Fuel efficiency analysis and peak pressure rise rate improvement for neat <i>n</i> -butanol injection strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engine tests were conducted to investigate the efficiency and the peak pressure rise rate performance of different fuel injection strategies for the direct injection of neat n-butanol in a compression ignition engine. Three different strategies were tested: a single-shot injection; a pilot injection; a post-injection. A single-shot injection timing sweep revealed that early injections had the highest indicated efficiency while late injections reduced the peak pressure rise rate at the cost of a slightly reduced thermal efficiency. Delayed single-shot injections also had increased emissions of nitrogen oxides, total hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide. Addition of a pilot injection had a negative effect on the peak pressure rise rate. Because of the low cetane number of butanol and the relatively lean and well-premixed air–fuel mixture, the pilot injection failed to autoignite and instead ignited simultaneously with the main injection. This resulted in slightly increased peak pressure rise rates and significantly increased unburned butanol hydrocarbon emissions. Conversely, the use of an early post-injection produced a noticeable engine power output and allowed the main injection to be shortened and the peak pressure rise rate to be substantially reduced. However, relatively early post-injections slightly reduced the indicated efficiency and increased the nitrogen oxide emissions and the carbon monoxide emissions compared with the single-shot injection strategy. These results recommended the use of a single-shot injection for low loads and medium loads owing to a superior thermal efficiency and suggested that the application of a post-injection may be more suited to high-load conditions because of the substantially reduced peak pressure rise rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".