Computational Studies of Glow Plug Ignition of Injected High Pressure Gas Jets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A numerical study of ignition and combustion in a glow plug (GP) assisted direct-injection natural gas (DING) engine is presented in this paper. The glow plug is shielded and the shield design is an important part of the combustion system development. The results simulated by KIVA-3V indicated that the ignition delay (ID) predicted by an in-cylinder pressure rise was different from that based on a temperature rise, attributed to the additional time required to burn more fuel to obtain a detectable pressure rise in the combustion chamber. This time difference for the ignition delay estimation can be 0.5 ms, which is significant relative to an ignition delay value of less than 2 ms. To further evaluate the time difference between the two different methods of ignition delay determination, sensitivity studies were conducted by changing the glow plug temperature, and rotating the glow plug shield opening angle towards the fuel jets. The results indicated that the ID method time difference varied from 0.3 to 0.8 ms for different combustion chamber configurations. In addition, this study also investigated the influences of different glow plug shield parameters on the natural gas ignition and combustion characteristics, by modifying the air gap between the glow plug and its shield, and by changing the shield opening size. The computational results indicated that a bigger air gap inside the shield can delay gas ignition, and a smaller shield opening can block the flame propagation for some specific fuel injection angles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".