BOOST Validation

8/8/2019 BOOST Validation

1/43

Version 5.0

Validation

October 2006


2/43


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/


4/43


5/43


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


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


7/43


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


8/43


9/43


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


10/43


11/43


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


12/43


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


13/43


[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]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


14/43


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


15/43


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


16/43


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


17/43


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


18/43


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


19/43


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.


20/43


Figure 213: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine

2-10 13-Oct-2006


21/43


Figure 214: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-11


22/43


Figure 215: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine

2-12 13-Oct-2006


23/43


Figure 216: Comparison of Pressures in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-13


24/43


Figure 217: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine

2-14 13-Oct-2006


25/43


26/43


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


27/43


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%


28/43


Figure 221: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine

2-18 13-Oct-2006


29/43


Figure 222: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-19


30/43


Figure 223: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the ottocalc Engine

2-20 13-Oct-2006


31/43


Figure 224: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the

ottocalc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-21


32/43


Figure 225: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the ottcalc Engine

2-22 13-Oct-2006


33/43


Figure 226: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the ottocalc

Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-23


34/43


Figure 227: Model Schematic for 4 Cylinder SI Engine

Figure 228: Comparison of Volumetric Efficiencies

2-24 13-Oct-2006


35/43


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


36/43


37/43


Figure 231: Comparison of Pressure in MPs of the tcicalc engine

13-Oct-2006 2-27


38/43


Figure 232: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the tcicalc Engine

2-28 13-Oct-2006


39/43


Figure 233: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the tcicalc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-29


40/43


Figure 234: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the

tcicalc Engine

2-30 13-Oct-2006


41/43


Figure 235: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the tcicalc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-31


42/43


Figure 236: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the tcicalc

Engine

2-32 13-Oct-2006


43/43


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

Documents

BOOST Validation