MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220713600 · doi:10.4271/2022-01-0439

An Investigation of OME<sub>3</sub>-Diesel Fuel Blend on a Multi-Cylinder Compression Ignition Engine

2022· article· en· W4220713600 on OpenAlexaff
Usman Asad, Manuel Ramos, Jimi Tjong

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbureted compression ignition model engineIgnition systemCompression (physics)CylinderHomogeneous charge compression ignitionDiesel fuelMaterials scienceAutomotive engineeringDiesel engineCompression ratioComposite materialDiesel cycleMechanical engineeringInternal combustion engineCombustionOrganic chemistryChemistryThermodynamicsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Oxygenated, low energy-density fuels have the potential to decouple the NOx-soot emissions trade-off in compression-ignition engines. Additionally, synthetic fuels can provide a pathway to reach carbon-neutral utilization of hydrocarbon-based fuels in IC engines. Oxymethylene Dimethyl Ether (OME) is one such synthetic, low energy-density fuel, derived from sustainable sources that in combination with conventional fossil fuels with higher energy content, has the potential to reduce CO<sub>2</sub> emissions below the US and EU VI legislative limits, while maintaining ultra-low soot emissions. The objective of this work is to investigate and compare the performance, emissions and efficiency of a modern multi-cylinder diesel engine under conventional high temperature combustion (HTC) with two different fuels; 1) OME<sub>3</sub>10 - a blend of 10% OME<sub>3</sub> by volume, with conventional Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel (ULSD), and 2) D100 - conventional ULSD in North America. EGR sweep tests at three speed-load points (with highest time residency on the US EPA Emission Test Cycles) have been carried out on a multi-cylinder compression ignition engine to allow a detailed comparison of the two fuels. The engine employs production-level hardware with no modifications, allowing for turbocharger-EGR trade-off and accessories friction loads to be accounted for. All results are reported on a brake-specific basis. The tests results indicate that OME<sub>3</sub>10 is effective in reducing soot and HC emissions under low load operation by up to 50% while no discernible improvement is seen at higher loads. The lower soot can permit higher intake dilution levels to be applied with Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) to reduce NOx emissions. The burning characteristics such as the combustion phasing and duration, with OME<sub>3</sub>10 are similar or improved compared to that of D100 and the CO<sub>2</sub> emissions are reduced by up to 4% with improved brake thermal efficiency under all the tested speed/load conditions.</div></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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207