F2010-C-003

DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED ENGINE/CATALYST MODEL FOR

REAL-TIME SIMULATIONS OF CONTROL DESIGN OPTIONS
Wahiduzzaman, Syed*, Wang,Wen, Leonard, Andy and Wenzel, Seth
Gamma Technologies Inc., USA

KEYWORDS – system model, neural network, NN, HiL, SiL, aftertreatment, catalyst, DOC,
SCR

ABSTRACT - Engines/vehicle systems are becoming increasing complex partly due to the
incorporation of emission abatement components and associated control and reagent management
strategies that are technologically evolving to keep up with emissions requirements. This makes
the testing and verification with actual prototypes prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.
Consequently, there is an increasing reliance on Software in the Loop (SiL) and Hardware in the
Loop (HiL) simulations for design evaluation of system and control concepts.

Two methods are described in which detailed kinetics models for emissions abatement catalysts
and detailed engine models are transformed into a fast running model for control design,
calibration or real-time ECU validations. The first methodology is based on a structured, semi-
automatic scheme for reducing each high-fidelity model into a fast running neural network (NN)
model by training it using simulation results from detailed models. The NN model inputs are
identical to those used in the detailed model. However, there are some additional inputs that need
to be calculated or modeled. In particular, NH3/NOx usage ratio in an SCR is included as a
dependant variable of input stream state (concentration, flow rate and temperature) and the state
of the catalyst (coverage and temperature). In this regard, the catalyst state is calculated through
two physical models. The second methodology is developed such that each subsystem runs at its
optimum time step size using the appropriate solver while boundary conditions (species flow rate,
pressure and temperature) are dynamically shared between subsystem models. A special
connection (circuit splitter) is implemented for this purpose. Different configurations and levels
of details are presented to demonstrate the flexibility of the methodology. The comparison of
results shows that both methods are able to conserve the accuracy as well as achieve
computational efficiency at appropriate system design stages. This makes advanced engine
control design, calibration and ECU validation (involving coupled engine with aftertreatment)
feasible and computationally efficient while preserving the flexibility requirement for concept
evaluations.

1. INTRODUCTION

It is generally accepted that the rapid pace of growth of aftertreatment (AT) technology in
response to the increasingly stringent emissions standard requires computer aided engineering
(CAE) tools that can simulate engine, AT, vehicle and control systems in an integral and coupled
manner. However there are major challenges that need to be resolved in order for these tools to
become an integral part of engine and vehicle systems development strategies. One of the
challenges is that the modelling of engine/AT/vehicle systems inherently involves simulation of
physical phenomena of widely differing time scales. Additionally, AT system models requiring
the solution of detailed chemical kinetics are often constrained by stiff ordinary differential
equations (ODE) and differential-algebraic equations (DAE). These are computationally
intensive and may require special numerical techniques that are not particularly suitable and/or
compatible with the time scales of many engine/vehicle transients and in-cylinder phenomena.

For this reason, most AT simulations are performed in a standalone manner in which boundary
conditions upstream of the catalysts are imposed. This practice may be suitable for development
and validation of the mechanisms (e.g., micro-reactor data) but does not offer real insight into
projected performance of the catalyst system when connected to an engine and vehicle. However,
as mentioned above, coupling of engine, vehicle and control system models introduces new
constraints that make an integrated model simulation a numerically challenging task with regards
to satisfying the numerical efficiency demands of HiL and SiL systems. The obvious advantage
of an integrated model is that it allows simulation of overall system response to design (size,
type, relative locations and orders of AT components) as well as operating variables (engine load
and speed transients). Additionally, control strategies that are often employed in AT systems rely
on signals from the engine and vehicle. The primary disadvantage of simulating an integrated
model is that the simulations can be performed in real-time except for the simplest models. In
principle, components of the integrated model can be simplified to the extent that the simulation
can be performed in real-time at the cost of accuracy as well as flexibility. In this paper two
different approaches are adopted to address the speed/accuracy and speed/flexibility trade-offs in
an integrated system simulation.

2. APPROACHES

The two approaches taken in this paper have different balance points in terms of the trade-offs
mentioned above. The choice of balance point depends on the stage when these simulations are
performed during the development cycle. It may be expected that during the development of
control systems, the topology and configuration (catalyst components and their relative order and
positions in the exhaust system) have already been decided. In this scenario, it is reasonable to
assume that no further changes in the AT system hardware are envisaged and the control system
developers will be satisfied with a HiL/SiL compatible (e.g., more than twice as fast as real-time)
AT model with a moderate level of accuracy. On the other hand, at an earlier stage of
development where the AT system topology and configuration may still be evolving, one would
like to have an AT subsystem model as a part of an integrated system model that can still be
altered. In this case, the second approach may be preferable where some of the numerical
efficiency could be sacrificed in favour of increased flexibility and accuracy. However, the ideal
goal is to deliver real-time or near real-time simulation speed without substantially compromising
flexibility and accuracy.

Both of these approaches start with detailed models of subsystems (engine, vehicle and AT).
These subsystems can be individually validated by running in standalone mode (1, 2, and 3). As a
standalone model, these subsystem models can take advantage of the system specific time scale
for appropriate choice of numerical scheme to achieve maximum numerical efficiency. For
example, exhaust system simulation models typically use a quasi-steady (Q-S) based
approximation (4) to gain substantial computational advantage compared to conventional
methods. Furthermore, standalone models can be progressively simplified, if necessary, to gain
computational efficiency. For example, a detailed engine model can be rendered into a mean-
value model (e.g. 5). Typically, in this type of model, in-cylinder emissions models are replaced
by multi-dimensional emissions maps that are generated either by running the original detailed
engine model or from measurements obtained in a test cell.

In principle, these subsystems are connected to a full system model and are solved
simultaneously in a coupled manner while exchanging information with each other thereby
ensuring conservation of mass and energy between subsystems. However, as mentioned earlier,
the integrated model can be numerically inefficient due to the disparate time step requirements
for resolving the physical processes of the corresponding subsystems. Herein lays the basis of
the two approaches described in this paper. In the first approach, one can selectively simplify
each of the subsystems such that the whole system can be solved using the smallest time step size
required by the component system that is numerically stiffest. In the second approach, a method
is devised such that each subsystem is solved at its most appropriate time step size while still
communicating with neighbouring subsystems.

2.1 SELECTIVE SIMPLIFICATION METHOD

The standalone AT subsystem can be solved with a large time step size (~.1s) using the Q-S
approximation. However, the advantage gained through the use of this technique is lost when it
is connected to the detailed engine model. The detailed engine model requires taking small time
steps (several orders smaller than the AT subsystem) with an explicit time stepping solver. As a
consequence, these small time steps will be imposed on the entire integrated model. In order to
reduce the computational burden of the small step size, a method was sought where the AT
subsystem could be simplified without a significant loss of accuracy. The method used here is to
first develop a detailed model of the AT subsystem which is subsequently validated using
experimental data. The detailed AT model is then used to generate training data for a neural
network (NN) representation. The detailed engine/vehicle model is then linked with the NN
model instead of the detailed AT model. The resultant integrated model can be executed with
high numerical efficiency. However, the accuracy of the model will be dependent on how well
the NN model is able to represent the original detailed AT model behavior.

2.2 CIRCUIT SPLITTING METHOD

The other alternative investigated is an integrated model where each subsystem is allowed to run
with its optimum time step size and solver. In order to achieve this goal, a methodology was
created such that boundary conditions (species flow rate, pressure and temperature) are
dynamically shared between subsystem models. For example, an engine model running with a
0.1ms time step using an explicit solver may communicate with an exhaust system model running
with a 0.1s time step using a Q-S solver (4). The integrated model is virtually separated such that
each subsystem can run independently but communicate via connections that can integrate the
boundary conditions to supply to the adjacent subsystem that is taking larger time steps.

3. DETAILED AT MODEL REVIEW

The chosen AT system is comprised of a DOC and a SCR in a series configuration. The detailed
AT model has been presented in previous works (5 and 6).

3.1 DOC AND SCR MODELS

The reaction schemes chosen to model the DOC and SCR are summarized in Table 1. For details
and full calibration of the model the readers are referred to previous work (5 and 6). The referred
works also include validation studies and kinetic parameter values used. In the reaction scheme of
the SCR, "S" represents a potential site for NH3 absorption and "NH3(S)" is a site that has
absorbed one molecule of NH3.

DOC reaction scheme SCR reaction scheme

R1: CO + 0.5O2 → CO2 R8: NH3 + S → NH3(S)
R2: C3H6 + 4.5O2 → 3CO2 + 3H2O R9: NH3(S) → NH3 + S
R3: C3H8 + 5O2 → 3CO2 + 4H2O R10: 4NH3 + 3O2 → 2N2 + 6H2O
R4: CO + NO → CO2 + 0.5N2 R11: 4NH3 + 4NO +O2 → 4N2 + 6H2O
R5: H2 + 0.5O2 → H2O R12: 8NH3(S) + 6NO2 → 7N2 + 12H2O +
8S
R6: NO + 0.5O2 → NO2 R13: 4NH3(S) +2NO +2NO2 → 4N2 +
6H2O + 4S
R7: NO2 → NO + 0.5O2
Table 1. DOC and SCR global reaction scheme.

100

CO
80

HC
Conversion (%)

60

40

20
NO

0
400 450 500 550 600 650
Temperature (K)

DOC calibration results compared to micro-reactor Results of experiment 3: "Standard" SCR reaction
measurements at GHSV = 3.5E4 h-1
Figure 1. DOC and SCR results compared with experimental data (dashed lines and dots: experiment; solid lines:
prediction).
The validation of the DOC models leading to parameter identification was performed using a set
of reactor data. These were performed under transient conditions with a micro-flow platinum-
based reactor of 3 inch length and 1 inch inner diameter filled with crushed, coated monoliths.
Simulated diesel exhaust gas having a space velocity of 3.5E4 h-1 was produced by a rig
comprising of 500ppm CO, 167ppm H2, 37.5ppm C3H6, 12.5ppm C3H8, 300ppm NO, 5%(vol.)
H2O, 5%(vol.) CO2, 13%(vol.) O2, and balanced by N2. The synthesized mixture was
progressively heated at a gradient of 1 oC/sec. A comparison of the measured and predicted
conversions for CO, NO and CH4 equivalent HC are provided in Figure 1.

In Figure 1, a validation of Temperature Programmed Desorption (TPD) as well as standard SCR

reaction (R11) is also shown. This is from a set of experiments designed to identify kinetic
parameters for each of the six reactions (R8-R13) mentioned in Table 1. In this particular
experiment the micro-reactor is saturated with NH3 by flowing a mixture of NH3, N2 and O2.
The NH3 is then replaced by NO and the temperature of the inlet mixture is ramped up. This
causes NH3 to be desorbed as well as participate in the R11 SCR reaction. Similar validations
were performed for the remaining reactions in Table 1.

In order to generate data that can be used to "characterize" the AT system, the validated AT
system model was then simulated at a wide range of operating conditions using a Latin
hypercube DOE matrix (with flow rate, temperature and inlet compositions as independent
variables). These simulation results were then used to train an NN model. The goal of this
approach is to obtain an NN model which can duplicate both the static and transient
characteristics without the numerical penalty associated with simulation of the detailed AT
model.

4. NEURAL NETWORK INPUTS

4.1 NEURAL NETWORK MODELING METHODOLOGY

The proposed NN architecture (6) is a three-layer feed-forward NN with 2 hidden layers whose
activation functions are tan-sigmoid and 1 output layer with a linear activation function. The
schematic of such a NN with k inputs, n neurons in the first layer, m neurons in the second layer
and 1 output (i.e., n-m-1 neural network) as well as the equation that describes it are shown in
Figure 2.

W and U are the matrices of weights of the first and second hidden layer respectively, a and b
are the vectors of biases of the first and second hidden layer respectively, V is the vector of
weights of the output layer and c is the scalar bias of the output layer. x is the vector of inputs
and y is the output
y = f ( V × g (U × h ( W × x + a ) + b ) + c ) (1)
where,
2 (2)
h ( z ) = g ( z ) = −1 +
1 + e −2 z
f (z) = z (3)
In order to train the NN (i.e., to select “optimal” values for the weights and biases) the following
objective function is used:
 nd
⎛ k m m n n m n
⎞ (4)
J = k1 ⋅ ∑ ( y i − yˆ i ) + k2 ⋅ ⎜ ∑∑Wij2 + ∑∑ Uij2 + ∑V j2 + ∑ ai2 + ∑ b2j + c 2 ⎟
2

i =1 ⎝ i =1 j =1 i =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1 ⎠
Where k1 and k2 are carefully chosen factors, ŷ is the output from the training data, and nd is
the number of experiments used for training. For the purpose of this work, k1 and k2 were first
dynamically calculated using the Bayesian regularization algorithm. If the surface was over
fitted, k1 and k2 were manually relaxed and held constant.

Figure 2. 3-layer feed-forward neural network (6).

4.2 SCR COVERAGE CALCULATION

To account for the amount of stored NH3 (represented by "NH3(S)" as shown in Table 1, static
NNs alone cannot be used. The amount of stored NH3 at any given time is based on the amount
of previously stored NH3 (i.e., there is a history of pre-stored NH3 that needs to be accounted for).
Thus we needed a separate model to estimate the time-varying coverage

The molar balance of NH3 can be summarized as follows:

NH 3 IN = NH 3 OUT + NH 3 REDUCE + NH 3 STORE (5)
Where:
t
NH 3 IN = ∫ NH Inlet (mole/s)dt
0
3 (6)

t
NH 3 OUT = ∫ NH Outlet (moles/s)dt
0
3 (7)

Where NH 3 REDUCE represents the cumulative moles of NH3 used to reduce NOX, and NH 3 STORE
represents the cumulative moles of NH3 stored on the surface. For the purpose of estimating NH3
storage in the NN model, if one assumes that one mole of NH3 is needed (usage ratio = 1.0) to
reduce one mole of NOX (either NO or NO2), the value NH 3 REDUCE can be computed as follows:
 t t
NH3REDUCE = ∫ ( NO ( in )
0
+ NO 2 ( in ) ) dt − ∫ ( NO ( out )
0
+ NO 2 ( out ) ) dt
(8)

The approximation of usage ratio being unity corresponds directly to the reactions R11 and R13
(respectively referred to as the "standard" and "fast" SCR reactions) as shown in Table 1.
However, the reaction R12 (the "slow" SCR reaction) has a usage ratio of 4:3, which is contrary
to this approximation. On the other hand, as the name "slow" implies, this reaction has a
relatively minor impact on overall results as compared to R11 and R13. Finally R10, NH3
oxidation, was ignored as it is believed to have a minor effect as well (at least for this particular
catalyst and operating temperature). Under this assumption and using Eqns 5-8 the value
NH 3 STORE can then be determined. Knowing the value of NH 3 STORE , one can then calculate the
site coverage of "SNH3". The coverage value " " ranges from 0-1, where 0 represents the
available site "S" being completely "open", and 1 represents the site "S" as having an absorbed
molecule of NH3. The site capacity and coverage are calculated as follows:
⎛ moles ⎞
NH 3 (Site Capacity) = Catalyst Surface Area(m 2 ) * Site Density ⎜ 2 ⎟ (9)
⎝ m ⎠

Coverage = NH3STORE
NH3 (Site Capacity) (10)
Site Density represents the density of the absorption material. NH3 (Site Capacity) represents the
total amount of NH3 that the catalyst can potentially store. Note that this model can be improved
by actually calculating the usage ratio instead of assuming it to be unity.

4.3 WALL TEMPERATURE CALCULATION

To perform transient wall temperature calculations, a static NN by itself is not sufficient. Some
form of transient calculation must be added to the reduced system. To calculate the wall
temperature, the following simple equation is used:
dT
Q = m⋅Cp ⋅ (11)
dt

Where m is the mass of the catalyst in kg, C p , is the specific heat in J/kg-k, dT is the change in
wall temperature and dt is the change in time in seconds. The mass in this approach is treated
as a single mass for the entire catalyst (i.e., a "lumped" model or 0D), in which case only a single
temperature is calculated. For a catalyst the value Q represents the calculated heat flux of energy
entering/leaving the catalyst wall in units of W. For the purpose of this work the effects included
are:
Q=Q +Q ,
convection chemistry (12)
where Qconvection is the internal heat transfer between the wall and the gas, and Qchemistry is the
chemical kinetic energy released on the surface due to the reactions. Note that the model is
considered to be adiabatic with respect to heat loss to the environment. Also note that conduction
along the axial direction of the system is not being considered since only a single mass is being
used to represent the entire catalyst in the hybrid-NN model.
4.4 ADVANTAGES OF THE HYBRID-NN MODELING OVER DYNAMIC NN MODELING

From the analysis above, it is clear that the principle of this methodology is capturing the SCR
dynamic behavior by the use of static NNs integrated with a physics-based calculation of the NH3
coverage, as shown in Fig. 3. This structured approach presents significant advantages compared
to the use of other nonlinear dynamic system identification methods.

Figure 3. Hybrid modeling approach.

One major advantage is that static NN training is simpler and more robust; it merely requires a
set of steady state input-output points. To this end, the Latin Hypercube design is easy to
implement and ensures uniformity and adequate space coverage. In addition, the training process,
together with all the possible options, is readily available inside the modeling environment (7)
through a generic tool, thus the generation of the NNs is a rapid and straightforward task. On the
other hand, the vast majority of dynamic system identification methods, such as dynamic ARX
models or dynamic NNs, require the use of a time sequence of inputs, which has to be
persistently exciting the system and at the same time ensuring that these points are realizable by
the system. Therefore, the generation of the training set is a much more challenging task and
requires careful supervision, which may compromise the autonomous nature of the proposed
method.

Another advantage of the proposed approach is increased accuracy. This is because in the
dynamic part, it models the system dynamics at the physics-level, rather than system-level,
equations. Thus, it is neither subject to training errors nor sensitive to the training algorithm
initial conditions or tunable parameters. Consequently, if in the hybrid-NN model the physical
sub-model uses the same method in modeling a phenomenon, its results could be expected to be
closer to the detailed model results.

Finally, the proposed approach makes the entire model more suitable for future system analysis
and control design. Specifically, it exposes the physics of a significant part of the system and thus
allows for additional study of its behavior, whereas the dynamic system identification approach
hides the entire system behavior under the black-box model.
4.5 TRAINING DATA INPUTS

Both the detailed SCR and DOC standalone models are executed for a wide range of inlet
conditions using a Latin Hypercube Design of Experiments (DOE). Table 2 shows the list of inlet
variables and their range. These variables are used as independent variables for training the NNs.
The dependent variables (objective functions) are pollutant conversion ratios, reductant
(ammonia) slippage ratio and outlet temperature. In total, 5000 individual cases were generated.

Inlet condition Min Max

Inlet gas temperature (K) 280 800
Catalyst Wall Temperature (K) 280 800
Inlet mass flow rate (kg/s) 0.001 0.15
NO mole fraction 0.0 4.0e-4
NO2 mole fraction 0.0 4.0e-4
NH3 mole fraction1 0.0 6.0e-4
Coverage Θ 1 0.0 1.0
CO mole fraction2 0.0 0.002
Total HC mole fraction2 0.0 1.5e-4
(1) Used only in SCR Model; (2) Used only in DOC Model
Table 2. Static DOE DOC and SCR range of inlet conditions

The range of variables chosen is based on the expected operating conditions that the full transient
analysis will encounter. For the emissions, a minimum value of 0 was selected. The maximum
emission value was chosen based on the highest individual emissions expected. It should be
noted that the wall temperatures are held constant.

In addition to the range of values being used, one must also consider the number of points that lie
on a given operating condition. For the purpose of SCR during a typical transient drive cycle
analysis, there will be many instances when the injection of ammonia (or urea) will be zero (i.e.,
no injection). For the NN model to perform well during zero injection, this means that there
should be many training points with the inlet NH3 mole fraction set to zero. However, given a
minimum and maximum range, the standard Latin Hypercube fitting method will not place values
exactly on the lower or upper limits. Therefore, to account for the need for a large number of zero
injection experiments, a negative value for the lower limit of NH3 mole fraction was first applied.
After the Latin Hypercube fitting method generated the experiments to be performed, all negative
values of NH3 mole fraction were manually reset to 0. In this study, approximately 25% of the
points had to be reset from the total of 5000 experiments.

5. HYBRID NEURAL NETWORK RESULTS

In total there are five main submodels that are integrated together including (1) DOC, (2) DOC
Wall Temperature, (3) SCR, (4) SCR Wall Temperature, and (5) SCR Coverage Calculation. All
five submodels interact with each other. Figure 4 shows a diagram summarizing the interaction of
these models. For tables summarizing the individual inputs and outputs of the models, the reader
is referred to previous work (8).
It is imperative that all models produce relatively accurate results due to the interaction between
the individual models. In order for the DOC model to perform well, the DOC wall temperature
must also perform well. In order for the SCR model to perform well, both the SCR wall
temperature and SCR coverage models must also perform well. The coverage model in particular
must be accurate due to the fact that the outlet concentrations from the SCR NN model are used
as inputs. Numerically, this creates an implicit loop and, therefore, a one timestep delay in the
coverage calculation as well as a numerical iteration in the final solution.

Figure 4. Diagram of full model containing interaction between DOC, DOC Wall Temperature, SCR, SCR Wall
Temperature, and SCR Coverage Models.

Figures 5-8 present results of an NEDC cycle simulation of the DOC and SCR NN model. Note
that the predicted outlet NO and NO2 emissions of the DOC are used as inputs to the SCR
models. Furthermore the predicted outlet gas temperature of the DOC was used as the inlet gas
temperature of the SCR.

Overall comparisons between the detailed 1D model and the NN based model appear to be quite
good. The wall temperature results appear especially satisfactory considering the amount of
energy released due to the oxidation of CO and HC.

Wall temperature results of DOC Wall temperature results of SCR

Figure 5. Wall temperature results of DOC and SCR. For the detailed 1D model, the temperature at a normalized
location of 0.5 is shown.
Figure 6. DOC emissions results of CO (top) and HC (bottom). Inlet quantity is imposed. Outlets for both detailed
and NN are predicted.

Figure 7. SCR emissions results of NO (top) and NO2 (bottom). Inlet quantity is imposed. Outlets for both detailed
and NN are predicted.
Figure 8. NH3 and Coverage results for NEDC repeated three times.

If the drive cycle is repeated three times in a row, outlet NH3 and site coverage appears as shown
in Figure 8. Note that NH3 results appear to repeat in an identical manner, however the Site
Coverage results shows slight divergence as the cycles repeat. The reduced model as presented in
equations 5-10 perhaps requires some form of error control, or additional constraints to improve
the overall results. The assumption of 1:1 mole conversion of NOx could be improved. In this
regard a further physical model could be constructed where the ratio is a function of wall
temperature to account for NH3 oxidation and the inlet molar ratio of NO and NO2.

Model Type Solver CPU time

Standalone Kinetics AT QS
90s
Standalone Neural Network Explicit
2s
AT
Detailed Engine + Kinetics Explicit
60h
AT
MV Engine + Kinetics AT Explicit
39h
MV Engine + Neural Explicit
Network AT 625s
MV Engine + Neural
Network AT Explicit (RT) 331s
Table 3: Computational speed comparison between detailed engine/AT model and neural network model
(QS: quasi-steady method; RT: real-time; same for Table 4)

From a computational perspective, the detailed 1-D model requires approximately 90 seconds to
compute the full 1180 second drive cycle. The NN solution however requires approximately only
2 seconds. While the computational gain is obvious, there is another tangible benefit in that the
NN solution is not constrained by time step subdivision often used to improve stability of
detailed 1-D kinetic solutions and can easily match real-time hardware requirements (i.e., fixed
sampling interval).

Table 3 summarizes the computational speed comparison between detailed engine/AT models
and NN models. As can be seen, the detailed engine with a kinetic AT model took 60 hours to
run an NEDC cycle. For the mean value (MV) engine with kinetic AT model, the computational
time was reduced by almost half, but it still took 39 hours to finish. The integrated system with a
MV engine model and a NN AT model only took about 10 minutes to run with explicit solver.
This value is well under the real-time simulation requirement. The simulation time can be
reduced further to 5.5 minutes when a special, highly optimized version of the solver compiled
specifically for HiLs is used. This highly optimized solver contains all of the elements of the
standard solver that are needed for typical HiL simulations, while eliminating much of the
computational overhead associated with high level models and output storage that are not
applicable to real-time applications.

6. STANDALONE MODELS

6.1 STANDALONE AT MODEL REVIEW

Figure 9 shows an example AT model which includes a DOC reactor and SCR reactor created as
per the specification outlined in section 3. In this model, the upstream boundary condition is
imposed through an inflow component in which the exhaust gas conditions from the engine can
be specified. The downstream boundary condition is imposed through an end flow component in
which either the ambient condition or muffler inflow gas condition can be specified.

Figure 9. Standalone detailed AT model

6.2 STANDALONE ENGINE MODEL REVIEW

Figure 10 presents a standalone detailed engine model example. The engine is a 4-cylinder
turbocharged DI diesel engine. The model includes an EGR circuit with EGR valve diameter
actuated to control EGR flow. EGR valve diameter is looked up via a map as a function of engine
speed and requested BMEP. The intake system consists of an intercooler for which the
effectiveness can be looked up as a function of vehicle speed and mass flow rate. A positive
pressure drop across the EGR circuit is maintained by a variable geometry turbine (VGT). The
VGT rack position is dynamically controlled with a PID controller to achieve a target pressure. In
a detailed model, one usually needs to specify various parts and connections corresponding to
their actual geometric shape. Detailed engine models should be used when the wave dynamics are
important or acoustic performance of certain components and the system are of interest.

Figure 10. Standalone detailed engine model.

Figure 11. Standalone mean value engine model

For the real-time Hardware-in-the-Loop (HiL) simulation, the mean value (MV) engine model
(Fig. 11) can be used to replace the detailed engine model as it is expected to run much faster (10
to 20 times) than a detailed model. To convert a detailed model to a mean-value engine model,
the general procedure is to lump the intake/exhaust systems into large volumes such that the
system volume is conserved and replace the regular detailed cylinder with a map based cylinder
(9). For the mapped based cylinder, there are no breathing or combustion predictions. Engine
performance parameters such as volumetric efficiency, IMEP and exhaust energy are imposed via
NN based maps. Note that these maps are most often generated using data produced via
simulation of the validated detailed engine and vehicle models. In general, standalone engine
models are simulated with an explicit solver, where timestep is determined by the Courant criteria
computed for all the flow components in the model. Alternatively, the NN maps can also be
generated by test cell data.

6.3 STANDALONE VEHICLE/DRIVER MODEL REVIEW

Figure 12 shows an example of a standalone dynamic vehicle model. The driver component
functions as the master control over the inputs of the system such as accelerator, clutch and brake
pedal positions. It is also used to select gears when controlling a manual transmission. A 5-speed
manual transmission profile is specified in this model. In a standalone vehicle model, the profiles
of accelerator, brake and clutch actuator positions are generally required as the inputs. For an
integrated model including an engine model, these profiles can be specified through a vehicle
controller based on the engine speed, transmission gear ratio, etc.

Figure 12: Standalone vehicle/driver model

6.4 INTEGRATED MODELS WITH DIRECT COUPLING APPROACH

To study the performance of an AT system under dynamic control strategies and speed transients,
the standalone AT model should be coupled with an engine model in order to provide accurate as
well as real-time results. Figure 13 presents an integrated system that couples a detailed engine
model with a kinetic AT model with the direct coupling approach. The engine + AT model is
then coupled with a vehicle model such that the engine load is passed to the vehicle model and
the control signals such as pedal position are fed back to the engine model to actuate the throttle
position and/or injection pulse width. This allows the simulation of overall system response to
design as well as operating variables such as engine load and speed transients. However, as the
engine model is directly connected with the AT system, the minimum time step will be used for
the integrated system by comparing the time steps required by each of the sub- models. This time
step size may not be appropriate for all subsystems based on their characteristic flow and heat
transfer behavior and often may lead to large computational inefficiency. Primarily, the
numerical load is due to the imposition of engine model timestep to the AT subsystem model.

Figure 13: Integrated detailed engine model with direct coupling approach

Figure 14: Integrated mean value engine model with direct coupling approach

The immediate step that can be taken to alleviate the computational load issue is to simplify the
detailed model by trading off accuracy and flexibility requirements. The detailed engine model
can be converted into a mean value (MV) engine model and the kinetic AT model can be
replaced by a NN based model (see section 4). Figure 14 shows such an integrated system
example. The benefit of such a system is that the time step size can be much larger than that used
in a detailed model and thus the simulation is expected to run at a much faster speed. The
disadvantage is that any NN model is only appropriate for the subsystem model which it is
trained for. Therefore, this approach is a good choice only when the type and configuration of the
system is fixed and just the effect of operating conditions is of main interest. This is often the
case in the pre-production stage where hardware has already been settled but the control system is
still in the process of development. In the event that the AT hardware is still evolving, an
alternative approach is preferred such that the subsystems are coupled indirectly so the time step
size and numerical schemes can be different instead of developing new NN models each time the
configuration changes.

7. INTEGRATED MODELS WITH CIRCUIT SPLITTERS

7.1 PRINCIPLES CIRCUIT SPLITTER CONNECTION

In order to efficiently integrate the complete system, the subsystem models are connected via
special connections, referred to as circuit splitters, such that each subsystem can use different
numerical methods and timestep sizes. These connections allow a dynamic exchange of
boundary conditions.

A flow circuit in this methodology is a group of flow components and connections that allow
fluid flow between them. All parts in a flow circuit are solved together with the same numerical
method and time step. There may be several of these flow circuits in a system model. However,
if these are connected together using a conventional connector (orifice, pipes, etc), it will be
treated as a single circuit and the time step and numerical method will be identical for all the
components. On the other hand, a circuit splitter connection replaces an ordinary flow
connection between components with additional flow and controls components to allow the
original flow circuits to be calculated independently. The physical flow path between the
components is replaced by a virtual one. An illustration of a circuit splitter connection is shown
in Figure 15. The components of a circuit splitter added to the solution include the outlet of the
upstream subsystem, the inlet of the downstream subsystem, a controller to set the mass flow rate
into the downstream subsystem, and sensors and actuators to set the other boundary conditions.
The upstream subsystem is referred to as circuit 1 and the downstream subsystem as circuit 2 for
convenience in the subsequent discussion.

The circuit splitter connection has been designed in a general manner so that there is no
restriction on which circuit takes the larger or smaller time step. There is also no restriction on
the solver type of each circuit. It may be possible for the timestep sizes in the two circuits to vary
such that each circuit has the smaller time steps for some portion of the simulation. Because of
this generality, the control components do not simply integrate or interpolate the boundary
conditions on each side.

The main objective is to ensure that mass and energy are conserved when the solution of the
subsystems are decoupled. A PI controller is used to minimize the error between the mass flow
rate leaving circuit 1 and that entering circuit 2. There may be differences between the
instantaneous flow rates at any given time, but the controller gains can be set to keep the
accumulated error within tolerable limits. The controller also allows a minimum output, which is
needed when the downstream circuit uses the Q-S solver (which requires a positive inlet flow
rate, ref. 4).

Pressure sensed at the inlet of circuit 2 is imposed as the outflow boundary conditions for
circuit 1. Similarly, composition and temperature sensed at the outlet of circuit 1 are specified as
the inflow boundary conditions for circuit 2. If the controller causes the flow direction to be
from circuit 2 to circuit 1, the composition and temperature of the flow leaving circuit 2 are
specified as the inflow boundary conditions for circuit 1.

Figure 16 shows an integrated system example coupling a detailed engine model and a kinetic
AT model (DOC+SCR) with a circuit splitter. The detailed engine model runs with an explicit
solver and the AT model is simulated with a Q-S solver. The coupled system is then connected to
a vehicle model such that the control strategies of the AT system can be dynamically adjusted
based on the response of the vehicle model. The major advantage of this coupling approach is
that different time scales and numerical schemes can be specified for each subsystem. Each
subsystem can almost run independently except for the communication with neighbor subsystems
at a specified time interval so that mass and energy are conserved. Therefore the integrated
system with a circuit splitter runs much more efficiently compared to the detailed system with a
direct coupling approach and also allows more flexibility compared to the system in which a MV
engine is directly coupled with a NN AT subsystem.

Figure 15. Working mechanism of a circuit splitter

Furthermore, under the scenario where the AT component design and development are of the
most interest, the detailed engine configuration is usually fixed and thus may be replaced by a
MV engine model at the cost of certain amount of accuracy. Figure 17 presents such a coupled
system of MV engine model + kinetic AT model. After this simplification, the computational
speed can be further increased as the minimum time scale required by the MV engine model is
significantly larger than that by the detailed engine model. In our test models it was shown that
the sacrificed accuracy is almost negligible while the computational efficiency improved
significantly.

Finally it should be noted that the gains of the PI controller within the circuit splitter connection
are required to be calibrated for each system model. In general, if the output signal of the
controller has large oscillations around the reference signal, lower proportional and integral gains
should be specified. On the other hand, if the output signal is lagged significantly compared to
the reference signal, higher gains should be specified.

Figure 16. Integrated detailed engine model with a circuit splitter

Figure 17. Integrated mean value engine model with a circuit splitter
7.2 CIRCUIT SPLITTER MODEL RESULTS

Figure 18: DOC emission results comparison between two integrating approaches

Figure 19: SCR emission results comparison between two integrating approaches

Figures 18 and 19 present simulation results of a full NEDC cycle from a directly coupled system
and a system coupled with a circuit splitter. Both systems include an engine (detailed or mean
value) model and a kinetic DOC+SCR model. For simplicity, the directly coupled system is
referenced as conventional integration (CNV-system) and the coupled system with a circuit
splitter is referenced as CS-system. To ensure the fidelity of accuracy, a detailed engine model
was used in the reference CNV system. On the other hand, a MV engine model was utilized in
the CS-system in order to achieve the most computational efficiency. The proportional and
integral gains were carefully calibrated for the CS-system, and a proportional gain of 0 and
integral gain of 10 were specified for this model.

Figure 18 shows the emission results (CO, HC and NOx) from the DOC component. The symbol
lines represent the emission results from the CNV-system and the solid and dashed lines
represent the results from the CS-system. As can be seen, the emission results from these two
systems are in good agreement at both inlet and outlet of DOC. Similarly, Figure 19 presents the
emission results (NO, NO2 and NH3) of SCR with these two coupling approaches. The results of
the two systems show good agreement at both inlet and outlet of SCR. Therefore, this test model
shows that the CS-system preserves the fidelity of the simulation results of the CNV-system with
a carefully designed PI control strategy within the circuit splitter.

7.3 COMPUTATIONAL SPEED COMPARISON

Table 4 summarizes the computational speed comparison between the CNV-system and CS-
system running a full NEDC cycle. All simulations were performed on an Intel Quad-core
2.5GHz processor with 4GB of RAM. As can be seen, the standalone kinetic AT model and
standalone MV engine model were simulated separately for 8 and 9 minutes respectively.
However, it took almost 39 hours when these two circuits are conventionally integrated. This is
because the integrated system was forced to run with the explicit method and the time step used
in the engine model was imposed on the AT model which did not need such a small time step
size. On the other hand, in the new coupling scheme with a circuit splitter, the total simulation
time was reduced to about 20 minutes, which is close to the total time of running the separate
MV engine model and AT model standalone. Furthermore, when a vehicle/driver model was
added instead of imposing a load/speed time series on the engine, the simulation time increased
by only 9 minutes.

8. CONCLUDING REMARKS

AT system models requiring the solution of detailed chemical kinetics are often constrained by
stiff ordinary differential equations (ODE) and differential-algebraic equations (DAE). These are
computationally intensive and may require special numerical techniques that are not particularly
suitable and/or compatible with the time scales of many engine/vehicle transients and in-cylinder
phenomenon. These detailed models are not suitable for real-time (HiL and SiL) applications.
Two different methodologies were described in this paper which address these issues. In the first
approach the system model is rendered into an NN model which can be simulated at real-time
with numerically efficiency and stability. It is shown that the NN model can be sufficiently
accurate and is an effective surrogate for the numerically inefficient albeit accurate detailed
model in HIL/SiL applications. However, the main drawback of the approach is that the detailed
model has to be simulated many times in order to generate training data for the NN model.
Thus, once the NN model is trained, any subsequent changes in the detailed model will not be
captured in the NN model unless it is retrained. On the other hand, this method is a viable option
in pre-production control development stages where the AT system configuration has been
settled.
In order to alleviate drawback mentioned above, a second method was developed in which an
integrated system model (engine/AT/control/vehicle) can be virtually split into subsystems where
each part can be solved with an appropriately matched solver. In this approach, the subsystems
are solved simultaneously in a coupled manner while exchanging information with each other,
thereby ensuring conservation of mass and energy. For example, exhaust system simulation
models typically use a quasi-steady (Q-S) based approximation to gain a computational
advantage. Such models are usually unable to handle physically branched systems (i.e., one flow
source at the inlet and two flow outlets). Under the new technique, each branch can be solved
using a Q-S solver and the subsystems upstream/downstream of the branch junctions can be
solved explicitly (e.g., detailed engine model) or implicitly (e.g., mean-value engine model,
turbocharger systems). The attractiveness of this methodology is that the AT system model
configuration can be altered at anytime. However, this relaxation comes at a slight expense of
numerical efficiency but generally not large enough to compromise HiL/SiL compatibility.

With the first approach (direct coupling), the simulation time of a MV engine plus NN based AT
system only took about 10 minutes to run with an explicit solver. The simulation time was
reduced further to 5.5 minutes when a special, highly optimized version of the GT-SUITE solver
compiled specifically for HiLs was used. With the second approach (circuit splitter coupling) the
total simulation time of a MV engine plus kinetic AT system was about 20 minutes.
Furthermore, the simulation time only increased by 9 minutes when a vehicle/driver model was
added rather than using an imposed load/speed schedule. These values show that both approaches
are appropriate for the HiL/SiL simulation.

Model Type Solver CPU time

Standalone Detailed Engine Explicit
435min
QS
Standalone Kinetic AT 8min
Explicit
Standalone MV Engine 9min
MV Engine + Vehicle CNV, Explicit
Model 20min
Detailed Engine + Kinetics CNV, Explicit
AT 3780min
MV Engine + Kinetics AT CNV, Explicit 2340min
Detailed Engine + Kinetics
AT CS, Explicit + QS 458min
MV Engine + Kinetics AT CS, Explicit + QS 20min
MV Engine + Vehicle CS, Explicit + QS
Model + Kinetics AT 29min
Table 4: Computational speed comparison between CNV and CS methods (CNV: conventional direct
coupling; CS: circuit split)
REFERENCES

(1) Morel T., Keribar R., Silvestri J. and Wahiduzzaman S., “Integrated Engine/Vehicle
Simulation and Control”, SAE NO. 1999-01-0907, Detroit, MI, 1999.

(2) Morel, T, Wahiduzzaman, S., Kasten, M. and Klug, M. “System Model of Engine Thermal
Management”, Aachen Symposium, Aachen, Germany, 1999.

(3) Ciesla, C., Keribar, R. and Morel, T. “Engine/Powertrain/Vehicle Modeling Tool Applicable
to All Stages of the Design Process”, SAE NO. 2000-01-0934, Detroit, MI, 2000.

(4) Tang W., Wahiduzzaman S., Seth Wenzel S., Leonard A. and Morel A.,”Development of a
Quasi-Steady Approach Based Simulation Tool for System Level Exhaust Aftertreatment
Modeling”, SAE NO. 2008-01-0866 Detroit, MI, 2007.

(5) He Y., Lin C., “Development and Validation of a Mean Value Engine Model for Integrated
Engine and Control System Simulation”, SAE 2007-01-1304, Detroit, MI, 2007.

(6) Papadimitriou I., Silvestri J. et al.: “Development of Real-Time Capable Engine Plant Models
for use in HiL systems”, SAE NO. 2008-01-0990, Detroit, MI, 2008

(7) Wahiduzzaman, S., Tang, W., Wenzel, S. and Leonard, A. “Modeling of Integrated
Aftertreatment Systems”, SAE NO. 2007-01-4127

(8) Wenzel S., Wahiduzzaman S., Despujols B. and Papadimitriou I., “Development of Real
Time Catalyst Model for Engine & Powertrain Control Design”, SAE NO. 2009-01-1273.
Detroit, MI, 2009.

(9) Papadimitriou I., Silvestri J. et al., “Development of Real-Time Capable Engine Plant Models
for use in HiL systems”, SAE NO. 2008-01-0990, Detroit, MI, 2008

(10) Wenzel S., Wahiduzzaman S., “Analytical study of effectiveness of a degreened and aged
DOC as an oxidation device for NO under variable operating and inlet conditions”, SAE NO.
2009-01-0908. Detroit, MI, 2009.

(11) Wahiduzzaman S., Wenzel S., Despujols B., and Tang, W. “Development of Diesel Engine
& Catalyst Model Derived from Detailed Model for Engine & Powertrain Control Design”,
SIA International Conference, Rouen, France, 2008