MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993166569 · doi:10.1115/1.4024806

Modeling and Analysis of Fuel Injection Split for Diesel Engine Active Fueling Control

2013· article· en· W1993166569 on OpenAlexaff
Fengjun Yan, Song Chen, Zeng Xiangrui, Junfeng Zhao, Junmin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiesel engineAutomotive engineeringHomogeneous charge compression ignitionDiesel cycleInternal combustion engineCrankCombustionPetrol engineDiesel fuelFuel injectionCylinderEnvironmental scienceMean effective pressureTransient (computer programming)Exhaust gas recirculationCombustion chamberCompression ratioComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the improvements in Diesel engine injection systems, the fueling-path, which is more accurate, flexible, and faster than the air-path, can be actively utilized in conventional and advanced combustion mode controls, especially for enhancing the combustion transient performance. In this paper, fuel injection split models are proposed to describe the relationship between fuel split ratio and two combustion outputs, i.e., the crank angle at 50% heat released (CA50) and the indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP). The model parameters are related to the engine in-cylinder thermal boundary conditions, referred to as the in-cylinder conditions (ICCs). The models were verified by engine experimental data with identical and different ICCs under different engine operating conditions. Such models can be potentially utilized in active fueling control for Diesel engine combustion control, and therefore benefit engine fuel efficiency and reduce engine-out emissions.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and ControlSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207