Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 970514

An Algorithm for Calculating the Air/Fuel

Ratio from Exhaust Emissions

William M. Silvis
Horiba Instruments, Inc.

Reprinted from: Engine Modeling

(SP-1255)

The Engineering Society

For Advancing Mobility International Congress & Exposition
Land Sea Air and Space® Detroit, Michigan
INTERNATIONAL February 24-27, 1997

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (412)776-4841 Fax:(412)776-5760

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018

The appearance of the ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE's consent
that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients.
This consent is given on the condition however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article
copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections
107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of
copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional
purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of
publication. Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction
Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted

SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

GLOBAL MOBILITY DATABASE

All SAE papers, standards, and selected
books are abstracted and indexed in the
SAE Global Mobility Database.

No part of this publication may by reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval

system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

ISSN0148-7191
Copyright 1997 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not
necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is
published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part,
contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication

through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed
manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018
An Algorithm for Calculating the
Air/Fuel Ratio from Exhaust Emissions
Copyright 1997 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
A confusing number of equations have been
developed and published for calculating the air/fuel
ratio of an operating engine from the composition of
its exhaust gasses. These methods make varying use
of the information available from the gas
concentration measurements, but they all are based
on the same chemistry of combustion. The method
described here is a single algorithm that duplicates
the results of all the well known published equations
and can adapt to different measurement
circumstances, such as when an oxygen
measurement is not available or if the gas sampling
point is moved to after the catalyst. Data are
presented to demonstrate the equivalence of the
algorithm and equation evaluations.
INTRODUCTION
There seems to be an uncountable number of
different equations for calculating the air to fuel ratio of
an engine’s combustion process from its exhaust
emissions. As an example, in our company, the
control computer for an automotive gas analysis
system has been required to support 72 such
equations. Authors such as D’Alleva1, Eltinge2,
Spindt3, Brettschneider4, Lange5, Simons6,
Stivender7, Holl8 and others have published papers
that are referenced as sources for these equations.
However, there is only one mother nature. All of
these equations are based on the same chemistry
and physics of the combustion phenomena, so it is
puzzling that the inventors of these equations could
develop such a diversity of methods.
This paper explains reasons for these apparent
differences and presents an algorithm that can
produce the same results as any of them. Elements of
the calculation that describe the fuel and air properties
are included as parameters. Different utilization of the
available information, which has resulted in very
different looking equations, are presented simply as
141
970514
William M. Silvis
Horiba Instruments, Inc.
alternative methods for calculating the same
parameter: the amount of water in the exhaust. Also, a
number of small corrections for non-idealities of the
measurement process, which are usually overlooked,
are included.
This approach yields a flexible algorithm that can
adapt when the set of measured gasses changes and
can switch techniques according to the measurement
situation or the preference of the user.
DISCUSSION
A review of the many equations that laboratory
computer systems have been asked to support leads
to some observations about why there are so many of
them. The equations can be somewhat complex.
There are a number of assumptions that are made for
the values of physical constants, some choices about
how to use the information that is available, and there
is a good deal of flexibility in the algebraic forms that
are used to represent them.
The physical constants used in the equations are
well known, but used with differing precision. A slightly
different value, when taken into a formula and used in
algebraic reformulations to calculate other constants,
results in a formulas with coefficients that appear to
be different. Everyone can recognize that 20.95 and
20.9 are just two slightly different values for the
assumed concentration of oxygen in air. But when this
number is used to get mole proportions between
nitrogen and oxygen, it is not so easy to recognize
that 4.77418 and 3.7733 are both derived from this
same physical constant. It is also apparent that the
constants are used with varying numbers of significant
digits. A value with 3 significant digits used in the past
for slide rule calculations does not give the same
result as a value to 6 significant digits used in the
same formula in a digital computer.
Most of the differences between equations are a
matter of algebra. Since many expressions arise
during the derivation of the A/F equation, there is
much room
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018
for creativity in the selection of the algebraic steps
taken in the simplification process and in the final
form of the simplified result. The very same equation
can be expressed using algebraic forms that are so
different they can no longer be recognized as
equivalent.
Another source of differences are the basic
assumptions about what will be significant to include
in the derivation of the calculation. For example:
• Is it important to include the humidity of the
ambient air?
• Is there significant water in the fuel itself?
• Can the contribution of NOx be ignored?
• Can it be assumed that all the NOx is NO?
• What is the number of carbon atoms on a
molecule of HC in the exhaust? Is it the same as
in the fuel?
• What is the water/gas equilibrium constant? 3.8,
3.5, 3.2, or much smaller?
• Can it be assumed that the cooler in a raw gas
sample conditioner dries the sample completely?
A HISTORY AND TIMELINE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A/F EQUATIONS:
D’Alleva wrote the earliest paper regularly cited in
the literature. He described the relationship between
the exhaust gas composition and the air fuel ratio. He
published charts that could be used to read the A/F
ratio based on exhaust concentrations, according to
the fuel h/c ratio. This was in 1936, before computers
and calculators, so such charts were a common and
necessary engineering practice.
Eltinge improved on D’Alleva’s charts to include
incomplete combustion. The charts could also be
used without an O2 measurement, but then no
estimate of measurement error from the size of the
triangle formed on the chart by the intersection of the
three measurement lines was available.
Spindt published the next step forward. He
published an actual formula using CO, CO2, HC and
O2. It did not require an assumption of complete
combustion. Spindt worked at a fuel company and
recognized that combustion was not complete and
that the exhaust gas contained a mix of
hydrocarbons related in a complicated way to the
fuel and the operating mode of the engine.
In 1973, William Holl at AC Spark plug published
formulae that did not require a measurement for
oxygen. Since the formulae are algebraically
complex and he was interested in making real-time
calculations before laboratory computers were
powerful or easy to program, he developed simplified
equations by using power series approximations and
ignoring the higher order terms.
142
The simpler forms in use today are variations of this
idea.
In 1979 Brettschneider added terms to Spindt’s
equation to account for both water in the ambient air
and to incorporate a measured NOx value into the
equation. He also included terms for oxygenated
fuels. He worked at Bosch, where A/F was important
to the performance of carburetors and fuel injection
systems. His equation is an evolutionary
improvement on Spindt and replaces it.
Other investigators (i.e. Holl8, and Piken and Rouf
at Ford Scientific Laboratories, unpublished paper)
had taken Spindt’s ideas and developed equations
that did not need the O2 measurement. When O2
was present, they proposed using it as validity check.
They later extended their result, as did
Brettschneider, to include NOx and H2O.
In 1974 Simons6 from the German TUEV
recognized that the extra degree of freedom provided
by an O2 measurement could be used to calculate
the equilibrium constant K. This improved the
agreement of his formula to measured test data. It
showed that K could vary, and that it was generally
lower than the 3.5 that was commonly assumed.
Recently, in 1989, Mitsubishi investigators Fukui,
Tamura, Omori, Saitoh,9 improved on the Spindt
formula in the same manner as Brettschneider and
Simons by including NO and water vapor. More
significantly, they also noted that the equilibrium
constant was modified by the action of the catalyst
and that the presence of water in the ambient air
affected the water-gas equilibrium. They
recommended using direct engine out gasses for
determining A/F. The Simons equation, which
doesn’t need an assumed value for the water-gas
equilibrium, may have performed as well even with
their post catalyst measurements.
In summary, Brettschneider’s paper gives a
complete analysis and includes all the significant
factors (except possibly the NO, NO2 ratio, which no
one has yet found significant) and he included an
error analysis. His equation is the same or better
than Spindt’s in all aspects and should be used in
place of it. Versions of Brettschneider that don’t
include the water terms are applied widely.
Considering the reliability and accuracy of
emissions analysis technology today, the Simons
equation may have an advantage. It does not need
an assumed equilibrium constant and can be used
with exhaust gasses either before or after the
catalyst. Lueck and Meinig of Fichel and Sachs10
found it to reproduce flow measured ratios best, even
with rich mixtures.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018

BUILDING AN ALGORITHM TO For the general case of an actual combustion,

CALCULATE A/F there may be more or less moles of oxygen (air) than
the stoichiometric amount. In this case, the factor
The published equations mentioned above are lambda, the excess oxygen factor or normalized air
set up for a given test configuration, where the fuel ratio, is used to describe the combustion
values to be measured and the assumptions to be chemistry. It is the ratio of the moles of oxygen
made are known ahead of time and are not expected actually used to the stoichiometric amount.
to change. However, it is often necessary to adapt to
different situations, depending on user preference n n
and available measurements. Therefore, rather than λ = -------------------- = ----------------------------
n stoich  x + -y-- – --z- (1)
a single equation, an algorithm that tells how to
calculate the air/fuel ratio under these different  4 2
circumstances is preferred. The following describes
such an algorithm. The mass air fuel ratio, which is also sometimes still
used, even though its value depends on the type of
First, consider the chemical equation for ideal
complete combustion. This is the basis for computing fuel, can be calculated from lambda in a simple way:
the stoichiometric amount of oxygen (or air) that is
used to burn a given fuel. This quantity is used to
calculate the normalized air fuel ratio, lambda. (or (2)
phi, the inverse of lambda), and this equation is a
good start toward a practical chemical equation to
describe actual combustion: It is clear then, that to calculate air fuel ratios from
actual, measured exhaust gas concentrations, we
CxHyOz + O2 → CO2 + H2O need to calculate n, the amount of oxygen actually
If we balance the mole quantities of the carbon, used in the combustion. To do this, we need a more
hydrogen and oxygen in this reaction, the balanced practical chemical equation for the combustion, one
equation is written: that also accounts for the following shortcomings of
the idealized equation shown above:
y z y
C x H y O z +  x + --- – --- O2 → xCO 2 + ---H 2 O 1. There is typically about one percent of water in
4 2 2 ambient air. This water can affect the
So we see that when the combustion is complete, combustion by changing the peak temperatures
and the mixture of reactants is stoichiometric, the in the combustion chamber and by affecting the
equilibrium concentrations in the water-gas
moles of oxygen required are: equilibrium between CO2, CO, H2O and H2
y (details below). The Brettschneider equation
n stoich = x + --- – -z-- includes terms for water and the study by Fukui,
4 2
Tamura, Omori, and Saitoh9 observed and
Actual combustion and the resulting exhaust gas measured the effect. If a measurement of the
composition can be modeled quite well when we water in the air is available as absolute humidity
modify this equation to account for the non-ideal (g/kg dry air), we note that: (the physical
circumstances.
constants for air are taken from Heywood11,
The first non ideal circumstances are the actual p65):
composition of the combustion air. It is often
assumed that air is a simple mixture of oxygen and n H O ⋅ 18.016 3
nitrogen. Actually, air contains other gasses in
2
- ⋅ 10
H abs = ---------------------------------------
n air ⋅ 28.962
measurable amounts. There is about 1.8% Argon
and .035 % CO 2 in air. The inert gasses do not take –3
⋅ 10
part in the combustion and can be lumped together C = 1.6076
-------------------------------------
[O2]
with the N2 that does not react. The CO2 present is amb
small, ignoring it causes a 0.2% error. For an nH O
equation to represent the combustion of idealized dry
2
-------------- = C ⋅ H abs
air and fuel, we use the following: (Assuming the nO
2
concentration of oxygen in air is 20.95 %)
2. At combustion temperatures, and especially if
y there is a lack of sufficient oxygen, the CO2 and
C x H y O z +  x + --- – -z-- ( O 2 + 3.7733N 2 ) →
4 2 H2O dissociate and produce some CO and some
y y H2 .
xCO 2 + --- H 2 O +  x + --- – --z- 3.7733N 2
2 4 2

143
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018

3. Not all of the fuel is burned. Some of it appears Hydrogen balance:

in altered form as hydrocarbons in the exhaust. 2 · n · C · Habs + y = 2 · c + 2 · d + y’ · h (4)
Also, when the mixture is lean, there is excess
O2 in the exhaust.
Oxygen balance
4. Some of the nitrogen from the ambient air reacts z+2n+2n·B+n·C·Habs=2a+b+d+2e+g+z’·h (5)
at the high temperature and pressures in the
combustion chamber to form NO and NO2.
These reactions heavily favor the production of Nitrogen balance:
NO. In emissions measurement with 2 · n · A = 2f + g (6)
chemiluminescent analyzers, we convert any
NO2 to NO and call the resulting NO Total moles(dry) balance:
measurement NOx. We do the same here, and ntot = a + b + c + e + f + g + h (7)
assume that the result behaves chemically as
NO. We normally measure the concentrations of HC,
CO, CO2, O2, and NOx. Concentrations are mole
5. There is some CO2 already in air. This has a fractions. They are usually measured on a dry basis,
very small effect (0.2%) on calculated results, that is, after most of the water has been removed
but it is reasonably well known and can be from the sample. They can be related to the mole
accounted for. Also, it is useful to parameterize quantities by the following equation, (nH2Ocooler is the
the composition of the air. There are usually moles of water left in the sample after it exits the
small differences in the proportions of O2, N2 cooler, X represents any of the measured species).
and CO2 in the combustion air that different
xn
investigators use. It may be better to incorporate [ X ] = ---------------------------------------------
-
them as parameters to accommodate these ntot + n H2O
cooler
differences, rather than to lose their identity by
combining them with other constants in the To compensate for the water left after the gas
equations. To do this, we introduce the following exits the cooler, we can use the vapor pressure of
air composition factors: water at the cooler temperature. This gives us:
[ N 2 ] amb
A = ---------------------- ≈ 3.774 P vap ( T cooler ) n H2 O
[ O 2 ] amb [ H 2O ]
cooler
= --------------------------------------- cooler
- = --------------------------------------------
-
P baro n tot + n H O
[ CO2 ] amb 2 cooler

- ≈ 0.16
B = --------------------------- So for example in the case of CO2,
[ O 2 ] amb

6. Concentrations are often measured on a dry a = [ CO 2 ] ⋅ ( n tot + nH2O )

cooler
basis, after the water has been removed from
the sample in a cooler or heat exchanger.  1 
However, not all of the water is removed. A small a = [ CO 2 ] ⋅ n tot ⋅  -------------------------------------------- (8)
 1 – [ H 2 O ] cooler 
correction based on the temperature of the
cooler is needed.
We adopt the convention that [HC] is always the
An unbalanced chemical equation for this total hydrocarbon concentration, as measured by a
combustion that includes terms for the above FID, so that for this component:
mentioned issues is:
h = [ HC ] ⋅ ( n tot + nH2O ) ⁄ x'
cooler
CxHyOz+n(O2+A·N2+B·CO2+C·Habs·H2O)→
If the HC is measured dry, we can apply the
aCO 2+bCO+cH2+dH2O+eO2+fN2+gNOx+hCx’Hy’Oz’ cooler correction term as above. If it is measured
To be able to calculate n, we obtain a set of wet, with a heated instrument, then we must include
equations for the unknown mole quantities by the moles of water in the exhaust instead:
balancing this equation. We write 5 equations; the 4 h = [HC] · (ntot + d) /x’ (9)
atomic balances (C, H, O, N) and the total mole
balance. Since the first equation above includes only
known parameters and mole quantities whose
Carbon balance: concentrations are always measured, CO2, CO, and
x + n · B = a + b + x’ · h (3) HC, it can be used to calculate ntot’:

144
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018

Substituting this into the equilibrium condition, we

x + B ⋅ n = ( [ CO 2 ] + [ CO ] + [ HC ] ) ⋅ ( n tot + nH2O ) get the following expression for the moles of water:
cooler
x+B⋅n (10) y + 2 ⋅ n ⋅ C ⋅ H abs – y'h
n tot = ---------------------------------------------------------------- ⋅ ( 1 – [ H 2O ] ) d = -----------------------------------------------------------------
[ CO 2 ] + [ CO ] + [ HC ] cooler (13)
2  ------------
b + 1

a⋅K
There are now the four unknowns, n, c, d, and f,
and the remaining 4 equations. The oxygen balance SIMONS METHOD - Simons described another
provides a convenient solution for n: approach. His method uses the nitrogen and mole
balance to find d. From the nitrogen balance:
n = 2a + b + d + 2e + g + z'h – z
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (11) g
2 + 2 ⋅ B + C ⋅ H abs f = n ⋅ A – ---
2
At this point, we only need to develop an
expression for d, the moles of water, in order to solve Substituting this into the mole balance:
for n and therefore lambda. It is also at this point that g
n tot = a + b + c + e + n ⋅ A – --- + g + h
the methods of Spindt and Brettschneider differ from 2
the methods of Simons. The differences in these
approaches can be viewed simply as a difference in Next substitute the expression for n from the
the technique used to calculate d. Brettschneider and oxygen balance, and re-arrange terms:
Spindt use another chemical reaction, the water/gas
d =  n tot – a – b – c – e + --- – g – h
reaction, and Simons uses the remaining two g
equations, the nitrogen balance and the total moles  2 
(14)
balance. 2 +2⋅B+C⋅H
-------------------------------------------- – 2a – b – 2e – g – z'h + z
BRETTSCHNEIDER/SPINDT METHOD - At the A
high temperature and pressures in the exhaust We can substitute the expression 12 for hydrogen
cylinder during the combustion of a rich mixture of air
and fuel, the CO2 and H2O in the mixture dissociate, moles and get the following algebraic simplification:
creating some H2 and some CO. This is described by
the following chemical equation for the water/gas
reaction. These species reach an equilibrium
described by the equilibrium constant for this
reaction, K. The equilibrium depends on the
combustion temperature. As the gasses cool down
as they leave the cylinder, the proportions are frozen METHOD WHEN NO OXYGEN
at the equilibrium concentrations. MEASUREMENT IS AVAILABLE - Note that if d is
known from the water gas equilibrium, similar steps
CO 2 + H2 → CO + H 2O can be used to calculate e, the oxygen. This is useful
The equilibrium is described by: for cases when the oxygen concentration is not
measured. This is the idea behind the third type of
⋅d
K = b
----------- A/F calculation, the “no O2“ type.
a⋅c
The value of K depends on the combustion
temperature. For 1700 K, the theoretical value is
3.388. Values of 3.5 and 3.8 are described in the
literature as producing good matches between this
theory and observations. Also, Fukui, Tamura,
Omori, and Saitoh 9 observed that the action of a
catalyst changed the effective value of K. This is not ESTIMATING MEASUREMENT
surprising, since the catalyst causes the combustion UNCERTAINTY - If both e and d are already
to continue at a lower temperature. available
Next, from the hydrogen balance we can get an
expression for the hydrogen moles, c:

c = y----------------
– y'h + n ⋅ C ⋅ H
abs – d (12)
2

145

from measurement, and if we assume a constant for
the water gas equilibrium, (Brettschneider/Spindt
type methods), then we can use the nitrogen and
mole balance equations to calculate a quality
number. It is most natural to calculate the actual O2
concentration (relative to dry air) of the ambient air
used for combustion.
From the nitrogen balance:
nN
Zamb
Substitute this into the mole balance:
g ALGORITHM - The following steps summarize
n N amb = n tot – a – b – c – e – g – h + ---
2 2
From this, we can calculate the concentration of
oxygen in the ambient air:
[O2]
n
= -----------------------------------------------------------------
amb n + n N amb + n CO amb
2 2
n ⋅ ( 1 – [ CO 2 ] amb )
= ------------------------------------------------------
n + nN amb
2
This should be a constant equal to the assumed
value of the ambient oxygen concentration. If it
differs from this, it is an indication of a measurement
error. It can also be used to verify proper time
alignment of the measured values. It should not
change even if the vehicle is accelerated and
decelerated through the driving cycle.
At this point it is important to make two remarks
about the calculations outlined in the above
equations. First, the several equations above could
be shortened and combined into one larger equation.
This was often done in the past when these methods
had to be prepared for hand calculation. However
this is unnecessary today when high performance
desktop computers and convenient spreadsheets
perform the calculations. The algebra of the
simplification process is error prone and hides the
physical interpretations of the terms.
Secondly, the equations above are circular. The
calculation for n depends on d, which in turn depends
on n. The circularity arises when some of the second
order effects that are usually ignored are included. Of
course, this could be resolved by a great deal of
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018
algebra and a very complicated closed form equation
for n could be written. However, this is not
necessary. It is convenient to use a fixed point
iteration. We assume an initial value for n, use it to
calculate d and subsequently another n. This is
repeated until the new values for n are no longer
significantly different. This happens after just a few
iterations.
A fixed point iteration is known to converge if the
g function satisfies a Lipschitz condition with constant
= f + --- L < 1.12 Although it is not presented here, it can be
2
shown that the function for n defined by equation 11.)
satisfies such a condition for all reasonable values of
the parameters.
the algorithm:
1. Assume an initial value of 1.0 for n, and an initial
value of 1.0 for d.
2. Calculate ntot from HC, CO, and CO 2
concentrations according to equation 10.
(16) Calculate the mole fractions from the
concentrations and ntot. per equation 8 and 9.
3. Calculate the water moles, d, from one of:
The Brettschneider K formula, equation 13.
If an oxygen measurement is not available, use
this d and calculate e by equation. 15.
or
Calculate c from equation 12,
then calculate d from equation 14.
5. Calculate n from the total oxygen moles
equation, 11.
6. Compare this to the old value for n. If the
difference is small, go to the next step.
Otherwise, go back and repeat, starting with the
ntot calculation, step 2.
7. Once n is calculated, calculate lambda from
n/n02., equation 1.
8. If the mass ratio is desired, calculate it according
to equation 2.
9. Calculate the quality number according to
equation 16.
146
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018

SAMPLE BASIC PROGRAM

Function Lambda(equ_num, HC, CO, NOX, CO2, O2, x, y, z, xp, yp, zp, Habs, O2_amb, N2_amb, CO2_amb,
GMWair, K, Tc)
If (IsNumeric(Tc)) Then
CoolerH2O = (((((0.00000000418218 * Tc + 0.0000000932206) * Tc + 0.0000352248) * Tc + 0.001244) * Tc +
0.0459058) * Tc + 0.6048346) / 101.3
Else
CoolerH2O = 0
End If

AA = N2_amb / O2_amb
BB = CO2_amb / O2_amb
CC = 0.00160757 * Habs / O2_amb
n=1
n_old = 0
d=1
Count = 0

again:
ntot = (x + BB * n) / (CO2 / 100 + CO / 1000000 + HC / 1000000) * (1 - CoolerH2O)
a = CO2 / 100 * ntot / (1- CoolerH2O)
b = CO / 1000000 * ntot / (1 - CoolerH2O)
h = HC / 1000000 * ntot / (1 - CoolerH2O) / xp
g = NOX / 1000000 * ntot / (1 - CoolerH2O)
c = (y - yp * h) / 2 + n * CC - d
If (equ_num = 2) Then
e = (ntot - a - b - c - (AA / (2 + CC + 2 * BB))
* (2 * a + b + d + g + zp * h - z) + g / 2 - g - h) / (1 + 2 * AA _
/ (2 + CC + 2 * BB))
Else
e = O2 / 100 * ntot / (1 - CoolerH2O)
End If
If (equ_num = 3) Then
d = ((ntot - a - b - ((y - yp * h) / 2 + n * CC) - e + g / 2 - g - h) * ((2 + CC + 2 *
BB) / AA) - 2 * a - b - 2 * e - g - zp * h + z) / (1 - (2 + 2 * BB + CC) / AA)
Else
d = (y - yp * h + 2 * n * CC) / (2 * (b / (a * K) + 1))
End If
f = n * AA - g / 2
n = (2 * a + b + d + 2 * e + g + zp * h - z) / (2 + CC + 2 * BB)
If (Abs(n - n_old) > 0.000001) Then
n_old = n
Count = Count + 1
GoTo again
End If
nO2 = x + y / 4 - z / 2
Lambda = n / nO2

End Function

147
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018
EXAMPLES
An appropriate choice of parameters for this
algorithm has been shown to duplicate nearly all of
the 72 various equations that previously had been
supported by individually programmed computer
subroutines.
An example of this for which published raw data
are available are the data from Spindt and
Brettschneider. Table 1 below shows the data from
Spindt’s paper for Toluene. It shows agreement
between algorithm and equation to well within the
working precision of the document. Also illustrative is
Table 2, which shows a comparison to data
published in Brettschneider’s paper. These data are
available with more precision and include both a NOx
measurement and humidity effects. Again, the
algorithm and the Brettschneider equation give
identical results.
Examples from other published equations are
difficult to find since the authors did not always
publish their raw measurements. To make a similar
comparison between the algorithm and these other
148
equations, a standard data set was devised that
covered a range of exhaust gas compositions from
rich to lean. Table 3. uses this data set to compare
the algorithm to the equation from Lange5. This
equation does not use an oxygen measurement,
includes a correction for residual water vapor after
the sample conditioning cooler, and assumes that
unburned hydrocarbons are C7H14. There is perfect
agreement between algorithm and equation using
the parameter set shown.
CONCLUSION
The algorithm presented here is an improvement
over previous methods. It can replace the myriad of
available air fuel ratio equations and formulae with a
single procedure, and has been demonstrated to
give the same results. Parameters to the procedure
provide the flexibility to adapt to different available
measurements, different sample conditioning or
extraction points, and user preferences. A simple
iterative technique accommodates terms to correct
for small non-ideal effects without introducing badly
complicated algebraic forms.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018

Spindt Data

Parameters
Fuel CxH yOz Exhaust Cx’Hy’Oz’
x 1 x’ 1
y 1.14 y’ 1.14
z 0 z’ 0
Air Habs 0
[O2]amb 20.99%
[N2]amb 79.01%
[CO2]amb 0%
GMWair 28.97
K 3.5
Bench
Cooler ‘C na

Fuel Toluene MAP 12 inHg

CO2 CO THC NOx O2 Algorithm Spindt Diff

11.06 87000 5840 0 0.73 10.69 10.69 0.00%
13.70 43500 4210 0 0.72 12.10 12.10 0.00%
14.63 29800 3500 0 0.75 12.62 12.62 0.00%
15.10 6700 4120 0 1.4 13.79 13.78 0.05%
13.36 2300 6800 0 3.77 15.51 15.50 0.04%

Toluene MAP 20 in. Hg

CO2 CO THC NOx O2 Algorithm Spindt Diff

11.45 85400 5180 0 0.490 10.69 10.69 0.01%
12.97 62700 3870 0 0.630 11.52 11.51 0.05%
13.85 41700 3240 0 0.900 12.33 12.33 -0.02%
14.89 1200 1260 0 2.61 15.12 15.12 0.03%
13.65 3700 960 0 3.97 16.17 16.17 0.03%

Table 1

 
  [-------------
CO ] 2 + [ CO ] 
 1 +
 CO  -
/---------------- -
[ CO 2 ] 120 ⋅ ( 1 – F c )
A ⁄ F = F b ⋅  11.492 ⋅ F c ⋅ -----------------------------------------------------------------
2
[ CO ]  + ------------------------------------
[ CO ]
-
 1 + ------------------  3.5 + ------------------
 [ CO 2 ]  [ CO 2 ]
 

12.011
F c = ---------------------------------------------------
-
12.011 + 1.008 ⋅ y
[ CO ] + [ CO 2 ]
F b = ----------------------------------------------------------
[ CO ] + [ CO 2 ] + [ HC ]

Spindt Equation

149
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018

Brettschneider Data

Parameters
Fuel CxHyOz Exhaust Cx’Hy’Oz’
x 1 x’ 1
y 1.817 y’ 1.817
z 0 z’ 0
Air Habs 4.85
[O2]amb 20.99%
[N2]amb 79.01%
[CO2]amb 0.000%
GMWair 28.97
K 3.5
Bench
Cooler ’C na

No CO2 CO THC NOx O2 Algorithm B-calc Diff

1 10.06055 77675.8 3975.0 360.0 0.17496 0.7811 0.78109 0.00%
2 10.77340 66425.8 3728.0 516.3 0.18747 0.8108 0.81084 0.00%
3 11.49805 54423.8 3481.0 737.5 0.21246 0.8432 0.84322 0.00%
4 12.24805 41396.5 3200.0 1055.0 0.24997 0.8797 0.87970 0.00%
5 12.99805 29121.1 2856.0 1473.8 0.30621 0.9172 0.91719 0.00%
6 13.66016 17216.8 2271.5 1896.8 0.38116 0.9572 0.95718 0.00%
7 14.06055 10498.0 1715.5 2131.0 0.42493 0.9822 0.98224 0.00%
8 14.18565 8436.3 1440.5 2206.0 0.43744 0.9907 0.99074 0.00%
9 14.39844 3843.4 887.5 2318.5 0.58118 1.0149 1.01489 0.00%
10 14.12305 1749.6 506.3 2384.0 1.08716 1.0489 1.04893 0.00%
11 13.43555 1187.3 315.7 1938.8 2.04980 1.1025 1.10249 0.00%
12 12.71094 1031.0 190.6 1077.5 3.04346 1.1609 1.16095 0.00%
13 11.89844 937.3 137.5 356.3 4.09277 1.2309 1.23085 0.00%
14 11.24805 968.6 146.9 121.3 4.91797 1.2930 1.29302 0.00%
15 10.94727 1093.6 278.2 87.5 5.28613 1.3213 1.32135 0.00%

Table 2.

150
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018

Lange
Equation 26
equation
Parameters
Fuel CxHyOz Exhaust Cx’H y’Oz’
x 1 x’ 7
y 1.85 y’ 14
z 0 z’ 0
Air Habs 0
[O2]amb 21.06%
[N2]amb 78.94%
[CO2]amb 0%
GMWair 28.97
K 3.8
Bench
Cooler ’C na
No CO2 CO THC NOx O2 Algorithm Lange Diff
1 8.90 94000 1700 0 0.00 0.7595 0.7595 0.00%
2 10.80 67000 1430 0 0.00 0.8204 0.8204 0.00%
3 12.50 38500 1050 0 0.10 0.9024 0.9025 0.00%
4 13.80 12000 800 0 0.20 1.0032 1.0032 0.00%
5 14.40 2500 730 0 0.50 1.0343 1.0343 0.00%
6 14.40 2000 670 0 0.80 1.0385 1.0384 0.01%
7 13.60 2000 605 0 2.00 1.0951 1.0950 0.00%
8 12.70 2000 570 0 3.20 1.1668 1.1668 0.00%
9 10.60 10 800 0 6.10 1.4034 1.4033 0.00%
10 8.00 0 1190 0 8.75 1.8248 1.8247 0.00%

Table 3.
2896
λ = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( 1201 + 1008 ⋅ y ) ⋅  1145 ⋅ -----------------------
3 + 12 ⁄ y
 1 + 12 ⁄ y

  3 ⋅ y' ----    
1  [ CO ]  y' 4   y'  3 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- –  100 – [ H 2 O ] c – -------------- –  1 – ---- + -------------------------------------- ⋅ [ C x H y ] – ---- ⋅  2 – --------------------------------------
[ CO 2 ] + [ CO ] + x ⋅ [ C x H y ]  2  2 [ CO ]
1 + ----------------------------  4  [ ]
1 + ----------------------------
CO
  38 ⋅ [ CO ]   38 ⋅ [ CO ]
2 2

Lange Equation

151
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Leeds, Sunday, August 12, 2018

REFERENCES 11
Heywood, John B., Internal Combustion Engine
Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988
1
D’Alleva, Basil A., “Procedure and Charts for
Estimating Exhaust Gas Quantities and 12
Henrici, Peter, Elements of Numerical Analysis,
Compositions”, General Motors Research John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1964, page
Laboratories Report, GMR 372, May 15, 1960 65.

2
Eltinge, L., “Fuel Air Ratio and Distribution from
Exhaust Gas Composition”, SAE Transactions, Vol.
77, 1968, Paper 680114

3Spindt, R. S., “Air Fuel Ratios form Exhaust Gas

Analysis”, SAE 650507, Society of Automotive
Engineers, 1965

4 Brettschneider, Johannes, “Berechnung des

Luftverhaeltnisses λ von Luft-Kraftstoff-Gemsichen
und des Einflusses on Meßfehlern auf λ“, Bosch
Technische Berichte, Band 6, Heft 4, Seite 177-186,
Stuttgart, 1979

5
Lange, Dr. Ing. Karlheinz, “Verfahren zur
Berechnung der Luftzahl aus der
Abgaszusammensetzung”, MTZ Motortechnische
Zeitschrift 37 (1976) 3, pages 75-77.

6
Simons, Wilhelm, “Berechnungen zur Bestimmung
der Luftzahl bei Ottomotoren”, MTZ Motortechnische
Zietschrift 46 (1985) 7/8, pages 257-259.

7 Stivender, D. L., “Development of a Fuel Based

Mass Emission Measurement Procedure.”, Paper
710604, Society of Automotive Engineers, June
1971

8Holl, William H., “Variables for Emission Test Data

Analysis.”, Paper 730533, Society of Automotive
Engineers, 1973

9 Fukui, Tamura, Omori, Saitoh, “Accuracy of A/F

Calculation from Exhaust Gas Composition of Sl
Engines”, 891971, Society of Automotive Engineers,
September 18, 1989.

10 Lück, Dr.-Ing. Klaus, Meinig, Dpl.-lng. Uwe,

“Indirekte Bestimmung der Luftzahl durch Messung
der Abgaszusammensetzung.”, Fitchel & Sachs AG,
Schweinfurt, 1989.

152