characterization and analysis of ceria-coated gasoline ...ardous particulate matter emissions from...
TRANSCRIPT
Characterization and Analysis of Ceria-Coated GasolineParticulate Filter
Harikesh Arunachalama, Gabriele Pozzatob, Mark A. Hoffmanc, Simona Onoria,∗
aDepartment of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USAbDipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy
cDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA
Abstract
Gasoline particulate filters (GPFs) are practically adoptable devices to mitigate haz-
ardous particulate matter emissions from vehicles using gasoline direct ignition (GDI)
engines. This paper describes the soot accumulation and regeneration experiments con-
ducted on a ceria-coated GPF installed downstream of a three-way catalytic converter
in a vehicle operating a GDI engine. Using the geometric design parameters of the
coated GPF, the total volume of cordierite and the total trapping volume of exhaust gas
in the GPF were calculated. The measured pre-GPF air-fuel ratio was used to determine
the volume fraction of the exhaust gas constituents. Oxygen density and the specific
heat of the exhaust gas were obtained as a function of temperature using the computed
volume fractions. Finally, the amount of soot mass oxidized during a regeneration
event was evaluated using the measured parts per million levels of pre- and post-GPF
CO2 gas. These parameters are essential to characterize the dynamic performance of
a GPF. Data acquired from experiments, and the aforementioned parameters serve as a
foundation for the development of mathematical models for virtual sensor deployment
and assessment of GPF performance across different initial soot loading and operating
temperature conditions.
Keywords: gasoline direct injection, gasoline particulate filter, catalytic washcoat,
experimental characterization
∗Corresponding authorEmail address: [email protected] (Simona Onori)
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
© 2018 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.
Nomenclature
λ air/fuel ratio normalized by the stoichio-
metric air/fuel ratio, [−]
φwall average porosity of the wall in the coated
GPF channels, [−]
ρO2density of oxygen, [kg/m3]
CO2,in pre-GPF ppm levels of CO2, [−]
CO2,out post-GPF ppm levels of CO2, [−]
Cp,gas specific heat capacity of the exhaust gas,
[J/(kgK)]
Cp,i specific heat capacity of exhaust gas con-
stituent species i, [J/(kgK)]
D coated GPF substrate diameter, [m]
hchannel width of each channel, [m]
hchannel width of each channel, [m]
2
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
hchannel width of each channel, [m]
hplug width of each plug, [m]
hwall thickness of the wall, [m]
lwall length of the coated GPF substrate, [m]
lplug length of each plug in the channels of the
coated GPF, [m]
mc,exp experimentally determined soot mass, [kg]
mc,exp,ini the value of mc,exp prior to the beginning
of a regeneration event, [kg]
mc,exp,end the value of mc,exp at the end of a regener-
ation event, [kg]
mc,init initial mass of soot prior to regeneration,
[kg]
mO2 mass of oxygen, [kg]
mg exhaust gas mass flow rate, [kg/s]
MC carbon molar mass, 12× 10−3 [kg/mol]
MCO2carbon dioxide molar mass,
44× 10−3 [kg/mol]
MO2oxygen molar mass, 32× 10−3 [kg/mol]
nC number of moles of carbon, [−]
nO2 number of moles of oxygen, [−]
ntotal total moles of the products of the combus-
tion reaction, [mol]
Nch total number of channels in the GPF, [−]
Ncross total number of channels across the semi-
circular GPF section, [−]
ppm parts per million
R ideal gas constant, 8.314 [J/(molK)]
tf end time of a regeneration event, [s]
tm time when the pre-GPF air-fuel ratio first
reaches its maximum value, [s]
ts start time of a regeneration event, [s]
Tgas temperature of the exhaust gas con-
stituents, [K]
Tinlet measured exhaust gas temperature at the
inlet of the GPF, [K]
Vcord total volume of cordierite in the GPF
Vexh filter trapping volume
Yi volume fraction of exhaust gas constituent
i, [−]
3
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
1. Introduction
Rapid urbanization and industrialization in recent decades has been achieved through
excessive consumption of fossil-fuel based energy resources. These advancements
come at the cost of environmental degradation resulting from various factors of pollu-
tion [1]. Different nations have called for innovative solutions to mitigate the negative
impact of economic development on climate change. Policies enforced in the trans-
portation sector involve improved fuel quality, promoting sustainable transportation,
and alternate sources of propulsion [2].
A notable advancement in engine technology to meet current and future regulation
targets is the transition from port fuel injection (PFI) systems to gasoline direct injec-
tion (GDI) systems [3]. In PFI engines, fuel is sprayed into the intake ports where
it mixes with the incoming air, whereas in GDI engines, fuel is sprayed directly into
the engine cylinder where it atomizes, mixes with the incoming air, and evaporates.
GDI engines offer more flexibility and accuracy in terms of fuel injection quantity and
provide thermodynamic benefits from evaporative charge cooling [4].
However, under certain operating modes, GDI engines suffer from limited fuel-air
mixing in the combustion chamber. As a result, hazardous particulate matter (PM)
are released into the atmosphere [5]. Experimental studies [4] have revealed that GDI
engines emit greater quantities of PM than PFI engines. PM emissions pose serious
health concerns such as decreased respiratory function and irregular heart beat [6].
Addressing the release of non-volatile PM presents an urgent technological and social
concern. Acknowledging the need to mitigate these hazardous emissions, increasingly
stringent regulations have been imposed across the world [7, 8, 9, 10].
Two approaches to mitigate PM emissions exist today: a) minimize PM forma-
tion in the combustion chamber, and b) oxidize particulates in the exhaust system [11].
Post-combustion PM elimination methodologies include: increasing the exhaust mani-
fold wall temperatures to support soot oxidation, and the use of aftertreatment devices
such as PM filters. Automotive manufacturers have recognized gasoline particulate fil-
ters (GPFs) as a promising and practically adoptable PM emission control device for
the exhaust system [12].
4
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
Particulate filter (PF) technology has been successfully implemented to mitigate
exhaust gas emissions in diesel vehicles through diesel particulate filters (DPFs) [13].
In comparison, GPF technology is relatively new and many research challenges remain
to be addressed. While the geometric structures of DPFs and GPFs are similar, there
are characteristic differences in the operating conditions and PM size and morphology
between the gasoline and diesel cases [14, 15]. These dissimilarities make it difficult
to apply DPF knowledge directly to GDI engines without making suitable adjustments.
The varying behavioral characteristics also elucidate the need for characterization tools
designed specifically for GPFs.
Different studies have experimentally evaluated the performance of GPFs in miti-
gating PM emissions in GDI engine operated vehicles, both as stand-alone devices [14,
16] as well as in conjunction with a three-way catalytic converter (TWC) [17, 18].
Lambert et. al. [19, 20] analyzed the accumulation of ash in ceramic wall-flow GPFs
located downstream of a TWC as a function of the vehicle mileage. Another study [21]
evaluated the filtration efficiency and PM mitigation performance of GPFs as a function
of the ambient temperature for the FTP-75 and US06 driving cycles.
Despite these developments, experimental investigations of exhaust gas behavior
in GPFs have not been sufficiently explored. A critical challenge in characterizing
GPF dynamics is that the filtration and regeneration mechanisms for small particu-
lates dispersed within the wall pores rather than caked atop the porous wall are not
well understood. Boger et. al. [22] conducted experiments to evaluate the amount of
soot oxidized in uncoated GPFs during a regeneration event. However, no such stud-
ies have been reported in literature for catalyzed GPFs which offer a comparatively
enhanced performance in terms of: a) filtration efficiency [23], b) reduction in NOx
emissions [24], and c) soot oxidation capability [24].
Regeneration events require a lean air-fuel mixture with significantly higher O2
concentration in the exhaust gas compared to nominal operating conditions. In sce-
narios where the GPF is installed downstream of a TWC, a device which requires
stoichiometric operating conditions for optimal performance, the conflicting needs of
the two devices can create non-optimal operating scenarios which hamper fuel econ-
omy. Therefore, experimental characterization and analysis of exhaust transport in
5
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
GPFs during regeneration is required to: a) monitor GPF internal temperature and pre-
vent thermal stresses, and b) assess the frequency of conducting regeneration events to
oxidize the accumulated soot and relieve the increasing back pressure on the engine.
One of the novel contributions of this work is a quantitative assessment of the ther-
mal and soot oxidation dynamics in a ceria washcoated GPF through experiments. This
experimental campaign not only enables the evaluation of parameters that are vital to
characterize GPF dynamics, but also serves as a foundation for the development of
mathematical models which can virtually sense GPF behavior under diverse operating
conditions. This aspect of research is crucial, given that the costs and calibration efforts
associated with the installation of real sensors in GPFs would be infeasible for practical
applications.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a overview of GPFs and
Section 3 summarizes the experimental studies undertaken to understand the transport
dynamics in a ceria coated GPF during nominal operation and regeneration events. Sec-
tion 4 elaborates upon the approach to determine critical parameters that characterize
GPF dynamic transport, using geometric information, experimental data, and thermo-
dynamic principles. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the contributions of this work.
2. Gasoline Particulate Filters
GPFs are emissions aftertreatment devices that are installed in the tailpipe of GDI
operating gasoline vehicles to mitigate particulate emissions. They were first com-
mercially introduced by Diamler in their Mercedez-Benz S500 luxury sedan vehicle
segment in early 2014 [25]. GPF substrates are generally composed of a porous three-
dimensional structure [26] and are made of ceramic materials or metallic fibers. They
have been synthesized in a variety of shapes ranging from circular to oval cross sec-
tion [27].
GPFs consist of a monolithic structure with axially parallel channels which are
alternatively plugged at each end. As the exhaust gas enters the inlet channel and
is forced to pass through the porous walls, soot particulates are trapped within the
channel walls. Over time, this accumulation of soot increases the engine back pressure,
6
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
Frontal View
Plugs
(b)
Inlet Outlet
Wall-flowmonolith
configuration
Channels
(a)
Brick
Housing
Figure 1: (a) Side view of the sectioned coated GPF, and (b) axially parallel channels which are alternativelyplugged at each end with cordierite. A two-dimensional view of an inlet channel, porous wall, and an outletchannel of the GPF is shown here.
which can negatively impact engine performance and fuel economy. To minimize this
negative impact, the soot trapped in the GPF must be periodically removed. This is
accomplished via regeneration, i.e. oxidation of soot at elevated temperatures in the
presence of oxygen [28].
The structure and internal design of the coated GPF used in the experimental cam-
paign of this work is presented in Fig. 1. The washcoat material is primarily composed
of ceria (CeO2). Precious metals are loaded within the cerium to provide catalytic
reaction benefits, while the cerium provides the scaffolding for the precious metals and
oxygen storage ability that enhance soot oxidation reactions inside the GPF.
3. Experimental Characterization of a Ceria-Coated GPF
Experimental work, data acquisition, and data analysis associated with the soot
accumulation and soot regeneration stages were conducted at the Chassis Dynamome-
ter laboratory located at the Clemson University International Center for Automotive
Research.1
1The authors of this manuscript were affiliated with the Department of Automotive Engineering, ClemsonUniversity, Greenville, SC 29607, USA, when the experimental work and model development studies wereundertaken.
7
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
Experimental data sets are developed with different initial soot loadings and tem-
peratures at the onset of regeneration. For each data set, multiple regeneration events
are performed in a sequential manner to gradually decrease the overall amount of soot
accumulated inside the coated GPF through oxidation. Temperature measurements
were obtained by installing K-type thermocouples in the GPF channel from the rear
of the filter. The spatially diverse locations of the sensors spanned the axial and radial
directions from the inlet to the outlet of the coated GPF. The pre- and post-GPF ppm
levels of CO and CO2 gases were measured by simultaneously passing the respective
gas streams through a dual channel Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)
analyzer with equivalent sample line lengths and sample flow rates.
Prior to regeneration, the engine is switched to lean operation, producing a precip-
itous decrease in CO2 pre-GPF. Because of the presence of a TWC upstream of the
GPF, the decline in CO2 concentration is gradually observed, instead of a step change
as seen in the measured exhaust gas mass flow rate, mg . Due to an increase in the
amount of O2 inside the GPF compared to nominal operation, the post-GPF CO2 lev-
els increase beyond the inlet, indicating regeneration. During the onset of regeneration,
the air-fuel ratio λ, measured using a wide range lambda sensor mounted upstream of
the GPF, is greater than the stoichiometric value of 1. When the regeneration event is
terminated, the post-TWC air-fuel ratio returns to its stoichiometric value.
The layout of different thermocouples installed in the coated GPF is shown in
Fig. 2. Sensor locations 2, 3, and 4 represent the GPF internal temperatures along
the flow centerline of the front-plane, rear-plane, and mid-plane, respectively. Prior
to regeneration, soot accumulation experiments were performed with the coated GPF
installed downstream of a TWC on a vehicle operating at a constant engine load for
extended periods of time. Based on the engine operating conditions and mg , the back-
pressure developing across the GPF (measured using a differential pressure sensor) and
soot mass accumulation were determined. Accumulation experiments were specifically
designed to produce different initial soot loading densities within the coated GPF.
The GPF inlet temperature at the onset of each successive regeneration event was
increased to enhance the soot oxidation reaction kinetics despite the decreasing GPF
carbon concentration after each successive regeneration event. Note that utilizing a
8
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
𝑇𝑇2
𝑇𝑇3
𝑇𝑇4
Exhaust Flow1.5” from front face
1.5” from rear face
Mid bed
Inlet Outlet
FP MP RP
Front Plane (FP)
Mid Plane (MP)
Rear Plane (RP)
Engine SideExhaust
Flow
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑇𝑇4Exhaust Flow
GPF
Thermocouples
𝑇𝑇2 𝑇𝑇3
Figure 2: Schematic representation of the location of different thermocouples to measure the internal GPFtemperature.
conservative inlet temperature at the onset of the first regeneration minimizes the risk
of overheating the GPF during soot oxidation. For every experimental regeneration
event, it is possible to determine the initial and final soot mass inside the coated GPF
from the pre- and post-GPF CO2 ppm measurements. This is outlined in Section 4.4.
4. GPF Dynamics Charaterization Parameters
4.1. Calculation of Vcord and Vexh
An isometric view of the coated GPF with alternating channels and plugs is shown
in Fig. 3. The GPF has an equal number of channels and plugs, and every channel
and plug have the same width. Vcord is the total volume of cordierite in the GPF and
Vexh is the exhaust gas trapping volume inside the GPF. The wall thickness, hwall,
is obtained by assuming the coated GPF to have a cylindrical shape with a circular
cross-section. This facilitates the calculation of Ncross, the total number of channels
across the frontal semi-circular view of the sectioned GPF. The geometric properties of
the GPF are summarized in Table 1. Assuming the GPF is composed of two identical
9
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
𝑫/𝟐
𝑫
𝟖𝟎 𝒑𝒍𝒖𝒈𝒔
(a)
𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙
ℎ𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙
ℎ𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙
One channel unit
𝑃𝑙𝑢𝑔
ℎ𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙
ℎ𝑝𝑙𝑢𝑔 = ℎ𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙
One plug unit
(c)
𝑃𝑙𝑢𝑔
𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙
𝑃𝑙𝑢𝑔
𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙
𝑃𝑙𝑢𝑔
𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙
𝑫
(b)
Figure 3: (a) Isometric view showing the front and sectioned interior of a coated GPF. The cross-sectionshown here is assumed to be semi-circular, and the frontal view represents the maximum number of channelsfrom top to bottom. Alternating channels and plugs span the entire frontal view, as shown in (b). All channelsand plugs have a thickness of (hchannel + hwall). (c) represents the cross-section of a single channel anda single plug.
semi-cylinders, Nch is expressed in terms of Ncross as:
Nch = 2 ·{Ncross ·
Ncross2·
0.5× π4D
2
D × D2
}⇒ Ncross =
√4×Nch
π≈ 80
(1)
The substrate diameter, D, is expressed in terms of Ncross and (hchannel + hwall)
as:
D = Ncross · (hchannel + hwall)
⇒ hwall =D
Ncross− hchannel = 0.215 [mm].
(2)
Figure 4 (a) represents a single inlet/outlet channel pair sectioned in the axial di-
rection. Figure 4 (b) illustrates a three dimensional view of a single inlet channel. Note
that the outlet channel is a mirror image of the inlet channel. The walls have a porosity
fraction of φwall, such that the volume fraction of the cordierite in the wall is equal to
10
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
Geometric parameter ValueSubstrate diameter, D 118 [mm]
Substrate length, lwall 127 [mm]
Plug length, lplug 5 [mm]
Width of inlet channel, hchannel 1.26 [mm]
Total number of channels, Nch 5085Average porosity of the wall, φwall 0.625 [−]
Substrate volume 1.39 × 10−3 [m3]
Particulate filter density, ρGPF 1100 [kg/m3]
Table 1: Geometric properties of the coated GPF used in the experimental campaign of this work.
(1− φwall). Vexh is then determined as:
Vexh = Nch ·{
(lwall − lplug) · h2channel + φwall · lwall · h2wall
+ 2 · φwall · lwall · hwall · hchannel}
= 1.222× 10−3 [m3]
(3)
Similarly, Vcord is equal to the sum of the volume of all the cordierite plugs and the
sum of the volume of cordierite in all the porous walls:
Vcord = Nch ·{lplug · h2plug + (1− φwall) · lwall · h2wall
+ 2 · (1− φwall) · lwall · hwall · hchannel}
= 0.1828× 10−3 [m3]
(4)
The sum of Vexh and Vcord is 1.4048 ×10−3 [m3], a value that is approximately equal
to the volume encompassed by the exterior geometric dimensions of the coated GPF
substrate.
11
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
(a) (b)
ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑤𝑤𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑤𝑤
Outlet channel
Inlet channel
Wall
Wall
𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝𝑤𝑤𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑙𝑙𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
ℎ𝑝𝑝𝑤𝑤𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐶𝐶ℎ𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙
𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
ℎ𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑤𝑤𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑤𝑤
𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝𝑤𝑤𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑙𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
Figure 4: (a) Two-dimensional view of an inlet channel, porous wall, and an outlet channel of the coatedGPF, and (b) three-dimensional view of the inlet channel incorporating the cordierite plug at the downstreamend.
4.2. Calculation of the volume fraction of the exhaust gas constituents
The volume fraction of species i in the exhaust gas is the ratio of the volume Vi that
it occupies and the total volume of all the exhaust gas species:
Yi =Vi∑j Vj
(5)
If the exhaust gas constituents follow ideal gas behavior, they satisfy the ideal gas
equation [29]:
P · Vi = ni ·R · Tgas, (6)
where ni represents the number of moles of exhaust gas constituent i, P and Tgas
represent the pressure and temperature of the exhaust gas, and R is the universal gas
constant. The ideal gas equation satisfied by the exhaust gas is:
P ·∑j
Vj =∑j
nj ·R · Tgas (7)
Using (6) and (7), Yi is expressed in terms of the total number of moles of the exhaust
gas constituents, ntotal:
Yi =ni
ntotal(8)
Under nominal operating conditions, the volume fraction of oxygen, YO2, is set
12
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
to zero by assuming near stoichiometric combustion of gasoline and a properly func-
tioning TWC upstream of the GPF. To initiate a regeneration event within the GPF, the
engine is forced to operate under lean conditions (λ > 1). As a result, the concentration
of oxygen inside the GPF increases and initiates the regeneration reactions.
As the internal GPF temperature increases, the enhanced reaction rates lead to an
accelerated oxidation of the trapped soot. YO2is computed using λ measurements and
the kinetics of the following combustion reaction [30]:
CaHb + λ(a+ b
4
)(O2 + 3.773N2)→
aCO2 + b2H2O + λ · 3.773 ·
(a+ b
4
)N2 + (λ− 1)
(a+ b
4
)O2 (9)
The total number of moles of combustion products in the above equation is:
ntotal = a+b
2+ λ · 3.773 ·
(a+
b
4
)+ (λ− 1)
(a+
b
4
)(10)
Considering CaHb = C8H18 (octane), Yi for each constituent gas species is deter-
mined using the ratio of the moles of that particular species:
YN2= λ ·
3.773×(a+ b
4
)ntotal
, YO2=
(λ− 1) ·(a+ b
4
)ntotal
,
YCO2=
a
ntotal, and YH2O =
(b2
)ntotal
(11)
Figure 5 presents the volume fraction of each exhaust gas constituent during the
regeneration event. When the fuel-cut event occurs, the volume fraction of O2 in the
exhaust gas is set to that of atmospheric air, 0.209 [31], and the regeneration event
begins. Due to the ceria’s oxygen storage capability, the regeneration event may be
elongated beyond the time when YO2drops to 0 at the GPF inlet.
13
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
Regeneration Event
Regeneration Event
(a) (b)
Figure 5: (a) Volume fraction of O2 and CO2 in the exhaust gas, and (b) Volume fraction of N2 and H2Oin the exhaust gas, during the course of the regeneration event.
(a) (b)
Regeneration Event
Regeneration Event
Figure 6: (a) Exhaust gas temperature at the GPF inlet, and (b) variation in O2 gas density with time as afunction of the exhaust gas GPF inlet temperature.
4.3. Calculation of ρO2and Cp,gas
ρO2and Cp,gas are exhaust gas properties that are dependent on the species con-
centration. ρO2 is determined as a function of Tinlet using the ideal gas equation:
PO2· VO2
= nO2·R · Tinlet (12)
The mass of oxygen trapped inside the coated GPF, mO2, is mathematically expressed
as ρO2· YO2
· Vexh. Converting VO2and nO2
in terms of mass and density terms, the
14
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
Regeneration Event
Regeneration Event
(a) (b)
Figure 7: (a) Pre- and post-GPF air-fuel ratio, and (b) variation in the specific heat capacity of the exhaustgas, over the course of the regeneration event.
above equation is reformulated as:
PO2·(mO2
ρO2
)=
(mO2
MO2
)·R · Tinlet (13)
The density of oxygen, ρO2, is then expressed as:
ρO2=PO2·MO2
R · Tinlet(14)
ρO2is evaluated using the exhaust gas temperature at the GPF inlet. Exhaust gas
pressure at this location is assumed to be equal to atmospheric pressure. Figure 6
(a) presents the exhaust gas temperature profile at the GPF inlet during a regenera-
tion event. Corresponding to this temperature profile, the dynamic variation of ρO2 is
presented in Fig. 6 (b).
Cp,gas is determined as a function of Tinlet using the volume fraction of each con-
stituent gas species (N2, O2, CO2, and H2O):
Cp,gas = YN2 · Cp,N2(Tinlet) + YO2 · Cp,O2(Tinlet)
+ YCO2· Cp,CO2
(Tinlet) + YH2O · Cp,H2O(Tinlet),(15)
15
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
Observation Window 1
Observation Window 2
X:162.6Y: 1.498e+05
X:161.8Y: 1.542e+05
X:316.4Y: 1.312e+05
X:315.6Y: 1.303e+05
(a)
(c)
(b)
Figure 8: (a) Raw measurements of pre and post-GPF CO2 ppm levels with the observation windows high-lighted, (b) magnified view of observation window 1, and (c) magnified view of observation window 2.
where Cp,N2(Tinlet), Cp,O2
(Tinlet), Cp,CO2(Tinlet), and Cp,H2O(Tinlet) are specific
heat capacities of the individual exhaust gas constituents. Their values as a function of
temperature are provided in the NIST-JANAF tables [32].
Figure 7 illustrates a representative variation in exhaust gas heat capacity during a
regeneration event. The decrease in the overall specific heat capacity is due to a de-
crease in the volume fraction of triatomic molecules, CO2 andH2O, whose more com-
plex molecular structures have a greater number of vibrational and rotational modes to
absorb energy than the simpler, diatomic molecular structures of N2 and O2.
4.4. Calculation of the soot mass oxidized, mc,exp, during regeneration
The experimental measurements of CO2 ppm levels are processed to account for
time delays associated with exhaust gas transport through the GPF and the FTIR ana-
lyzer. The following sequence of steps are implemented before determining the amount
of soot oxidized during a regeneration event:
1. Temporally shift the post-GPF CO2 ppm data to align with the pre-GPF CO2
ppm data. This shift eliminates the transport delay associated with exhaust gas
flow through the GPF.
16
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
(a) (b)
Figure 9: (a) Pre and post-GPF CO2 ppm levels before shifting (original data), and (b) CO2 ppm levelmeasurements after shifting the post-GPF CO2 ppm by 0.8 s.
2. Temporally shift pre- and post-GPF CO2 ppm to correlate the measured data
with the onset of a regeneration event. This shift eliminates the transport delay
associated with exhaust gas flow through transport lines to the FTIR analyzer.
Since the transport lines for both pre- and post-GPF ppm measurements are of
the same length and both analyzers use the same flow rate, both pre and post-GPF
CO2 measured data are shifted by the same amount. After employing this shift, the
FTIR species concentration data more accurately aligns with the mass flow and lambda
signals.
Using the raw measured CO2 ppm data, two time windows were observed to un-
derstand the magnitude of the time shift required. This is illustrated in Fig. 8. During
nominal engine operation, the pre- and post-GPF CO2 ppm measurements must be
nearly equal. The time instant at which the pre and post-GPF CO2 ppm levels reached
a peak/trough were analyzed. The post-GPF measurements achieved their correspond-
ing peak/trough value with a 0.8 s time delay with respect to their pre-GPF counter-
parts. Hence, this value was chosen to perform the time shift in step 1. The CO2 ppm
levels after this implementation are shown in Fig. 9.
To perform step 2, the start and end time of the regeneration event must be first
identified. The start time, ts, is chosen as the first time instance when the post-GPF
CO2 ppm level, CO2,out, exceeds the pre-GPFCO2 ppm level, CO2,in. The end time,
17
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
X:16.6Y: 1.832
X:16.6Y: 1.116e+05
X:18.4Y: 1.176e+05
X:18.4Y: 1.116e+05
X:31.6Y: 1.498e+05
X:31.6Y: 1.542e+05
Start of Regeneration
End of Regeneration
(a) (b)
Figure 10: (a) Approach to determine the start and end time of a regeneration event, and (b) pre-GPF CO2
ppm measurements with respect to the pre-GPF air-fuel ratio after a shift of 1.8 seconds to the left.
tf , is chosen as the first time instance when CO2,in exceeds CO2,out during the rise
in ppm levels. As shown in Fig. 10 (a), ts is equal to 18.4 s and tf is equal to 31.6 s.
Time tm is chosen as the instant when the pre-GPF air-fuel ratio curve first reaches its
maximum measured value. As shown in Fig. 10 (b), tm = 16.6 s.
Both pre- and post-GPF CO2 ppm data are shifted by the same amount such that
the start time of regeneration matches time tm. In this case, the pre- and post-GPF ppm
measurements are shifted by (ts − tm), or 1.8 s. With this time shift employed, YO2 is
equal to 0.209 as soon as the regeneration event begins.
It is assumed that no soot is oxidized during nominal engine operation, when the
post TWC λ is at the stoichiometric value of 1. During the regeneration event, mc,exp,
which represents the amount of soot oxidized, is calculated using the expression:
mc,exp,end = mc,exp,ini
+
∫ tf
ts
(CO2,out − CO2,in
)· 10−6 × mg ×
(MC
MCO2
)· dt
(16)
Once the pre- and post-GPF CO2 ppm levels are shifted with respect to the pre-GPF
λ, ts and tf become 16.6 s and 29.8 s, respectively. The experimental data presented
in this paper have been measured in time steps of ∆t = 0.2 s. Equation (16) can then
18
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
X: 0Y: 0
X: 16.6Y: 0
X: 23.2Y: 0.09 [𝑔𝑔]
X: 29.8Y: 0.24 [𝑔𝑔]
X: 50Y: 0.24 [𝑔𝑔]
Figure 11: The amount of soot oxidized as a function of time during the regeneration event illustrated inFig. 10 (a).
be expressed in discrete time as:
mc,exp,end = mc,exp,ini
+
M∑i=1
(CO2,out(i)− CO2,in(i)
)· 10−6 × mg(i)×
(MC
MCO2
)·∆t,
(17)
whereM = (tf−ts)/∆t = 66. Then,mc,exp at any time step (j+1) can be expressed
in terms of mc,exp at time step j:
mc,exp(j + 1) = mc,exp(j)
+
[(CO2,out(j)− CO2,in(j)
)· 10−6 × mg(j)×
(MC
MCO2
)·∆t
] (18)
The experimental data set presented in Fig. 10 (a) is 50 s long. The following consid-
erations have been made:
1. From time t = 0 s to time t = ts, it is assumed that there is no soot oxidation
(mc,exp = mc,exp,ini = 0).
2. From time t = ts to time t = tf , soot oxidation occurs due to regeneration, and
mc,exp is calculated at every time instant using equation (18).
19
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
3. From time t = tf to time t = 50 s, it is assumed that there is no soot oxidation
(mc,exp = mc,exp,end).
The amount of soot oxidized, mc,exp, for the experimental data presented in Fig. 10 (a)
is schematically represented in Fig. 11. The total amount of soot oxidized during this
regeneration event is equal to 0.24 [g].
5. Conclusions
Experimental characterization and analysis of vehicle aftertreatment devices such
as GPFs is essential to understand the different mechanisms that influence mass trans-
port, heat transport, and reaction kinetics of the exhaust gas constituents. This paper
summarized the experimental campaign undertaken on a vehicle operating a GDI en-
gine with a ceria-coated GPF installed downstream of a TWC.
The dynamic performance of the coated GPF is characterized by: a) geometric
parameters such as Vexh and Vcord, b) volume fraction of the exhaust gas constituents,
Yi, c) oxygen gas density, ρO2 and the specific heat of the exhaust gas, Cp,gas, and d)
the amount of soot mass oxidized during a regeneration event, mc,exp.
The overall trapping volume of the exhaust gas, Vexh, and the total volume of
cordierite, Vcord, were calculated based on the knowledge of the coated GPF design
parameters. The volume fraction of the exhaust gas constituent species were deter-
mined from the measured pre-GPF air-fuel ratio and the internal combustion reaction.
ρO2and Cp,gas were obtained from the volume fraction data and the use of the NIST-
JANAF thermochemical tables.
mc,exp was evaluated from the pre- and post-GPF CO2 ppm measurements. Data
pre-processing was performed to account for time delays associated with exhaust gas
transport through the GPF and a dual channel FTIR analyzer that measured the ppm
levels of CO and CO2 gases simultaneously.
The contributions of this paper serve as a foundation for the development of math-
ematical modeling tools that can: a) predict GPF transport dynamics during regenera-
tion events for different initial soot loading and temperature operating conditions, and
20
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
b) facilitate the optimization of GPF design for different geometric configurations and
washcoat materials.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA)
US LLC for granting permission to utilize experimental data from their research col-
laboration toward this effort. Responsibility for the contents of this paper lies with the
authors. Funding for this research work was in part supported by NSF Career Award
CMMI 1653836.
References
[1] K. Zaman, M. Abd-el Moemen, Energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions
and economic development: evaluating alternative and plausible environmental
hypothesis for sustainable growth, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
74 (2017) 1119–1130.
[2] Y. Wu, S. Zhang, J. Hao, H. Liu, X. Wu, J. Hu, M. P. Walsh, T. J. Walling-
ton, K. M. Zhang, S. Stevanovic, On-road vehicle emissions and their control
in China: A review and outlook, Science of The Total Environment 574 (2017)
332–349.
[3] N. Research Council, et al., Assessment of fuel economy technologies for light-
duty vehicles, National Academies Press, 2011.
[4] R. Zhu, J. Hu, X. Bao, L. He, Y. Lai, L. Zu, Y. Li, S. Su, Tailpipe emissions from
gasoline direct injection (GDI) and port fuel injection (PFI) vehicles at both low
and high ambient temperatures, Environmental Pollution 216 (2016) 223–234.
[5] I. Khalek, Particle emissions from direct injection gasoline engines, Technol. To-
day Summer (2011) 6–9.
21
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
[6] N. Sharma, A. K. Agarwal, Effect of the Fuel Injection Pressure on Particulate
Emissions from a Gasohol (E15 and M15)-Fueled Gasoline Direct Injection En-
gine, Energy & Fuels 31 (4) (2017) 4155–4164.
[7] I. Energy Agency, Technology Roadmap: Fuel Economy of Road Vehi-
cles, https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/
publication/Fuel_Economy_2012_WEB.pdf, [Online; accessed 15-
May-2017] (2012).
[8] M. Williams, R. Minjares, A technical summary of Euro 6/VI vehicle emission
standards, The International Council on Clean Transportation.
[9] S. Miao, L. Luo, Y. Liu, Z. Zhan, Development of a Gasoline Particulate Filter
for China 6 (b) Emission Standards, Tech. rep., SAE Technical Paper (2017).
[10] J. Miller, L. Du, D. Kodjak, Impacts of World-Class Vehicle Efficiency and Emis-
sions Regulations in Select G20 Countries, Tech. rep., The International Council
on Clean Transportation (2017).
[11] W. Piock, G. Hoffmann, A. Berndorfer, P. Salemi, B. Fusshoeller, Strategies to-
wards meeting future particulate matter emission requirements in homogeneous
gasoline direct injection engines, SAE International Journal of Engines 4 (2011-
01-1212) (2011) 1455–1468.
[12] A. Mamakos, G. Martini, P. Dilara, Y. Drossinos, Feasibility of introducing par-
ticulate filters on gasoline direct injection vehicles, JRC Scientific and Policy
Report, EU Commission.
[13] S. Yang, C. Deng, Y. Gao, Y. He, Diesel particulate filter design simulation: A
review, Advances in Mechanical Engineering 8 (3) (2016) 1–14.
[14] T. W. Chan, E. Meloche, J. Kubsh, D. Rosenblatt, R. Brezny, G. Rideout, Evalu-
ation of a gasoline particulate filter to reduce particle emissions from a gasoline
direct injection vehicle, SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants 2012-
01-1727.
22
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
[15] P. Whitaker, P. Kapus, M. Ogris, P. Hollerer, Measures to reduce particulate emis-
sions from gasoline DI engines, SAE International Journal of Engines 4 (2011-
01-1219) (2011) 1498–1512.
[16] T. W. Chan, E. Meloche, D. Rosenblatt, J. Kubsh, R. Brezny, G. Rideout, Re-
ducing Particulate Emissions for Future Gasoline Direct Injection Vehicles with
a Gasoline Particulate Filter, in: ETH Conference on Combustion Generated
Nanoparticles, 2012.
[17] T. W. Chan, E. Meloche, J. Kubsh, R. Brezny, Black carbon emissions in gasoline
exhaust and a reduction alternative with a gasoline particulate filter, Environmen-
tal Science & Technology 48 (10) (2014) 6027–6034.
[18] T. W. Chan, M. Saffaripour, F. Liu, J. Hendren, K. A. Thomson, J. Kubsh,
R. Brezny, G. Rideout, Characterization of real-time particle emissions from a
gasoline direct injection vehicle equipped with a catalyzed gasoline particulate
filter during filter regeneration, Emission Control Science and Technology 2 (2)
(2016) 75–88.
[19] C. K. Lambert, M. Bumbaroska, D. Dobson, J. Hangas, J. Pakko, P. Tennison,
Analysis of high mileage gasoline exhaust particle filters, SAE International Jour-
nal of Engines 9 (2016-01-0941) (2016) 1296–1304.
[20] C. K. Lambert, T. Chanko, M. Jagner, J. Hangas, X. Liu, J. Pakko, C. J. Kamp,
Analysis of ash in low mileage, rapid aged, and high mileage gasoline exhaust
particle filters, SAE International Journal of Engines 10 (2017-01-0930) (2017)
1595–1603.
[21] T. W. Chan, E. Meloche, J. Kubsh, R. Brezny, D. Rosenblatt, G. Rideout, Impact
of ambient temperature on gaseous and particle emissions from a direct injec-
tion gasoline vehicle and its implications on particle filtration, SAE International
Journal of Fuels and Lubricants 6 (2013-01-0527) (2013) 350–371.
[22] T. Boger, D. Rose, P. Nicolin, N. Gunasekaran, T. Glasson, Oxidation of Soot
23
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
(Printex® U) in Particulate Filters Operated on Gasoline Engines, Emission Con-
trol Science and Technology 1 (1) (2015) 49–63.
[23] C. Lambert, T. Chanko, D. Dobson, X. Liu, J. Pakko, Gasoline Particle Filter
Development, Emission Control Science and Technology 3 (1) (2017) 105–111.
[24] C. Morgan, Platinum Group Metal and Washcoat Chemistry Effects on Coated
Gasoline Particulate Filter Design, Johnson Mattheys International Journal of Re-
search exploring Science and Technology in Industrial Applications (2015) 188.
[25] P. Lanzerath, R. Wunsch, C. Schon, The first series-production particulate filter
for Mercedes-Benz gasoline engines, in: M. Bargende, H.-C. Reuss, J. Wiede-
mann (Eds.), 17. Internationales Stuttgarter Symposium, Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden, 2017, pp. 851–865.
[26] J. Gong, M. L. Stewart, A. Zelenyuk, A. Strzelec, S. Viswanathan, D. A.
Rothamer, D. E. Foster, C. J. Rutland, Importance of filters microstructure in dy-
namic filtration modeling of gasoline particulate filters (GPFs): Inhomogeneous
porosity and pore size distribution, Chemical Engineering Journal.
[27] J. L. Williams, Monolith structures, materials, properties and uses, Catalysis To-
day 69 (1-4) (2001) 3–9.
[28] P. Nicolin, D. Rose, F. Kunath, T. Boger, Modeling of the Soot Oxidation in
Gasoline Particulate Filters, SAE Technical Paper 2015-04-14.
[29] P. Atkins, et al., Physical Chemistry: Thermodynamics, Structure, and Change,
Macmillan Higher Education, 2014.
[30] J. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, McGraw-Hill Educa-
tion, 1988.
[31] T. C. Zannis, E. G. Pariotis, D. T. Hountalas, D. C. Rakopoulos, Y. A. Levendis,
Theoretical study of DI diesel engine performance and pollutant emissions using
comparable air-side and fuel-side oxygen addition, Energy Conversion and Man-
agement 48 (11) (2007) 2962 – 2970, 19th International Conference on Efficiency,
Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems.
24
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1
[32] M. Chase, NIST-JANAF Thermochemical Tables, Journal of Physical and Chem-
ical Reference Data Monograph No. 9.
25
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 28 May 2018 doi:10.20944/preprints201805.0397.v1