MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113338096 · doi:10.4271/2014-01-0887

Optimization of a Porous Ducted Air Induction System Using Taguchi's Parameter Design Method

2014· article· en· W2113338096 on OpenAlexaff
Weiguo Zhang, Rakesh Khurana, Mark Likich, Mac Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Mechanical Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaguchi methodsPorosityEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taguchi method is a technology to prevent quality problems at early stages of product development and product design. Parameter design method is an important part in Taguchi method which selects the best control factor level combination for the optimization of the robustness of product function against noise factors. The air induction system (AIS) provides clean air to the engine for combustion. The noise radiated from the inlet of the AIS can be of significant importance in reducing vehicle interior noise and tuning the interior sound quality. The porous duct has been introduced into the AIS to reduce the snorkel noise. It helps with both the system layout and isolation by reducing transmitted vibration. A CAE simulation procedure has been developed and validated to predict the snorkel noise of the porous ducted AIS. In this paper, Taguchi's parameter design method was utilized to optimize a porous duct design in an AIS to achieve the best snorkel noise performance. The virtual experiments based on an orthogonal array in the parameter design method were conducted by the developed simulation procedure and the optimized design was recommended. Furthermore, the parts based on the optimized design are manufactured and tested to verify if the intended performance and other high priority requirements for the AIS are met. It was concluded that a traditional CAE analysis enhanced with robustness technique is an efficient tool to optimize the AIS design in this case study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 venueSAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Mechanical SystemsSame topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207