Research Papers

Physics-Based Lumped-Parameter Modeling of Automotive Canister Fuel Purge

[+] Author and Article Information
Matthew Franchek, Karolos Grigoriadis

Mechanical Engineering Department,
University of Houston,
Houston, TX 77204

Behrouz Ebrahimi

Mechanical Engineering Department,
University of Houston,
Houston, TX 77204
e-mail: bebrahimi@uh.edu

Imad Makki

R&D Department,
Ford Motor Company,
Detroit, MI 48125

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript received April 17, 2015; final manuscript received February 8, 2016; published online May 13, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Junmin Wang.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 138(7), 071008 (May 13, 2016) (6 pages) Paper No: DS-15-1181; doi: 10.1115/1.4033486 History: Received April 17, 2015; Revised February 08, 2016

A physics-based model is presented to estimate the flow rate out of the fuel canister purged into the intake manifold. The lumped parameters of the model, including canister capacitance and flow resistance, are employed to obtain a first-order multi-input and single-output dynamic model. The vacuum pressure in the intake manifold and the fuel tank pressure serve as inputs, and the purged fuel flow rate is considered as the model output. The model does not require cumbersome computation, thereby allowing direct implementation in the fueling control to compensate for the extra fuel in regulation of the stoichiometric air–fuel ratio.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Henry, G. , and Heinke, G. W. , 1996, Environmental Science and Engineering, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Abingdon, UK.
EPA, 2015, “Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Ebrahimi, B. , Tafreshi, R. , Masudi, H. , Franchek, M. , Mohammadpour, J. , and Grigoriadis, K. , 2014, “ Second-Order Sliding Mode Strategy for Air–Fuel Ratio Control of Lean-Burn SI Engines,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 22(4), pp. 1374–1384. [CrossRef]
Ebrahimi, B. , Tafreshi, R. , Masudi, H. , Mohammadpour, J. , Franchek, M. , and Grigoriadis, K. , 2012, “ A Linear Parameter-Varying Filtered PID Control for Spark Ignition Engines,” Control Eng. Pract., 20(8), pp. 805–815. [CrossRef]
Degobert, P. , 1995, Automobiles and Pollution, Society of Automotive Engineers, Paris.
Sultan, M. , Kushion, M. , Wind, R. , and Folkerts, C. , 1998, “ Closed Loop Canister Purge Control System,” SAE Technical Paper No. 980206.
Scholl, S. , Kajszika, H. , and Mersmann, A. , 1993, “ Adsorption and Desorption Kinetics in Activated Carbon,” Gas Sep. Purif., 7(4), pp. 207–212. [CrossRef]
Cheremisinoff, N. P. , and Cheremisinoff, P. N. , 1993, Carbon Adsorption for Pollution Control, PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Aronson, P. , Neretnieks, I. , and Westermark, M. , 1978, “ Adsorption del 2,” Kem. Tidskr., 7, pp. 20–25.
Jerrelind, J. , 1998, “ A Study in Model Based Control of an Evaporation Emissions Management System,” M.S. thesis, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
Zaremba, A. , and Jennings, M. , 2011, “ Purge Modeling for New Propulsion System Technology Applications,” SAE Int. J. Engines, 4(1), pp. 998–1006. [CrossRef]
Lavoie, G. , Johnson, P. , and Hood, J. , 1996, “ Carbon Canister Modeling for Evaporative Emissions: Adsorption and Thermal Effects,” SAE Technical Paper No. 961210.
Yoo, I. K. , Upadhyay, D. , and Rizzoni, G. , 1999, “ A Control-Oriented Carbon Canister Model,” SAE Technical Paper No. 1999-01-1103.
Mellios, G. , and Samaras, Z. , 2007, “ An Empirical Model for Estimating Evaporative Hydrocarbon Emissions From Canister-Equipped Vehicles,” Fuel, 86(15), pp. 2254–2261. [CrossRef]
Reddy, S. R. , 2007, “ Evap Canister Purge Prediction for Engine Fuel and Air Control,” U.S. Patent No. 7305975 B2.
Fox, R. W. , McDonald, A. T. , and Pritchard, P. J. , 2006, Introduction to Fluid Mechanics, 6th ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
White, F. M. , 2002, Fluid Mechanics, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York. [PubMed] [PubMed]
Ogata, K. , 2009, Modern Control Engineering, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic representation of the evaporative emission system canister

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Internal flow through an orifice, showing a control volume used for the analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Parameter estimation algorithm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Measured data versus the model response for FVF0=41% and engine RPM = 2000: (a) measured intake manifold pressure, (b) measured fuel tank pressure, and (c) measured canister purge flow rate versus model fuel flow rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Bode plot of G1(s), Eq. (23)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Bode plot of G2(s), Eq. (23)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Measured data versus the model response for FVF0=54% and engine RPM = 1500: (a) measured intake manifold pressure, (b) measured fuel tank pressure, and (c) measured canister purge flow rate versus model fuel flow rate



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In