SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

2006-01-1062

Backpressure Characteristics of Modern Threeway Catalysts, Benefit on Engine Performance

C. Lahousse, Ccile Favre and B. Kern
Delphi Customer Technology Center Luxembourg

H. Hadrane and L. Faillon

Delphi Catalyst France S.A.S

K. Brown, P. Blosser and J. Nunan

Delphi Catalyst Tulsa

Reprinted From: Advanced Catalysts and Substrates 2006 (SP-2025)

2006 SAE World Congress Detroit, Michigan April 3-6, 2006

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. For permission and licensing requests contact: SAE Permissions 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA Email: permissions@sae.org Tel: 724-772-4028 Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact: SAE Customer Service Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA) Fax: 724-776-0790 Email: CustomerService@sae.org ISSN 0148-7191 Copyright 2006 SAE International Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE. Printed in USA

2006-01-1062

Backpressure Characteristics of Modern Three-way Catalysts, Benefit on Engine Performance

C. Lahousse, Ccile Favre and B. Kern
Delphi Customer Technology Center Luxembourg

H. Hadrane and L. Faillon

Delphi Catalyst France S.A.S

K. Brown, P. Blosser and J. Nunan

Delphi Catalyst Tulsa
Copyright 2006 SAE International

ABSTRACT
The paper is aimed at investigating backpressure and backpressure variation of three way catalysts (TWC). Results presented show that backpressure variation is influenced by measurement error, substrate dimensional variation, and washcoat thickness. A broad range of anticipated washcoat differences between coaters is also considered. Results provided shows that Delphi high-flow FlexMetal catalyst achieves optimum emissions control with up to 40% less backpressure, leading to 5% additional torque on a 3.2 L engine.

Backpressure is another key characteristic of automotive catalysts as it can potentially affect engine performance. However, the studies on TWC backpressure and especially on washcoat contribution to gasoline catalyst backpressure are scarce (4). The relative contribution of measurement error, substrate and coating variation relative to backpressure remains unclear. The potential backpressure benefit of one TWC versus another has not been thoroughly evaluated. The aim of this paper is to compare the contribution of measurement substrate particle size washcoat load washcoat gradient cell plugging to the overall catalyst backpressure variation. The paper also evaluates the engine performance benefit that can be expected when using Delphi high-flow FlexMetal technology.

INTRODUCTION
From model year 2000 to 2004, precious metal loading of three-way catalysts has been nearly divided by four due to washcoat technology improvements (1). The next generation of TWC material, like Delphi FlexMetal technology will continue to improve the platinum group metal (PGM) usage (2). With the current canning (3) and engine management systems optimization, Euro 4 can now be achieved on 840 kg car with only 0.72 g of PGM (2). Figure 1: PGM loading used on a 1.8L car to achieve euro 4 emissions level as function of technology improvement through years
P G M r e q u ir e d to a c h ie v e e u r o 4 120 100 80 P G M (g r/ 60 40 20 0 2000 2001 2002 M odel Year 2003 2004 P a s s e n g e r V e h ic le w i t h 1 . 8 l M P F I E n g in e , C a t a l y s t V o lu m e / E n g in e D is p la c e m e n t : 0 . 8 9

EXPERIMENTAL
A Superflow SF1020 flow bench equipped with an internal calibration system is used to measure backpressure. The results from this system have previously been correlated with two other Delphi devices and are consistent with another OEM measurement device All backpressure values are measured/calculated for 100 g/s of air at 25C. Except for the plugging study, all investigations are performed on a production RD 5.66 inch x 4 inch long 600 CPSI/3.5 mill parts. Condelp, an in-house developed backpressure prediction model, is used to assess the expected variation from substrate dimensional changes. This model simulates flow through square channels. For

substrates, results are fully consistent with model data from one substrate supplier. Open space in a coated part is evaluated using a given washcoat density. Good agreement with measured data has been maintained using one density per technology for various parts. Substrate cell density and wall thickness is evaluated using a digital microscope. Calibrated pictures are collected from both faces of a commercial substrate and cell dimensions averaged across multiple cell measurements. Averaged results (n >40) are used as model parameters. A Cegelec Isoscan is used to visualize possible washcoat gradient. This device, similar to airport security system, provided X-ray radiography of the part and an associated intensity map. The thicker the washcoat, the more X-ray absorption, and the darker the resulting image. A Cilas-1064 laser particle size analyzer is used to characterize slurry particle size distribution. For emissions performance testing, catalysts are aged on an engine dynamometer for 200h with maximum bed temperature of 1000 C according to a cycle described elsewhere (5). Emissions are measured using a Euro 4 1.6 L Renault Clio chosen for its emissions reproducibility under MVEG-B test cycle. With the existing set-up, four catalysts are aged in parallel. The comparison of the five washcoat loadings is completed with two separate aging runs and is presented in two separate figures. Catalysts used are 1.2L 400 cpsi/6.5 mill 25g/ft3 with Pt/Pd/Rh ratio of 0/5/1. Effect of exhaust line backpressure on torque is measured by placing a valve in the exhaust line of an existing 3.2 L atmospheric engine. By varying the opening of the valve, brake torque is recorded as a function of exhaust backpressure at 6000 rpm.

Measurement repeatability and reproducibility is investigated following the industry standard R&R procedure (6). Ten parts are collected along a long period and tested by three different operators. The measurement capability is determined using the appropriate statistical treatment described elsewhere (6). According to this study, a repeatability of +/- 5.1% can be expected, repeatability and reproducibility is +/5.2%. The measurement system is robust against change of operator but has a limited instrument precision. 2) Substrate dimensional analysis Substrate variation is investigated three ways. Initially the actual dimensions on a sample are measured and ran on the backpressure model. Secondly, backpressure variation is calculated as a function estimated substrate dimensional changes, representing the long-term potential for backpressure variation. Finally, 71 production parts are measured establishing the short-term variation potential for backpressure variation Figure 2a: Cell density check

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CONTRIBUTION TO BACKPRESSURE VARIATION As mentioned before, several possible contributions to coated part backpressure variation have been investigated. Those are measurement reproducibility, substrate variation, washcoat weight variation, washcoat gradient, relative amount of plugged cells and slurry particle size. 1) Measurement capability Measurement error is first investigated by Condelp backpressure model. Simulating +/-10% flow variation and +/-2.5C error on flow temperature, variation as large as +/-10% of the expected finished part backpressure is obtained. Fortunately, the Superflow SF1020 system provides better precision than model prediction with these very tolerant flow and temperature ranges.

Figure 2b: Wall thickness check

Fig 2a and 2b provide examples of dimensional measurements for cell density and wall thickness on a 600/3.5 substrate. The actual average cell density and wall thickness for this sample are 639/3.8. Applying these values in the Condelp model results in an increase of 7% of the expected backpressure relative to the backpressure calculated for the nominal dimension part.

Substrate dimensional variation can obviously affect finished parts backpressure. The observation that the actual versus measured cell density can account for a 7% increase in backpressure led to speculation that other substrate dimensional variations may also result in significant backpressure variation over the manufacturing life of the product. Analysis of substrate dimensional specifications and physical measurements on representative substrates estimates the dimensional variation to be +/- 10% the nominal value for cell density and wall thickness and +/1% for substrate diameter and length. Expectations were based on long-term manufacturing variation likely to be present over the life of the product. Figure 3: Expected substrate backpressure variation from substrate dimension tolerances
Relative backpressure variation for anticipated 1197EU +/- 2.6% +/- 1.8% +/- 0.7% +/- 0.9% Diameter +/- 1% Length +/- 1% Diam*Ln / CPSI*WallTk CPSI +/- 10% WallTk +/- 10% +/- 9.1% Average BP = 4.04 mbar High BP = 4.65 mbar Low BP = 3.43 mbar

thickness specification accounts for less than +/-3% backpressure variation. Interestingly, substrate diameter variation can cause nearly +/-2% backpressure variation, even though it is controlled at a +/- 1% level. The previous backpressure modeling uses dimensional estimates derived from substrate drawings and dimensional specification limits. The actual substrate dimensional variation may be less during the manufacturing life of a product. The actual substrate variation is evaluated by measuring the backpressure on 71 medium and high weight parts from a single production lot number. Backpressure results are plotted versus weight variation in Figure 4. For comparison, the modeled backpressure result from nominal dimensions is also drawn. As shown, observed substrate backpressure variation is about 10% overall, with generally higher backpressure than predicted from nominal dimensions. The average backpressure is 3% above model prediction. This could be consistent with slightly higher than nominal cell density observed by digital microscopy. No significant correlation between substrate weight and substrate backpressure is detected. 3) Slurry particle size In principle, slurry particle size and particle size distribution can affect finished washcoat packing leading to different washcoat density and hence different washcoat backpressure contributions. To test this effect, two sets of identical parts have been coated with slurry of very different particle size distribution. For this study, a given FlexMetal pass-1 slurry is milled once, the slurry split into two batches and one batch is milled further. The resulting slurries are then characterized by their D10, D50, D90, namely the particle diameter for which the fraction of the slurry particle with diameter less than that value representing 10 %, 50% or 90% of the of the volume of the slurry. Thirteen parts are coated from each slurry and the averaged backpressure results for the large and small particle size parts are reported. Table 1 shows the effect of an extreme particle size distribution change results in only a 3% backpressure change. Very large particle size modification results only in a limited variation of the backpressure. Table 1: Slurry used for particle size distribution study. D10 micron 0.66 0.54 D50 micron 3.15 1.81 D90 micron 11.3 6.72 Backpressure mbar 4.88 4.73 BP increase 3%

Substrate expected variation= +/-15%

For these four factors, the full range of substrate dimensions are placed in the Condelp model in a factorial design format. The resulting backpressure results are analyzed and the results are plotted as a pie chart in Figure 3. The total observed backpressure variation derived from the anticipated substrate dimensional changes is +/- 15% of substrate mean value. Assuming that substrate backpressure simply adds to the overall finished part backpressure, the corresponding variation relative to the finished part backpressure mean value would be +/-10%. Figure 4: Measured substrate backpressure variation
Measured surface backpressure as a function of substrate weight
bp vs substrate weight Model bp prediction with nominal dimension

4.4

backpressure/mbar

4.3 4.2 4.1 4 3.9 3.8 490

substrate weight/g

495

500

505

4) Washcoat loading contribution to backpressure variation The 71 parts used in the substrate evaluation study are coated with Delphi FlexMetal 2-pass technology (2). A high range of washcoat pickup variation is intentionally

The variation in cell density accounts for nearly 2/3 of the total calculated variation. In comparison, wall

induced at the coater. The finished part backpressure is plotted against the part dry washcoat weight variation. Figure 5: Washcoat loading versus backpressure

Figure 6a: Isoscan of part with no gradient

washcoat load backpressure relation

6.6 6.4 backpressure/mbar 6.2 6 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5 95% 100% 105% 110% dry weight increase/nominal 115% R2 = 0.8056 y = 4.2432x + 1.443

Figure 6b: gradient

Isoscan

of

part

with

minor

As shown by Figure 5, the effect of measurement error and substrate dimensional variation is comparable to the total washcoat loading contribution to backpressure. A correlation between washcoat load and finished part backpressure can still statistically be evidenced. Dry pickup variation is induced from -2% to +10% of nominal dry washcoat loading. The corresponding backpressure response that can be expected through the regression analysis is -2%/+7%. Assuming a maximum washcoat loading variation of -10%/+25% a maximum of -8%/+18% finished part backpressure variation can be expected due to the washcoat contribution. Thus, a high variation in washcoat loading will also result in a large variation in finished part backpressure. 5) Washcoat gradient contribution Washcoat mal-distribution could potentially dramatically affect backpressure by creating restrictions along the channels. To evaluate the impact of washcoat gradient to backpressure, parts with extreme washcoat gradients are selected from an experimental design matrix for process optimization. Three parts with less than 1% washcoat weight difference, but with very different washcoat gradient are identified in the parts having only the first pass coating. Figure 6 a, b, c give respectively isoscan radiography of a part with no gradient, with weak gradient and with a major gradient.

Figure 6c: Isoscan of part with major gradient

Respective backpressures measured on these parts are 4.96, 4.58 and 4.66 mbar. The part without detectable gradient presents the highest apparent backpressure. The middle part has the minimum backpressure. Gradient contribution is thus presumably small compared to measurement error.

6) Contribution of plugs A 4.66inch x2.5 inch 600CPSI/3.5 mill part was gradually plugged with silicon to investigate the effect of plugging on backpressure. The resultant backpressure is plotted versus percentage of plugged cells. As shown in Figure 7, a linear correlation exists between plugged cell and backpressure for low plugging percentages. Using this correlation, 2% plugged cells is expect to give a 3% increase in backpressure. The 2% maximum pluggage specification used for most OEM coated substrates gives a low overall contribution to total backpressure. Figure 7: Plug contribution to backpressure
Effect of plug on backpressure
8.50 Backpressure/mbar 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% % plug 10% 12% 14%

CONSEQUENCE OF CATALYST BACKPRESSURE TO ENGINE PERFORMANCE As seen in the study on backpressure variation, for a given substrate, the main contribution to backpressure is washcoat load, namely the washcoat volume restricting channel free space. Logically the backpressure increases as the dry weight loading increases and the washcoat density decreases. In automotive catalyst, the washcoat load is optimized for better emissions control. Indeed as shown by Figure 8a and 8b, at constant PGM load and catalyst volume, there is an optimum washcoat load for which HC, CO and NOx emissions are minimized. Figure 8a: Pollutant breakthrough versus washcoat loading (low washcoat loads)
20 15 10 5 0 9.5 8.8 8.2 15.3 14.9 12.5 11.3 10.8 8.5

Specification

% Inefficiency

HC

CO

NOx

WC = 2.78

WC = 3.11

WC = 3.44

7) Total backpressure contribution conclusion The main contributors to backpressure variation are show to be substrate variation, measurement error, and washcoat loading variation. For the 5.66 inchx4 inch long 600/3.5 part considered in this study, the catalyst backpressure variation expected from substrate variation correspond to +/-10% variation of finished part backpressure. The washcoat loading variation may result in an -8/+18% backpressure variation. The measurement variation may yield and additional +/-10% variation. The simple min/max tolerance stack for the backpressure variation is thus 28 % / +38%. These extreme cases are not observed in our study, which may only reflect short-term variation. On a sample lot built of 71 parts, the total observed backpressure variation ranged from 5.6 to 6.4 mbar, a range of about 14% total. Washcoat load variation results in -2/+3% backpressure variation. In our study, measurement error with +/-5% observed precision is the main contributor to the apparent finished part backpressure variation. The influence of washcoat gradient, plugs and slurry properties is barely measurable. At low washcoat load, increasing washcoat load helps to compensate the aging effect by offering more support surface. At higher loading, the increase of washcoat becomes detrimental to light-off performances and internal diffusion. Figure 8b: Pollutant breakthrough versus washcoat loading (high washcoat loads)

20 % Inefficiency 15 10 5 0 8.9 6.3 10

11.8 13.9

17.9 11.9

8.4 7.9

HC WC = 3.45

CO WC = 3.78

NOx WC = 4.11

As experience through the development of newer technology, the optimum washcoat loading changes with washcoat stability. With more thermally stable

technologies, a higher overall support surface area is conserved after aging. The more stable the technology, the lower the optimum washcoat load. Washcoat load happens to be another expression of thermal stability. Figure 9 provides an example of washcoat load comparison for various suppliers. As shown by Delphi internal analysis and several independent benchmarks, competitive catalysts typically use 20 to 40% more washcoat than Delphi FlexMetal technology for similar emissions performance. In agreement with the washcoat load backpressure relation established above, the measured backpressure of competitive catalysts is higher than the FlexMetal reference. If a 15-40% difference is expected from washcoat loading difference, up to 30% higher backpressure can be expected. As difference observed exceed 40%, different in washcoat density may also contribute to the backpressure difference. Figure 9: Example of washcoat loading comparison

scatter of point can be observed. For this set of data, the catalyst contribution average to about 40% (42.1%) overall exhaust backpressure. Figure 11: Backpressure engine torque relationship
Power output as a function of exhaust backpressure 215 Brake torque Nm 210 205 200 195 400 420
+40% catalyst backpressure Reference

+15% catalyst backpressure

440 460 480 Pressure at manifold inlet

500

520

Washcoat Mass Comparison

300 250 Washcoat mass 200 150 100 50 0 SI3231 A B C
+40% +15%

Figure 11 shows the relationship that exists between exhaust backpressure and engine output (e.g. torque). Assuming that the catalyst accounts for 40% of the total exhaust backpressure when using a high flow catalyst, the output deterioration for +15 and +40% catalyst backpressure was evaluated. The corresponding points are traced on the graph. As shown, there is an additional 5.5 to 10.7 Nm torque delivered by the engine when using a Delphi high-flow FlexMetal catalyst at maximum engine speed. The backpressure benefit when using this catalyst corresponds to 2.6 to 5.1 % additional torque or the corresponding equivalent reduced fuel consumption. Differences in catalyst backpressure can therefore measurably affect engine performance. High-flow FlexMetal technology provides an additional engine performance benefit while maintaining optimum emissions control

Figure 10: Catalyst contribution to exhaust backpressure

Catalyst share of exhaust backpressure

% of exhaust backpressure caused by catalyst

80%

CONCLUSION
Since the first catalyst was placed on a car, aftertreatment improvement has very often been obtained at the expense of engine efficiency. Emissions control typically brings additional constraints to engine design and engine management. The more extensive the after-treatment strategy, the larger the expected compromise for overall engine performance. However, Delphi high flow FlexMetal catalyst reduces the backpressure penalty arising from exhaust aftertreatment. Using very stable washcoat materials, reduced washcoat loadings can be used which measurably reduce the exhaust pressure drop.

60% 42% 40%

20%

0% 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Figure 10 display the relative contribution of catalyst to the overall exhaust backpressure for 18 different gasoline applications. Backpressure is measured at maximum power, before or after the catalytic system. As shown, as a result catalyst and exhaust design, a large

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors want to acknowledge the Delphi catalyst team for their input and support. Special thanks needs to

be addressed to Jean-Luc Cieli for R&R data, Frderic Misset and Nicolas Clerc for plugging study, Ad Hoefnagels for backpressure values and Graham Bashford-Rogers and Barry Southward for English revision. The contribution of Michael Parmentier and Justin Volpe also need to be acknowledged.

REFERENCES
1. Cecile Favre and Said Zidat, Emissions Systems Optimization to Meet Future European Legislation, SAE Paper 2004-01-0138. 2. Douglas Ball, John Nunan, Patrick Blosser, Jennifer Wilson and George Mitchell, Stuart Davis, Mike Zammit , FlexMetal Catalyst Technologies , SAE Paper 2005-01-1111. 3. Michael Parmentier and Said Zidat, Exhaust Manifold Design to Minimize Light-Off Time, SAE Paper 2003-01-940 4. Douglas Ball, Glenn Tripp, and Louis Socha, Achim Heibel, Medharani Kulkarni, and Phillip Weber and David Radke and Douglas Linden A Comparison of Emissions and Flow Restriction of Thinwall Ceramic Substrates for Low Emission Vehicles, SAE Paper 1999-01-0271 5. Douglas Ball, Charles Kirby Rapid, A Survey of Rapid Aging Test Schedule Which Incorporate Engine Oil Derived Poison SAE Paper 9973050 6. MSA measurement system analysis, reference manual copyright Chryler coporation, Ford Motor company, General motors corporations & AIAG

CONTACT
Christophe Lahousse Delphi Customer Technology Center Luxembourg Avenue de Luxembourg L-4940 Bascharage GD Luxembourg Tel: +352.5018.2456 Fax: +352.5018.3000 christophe.lahousse@delphi.com