MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388918444 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.1013

CFD-based Data-driven Modeling of Reactivity and Stratification Dynamics for RCCI Engine Control

2023· article· en· W4388918444 on OpenAlexaff
Behrouz Khoshbakht Irdmousa, Jeffrey Naber, Mahdi Shahbakhti

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMichigan Technological UniversityCummins IncorporatedClemson University
KeywordsIgnition systemCombustionHomogeneous charge compression ignitionStratification (seeds)Computational fluid dynamicsEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringMechanicsChemistryCombustion chamberEngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reactivity Controlled Compression Ignition (RCCI) is a Low-Temperature Combustion (LTC) regime that provides thermal efficiency and emissions benefits compared to traditional Spark Ignition (SI) and Compression Ignition (CI) regimes. However, it is difficult to control combustion at these engines and run them at optimal conditions due to dependency of the their combustion on air-fuel mixture chemical reactivity and fuel stratification inside the combustion chamber. Modeling of reactivity and stratification can provide new pathways to control combustion in RCCI engines. In this study, a data-driven approach based on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) results and a Linear Parameter Varying (LPV) method is proposed to model reactivity and stratification at RCCI engines. This work is illustrated for a real 2-liter 4-cylinder engine. The results show that the developed data-driven model (DDM) has acceptable prediction accuracy to estimate reactivity and stratification for RCCI engine control. The proposed method can be also implemented in other combustion modes in internal combustion engines.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207