Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 962–966

www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Impact of different configurations of a Diesel oxidation catalyst

on the CO and HC tail-pipe emissions of a Euro4 passenger car
Efthimios Zervas *

Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Vas. Sofias 12, 67100 Xanthi, Greece

Received 9 February 2007; accepted 30 June 2007

Available online 5 July 2007

Abstract

Different configurations were used to study the impact of a Diesel oxidation catalyst position on the HC and CO oxidation efficiency
of a Euro4 Diesel passenger car. An oxidation catalyst of 0.8 L downstream EGR port is the original configuration. Another two con-
figurations are studied in this work: the same catalytic volume put upstream EGR port and four small close-coupled catalysts of 0.06 L
each put in the exhaust manifold very close to the engine exhaust valve. The results show that the configuration upstream EGR port leads
to a significant increase on HC conversion efficiency; however, CO tail-pipe emissions remain practically unchanged. The four small
close-coupled catalysts put in the exhaust manifold, despite the higher exhaust temperature, show lower oxidation efficiency due to
the high space velocity, however, they can be used in the case of little available space for a bigger catalyst. In all configurations studied,
there is a significant difference on CO and HC conversion efficiency and thus on tail-pipe emissions in the case of aged oxidation catalysts
compared to fresh ones.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Diesel; Emissions; HC; CO; Oxidation catalyst; Engine-out emissions; Tail-pipe emissions; Oxidation efficiency; Close-coupled catalyst; EGR

1. Introduction due to lower average temperature and delayed light-off of

Diesel oxidation catalyst is necessary to fulfil Euro4
standards for CO and HC exhaust emissions and every
Euro4 Diesel passenger car in European Union is equipped
with an oxidation catalyst. There are several parameters
influencing the performances of an oxidation catalyst, such
as its volume, the substrate type, load of precious metals,
wash-coat type and composition. The position of the oxi-
dation catalyst in the exhaust line determines its tempera-
ture and thus CO and HC conversion efficiency. Most car
manufactures use the ‘‘classic’’ configuration of a catalyst
of a single volume near the engine or a bi-catalyst configu-
ration of a pre-catalyst near the engine and a main under-
floor catalyst. In the case of a long distance of the catalyst
from engine, the thermal losses of exhaust gas are signifi-
cant, leading to a lower CO and HC conversion efficiency
*
Tel.: +30 24510 79392.
E-mail address: ezervas@env.duth.gr
the catalyst. The light-off of a catalyst is defined as the tem-
perature at which the catalyst becomes 50% effective [1,2].
For this reason, most modern configurations use the cata-
lyst quite near to engine (close-coupled catalysts), which
allows higher oxidation efficiency due to higher tempera-
ture of exhaust gas. Several studies describe the operation
of oxidation catalysts [3–6]. A decrease of the distance
between the exhaust valve and the catalytic converter can
lead to increasing conversion efficiency; however, the avail-
able space is often very little.
This work proposed two new configurations of a Diesel
oxidation catalyst and studies the impact of its position on
CO and HC conversion efficiency and tail-pipe emissions of
a Euro4 passenger car. The original configuration is an oxi-
dation catalyst of 0.8 L downstream EGR port, while the
two new configurations studied are: the same volume of
0.8 L upstream EGR port and four small catalysts of
0.06 L each in the exhaust manifold, very close to the
exhaust valves.

1359-4311/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.06.033
 E. Zervas / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 962–966
Euro4 emission limits must be satisfied for at least
100,000 km; however, Diesel oxidation catalysts, as all
after-treatment devices, may undergo a partial deactivation
with mileage [7]. It is evident that a fresh catalyst has
higher oxidation activity and thus lower tail-pipe emissions
than an aged one. For this reason, an aged catalyst is usu-
ally employed during engine emission control development.
In this work, fresh and aged catalysts were used and the
obtained results were compared.
The target of this work is to propose two new configura-
tions for Euro4 passenger cars than the ‘‘classic’’ configura-
tion of a catalyst downstream EGR port.
2. Experimental section
A passenger car equipped with a 1.9 L Euro4 Diesel
engine is used at this study. All measurements were per-
formed on the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC)
according to European regulations [8]. The engine-out
emissions of this passenger car on the NEDC are 0.165 g/
km of HC and 1.183 g/km of CO. Different oxidation cat-
alysts were used for this study. All of them were commer-
cial available catalysts of metallic support of 400 cpsi and
a platinum charge of 50 g/ft3. Two types of oxidation
catalysts were used: fresh (corresponding to a mileage of
4000 km) and aged (corresponding to a mileage of
100,000 km).
The following configurations for the oxidation catalysts
were used (Fig. 1):
1. a fresh catalyst of 0.8 L (B110 mm · L85 mm) upstream
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) port,
2. a fresh catalyst of 0.8 L (B110 mm · L85 mm) down-
stream EGR port,
3. four small fresh catalysts of 0.06 L each
(B35 mm · L65 mm) in the four exhaust manifolds near
the exhaust valve,
4. an aged catalyst of 0.8 L (B110 mm · L85 mm) down-
stream EGR port and
5. four small aged catalysts of 0.06 L each
(B35 mm · L65 mm) in the four exhaust manifolds near
the exhaust valve.
All tests were doubled and average values are used. It must
be noticed that Euro4 emission limits are 0.5 g/km for CO,
0.25 g/km for NOx and 0.30 g/km for NOx + HC. As there
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the three different configurations used:
four small catalysts in the exhaust manifold, catalytic converter upstream
EGR port and downstream EGR port.
963
is no HC limit, this can be taken in a first approach
as 0.05 g/km (from 0.30 g/km NOx + HC 0.25 g/km
NOx), but a higher value can also be admitted. In this last
case, NOx emissions have to be lower than 0.25 g/km.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Configurations upstream and downstream EGR port in
the case of fresh catalysts
Fig. 2 shows the HC and CO cumulative emissions on
NEDC for the two fresh catalysts. HC tail-pipe emissions
are about 18% higher when the oxidation catalyst is found
upstream EGR port than downstream (0.0209 g/km
against 0.0172 g/km). CO emissions are very similar as
their difference is only 3% (0.0388 g/km when the oxidation
catalyst is found upstream EGR port against 0.0405 g/km
when is found downstream). These values comply with
Euro4 standards. The difference of HC emissions is
explained by the difference of the gas flow passes through
the catalyst (Fig. 3), and thus by the difference on space
velocity. When the oxidation catalyst is found upstream
EGR port, there is a higher gas flow entering in it, than
when the catalyst is found downstream the EGR port. This
flow is in average 16% higher. On the NEDC, the space
velocities vary from 1.9 to 64.8 s 1 in the case of the cata-
lyst found upstream EGR port and 2.1–73.7 s 1 in the case
of the catalyst found downstream EGR port.
This statement indicates that the first parameter for the
HC conversion is space velocity (or the flow passes through
the volume of catalyst). To have the same efficiency for HC
oxidation, a catalytic volume of approximately 16% higher
(about 1 L) is necessary in the case of the position down-
100
Tail-pipe HC, CO (mg) Oxidation efficiency (%)
80
60
HC, catalyst upstream EGR
40 HC, catalyst downstream EGR
CO, catalyst upstream EGR
20 CO, catalyst downstream EGR
Speed
0
500
400
Speed (km/h)
300
200
150
100 100
50
0 0
0 400 800 1200
Time (s)
Fig. 2. Cumulative tail-pipe HC and CO emissions on the NEDC for the
configurations of the oxidation catalyst found upstream or downstream
EGR port (bottom curves) and HC/CO oxidation efficiency of the two
configurations (upper curves). Fresh catalysts.
964 E. Zervas / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 962–966

Flow ratio, cat. upstream/downstream EGR architecture (available volume), HC conversion efficiency,
3
etc. should be used.
downstream EGR
/
Flow through the catalyst Ratio upstream

2
3.2. Configurations upstream and downstream EGR port in
the case of fresh and aged catalysts
1

European passenger cars must respect emission regula-

60
0
Catalyst upstream EGR
tions for a certain mileage (100,000 km in the case of
Catalyst downstream EGR Euro4). Catalytic activity is not the same in the case of
Speed fresh or aged catalysts [7]. Catalyst partial deactivation is
40

Speed (km/h)
(L/s)

a natural phenomenon and is due to several parameters,

20
0 0
0 400
Time(s)
Fig. 3. Flow passes through the oxidation catalyst for the configurations
of the catalyst found upstream or downstream EGR port (bottom curves)
and ratio of the two flows (upper curves).
stream than upstream EGR port. This statement indicates
that the same HC conversion efficiency can be reached with
a smaller volume of oxidation catalyst put upstream than
downstream EGR port and thus a significant gain on space
and, of course, after-treatment cost.
CO emissions have a difference of 3% between the two
configurations because they are dependent not on the flow,
but on the gas temperature as shown in Fig. 4. This figure
shows that when the oxidation catalyst is found upstream
the EGR port, the gas temperature is in average 3% higher
than when the oxidation catalyst is found upstream the
EGR port. Naturally, this small difference is not enough
to support the first or the second position of oxidation cat-
alyst in the case of CO treatment and other criteria such as
such as: cover of wash-coat surface from residues of oxida-
150 tion of hydrocarbons, poisoning from sulphur compounds
100
50 and sintering of active sites [2]. For these reasons, the dif-
ferences on catalytic activity between fresh and aged cata-
800 1200 lysts of 100,000 km are examined in this work.
Fig. 5 shows the cumulative HC and CO tail-pipe emis-
sions on NEDC for a fresh and an aged catalyst of 0.8 L
put downstream EGR port. This figure shows that there
is a significant difference between the two catalysts. HC
cumulative tail-pipe emissions increase from 0.0209 g/km
to 0.0453 g/km from fresh to aged catalyst having the same
position on the exhaust line. The corresponding values of
CO tail-pipe emissions are 0.0388 g/km and 0.176 g/km.
These increases are 117% and 354% for HC and CO
exhaust emissions respectively. It must be noted that the
volume of 0.8 L at this position is sufficient to treat the
engine-out HC and CO emissions for Euro4 standards.
The increase of HC and CO emissions with the ageing of
oxidation catalyst is also reported in another study [7].
Cumulative oxidation efficiency is lower in the case of
aged catalyst than in the case of fresh one: HC oxidation
efficiency is 86.4% in the case of fresh catalyst and
decreases to 72% in the case of an aged one, while CO
oxidation efficiency passes from 96.3% to 84.1%. These

1.2 100
Temp. before cata (o C) Ratio Temp. before cata

Temp. before cat., upstream/downstream EGR

Tail-pipe HC, CO (g) Oxidation efficiency (%)

80
1.1
60
HC, fresh catalyst
1 40 HC, aged catalyst
CO, fresh catalyst
20 CO, aged catalyst
0.9
Speed
600 0
Catalyst upstream EGR 2
Catalyst downstream EGR
Speed
400 1.5
Speed (km/h)

Speed (km/h)

1
200 150 150
100 0.5 100
50 50
0 0 0 0
0 400 800 1200 0 400 800 1200
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 4. Temperature of exhaust gas before the oxidation catalyst for the Fig. 5. Cumulative tail-pipe HC and CO emissions on the NEDC for the
configurations of the catalyst found upstream or downstream EGR port fresh and aged oxidation catalyst of 0.8 L (bottom curves) and HC/CO
(bottom curves) and ratio of the two temperatures (upper curves). oxidation efficiency of the two configurations (upper curves).
 E. Zervas / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 962–966 965

significant changes must be taken into consideration in the can be used in the case were there is no available space
case of the development of an oxidation catalyst of a new for a single catalyst.
engine, which has to comply with regulations even in the
case of a partial deactivated oxidation catalyst.
3.4. Comparison of one or four aged catalytic converters

3.3. Comparison of one or four fresh catalytic converters Fig. 7 compares the same configurations in the case of
aged catalysts. The HC tail-pipe emissions are 0.0453 g/
Another position of oxidation catalyst is tested, where km in the case of the catalyst of 0.8 L and increases to
four small oxidation catalysts are put in the exhaust man- 0.0722 g/km in the case of the four small catalysts. The cor-
ifold, very close to engine exhaust valve (Fig. 1). As the responding CO emissions are 0.176 g/km and 0.385 g/km.
‘‘classic’’ positions of oxidation catalyst can be found not As in the case of fresh catalysts, there is a significant loss
so close to the engine, significant thermal loses occur, lead- in oxidation efficiency of both HC and CO. In the case of
ing to a delayed light-off of the catalyst. The position close aged catalysts, HC overall oxidation efficiency falls from
to exhaust valves allows higher oxidation efficiency due to 72.0% in the case of the catalyst of 0.8 L to 56.8% in the
higher temperature of exhaust gas. Due to available vol- case of the four catalysts, while the corresponding values
ume shortage, four small catalysts of 0.06 L each are used for CO oxidation efficiency are 96.3% and 67.0%. However,
and compared with the catalyst of 0.8 L downstream EGR the tail-pipe emissions can be in accordance with Euro4
port. standards (but for NOx emissions of 0.238 g/km as HC
Fig. 6 compares the results of these two configurations. emissions are 0.062 g/km).
The HC tail-pipe emissions are 0.0209 g/km in the case of These results show that the configuration of four small
the catalyst of 0.8 L and increases to 0.062 g/km in the case catalysts complies with Euro4 standards even if it is clearly
of the four small catalysts. The corresponding CO emis- less effective than the volume of 0.8 L for HC and CO oxida-
sions are 0.039 g/km and 0.249 g/km. There is a significant tion. This is due to the very small catalytic volume leading to
loss in oxidation efficiency of both HC and CO. HC overall a high space velocity of exhaust gas. These results indicate
oxidation efficiency on the NEDC is 86.4% in the case of that a mono-volume configuration must be more preferable
the catalyst of 0.8 L and follows to 62.9% in the case of in the case of high engine-out emissions (as more efficient
the four catalysts, while CO oxidation efficiency passes due to lower space velocity) and the configuration using
from 96.3% to 78.6%. These results indicate that, even if the four small catalysts can be attractive in the case where
the four catalysts are closer to the engine exhaust, they can- the available space for the single catalyst is not sufficient.
not increase the oxidation efficiency. This is essentially due
to their small volume and thus to high space velocity. How-
ever, the tail-pipe emissions can be in accordance with 3.5. CO and HC emissions as a function of configuration
Euro4 standards (but for NOx emissions of 0.238 g/km
as HC emissions are 0.062 g/km), and this configuration Fig. 8 shows the tail-pipe HC and CO emissions and the
global oxidation efficiency on the NEDC as a function of

100 100
Tail-pipe HC, CO (g) Oxidation efficiency (%)

Tail-pipe HC, CO (g) Oxidation efficiency (%)

80 80

60 60
HC, 0.8L HC, 0.8L
40 HC, 4x0.06L 40 HC, 4x0.06L
CO, 0.8L CO, 0.8L
20 CO, 4x0.06L 20 CO, 4x0.06L
Speed Speed
0 0
3 4

3
2
Speed (km/h)

Speed (km/h)

1 150 150
100 1 100
50 50
0 0 0 0
0 400 800 1200 0 400 800 1200
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 6. Cumulative tail-pipe HC and CO emissions on the NEDC for the Fig. 7. Cumulative tail-pipe HC and CO emissions on the NEDC for the
fresh oxidation catalyst of 0.8 L and the four catalysts of 0.06 L each aged oxidation catalyst of 0.8 L and the four aged catalysts of 0.06 L each
(bottom curves) and HC/CO oxidation efficiency of the two configurations (bottom curves) and HC/CO oxidation efficiency of the two configurations
(upper curves). (upper curves).
966 E. Zervas / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 962–966
0.4
0.8 L, fresh, upstream EGR
0.8 L, fresh, downstream EGR
4x0.06 L, fresh
0.8 L, aged, downstream EGR
CO tail-pipe emissions (g/km)
0.3 4x0.06 L, aged
0.2
0.1
0 40
0 0.02 0.04 0.06
HC tail-pipe emissions (g/km)
Fig. 8. Comparison of tail-pipe HC and CO emissions on the NEDC for all the configurations used (left curves) and HC/CO oxidation efficiency of each
configuration (right curves).
the configuration used. It is clearly shown that all configu-
rations used are in accordance with Euro4 limits (with, in
some cases the necessity to have NOx emissions lower than
0.25 g/km). The best configuration for HC and CO effi-
ciency is the mono-volume catalyst upstream EGR port.
The difference between the positions upstream or down-
stream EGR port is significant mainly in the case of HC
tail-pipe emissions, as the difference on CO oxidation effi-
ciency is very low. These results indicate that decrease of
space velocity must be searched to increase oxidation
efficiency.
The configuration of the four small catalysts is not bet-
ter than the ‘‘classic’’ configuration of one catalyst in terms
of conversion efficiency; however, this configuration com-
plies with Euro4 standards and can be used in the case of
little available space. Moreover, if Euro4 standards are
not satisfied in a specific application, an under-floor cata-
lytic converter can be used to treat the remaining
emissions.
4. Conclusions
Three different configurations for the oxidation catalyst
of a Euro4 Diesel passenger car are used at this study.
– a catalyst of 0.8 L upstream EGR port,
– a catalyst of 0.8 L downstream EGR port and
– four small fresh catalysts of 0.06 L each in the four
exhaust manifolds near the exhaust valve.
Fresh and age oxidation catalysts were used for the last
configurations. The target of this work is to find out if
another configuration is better to fulfil Euro4 standards
than the ‘‘classic’’ configuration of a catalyst downstream
EGR port.
100
CO efficiency (%)
80
60
0.8 L, fresh, upstream EGR
0.8 L, fresh, downstream EGR
4x0.06 L, fresh
0.8 L, aged, downstream EGR
4x0.06 L, aged
0.08 40 60 80 100
HC efficiency (%)
The obtained results show that HC tail-pipe emissions
depend more on the gas flow passes through the catalyst
and thus space velocity, while CO tail-pipe emissions
depend on gas temperature. For this reason, tail-pipe HC
emissions are lower when the catalyst is upstream EGR
port than downstream. The difference on CO efficiency
between these two cases is very low.
The four small oxidation catalysts put in the exhaust
manifold show lower oxidation efficiency for both HC
and CO than the classic solution of one catalyst, due to
the high space velocity. However, this configuration can
be attractive in the case of severe lack of space.
As expected, aged catalysts are less active than fresh
ones in all cases studied.
References
[1] J.B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, McGraw-
Hill, US, 1988.
[2] A. Bergman, Exhaust treatment in Diesel engines, in: R. Van
Basshuysen, F. Schäfer (Eds.), Internal Combustion Engine Hand-
book, SAE Warrendale, PA, USA, 2004.
[3] T. Maunula, A. Suopanki, K. Torkell, M. Harkonen, The optimisation
of light-duty oxidation catalysts for preturbo, close-coupled and
underfloor positions, SAE Technical Paper Series 2004-01-3021, 2004.
[4] H. Bauer, H.G. Haldenwanger, P. Hirth, R. Bruck, Thermal manage-
ment of close coupled catalysts, SAE Technical Paper Series 1999-01-
1231, 1999.
[5] T. Nagel, W. Maus, J. Breuer, Development of increased test
conditions for close-coupled catalysts, SAE Technical Paper Series
962079, 1996.
[6] E. Otto, F. Albrecht, J. Liebl, Development of BMW catalyst concepts
for LEV/ULEV and EU III/IV legislations 6 cylinder engine with close
coupled catalysts, SAE Technical paper Series 1999-01-0767, 1999.
[7] G. Bikas, E. Zervas, Non-regulated pollutants emitted from Euro3
Diesel vehicles as a function of their mileage, Energy and Fuels, in
press.
[8] Directive 70/220, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/directives/
vehicles/dir70_220_cee.html.