MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019335008 · doi:10.1243/09576509jpe208

Fluid Flow in the Squish-Jet Combustion Chamber

2006· article· en· W2019335008 on OpenAlexaff
Petros Lappas, R. L. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A Journal of Power and Energy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustion chamberParticle image velocimetryTurbulencePiston (optics)Jet (fluid)Flow (mathematics)Computational fluid dynamicsCombustionMechanicsPhysicsOpticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluid flow characteristics near top dead centre (TDC) were measured in three different combustion chambers designed to generate squish flow and to enhance turbulence generation in internal combustion engines. One of the combustion chambers was a plain bowl-in-piston type, whereas the remaining two were different configurations of the squishjet chamber, which has a unique geometry for forming jets that converge radially inwards as TDC is approached. Both particle image velocimetry (PIV) and laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) were used to measure mean velocities and turbulent fluctuations near to TDC. To accurately and consistently set the initial and boundary conditions, the University of British Columbia Rapid Intake and Compression Machine (UBC-RICM) was used. The microscopic particles used for PIV and LDV seeding were introduced into the cylinder by a novel system developed to suit the momentary flow in the UBC-RICM. The experimental study led to a greater understanding of the flow processes inside these complex combustion chambers. The results also indicated that squish-jet chambers tend to generate higher levels of turbulence than plain bowl-in-piston chambers do, even though they may generate lower mean squish velocities. These results will also be used in a future study to assess the validity of squish flow predictions made by the computational fluid dynamic code, KIVA-3V.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part A Journal of Power and EnergySame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207