Version 5.

Validation

October 2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

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 Date Description Document No.

A 03-May-2002 BOOST v4.0 – Validation 01.0106.0433
B 03-Mar-2003 BOOST v4.0.1 – Validation 01.0106.0438
C 18-Jul-2003 BOOST v4.0.3 – Validation 01.0106.0443
D 23-Jun-2004 BOOST v4.0.4 – Validation 01.0106.0453
E 29-Jul-2005 BOOST v4.1 – Validation 01.0106.0476
F 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 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 v5.0

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.01.0106.0500 - 13-Oct-2006 i
BOOST v5.0 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-Way-
Catalyst ............................................................................................................................................ 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.01.0106.0500 – 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

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.01.0106.0500 - 13-Oct-2006 iii

Validation BOOST v5.0

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

13-Oct-2006 1-1
Validation BOOST v5.0

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

13-Oct-2006 2-1
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 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

cmolar , gas ⋅ ( yCO ⋅ ΔH R ,CO + yCO ⋅ ΔH R ,C 3 H 6 + yCO ⋅ ΔH R ,H 2 )

ΔTadiabatic = , (1)
ρ mass , gas ⋅ c p , gas

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 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

⎧ ⎡ kJ ⎤ ⎫
⎪0.0055[−]⋅ 283.3⎢ mol ⎥ + ⎪
⎡ kmol ⎤ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪
0.025⎢ 3 ⎥
⎣ m ⎦ ⎪ ⎡ kJ ⎤ ⎪
ΔTadiabatic = ⋅ ⎨0.0005[−]⋅1925.5⎢ +⎬
⎡ kg ⎤ ⎡ J ⎤ ⎪ ⎣ mol ⎥⎦ ⎪ (2)
0.776⎢ 3 ⎥ ⋅ 1049.9⎢ ⎥
⎣m ⎦ ⎣ kgK ⎦ ⎪0.00139[−]⋅ 246.4⎡ kJ ⎤ ⎪
⎪ ⎢⎣ mol ⎥⎦ ⎪
⎩ ⎭
ΔTadiabatic = 87.9[K ]

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.

13-Oct-2006 2-3
BOOST v5.0 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

∂ Ts 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞
ρ s c p ,s = ⎜⎜ r λs s ⎟⎟ + k Ts , (4)
∂t r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠

2-4 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

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, Ts = Tambient @ r = R , (5)
dr

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].

13-Oct-2006 2-5
BOOST v5.0 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 13-Oct-2006
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 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

13-Oct-2006 2-7
BOOST v5.0 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
EPO (deg. CRA BBDC) [degCRA] 99
EPC (deg. CRA ATDC) [degCRA] 81
IPO (deg. CRA BTDC) [degCRA] 112
IPC (deg. CRA ABDC) [degCRA] 68

2-8 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

Table 2: Comparison of Calculated Results of the 2t1calc Engine

Comparison of the calculated results Boost v3.3 Boost v4.0 Difference

Indicated Torque [Nm] 19.81 20.70 0.89 4.5%
Indicated Specific Torque [Nm/L] 160.21 167.38 7.17 4.5%
Indicated Power [kW] 24.90 26.01
1.11 4.5%
Indicated Specific Power [kW/L] 201.33 210.34
9.01 4.5%
Friction Torque [Nm] 4.92 4.92
0 0.0%
Friction Power [kW] 6.18 6.18
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%

)
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.

13-Oct-2006 2-9
BOOST v5.0 Validation

Figure 2—13: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine

2-10 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

Figure 2—14: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-11
BOOST v5.0 Validation

Figure 2—15: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the 2t1calc Engine

2-12 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

Figure 2—16: Comparison of Pressures in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-13
BOOST v5.0 Validation

Figure 2—17: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the 2t1calc Engine

2-14 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

Figure 2—18: Comparison of Temperature and Pressure in the Variable Plenum1 of

the 2t1calc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-15
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 2—19: Boost v3.3 Model of the ottocalc Engine

Figure 2—20: Boost v4.0 Model of the ottocalc Engine

2-16 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

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

Indicated Torque [Nm] 211.53 211.50 -0.03 -0.014%
Indicated Specific Torque [Nm/L] 105.86 105.84 -0.02 -0.019%
Indicated Power [kW] 110.76 110.74
-0.02 -0.018%
Indicated Specific Power [kW/L] 55.43 55.42
-0.01 -0.018%
Friction Torque [Nm] 31.17 31.17
0 0.000%
Friction Power [kW] 16.32 16.32
Effective Torque [Nm] 180.37 180.33 0 0.000%

Effective Specific Torque [Nm/L] 90.26 90.24 -0.04 -0.022%

Effective Power [kW] 94.44 94.4 -0.02 -0.022%
Effective Specific Power [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%

13-Oct-2006 2-17
BOOST v5.0 Validation

Figure 2—21: Comparison of Pressures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine

2-18 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

Figure 2—22: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the ottocalc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-19
BOOST v5.0 Validation

Figure 2—23: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the ottocalc Engine

2-20 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

Figure 2—24: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the
ottocalc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-21
BOOST v5.0 Validation

Figure 2—25: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the ottcalc Engine

2-22 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

Figure 2—26: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the ottocalc
Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-23
BOOST v5.0 Validation

Figure 2—27: Model Schematic for 4 Cylinder SI Engine

Figure 2—28: Comparison of Volumetric Efficiencies

2-24 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

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

13-Oct-2006 2-25
BOOST v5.0 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 Difference

Indicated Torque [Nm] 891.93 891.94 0.01 0.0109%
Indicated Specific Torque [Nm/L] 145.60 145.60 0 0%
Indicated Power [kW] 233.51 233.51
0 0%
Indicated Specific Power [kW/L] 38.12 38.12
0 0%
Friction Torque [Nm] 112.64 112.64
0 0%
Friction Power [kW] 29.49 29.49
Effective Torque [Nm] 779.30 779.30 0 0%

Effective Specific Torque [Nm/L] 127.21 127.21 0 0%

Effective Power [kW] 204.02 204.02 0 0%
Effective Specific Power [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%

2-26 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

Figure 2—31: Comparison of Pressure in MPs of the tcicalc engine

13-Oct-2006 2-27
BOOST v5.0 Validation

Figure 2—32: Comparison of Temperatures in MPs of the tcicalc Engine

2-28 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

Figure 2—33: Comparison of Mass Flows in MPs of the tcicalc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-29
BOOST v5.0 Validation

Figure 2—34: Comparison of Pressure, Temperature and Mass Flow in Cylinder1 of the
tcicalc Engine

2-30 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0

Figure 2—35: Comparison of Heat Flow in Cylinder1 of the tcicalc Engine

13-Oct-2006 2-31
BOOST v5.0 Validation

Figure 2—36: Comparison of Pressure and Temperature in the Plenums of the tcicalc
Engine

2-32 13-Oct-2006
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., 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, 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

13-Oct-2006 3-1