Ignition Delay Correlation for Predicting Autoignition of a Toluene Reference Fuel Blend in Spark Ignition Engines
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">An ignition delay correlation was developed for a toluene reference fuel (TRF) blend that is representative of automotive gasoline fuels exhibiting two-stage ignition. Ignition delay times for the autoignition of a TRF 91 blend with an antiknock index of 91 were predicted through extensive chemical kinetic modeling in CHEMKIN for a constant volume reactor. The development of the correlation involved determining nonlinear least squares curve fits for these ignition delay predictions corresponding to different inlet pressures and temperatures, a number of fuel-air equivalence ratios, and a range of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) rates. In addition to NO</div><div class="htmlview paragraph"> control, EGR is increasingly being utilized for managing combustion phasing in spark ignition (SI) engines to mitigate knock. Therefore, along with other operating parameters, the effects of EGR on autoignition have been incorporated in the correlation to address the need for predicting ignition delay in SI engines operating with EGR. Unlike the ignition delay expressions available in literature for primary reference fuel blends, the correlation developed in the present study can predict ignition delay for a TRF blend, a more realistic gasoline surrogate.</div></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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it