MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1481709545 · doi:10.4271/2006-01-0228

An Investigation of Gasoline Engine Knock Limited Performance and the Effects of Hydrogen Enhancement

2006· article· en· W1481709545 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGasolineAutomotive engineeringHydrogen vehicleEngine knockingPetrol engineHydrogenEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceHydrogen fuelFuel cellsEngineeringHomogeneous charge compression ignitionWaste managementInternal combustion engineChemistryCombustionChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="htmlview paragraph">A set of experiments was performed to investigate the effects of relative air-fuel ratio, inlet boost pressure, and compression ratio on engine knock behavior. Selected operating conditions were also examined with simulated hydrogen rich fuel reformate added to the gasoline-air intake mixture. For each operating condition knock limited spark advance was found for a range of octane numbers (ON) for two fuel types: primary reference fuels (PRFs), and toluene reference fuels (TRFs). A smaller set of experiments was also performed with unleaded test gasolines. A combustion phasing parameter based on the timing of 50% mass fraction burned, termed “combustion retard”, was used as it correlates well to engine performance.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The combustion retard required to just avoid knock increases with relative air-fuel ratio for PRFs and decreases with air-fuel ratio for TRFs. PRFs, which require about 5° CA of combustion retard per bar of net indicated mean effective pressure (NIMEP), need about three times as much combustion retard as TRFs when boosted to achieve the same NIMEP. Both fuel types require an average of about 3° CA of combustion retard per unit of increased compression ratio. The trends for gasoline are about halfway between PRF and TRF trends. An end-gas model that employs detailed chemical kinetics and experimental cylinder pressure data successfully approximated the response of PRFs and TRFs to compression ratio, air-fuel ratio and boost.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">Adding gasoline reformate (a mixture of H<sub>2</sub>, CO, and N<sub>2</sub>) decreases the combustion retard required to avoid knock by about 2° CA per 3% fuel reformed fraction for PRFs. For TRFs with low alkane content reformate addition is less effective. Reforming up to 30% of the fuel entering an engine allows increased compression ratio or increased turbocharging without increasing combustion retard. A simplified analysis suggests that increasing compression ratio and downsizing the engine to maintain constant maximum brake torque would increase brake fuel efficiency by about 9%. Turbocharging and downsizing would increase efficiency by about 16%.</div>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it