MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621612693 · doi:10.1115/1.4036968

Study of Assisted Compression Ignition in a Direct Injected Natural Gas Engine

2017· article· en· W2621612693 on OpenAlexafffund
Ivan Gogolev, James S. Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIgnition systemSpark plugCombustionInjectorMechanicsMaterials scienceIgnition timingMinimum ignition energyHomogeneous charge compression ignitionNuclear engineeringCombustion chamberThermodynamicsChemistryEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural gas direct injection (DI) and glow plug ignition assist technologies were implemented in a single-cylinder, compression-ignition optical research engine. Initial experiments studied the effects of injector and glow plug shield geometry on ignition quality. Injector and shield geometric effects were found to be significant, with only two of 20 tested geometric combinations resulting in reproducible ignition. Of the two successful combinations, the combination with 0 deg injector angle and 60 deg shield angle was found to result in shorter ignition delay and was selected for further testing. Further experiments explored the effects of the overall equivalence ratio (controlled by injection duration) and intake pressure on ignition delay and combustion performance. Ignition delay was measured to be in the range of 1.6–2.0 ms. Equivalence ratio was found to have little to no effect on the ignition delay. Higher intake pressure was shown to increase ignition delay due to the effect of swirl momentum on fuel jet development, air entrainment, and jet deflection away from optimal contact with the glow plug ignition source. Analysis of combustion was carried out by examination of the rate of heat release (ROHR) profiles. ROHR profiles were consistent with two distinct modes of combustion: premixed mode at all test conditions, and a mixing-controlled mode that only appeared at higher equivalence ratios following premixed combustion.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and PowerSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207