SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES
2005-24-062
In-cylinder Pressure Measurement for Control and
Diagnostics in Spark Ignition Engines
V. Giglio, B. Iorio, G. Police, N. Rispoli
Istituto Motori, CNR, Naples, Italy
Capri, Naples
Italy
September 11-16, 2005
2005-24-062
In-cylinder Pressure Measurement for Control and Diagnostics
in Spark Ignition Engines
V. Giglio, B. Iorio, G. Police, N. Rispoli
Istituto Motori C.N.R.



ABSTRACT
There is an increasing interest on innovative controls
based on in-cylinder pressure measurement. However,
due to current capabilities of ECUs, only a small number
of pressure cycles can be sampled. Therefore suitable
algorithms are required to extract from few pressure
points the information useful to implement the desired
control strategies.
In this paper a method for the interpolation of in-cylinder
pressure cycle during the constant mass phase of S.I.
engines is described. It is based on the estimation of
Cumulative Heat Release (CHR) in selected crank angle
positions and on a simple algorithm of pressure
reconstruction.
To test this method, peak pressure position and
magnitude have been identified on the basis of a set of
experimental pressure cycles measured on a gasoline
direct injection engine.
In addition, a control scheme for the closed loop control
of spark timing have been set up using a numerical
engine (WAVE) and a numerical ECU build in the
Matlab-Simulink environment.
Finally, the modelled pressure cycle is used to obtain an
accurate estimation of Indicated Mean Effective
Pressure (IMEP).

INTRODUCTION
The increasing restrictions on emission and fuel
consumption are leading manufacturers to look for and
set-up innovative control strategies on internal
combustion engines. At present there is a great interest
on cycle per cycle and cylinder per cylinder controls,
using in-cylinder pressure measurement.
Of course, a key factor is the availability of low cost
sensors with adequate accuracy. In particular; several
sensors that can be placed with no or little engine
modifications were proposed [1][2][3][4].
In literature [5] many in-cylinder pressure based controls
were proposed for a number of functions, such as:
misfiring detection [1]
intake air mass estimation [6][7]
Exhaust Gas Recycle estimation [7]
Exhaust Gas Recycle and lean limit control [1]
[8]
air-fuel ratio control [8][9][10][11]
closed loop control of ignition timing
[11][12][13][14]
knock detection [1] [15].


The expected benefits are, just to mention, the possibility
to control EGR; the open loop air/fuel ratio control when
the oxygen sensor is not active (e.g. at cold start-up); the
correction of cylinder to cylinder air-fuel ratio
unbalancing.
With the support of in-cylinder pressure based controls,
the performances of Variable Valve Actuation systems
could attain their optimum, and advanced combustion
concepts could be implemented.
Finally, the processing of in-cylinder pressure cycle could
allow the evaluation of knock and the estimation of
engine out emissions based on thermodynamic models.
The implementation of such controls has to take count of
the current capabilities of ECUs. Actually, there are
significant limitations because of reduced computational
power and low sampling frequency, besides
measurement inaccuracies. Therefore most of pressure
based controls are set up using a small number of
sampled values.
Therefore suitable algorithms are required to extract
from few pressure points the information useful to
implement the desired control strategies.
In this paper a method for the interpolation of in-cylinder
pressure cycle during the constant mass phase of S.I.
engines is described. It is based on the estimation of
Cumulative Heat Release (CHR) in selected crank angle
positions and on a simple algorithm of pressure
reconstruction
MODELLING OF HEAT RELEASE IN S.I. ENGINES
A homogeneous charge S.I. engine can be considered
as an open thermodynamic system. When inlet and
exhaust valves are closed and blow-by through rings is
negligible (=constant mass phase), the system can be
approximated as a closed reactive system. It can
exchange only energy with the outside environment, and
its gas composition varies according to the progress of
combustion.
The first principle of thermodynamic with a one-zone
energy balance for a closed reactive system can be
simply expressed as:
dt
dQ
dt
dV
p
dt
dU
dt
dQ
s r
+ + = (1)
where dt dQ
r
is the Rate of Heat Release (RHR),
dt dU is the internal energy variation, dt dV p is the
mechanical energy flux and finally dt dQ
s
represents
the heat transfer. The internal energy of system depends
on temperature and instantaneous composition of the
cylinder content.
If the mass and the composition of the mixture trapped
inside the cylinder are known, thermodynamic mean
temperature can be computed and therefore the internal
energy variation and heat transfer can be evaluated.
For control purposes, Heat Release cannot be evaluated
using a thermodynamic model. A faster approach is the
well-established method of Pressure Ratio ( PR )
evaluation [1, 3]. ( ) PR is computed as the ratio
between the actual cylinder pressure and the estimated
motored cylinder pressure:
( )
( )
( )

MOT
P
P
PR = (2)
If the polytropic coefficient
C
is estimated during the
compression phase, and considering a reference crank
angle
ref
, it is possible to calculate the motored
pressure as:
( ) ( )
( )
( )
C
V
V
P P
ref
ref MOT

= (3)
and the Estimated Cumulative Heat Release (ECHR) as:
( )
( )
1
1

=
MAX
PR
PR
ECHR

(4)
where the maximum value
MAX
PR at an angle
MAX
is
introduced for normalization. ECHR gives in most cases
a fairly good approximation to Cumulative Heat Release
(Fig.1).
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2

Throttle Position = 23% of Total Area
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

H
e
a
t

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

%

Crank Angle [Degrees]
ECHR evaluated by PR
CHR
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
ECHR
Motored
Pressure
N
o
r
m
.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Combustion Pressure cycle
Motored Pressure cycle

Fig. 1 - A) Normalized combustion pressure and
computed motored pressure for 2000 rpm and throttle
area 23%. B) Comparison between CHR and ECHR
curves.

Taking into account eq. 2 and 3, it is possible to write:
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
1
1

(
(

=
MAX
ref ref
PR
V
V
P
P
ECHR
C

(5)
namely
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
1
1

(
(

(
(

=
C
C
ref
MAX
ref
MAX
ref ref
V
V
P
P
V
V
P
P
ECHR

(6)
This formulation could be used as basis for the modelling
of in-cylinder pressure, provided the function of ECHR is
available.
ALGORITHM FOR IN-CYLINDER PRESSURE
CALCULATION
A common way to describe Estimated Cumulative Heat
Release is through a Wiebe function
( )
(
(

\
|

+
=
1
1
m
s
a
e ECHR


(7)
where
s
is the start of combustion, and is the total
combustion duration; a and m are parameters
influencing the curve shape.
In this study a simplified functional form similar to the
Wiebe function was considered, that is:

( )
(
(

|
|

\
|

+
=
1
% 90
1
m
s
a
e ECHR

(8)

where
s
is the spark timing angle and
% 90
is the
crank angle interval from
s
to the angle
% 90
where
9 . 0 = ECHR , namely

s
=
% 90 % 90
(9)

-120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

[
b
a
r
]
Crank angle [deg]
Pressure Fired
Pressure Motored
PR


Fig. 2 Selection of the measured pressure values used
as basis in the algorithm for pressure profile calculation.

The algorithm for the calculation of the pressure signal
during the constant mass phase is based on pressure
measurement in five fixed crank angle positions. They
are (Fig. 2):
= 90 , i.e. 90 before TDC compression, used for
estimation of the motoring pressure profile;
= 0 , =15 and = 30 respectively after TDC
compression, namely during combustion;
= 90 after TDC compression, when combustion is
finished, used for normalization of the pressure ratio.
The Estimated Cumulative Heat Release is evaluated at
= 0 , =15 and = 30 according to eq. 4,
considering the pressure ratio calculated at = 90 as
MAX
PR :

( )
( )
( ) 1 90
1 0
0
0


= =
PR
PR
ECHR ECHR (10)

( )
( )
( ) 1 90
1 15
15
15


= =
PR
PR
ECHR ECHR (11)

( )
( )
( ) 1 90
1 30
30
30


= =
PR
PR
ECHR ECHR (12)

On the other hand, using the previously defined function
(8), it is assumed:

(
(

|
|

\
|

+
=
1
% 90
0
1
0
m
s
a
e ECHR

(13)

(
(

|
|

\
|

+
=
1
% 90
15
1
15
m
s
a
e ECHR

(14)

(
(

|
|

\
|

+
=
1
% 90
30
1
30
m
s
a
e ECHR

(15)


Eq. 13 and 14 can be re-written:

(
(

|
|

\
|

+
=
1
% 90
0
0
1
m
s
a
e ECHR

(16)

(
(

|
|

\
|

+
=
1
% 90
15
15
1
m
s
a
e ECHR

(17)

and rearranged based on logarithm properties:
( )
1
% 90
0
0
1 ln
+
|
|

\
|

=
m
s
a ECHR

(18)

( )
1
% 90
15
15
1 ln
+
|
|

\
|

=
m
s
a ECHR

(19)

The ratio of eq. 18 and 19 gives:

( )
( )
1
15
0
15
0
1 ln
1 ln
+
|
|

\
|

m
s
s
ECHR
ECHR


(20)

Thus, based on eq. 20 and the values of ECHR
calculated by eq. 10 and 11, the parameter mcan be
evaluated:

( )
( )
1
ln
1 ln
1 ln
ln
15
0
15
0

|
|

\
|

|
|

\
|

=
s
s
ECHR
ECHR
m


(21)
For the evaluation of the parameter
% 90
, let us
consider the angle position
% 90
= where
9 . 0 = ECHR . Considering the ECHR at = 30 ,
and following the same procedure leading to eq. 20, it is
possible to write:

( )
( )
1
% 90
30
% 90
30
1 ln
1 ln
+
|
|

\
|

m
s
s
ECHR
ECHR


(22)

Since 9 . 0
% 90
= ECHR , it results:

( )
( )
1
% 90
30 30
9 . 0 1 ln
1 ln
+
|
|

\
|

m
s
s
ECHR


(23)

Rearranging eq. 23, we get:
( )
( )
s
s
m
ECHR

=
|
|

\
|
+
% 90
30
1
1
30
1 . 0 ln
1 ln
(24)

and therefore:
( )
( )
s
m
s
ECHR

+
|
|

\
|

=
+1
1
30
30
% 90
1 . 0 ln
1 ln
(25)

Eventually, from eq. 9, it results
( )
( )
1
1
30
30
% 90 % 90
1 . 0 ln
1 ln
+
|
|

\
|

= =
m
s
s
ECHR

(26)
Now, based on the knowledge of mand
% 90
, it is
possible to calculate the parameter a :

( )
1
% 90
15
15
1 ln
+
|
|

\
|

=
m
s
ECHR
a

(27)
When the parameters are found, the ECHR can be
calculated at each crank angle, and the corresponding
values of in-cylinder pressure can be obtained from eq.
(6), where the function of cylinder volume versus crank
angle is known a priori.
The in-cylinder pressure profile modelled by this
approach can be used for several purposes, e.g.
estimation of peak pressure position and magnitude;
estimation of Indicated Mean Effective Pressure;
estimation of engine out emission through
thermodynamic processing.
In this paper some results of the tests of this approach
are shown. The possibility to attain information on peak
pressure position and magnitude, using the proposed
approach, was checked on a series of experimental
pressure cycles obtained on a spark ignition engine. The
tests regarded a wide range of operating conditions, and
were extended up to knock limits. The algorithm
obtaining peak pressure position was tested in a closed
loop control scheme. A simple correlation, using
information obtained from the pressure profile, was
found for the estimation of Indicated Mean Effective
Pressure.
TESTS ON MEASURED PRESSURE CYCLES
A series of 130 experimental pressure cycles, obtained
on a GDI spark ignition engine whose main
characteristics are listed in Table 1, was used to test the
above described approach.

Number of cylinders 4
Total displacement (liters) 1.970
Bore (mm) 83
Stroke (mm) 91
Compression ratio 11.25
Maximum Power (kW) 125 @ 6400 rpm
Maximum Torque (mN) 201 @ 3250
Table 1 Specifications of the GDI engine used for
testing.
In-cylinder pressure was measured using a Kistler 6061A
quartz transducer with water cooling; a crank angle
resolution of 0.5 degrees was obtained by means of an
AVL 364 optical encoder. Fast data acquisition was
performed using a National Instruments 8 channels DAQ
PCI-MIO-16E1 board with a SC2040 interface board for
simultaneous sampling and hold. Inlet manifold absolute
pressure was measured for offset correction of in
cylinder pressure, considering the value at BDC angle
position as reference. Engine operating parameters were
varied in the ranges listed in Table 2.


Engine rpm 15004500
BMEP (bar) 0.810.5
Air/Fuel ratio 1316
External EGR (%) 016
Spark advance (c.a. deg. BTDC) 1445
Table 2 Ranges of the operating parameters selected
for in-cylinder pressure measurements.
With reference to eq. (6), the value of the polytropic
exponent
C
could be estimated by the knowledge of
in-cylinder pressure in correspondence of two crank
angles during compression, while in this work a single
value is measured, that is at = 90 BTDC. For
simplicity, it was preferred to assume a fixed value of
C
.
In this regard, a study on the influence of the choice of
C
on the reconstruction quality and the identification of
both peak pressure position and peak pressure
magnitude was performed. Adopting the same
C
value
in compression and expansion, a statistical analysis was
carried out considering, at fixed
C
and for each of the
130 pressure cycles, the error in peak pressure position
and peak pressure magnitude:

( )
i meas reconst i POS PK
=
. . _
(28)
( )
i MAXmeas MAXreconst i MAG PK
P P =
. _ _
(29)

and the mean errors:
N
N
i
i POS PK
POS PK

=
=
1
_ _
_

(30)
N
N
i
i MAG PK
MAG PK

=
=
1
_ _
_

(31)
The corresponding standard deviations:
( )
1
1
2
_
_

=
N
S
N
i
POS PK i
POS PK

(32)
( )
1
1
2
_
_

=
N
S
N
i
MAG PK i
MAG PK

(33)
with 130 = N are shown in figures 3 and 4 versus the
value of
C
.
It can be noticed that, ranging between 1.20 and 1.39,
the value of 295 . 1 =
C
attaining the minimum standard
deviation for the peak position reconstruction is close to
the peak magnitude reconstruction one (that
is 3 . 1 =
C
). Eventually, the value 295 . 1 =
C
was
chosen for the estimation of both peak pressure position
and peak pressure magnitude.
Fig. 5 shows the frequency histogram of the error in peak
pressure position obtained with 295 . 1 =
C
on all 130
measured pressure cycles. In 82% of the cases, peak
position is estimated with no more than a 0.5 error,
while in 16% of the cases the error is 1. Fig. 6 shows
the estimated peak pressure position versus the
measured one.
In Fig. 7 a comparison between measured and
calculated pressure with 295 . 1 =
C
is shown; note that
the considered crank angle interval ranges from -90 to
90. The enlarged part of the graph, in the range 0
60, is shown in fig. 8.
Estimated peak pressure magnitude is fairly close to
measured one (Fig. 9). In most of cases, the error is in
the interval -0.4 0.4 bar (Fig. 10).
It is worthwhile to notice that, for peak pressure position
finding, it is not necessary to perform pressure cycle
calculation in the whole angle interval [-90 90]; a
smaller range including TDC compression can be
sufficient, thus reducing the computational effort.


1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45
0.1
1
10
S
P
K
_
P
O
S

C

Fig. 3 Standard deviation of the errors on peak
pressure position reconstruction.

1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45
0.01
0.1
1

C
S
P
K
_
M
A
G

Fig. 4 Standard deviation of the errors on peak
pressure magnitude reconstruction.


Error on peak pressure position [deg]
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-4 -2 0 2 4
0
10
20
30
40
50

Fig. 5 Frequency histogram of errors in estimated peak
pressure position.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30

C
=1.295
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

P
e
a
k

P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
d
e
g
]
Measured Peak Position [deg]

Fig. 6 Estimated peak pressure position versus
measured one.
-90 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
0
10
20
30
40
50
C
Y
L
I
N
D
E
R

P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

[
b
a
r
]
CRANK ANGLE [deg]
Measured pressure
Calculated pressure
Fig. 7 Comparison of measured and calculated
pressure traces.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
10
20
30
40
50
C
Y
L
I
N
D
E
R

P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

[
b
a
r
]
CRANK ANGLE [deg]
Measured pressure
Calculated pressure

Fig. 8 - Comparison of measured and calculated
pressure traces. Enlargement of the angle interval
060

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60

C
=1.295
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

P
e
a
k

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
b
a
r
]
Measured Peak Pressure Magnitude [bar]

Fig. 9 - Estimated peak pressure magnitude versus
measured one.
Error on peak pressure magnitude [bar]
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8
0
4
8
12
16
20
24

Fig. 10 Frequency histogram of errors in estimated
peak pressure magnitude.

Fig. 11 Cylinder per cylinder spark timing control using
the pressure trace reconstruction algorithm.


APPLICATION ON A CONTROL SCHEME
An algorithm performing the described modelling of the
pressure cycle was included in the scheme in Fig. 11,
aimed to cylinder per cylinder and cycle per cycle control
of spark timing. The control was tested on a numerical
engine, namely a simulation environment. The operating
conditions of the engine from which the experimental
pressure data were obtained, were simulated by the
WAVE Ricardo software. By the management of
operating parameters in Matlab-Simulink, it is possible to
simulate the progress of engine crankshaft torque in a
time scale.
It can be noticed than the control scheme is divided into
two parts; the first one is a typical engine open loop
action, based on a look up table with engine rpm and
inlet air mass charge as input variables; the second one
is a cylinder per cylinder and cycle per cycle closed loop
action. The information on peak pressure position,
resulting from the algorithm, is used as feed back signal
to a standard PID controller for each cylinder, where
MAX
ref
is the reference value. This is the simplest control
solution to test the possibility to regulate peak pressure
position.
In order to test the control algorithm, random errors were
imposed on spark timing actuation, thus obtaining the
instantaneous engine torque behaviour shown in Fig. 12.
Fig. 13 shows the simulated instantaneous engine torque
after the spark timing control intervention based on the
peak pressure position identification. In fig. 14,
considering the whole history of the simulated engine
torque, the control results able to act for torque
oscillation correction in less than one second.
From the point of view of practical utilization, the
proposed algorithm could result a useful tool in the ECUs
calibration processes and for diagnostics purposes on
engine test benches.

Fig. 12 Simulation of engine torque resulting from
random errors imposed on spark timing actuation

Fig. 13 Chart of engine torque after the intervention of
spark timing control using the pressure trace
reconstruction algorithm.

Fig. 14 Complete trace of engine torque before and
after the intervention of spark timing control using the
pressure trace reconstruction algorithm.

UTILIZATION OF CALCULATED PRESSURE
FOR IMEP ESTIMATION
When in-cylinder pressure signal is available, Indicated
Mean Effective Pressure is evaluated to characterize
engine performance. Actually, the pressure trace
obtained by the described calculation procedure is
limited in the angle interval of constant mass phase and
not to the whole engine cycle, therefore is not suitable for
a direct calculation of IMEP. However, some attempts
were made to check if there is the possibility to use the
partial pressure cycle to estimate IMEP. Let us consider
the Indicated Mean Effective Pressure in the Constant
Mass Phase (
CMP
IMEP ) as the integral of the calculated
pressure
CALC
p from Inlet Valve Closing (IVC) to
Exhaust Valve Opening (EVO), divided by cylinder
displacement
d
V :
}
=
EVO
IVC
CALC
d
CMP
dV p
V
IMEP
1
(14)
For each of the 130 measured pressure cycles the
corresponding calculated pressure cycle was obtained.
Then the standard IMEP based on measured pressure
was evaluated, and compared with the value
of
CMP
IMEP . Fig. 14 shows the scatter plot of
CMP
IMEP
versus the standard IMEP for all 130 measured pressure
cycles.
The course of the scatter plot shown in Fig. 15 is not
surprising, since
CMP
IMEP is evaluated in an angle
interval fairly similar to the one where the gross IMEP is
calculated. However it suggests the possibility to use the
calculated pressure, which considers the constant mass
phase only, to estimate the standard IMEP. Actually, the
in-cylinder pressure during the inlet and exhaust phases
cannot be estimated with the proposed approach,
therefore it is necessary to include some engine
operating parameter which could bring in the contribution
of pumping work. By a regression analysis on IMEP and
CMP
IMEP data, a correlation was found including the
mean manifold absolute pressure
MAN
P :
MAN
CMP
P
IMEP IMEP
+
+ + =
08655 . 2
06727 . 1 23204 . 1
(15)
This correlation has an R squared
coefficient 9992 . 0
2
= R , a Standard Error of
Estimate 0720099 . 0 = SEE , and a Mean Absolute
Error 0561373 . 0 = MAE .

Fig. 16 shows the fairly good agreement between the
IMEP, estimated using the previous correlation, and the
IMEP evaluated using the measured in-cylinder
pressure.
CONCLUSION
Cumulative Heat Release in S.I. engines can be fairly
well estimated using the pressure ratio, i.e. the ratio
between the actual cylinder pressure and the estimated
motored cylinder pressure. Based on this concept an
algorithm was proposed for the calculation of the in-
cylinder pressure trace, using pressure measurement at
a small number of selected crank angle positions. The
algorithm was tested on a set of 130 experimental
pressure traces, acquired with 0.5 crank angle
resolution on a GDI engine. In most of cases it turned out
able to identify peak pressure positions and peak
pressure magnitude with an accuracy of 0.5 degrees,
and peak pressure magnitude with an accuracy of 0.3
bar.
The ability of the algorithm in peak pressure position
identification was tested in a spark timing control scheme
of an engine simulation software environment. It showed
the capability of correcting torque oscillations, caused by
random errors in spark timing actuation, in less than one
second.
By exploiting the integral of the pressure profile
calculated with the described algorithm during the
constant mass phase, it was possible to find out a simple
correlation for the estimation of Indicated Mean Effective
Pressure.
Examples of possible applications of the proposed
approach could be:
spark timing control for Maximum Brake Torque,
through the estimation of peak pressure angle
position.
misfiring detection, EGR and lean limit control,
through the estimation of IMEP.
For the implementation of the proposed algorithm for
control strategies and diagnostics purposes, an
adequate calculation power of on board ECUs is
necessary. Current ECUs are unlikely to be able to
perform the required processing for a cycle per cycle and
cylinder per cylinder control. However, the continuous
and quick improvements of microcomputer
performances allow to foresee possible utilizations in the
next future.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
I
M
E
P
C
M
P

[
b
a
r
]
IMEP [bar]

Fig. 15 Scatter plot of the
CMP
IMEP , evaluated in the
Constant Mass Phase and using calculated pressure,
versus IMEP evaluated in the whole cycle and using
measured pressure.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

I
M
E
P

[
b
a
r
]
Actual IMEP [bar]

Fig. 16 Plot of the IMEP estimated by the correlation
versus measured IMEP

REFERENCES
1. Sellnau M.C., Matekunas F.A., Battiston P.A., Chang
C., Lancaster D.R - Cylinder-Pressure-Based
Engine Control Using Pressure-Ratio-Management
and Low-Cost Non-Intrusive Cylinder Pressure
Sensors, SAE Paper 2000-01-0932, 2000.
2. Mobley C., Non-Intrusive In-Cylinder Pressure
Measurement of Internal Combustion Engines, SAE
Paper 1999-01-0544, 1999.
3. Ulrich O., Wlodarczyk R. and Wlodarczyk M.T. -
High-Accuracy Low-Cost Cylinder Pressure Sensor
for Advanced Engine Controls - SAE Paper 2001-
01-0991, 2001.
4. Fitzpatrick M., Pechstedt R., and Lu Y., A New
Design of Optical In-Cylinder Pressure Sensor for
Automotive Applications, SAE Paper 2000-01-0539,
2000.
5. Powell J.D. Engine Control Using Cylinder
Pressure: Past, Present and Future Journal of
Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, Vol
115, pp. 343-350, June 1993.
6. Hart M., and Ziegler M., "Adaptive Estimation of
Cylinder Air Mass Using the Combustion Pressure,
SAE Paper 980791, 1998.
7. Iorio B., Giglio V., Police G., Rispoli N., - Methods of
Pressure Cycle Processing for Engine Control, SAE
Paper 2003-01-0352, 2003.
8. Muller N., Isermann R., - Control of Mixture
Composition Using Cylinder Pressure Sensors
SAE Paper 2001-01-3382, 2001.
9. Gilkey J. and Powell D., Fuel-Air Ratio Estimation
from Cylinder Pressure Time Histories, ASME
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurements and
Control, Dec. 1985.
10. Gassenfeit E. and Powell D., Algorithms for Air-Fuel
Ratio Estimation Using Internal Combustion Engine
Cylinder Pressure, SAE Paper 890300, 1989.
11. Yoon P., Park S. and Sunwoo M., Ohm I. and Yoon
K. J., "Closed-Loop Control of Spark Advance and
Air-Fuel Ratio in SI Engines using Cylinder
Pressure", SAE paper 2000-01-0933, 2000.
12. Matekunas F.A. - Engine Combustion Control with
Ignition Timing by Pressure Ratio Management,
U.S. Patent No 4622939, Nov. 18, 1986.
13. Fuji I., "MBT Control Utilizing Crank Angle of
Maximum Pressure", SAE paper 890759, 1989.
14. Kawamura Y., Shinshi M., Sato H., Takahashi N.,
and Iriyama M., MBT Control through Individual
Cylinder Pressure Detection, SAE Paper 881779,
1988.
15. Sawamoto K., Kawamura T., Kita T., Matsushita K.,
Individual Cylinder Knock Control by Detecting
Cylinder Pressure, SAE Paper 871911, 1987.