Development of Dynamic Constraint Models for a Model Based Transient Calibration Process

Model based calibration has gained popularity in recent years as a method to optimize increasingly complex engine systems. However virtually all model based techniques are applied to steady state calibration. Transient calibration is by and large an emerging technology. An important piece of any transient calibration process is the ability to constrain the optimizer to treat the problem as a dynamic one and not as a quasi-static process. The optimized air-handling parameters corresponding to any instant of time must be achievable in a transient sense; this in turn depends on the trajectory of the same parameters over previous time instances. In this work dynamic constraint models have been proposed to translate commanded to actually achieved air-handling parameters. These models enable the optimization to be realistic in a transient sense. The air handling system has been treated as a linear second order system with PD control. Parameters for this second order system have been extracted from real transient data. The model has been shown to be the best choice relative to a list of appropriate candidates such as neural networks and first order models. The selected second order model was used in conjunction with transient emission models to predict emissions over the FTP cycle. It has been shown that emission predictions based on air-handing parameters predicted by the dynamic constraint model do not differ significantly from corresponding emissions based on measured air-handling parameters.

CCSD(T), W1, and other model chemistry predictions for gas-phase deprotonation reactions

A series of CCSD(T) single-point calculations on MP4(SDQ) geometries and the W1 model chemistry method have been used to calculate ΔH° and ΔG° values for the deprotonation of 17 gas-phase reactions where the experimental values have reported accuracies within 1 kcal/mol. These values have been compared with previous calculations using the G3 and CBS model chemistries and two DFT methods. The most accurate CCSD(T) method uses the aug-cc-pVQZ basis set. Extrapolation of the aug-cc-pVTZ and aug-cc-pVQZ results yields the most accurate agreement with experiment, with a standard deviation of 0.58 kcal/mol for ΔG° and 0.70 kcal/mol for ΔH°. Standard deviations from experiment for ΔG° and ΔH° for the W1 method are 0.95 and 0.83 kcal/mol, respectively. The G3 and CBS-APNO results are competitive with W1 and are much less expensive. Any of the model chemistry methods or the CCSD(T)/aug-cc-pVQZ method can serve as a valuable check on the accuracy of experimental data reported in the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) database.