MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017972515 · doi:10.1177/1468087412461268

Diesel pressure departure ratio algorithm for combustion feedback and control

2012· article· en· W2017972515 on OpenAlexaff
Usman Asad, Ming Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Engine Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhaust gas recirculationCombustionDiesel engineMean effective pressureAutomotive engineeringCrankHomogeneous charge compression ignitionDiesel fuelDiesel cycleNaturally aspirated engineInternal combustion engineEngineeringCompression ratioCylinderCombustion chamberMechanical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pursuit for higher efficiency and ultra-low exhaust emissions from diesel engines requires the combustion process to be precisely controlled so as to minimize departures from the intended engine operation. The combustion control system must be able to perform corrective actions on a cycle-by-cycle basis, with a robust feedback on the combustion process. The combustion phasing, commonly represented by the crank angle of 50% heat release and derived from the measured cylinder pressure data, shows a strong correlation to the efficiency and the engine-out nitrogen oxide emissions. To accurately estimate the combustion phasing from the derived heat-release rate, the authors previously introduced and experimentally validated a computationally efficient diesel pressure departure ratio algorithm, against selected cases of boost, engine load and exhaust gas recirculation. In this work, the formulation of the pressure departure ratio algorithm is presented in detail along with its implementation to enable combustion control during both transient and steady-state engine operations. Engine tests demonstrate that the algorithm was effective in stabilizing the combustion process on a cycle-by-cycle basis for a range of engine speeds, load and exhaust gas recirculation, which included conventional and low-temperature diesel combustion modes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Engine ResearchSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207