MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973439523 · doi:10.1115/1.4028790

Compound Control Strategy Based on Active Disturbance Rejection for Selected Catalytic Reduction systems

2014· article· en· W1973439523 on OpenAlexaff
Jinbiao Ning, Fengjun Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCatalytic Processes in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)NOxSelective catalytic reductionController (irrigation)Transient (computer programming)Automotive engineeringDuty cycleDiesel fuelReduction (mathematics)EngineeringComputer scienceControl (management)VoltageCatalysisChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urea-based selected catalytic reduction (SCR) systems are effective ways in diesel engine after-treatment systems to meet increasingly stringent emission regulations. To achieve high NOx reduction efficiency and low NH3 slip, the control of the SCR system becomes more challenging, especially in transient operating conditions with model uncertainties. To effectively address this issue, this paper proposed a compound control strategy with a switching mechanism between an active disturbance rejection (ADR) controller and a zero-input controller. The ADR controller estimates and rejects the total (internal and external) disturbances from the SCR system when the exhaust gas temperature is high and its variation is small. The zero-input controller is used to lower ammonia surface coverage ratio to avoid high ammonia slip when exhaust gas temperature suddenly rises. The proposed control strategy is validated through a high-fidelity GT-Power simulation for a light-duty diesel engine over steady states and federal test procedure (FTP-75) test cycle. Its effectiveness is demonstrated especially in rapidly transient conditions with model uncertainties.

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)0.004
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and ControlSame topicCatalytic Processes in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207