MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082300751 · doi:10.4271/2012-01-1688

Combustion Studies with FACE Diesel Fuels: A Literature Review

2012· review· en· W2082300751 on OpenAlex
Junghwan Kim, C. Scott Sluder, Robert Wagner

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Engines · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiesel fuelCombustionFace (sociological concept)Environmental scienceAlternative fuelsWaste managementAutomotive engineeringProcess engineeringPetroleum engineeringEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The CRC Fuels for Advanced Combustion Engines (FACE) Working Group has provided a matrix of experimental diesel fuels for use in studies on the effects of three parameters, Cetane number (CN), aromatics content, and 90 vol% distillation temperature (T90), on combustion and emissions characteristics of advanced combustion strategies. Various types of fuel analyses and engine experiments were performed in well-known research institutes. This paper reviews a collection of research findings obtained with these nine fuels.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">An extensive collection of analyses were performed by members of the FACE working group on the FACE diesel fuels as a means of aiding in understanding the linkage between fuel properties and combustion and emissions performance. These analyses included non-traditional chemical techniques as well as established ASTM tests. In a few cases, both ASTM tests and advanced analyses agreed that some design variables differed from their target values when the fuels were produced.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">This review summarizes six collective engine experimental studies performed with FACE fuels with various types of engines under a range of conditions. Engine experiments under various operating conditions were performed with a 0.517-liter HCCI single-cylinder engine (SCE) and 4-cylinder 1.9-liter high-speed direct-injection (HSDI) diesel engine at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 0.744-liter DI diesel SCE at Navistar, and 2.44-liter DI diesel SCE and Cooperative Fuel Research (CFR) engine at National Research Council Canada (NRCC). The engine operating conditions of the six experimental programs can be categorized into one conventional diesel combustion (CDC), two homogeneous-charge compression ignition (HCCI), and three low-temperature combustion (LTC) modes. All six programs agreed that CN exhibited the strongest impacts on both combustion and emissions among the three design variables. As expected lower CN fuels exhibited longer ignition delay, which provided longer mixing periods. However, effects of aromatics were rather inconsistent in the engine experiments. In the HCCI studies higher aromatics fuels exhibited higher soot but little effect on NOx. In the two LTC studies higher aromatics and lower CN fuels exhibited higher NO<sub>X</sub>, whereas the aromatic impact on soot production was negligible. T90 effects were similar to those of CN, but at a lesser magnitude. Higher T90 fuels exhibited longer ignition delay in all experiments.</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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.308 · 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