View
218
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
1/43
Version 5.0
Validation
October 2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
2/43
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
3/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
AVL LIST GmbHHans-List-Platz 1, A-8020 Graz, Austriahttp://www.avl.com
AST Local Support Contact: www.avl.com/ast_support
Revision Date Description Document No.
A 03-May-2002 BOOST v4.0 Validation 01.0106.0433B 03-Mar-2003 BOOST v4.0.1 Validation 01.0106.0438C 18-Jul-2003 BOOST v4.0.3 Validation 01.0106.0443D 23-Jun-2004 BOOST v4.0.4 Validation 01.0106.0453E 29-Jul-2005 BOOST v4.1 Validation 01.0106.0476F 13-Oct-2006 BOOST v5.0 Validation 01.0106.0500
Copyright 2006, 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 users 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.
http://www.avl.com/http://www.avl.com/ast_supporthttp://www.avl.com/ast_supporthttp://www.avl.com/8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
4/43
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
5/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
AST. - 13-Oct-2006 i01.0106.0500
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___________________________________________________2-52.2.2.1. 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
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
6/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
ii AST. 13-Oct-200601.0106.0500
List of Figures
Figure 21: BOOST Input Model for Shock Tube Test Case ............................................................................2-1
Figure 22: Spatial Plot of BOOST Shock Tube Results...................................................................................2-1Figure 23: Color Map/Fringe Plot of BOOST Shock Tube Results.................................................................2-1
Figure 24: Light-Off Simulation Oxidation Catalyst Simulated with BOOST and FIRE ..........................2-3
Figure 25: DPF Regeneration Transient Maximum and Mean Temperature Simulated with BOOST
and FIRE.........................................................................................................................................2-4
Figure 26: DPF Regeneration Axial Profiles of Soot Height and Wall Velocity Simulated with BOOST
and FIRE.........................................................................................................................................2-4
Figure 27: Discrete Channel Method Comparison with Finite Difference Solution...................................2-5
Figure 28: Light-off Simulation Rise of Temperature and Pollutant Conversion of an Oxidation
Catalyst ............................................................................................................................................2-6
Figure 29: Light-off Simulation Rise of Temperature and Pollutant Conversion of a Three-Way-
Catalyst ............................................................................................................................................2-6
Figure 210: DPF Loading Axial Soot Profile at Different Time Points .......................................................2-7
Figure 211: Boost v3.3 Model of the 2t1calc Engine........................................................................................2-7
Figure 212: Boost v4.0 Model of the 2t1calc Engine........................................................................................2-8
Figure 213: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine............................................................2-10
Figure 214: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine.....................................................2-11
Figure 215: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine.........................................................2-12
Figure 216: Comparison of Pressures in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine...................................................2-13
Figure 217: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine..................................................2-14
Figure 218: Comparison of Temperature and Pressure in the Variable Plenum1 of the 2t1calc Engine ..2-15
Figure 219: Boost v3.3 Model of the ottocalc Engine.....................................................................................2-16Figure 220: Boost v4.0 Model of the ottocalc Engine.....................................................................................2-16
Figure 221: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine...........................................................2-18
Figure 222: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine....................................................2-19
Figure 223: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the ottocalc Engine........................................................2-20
Figure 224: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the ottocalc Engine..2-21
Figure 225: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the ottcalc Engine...................................................2-22
Figure 226: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the ottocalc Engine.................2-23
Figure 227: Model Schematic for 4 Cylinder SI Engine.................................................................................2-24
Figure 228: Comparison of Volumetric Efficiencies.......................................................................................2-24
Figure 229: Boost v3.3 Model of the tcicalc Engine .......................................................................................2-25
Figure 230: Boost v4.0 Model of the tcicalc Engine .......................................................................................2-25Figure 231: Comparison of Pressure in MPs of the tcicalc engine................................................................2-27
Figure 232: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the tcicalc Engine......................................................2-28
Figure 233: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the tcicalc Engine ..........................................................2-29
Figure 234: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the tcicalc Engine....2-30
Figure 235: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the tcicalc Engine ...................................................2-31
Figure 236: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the tcicalc Engine ...................2-32
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
7/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
AST. - 13-Oct-2006 iii01.0106.0500
List of Tables
Table 1: Main Engine Data of the 2t1calc.bst ......................................................................................................2-8
Table 2: Comparison of Calculated Results of the 2t1calc Engine .....................................................................2-9Table 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
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
8/43
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
9/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
13-Oct-2006 1-1
1. INTRODUCTIONThis 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) Users 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
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
10/43
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
11/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
2. VALIDATION
2.1. Gas Dynamics
Figure 21: BOOST Input Model for Shock Tube Test Case
Figure 22: Spatial Plot of BOOST Shock Tube Results
Figure 23: Color Map/Fringe Plot of BOOST Shock Tube Results
13-Oct-2006 2-1
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
12/43
BOOST v5.0 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 becompared with analytical solutions.
The entire catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter model was comparedwith 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 24 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 allbalance 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 Tadiabatictemperaturedifference between the catalyst inlet and outletcan be calculated analytically using
the following formula
( )
gaspgasmass
HRCOHCRCOCORCOgasmolar
adiabaticc
HyHyHycT
,,
2,63,,,
++=
, (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 HR are the correspondingheat of reactions. mass,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 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
13/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]KT
mol
kJ
mol
kJ
mol
kJ
kgK
J
m
kg
m
kmol
T
adiabatic
adiabatic
9.87
4.24600139.0
5.19250005.0
3.2830055.0
9.1049776.0
025.0
3
3
=
+
+
=(2)
The adiabatic heat up simulated by FIRE and BOOST is
[ ] [ ] [ ]KKKT BOOSTFIRE 5.865503.636/ == . (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 24: Light-Off Simulation Oxidation Catalyst Simulated with BOOST and
FIRE
2.2.1.2. DPF-Regeneration Simulation
Figure 25 and Figure 26 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.
13-Oct-2006 2-3
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
14/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 25: DPF Regeneration Transient Maximum and Mean Temperature
Simulated with BOOST and FIRE
Figure 26: 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
ss
ss
sps Tkr
Trrrt
Tc +
=
1
, , (4)
2-4 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
15/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
where Ts is the solid temperature and s is its density. cp,s is the solids heat capacity and sis the heat conductivity. The radial coordinate is represented by r, and t is the time and
kis a reaction constant. With the boundary conditions
RrTTrrd
Tdambientss ==== @,0@0 , (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 27. 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
27 show identical results generated by two different numerical approaches.
Figure 27: 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 SimulationComparison of BOOST simulations with Experimental Data taken from Missy et al [2].
Refer also to Wurzenberger and Peters [5].
13-Oct-2006 2-5
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
16/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 28: 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 29: Light-off Simulation Rise of Temperature and Pollutant Conversion of a
Three-Way-Catalyst
2-6 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
17/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
2.2.2.3. Diesel Particulate Filter Loading
Comparison of BOOST simulations with Experimental Data taken from Cartus et al [1].
Figure 210: 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 211: Boost v3.3 Model of the 2t1calc Engine
13-Oct-2006 2-7
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
18/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 212: Boost v4.0 Model of the 2t1calc Engine
Table 1: Main Engine Data of the 2t1calc.bst
Basic specifications
Bore
Stroke
Conrod length
Total displacement
Displacement per cylinder
Number of cylinders
Firing order
Compression ratio
Fuel
Lower heating value
Stoichiometric A/F ratio
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
[L]
[L]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[kJ/kg]
[kg/kg]
&54
54
110.2
0.12
0.12
1
1
13.5:1
Gasoline
42700
14.0
Piston timing: intake and exhaust port
EPO (deg. CRA BBDC)
EPC (deg. CRA ATDC)
IPO (deg. CRA BTDC)IPC (deg. CRA ABDC)
[degCRA]
[degCRA]
[degCRA][degCRA]
99
81
11268
2-8 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
19/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
13-Oct-2006 2-9
Table 2: Comparison of Calculated Results of the 2t1calc Engine
Comparison of the calculated results Boost v3.3 Boost v4.0 Difference
Indicated Torque
Indicated Specific TorqueIndicated Power
Indicated Specific Power
Friction Torque
Friction Power
Effective Torque
Effective Specific Torque
Effective Power
Effective Specific Power
BMEP
BSFC
[Nm]
[Nm/L][kW]
[kW/L]
[Nm]
[kW]
[Nm]
[Nm/L]
[Nm/L
[kW/L]
[bar]
[g/kWh]
19.81
160.2124.90
201.33
4.92
6.18
14.89
120.43
18.72
151.33
7.5666
443.7105
20.70
167.3826.01
210.34
4.92
6.18
15.78
127.60
19.83
160.34
7.5619
443.9965
0.89
7.17
1.11
9.01
0
0
0.89
7.17
1.11
9.01
-0.0047
0.286
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
6.0%
6.0%
5.9%
6.0%
-0.1%
0.1%
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.
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
20/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 213: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine
2-10 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
21/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
Figure 214: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine
13-Oct-2006 2-11
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
22/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 215: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine
2-12 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
23/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
Figure 216: Comparison of Pressures in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine
13-Oct-2006 2-13
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
24/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 217: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine
2-14 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
25/43
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
26/43
BOOST v5.0 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 219: Boost v3.3 Model of the ottocalc Engine
Figure 220: Boost v4.0 Model of the ottocalc Engine
2-16 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
27/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
13-Oct-2006 2-17
Table 3: Main Engine Data of the ottocalc.bst
Basic specifications
Bore
Stroke
Conrod length
Total displacement
Displacement per cylinder
Number of cylinders
Firing order
Compression ratio
Fuel
Lower heating value
Stoichiometric A/F ratio
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
[L]
[L]
[-]
[-]
[-]
[kJ/kg]
[kg/kg]
&86
86
143.5
2.0
0.5
4
1-4-2-3
10.5:1
Gasoline
43500
14.5
Inner valve seat diameter intake
Inner valve seat diameter exhaust
[mm]
[mm]
1x43.84
2x36.77
Valve timing at mm clear. (Exh. / Int.)
EVO (deg. CRA BBDC)
EVC (deg. CRA ATDC)
IVO (deg. CRA BTDC)
IVC (deg. CRA ABDC)
[mm] 0 / 0
50
-20
20
70
Table 4: Comparison of Calculated Results of the ottocalc Engine
Comparison of the calculated results Boost v3.3 Boost v4.0 Difference
Indicated Torque
Indicated Specific Torque
Indicated Power
Indicated Specific Power
Friction Torque
Friction Power
Effective Torque
Effective Specific Torque
Effective Power
Effective Specific Power
BMEP
BSFC
[Nm]
[Nm/L]
[kW]
[kW/L]
[Nm]
[kW]
[Nm]
[Nm/L]
[kW]
[kW/L]
[bar]
[g/kWh]
211.53
105.86
110.76
55.43
31.17
16.32
180.37
90.26
94.44
47.26
11.3427
272.0452
211.50
105.84
110.74
55.42
31.17
16.32
180.33
90.24
94.4
47.25
11.34
272.0800
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.01
0
0
-0.04
-0.02
-0.04
-0.01
-0.0027
0.0348
-0.014%
-0.019%
-0.018%
-0.018%
0.000%
0.000%
-0.022%
-0.022%
-0.042%
-0.021%
-0.024%
0.013%
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
28/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 221: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine
2-18 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
29/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
Figure 222: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine
13-Oct-2006 2-19
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
30/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 223: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the ottocalc Engine
2-20 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
31/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
Figure 224: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the
ottocalc Engine
13-Oct-2006 2-21
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
32/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 225: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the ottcalc Engine
2-22 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
33/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
Figure 226: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the ottocalc
Engine
13-Oct-2006 2-23
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
34/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 227: Model Schematic for 4 Cylinder SI Engine
Figure 228: Comparison of Volumetric Efficiencies
2-24 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
35/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
2.3.1.3. Six Cylinder Four Stoke Diesel
Figure 229: Boost v3.3 Model of the tcicalc Engine
Figure 230: Boost v4.0 Model of the tcicalc Engine
13-Oct-2006 2-25
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
36/43
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
37/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
Figure 231: Comparison of Pressure in MPs of the tcicalc engine
13-Oct-2006 2-27
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
38/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 232: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the tcicalc Engine
2-28 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
39/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
Figure 233: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the tcicalc Engine
13-Oct-2006 2-29
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
40/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 234: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the
tcicalc Engine
2-30 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
41/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
Figure 235: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the tcicalc Engine
13-Oct-2006 2-31
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
42/43
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 236: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the tcicalc
Engine
2-32 13-Oct-2006
8/8/2019 BOOST Validation
43/43
Validation BOOST v5.0
3. REFERENCES[1] Cartus T., Diewald R., Herzog P., Strigl T., Wanker R. Diesel Partikelfilter-
Systemintegration 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., Thormhlen 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, 45594566
[4] Wanker R., Raupenstrauch, H. and Staudinger, G. A fully distributed model for the
simulation of catalytic converter. Chemical Engineering Science 55, 2000, 4709-
4718
[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
Recommended