Validation
October 2006
Validation BOOST v5.0
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
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
13-Oct-2006 2-1
BOOST v5.0 Validation
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.
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
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 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
13-Oct-2006 2-3
BOOST v5.0 Validation
Figure 2—6: DPF Regeneration – Axial Profiles of Soot Height and Wall Velocity
Simulated with BOOST and FIRE
∂ 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
13-Oct-2006 2-5
BOOST v5.0 Validation
2-6 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0
Figure 2—10: DPF Loading – Axial Soot Profile at Different Time Points
13-Oct-2006 2-7
BOOST v5.0 Validation
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
)
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
2-10 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0
13-Oct-2006 2-11
BOOST v5.0 Validation
2-12 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0
13-Oct-2006 2-13
BOOST v5.0 Validation
2-14 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0
13-Oct-2006 2-15
BOOST v5.0 Validation
2-16 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0
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
0.0348 0.013%
13-Oct-2006 2-17
BOOST v5.0 Validation
2-18 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0
13-Oct-2006 2-19
BOOST v5.0 Validation
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
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
2-24 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0
13-Oct-2006 2-25
BOOST v5.0 Validation
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
2-26 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0
13-Oct-2006 2-27
BOOST v5.0 Validation
2-28 13-Oct-2006
Validation BOOST v5.0
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
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
13-Oct-2006 3-1