Exhaust Emissions of an Engine Fuelled by Petrol and Liquefied Petroleum Gas with

Control Algorithm Adjustment

Author(s): Youssef Beik, Marcin Dziewiątkowski and Dariusz Szpica
Source: SAE International Journal of Engines , 2020, Vol. 13, No. 5 (2020), pp. 739-760
Published by: SAE International

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27034085

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27034085?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

SAE International is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to SAE
International Journal of Engines

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ARTICLE INFO
Article ID: 03-13-05-0047
© 2020 SAE International
doi:10.4271/03-13-05-0047

Exhaust Emissions of an Engine

Fuelled by Petrol and Liquefied
Petroleum Gas with Control
Algorithm Adjustment
Youssef Beik,1 Marcin Dziewiątkowski, 2 and Dariusz Szpica2
1
University of Florence, Italy
2
Bialystok University of Technology, Poland

History
Abstract Received: 18 Jun 2020
It has been shown that appropriate regulation of parameters of the gas supply system control algo- Revised: 09 Sep 2020
rithm allows to reduce the emission of selected components of the exhaust gas (carbon monoxide Accepted: 18 Sep 2020
[CO], hydrocarbon [HC], and oxides of nitrogen [NOx]). The test engine met the Euro 6 standard e-Available: 12 Oct 2020
on petrol and was equipped with an additional alternative multipoint fuelling system for multipoint
injection (MPI) of the gaseous phase liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The tests are comparative in Keywords
nature. The first test to compare LPG petrol fuelling was carried out in the New European Driving Fuel supply, Petrol,
Cycle (NEDC) where small differences in emissions were shown. The second part of the test compared Alternative fuel engine,
emissions in the Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Cycle (WLTC), wherein the initial phase Liquefied petroleum gas,
there was a significant difference in emissions to the detriment of the gas supply. An innovative Emission, Control algorithm
approach was therefore proposed to correct settings in the gas system control algorithm. In the
first option, the settings for the multiplier of the opening time of LPG and petrol injectors were Citation
adjusted, resulting in a decrease in HC and NOx emissions with an increase in CO. In the second Beik, Y., Dziewiątkowski, M.,
variant, the connection between the reducer and the engine intake manifold was removed, which and Szpica, D., “Exhaust
increased the HC and NOx emissions, with a decrease in CO compared to the previous variant. In Emissions of an Engine
the third variant, the connection between the reducer and the engine intake manifold was restored Fuelled by Petrol and
and several coolant temperature threshold adjustments were made when switching from petrol to Liquefied Petroleum Gas
with Control Algorithm
LPG. As a result of the corrections made in the gas system control algorithm during WLTC imple-
Adjustment,” SAE Int. J.
mentation, HC emissions were lower by 10.2%, CO by 21.2%, and NOx by 68.2% compared to the Engines 13(5):739-759, 2020,
initial test. doi:10.4271/03-13-05-0047.

ISSN: 1946-3936
e-ISSN: 1946-3944

739

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
740 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020
Introduction
G
aseous fuels are the most popular alternative fuels
used in transport [1, 2, 3]. The main reason for this is
the lower fuel price and simplicity of engine adapta-
tion combined very often with the versatility of the power
supply system [4]. Additionally, separate regulations are being
created for alternative fuels, e.g., Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) and Alternative Motor Fuels Act (AMFA)
[5, 6]. The AMFA provides separate treatment for alternative
fuel engines in the Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC)
calculation. This is one of the main incentives for alternative
fuel system manufacturers as well as producers and distribu-
tors of this fuel. This was the rationale for increasing the
market share of alternative fuels [7].
Despite the continuous evolution of processes within the
combustion chamber of a petrol-fuelled engine, among others,
Active Thermo-Atmosphere Combustion (ATAC) [8],
Controlled Auto-Ignition/Homogeneous Charge Compression
Ignition (CAI/HCCI) [9, 10], High-Pressure Direct Injection
(HPDI) or Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition
(RCCI) [11, 12, 13], or downsizing [14] remains the problem
of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [15, 16]. Despite the fact
that works are being carried out on optimization of the
combustion engine control strategy [17], it is advisable to use
fuels with lower carbon content, such as liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG) [18] or hydrogen [19]. All these activities are aimed
at reducing the level of CO2 emissions [20, 21]. Advanced
works on new sources of propulsion are also being sought,
where hybrid [22, 23, 24], electric [25], or pneumatic drives
can be distinguished [26].
It should be remembered that the basis for correct engine
operation is fuel quality, which, in the case of petrol, is regu-
lated by legal acts [21]; while in the case of LPG, it is no longer
so explicit. The advantage of gaseous fuels is the emission
during evaporation and refuelling, reduced emission of partic-
ulate matter and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and lower emission
of carcinogenic hydrocarbon (HC), with comparable values
of carbon monoxide (CO) for engines operating on stoichio-
metric mixtures [27, 28]. However, increased emission of toxic
components of exhaust gases is recorded for engines operating
on poor mixtures, where different proportions of LPG-petrol
occur [29].
Initially, LPG supply systems used a vapor reducer and
mixer, this construction was close to the carburetor [3]. Two
types of gas flow regulators were used, with fixed and variable
conductance. Unfortunately, these systems were not precise
and allowed to meet only Euro 1 and Euro 2 emission stan-
dards [30, 31]. Currently, the most popular alternative fuel
systems are multipoint LPG vapor injection systems. These
are able to meet the emission standards from Euro 3 upwards,
and the external indicators do not differ much from the petrol
supply [32]. In a few cases, there is a problem with the adapta-
tion of the engine to the multipoint LPG vapor phase injection
[33]. Contemporary constructions of engine power systems
using direct injection of petrol and turbocharging can
be partially replaced by engines supplied by LPG vapor-phase
This content downloaded from
159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
injection or completely by LPG liquid-phase injection [31]. The
latest solution of the LPG power supply system proposed by
AC SA STAG 500.4 DIS includes mixed injection, i.e., direct
injection of LPG liquid phase with the use of petrol injectors
and additionally of the gaseous phase with additional injectors
[34]. The introduction of this type of solution allows for a
complete transition from petrol to LPG with the possibility of
using the advantages of both types of supply. Of course, it was
necessary to develop a complex LPG system control algorithm.
As already mentioned, multipoint LPG vapor-phase
injection is the most common alternative power supply system.
The vapor-phase injection is associated with a certain problem
resulting from the fuel dosing process, where, in the case of
gas, it is necessary to supply more fuel by volume [35]. At the
transition of fuel from liquid to vapor state, it is necessary to
increase the flow cross-sections 300 times [36]. This results in
an increase in dimensions and thus in the mass of moving
elements and the associated inertia of operation. Additionally,
the accuracy of the execution of gas injectors is lower than
that of petrol equivalents, which favors the formation of
uneven [37] and non-repeatability fuel dosage [38].
Additionally, the wear and tear of gas injectors is intensified
by the phenomenon of uneven dosing in the case of multi-
module systems. In a classic petrol engine, the degree of
unevenness of air filling of cylinders changes approximately
at 1-10% [39]. The unevenness of petrol injector dosing is in
the range of 0.5-3% [37]. In turn, the new LPG volatile-phase
injectors show uneven dosing at 1-3% and the operated ones
at 7-10% [37, 40]. The control module is able to compensate to
some extent for differences in the supply of combustible
mixture to the engine cylinders, but this may be accompanied
by increased emissions of toxic exhaust components. One way
to solve this problem may be to use piezoelectric drive in valve
elements [41, 42].
A multipoint LPG injection system is a standalone fuel
system built from scratch. In operation, it uses the key factors
that control the operation of petrol injectors on the principle
of pulse reading. From the moment of starting the gas engine
control unit (ECU) operation, built-in algorithms decide
which fuel is supplied to the engine [43]. In the course of
calibrating the gas ECU supply system, it calculates the
opening time of the injector through its internal algorithm.
The basis of the calculations is the petrol injector opening
time, and the gaseous ECU only makes a correction taking
into account a number of factors depending on, among others,
temperature, gas pressure, or pressure in the engine intake
manifold [44]. Direct verification of the correctness of adapta-
tion of the engine to the gas supply is the uniformity of the
engine’s external parameters and indications of oxygen
sensors in the exhaust system. At a further stage, the exhaust
gas composition of the unloaded and loaded engine is analyzed
in repeated test tests.
As the research presented in [45] on CNG in one NEDC
has shown, modern algorithms of controlling petrol engines
are more demanding in terms of momentary deviations of
exhaust composition. The observation of correction factors
from the oxygen sensor content of short-term fuel trim
 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020 741

FIGURE 1 The New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).

Vehicle speed, km/h

© SAE International

Time, s

(STFT) and long-term fuel trim (LTFT) exhaust gases does approval cycle in force at that time [50]. The problem is the
not indicate a malfunction of the power supply system, but gradual tightening of emission standards for internal combus-
after some time a Check Engine can appear. Only an tion engines used in transport [51], off-road, and working
in-depth analysis of the value of the petrol controller signals machines [52, 53, 54]. The stricter emission standards are
with the use of dedicated software allowed to show changes accompanied by changes in the organization of single tests
in the value of the Development Lambda sensor High [51]. Until recently, the NEDC was a valid test carried out
Integrator (DLAHI) coefficient, which registers small fluc- under laboratory conditions (Figure 1). In accordance with
tuations in the oxygen sensor signal, especially in transient the EU legislation, in September 2017 the WLTC test was
states that results in the appearance of the Check Engine. determined to be obligatory in vehicle approval procedures
In order to avoid this phenomenon, it was necessary to apply (Figure 2).
an additional solution in the gas ECU containing emulating Control cycles carried out on chassis dynamometers are
the oxygen sensor signal [45]. As a result, the DLAHI correc- designed to determine fuel consumption and emissions of
tion level stabilizes and takes the same value as for measure- selected exhaust components. The NEDC consists of four
ments carried out on petrol. The CO emission in the NEDC Urban Driving Cycles (UDCs) and one Extra Urban Driving
dropped from 0.980 g/km to 0.533 g/km and the HC level Cycle (EUDC) repeated in succession. It is a cycle created
from 0.120 g/km to 0.035 g/km. under modelled conditions, which was found to be unrepre-
All newly manufactured vehicles equipped with combus- sentative during the test [51]. In turn, the WLTC consists of
tion engines should comply with the statutory exhaust emis- four parts with different driving profiles (Low, Mid, High,
sions regulations set out in the Commission Regulation (EU) and Ex High). It is a response to the demand of the automotive
[46, 47] at the time of approval. market, where its course was defined on the basis of the results
To make the tests comparable with each other, standard- of research in the conditions of real car use [55]. With a chassis
ized driving cycles were developed under laboratory condi- dynamometer simulating the load of the vehicle [56], the test
tions such as NEDC [48] or Worldwide harmonized Light- cycle itself can be configured according to needs using its own
duty vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP) [49], as well as under support systems [57]. A very important feature of the WLTC
real traffic conditions Real Driving Emissions (RDE) [46, 47]. is the versatility of the so-called core of this cycle. Depending
The installation of the developed alternative power supply on the needs related mainly to the location and legal condi-
configuration should also be supported by an approval test, tions for vehicle approval, the WLTC test conditions can
depending on the date of production of the car and the be adjusted. The study [51] provides a comprehensive

FIGURE 2 The Worldwide Harmonized Light-duty Test Cycle (WLTC).

Vehicle speed, km/h
© SAE International

Time, s

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
742 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020
comparison of driving cycles. The main differences between
the NEDC and WLTC can be clarified as
•• Maximum cycle speed and duration [55]
•• Average cycle speed and idling rate [58]
•• Relative acceleration [59]
•• Specific power of the vehicle necessary to cope with
momentary acceleration [60]
•• Fuel energy demand over the cycle [61]
There is one more important aspect to the implementa-
tion of the driving cycle. These are the technical capabilities
of the chassis dynamometer. It is clear that in this type of
research, a load-break system should be used, which is able to
change load smoothly using the eddy current brake. On the
other hand, depending on the traction capacity of the tested
vehicle and resistance to deceleration, in some cases, it is
necessary to drive the rolls of the chassis dynamometer using
electric motors. In this way an increase in vehicle inertia is
realized. Therefore, it is more advantageous to use the four-
wheel-drive single-roller dynamometer and an electric motor
per roller set in research than a twin-roller type chassis dyna-
mometer. As already mentioned, laboratory driving cycles,
due to their repetitive nature, offer the possibility to relate
different fuels, exhaust emissions, or additional booster
systems to each other. In particular, the recently introduced
WLTC is a response to the automotive market demand and
gives a more realistic picture of engine operation than the
NEDC [62, 63]. They provide an opportunity to assess the
exhaust emissions after a cold start of the classic engine [64]
and, for example, enriched with an Exhaust Heat Recovery
System (EHRS) heater [65]. Exhaust emission assessment not
only allowed for comparison in cycles [66] but also contributed
to the discovery of “dieselgate” [67]. At the beginning of 2021,
further reductions of CO2 emissions will result from Euro 6
[66, 68]. The test emission will then be 95 gCO2/km for newly
manufactured passenger cars. If we add NOx emission limits
to this, the diesel engine becomes very problematic. Therefore,
in this context, a numerous studies are focused on new solu-
tions in engines with output parameters exceeding 100kW/L
[69, 70]. As it turns out, fuel pressure and injectors with appro-
priately shaped and distributed outlet nozzles will be crucial
in this case [71, 72]. The use of a test campaign based on the
Design of Experiments (DoE) [72] allows to obtain the compli-
ance in the WLTC laboratory tests with the actual RDE condi-
tions for a conceptual diesel engine with a displacement of
0.5 L and injection pressure above 2500 bar.
Although the comparisons in a certain part concern alter-
native gaseous fuels [73], including hydrogen [74], few of them
present the issue of LPG fugitive-phase power. The studies
mainly focus on direct injection of LPG [75]. Many studies
indicate the possibility of using direct liquid LPG injection.
The increase of external parameters of the engine is confirmed;
however, it is accompanied by greater fluctuations on engine
revolutions per minute (rpm) [76]. In the case of using LPG
mixture stratification in the cylinder, modifications of the
This content downloaded from
159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
engine head [77] are suggested. The results indicate that the
LPG in the stratification variant improves fuel consumption
by 10.20-27.5% while reducing NOx emissions by 72.0-83.4%
in relation to the classical combustion process organization.
Direct LPG injection allows also to reduce Total Hydrocarbon
Content (THC) and NOx emission and lower particulate
matter emission than with petrol [76]. LPG is also used as an
additive for cold starting, e.g., engines fuelled with methanol.
The [78] study shows that the additional LPG port during a
cold start reduced HC emission with unburned methanol, but
increased formaldehyde emission. The conducted global
research presented in [79] used an enhanced emission control
and elimination program of inoperative vehicles. In the
extended period of time, the reduction of HC, CO, and NOx
was demonstrated by 55.9%, 50.5%, and 60.9%, respectively,
from LPG-fuelled vehicles during real driving. This confirmed
the need for systematic control of the technical condition.
Some of the studies are theoretical works, where dedi-
cated and specialized software is used. In [80], modelling
based on statistical inference and neural networks was
described, which in the case of LPG-fuelled engines gave
similar accuracy. The GT-Power software [81] confirmed the
functional correctness of using a one-dimensional model of
a four-cylinder engine to convert to LPG. External indicators
improved by 7% and economic indicators by 5%, which was
confirmed by experimental research. The possibility of using
LPG in the HCCI engine power supply seems to be very prom-
ising, where the efficiency of [82] system significantly increases.
LPG supply is also attempted to be introduced in motor-
cycle engines where, as shown in [83], LPG vapor-phase injec-
tion results in fuel consumption reduction. It follows that
older motorcycles can run on LPG, the problem is fuel storage.
A small number of studies on the LPG volatile phase, such as
[84], show an increase in peak combustion pressure for
different proportions of petrol and LPG, up to 20% at full load.
Ultimately, the results of the studies are such that LPG will
have a better combustion performance compared to petrol,
but this will be accompanied by higher speed fluctuations.
More correct combustion does not mean higher external
parameters when LPG is powered by the volatile phase because
the volatile phase takes up space in the cylinder, which causes
it to fill up worse. Comparable engine power can be achieved
in this case [85], but this requires some fine-tuning of the
supply system to fully utilize LPG energy.
There is no direct assessment of the impact of gas system
settings and operations with corrections of the composition
of the combustible mixture on the composition of exhaust
gases. Therefore, an attempt was made to analyze this issue
in this study.
Materials and Methods
In the comparative tests, a vehicle with a spark-ignition
internal combustion engine that meets the European legisla-
tive standard for Euro 6 emissions [46] was used. A chassis
dynamometer with the function of axle power supply was
 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020 743

FIGURE 3 The research object Hyundai i20 at the test stand Maha MSR 1000.

© SAE International

used to carry out the comparison under repeatable load condi-
tions (Figure 3). The software of the chassis dynamometer
enabled the realization of driving cycles and continuous
recording of vehicle speed and selected components of exhaust
gases recorded by the exhaust gas tester.
Subject of the Research
The object of the research was a Hyundai i20 vehicle with a
mileage of 1080 km produced in 2018. The engine of this
vehicle is a four-cylinder spark-ignition, slow-sucking, multi-
point indirect fuel injection (Kappa II). The vehicle is equipped
with an additional alternative multipoint fuel injection system.
The basic technical data of the research object have been
presented in Table 1.
The vehicle was checked for component performance,
tires pressure, and lubricating oil and coolant specifications
(manufacturer’s instructions). Due to the type of power supply
(petrol/LPG), tests were carried out on both types of fuel. The
vehicle is supplied with manual gear shifting in the gearbox.
Tests of the vehicle on a dynamometer with load coefficients
introduced prior to the tests confirmed the driving capability
of NEDC and WLTC for both types of fuel supply. In the
comparative tests to the engine power supply, standard fuels
available on the market, i.e., petrol and LPG, were used.
Research Methodology
The Maha MSR 1000 mechanical load chassis dynamometer
(Table 2) was used in comparative tests to simulate the load
during the driving cycle. The dynamometer enabled the
vehicle to be quasi-dynamically tested using a function named
by the manufacturer as a driving simulation. This simulation
is used to map road conditions under laboratory conditions.

TABLE 2 Basic technical data of the Maha MSR 1000

dynamometer. Data taken from Ref. [88].
TABLE 1 Basic technical data of the Hyundai i20. Data taken
from Ref. [86, 87]. Parameter Unit Values
Roller set
Parameter Unit Value
Axle load kg 2400
Engine — R4/16V, MPi
Track width mm 900-2200
Year of manufacture — 2017
Roller set rotating mass kg 700
Mileage km 1080
Roller diameter mm 762
Engine displacement L 1.248
Measurement range
Max. power / at engine speed kW/(r./min) 62/6000
Eddy current brake max. kW 700
Max. torque / at engine speed (N ⋅ m)/(r./min) 122/4000
Wheel power, front/rear axle (static) max. kW 550
Respect to emissions Euro 6d
Wheel power, front/rear axle (dynamic) kW 1000
Fuel RON 95 peak >
Exhaust system TWC (two NBO O2 sensors) Tractive force front/rear axle max. N 8600
Gearbox Manual 5 gear Two electric motors each with a drive kW 30
Alternative fuel LPG power rating of
Reducer AC R02 Trailing axle: maximum speed approx. km/h 210
© SAE International
© SAE International

Injectors Matrix HD 544 Trailing axle: maximum acceleration m/s2 0.8

Gas controller QNEXT PLUS rpm r./min 0-10,000
Tank Toroidal Elpigaz 43 L with AC Measurement accuracy of measurement % ±2
M01 multivalve value

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
744 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020

TABLE 3 Basic technical data of the Maha MGT-5 emission tester. Data taken from Ref. [89].
Measurable gases CO, % CO2, % HC, ppm O2, % NOx, ppm
Measurement range 0-15.00 0-20.0 0-20,000 (hexane) 0-25.00 0-5000
0-40,000 (propane)

© SAE International
Measurement accuracy 0.06 0.5 12 0.1 32-120
Measurement principle Infrared Infrared Infrared Electrochemical Electrochemical
Measurement value resolution 0.001 0.01 0.1 (hexane) 0.01 1
1 (propane)

All components of the vehicle motion equation such as rolling
resistance, air resistance, and hill resistance are taken into
account. Adjustment and automatic loss compensation is
available from almost 0 km/h up to the rated speed. The test
in driving simulation mode can be performed as the motor
and generator. During the tests, it was necessary to introduce
load factors calculated from the vehicle’s curve weight, air
resistance coefficient, and rolling resistance coefficient. The
dynamometer has NEDC and WLTC driving cycles encoded
in its software, which was used in the comparative exhaust
emission tests of the subject vehicle.
The Maha MGT-5 exhaust emission tester used in the
comparative tests gave the possibility to analyze the composi-
tion of exhaust gases emitted by petrol and LPG engines
(Table 3). The tester uses the nondispersive infrared (NDIR)
method to measure CO, CO2 , and HC. The continuous
infrared radiation stream passed through the exhaust gas
stimulates the CO, CO2, and HC molecules to resonance vibra-
tions, resulting in a reduction of the forcing wave energy. The
stimulation is made only by waves of strictly defined lengths.
Both CO and CO2 are single chemical compounds with strictly
defined properties. In contrast, HC means a group of
compounds, belonging to the hydrocarbon family, with
different properties. Therefore, when analyzing the exhaust
gas of a petrol-fuelled engine, HC in the tester refers to hexane;
whereas when LPG is used, propane is the reference. The tester
using the NDIR method and converting HC content to C6H14
measures approximately 16% of HCs in the exhaust gas deter-
mined by the FID method. This is an undoubted disadvantage
of NDIR testers and allows for the analysis of exhaust gases
in periodic vehicle tests or approximate comparative tests.
The measurement of O2 and NOx content in the exhaust gas
is performed using electrochemical sensors. The tester’s opera-
tion is characterized by a few seconds delay in relation to the
time of exhaust gas consumption. Also the exhaust gas leaving
the engine is available after a few seconds at the outlet of the
final silencer. In the analysis, the response time of the tester
has not been corrected, all the more so the fact of the exhaust
system flow, which depends on the volumetric flow rate and
velocity, and this is due to engine speed and load.
During each test, a computer with AC STAG 0.34.6 appli-
cation (Figure 4) was connected to the gas ECU via the diag-
nostic interface. This allowed for continuous recording param-
eters related to engine operation, for example, STFT, LTFT,
O2s1, and O2s2. The gas control system used impulses to
control the operation of petrol injectors and, by appropriate

FIGURE 4 AC STAG 0.34.6 software.

© SAE International

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020
calculations and corrections, was able to open the gas injec-
tors. It should be noted that the petrol control module does
not detect any fuel change but only records possible changes
in the sensor readings. The use of gaseous fuel results in a
petrol controller reaction, especially in the case of inappro-
priate map settings of correction coefficient time of gas
injector opening in relation to petrol. Therefore, an attempt
has been made to build an algorithm that will eliminate the
causes of high emissions of toxic exhaust components.
There is some simplification in the settings of the chassis
dynamometer. According to the regulations of [48], it is
required to take into account the equipment of the selected
vehicle model in the load factors. This is very important during
the approval process and during comparisons within the
WLTC test for differently equipped vehicles.
For the tests presented in the study, the load factors were
determined on the basis of the technical data of the vehicle in
the default variant of the inertia classes defined in [48]. The
load factors required for a chassis dynamometer have been
adapted to NEDC and WLTC requirements. In the case of
WLTC, reference was made to the low test weight, and the
gear shift algorithm resulted from the specifics of the imple-
mented chassis dynamometer software. Due to the fact that
the tests were comparative in nature of the different fuels, the
adjustment of the chassis dynamometer was not checked in
detail in the runway tests.
In addition to the settings of the dynamometer, the
requirements of the laboratory climate control test procedure
in accordance with [48, 49] were also taken into account. The
temperature at NEDC should be between 20°C and 30°C, and
at WLTC it should be maintained at 23°C ± 2°C. Therefore,
the laboratory temperature was maintained at 23°C ± 1.2°C
in all samples. The research objectives are defined as partial
research targets:
•• The effect of the fuel type (petrol, LPG) on short-term
adjustments in the fixed speed and load driving mode
•• The effect of the coolant temperature at which petrol and
LPG are switched over to LPG on exhaust emissions
•• Evaluation of the exhaust emissions over the NEDC for
both fuels, namely, petrol and LPG
•• Evaluation of the exhaust emissions over the WLTC for
both fuels, i.e., petrol and LPG with differential LPG
system corrections consisting of
a. Modifications to the injection timing multiplier
settings combined with point compaction
b. Eliminating the connection of the gas pressure
regulator to the intake manifold (no adjustment of gas
pressure to intake system pressure)
c. Correction of transition parameters from petrol
to LPG
Taking into account the complexity of the processes
taking place within the combustion engine, the conclusion
about the influence of the corrections on the current operation
was limited to comparisons of average values from individual
This content downloaded from
159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
745
tests. Searching for correlations requires more research
material, which is successively collected and will be the subject
of subsequent studies. Feedbacks used in control algorithms
are also a problem in this case.
Results and Discussion
Only two emission tests per day have been performed to
reduce the engine temperature accordingly and maintain it
in the context of each NEDC and WLTC test cycle (25°C with
a ±5°C deviation for NEDC and 23°C ± 1°C for WLTC). No
significant problems were encountered during the tests. Each
time during the research, the intervals in the implementation
of the next steps were tried to be kept. In addition to the proce-
dures on the driver’s side, it was important to maintain the
environmental parameters at the level required by the NEDC
and WLTC.
Preliminary Research
In the preliminary analysis, tests were carried out on a chassis
dynamometer where, after setting the load parameters and
connecting the exhaust gas tester, the engine was started and
subjected to a constant load value corresponding to 50 km/h,
as indicated by the speedometer (IV gear), and the test lasted
about 5 min. The aim of this process was to stabilize the
adaptive settings of the petrol controller. In the beginning,
adaptations of petrol ECU for various fuels were analyzed. A
passage was carried out for LPG supply where the petrol
controller corrected the parameters having this particular
supply at its disposal. The engine was then immobilized and
waited until the coolant temperature was lowered to a value
close to that at which the LPG test was started. The next test
was carried out on petrol with the last corrections from the
LPG supply. The tests in this section have shown (Table 4) that
the petrol ECU adjusts the corrections in a different way at
different supply sources, which is of course directly related to
the correct selection and configuration of the LPG supply
system. The measurement value of the lambda sensor behind
the catalytic converter (O2s2) at the LPG changeover showed
an average value of 0.65 V and, after switching to petrol and
passing, the value increased to 0.68 V. Apart from the increase
in the indication of the lambda sensor behind the catalyst
towards a rich mixture or better use of oxygen in the catalyst,
a decrease in HC, CO, and NOx emissions during the run on
petrol was also visible (Table 4). In order to reflect the actual
TABLE 4 Parameters recorded during the analysis of petrol
ECU corrections.
Supply HC, ppm CO, % NOx, ppm O2s2, V vav, km/h
LPG 18.686 0.115 22.416 0.650 45.80
Petrol 13.849 0.058 13.302 0.680 45.60
after LPG
© SAE International
746 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020

TABLE 5 Registered parameters during switchover temperature.

Switchover temp. HC, ppm CO, % NOx, ppm O2s2, V vav, km/h
22°C 23.809 0.149 6.796 1.094 45.75
33°C 13.975 0.186 3.411 1.141 45.30
© SAE International

adaptation conditions of the petrol ECU, no interference was
made with the controller adaptation settings.
In the second step of the preliminary analysis, the influ-
ence of the coolant temperature at which the petrol-to-LPG
supply is switched is given. The tests were conducted at two
temperatures 22°C and 33°C. A higher coolant temperature
is a higher temperature of the evaporator’s inner surface and,
as a result, better evaporation and higher evaporation effi-
ciency. As shown by the tests (Table 5), the measurement value
of the lambda probe after the catalyst (O2s2) at the higher
temperature indicated an average higher value. Emissions of
HC and NOx decreased at the switchover temperature of 33°C,
with a slight increase in CO.
Main Research
In the initial stage of basic tests, analysis of the emissions of
selected exhaust components during the NEDC was
conducted. This cycle is characterized by a lower intensity of
load changes than WLTC [62, 90], and lower maximum speeds
(Table 3). As can be seen in Figure 5, runs on the dynamometer
are repeated in terms of driving speed.
The increased emissions of all components analyzed (CO,
HC, and NOx) occur up to 200 s of cycle time and are caused
by the process of heating the engine and thus an increased
dose of fuel necessary to overcome the running resistance.
High emissions in the initial phase of the cycle are also due
to the heating of the catalyst, which has not yet reached its
nominal operating temperature. The rest of the >200 s cycle
does not differ significantly for both fuels. It should be remem-
bered that the initial part of the test is passed by the vehicle
when running on petrol, up to the temperature required for
switching to LPG, which is in the range up to 100 s. The alter-
native supply system that is fitted to the vehicle under test has
a certain characteristic feature. When switching from petrol
to LPG, one gas injector is first started instead of the petrol
one, and the control module and switching conditions
programmed by the user allow us to check that the engine is
running evenly and that the lambda sensor readings do not
fundamentally change. Then a second LPG injector starts
working and the situation is repeated. In the case of QNEXT
PLUS ECU gas, the injectors are switched on in the order from
1-2-3 and 4, not of the firing cylinders order 1-3-4 and 2. After
that time the remaining two gas injectors are switched on,

FIGURE 5 Emissions of selected exhaust gas components over the NEDC for petrol and LPG fuelling. © SAE International

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

TABLE 6 Emissions of selected exhaust gas components over the NEDC for petrol and LPG fuelling.
HC, ppm CO, %
© SAE International
NEDC cycles Average Max. Average
Petrol 8.215 233 0.088
LPG 12.314 381 0.084
Differences, % 49.892 63.519 −5.209
and it can be considered that the engine is fully supplied with
LPG. It follows that a certain part of the cycle is considered
to be representative of LPG and with the setting of the LPG
exhaust gas tester the vehicle overcomes with petrol. This is
an acceptable situation for comparison tests where differences
in supply sources should be more than 200 s of cycle time,
which was not found for NEDC. However, with more general
exhaust emissions, the whole cycle should be compared.
When comparing the results of the measurements
(Table 6), it must be stated that an LPG-fuelled engine emits
on average 49.9% more HC over the NEDC. The average values
of the other analyzed components are in favor of LPG, i.e.,
CO is 5.5% lower and NOx 7.8% lower. HC peaks were 63.5%
and CO 32.9% higher for LPG and 1.2% lower for NOx.
Differences are evident in the initial part of the cycle, i.e., up
to 200 s, with no major differences in the remaining part. It
must be remembered that in the initial part of the cycle, the
engine always uses a petrol supply. As minor differences in
emissions were found, except for HC, no modifications were
made to the settings and assessment of their impact on the
cycle valuation. In addition, this cycle is no longer valid during
the approval process.
When evaluating the emissions of selected exhaust
components during NEDC as a comparison of two fuels, a
petrol-LPG correlation was also considered. Assuming that
the measurements were carried out at the same time intervals,
the values were presented in graphs (Figure 6). It was assumed
that the correlation is linear and the value of the directional
factor of 1 will show the emission compliance. For HC emis-
sions the value of the directional factor was 1.314, which
FIGURE 6 Correlations of selected emission exhaust components during NEDC.
© SAE International
This content downloaded from
159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020 747
NOx, ppm vav, km/h
Max. Average Max. Average Max.
2.820 5.448 258 33.151 120.27
3.750 5.023 255 33.058 120.83
32.979 −7.805 −1.163 −0.282 0.470
indicates slightly increased emissions for LPG fuelling. The
spread of residuals is corrugated. In the case of CO emissions,
the directional factor is set at 1.14, which indicates emission
compliance, which is complemented by a symmetrical spread
of residual values. The NOx emissions are approximated by a
straight line with a directional factor of 0.63, but the residuals
spread is arranged in the shape of a V, which indicates a low
emission correlation in this case.
During the WLTC, the engine was subjected to loads of
a different nature than those of NEDC due to the aggressive-
ness and dynamics of this cycle [55]. As can be seen in Figure 7,
the test bench runs are repeated in terms of driving speed. As
in NEDC, the increased emission of all analyzed components
occurs up to 200 s of cycle duration and is due to the factors
described above. Over 200 s HC emissions show no differ-
ences, while CO oscillates up to 1% for petrol, which was not
found for LPG. The biggest problem with the WLTC was the
NOx emission for LPG. Peaks of up to 500 ppm are visible in
the part of the cycle above 200 s, which may indicate incorrect
operation of the LPG system, or incorrect settings of the fuel
dose correction maps or dynamic factors.
Comparing the results of the measurements (Table 7), the
LPG engine over the WLTC emits on average 84.5% more HC,
45.9% more CO, and 132.5% more NOx. The HC peaks were
63.9% higher for LPG, 4% higher for CO, and 18% lower for
NOx. In the initial part of the cycle, the engine always uses
petrol, therefore HC and CO peaks may be related to this fuel,
but NOx emissions are due to LPG combustion. The differ-
ences in NOx emissions proved to be the most concerning in
the WLTC, which was the basis for the verification of the
748 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020

FIGURE 7 Emissions of selected exhaust gas components over the WLTC for petrol and LPG fuelling.

algorithm for the selection of correction factors for the LPG
dose correction factors in gaseous ECU. In the further part
of the study, several variants of modification of the LPG dose
control algorithm will be presented. The aim is to properly
configure the input data of the algorithm included in the
gaseous ECU software in order to obtain the lowest possible
emissions of the exhaust components analyzed in the study.
It was crucial to identify the source of the problems and to
find a way to reduce emissions.
Comparing the petrol-LPG emission correlation for
WLTC, there is no apparent relation (Figure 8). The HC
emission showed a directional factor of 1.46, which in the case
of irregular dispersion of residuals values shows no direct
correlation in the case of increased emissions when using LPG.
The same is true for CO, where although the factor was 1.034,
the scattering of residuals shows no correlation and no
increased emissions when running on LPG. The worst-case
scenario is with NOx emissions, where, with a directional
factor of 0.37, the residual dispersion indicates an imbalance
in the LPG supply.
In the first variant, corrections were made to the LPG
injector opening time multiplier settings compared to the
© SAE International
petrol injector opening time. Using the gas ECU software,
the position of the multiplier value was manually determined
at the dense number of points (marked with an arrow in
Figure 4). This type of procedure allows for individual adjust-
ment of supply conditions to the current state of load and
rotational speed. The points were adjusted based on STFT,
LTFT, O2s1, and O2s2 in the AC STAG application (version
0.34.6). In Figure 7 significant fluctuations of NOx emissions
during LPG supply in different engine operating states were
noted. This means that each time the combustible mixture
is poor, it requires an increase in the multiplier value. In this
case, the supplied fuel is affected by the petrol ECU internal
algorithm and the adequacy of the assumed LPG multiplier
values to the functional capabilities of the gas injector. It is
mainly about the minimum injection time that the gas
injector is able to realize the fuel injection control algorithm
[35]. During the acceleration, the enrichment can be realized
by extended injection time, which is acceptable, or by dividing
the dose into smaller parts, which can fall outside the scope
of the gas injector. At this point, we should take into account
the greater uneven [40] and nonrepeatability fuel dosage [38]
of the gas injector dosage. Additionally, the gas injector

TABLE 7 Emissions of selected exhaust components of the WLTC on petrol and LPG fuelled.
HC, ppm CO, % NOx, ppm vav, km/h
© SAE International

WLTC cycles Average Max. Average Max. Average Max. Average Max.
Petrol 10.779 815 0.087 4.900 9.175 809 46.136 130.30
LPG 19.893 1336 0.128 4.700 21.333 663 46.524 130.60
Differences, % 84.552 63.926 45.943 −4.082 132.505 −18.047 0.840 0.230

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020 749

FIGURE 8 Correlations of selected emission exhaust components during WLTC.

© SAE International

delivers 300 times more fuel by volume than in the case of
petrol [91]. In the case of deceleration without changing the
load of the engine, the emission depends on the moment when
the injectors start injecting fuel and the initial injection time.
In this step, STFT indications were analyzed in the AC STAG
application, which provided information on the composition
of the flammable mixture, and on this basis, the multiplier
values were corrected. O2s1 and O2s2 were further observed
and the multiplier values were once again adjusted. The LTFT
value indicated in a longer perspective influence of the regula-
tion on the engine supply process. Figure 9 shows a compar-
ison of emission paths before modification (LPG WLTC) and
after two modifications of the multipliers (LPG v1-1 and LPG
v1-2). The compatibility of the driving speeds is visible, the
maximum emissions of HC and NOx decreased with a slight
increase in CO emissions.
Comparing the measurement results in the first variant
(Table 8), it was found that the average HC emissions decreased
by 18% compared to the baseline run, CO increased by 27.7%
on average, and NOx decreased by 78.6% on average. HC peak
values decreased by 53.7%, CO increased by 34.5%, and NOx
decreased by 36%. It should be considered that the manual
adjustment of the injection timing multiplier has been
successful, in particular with regard to NOx emissions.
In the second variant, leaving LPG v1-2 as the base for
further modifications, the connection between the gas reducer

FIGURE 9 Emissions of selected exhaust components on the WLTC LPG-fuelled engine after corrections to the injection timing
multiplier (variant 1).
© SAE International

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
750 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020

TABLE 8 Emissions of selected exhaust components over the WLTC LPG-fuelled engine after corrections to the injection timing
multiplier (variant 1).
HC, ppm CO, % NOx, ppm vav, km/h
WLTC cycles Average Max. Average Max. Average Max. Average Max.
LPG v1-1 17.592 604 0.141 6.930 4.806 441 46.363 131.03

© SAE International
LPG v1-2 15.033 632 0.186 5.710 4.313 407 46.295 130.97
Average, % 16.312 618 0.163 6.320 4.559 424 46.329 131.00
LPG WLTC 19.893 1336 0.128 4.700 21.333 663 46.524 130.60
Differences, % −17.999 −53.743 27.734 34.468 −78.627 −36.048 −0.419 0.306

and the engine intake manifold was removed. The connection
of the gas regulator with the intake manifold resulted in
setting a constant pressure difference between the gas pressure
and the intake system pressure. It is a regulation method
modelled on MPI petrol systems, with the difference that there
is no fuel overflow to the tank in the LPG system. The insta-
bility of gas pressure, which is characteristic of the WLTC
cycle, is a result of rapid changes of load and speed. Without
a connection between the gas regulator and the intake
manifold causes the regulator to operate at a constant preload
of the adjusting screw at 1.12e5 Pa. The tests showed the
compatibility of the driving speed (Figure 10) and a decrease
in the average NOx emission, with an increase in HC and CO
compared to the base variant (LPG WLTC).
Comparing the measurement results in the second
variant (Table 9) found that the average HC emission increased
by 37.6%, CO decreased by 14.5%, and NOx increased by 27.8%
in relation to the previous modification (LPG v1-2). Maximum
HC increased by 32.8%, CO decreased by 12%, and NOx
changed slightly by 0.4%. Relating the results of Option 2 to
the LPG WLTC baseline (Table 9), HC (21.1%) and CO (27%)
increased while NOx emissions decreased (72%). Due to the
fact that Option 2 did not have satisfactory results, the connec-
tion between the reducer and the intake manifold was restored.
In the third variant, regulations were made concerning
the parameters of changing the supply source from petrol to
LPG. Several tests were carried out with different parameter
settings presented in Figure 11. The main regulations concern
the temperature of the cooling liquid at switchover and
switchover times. The coolant temperature is the inner surface
temperature of the gas evaporator and ultimately the exit gas
temperature. If the reducer temperature is not high enough,
the LPG may not evaporate completely and, as a result, injector
operation may be disturbed or injectors may even be damaged.
The switching times are very important when changing fuels.
In case of switching to LPG, the gas ECU regulation

FIGURE 10 Emissions of selected exhaust components on the WLTC of the LPG-fuelled engine after removal of the gas
pressure regulation (variant 2). © SAE International

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020 751

TABLE 9 Emissions of selected exhaust components over the WLTC of the LPG-fuelled engine removing the gas pressure
regulation (variant 2).
HC, ppm CO, % NOx, ppm vav, km/h

WLTC cycles Average Max. Average Max. Average Max. Average Max.
LPG v2-1 23.730 717 0.151 5.000 7.034 397 46.601 130.40
LPG v2-1 24.459 1164 0.174 5.200 4.907 414 46.214 131.00
Average, % 24.095 940.5 0.163 5.100 5.971 405.5 46.408 130.700
© SAE International

LPG v1-2 15.033 632 0.186 5.710 4.313 407 46.295 130.97
Differences, % 37.608 32.802 −14.462 −11.961 27.761 −0.370 0.242 −0.207
LPG WLTC 19.893 1336 0.128 4.700 21.333 663 46.524 130.60
Differences, % 21.120 −29.603 26.953 8.511 −72.013 −38.839 −0.250 0.077

imperfections and turn the control loop with the lambda
probe on. In transition situations depending on functional
parameters of gaseous ECU by observing the OBD system,
especially lambda sensor indications, it will come to the
conclusion that temporarily the power supply should
be switched to petrol, and this switchover to LPG is condi-
tioned by switching times. Of course the switchover tempera-
ture as switchover times should not be increased too much,
because it will shorten the overall time of gas supply and thus
fuel costs.
Figure 12 shows a comparison of the WLTC LPG baseline
variant with the two adjustment runs of the third variant, i.e.,
worst and best. A decrease in the emissions of all the analyzed
exhaust components is visible, while the driving speed is
compatible with the LPG WLTC base cycle.
Comparing the results of Option 3 (Table 10), a decrease
of HC emissions of 41.8%, CO of 64.1%, and NOx of 3.2%
compared to the first LPG v1-2 variant was observed. Relating
the results of Option 3 to the LPG WLTC baseline, HC (52.3%),
CO (54.3%), and NOx (79.3%) decreased. In particular, the
LPG v3-2 variant has demonstrated the correctness of the
settings and adjustments. Therefore, this variant will
be referred to as the baseline test results. In all the measure-
ments with the adjustment of the settings, a temporary
increase in CO emissions at 1550 s was recorded as a result of
a rapid acceleration in the last phase of the WLTP cycle, which
could not be compensated for.
Summarizing the actions carried out in the course of the
adjustment, the conclusion is that the settings achieved in this
respect, decreased the average HC emissions decreased by
51.3%, CO by 46.1%, and NOx by 86.3% relative to the base
cycle of the LPG WLTP (Table 11). The maximum values of
HC decreased by 79.7%, CO by 10%, and NOx by 92.3% with
the repeated driving speed in the test.
Summarizing the settings and obtaining the best result
of LPG v3-2 for measurement with petrol, a lower emission of
all analyzed exhaust components was found for LPG (Table 12):
•• HC by 10.2% (maximum value 66.7%)
•• CO by 21.2% (maximum value 13.7%)
•• NOx by 68.2% (maximum value by 93.7%)

FIGURE 11 Values of parameters controlling the switching conditions from the petrol fuel to LPG supply.
© SAE International

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
752 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020

FIGURE 12 Emissions of selected exhaust components on the WLTC of an LPG-fuelled engine after adjustments to the supply
changeover conditions (variant 3).

while maintaining the repeatability of the driving speed
in cycles.
A detailed comparison of petrol-LPG emissions after all
the corrections made to the gas system control algorithm
showed a significant decrease in LPG supply (Figure 13). HC
emission gave a directional factor of 0.24, CO gave a direc-
tional factor of 0.48, and NOx 0.0004. The residuals spread
for HC is slightly wavy and concentrated at lower values. In
the case of CO, the residuals’ spread is predominantly positive
values with a shape resembling the letter U. In turn, the
analysis of NOx emissions based on residuals spread shows
an L-shape and reveals much lower emissions for LPG, outside
the range of minimum values.
Comparing the average emissions of the analyzed
exhaust components (Figure 14), it can be seen that the
corrections of LPG system settings carried out during the
© SAE International
tests allowed not only to approach the emissions of the
LPG fuelled engine to the emissions of the petrol-fuelled
engine in the WLTC but also to approach the NEDC for
the petrol-fuelled engine, which is characterized by a
completely different intensity of load and speed changes.
As confirmed by the tests, the emissions were significantly
inf luenced by a cycle time of up to 200 s while the engine
was being heated.
The maximum emission values in the NEDC and WLTC
tests (Figure 15) confirm the differences in the nature of the
cycles, especially the maximum HC value for LPG over the
WLTP cycle. The introduction of a number of changes to the
settings allowed to achieve lower maximum values of emis-
sions of the analyzed exhaust components in the WLTC, even
below the petrol supply, but the CO emission remained higher
than in the NEDC.

TABLE 10 Emissions of selected exhaust components over the WLTC of an LPG-fuelled engine after adjustments to the supply
changeover conditions (variant 3).
HC, ppm CO, % NOx, ppm vav, km/h
WLTC cycles Average Max. Average Max. Average Max. Average Max.
LPG v3-1 9.293 342 0.048 3.760 5.907 328 46.601 131.32
LPG v3-2 9.682 271 0.069 4.230 2.915 51 46.214 131.12
Average, % 9.488 306.5 0.058 3.995 4.411 189 46.408 131.220
© SAE International

LPG v1-2 16.312 618 0.163 6.320 4.559 424 46.329 131.00
Differences, % −41.836 −50.405 −64.141 −36.788 −3.242 −55.307 0.169 0.168
LPG WLTC 19.893 1336 0.128 4.700 21.333 663 46.524 130.60
Differences, % −52.307 −77.058 −54.336 −15.000 −79.322 −71.418 −0.250 0.475

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020 753

TABLE 11 Emissions of selected exhaust components on the WLTC after all corrections.
HC, ppm CO, % NOx, ppm vav, km/h
© SAE International

WLTC cycles Average Max. Average Max. Average Max. Average Max.
LPG 19.893 1336 0.128 4.700 21.333 663 46.524 130.60
LPG v3-2 9.682 271 0.069 4.230 2.915 51 46.214 131.12
Differences, % −51.330 −79.716 −46.172 −10.000 −86.336 −92.308 −0.666 0.398

TABLE 12 Emissions of selected exhaust components on the WLTC after correction.

HC, ppm CO, % NOx, ppm vav, km/h
© SAE International

WLTC cycles Average Max. Average Max. Average Max. Average Max.
Petrol 10.779 815 0.088 4.900 9.175 809 46.136 130.30
LPG v3-2 9.682 271 0.069 4.230 2.915 51 46.214 131.12
Differences, % −10.181 −66.748 −21.257 −13.673 −68.229 −93.696 0.169 0.629

Despite the high level of complexity of the analyzed
process, i.e., the process of arranging and executing combus-
tion combined with the treatment of exhaust gases under
various load conditions, significant average emission values
were determined. As already mentioned, the complexity also
applies to the LPG control system with a number of feedback
couplings that make it impossible to accurately determine the
correction-emission correlation. In this case, it would
be necessary to use the so-called open ECU in the petrol
control system, which would exclude feedback. Then the LPG
control system can use its signals and the control can
be considered closed. However, this will have little to do with
the issue of the standardized testing of the one used for the
approval of vehicles that is being examined in the study. Of
course, correlation tests can be carried out on an engine dyna-
mometer, where the search for correlation is facilitated.
However, it should be borne in mind that LPG systems are
alternative systems that are fitted to the vehicle as an addi-
tional system and use the existing original equipment.
Currently, work is being carried out on an algorithm that
allows for the presentational use of LTFT corrections, which
take different values for different engine power systems that
the tested vehicle was equipped with; additionally, the possi-
bility of emulating the course of the lambda probe signal is
being analyzed in order to stabilize the emission result. The
evaluation of the impact of the leftover correction on engine
emissions in the driving cycle will be analyzed, which will
allow additional modifications to the control algorithm.
Taking an attempt to influence the process from the input side
seems to be more authoritative than eliminating the effects of
an erroneous correction from the engine control system side.
The preparations take into account the need to implement the
RDE real-world driving cycle in the near future [68, 92, 93].
Conclusion
The following conclusions can be formulated from the results
of the studies and analyses carried out in the previous section:
•• The tests that are carried out describe the first
comparison of the emissions of the engine fuelled with
petrol and LPG during the implementation of NEDC

FIGURE 13 Correlations of selected exhaust emission during WLTC after corrections in the control algorithm.
© SAE International

– – –

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
754 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020

FIGURE 14 Comparison of average values of emissions of selected exhaust components during NEDC and WLTC.

and WLTC, taking into account corrections in the gas
system control algorithm.
•• Comparative tests of the emissions of the engine fuelled
with petrol and LPG during the execution of NEDC have
produced similar average values of HC, CO, and NOx.
•• The initial attempt to compare fuels during the WLTC
implementation was disadvantageous for LPG, especially
NOx emissions.
•• Appropriate regulation and higher density regulation
points of the LPG map injector opening time multiplier
allowed to reduce HC and NOx emissions with a
simultaneous increase of CO emissions.
•• Removing the connection between the reducer and the
engine intake manifold, on the other hand, increased the
emissions of HC and NOx, while reducing CO
•• The correction of the map of the LPG injector opening
time multiplier combined with the change of the fuel
switchover temperature resulted in a 10.2% decrease in
© SAE International
HC, 21.2% in CO, and 68.2% in NOx emissions
compared to the initial WLTC test.
•• Petrol-LPG relationships were presented in the form of
graphs and trend lines as well as residuals spread, which
allowed for more detailed fuel comparison.
•• The range of corrections possible in the gas system
control algorithm is much wider than the one presented
in the article. Better results than shown in this study are
probably possible.
Future Work
Planned future research related to the use of the fugitive phase
of LPG will include an assessment of the impact of selected
design and installation features of the alternative power
supply system on emissions during WLTC implementation.
It is also planned to analyze the values of selected parameters

FIGURE 15 Comparison of maximum emissions of selected exhaust components over NEDC and WLTC.
© SAE International

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020 755

recorded by the petrol system control module, especially RCCI - Reactivity controlled compression ignition
STFT, LTFT, and DLAHI during LPG tests. As demonstrated RDE - Real Driving Emissions test
by the presented tests, modern engines are sensitive to
RON - Research octane number
momentary fluctuations of the fuel-air mixture composition.
While in the case of older engine designs, the additionally STFT - Short-term fuel trim
installed LPG vapor-phase gas supply system could be consid- THC - Total hydrocarbon content
ered universal, nowadays they require individual adjustment TWC - Two NBO type one oxygen sensors
each time. The aim of further research is, in addition to deep-
UDC - Urban Driving Cycles
ening the knowledge on the subject, to achieve the lowest
possible emissions of exhaust gas components when fuelling vav - Average speed, km/h
LPG, which translates into the ability to meet increasingly WLTC - Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Cycle
stringent approval standards. It is not ruled out that the scope
of corrections in the gas system control algorithm may
be increased by new functions. The authors declare their will-
ingness to cooperate with scientists working with alternative References
engine power systems.
1. De Carvalho, A.V. Jr., “Natural Gas and Other Alternative
Fuels for Transportation Purposes,” Energy 10(2):187-215,
Definitions/Abbreviations 1985, https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(85)90083-0.
2. Streimikiene, D., Baležentis, T., and Baležentiene, L.,
AMFA - Alternative Motor Fuels Act “Comparative Assessment of Road Transport Technologies,”
ATAC - Active Thermo-Atmosphere Combustion Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 20:611-618, 2013,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.021.
BSFC - Brake-specific fuel consumption
3. Raslavičius, L., Keršys, A., Mockus, S., Keršiene, N. et al.,
C3H8 - Propane “Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) as a Medium-Term Option
C6H14 - Hexane in the Transition to Sustainable Fuels and Transport,”
CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 32:513-525, 2014,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.052.
CAI - Controlled autoignition
4. Wendeker, M., Jakliński, P., Czarnigowski, J., Boulet, P. et al.,
CARB2020 - California Air Resources Board “Operational Parameters of LPG Fueled SI Engine -
CO - Carbon monoxide Comparison of Simultaneous and Sequential Port Injection,”
CO2 - Carbon dioxide SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-2051, 2007, https://doi.
org/10.4271/2007-01-2051.
DI - Direct injection
5. Gül, T., Kypreos, S., Turton, H., and Barreto, L., “An Energy-
EHRS - Exhaust heat recovery system Economic Scenario Analysis of Alternative Fuels for
DLAHI - Development lambda sensor high integrator Personal Transport Using the Global Multi-Regional
DoE - Design of experiments MARKAL Model (GMM),” Energy 34(10):1423-1437, 2009,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.04.010.
ECU - Engine control unit
6. Liu, Y., and Helfand, G.E., “The Alternative Motor Fuels Act,
EU - European Union Alternative-Fuel Vehicles, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,”
EUDC - Extra-Urban Driving Cycles Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
FID - Flame ionization detector 43(8):755-764, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2009.07.005.
HC - Hydrocarbons 7. WLPGA, “World LPG Association and Argus Consulting
Services: Statistical Review of Global LP Gas,” https://www.
HCCI - Homogeneous-charge compression ignition wlpga.org/publication/statistical-review-of-global-lp-
HPDI - High-pressure direct injection gas-2014/, accessed Oct. 10, 2018.
LPG - Liquefied petroleum gas 8. Onishi, S., Jo, S.H., Shoda, K., Jo, P.D. et al., “Active Thermo-
LTFT - Long-term fuel trim Atmosphere Combustion (ATAC) - A New Combustion
Process for Internal Combustion Engines,” SAE Technical
MPI - Multipoint injection Paper 790501, 1979, https://doi.org/10.4271/790501.
NDIR - Nondispersive infrared 9. Jeuland, N., Montagne, X., and Duret, P., “New HCCI/CAI
NEDC - New European Driving Cycle Combustion Process Development: Methodology for
NOx - Oxides of nitrogen Determination of Relevant Fuel Parameters,” Oil and Gas
Science and Technology 59(6):571-579, 2004, https://doi.
O2s1, O2s2 - Air/Fuel sensors org/10.2516/ogst:2004041.
PM - Particulate matter 10. Haraldsson, G., Closed-Loop Combustion Control of a Multi
PN - Particle number emissions Cylinder HCCI Engine Using Variable Compression Ratio and

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
756 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020
Fast Thermal Management (Lund: Division of Combustion
Engines, Lund Institute of Technology, 2005).
11. Mikulski, M., Balakrishnan, P.R., Doosje, E., and Bekdemir,
C., “Variable Valve Actuation Strategies for Better Efficiency
Load Range and Thermal Management in an RCCI Engine,”
SAE Technical Paper 2018-01-0254, 2018, https://doi.
org/10.4271/2018-01-0254.
12. Duraisamy, G., Rangasamy, M., and Govindan, N., “A
Comparative Study on Methanol/Diesel and Methanol/
PODE Dual Fuel RCCI Combustion in an Automotive Diesel
Engine,” Renewable Energy 145:542-556, 2020, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.044.
13. Kakaee, A.H., Nasiri-Toosi, A., Partovi, B., and Paykani, A.,
“Effects of Piston Bowl Geometry on Combustion and
Emissions Characteristics of a Natural Gas/Diesel RCCI
Engine,” Applied Thermal Engineering 102:1462-1472, 2016,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.03.162.
14. Leduc, P., Dubar, B., Ranini, A., and Monnier, G.,
“Downsizing of Gasoline Engine: An Efficient Way to Reduce
CO2 Emissions,” Oil and Gas Science and Technology
58(1):115-127, 2003, https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst:2003008.
15. Johnson, E., “LPG: A Secure, Cleaner Transport Fuel? A
Policy Recommendation for Europe,” Energy Policy
31(15):1573-1577, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-
4215(02)00223-9.
16. European Commission, “Reducing CO2 Emissions from
Passenger Cars,” https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/
transport/vehicles/cars_en, accessed Feb. 02, 2020.
17. Hunicz, J., and Kordos, P., “An Experimental Study of Fuel
Injection Strategies in CAI Gasoline Engine,” Experimental
Thermal and Fluid Science 35(1):243-252, 2011, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2010.09.007.
18. Anandarajah, G., McDowall, W., and Ekins, P., “Decarbonising
Road Transport with Hydrogen and Electricity: Long Term
Global Technology Learning Scenarios,” International Journal
of Hydrogen Energy 38(8):3419-3432, 2013, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.12.110.
19. Bleischwitz, R., and Bader, N., “Policies for the Transition
towards a Hydrogen Economy: The EU Case,” Energy Policy
38(10):5388-5398, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2009.03.041.
20. Litschke, A., and Knitschky, G., “Future Development in
Road Freight Transport Regarding More Environmentally
Friendly Vehicle Technologies,” Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 48:1557-1567, 2012, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1131.
21. Kalligeros, S., Zannikos, F., Stournas, S., Lois, E. et al.,
“Impact of Gasoline Quality on Engine Performance and
Emissions,” in 8th International Conference on
Environmental Science and Technology, Lemnos Island,
Greece, Sept. 8-10, 2003, 340-345.
22. Dimitrova, Z., and Maréchal, F., “Gasoline Hybrid
Pneumatic Engine for Efficient Vehicle Powertrain
Hybridization,” Applied Energy 151:168-177, 2015, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.057.
This content downloaded from
159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
23. Raslavičius, L., Azzopardi, B., Keršys, A., Starevičius, M. et
al., “Electric Vehicles Challenges and Opportunities:
Lithuanian Review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 42:786-800, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.10.076.
24. Raslavičius, L., Keršys, A., and Makaras, R., “Management of
Hybrid Powertrain Dynamics and Energy Consumption for
2WD, 4WD, and HMMWV Vehicles,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 68:380-396, 2017, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.109.
25. Grigor’ev, M.A., Naumovich, N.I., and Belousov, E.V., “A
Traction Electric Drive for Electric Cars,” Russian Electrical
Engineering 86(12):731-734, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3103/
S1068371215120111.
26. Simon, M., “Pneumatic Vehicle, Research and Design,”
Procedia Engineering 181:200-205, 2017, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.370.
27. Bhale, P.V., Ardhapurkar, P.M., and Deshpande, N.V.,
“Experimental Investigations to Study the Comparative
Effect of LPG and Gasoline on Performance and Emissions
of SI Engine,” in Proceedings of the Spring Technical
Conference of the ASME Internal Combustion Engine
Division, April 5–7, 2005, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 289-294,
https://doi.org/10.1115/ICES2005-1065.
28. Murillo, S. et al., “Exhaust Emissions from Diesel, LPG,
and Gasoline Low-Power Engines,” Energy Sources, Part A:
Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects
30(12):1065-1073, 2008, https://doi.
org/10.1080/15567030701258170.
29. Gumus, M., “Effects of Volumetric Efficiency on the
Performance and Emissions Characteristics of a Dual Fueled
(Gasoline and LPG) Spark Ignition Engine,” Fuel Processing
Technology 92(10):1862-1867, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuproc.2011.05.001.
30. Myung, C.-L. et al., “Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions
from Direct Injection Spark Ignition Gasoline and LPG
Passenger Car under Various In-Use Vehicle Driving Modes
in Korea,” Fuel Processing Technology 119:19-31, 2014, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2013.10.013.
31. Mitukiewicz, G., Dychto, R., and Leyko, J., “Relationship
between LPG Fuel and Gasoline Injection Duration for
Gasoline Direct Injection Engines,” Fuel 153:526-534, 2015,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.03.033.
32. Szpica, D., and Czaban, J., “The Assessment of External and
Operating Indexes of LPG Fueled Engines,” Combustion
Engines 3(146):68-75, 2011.
33. Borawski, A., “Modification of a Fourth Generation LPG
Installation Improving the Power Supply to a Spark Ignition
Engine,” Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc 17(1):1-6, 2015, https://
doi.org/10.17531/ein.2015.1.1.
34. AC, “STAG 500 DIS,” https://www.ac.com.pl, accessed Feb.
02, 2020.
35. Czarnigowski, J., Teoretyczno-empiryczne studium
modelowania impulsowego wtryskiwacza gazu (Lublin:
Wydawnictwo Politechniki Lubelskiej, 2012).
 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020
36. Duk, M., and Czarnigowski, J., “The Method for Indirect
Identification Gas Injector Opening Delay Time,” Przeglad
Elektrotechniczny 88(10B):59-63, 2012.
37. Szpica, D., and Czaban, J., “Operational Assessment of
Selected Gasoline and LPG Vapour Injector Dosage
Regularity,” Mechanika 20(5):480-488, 2014, https://doi.
org/10.5755/j01.mech.20.5.7780.
38. Szpica, D., “Investigating Fuel Dosage Non-Repeatability of
Low-Pressure Gas-Phase Injectors,” Flow Measurement and
Instrumentation 59:147-156, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
flowmeasinst.2017.12.009.
39. Szpica, D., “The Assessment of the Influence of Temperature
Differences in Individual Ducts of an Intake Manifold on the
Unevenness of Air Filling in a Cylinder of a Combustion
Engine,” Combustion Engines 2:44-53, 2008.
40. Szpica, D., “Research on the Influence of LPG/CNG Injector
Outlet Nozzle Diameter on Uneven Fuel Dosage,” Transport
33(1):186-196, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2016.11
49884.
41. Mieczkowski, G., “Electromechanical Characteristics of
Piezoelectric Converters with Freely Defined Boundary
Conditions and Geometry,” Mechanika 22(4):265-272, 2016,
https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.mech.22.4.12764.
42. Mieczkowski, G., Borawski, A., and Szpica, D., “Static
Electromechanical Characteristic of a Three-Layer Circular
Piezoelectric Transducer,” Sensors (Switzerland) 20(1):222,
2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/s20010222.
43. Garbala, K., Piekarski, W., Andrzejewska, S., and Witaszek,
K., “Analysis of Operating Parameters and Indicators of a
Compression Ignition Engine Fuelled with LPG,” Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport
93:13-22, 2016, https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2016.93.2.
44. Setiyo, M., Waluyo, B., Anggono, W., and Husni, M.,
“Performance of Gasoline/LPG BI-Fuel Engine of Manifold
Absolute Pressure Sensor (MAPS) Variations Feedback,”
ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Science 11(7):4707-
4712, 2016.
45. Dziewiatkowski, M., Szpica, D., and Borawski, A.,
“Evaluation of Impact of Combustion Engine Controller
Adaptation Process on Level of Exhaust Gas Emissions in
Gasoline and Compressed Natural Gas Supply Process,”
Engineering for Rural Development 19:541-548, 2020, https://
doi.org/10.22616/ERDev2020.19.TF122.
46. European Commission, “Commission Regulation (EU)
2017/1154,” Official Journal of the European Union, vol. L
175, 2017.
47. European Commission, “Commission Regulation (EU)
2018/1832,” Official Journal of the European Union, vol. L
301, 2018.
48. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe,
“Regulation 83,” 2011, http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/
DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/r083r4e.pdf, accessed
May 02, 2014.
49. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe,
“Addendum 15,” 2014, http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/
This content downloaded from
159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
757
DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29r1998agr-rules/ECE-TRANS-
180a15app1e.pdf, accessed: Oct. 13, 2014.
50. Ristovski, Z.D., Jayaratne, E.R., Morawska, L., Ayoko, G.A.
et al., “Particle and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from
Passenger Vehicles Operating on Unleaded Petrol and LPG
Fuel,” Science of the Total Environment 345(1-3):93-98, 2005,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.10.021.
51. Bielaczyc, P., and Woodburn, J., “Trends in Automotive
Emission Legislation: Impact on LD Engine Development,
Fuels, Lubricants and Test Methods: A Global View, with a
Focus on WLTP and RDE Regulations,” Emission Control
Science and Technology 5:86-98, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40825-019-0112-3.
52. Waluś, K.J., Warguła, Ł., Krawiec, P., and Adamiec, J.M., “Legal
Regulations of Restrictions of Air Pollution Made by Non-Road
Mobile Machinery—The Case Study for Europe: A Review,”
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25(4):3243-3259,
2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0847-8.
53. Warguła, Ł., Krawiec, P., Waluś, K.J., and Kukla, M., “Fuel
Consumption Test Results for a Self-Adaptive,
Maintenance-Free Wood Chipper Drive Control System,”
Applied Sciences 10(8):2727, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/
app10082727.
54. Warguła, Ł., Kukla, M., Krawiec, P., and Wieczorek, B.,
“Reduction in Operating Costs and Environmental Impact
Consisting in the Modernization of the Low-Power
Cylindrical Wood Chipper Power Unit by Using Alternative
Fuel,” Energies 13(11):2995, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/
en13112995.
55. WLTP, “WLTP Lab Test,” http://wltpfacts.eu/, accessed Nov.
01, 2019.
56. Mock, P., “ICCT Contribution No. 4 (Combined Solution for
Vehicle Test Mass Definition and Inertia Mass Step-Less
Approach),” 2011, http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/
publications/WLTP4_2011.pdf, accessed Nov. 20, 2019.
57. Czaban, J., and Szpica, D., “Drive Test System To Be Used on
Roller Dynamometer,” Mechanika 19(5):600-605, 2013,
https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.mech.19.5.5542.
58. Marotta, A., Tutuianu, M., and Martini, G., Europe-Centric
Light Duty Test Cycle and Differences with Respect to the
WLTP Cycle (Luxembourg: Publications Office, 2012),
https://doi.org/10.2790/53651.
59. Barlow, T., Latham, S., Mccrae, I., and Boulter, P., A
Reference Book of Driving Cycles for Use in the Measurement
of Road Vehicle Emissions (Bracknell: IHS, 2009).
60. Jiménez-Palacios, J.L., “Understanding and Quantifying
Motor Vehicle Emissions with Vehicle Specific Power and
TILDAS Remote Sensing,” Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, 1999, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-
291X(02)00320-0\rS0006-291X(02)00320-0 [pii].
61. Guzzella, L., Sciarretta, A., Guzzella, L., and Sciarretta, A.,
“Vehicle Energy and Fuel Consumption - Basic Concepts,” in
Vehicle Propulsion Systems, Introduction to Modeling and
Optimization, Authors: Guzzella, L., Sciarretta, A., Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
758 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020
62. Marotta, A., Pavlovic, J., Ciuffo, B., Serra, S. et al., “Gaseous
Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles: Moving from NEDC to
the New WLTP Test Procedure,” Environmental Science and
Technology 49(14):8315-8322, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.5b01364.
63. Pavlovic, J., Ciuffo, B., Fontaras, G., Valverde, V. et al., “How
Much Difference in Type-Approval CO2 Emissions from
Passenger Cars in Europe Can Be Expected from Changing
to the New Test Procedure (NEDC vs. WLTP)?”
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 111:136-
147, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.02.002.
64. Liu, Q. et al., “Comparative Study on Combustion and
Thermodynamics Performance of Gasoline Direct Injection
(GDI) Engine under Cold Start and Warm-Up NEDC,”
Energy Conversion and Management 181:663-673, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.12.043.
65. Shen, K., Chang, L., Chen, H., Zhang, Z. et al.,
“Experimental Study on the Effects of Exhaust Heat
Recovery System (EHRS) on Vehicle Fuel Economy and
Emissions under Cold Start New European Driving Cycle
(NEDC),” Energy Conversion and Management 197:111893,
2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111893.
66. Ko, J., Jin, D., Jang, W., Myung, C.L. et al., “Comparative
Investigation of NOx Emission Characteristics from a Euro
6-Compliant Diesel Passenger Car over the NEDC and
WLTC at Various Ambient Temperatures,” Applied Energy
187:652-662, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.11.105.
67. Puškár, M., Jahnátek, A., Kádárová, J., Šoltésová, M. et al.,
“Environmental Study Focused on the Suitability of Vehicle
Certifications Using the New European Driving Cycle
(NEDC) with Regard to the Affair ‘Dieselgate’ and the Risks
of NO x Emissions in Urban Destinations,” Air Quality,
Atmosphere and Health 12(2):251-257, 2019, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11869-018-0646-5.
68. Bodisco, T., and Zare, A., “Practicalities and Driving
Dynamics of a Real Driving Emissions (RDE) Euro 6
Regulation Homologation Test,” Energies 12:2306, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12122306.
69. Beatrice, C., Di Blasio, G., and Belgiorno, G.,
“Experimental Analysis of Functional Requirements to
Exceed the 100kW/l in High-Speed Light-Duty Diesel
Engines,” Fuel 207:591-601, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2017.06.112.
70. Belgiorno, G., Boscolo, A., Dileo, G., Numidi, F. et al.,
“Experimental Study of Additive-Manufacturing-Enabled
Innovative Diesel Combustion Bowl Features for Achieving
Ultra-Low Emissions and High Efficiency,” SAE Technical
Paper 2020-37-0003, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4271/2020-37-
0003.
71. Di Blasio, G., Beatrice, C., Ianniello, R., Pesce, F. et al.,
“Balancing Hydraulic Flow and Fuel Injection Parameters
for Low-Emission and High-Efficiency Automotive Diesel
Engines,” SAE Technical Paper 2019-24-0111, 2019, https://
doi.org/10.4271/2019-24-0111.
This content downloaded from
159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72. Vassallo, A., Beatrice, C., Di Blasio, G., Belgiorno, G. et al.,
“The Key Role of Advanced, Flexible Fuel Injection Systems
to Match the Future CO2 Targets in an Ultra-Light Mid-Size
Diesel Engine,” SAE Technical Paper 2018-37-0005, 2018,
https://doi.org/10.4271/2018-37-0005.
73. Myung, C.-L., Lee, H., Choi, K., Lee, Y.J. et al., “Effects of
Gasoline, Diesel, LPG, and Low-Carbon Fuels and Various
Certification Modes on Nanoparticle Emission
Characteristics in Light-Duty Vehicles,” International
Journal of Automotive Technology 10:537-544, 2009, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12239-009-0062-9.
74. Karagöz, Y., “Analysis of the Impact of Gasoline, Biogas and
Biogas + Hydrogen Fuels on Emissions and Vehicle
Performance in the WLTC and NEDC,” International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 44(59):31621-31632, 2019, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.10.019.
75. Myung, C.L., Choi, K., Kim, J., Lim, Y. et al., “Comparative
Study of Regulated and unregulated toxic Emissions
Characteristics from a Spark Ignition Direct Injection Light-
Duty Vehicle Fueled with Gasoline and Liquid Phase LPG
(Liquefied Petroleum Gas),” Energy 44(1):189-196, 2012,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.06.039.
76. Kim, K., Kim, J., Oh, S., Kim, C. et al., “Lower Particulate
Matter Emissions with a Stoichiometric LPG Direct
Injection Engine,” Fuel 187:197-210, Jan. 2017, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.09.058.
77. Kim, J., Choi, K., Myung, C.-L., and Park, S., “Experimental
Evaluation of Engine Control Strategy on the Time Resolved
THC and Nano-Particle Emission Characteristics of Liquid
Phase LPG Direct Injection (LPG-DI) Engine during the
Cold Start,” Fuel Processing Technology 106:166-173, 2013,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.07.020.
78. Gong, C., Wei, F., Si, X., and Liu, F., “Effects of Injection
Timing of Methanol and LPG Proportion on Cold Start
Characteristics of SI Methanol Engine with LPG Enriched
Port Injection under Cycle-by-Cycle Control,” Energy
144:54-60, Feb. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.12.013.
79. Organ, B. et al., “A Remote Sensing Emissions Monitoring
Programme Reduces Emissions of Gasoline and LPG
Vehicles,” Environmental Research 177, Article 108614, Oct.
2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108614.
80. Yusri, I.M., Abdul Majeed, A.P.P., Mamat, R., Ghazali, M.F.
et al., “A Review on the Application of Response Surface
Method and Artificial Neural Network in Engine
Performance and Exhaust Emissions Characteristics in
Alternative Fuel,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 90:665-686, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.03.095.
81. Kamaruddin, M.H., Osman, S.A., Fawzi, M., Mustaffa, N. et
al., “Predicting the Performances of a CAMPRO Engine
Retrofitted with Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) System
Using 1-Dimensional Software,” in MATEC Web of
Conferences, August 2-3, 2016, Cyberjaya, Malaysia, vol. 90,
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20179001074.
 Beik et al. / SAE Int. J. Engines / Volume 13, Issue 5, 2020 759

82. Djermouni, M., and Ouadha, A., “Comparative Assessment
of LNG and LPG in HCCI Engines,” Energy Procedia
139:254-259, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2017.11.205.
83. Duc, K.N., and Duy, V.N., “Study on Performance
Enhancement and Emission Reduction of Used Fuel-Injected
Motorcycles Using Bi-Fuel Gasoline-LPG,” Energy for
Sustainable Development 43:60-67, Apr. 2018, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.esd.2017.12.005.
84. Nayak, V., Rashmi, G.S., Chitragar, P., and Mohanan, P.,
“Combustion Characteristics and Cyclic Variation of a LPG
Fuelled MPFI Four Cylinder Gasoline Engine,” Energy
Procedia 90:470-480, Dec. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2016.11.214.
85. Tukiman, M.M., Mustaffa, N., Fawzi, M., and Osman, S.A.,
“Investigating the Influences of Liquid LPG Injection on
Spark Ignition (SI) Engine,” in MATEC Web Conferences,
90:8, 2017, The 2nd International Conference on Automotive
Innovation and Green Vehicle (AiGEV 2016), Article
Number 01075, https://doi.org/10.1051/
matecconf/20179001075.
86. Hyundai Motor, “Hyundai i20,” https://www.hyundai.pl/
fileadmin/user_upload/LP_English_Price_List/Pricelist_
i20_2017_EN.pdf, accessed May 10, 2020.
87. AC, “STAG Autogas Section,” https://www.ac.com.pl/en,
accessed May 10, 2020.
88. Maha, “MSR 1000, Performance Measurement Technology,”
https://www.maha.de/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-9BCBDCB3-
F6DB59BF/maha_de/TD_MAHA_MSR_1000_VP230026_
EN.pdf, accessed May 10, 2020.
89. Maha, “MGT 5, Emission Measurement Technology,” https://
www.maha.de/cps/rde/xbcr/maha_de/TD_MAHA_
MGT_5_VP135109_EN.pdf, accessed May 10, 2020.
90. Tutuianu, M. et al., “Development of a World-Wide
Worldwide Harmonized Light Duty Driving Test Cycle,”
Technical Report, vol. UN/ECE/WP, 2014.
91. Duk, M., Czarnigowski, J., Jakliński, P., Zyska, T. et al.,
“Experiments on the Effect of Control Signal Duty Cycle on
Pulse Gas Injector Closing Time,” Przeglad
Elektrotechniczny 90(3):199-202, 2014, https://doi.
org/10.12915/pe.2014.03.45.
92. Lujan, J.M., Guardiola, C., Pla, B., and Pandey, V., “Impact of
Driving Dynamics in RDE Test on NOx Emissions
Dispersion,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering
234(6):1770-1778, 2020, https://doi.
org/10.1177/0954407019881581.
93. Merkisz, J., Pielecha, J., Bielaczyc, P., and Woodburn, J.,
“Analysis of Emission Factors in RDE Tests As Well As in
NEDC and WLTC Chassis Dynamometer Tests,” SAE
Technical Paper 2016-01-0980, 2016, https://doi.
org/10.4271/2016-01-0980.

© 2020 SAE International. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.

Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. Responsibility for the content of the work lies
solely with the author(s).

This content downloaded from

159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 This content downloaded from
159.146.31.170 on Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:55:40 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms