MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596779857 · doi:10.4271/2017-01-0774

Effect of Injection Strategies on Emissions from a Pilot-Ignited Direct-Injection Natural-Gas Engine- Part I: Late Post Injection

2017· article· en· W2596779857 on OpenAlexafffund
Ethan Faghani, Pooyan Kheirkhah, Christopher W.J. Mabson, Gordon McTaggart-Cowan, Patrick Kirchen, Steve Rogak

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNatural gasEnvironmental scienceFuel injectionAutomotive engineeringMaterials scienceWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-pressure direct-injection (HPDI) in heavy duty engines allows a natural gas (NG) engine to maintain diesel-like performance while deriving most of its power from NG. A small diesel pilot injection (5-10% of the fuel energy) is used to ignite the direct injected gas jet. The NG burns in a predominantly non-premixed combustion mode which can produce particulate matter (PM). Here we study the effect of injection strategies on emissions from a HPDI engine in two parts. Part-I will investigates the effect of late post injection (LPI) and Part II will study the effect of slightly premixed combustion (SPC) on emission and engine performance. PM reductions and tradeoffs involved with gas late post-injections (LPI) was investigated in a single-cylinder version of a 6-cylinder,15 liter HPDI engine. The post injection contains 10-25% of total fuel mass, and occurs after the main combustion event. When timed appropriately, LPI results in significant PM reductions with only small effects on other emissions and engine performance. The morphology of particles produced by LPI is similar to that from conventional HPDI (and also from diesel), but the size and number concentration are reduced. Pulse Isolation experiments and reacting-flow computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling indicated that the main PM reduction from LPI comes from reducing the amount of fuel in the first injection, leading to lower PM formation in the main combustion event. The second injection makes an insignificant net contribution to the total PM.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations41
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207