OCTOBER 19-20, 2012 - YMCA University of Science & Technology

Proceedings of the National Conference on
Trends and Advances in Mechanical Engineering,
YMCA University of Science & Technology, Faridabad, Haryana, Oct 19-20, 2012
6. Conclusions
Based upon the experimentation and simulation, it is concluded that:
1. Fiat converter is better than Proton converter in terms of conversion efficiencies of three main pollutants CO,
NO and HC at three different engine speeds. Factors affecting the performance include the geometric design
of monolithic channel such as hydraulic diameter, channel length, cell density and wall thickness. Fiat
converter with higher cell densities, longer channel, thinner wall and smaller hydraulic diameter produced
lower emission than Proton converter.
2. Fiat converter with higher cell density and slightly thinner wall thickness allows more precious metal
catalysts to be loaded hence increasing reaction surface areas for better conversion efficiency.
3. Longer channel in Fiat converter offers an advantage of better mass transfer because more exhaust gases can
be attracted to the channel wall for a longer time, but at the same time produces higher pressure drop. HC and
CO emission decreases as channel length increases, however, not much effect on NOx emission.
4. Smaller hydraulic diameter in Fiat converter channel exhibits more favorable mass transfer as a result of
higher flow velocity. Fresh exhaust gases are easily attracted to the channel wall with small diameter to
undergo chemical reactions with catalysts compared to the channel with large diameter.
5. The simulation and experimental results exhibited small differences in reducing main three pollutants HC,
CO and NO [1].It may be caused by many factors and among them is the model itself. In actual converter,
double substrates were used while in simulation, only single substrate was used. Also, the precious metals
cannot be arranged together in ratios in the simulation which also lead to the difference in end results.
Catalytic converter can help to reduce the presence of toxic and harmful contents in exhaust emission without
affecting the performance of the engine. This could be the one of the measures to save our environment and
achieving a green revolution.
References
1. Presti, M., Pace, L., et al., 2002, “A Computational and Experimental Analysis for Optimization of Cell
Shape in High Performance of Catalytic Converters”, SAE Paper 2002-01-0355.
2. Marsh, P., Acke, F., et al., 2001, “Application Guideline to Define Catalyst Layout for Maximum Catalytic
Efficiency”, SAE Paper 2001-01-0929.
3. Rosen, Erwin M., 1975. The Peterson automotive troubleshooting & repair manual. Grosset & Dunlap, Inc..
ISBN 978-0448119465.
4. Exhaust Emissions and Driveability — Chrysler Corporation.
5. Heywood, John B., "Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals," McGraw Hill.
6. Van Basshuysen, Richard, and Schäfer, Fred, 2004. Internal Combustion Engine Handbook. SAE
International.
7. A.K.M. Mohiuddin and Muhammad Nurhafez,2007., Experimental analysis and comparison of performance
characteristics of catalytic converters including simulation, International Journal of Mechanical and Materials
Engineering (IJMME), Vol. 2, No. 1, 1-7.
8. Sameh M. Metwalley, Shawki A. et al., 2011, Determination of the catalytic converter performance of bi-fuel
vehicle, Journal of Petroleum Technology and Alternative Fuels Vol. 2(7), pp. 111-131.
9. Steven D. Burch, Matthew A. Keyser, Chris P. Colucci, Thomas F. Potter, David K. Benson. 1996,
Applications and Benefits of Catalytic Converter Thermal Management, Presented at SAE Fuels &
Lubricants Spring Meeting (Dearborn, MI).
10. Wojciech Marek ,Władyslaw Mitianiec, 2002, modeling and research analysis of catalytic converter in a
small SI two-stroke engine, Journal of kones Internal Combustion Engines No. 3‐4.
16