Version 5.1
Validation
January 2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
AVL LIST GmbH Hans-List-Platz 1, A-8020 Graz, Austria http://www.avl.com AST Local Support Contact: www.avl.com/ast_support
Revision A B C D E F G
Date 03-May-2002 03-Mar-2003 18-Jul-2003 23-Jun-2004 29-Jul-2005 13-Oct-2006 31-Jan-2008
Description BOOST v4.0 – Validation BOOST v4.0.1 – Validation BOOST v4.0.3 – Validation BOOST v4.0.4 – Validation BOOST v4.1 – Validation BOOST v5.0 – Validation BOOST v5.1 – Validation
Document No. 01.0106.0433 01.0106.0438 01.0106.0443 01.0106.0453 01.0106.0476 01.0106.0500 01.0106.0510
Copyright © 2008, AVL All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, transcribed, stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any language, or computer language in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical, chemical, manual or otherwise, without prior written consent of AVL. This document describes how to run the BOOST software. It does not attempt to discuss all the concepts of 1D gas dynamics required to obtain successful solutions. It is the user’s responsibility to determine if he/she has sufficient knowledge and understanding of gas dynamics to apply this software appropriately. This software and document are distributed solely on an "as is" basis. The entire risk as to their quality and performance is with the user. Should either the software or this document prove defective, the user assumes the entire cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction. AVL and its distributors will not be liable for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect in the software or this document, even if they have been advised of the possibility of such damage. All mentioned trademarks and registered trademarks are owned by the corresponding owners.
Validation
BOOST v5.1
Table of Contents 1. Introduction _____________________________________________________1-1 1.1. Documentation_______________________________________________________________1-1
2. Validation _______________________________________________________2-1 2.1. Gas Dynamics________________________________________________________________2-1 2.2. Aftertreatment Analysis ______________________________________________________2-2 2.2.1. Mathematical Validation __________________________________________________2-2 2.2.1.1. Light-Off Simulation __________________________________________________2-2 2.2.1.2. DPF-Regeneration Simulation __________________________________________2-3 2.2.1.3. 2D-Simulation and Discrete Channel Method (DCM) ______________________2-4 2.2.2. Experimental Validation___________________________________________________2-5 2.2.2.1. Oxidation Catalyst, Light-Off Simulation ________________________________2-5 2.2.2.2. Three-way Catalyst, Light-Off Simulation _______________________________2-6 2.2.2.3. Diesel Particulate Filter Loading________________________________________2-7 2.3. Previous Releases ____________________________________________________________2-7 2.3.1. BOOST v3.3 _____________________________________________________________2-7 2.3.1.1. Single Cylinder Two Stroke Gasoline ____________________________________2-7 2.3.1.2. Four Cylinder Four Stroke Gasoline____________________________________2-16 2.3.1.3. Six Cylinder Four Stoke Diesel ________________________________________2-25
3. References_______________________________________________________3-1
AST.01.0106.0510 - 31-Jan-2008
i
BOOST v5.1
Validation
List of Figures Figure 2—1: BOOST Input Model for Shock Tube Test Case ............................................................................ 2-1 Figure 2—2: Spatial Plot of BOOST Shock Tube Results................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 2—3: Color Map/Fringe Plot of BOOST Shock Tube Results ................................................................. 2-1 Figure 2—4: Light-Off Simulation – Oxidation Catalyst Simulated with BOOST and FIRE .......................... 2-3 Figure 2—5: DPF Regeneration – Transient Maximum and Mean Temperature Simulated with BOOST and FIRE ......................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2—6: DPF Regeneration – Axial Profiles of Soot Height and Wall Velocity Simulated with BOOST and FIRE ......................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2—7: Discrete Channel Method – Comparison with Finite Difference Solution ................................... 2-5 Figure 2—8: Light-off Simulation – Rise of Temperature and Pollutant Conversion of an Oxidation Catalyst ............................................................................................................................................ 2-6 Figure 2—9: Light-off Simulation – Rise of Temperature and Pollutant Conversion of a Three-WayCatalyst ............................................................................................................................................ 2-6 Figure 2—10: DPF Loading – Axial Soot Profile at Different Time Points ....................................................... 2-7 Figure 2—11: Boost v3.3 Model of the 2t1calc Engine ........................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 2—12: Boost v4.0 Model of the 2t1calc Engine ........................................................................................ 2-8 Figure 2—13: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine ............................................................ 2-10 Figure 2—14: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine..................................................... 2-11 Figure 2—15: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine ......................................................... 2-12 Figure 2—16: Comparison of Pressures in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine ................................................... 2-13 Figure 2—17: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine .................................................. 2-14 Figure 2—18: Comparison of Temperature and Pressure in the Variable Plenum1 of the 2t1calc Engine .. 2-15 Figure 2—19: Boost v3.3 Model of the ottocalc Engine..................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2—20: Boost v4.0 Model of the ottocalc Engine..................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2—21: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine........................................................... 2-18 Figure 2—22: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine.................................................... 2-19 Figure 2—23: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the ottocalc Engine........................................................ 2-20 Figure 2—24: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the ottocalc Engine.. 2-21 Figure 2—25: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the ottcalc Engine................................................... 2-22 Figure 2—26: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the ottocalc Engine................. 2-23 Figure 2—27: Model Schematic for 4 Cylinder SI Engine................................................................................. 2-24 Figure 2—28: Comparison of Volumetric Efficiencies....................................................................................... 2-24 Figure 2—29: Boost v3.3 Model of the tcicalc Engine ....................................................................................... 2-25 Figure 2—30: Boost v4.0 Model of the tcicalc Engine ....................................................................................... 2-25 Figure 2—31: Comparison of Pressure in MPs of the tcicalc engine................................................................ 2-27 Figure 2—32: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the tcicalc Engine ...................................................... 2-28 Figure 2—33: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the tcicalc Engine .......................................................... 2-29 Figure 2—34: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the tcicalc Engine .... 2-30 Figure 2—35: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the tcicalc Engine ................................................... 2-31 Figure 2—36: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the tcicalc Engine ................... 2-32
ii
AST.01.0106.0510 – 31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
List of Tables Table 1: Main Engine Data of the 2t1calc.bst...................................................................................................... 2-8 Table 2: Comparison of Calculated Results of the 2t1calc Engine ..................................................................... 2-9 Table 3: Main Engine Data of the ottocalc.bst................................................................................................... 2-17 Table 4: Comparison of Calculated Results of the ottocalc Engine .................................................................. 2-17 Table 5: Main Engine Data of the tcicalc.bst ..................................................................................................... 2-26 Table 6: Comparison of Calculated Results of the tcicalc Engine..................................................................... 2-26
AST.01.0106.0510 - 31-Jan-2008
iii
Validation
BOOST v5.1
1. INTRODUCTION This document contains validation information and plots for the various features of BOOST.
1.1. Documentation BOOST documentation is available in PDF format and consists of the following: Release Notes Primer Examples Users Guide Aftertreatment Aftertreatment Primer Linear Acoustics 1D-3D Coupling Interfaces Validation Thermal Network Generator (TNG) User’s Guide Thermal Network Generator (TNG) Primer GUI Users Guide IMPRESS Chart Users Guide Installation Guide Licensing Guide Python Scripting Optimization of Multi-body System using AVL Workspace & iSIGHTTM
31-Jan-2008
1-1
Validation
BOOST v5.1
2. VALIDATION 2.1. Gas Dynamics
Figure 2—1: BOOST Input Model for Shock Tube Test Case
Figure 2—2: Spatial Plot of BOOST Shock Tube Results
Figure 2—3: Color Map/Fringe Plot of BOOST Shock Tube Results
31-Jan-2008
2-1
BOOST v5.1
Validation
2.2. Aftertreatment Analysis In order to validate the BOOST aftertreatment analysis simulations, a series of test calculations were performed. These test simulations were focused on different types of validation which included: 1. Mathematical Validation: •
The aftertreatment models were reduced in a way that simulation results could be compared with analytical solutions.
•
The entire catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter model was compared with numerical solutions generated with FIRE.
2. Experimental Validation: The catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter model was compared and validated with experimental data. In the following section some selected validation results are summarized and briefly discussed. For more detailed information please refer to the cited literature.
2.2.1. Mathematical Validation 2.2.1.1. Light-Off Simulation Figure 2—4 shows results from a light-off simulation of a catalytic converter performed with BOOST and FIRE. From the point of view of a mathematical validation the simulation shows two important results: 1.
BOOST and FIRE deliver identical results. Since both codes use completely different numerical approaches (refer to the BOOST Aftertreatment Manual) for solving all balance equations (a set of partial differential equations, ordinary differential equations and algebraic equations) these results are of special significance.
2.
Under steady-state and adiabatic conditions, the final heat-up ΔTadiabatic—temperature difference between the catalyst inlet and outlet—can be calculated analytically using the following formula
ΔTadiabatic =
cmolar , gas ⋅ ( yCO ⋅ ΔH R ,CO + yCO ⋅ ΔH R ,C 3 H 6 + yCO ⋅ ΔH R ,H 2 )
ρ mass, gas ⋅ c p , gas
,
(1)
where only physical properties of the gas phase and the heat of reaction is required (refer to Wanker [4]). The molar concentration of the gas phase is represented by cmolar,gas, yi, is the molar fraction of the different species and ΔHR are the corresponding heat of reactions. ρmass,gas is the mass density of the gas and cp,gas is its heat capacity. With the data of the considered simulation, Equation (1) can be evaluated to:
2-2
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
⎧ ⎡ kJ ⎤ ⎫ ⎪0.0055[−]⋅ 283.3⎢ mol ⎥ + ⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪ ⎡ kmol ⎤ ⎪ 0.025⎢ 3 ⎥ ⎪ ⎡ kJ ⎤ ⎪ ⎣ m ⎦ ⋅ ⎨0.0005[−]⋅1925.5⎢ +⎬ ΔTadiabatic = ⎡ J ⎤ ⎪ ⎣ mol ⎥⎦ ⎪ ⎡ kg ⎤ 0.776⎢ 3 ⎥ ⋅ 1049.9⎢ ⎥ ⎣m ⎦ ⎣ kgK ⎦ ⎪0.00139[−]⋅ 246.4⎡ kJ ⎤ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢⎣ mol ⎥⎦ ⎪ ⎭ ⎩ ΔTadiabatic = 87.9[K ]
(2)
The adiabatic heat up simulated by FIRE and BOOST is
ΔTFIRE / BOOST = 636.3[K ] − 550[K ] = 86.5[K ] .
(3)
The comparison of the analytical heat-up with the simulation results shows a small difference that can be explained by the gas properties. These values are mean and constant in the analytical solution but change with temperature and gas composition in the simulation. The good agreement of the analytical and numerical results is a valuable validation of all transport balance equations and shows that both codes BOOST and FIRE deliver reasonable and trustable results.
Figure 2—4: Light-Off Simulation – Oxidation Catalyst Simulated with BOOST and FIRE
2.2.1.2. DPF-Regeneration Simulation Figure 2—5 and Figure 2—6 show results from a DPF regeneration simulation performed with BOOST and FIRE. From the point of view of a mathematical validation this simulation shows that both simulation tools deliver identical results for the transient behavior the temperatures or the spatial profiles of the soot height and wall velocity. Since BOOST and FIRE use different approaches for solving the transport equations of mass momentum and energy the presented simulation results can be understood as valuable validation of both codes.
31-Jan-2008
2-3
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—5: DPF Regeneration – Transient Maximum and Mean Temperature Simulated with BOOST and FIRE
Figure 2—6: DPF Regeneration – Axial Profiles of Soot Height and Wall Velocity Simulated with BOOST and FIRE
2.2.1.3. 2D-Simulation and Discrete Channel Method (DCM) The new approach of DCM to resolve 2D characteristics of catalytic converters was compared with the finite difference method (FDM). A cylindrical catalytic converter was considered and it was assumed that the heat of reaction is a linear function of the local temperature. Assuming that axial gradients and the thermal capacity of the gas compared to the substrate are negligible the energy balance can be written as
ρ s c p ,s
2-4
∂ Ts 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ⎜⎜ r λs s ⎟⎟ + k Ts , = ∂t r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠
(4)
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
where Ts is the solid temperature and ρs is its density. cp,s is the solid’s heat capacity and λs is the heat conductivity. The radial coordinate is represented by r, and t is the time and
k is a reaction constant. With the boundary conditions d Ts = 0 @ r = 0, dr
Ts = Tambient @ r = R ,
(5)
of no gradient at the center (r=0) and a constant temperature at the converter border (r=R) this system can be solved. Constant initial conditions are used and the spatial derivatives are discretized once by finite differences and once using DCM. The integration of the resulting system of ordinary differential equations leads to results as shown in Figure 2—7. A detailed discussion of these simulation results can be found in Wurzenberger and Peters [6]. From the validation point of view the curves given in Figure 2—7 show identical results generated by two different numerical approaches.
Figure 2—7: Discrete Channel Method – Comparison with Finite Difference Solution
2.2.2. Experimental Validation This subsection comprises validation results performed with the BOOST aftertreatment module. A detailed description of the considered simulation cases and an interpretation of the results can be found in the cited references.
2.2.2.1. Oxidation Catalyst, Light-Off Simulation Comparison of BOOST simulations with Experimental Data taken from Missy et al [2]. Refer also to Wurzenberger and Peters [5].
31-Jan-2008
2-5
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—8: Light-off Simulation – Rise of Temperature and Pollutant Conversion of an Oxidation Catalyst
2.2.2.2. Three-way Catalyst, Light-Off Simulation Comparison of BOOST simulations with Experimental Data taken from Skoglundth et al [3]. Refer also to Wurzenberger and Peters [6].
Figure 2—9: Light-off Simulation – Rise of Temperature and Pollutant Conversion of a Three-Way-Catalyst
2-6
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
2.2.2.3. Diesel Particulate Filter Loading Comparison of BOOST simulations with Experimental Data taken from Cartus et al [1].
Figure 2—10: DPF Loading – Axial Soot Profile at Different Time Points
2.3. Previous Releases This section compares current BOOST results to previous releases.
2.3.1. BOOST v3.3 The following section compares simulation results from BOOST v4.0 compared to BOOST v3.3.
2.3.1.1. Single Cylinder Two Stroke Gasoline
Figure 2—11: Boost v3.3 Model of the 2t1calc Engine
31-Jan-2008
2-7
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—12: Boost v4.0 Model of the 2t1calc Engine
Table 1: Main Engine Data of the 2t1calc.bst
Basic specifications Bore
[mm]
&54
Stroke
[mm]
54
Conrod length
[mm]
110.2
Total displacement
[L]
0.12
Displacement per cylinder
[L]
0.12
Number of cylinders
[-]
1
Firing order
[-]
1
Compression ratio
[-]
13.5:1
Fuel
Gasoline
Lower heating value
[kJ/kg]
42700
Stoichiometric A/F ratio
[kg/kg]
14.0
Piston timing: intake and exhaust port
2-8
EPO (deg. CRA BBDC)
[degCRA]
99
EPC (deg. CRA ATDC)
[degCRA]
81
IPO (deg. CRA BTDC)
[degCRA]
112
IPC (deg. CRA ABDC)
[degCRA]
68
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1 Table 2: Comparison of Calculated Results of the 2t1calc Engine
Comparison of the calculated results
Boost v3.3
Boost v4.0
Difference
[Nm]
19.81
20.70
0.89
4.5%
[Nm/L]
160.21
167.38
7.17
4.5%
[kW]
24.90
26.01
1.11
4.5%
[kW/L]
201.33
210.34
Friction Torque
[Nm]
4.92
4.92
9.01
4.5%
Friction Power
[kW]
6.18
6.18
0
0.0%
Effective Torque
[Nm]
14.89
15.78
0
0.0%
Effective Specific Torque
[Nm/L]
120.43
127.60
0.89
6.0%
Effective Power
[Nm/L
18.72
19.83
7.17
6.0%
Effective Specific Power
[kW/L]
151.33
160.34
1.11
5.9%
BMEP
[bar]
7.5666
7.5619
9.01
6.0%
BSFC
[g/kWh]
443.7105
443.9965
-0.0047
-0.1%
0.286
0.1%
Indicated Torque Indicated Specific Torque Indicated Power Indicated Specific Power
)
31-Jan-2008
Note: Calculation of IMEP changed between BOOST 3.3 and BOOST 4.0. In BOOST 4.0 the IMEP is not reduced by the auxiliary devices and crankcase scavenging.
2-9
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—13: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine
2-10
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
Figure 2—14: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine
31-Jan-2008
2-11
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—15: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine
2-12
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
Figure 2—16: Comparison of Pressures in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine
31-Jan-2008
2-13
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—17: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine
2-14
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
Figure 2—18: Comparison of Temperature and Pressure in the Variable Plenum1 of the 2t1calc Engine
31-Jan-2008
2-15
BOOST v5.1
Validation
2.3.1.2. Four Cylinder Four Stroke Gasoline The model is a 4 cylinder SI engine and is covered in more detail in the BOOST Examples Manual.
Figure 2—19: Boost v3.3 Model of the ottocalc Engine
Figure 2—20: Boost v4.0 Model of the ottocalc Engine
2-16
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1 Table 3: Main Engine Data of the ottocalc.bst
Basic specifications Bore
[mm]
&86
Stroke
[mm]
86
Conrod length
[mm]
143.5
Total displacement
[L]
2.0
Displacement per cylinder
[L]
0.5
Number of cylinders
[-]
4
Firing order
[-]
1-4-2-3
Compression ratio
[-]
10.5:1
Fuel
Gasoline
Lower heating value
[kJ/kg]
43500
Stoichiometric A/F ratio
[kg/kg]
14.5
Inner valve seat diameter intake
[mm]
1x43.84
Inner valve seat diameter exhaust
[mm]
2x36.77
Valve timing at mm clear. (Exh. / Int.)
[mm]
0/0
EVO (deg. CRA BBDC)
50
EVC (deg. CRA ATDC)
-20
IVO (deg. CRA BTDC)
20
IVC (deg. CRA ABDC)
70
Table 4: Comparison of Calculated Results of the ottocalc Engine Comparison of the calculated results
Boost v3.3
Boost v4.0
Difference
[Nm]
211.53
211.50
-0.03
-0.014%
[Nm/L]
105.86
105.84
-0.02
-0.019%
[kW]
110.76
110.74
-0.02
-0.018%
[kW/L]
55.43
55.42
Friction Torque
[Nm]
31.17
31.17
-0.01
-0.018%
Friction Power
[kW]
16.32
16.32
0
0.000%
Effective Torque
[Nm]
180.37
180.33
0
0.000%
[Nm/L]
90.26
90.24
-0.04
-0.022%
[kW]
94.44
94.4
-0.02
-0.022%
[kW/L]
47.26
47.25
-0.04
-0.042%
BMEP
[bar]
11.3427
11.34
-0.01
-0.021%
BSFC
[g/kWh]
272.0452
272.0800
-0.0027
-0.024%
0.0348
0.013%
Indicated Torque Indicated Specific Torque Indicated Power Indicated Specific Power
Effective Specific Torque Effective Power Effective Specific Power
31-Jan-2008
2-17
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—21: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine
2-18
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
Figure 2—22: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine
31-Jan-2008
2-19
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—23: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the ottocalc Engine
2-20
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
Figure 2—24: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the ottocalc Engine
31-Jan-2008
2-21
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—25: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the ottcalc Engine
2-22
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
Figure 2—26: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the ottocalc Engine
31-Jan-2008
2-23
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—27: Model Schematic for 4 Cylinder SI Engine
Figure 2—28: Comparison of Volumetric Efficiencies
2-24
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
2.3.1.3. Six Cylinder Four Stoke Diesel
Figure 2—29: Boost v3.3 Model of the tcicalc Engine
Figure 2—30: Boost v4.0 Model of the tcicalc Engine
31-Jan-2008
2-25
BOOST v5.1
Validation Table 5: Main Engine Data of the tcicalc.bst
Basic specifications Bore
[mm]
&100
Stroke
[mm]
130
Con rod length
[mm]
220
Total displacement
[L]
6.126
Displacement per cylinder
[L]
1.021
Number of cylinders
[-]
6
Firing order
[-]
1-5-3-6-4-2
Compression ratio
[-]
18:1
Fuel
Diesel
Lower heating value
[kJ/kg]
42800
Stoichiometric A/F ratio
[kg/kg]
14.7
Inner valve seat diameter intake
[mm]
1x41
Inner valve seat diameter exhaust
[mm]
1x39
Valve timing at mm clear. (Exh. / Int.)
[mm]
0.4 / 0.3
EVO (deg. CRA BBDC)
58
EVC (deg. CRA ATDC)
16
IVO (deg. CRA BTDC)
20
IVC (deg. CRA ABDC)
40
Table 6: Comparison of Calculated Results of the tcicalc Engine Comparison of the calculated results
BOOST v3.3
BOOST v4.0
[Nm]
891.93
891.94
0.01
0.0109%
[Nm/L]
145.60
145.60
0
0%
[kW]
233.51
233.51
0
0%
[kW/L]
38.12
38.12
Friction Torque
[Nm]
112.64
112.64
0
0%
Friction Power
[kW]
29.49
29.49
0
0%
Effective Torque
[Nm]
779.30
779.30
0
0%
[Nm/L]
127.21
127.21
0
0%
[kW]
204.02
204.02
0
0%
[kW/L]
33.30
33.30
0
0%
BMEP
[bar]
15.9856
15.9857
0.0001
0.0004%
BSFC
[g/kWh]
220.5674
220.5653
-0.0021
0.00095%
Indicated Torque Indicated Specific Torque Indicated Power Indicated Specific Power
Effective Specific Torque Effective Power Effective Specific Power
2-26
Difference
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
Figure 2—31: Comparison of Pressure in MPs of the tcicalc engine
31-Jan-2008
2-27
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—32: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the tcicalc Engine
2-28
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
Figure 2—33: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the tcicalc Engine
31-Jan-2008
2-29
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—34: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the tcicalc Engine
2-30
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
Figure 2—35: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the tcicalc Engine
31-Jan-2008
2-31
BOOST v5.1
Validation
Figure 2—36: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the tcicalc Engine
2-32
31-Jan-2008
Validation
BOOST v5.1
3. REFERENCES [1]
Cartus T., Diewald R., Herzog P., Strigl T., Wanker R. “Diesel PartikelfilterSystemintegration – Von der 3D-Simulation zur Serie”, Wiener Motorensymposium, Proceedings, 2002
[2]
Missy S., Thams J., Bollig M., Tatschl R., Wanker R., Bachler G., Ennemoser A., and Grantner H. Computer-aided optimisation of the exhaust gas aftertreatment system of the new BMW 1.8-litre valvetronic engine. MTZ Journal , 11:18-29, 2001.
[3]
Skoglundh M., Thormählen P., Fridell E., Hajbolouri F., “Improved light-off performance by us-ing transient gas compositions in the catalytic treatment of car exhausts”, Chemical Engineering Science 54, 4559–4566
[4]
Wanker R., Raupenstrauch, H. and Staudinger, G. “A fully distributed model for the simulation of catalytic converter.” Chemical Engineering Science 55, 2000, 47094718
[5]
Wurzenberger J. C. and Peters B. “Catalytic Converter in a 1D Cycle Simulation Code Considering 3D Behavior”, SAE 2003-01-1002, 2003
[6]
Wurzenberger J. C. and Peters B. “Design and Optimization of Catalytic Converters taking into Account 3D and Transient Phenomena as an Integral Part in Engine Cycle Simulations”, ICES 2003-611, Proceedings of STC2003, ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division, 2003
31-Jan-2008
3-1
