MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison on Spray Characteristics of Diesel HEV Injectors for 3-different Driving Type (SI, PI, DPI)

2014· article· en· W2046643090 on OpenAlexaff
Myungchul Chung, Gisu Sung, S.M. Kim, J.W. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ILASS-Korea · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsSoleno (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjectorCommon railSolenoidAutomotive engineeringFuel injectionMaterials scienceDiesel fuelDiesel engineHydraulic circuitPenetration (warfare)Mechanical engineeringNuclear engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance of DI diesel engine with high-pressure fuel injection equipment is directly related to its emission characteristics and fuel consumption. So, the electro-hydraulic injector for the common-rail injection system should be designed to meet the precise high fuel delivery control capability. Currently, most high pressure injector in use has a needle driven by the solenoid coil energy or the piezo actuator controlled by charge-discharge of output pulse current. In this study, macroscopic spray approaching method was applied under constant volume chamber to research the performance of three different injectors : solenoid, indirect-acting piezo and direct-acting piezo type for CR direct-injection. LED back illumination for Mie scattering was applied on the liquid spray visible of direct-acting piezo injector, including hydraulic-servo type solenoid and piezo-driven injectors. As main results, we found that a direct-acting piezo injector had better a spray tip penetration than hydraulic-servo injectors in spray visualization.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ILASS-KoreaSame topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207