MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012473672 · doi:10.1115/2001-ice-417

Hydrogen Peroxide Effect on HCCI Performance

2001· article· en· W3012473672 on OpenAlexaff
C. Uykur, Andrew L. Zuccato, Graham T. Reader, David S.‐K. Ting

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomogeneous charge compression ignitionNOxCombustionMethaneIgnition systemHydrogen peroxideChemistryHydrogenMaterials scienceAutomotive engineeringChemical engineeringThermodynamicsCombustion chamberOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Methane fueled Homogeneous Charged Compression Ignition (HCCI) combustion is investigated using detailed kinetic modeling. Control of heat release rate is identified as the biggest challenge against HCCI operation. A new control strategy, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) addition, along with intake mixture preheating, is proposed to resolve this problem. A single-zone perfectly stirred reactor type formulation is employed with detailed chemical kinetic mechanism to predict homogeneous gas-phase chemical kinetics. The effects of H2O2 addition on the performance parameters of a methane-fueled HCCI engine are simulated. The results show that HCCI performance can be improved radically by the addition of H2O2 since it lowers the ignition delay time substantially. The resulting NOx concentration in high IMEP operating conditions is significantly less than that emitted from conventional internal combustion engines. Possibility of increasing NOx emissions with increasing initial temperature has been shown. Reduction in carbon monoxide emission is predicted with the addition of H2O2 via the increased hydroxyl chemistry. More flexible control of HCCI operation is possible by regulating the amount of H2O2 added.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207