Corrigendum to “A novel laminar flame speed equation for quasi-dimensional combustion model refinement in advanced, ultra-lean gasoline spark-ignited engines” [Fuel 333 (2022) 126508] (Fuel (2023) 333(P2), (S0016236122033324), (10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126508))

The authors regret to inform that the following typographical errors are recorrected in this corrigendum. 1. Section 3.1: “The best-fit values Tref = 600 K and Pref = 0.3 MPa are chosen for Eq. (19). The trial-and-error results are shown in Fig. 1A and Fig. 2A of the f.” is corrected as “The best-fit values Tref = 600 K and Pref = 0.3 MPa are chosen for Eq. (21). The trial-and-error results are shown in Fig. 1A and Fig. 2A of the Appendix”2. Section 3.4: “Using LFS_ref, the average relative error of the combustion model predictivity [Formula presented] = 29.6–47.6 %, depending on the combustion metrics.” is corrected as “Using LFS_conv, the average relative error of the combustion model predictivity [Formula presented] = 29.6–47.6 %, depending on the combustion metrics.”3. Figure 23b: the correct label of the bottom sub-figure is [Formula presented] = 0.5: [Formula presented] 4. 4. Section 3.6: “For engine B at 2000 RPM, case 2 or [Formula presented] = 0.7 ([Formula presented] = 0.587, [Formula presented] = 0.912), case 3 or [Formula presented] = 0.6 ([Formula presented] = 0.509, [Formula presented] = 0.798), and case 3 or [Formula presented] = 0.5 ([Formula presented] = 0.414, [Formula presented] = 0.66) are obtained.” is corrected as “For engine B at 2000 RPM, case 2 or [Formula presented] = 0.7 ([Formula presented] = 0.587, [Formula presented] = 0.912), case 3 or [Formula presented] = 0.6 ([Formula presented] = 0.509, [Formula presented] = 0.798), and case 4 or [Formula presented] = 0.5 ([Formula presented] = 0.414, [Formula presented] = 0.66) are obtained”.5. Section 3.6: Captions of Figs. 28 and 29: “case 4 [Formula presented] = 0.7 in Table 7” is corrected as “case 4 [Formula presented]xs = 0.5 in Table 7”6. Appendix: “Computed LFS values are reasonable and non-negative under 0.1 MPa and different unburnt temperatures (refer to Fig. 6).” is corrected as “Computed LFS values are reasonable and non-negative under 0.1 MPa and different unburnt temperatures (refer to Fig. 10c).”The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. These typos do not affect the results, discussion, and conclusion.