MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747803364 · doi:10.4271/2017-01-2299

Effects of High Boiling Point Fuel Additives on Deposits in a Direct Injection Gasoline Engine

2017· article· en· W2747803364 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Susumu Nagano, Nozomi Yokoo, Koji Kitano, Koichi Nakata

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE international journal of fuels and lubricants · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoToyota Motor Corporation
KeywordsGasoline direct injectionGasolinePetrol engineAutomotive engineeringBoiling pointEnvironmental scienceOctane ratingFuel injectionWaste managementVapor lockBoilingEngine knockingInternal combustion enginePetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceHomogeneous charge compression ignitionCombustionChemistryEngineeringChemical engineeringCombustion chamberOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of high boiling point fuel additives on deposits were investigated in a commercial turbocharged direct injection gasoline engine. It is known that high boiling point substances have a negative effect on deposits. The distillation end points of blended fuels containing these additives may be approximately 15°C higher than the base fuel (end point: 175°C). Three additives with boiling points between 190 and 196°C were examined: 4-tert-Butyltoluene (TBT), N-Methyl Aniline (NMA), and 2-Methyl-1,5-pentanediamine (MPD). Aromatics and anilines, which may be added to gasoline to increase its octane number, might have a negative effect on deposits. TBT has a benzene ring. NMA has a benzene ring and an amino group. MPD, which has no benzene ring and two amino groups, was selected for comparison with the former two additives. The base gasoline was a Toyota in-house premium grade test gasoline with properties in the range defined by the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) (RON: approximately 100) with no detergent content. Test gasolines were prepared by blending the base gasoline with 10% of each additive by volume. The concentration of the additives was set to 10% to accelerate deposit formation. The engine operating conditions for examining deposit formation were an engine speed of 1,600 rpm and medium load. Deposit formation was examined over a period of 30 hours, after which the fuel consumption was approximately 200 L. It was found that amino group additives caused large increases in deposits. Compared to the base gasoline, the piston top deposits were about twice as thick with the TBT blend and about four times as thick with the NMA blend. The MPD blend caused compression leakage after fuel consumption of 10 L because the piston rings stuck to the grooves. Chemical analysis of the deposit formation mechanism suggests that deposits were formed by high boiling point polar substances that penetrated into the quenching zone near the combustion chamber surfaces, and then oxidized, polymerized, or carbonized, and adhered to the surfaces.

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)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE international journal of fuels and lubricantsSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207