MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213210620 · doi:10.4271/03-15-06-0044

A Dynamic Method to Analyze Cold-Start First Cycles Engine-Out Emissions at Elevated Cranking Speed Conditions of a Hybrid Electric Vehicle Including a Gasoline Direct Injection Engine

2022· article· en· W4213210620 on OpenAlex
Amir Khameneian, Behrouz Khoshbakht Irdmousa, Paul Dice, Mahdi Shahbakhti, Jeffrey Naber, Peter Moilanen, Chad Archer, Chris Glugla, Garlan Huberts

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Engines · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCold start (automotive)Automotive engineeringDriving cycleGasolinePetrol engineEnvironmental scienceElectric vehicleElectric carsEngineeringInternal combustion engineWaste managementPower (physics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div>The cold crank-start stage, including the first three engine cycles, is responsible for a significant amount of the cold-start phase emissions in a Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) engine. The engine crank-start is highly transient due to substantial engine speed changes, Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP) dynamics, and in-cylinder temperatures. Combustion characteristics change depending on control inputs variations, including throttle angle and spark timing. Fuel injection strategy, timing, and vaporization dynamics are other parameters causing cold-start first cycles analysis to be more complex. Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) provide elevated cranking speed, enabling technologies such as cam phasing to adjust the valve timing and throttling, and increased fuel injection pressure from the first firings. To analyze the engine-out emissions, including unburnt Hydrocarbon (HC), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon monoxide (CO), and Carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>), the measured emissions in mole fraction need to be quantified in mass per cycle per cylinder considering all dynamics mentioned above. This study proposes a new method to quantify individual-cylinder engine-out emissions event by event dynamically. The method consists of the individual-cylinder GT-Power Three Pressure Analysis (TPA), in-cylinder parameters estimation, fuel vaporization Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis, and exhaust gas dynamics in the exhaust manifold. Experimental MAP, cylinder and exhaust pressures, injection pulse width, GT-Power estimated parameters, and air mass flow meter data are used for the new method calibration and validation. The estimated trapped air charge and the equivalent combusted fuel masses are the most critical parameters affecting the precision of calculating engine-out emissions on a mass basis. The results show that the trapped air charge is estimated with a 2.7 mg average error. In addition, the simulated Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (IMEP) as representative of the mass of fuel contributed to the combustion during the same event was validated with a 0.06 bar average error. Furthermore, the fuel path analysis is carried out to validate the post-oxidization coefficient and lost fuel portion calibrated values, showing 75.3% and 15.8% post-oxidization rate of unburnt HC and 18.5% and 20% lost fuel portion for high cranking speed/highly retarded and low cranking speed/advanced spark timing conditions, respectively.</div>

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.292 · 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