Cold Starting and Pumpability Studies in Modern Engines — Results from the ASTM D02.07C Low Temperature Engine Performance Task Force Activities: Phase I Pumpability Testing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
LTEP Phase 1 pumpability testing focused on overnight cooling evaluation of LTEP 1–7 reference oils. Generally, each engine/oil combination was cooled in 16 hours to the desired test temperature before motoring for the pumpability evaluation. All tests in which limiting pumping criteria was achieved indicated failure by flow limited behavior rather than by air-binding failures. Two approaches were investigated for relating the time to attain a pressure at two specified engine locations to the lubricant's properties. One was to develop correlations directly between pressurization time and the lubricant's temperature in the sump, and then use these correlations to calculate the minimum pumping temperature and the corresponding maximum pumpable viscosity. The other was to develop correlations between pressurization time and the lubricant's viscosity. The first approach compared times to reach a given pressure after the oil pump (Pump Out) or the oil distribution passage downstream from the filter (Near Galley) for the observed lubricant sump temperature. A first-order exponential decay was found to give the best overall correlation for all the engine/oil combinations. All four test engines exhibited a dependency of Near Galley pressurization time on sump temperature, except for combinations involving LTEP 1 oils and the 4.6 L engine, where data were limited by cold room capabilities. Near Galley pressurization was also found to be a more stringent criterion than Pump Out in most cases. Using a 60 second 10 kPa limit, minimum pumping temperatures (MPTs) were calculated for each engine/oil combination, along with a certainty level based upon degree of extrapolation. Based upon these MPTs, limiting ASTM D 3829 viscosity was approximately 93 Pa∙s. The results also indicated that, as in the startability studies, the viscosity limit for the 4.0 L I6 engine was compatible with those of the December 1994 SAE J300 Viscosity Classification Specification, while the other engines were more in line with the December 1995 J300 Viscosity Classification Specification limit. In the second approach to pumpability analysis, a correlation between oil viscosity and pressurization time for each engine at the Pump Out or Near Galley location was developed. A linear model relating lubricant viscosity to pressurization time was found to be adequate. Analysis was done to compare viscosities as measured by ASTM Test Method for Predicting the Borderline Pumping Temperature of Engine Oil (D 3829), Test Method for Determination of Yield Stress and Apparent Viscosity of Engine Oils at Low Temperature (D 4684) and Test Method for Low Temperature, Low Shear Rate, Viscosity/Temperature Dependence of Lubricating Oils Using, a Temperature-Scanning Technique (D 5133). The model equations provided tools to calculate the limiting viscosity for these engines. As with the first approach, the results indicated that the viscosity limit for the modern engine designs was more in line with the current April 97 J300 Viscosity Classification Specification limit. Additional work was conducted to model the time/oil pressure curves from the LTEP work. It was found that most of the pressurization curves could be modeled well using a logit function.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».