MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119000674 · doi:10.1243/14680874jer590

Comparison of injectors for compression ignition of natural gas with entrained diesel

2011· article· en· W2119000674 on OpenAlexaff
B S Brown, Christopher Laforet, Steven N. Rogak, S R Munsh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Engine Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiesel fuelInjectorPlenum spaceExhaust gas recirculationFuel injectionIgnition systemDiesel engineWinter diesel fuelCompressed natural gasEnvironmental scienceNatural gasCarbureted compression ignition model engineNozzleNuclear engineeringWaste managementDiesel cycleExhaust gasAutomotive engineeringInternal combustion engineCompression ratioEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New fuel injector prototypes for heavy-duty engines have been developed to use direct-injection natural gas with small amounts of entrained diesel as an ignition promoter. This ‘co-injection’ is different from other dual-fuel engine systems, where diesel and gas are introduced separately. Two co-injectors were compared with a Westport HPDI injector that injects diesel and gas through separate systems into the cylinder. All injectors have identical gas-nozzle geometry and inject fuel into the cylinder near top-dead-centre, but differ in the manner of introducing the diesel. Both co-injectors introduce diesel into the gas plenum before the gas needle is actuated, causing a two-phase gas-blast injection. The first co-injector (‘B’) injects the diesel with relatively high velocity into the gas plenum, which probably disperses it over a large volume inside the injector. The second prototype (‘CS’) introduces the diesel at very low velocity so that it may remain near the needle seat prior to injection. The injectors were tested in a 2.5-litre single-cylinder engine with 17:1 compression ratio. Load varied from 6 to 13 bar gross indicated mean effective pressure. Temperature-controlled exhaust-gas recirculation of 0 or 30 per cent was used. Co-injection of natural gas and diesel can increase the ignition delay relative to the HPDI system (which uses a pure diesel pilot injection). The HPDI and CS injectors required 7–15 per cent diesel fuelling (by energy), while B required 9 to 20 per cent diesel fuelling. All injectors yielded the same fuel economy (within 2 per cent). However, premixed diesel, gas, and air can burn rapidly enough to produce knock. Knock was typically inaudible (below 3 bar intensity) and greatly reduced for conditions with exhaust-gas recirculation. With co-injector CS, all gaseous emissions could be brought very close to those of the HDPIJ36 injector, but co-injector B resulted in high hydrocarbon and CO emissions at low load. Particulate emissions from the co-injectors were slightly lower than for the J36 injector, possibly due to more fuel/air premixing prior to ignition.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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