Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a transient thermal analysis model for Diesel fuel systems is presented. The purpose of this work is to determine the fuel temperature at various locations along the system, especially inside the tank and at the returned fuel inlet to the tank. Due to the fact that the fuel level is continuously changing during any driving condition, the fuel mass inside the tank is also continuously changing. Consequently, the fuel temperature will change even under steady driving or idle conditions, therefore, this problem should be analyzed using transient thermal analysis models. Effective thermal management requires controlling the surface temperature of the fuel tank, fuel lines and the fuel temperature at the fuel return line as well as inside the tank [1, 2]. Based on the thermal analysis results, it is possible to determine the major source of heat input at several locations of the fuel system. If necessary, a cooling module can be designed to bring down the returned fuel temperature to an acceptable limit. Other thermal protection options that are investigated, in this work, include shielding the fuel tank, fuel supply and return lines and modifying the fuel system materials and dimensions. The results of the mathematical models are compared to test data from physical vehicle testing with respect to various driving scenarios A Design For Six Sigma (DFSS) process is applied in this work for evaluation robust design and determination of most influential design factors.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".