Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 54, Issue 8, pp 6053–6065 | Cite as

3D pore analysis of gasoline particulate filters using X-ray tomography: impact of coating and ash loading

  • Heeje SeongEmail author
  • Seungmok Choi
  • Katarzyna E. Matusik
  • Alan L. Kastengren
  • Christopher F. Powell
Ceramics
  • 118 Downloads

Abstract

Since particulate emissions control technologies are dependent on filtration technologies, development of porous materials with optimized pore structures is crucial to improve filtration efficiency and pressure drop across filters. Despite increasing attention to 3D measurements of porous materials, there are few reports of pore structure investigations of diesel/gasoline particulate filters (D/GPFs) using 3D visualization techniques. In this work, GPF 3D pore structures were examined using X-ray tomography (XRT) to identify the impacts of catalyst coating or ash loading. Voxel resolution of 2.93 µm made it impossible to distinguish coating or ash materials from the cordierite substrate or to recognize smaller pores than the voxel resolution. However, pores up to 200 µm, which are responsible for the most pore volume, were successfully analyzed. Coating and ash loading resulted in lowering average pore diameter, total porosity, and open porosity, as the peak density of pore diameter at 60 µm decreased, while pores below 20 µm increased. Also, the visualized closed pores, which were homogeneously distributed throughout the bare filter, tended to get larger from inlet to outlet sides and more likely to be on the surface inlet due to coating and ash loading, indicating gas pathways originally existing in open pores were blocked due to coating and ash loading, leading to increased pressure drop. The ash impact was found to be more noticeable on mid and back positions than on front position. In addition, the investigation of areal porosity along the direction of gas flow suggested that while ash penetration could reach the outlet side as noted from increased closed pore population, most ash particles would be contained up to 150 µm. The 2D crosscut microscopic analysis that requires destructive procedures with the limited examination area could provide underestimation of ash penetration, whereas the 3D XRT analysis seems to provide more accurate information of pore structure changes due to ash loading at different locations.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Advanced Engine Combustion Program at the US Department of Energy Office of Vehicle Technologies for sponsorship of this work. Also, the authors are grateful to Dr. Jimmie Williams from Corning Inc. for MIP results and to Drs. Jinwoo Choung and Chibum In from Hyundai Motor Company for valuable discussions. The XRT measurements were taken at the 7BM beamline at the Advanced Photon Source (APS). The APS is supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Sappok A, Wong VW (2010) Lubricant-derived ash properties and their effects on diesel particulate filter pressure-drop performance. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 133:032805-1–032805-12.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001944 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guan B, Zhan R, Lin H, Huang Z (2015) Review of the state-of-the-art of exhaust particulate filter technology in internal combustion engines. J Environ Manag 154:225–258.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lambert C, Chanko T, Dobson D, Liu X, Pakko J (2017) Gasoline particle filter development. Emiss Control Sci Technol 3:105–111.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40825-016-0055-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Custer N, Kamp CJ, Sappok A, Pakko J, Lambert C, Boerensen C, Wong V (2016) Lubricant-derived ash impact on gasoline particulate filter performance. SAE Int J Engines 9:1604–1614.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shao H, Lam W, Remias J, Roos J, Choi S, Seong H (2016) Effect of lubricant oil properties on the performance of gasoline particulate filter (GPF). SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 9:650–658.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-2287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lambert CK, Bumbaroska M, Dobson D, Hangas J, Pakko J, Tennison P (2016) Analysis of high mileage gasoline exhaust particle filters. SAE Int J Engines 9:1296–1304.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0941 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu Y, Su C, Clerc J, Harinath A, Rogoski L (2015) Experimental and modeling study of ash impact on DPF backpressure and regeneration behaviors. SAE Int J Engines 8:1313–1321.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-1063 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang J, Stewart M, Maupin G, Herling D, Zelenyuk A (2009) Single wall diesel particulate filter (DPF) filtration efficiency studies using laboratory generated particles. Chem Eng Sci 64:1625–1634.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2008.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hayashi H, Kubo S (2008) Computer simulation study on filtration of soot particles in diesel particulate filter. Comput Math Appl 55:1450–1460.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2007.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gong J, Stewart ML, Zelenyuk A, Strzelec A, Viswanathan S, Rothamer DA, Foster DE, Rutland CJ (2018) Importance of filter’s microstructure in dynamic filtration modeling of gasoline particulate filters (GPFs): inhomogeneous porosity and pore size distribution. Chem Eng J 338:15–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gong J, Viswanathan S, Rothamer DA, Foster DE, Rutland CJ (2017) Dynamic heterogeneous multiscale filtration model: probing micro- and macroscopic filtration characteristics of gasoline particulate filters. Environ Sci Technol 51:11196–11204.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anovitz LM, Cole DR (2015) Characterization and analysis of porosity and pore structures. Rev Mineral Geochem 80:61–164.  https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2015.80.04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaboreau S, Robinet J-C, Prêt D (2016) Optimization of pore-network characterization of a compacted clay material by TEM and FIB/SEM imaging. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 224:116–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.11.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang F, Hingerl FF, Xiao X, Liu Y, Wu Z, Benson SM, Toney MF (2015) Extraction of pore-morphology and capillary pressure curves of porous media from synchrotron-based tomography data. Sci Rep 5:10635.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yamamoto K, Sakai T (2016) Effect of pore structure on soot deposition in diesel particulate filter. Computation 4:46.  https://doi.org/10.3390/computation4040046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kočí P, Isoz M, Plachá M, Arvajová A, Václavík M, Svoboda M, Price E, Novák V, Thompsett D (2017) 3D reconstruction and pore-scale modeling of coated catalytic filters for automotive exhaust gas aftertreatment. Catal Today 320:165–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2017.12.025 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Václavík M, Plachá M, Kočí P, Svoboda M, Hotchkiss T, Novák V, Thompsett D (2017) Structure characterisation of catalytic particulate filters for automotive exhaust gas aftertreatment. Mater Charact 134:311–318.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2017.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen Z, Wang X, Giuliani F, Atkinson A (2015) Analyses of microstructural and elastic properties of porous SOFC cathodes based on focused ion beam tomography. J Power Sources 273:486–494.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.09.131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boever ED, Varloteaux C, Nader FH, Foubert A, Békri S, Youssef S, Rosenberg E (2012) Quantification and prediction of the 3D pore network evolution in carbonate reservoir rocks. Oil Gas Sci Technol Rev D’IFP Energ Nouv 67:161–178.  https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst/2011170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hemes S, Desbois G, Urai JL, Schröppel B, Schwarz J-O (2015) Multi-scale characterization of porosity in Boom Clay (HADES-level, Mol, Belgium) using a combination of X-ray μ-CT, 2D BIB-SEM and FIB-SEM tomography. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 208:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.01.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manickam SS, Gelb J, McCutcheon JR (2014) Pore structure characterization of asymmetric membranes: non-destructive characterization of porosity and tortuosity. J Membr Sci 454:549–554.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.11.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peng S, Hu Q, Dultz S, Zhang M (2012) Using X-ray computed tomography in pore structure characterization for a Berea sandstone: resolution effect. J Hydrol 472–473:254–261.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.09.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ou X, Zhang X, Lowe T, Blanc R, Rad MN, Wang Y, Batail N, Pham C, Shokri N, Garforth AA, Withers PJ, Fan X (2017) X-ray micro computed tomography characterization of cellular SiC foams for their applications in chemical engineering. Mater Charact 123:20–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2016.11.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kastengren A, Powell CF, Arms D, Dufresne EM, Gibson H, Wang J (2012) The 7BM beamline at the APS: a facility for time-resolved fluid dynamics measurements. J Synchrotron Radiat 19:654–657.  https://doi.org/10.1107/S0909049512016883 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Matusik KE, Duke DJ, Kastengren AL, Sovis N, Swantek AB, Powell CF (2017) High-resolution X-ray tomography of engine combustion network diesel injectors. Int J Engine Res 19:963–976.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468087417736985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gürsoy D, De Carlo F, Xiao X, Jacobsen C (2014) TomoPy: a framework for the analysis of synchrotron tomographic data. J Synchrotron Radiat 21:1188–1193.  https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577514013939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karin P, Cui L, Rubio P, Tsuruta T, Hanamura K (2009) Microscopic visualization of PM trapping and regeneration in micro-structural pores of a DPF wall. SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 2:661–669.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2009-01-1476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sanui R, Hanamura K (2016) Electron microscopic time-lapse visualization of surface pore filtration on particulate matter trapping process. J Microsc 263:250–259.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jmi.12386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gong J, Rutland CJ (2015) PDF-based heterogeneous multiscale filtration model. Environ Sci Technol 49:4963–4970.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giesche H (2006) Mercury porosimetry: a general (practical) overview. Part Part Syst Charact 23:9–19.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ppsc.200601009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yang Y, Rutland C, Rothamer D (2018) Study of the deep-bed filtration using pore filtration model (PFM). SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 11:287–299.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2018-01-0956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li L, Choi S, Seong HJ, Vogt S (2016) X-ray fluorescence microscopy analyses of three-way catalyst aging and deactivation in gasoline particulate filter application. In: Microscopy and microanalysis, July 24–28, Columbus, OH, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Transportation ResearchArgonne National LaboratoryArgonneUSA
  2. 2.X-ray Science DivisionArgonne National LaboratoryArgonneUSA
  3. 3.Power Train R&D CenterHyundai Motor CompanyHwaseong-siKorea

Personalised recommendations