Bench Test Method for Fuel Tank Vent Valve Noise Induced by EVAP System Pressure Pulsation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">In gasoline Powertrain systems, the evaporative emission control (EVAP) system canister purge valve (CPV) can be actuated by pulse-width modulated (PWM) signals. The CPV is an electronically actuated solenoid. The PWM controlled CPV, when actuated, creates pressure pulsations in the system. This pulsation is sent back to the rest of the EVAP system. Given the right conditions, the fill limit vent valve (FLVV) inside the fuel tank can be excited. The FLVV internal components can be excited and produce noise. This noise can be objectionable to the occupants. Additional components within the EVAP system may also be excited in a similar way. This paper presents a bench test method using parts from vehicle’s EVAP system and other key fuel system components. The test method achieves the following objectives: first, re-create the conditions that result in excitation; second, establish a controlled environment that provides insight into the noise phenomenon; and finally, set the ground work for further studies which may lead to further noise mitigation methods. The key system parameters controlled in this method are: frequency and duty cycle of the PWM signal, liquid level inside the fuel tank and tank grade/orientation. The output data includes: EVAP system purge flow rate, pressure signal inside the EVAP system (one near the CPV and one near the FLVV) and acceleration in Z (vertical) direction on the top tank surface near the FLVV mounting location.</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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".