel Engine
Markus Grahn, Krister Johansson and Christian Vartia
Volvo Car Corporation
Tomas McKelvey
Chalmers University of Technology
ABSTRACT
The development and implementation of a new structure for
data-driven models for NOX and soot emissions is described.
The model structure is a linear regression model, where
physically relevant input signals are used as regressors, and
all the regression parameters are defined as grid-maps in the
engine speed/injected fuel domain.
The method of using grid-maps in the engine speed/injected
fuel domain for all the regression parameters enables the
models to be valid for changes in physical parameters that
affect the emissions, without having to include these
parameters as input signals to the models. This is possible for
parameters that are dependent only on the engine speed and
the amount of injected fuel. This means that models can
handle changes for different parameters in the complete
working range of the engine, without having to include all
signals that actually effect the emissions into the models.
The approach possibly also enables for the model to handle
the main differences between steady-state engine operation
and transient engine operation, thus possibly being able to use
steady-state engine measurement data to calibrate the model,
but still achieve acceptable performance for transient engine
operation. This, however, is not evaluated in this study.
The model structure has been used to create models for NOX
and soot emissions. These models have been calibrated using
measured steady-data from a 5 cylinder Volvo passenger car
diesel engine with a displacement volume of 2.4 liters,
2012-01-0355
Published
04/16/2012
Copyright © 2012 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2012-01-0355
equipped with a turbocharger, an exhaust gas recirculation
system, and a common rail injection system. The models
estimate NOX mass flow with a root mean square error of
0.0021 g/s and soot mass flow with a root mean square error
of 0.59 mg/s for the steady-state engine data used in this
study.
The models are capable of reacting to different calibratable
engine parameters, and they are also fast to execute. This
makes them suitable for development of engine management
system optimization. The models could also be implemented
directly into an engine management system.
For comparison, three other fast models of different types for
NOX and soot emissions have been implemented and
evaluated.
INTRODUCTION
Modern passenger car diesel engines become increasingly
complex in order to meet stricter law requirements on
emissions and stronger demand for lower fuel consumption.
To be able to handle these requirements, more and more
controllable systems are added, leading to more degrees of
freedom for the engine operation. Examples of this in a
typical passenger car diesel engine today are controllable
boost pressure, controllable exhaust gas recirculation rate,
controllable fuel rail pressure, multiple injections with
controllable timings and durations. This opens up for the
possibility to operate the engine at more efficient conditions,
but it also increases the complexity to optimize the
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021

calibration of the Engine Management System (EMS), i.e. to degrees (CAD) for start and end of injection, and the injected
find control strategies and set points which lead to optimal fuel mass for each injection were registered.
operation of the combustion system.
Table 1. Engine specifications
To efficiently address this complex design task a model based
design strategy is a viable complement to more classical tests
directly on the engine. Initial EMS design and optimization
can be performed using simulation techniques utilizing a
model of the relevant engine system and reduce the need of
extensive test of the physical engine in the test facility. A
simulation based approach can also be employed in early
design phases where different designs can be simulated and
the results evaluated before building a physical engine. Using Two measurement campaigns were performed using this
this approach there is an obvious trade-off between model engine.
accuracy and simulation speed. The model accuracy need to
be good enough such that the optimized engine calibration for The first measurement campaign is based on a set of 11
the simulation model also is valid for the real engine, but to nominal engine operation points, within the engine speed
be able to perform the optimization within a reasonable time, range of 1000 rpm to 2000 rpm, and injected fuel amount
the simulation models also need to be as fast as possible to range of 5 mg/cycle to 35 mg/cycle. For each of these
execute. nominal engine operation points, a set of experiments were
carried out according to a D-optimal design of experiment
To be able to perform off-line engine calibration, models for methodology, using the engine speed, the amount of injected
engine-out emissions need to be used. Several types of fuel, the injection timing, the duty cycle to the EGR valve,
emission models exist, ranging from detailed CFD and the duty cycle to the variable geometry turbine (VGT) as
calculations [1] of the combustion process to empirical [4] input signals. The engine speed was varied within a range of
and purely data-driven models [2], [8], [10]. Pure data-driven 500 rpm, the injected fuel amount within a range of 10 mg,
models are used for EMS optimization today [3], [4]. Semi- the injection timing within a range of 12 CAD, and the duty
empirical models for emissions have also been used for EMS cycle to the turbine and EGR valve within the full working
optimization [5], however limited to steady-state engine range for each set of experiments. This means that the
operation. working range of the combustion system was exploited close
to as fully as possible regarding the engine air system and the
Several data-driven models are described in the literature, for injection timing, using only steady-state engine operation. In
example [2], [8] and [10]. However, detailed information total, 1429 steady-state engine measurements were
regarding implementations of these models, regarding the performed. The 11 nominal engine operating points for this
covered operating range of the engine that can be handled by set of measurements are listed in Table 2.
the models, and regarding calibration of the models is not
available.
Table 2. Nominal engine operating points in the first
measurement campaign.
ENGINE MEASUREMENT DATA
To develop, calibrate and verify the developed models,
measurement data from a 5-cylinder Volvo diesel engine was
used. The engine is equipped with a common-rail injection
system, a turbocharger with variable geometry, charge air
cooling, an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system with
cooling, and has a displacement volume of 2.4 liters. The
engine is designed for Euro V emission standards.
Specifications of the engine are listed in Table 1.

The engine was equipped with sensors such that the pressure
and temperature in the intake manifold, the pressure and
temperature in the exhaust manifold, the fresh air mass flow,
and the exhaust gas recirculation mass flow could be
measured. The engine was also equipped with in-cylinder
The second measurement campaign is based on a set of 12
pressure sensors, and measurement systems for soot and NOX
engine operation points, within the engine speed range of
emissions. From the EMS, the engine speed, the crank angle 3250 rpm to 4500 rpm, and injected fuel amount range of 10
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021
mg/cycle to 40 mg/cycle. Similar sets of experiments were
performed around these nominal engine operating points as in
the first measurement campaign, except that the EGR valve
was fully closed for all measurements. In total, 746 steady-
state engine measurements were performed in this second
measurement campaign. The nominal operating points for
this measurement campaign are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Nominal engine operating points in the second
measurement campaign.
The nominal engine operating points within each
measurements campaign were chosen such that a certain
operating range regarding engine speed and injected fuel was
completely covered.
The fuel rail pressure and the injection strategy were set
according to the settings in the engine management system,
and therefore dependent only on the engine speed and amount
of injected fuel. The injection strategy varied between using a
minimum amount of two injections per cycle to using up to
four injections per cycle. Injection masses for the different
injections and dwell times between the injections were
different for different engine speed/fuel operating points.
The parameters that are varied in the local design of
experiments are chosen to exploit the full working area of the
engine regarding the air system, and to be suitable for
automated data collection. The signals are directly actuated,
leading to that no controllers are needed during the data
collection to reach the desired design parameters.
In total, 2175 steady-state measurements were performed.
From these measurements, 1957 randomly chosen
measurements were used for model calibration, and the
remaining 218 measurements were used for model
verification.
A STRUCTURE FOR DATA-DRIVEN
EMISSION MODELS
Models for emissions that are intended to be used for off-line
EMS optimization need to both provide acceptable prediction
accuracy for a wide area of the possible engine operation
range, and preferably also be fast to execute. One possibility
to achieve this is to use data-driven modeling. Data-driven
models are in general able to perform good prediction results
for operating points close to operating points that have been
used for calibration of the models. In general, they are also
fast to execute. The major downside with data-driven models
is that a large amount of measurements have to be performed
on a real engine to be able to calibrate the model in a wide
area of the engine operating range.
Emissions are formed during the combustion. To completely
describe the operating range of the combustions within a
diesel engine, the operating range has to be defined using a
multi-dimensional space spanned by all different parameters
that affect the combustion. To completely cover the operating
area of the combustions by measurements is practically
impossible, since the amount of measurements needed to
cover all possible dimensions become too large. However,
several of the controllable parameters that affect the
emissions are usually based on the engine speed and injected
fuel only. This means that for an engine with a given EMS
calibration that is only operating in steady-state points, a
single two-dimensional grid-map with the engine speed and
the injected fuel as inputs would be sufficient to estimate the
emissions. However, if a model should be used for off-line
engine calibration, the model also needs to react on the
controllable engine parameters that should be optimized.
Furthermore, when an engine is operated in transient
conditions, there are differences between the operating ranges
for the combustions compared to steady-state. One difference
between combustion during steady-state engine operation and
combustion during transient engine operation is caused due to
the dynamics of the engine air system. For example, during a
positive engine load transient there is normally lower boost
pressure for a given engine speed/injected fuel operation
point than for the same speed/ fuel operation point in steady-
state, due to the dynamics in the turbo system and in the
intake and exhaust manifolds.
This all means that to be able to use the model for calibration
of controllable engine parameters or to be able to use the
model for dynamic engine behavior, a simple interpolation
map in the speed/fuel domain of the engine is not sufficient.
A model structure for data-driven models has been
developed, together with a method to calibrate the model.
The idea behind the model structure is to utilize that an EMS
is usually based on the engine speed and injected fuel, and to
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021
use physical relevant parameters to extend the possible
working range of the models.
MODEL STRUCTURE
Since the control structure of an engine management system
usually is based on the engine speed and the injected fuel
amount, the proposed model structure for emissions is based
on the same principle. For a certain engine speed/injected fuel
working point of the engine it is assumed that the emissions
can be modeled with a linear regression model using input
signals that affect the emissions
(1)
where y denote the predicted emission, βi are regression
parameters, and zi are input signals that affect the emissions.
It is now assumed that the nominal constant emission level,
and that the effect from different input signals are different
depending on the speed/fuel point of the engine, i.e. that the
regression parameters in the regression model are different
for different speed/fuel points of the engine. Therefore, the
regression parameters are chosen to be defined as grid-maps
in the speed/fuel domain of the engine and we get
(2)
where x1 and x2 are the input signals engine speed and
injected fuel respectively, zi are other input signals to the
model, and β0 and βi are regression parameters represented by
two-dimensional grid-maps.
The input signals, zi, could be chosen to represent signals that
can vary due to changing the EMS setting. An input signal
can also be chosen to represent a deviation which arises from
transient engine operation, for example boost pressure as
mentioned above, possibly making the model handle some of
the effects that differ steady-state engine operation from
transient engine operation.
This means that there is one grid-map for the emissions
together with additive correction terms for other signals. The
influences on all other signals are dependent on the speed/
fuel working point for the engine. The reason for choosing
this structure is that all different parameters that affect
emissions but that are not included in the model usually are
defined solely on the speed/fuel of the engine. This way,
parameters that vary throughout the engine operation, but
only depending on the engine speed and injected fuel, do not
have to be directly considered in the model.
This model structure can be compared with the structure of a
global-local grid-map model described in [12]. The main
difference compared to the structure described in [12] is that
instead of using local models with weighting of the outputs
depending on the speed and fuel, we use a global regression
model with varying regression parameters defined by grid-
maps with speed and fuel as inputs.
In this model structure there is one grid-map which models
the nominal engine operation, and one grid-map for each
additional input signal. This can be compared with the global-
local grid-map structure described in [12], where several
grid-maps are used for each local model and additionally a
weighting function has to be calculated.
The input signals to the regression model can be chosen to be
represented either by their absolute values or by deviation
from a reference value or even by deviation from their
steady-state value in the actual speed/fuel operating point.
From a mathematical point of view there is no difference
between these approaches; the model will have the same
capability regarding modeling performance. However, if the
signals are defined as deviations from the steady-state
operation, all the grid-maps will have meaningful
interpretations. The grid-map β0 can then be interpreted
directly as the modeled emissions when the engine is
operated in steady-state at nominal conditions, and the grid-
maps βi for i>0 can be interpreted directly as how deviation
from steady-state values for different input signal affect the
emissions. This can also be compared to the global-local grid-
map structure descried in [12], where the grid-maps in that
structure do not have similar direct interpretations.
CALIBRATION METHOD
The model structure could be interpreted as a local linear
regression model for the emissions defined for different
engine speed/injected fuel operating points. The most
straightforward way to calibrate such a model would be to
operate the engine at different speed/fuel point, and to
identify local regression models for each point using local
design of experiments. The identified regression parameters
would then be used to calibrate the global grid-maps for the
regression parameters.
However, this method would lead to that the resulting global
model would be valid only for the limited number of speed/
fuel points used for the calibration of the local models. It is
not obvious how the interpolation in the grid-maps affect the
global modeling result. To avoid this problem, the approach
is taken to include also speed and fuel into the local design of
experiments. This way, the performance of the local
regression models can be verified for a wider range of speed
and fuel than just one single point.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021
This is accomplished by assuming that the grid-maps in the
global model can be represented well with a linear surface in
a limited range around a certain speed/fuel point. Hence, it is
assumed that locally the grid-maps βi can be described as
(3)
This is inserted in to the expression for the complete global
model as described in Equation (2), which leads to that for a
limited speed/fuel range of the engine the global model can
be described as
(4)
This is a regression model that is linear in the parameters,
which can be easily calibrated using measured data to
minimize the modeling error in a least-squares sense.
It can be noted that this regression model includes the cross
terms zix1 and zix2. This means that the slopes of the grid-
maps in the global regression model actually represent
interaction effects between different input signals, although
interaction effects are not directly considered in the model
structure. It can also be noted that these resulting local
regression models are very similar to the regression model
used in [4]. The main difference is that the quadratic terms
and cross terms between the input signals zi are not included
in this regression model. This is natural, since these cross
terms cannot be represented by the described global model
structure.
The calibration of a local regression model will produce
linear surfaces for the interpolation maps βi in the global
model structure. The linear surfaces are valid for the speed/
fuel range of the maps that are covered in the local design of
experiments. By performing local design of experiments with
overlapping engine speeds and injected fuel amount, the grid-
maps in the global emission models can be calibrated in their
complete working range, avoiding uncertain interpolation
between the regression coefficients. The final global grid-
maps are constructed by joining the identified surfaces
together. Instead of just identifying single points in the grid-
maps, the complete operating range of the grid-maps can be
identified.
NOX AND SOOT EMISSION
MODELING
The presented model has been implemented, and models for
NOX and soot emissions have been calibrated according to
the described method, using the steady-state engine
measurements.
Different input signals are used for the different models since
the mechanisms for NOX and soot formations are different.
The input signals are chosen for the different models such
that the physics behind the emission formation is as well
represented as possible.
NOX MODELING
Input signals
The formation of NOX is strongly dependent on the
availability of oxygen, and the temperature [6]. To include
these physical properties for the combustion process, the
input signals chosen for the model for NOX emissions, in
addition to the engine speed and the injected fuel, are the
injection timing, the pressure in the intake manifold and the
ratio of O2 in the intake manifold.
Furthermore, as described in for example [4] and [7], the
NOX emissions have been found to correlate better with
exponentials of different input signals. A possible explanation
for this could be that the chemical reactions responsible for
NOX formation have reaction rates and equilibrium with
exponential behavior. The complete structure for the NOX
model becomes.
(5)
where NOX is the NOX mass flow, x1 is the engine speed, x2
is the injected fuel amount, z1 is the injection timing, z2 is the
fraction of oxygen in the intake, z3 is the pressure in the
intake manifold, and β0, β1, β2 and β3 are two-dimensional
grid-maps.
The similarity of this resulting model for NOX emission with
the models described in [4] and [7] can be noted. These
models are also regression models to model the logarithm of
NOX, however they use single value regression parameters
and different input signals as regressors.
The described model structure is applied to model the
logarithm of NOX. The exponential of the model output is
therefore used to model the NOX flow. This means that the
calibration is targeting to minimize the error on the logarithm
of the NOX flow instead of the NOX flow itself. This is
intentional to focus the calibration towards better NOX
prediction accuracy at lower NOX flow levels.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021

Due to that the EGR valve was fully closed during the second
measurement campaign, the oxygen fraction in the intake
does not vary for those measurements. Therefore, the grid-
map corresponding to the oxygen fraction in the intake, β2,
was not calibrated in the speed/fuel operating region covered
by the second measurement campaign, but instead set to a
constant value.

Results
The measured steady-state data consists of a total of 23 local
designs of experiments around nominal engine operating
points, leading to that 23 local regression models were
calibrated. The local regression models yield good NOX
estimation results for each of the local design of experiments
with correlation factors ranging from 0.997 to 0.999.

From these fitted regression models, the four grid-maps in the

global model were created. The resulting four grid-maps for
the global NOX model are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 2. Measured NOX mass flow versus estimated
NOX mass flow from the model for NOX emissions. The
blue dots are the data points used for model calibration,
and the red crosses are the data points used for model
verification.

SOOT MODELING
Input signals
Soot formation and soot oxidation are the two important
mechanisms influencing the engine-out level of soot
emissions. The formation of soot is manly dependent on the
equivalence ratio. Large amount of soot is formed when
combustion takes place at high equivalence ratios within the
cylinder. The oxidation of soot is mainly dependent on the
temperature and the availability of oxygen late in the
combustion phase [6].

To be able to represent the main mechanisms for soot

Figure 1. Resulting interpolation maps for the global
model for NOX emissions created from the 23 surfaces
from the local regression models.
The resulting model was capable of modeling NOX mass
flow with a correlation factor of 0.999, both for the data
points used for model calibration, and for the data points used
for verification. The overall root mean square error (RMSE)
was 0.0019 g/s for the data points used for model calibration
and 0.0021 mg/s for the data points used for verification. The
performance of the model for NOX emissions is illustrated in
Figure 2.
formation and oxidation, the signals chosen as inputs for the
model, besides speed and fuel, were the global equivalence
ratio, the injection timing, and the partial pressure of oxygen
in the intake manifold. Furthermore, also the soot emissions
have been found to correlate better with exponentials of
different input signals [4], [7]. The complete structure for the
soot model becomes
(6)
where soot is the soot mass flow, x1 is the engine speed, x2 is
the injected fuel amount, z1 is the injection timing, z2 is the
partial pressure of oxygen in the intake manifold, z3 is the
global equivalence ratio, and β0, β1, β2 and β3 are two-
dimensional grid-maps.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021
Results
The measured steady-state data consists of 23 local designs of
experiments around nominal engine operating points. The
local regression models yield decent soot estimation results
for most of the local design of experiments with correlation
factors ranging from 0.72 to 0.99.
The resulting four grid-maps for the global soot model are
illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Resulting interpolation maps for the global
model for soot emissions created from the 23 surfaces
from the local regression models.
The resulting model was capable of modeling soot mass flow
with a correlation factor of 0.915 for the data points used for
model calibration, and with a correlation factor of 0.98 for the
verification data points. The RMSE is 0.59 mg/s for the data
points used for model calibration and 0.25 mg/s for the
verification data points. The prediction performance of the
global model is illustrated in Figure 4.
The model performance for soot emissions is poor for
medium and high soot levels. There could be several
explanations for this. For example, the model is calibrated
such that the logarithm of the soot flow error is minimized,
which leads to that the error for the soot flow increases for
high soot levels. Also, there are much fewer data points with
high soot levels than data points with low soot levels. And
finally, the measurement system used for soot measurement
might be poor for high soot levels.
Figure 4. Measure soot mass flow versus estimated soot
mass flow from the model for soot emissions. The blue
dots are the data points used for model calibration, and
the red crosses are the data points used for verification.
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER
MODELS
There exist a wide variety of models for emissions in the
literature, ranging from detailed physical models of the
combustion [1] to purely data-driven models of the emissions
[2], [10]. Three different models that seem suitable for the
authors intended application have been implemented and
evaluated. The selected models are a physically based model
for NOX emissions described in [11], global regression
models for NOX and soot described in [4], and semi-
empirical models for NOX and soot emissions described in
[7].
PHYSICAL BASED MODEL FOR NOX
EMISSIONS
A physical based model for NOX emissions as described in
[11] has been implemented and evaluated. The model uses a
measured in-cylinder pressure trace as input. From the
pressure trace, the rate of heat release during the combustion
is estimated, and used to create a two-zone combustion
model. The two zones consist of one homogenous unburned
zone and one homogenous burned zone, and the states of the
two zones are estimated throughout the combustion cycle.
The NOX formation is assumed to take place in the burned
zone only, and by using the temperature and the composition
of different species in the burned zone, the NOX formation is
modeled through the well-known Zeldovich mechanism
described in [6].
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021

The model estimates the NOX flow with a correlation factor
of 0.976 for the measurements used in this study. The RMSE
is 0.072 g/s. The resulting performance of the implemented
model is shown in Figure 5.
Similar to the introduced models, these models for NOX and
soot emissions were calibrated by minimizing the error
between the logarithm of the measured emission mass flows
and the logarithm of the estimated emission mass flows in a
least-squares sense.

The model estimates NOX mass flow with a correlation factor

of 0.993, both for the data points used for model calibration,
and for the verification data points. The overall RMSE is
0.0060 g/s for the calibration data points, and 0.0061 g/s for
the verification data points.

The soot mass flow is estimated with a correlation factor of

0.87 for the calibration data points, and with a correlation
factor of 0.92 for the verification data points. RMSE is 0.73
mg/s for the calibration data points and 0.70 mg/s for the
verification data points.

The performance of the global regression model for NOX and

soot emissions is illustrated in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Figure 5. Measured NOX mass flow versus estimated

NOX mass flow for the physical based model for NOX
emissions.

The model captures the main trends of NOX formation, but

the estimation performance of the model is worse than the
performance of the introduced model for NOX emissions. The
explanation to why the prediction performance of the model
is not better is probably that several assumptions and
simplifications of the physical mechanisms have been
introduced in this model.

The main advantage with using this model approach is that

the model is physical based, and uses the cylinder pressure
trace as input. This means that the model is capable of
reacting to all different controllable engine parameters, such
as the injection strategy with different numbers of injections
and timings for the different injections.
GLOBAL REGRESSION MODEL FOR
NOX AND SOOT EMISSIONS
The global regression model described in [4] was
implemented and evaluated. The model is a regression model
with 6 input signals. The input signals are engine speed, mass
of fuel injected, injection timing, injection pressure, EGR
fraction, and charge flow rate. A full quadratic regression
with linear, interaction and quadratic terms is used, resulting
in a total of 28 regressors. Also, the logarithm of the
dependent variable is used, i.e. the logarithm of NOX mass
flow and the logarithm of soot mass flow were used as
dependent variables in the models.
Figure 6. Measured NOX mass flow versus estimated
NOX mass flow from the global regression model for
NOX emissions. The blue dots are the data points used
for model calibration, and the red crosses are the data
points used for verification.
The models perform overall a little bit worse estimation
performance than the introduced models for NOX and soot.
The main reason for this is probably that the measurement
data used in this study consist of measurement with different
injection strategies. This is not handled in the global
regression models.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021

SEMI-EMPIRICAL MODELS FOR NOX

AND SOOT EMISSIONS
Semi-empirical models for NOX and soot emissions as
described in [7] has also been implemented and evaluated.
The structures of the models are simple mathematical
formulas, with input signals relevant for the emission
formations, and with seven calibratable tuning parameters.
The model structure for NOX emissions and the model
structure for soot emissions are identical. The difference of
the models is only due to the calibration of the tuning
parameters. The input and output signals to the empirical
models are listed in Table 5. Three of the input signals are
also illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 7. Measured soot mass flow versus estimated soot

mass flow from the global regression model for soot (7)
emissions. The blue dots are the data points used for
model calibration, and the red crosses are the data points
used for verification.
(8)
A summarizing comparison between the introduced models
(New), the physically based model for NOX emissions Table 5. Description of the parameters used in the semi-
empirical models for NOX and soot emissions.
(Phys), and the global regression models (GR) is shown in
Table 4. The table shows the root mean square error (RMSE)
and the correlation (corr) between measured and estimated
data for the different models. Results from both the
measurement data used for calibration (Cal) and the
measurement data used for verification (Ver) are presented.

Table 4. Modeling performance comparison between the

introduced models (New), the physically based model for
NOX emissions (Phys), and the global regression models
(GR).

It can be noted that the in-cylinder pressure and the heat

release rate are needed to create the input signals for these
models.

The introduced models provide overall better prediction

results both regarding correlation and RMSE than the
physically based model for NOX emissions and the global
regression models for the measurements used in this study.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021

Figure 8. Illustration of the angles α1 and α2, and the

ignition delay, θid, in the empirical models for NOX and
Figure 9. Measured NOX mass flow versus estimated
soot.
NOX mass flow from the semi-empirical model for NOX
emissions. The blue dots are the data points used for
The model is developed for engine operation limited to a model calibration, and the red crosses are the data points
maximum of two injections. Therefore, the model used for verification.
performance is evaluated only for the operating points within
the performed measurement which contain a maximum of
two injections. In total, there were 563 data points fulfilling
this requirement.

To be able to compare this result with the results from the

other emission models, the filter smoke number, FSN, is
converted to a soot flow, and the NOX concentrations are
converted to equivalent NOX flows according to calculations
described in [13]. Similarly as for the other models, these
models for NOX and soot emissions were calibrated to
minimize the error between the logarithm of the measured
emission mass flows and the logarithm of the estimated
emission mass flows in a least-squares sense.

The NOX mass flow is estimated with a correlation factor of

0.982 for the calibration data points, and with a correlation
factor of 0.985 for the verification data points. The RMSE is
0.0097 g/s for the calibration data points and 0.0091 g/s for
the verification data points. The soot mass flow is estimated
with a correlation factor of 0.83 for the calibration data points
and with a correlation factor of 0.86 for the verification data
points RMSE for the soot mass flow is 0.35 mg/s for
calibration data points and 0.42 mg/s for the verification data
points. The resulting comparison between measured and
estimated emission using this model are illustrated in Figure
9 and Figure 10.
Figure 10. Measured soot mass flow versus estimated
soot mass flow from the semi-empirical model for soot
emissions. The blue dots are the data points used for
model calibration, and the red crosses are the data points
used for verification.
The model performance for NOX emissions is quite good, but
the model performance for the soot emissions is bad for the
measurements used in this study. A possible explanation to
why the modeling performance is worse, both for NOX and
for soot, than presented in [7] is that the engine is operated in
a wider operating range with respect to boost pressure,
injection timing, and EGR rate compared to the
measurements used in [7].
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021
To be able to compare the estimation performance with the
other presented models, the performances of the other models
were evaluated using the same subset of measurement data.
The other models were not recalibrated using this subset of
measurement data, the existing calibration were used.
A summarizing comparison between the semi-empirical
models (S-E), the introduced models (New), the physically
based model for NOX emissions (Phys), and the global
regression models (GR) is shown in Table 6. The table shows
the root mean square error (RMSE) and the correlation (corr)
between measured and estimated data for the different
models. Results from both the measurement data used for
calibration (Cal) and the measurement data used for
verification (Ver) are presented.
Table 6. Modeling performance comparison between the
semi-empirical models (S-E), the introduced models
(New), the physically based model for NOX emissions
(Phys), and the global regression models (GR).
The model performances of these semi-empirical models for
NOX and soot emissions are worse than the performance of
the models introduced in this paper.
SUMMARY
A structure for data-driven emission modeling has been
introduced together with a proposed calibration method. The
model structure is based on a grid-maps in the engine speed/
injected fuel domain, and different input signals to predict the
engine-out emissions. The model structure has the possibility
to include an arbitrary number of different emission affecting
parameters.
The model structure and calibration method has been applied
to model NOX and soot emission from a passenger car diesel
engine using five input signals, i.e. five degrees of freedom.
The models estimate steady-state NOX mass flow with a
correlation factor of 0.997, and steady-state soot mass flow
with a correlation factor of 0.92 for the measurements used in
this study. The RMSE of the estimated NOX mass flow is
0.0021 g/s and the RMSE of estimated for soot mass flow is
0.59 mg/s.
The introduced models provide overall better prediction
results both regarding correlation and RMSE than the existing
models for the measurements used in this study.
DISCUSSION
The model performance regarding NOX estimation for the
measurement used in this study is very good. The
performance regarding soot estimation is a little bit worse.
There are several probable explanations for this. First,
engine-out soot emissions is a result of the difference
between formed soot and oxidized soot during the
combustion. This means that two different phenomena are
relevant for the engine-out soot emissions, making them in
general more difficult to predict. Also, soot emissions are
more difficult to measure accurately than NOX emissions.
The model structure and the models for NOX and soot
emissions presented should be well suited for off-line engine
calibration. The models are designed to cover the complete
working range of the engine regarding the air system, i.e.,
they are capable to prediction emissions if the calibration of
boost pressure set points or EGR rate set points are changed.
The models can also handle calibration changes regarding the
injection timing.
The model structure should also be able to handle some of the
differences between steady-state engine operation and
transient engine operation. In a positive engine load transient
for example, the pressure in the intake manifold is typically
lower for a given speed/fuel operating point of the engine
than the pressure in the same speed/fuel operating point
during steady-state engine operation due to the dynamic in
the engine air system. A single combustion can be defined by
a number of states before the actual combustion, such as the
pressure, temperature, and oxygen content in the cylinder
before the combustion, together with the injection strategy. In
principle, though, there is no difference for a single
combustion if the combustion takes place during transient
engine operation or during steady-state engine operation as
long as all states and the injection strategy are identical. The
introduced models are designed to handle changes in different
signals, for example changes in the boost pressure and the
EGR rate. Therefore, the models should be capable of
handling some of the effects which arise during transient
engine operation. Analysis regarding transient prediction
performance for the models would be interesting to perform.
The models can also be adapted to cover more degrees of
freedom by adding terms for additional input signals.
However, new measurements would have to be performed to
exploit the working range of an added signal. For example,
the fuel rail pressure can possibly be added as an extra input
to the model structure to be able to handle calibration changes
regarding the fuel rail pressure, if new measurements are
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021
performed where the fuel rail pressure is excited in the design
of experiments.
The two measurement campaigns used in this study cover
two different engine operating ranges regarding the engine
speed. These two engine operating ranges do not overlap with
each other; there is even a gap between them. This is not
desired, and the reason for this is that measurements are used
in this study which are actually designed and performed for
other purposes. However, these measurements are still
acceptable to perform evaluation of the proposed model
structures, and the different models used for comparison.
However, better model calibration could probably be
performed if measurements are used where the complete
operating range of the engine is exploited.
The input signals used for the models are not the same signals
that are used in the design of experiments to collect data. This
is not optimal from a mathematical point of view. It would be
interesting to perform new measurements where the actual
input signals to the models are used to create the design of
experiments. However, this would lead to that separate
measurements would have to be performed for the model for
NOX emissions and for the model for soot emissions. Also,
the measurements would be more time consuming, since
controllers would be needed during the data collection to
achieve correct values for the input signals at each
measurement.
The introduced models are fast to execute and consists of a
small number of two-dimensional grid-maps, thus making
them suitable for online implementation directly into the
EMS of a diesel engine. On-line emission estimation is
performed in modern passenger car diesel engines to govern
and control diesel particulate filters and possibly also NOX
traps. However, capability of on-line prediction performance
using these models needs to be investigated.
The model structure could possible also be well suited for
modeling of other engine related properties, for example
exhaust gas temperature and volumetric efficiency.
The presented calibration method for the model structure has
yielded models with good prediction performance. However,
it is suboptimal and future work will be devoted to improve
the procedure.
The authors intended usage of the emission models is to
couple them with a model for the engine air system and a
model for the combustion, for example a model as described
in [9]. This would create a complete engine simulation model
for dynamic driving cycles suitable for development of EMS
optimization strategies. The data-driven models for NOX and
soot emission presented in this paper should be well suited
for this application.
REFERENCES
1. Shrivastava, R., Hessel, R., and Reitz, R., “CFD
Optimization of DI Diesel Engine Performance and
Emissions Using Variable Intake Valve Actuation with Boost
Pressure, EGR and Multiple Injections,” SAE Technical
Paper 2002-01-0959, 2002, doi:10.4271/2002-01-0959.
2. Brahma, I. and Rutland, C., “Optimization of Diesel
Engine Operating Parameters Using Neural Networks,” SAE
Technical Paper 2003-01-3228, 2003, doi:
10.4271/2003-01-3228.
3. Atkinson, C., Allain, M., and Zhang, H., “Using Model-
Based Rapid Transient Calibration to Reduce Fuel
Consumption and Emissions in Diesel Engines,” SAE
Technical Paper 2008-01-1365, 2008, doi:
10.4271/2008-01-1365.
4. Brahma, I., Sharp, M., and Frazier, T., “Empirical
Modeling of Transient Emissions and Transient Response for
Transient Optimization,” SAE Int. J. Engines 2(1):1433-1443,
2009, doi:10.4271/2009-01-1508.
5. Arsie, I., Pianese, C., and Sorrentino, M., “Control
parameters optimization in automotive diesel engines via two
zone modeling”, Advances in Automotive Control 5(1), 2007,
doi:10.3182/20070820-3-US-2918.00058
6. Heywood, J.B., “Internal Combustion Engine
Fundamentals”, McGraw-Hill, Singapore, ISBN
0-07-100499-8, 1988
7. Wenzel, S.P., “Modellierung der Ruβ- und NOX-
Emissionen des Dieselmotors”, Ph.D. thesis, Otto-von-
Guericke-Universität, Magdeburg, 2006
8. Berger, B., Rauscher, F., and Lohmann, B., “Analysing
Gaussian Processes for Stationary Black-Box Combustion
Engine Modelling”, Proceedings of the 18th IFAC World
Congress 18(1), 2011, doi:10.3182/20110828-6-
IT-1002.01160
9. Grahn, M., Olsson, J., and McKelvey, T., “A Diesel
Engine Model For Dynamic Drive Cycle Simulations”,
Proceedings of the 18th IFAC World Congress 18(1), 2011,
doi: 10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.03541
10. Mrosek, M., Sequenz, H., and Isermann, R., “Control
Oriented NOX and Soot Models for Diesel Engines”,
Advances in Automotive Control, 2010, doi:
10.3182/20100712-3-DE-2013.00074
11. Wilhelmsson, C., Tunestål, P., Widd, B., and Johansson,
R., “A Physical Two-Zone NOX Model Intended for
Embedded Implementation” SAE Technical Paper
2009-01-1509, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-01-1509.
12. Sequenz, H., and Isermann, R., “Emission Model
Structures for an Implementation on Engine Control Units”,
 Downloaded from SAE International by Tritonia - Vaasa University, Monday, June 07, 2021

Proceedings of the 18th IFAC World Congress 18(1), 2011,

doi: 10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.03131
13. Maiboom, A., Tauzia, X., and Hétet, J-F., “Experimental
study of various effects of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) on
combustion and emissions of an automotive direct injection
diesel engine”, Energy 33(1):22-34, 2008

CONTACT INFORMATION
Corresponding author:

Markus Grahn
mgrahn1@volvocars.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Combustion Engine
Research Center (CERC) at Chalmers University of
Technology for financial support of this work.

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. SAE Customer Service:
Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, Fax: 724-776-0790
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191 SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org
Printed in USA