MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997123658 · doi:10.1115/dscc2010-4087

LPV-Based Air-Fuel Ratio Control of Spark Ignition Engines Using Two Gain Scheduling Parameters

2010· article· en· W1997123658 on OpenAlexaff
Marius J. Postma, Ryozo Nagamune

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Gain schedulingAutomotive engineeringAirflowController (irrigation)Ignition systemScheduling (production processes)Air–fuel ratioComputer scienceEngineeringInternal combustion engineControl systemMechanical engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The three way catalytic converter (TWC) is a critical component for the mitigation of tailpipe emissions of modern internal combustion (IC) engines. Because the TWC operates effectively only when the air-fuel ratio is very close to stoichiometric, accurate control of the air-fuel ratio is required. The dynamics of the IC engine can be modeled as a first order plus dead time for controller design purposes and vary with both engine speed and air flow. Traditional control schemes using time-invariant controllers have been successful in guaranteeing stability over the operating range of the engine but have introduced a degree of conservatism. To reduce the conservatism, a gain scheduling controller taking both engine speed and air flow as scheduling parameters is proposed. A linear parameter varying model of the plant is constructed and the controller design method is formulated in terms of linear matrix inequalities yielding a convex optimization problem. The resulting closed-loop system has guaranteed stability and performance over the designed operating range of the engine. Simulations are performed to validate and compare the controller with a time-invariant controller as well as a gain scheduling controller that takes only engine speed as a scheduling parameter.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207