MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605878871 · doi:10.2172/1337938

Simulation of Internal Combustion Engines with High-Performance Computing Tools

2015· report· en· W2605878871 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sibendu Som

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNozzleGridCombustionIgnition systemComputer scienceSimulationNuclear engineeringMechanicsComputational scienceMechanical engineeringAerospace engineeringEngineeringPhysicsMathematicsChemistryGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional Lagrangian spray modeling approaches for internal combustion engines are highly griddependent due to insufficient resolution in the near nozzle region. This is primarily because of inherent restrictions of volume fraction with the Lagrangian assumption together with high computational costs associated with small grid sizes. A state-of-the-art grid-convergent spray modeling approach was developed and implemented by Senecal et al. (ASME-ICEF2012-92043) in the CONVERGE software. The key features of the methodology include Adaptive Mesh Refinement (AMR), advanced liquid-gas momentum coupling, and improved distribution of the liquid phase, which enables use of cell sizes smaller than the nozzle diameter. This modeling approach was rigorously validated against nonevaporating, evaporating, and reacting data from the literature. The current numerical study focusses on further demonstration of the grid-convergent modeling approach for simulating a single-cylinder Cat® compression ignition engine. The simulated injector is characterized with a nominal nozzle exit diameter of 259 μm. Simulations using various minimum grid sizes (ranging from 125 μm to 1000 μm) are compared for engine performance and emissions parameters of interest such as pressure, heat release rate, ignition delay, NOx, HC, and soot emissions. The peak cell-count for the highest resolution simulation was on the order of 34 million. These computationally expensive simulations were facilitated at a high-performance computing facility at Argonne National Laboratory. METIS load-balancing algorithm was developed and implemented in Converge code for the simulations. Scaling studies were also performed. The validity of previously recommended grid settings (ASME-ICEF2012-92043) for accuracy/runtime trade-off is further assessed. Efficacy of a simplified combustion model is also compared against a detailed chemical kinetics based combustion model.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207