MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088519780 · doi:10.4271/2012-01-1049

Transient Thermal Analysis of Diesel Fuel Systems

2012· article· en· W2088519780 on OpenAlexaff
Alaa El‐Sharkawy

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransient (computer programming)Diesel fuelAutomotive engineeringThermalTransient analysisNuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceTransient responseEngineeringComputer scienceElectrical engineeringThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">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 [<span class="xref">1</span>, <span class="xref">2</span>]. 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.</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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of Materials and ManufacturingSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207