MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293199831 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2021-0143

Flow force analysis and optimization of lock valve for heavy-duty automatic transmission

2022· article· en· W4293199831 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huaichao Wu, Junqi Mu, Limei Zhao, Yang Lv

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Control theory (sociology)Nonlinear systemProcess (computing)MechanicsComputer scienceSimulationEngineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main factors determining the stability of lock valve during opening is the flow force on spool. The size of the flow force profoundly affects the dynamic characteristics of the spool. In this paper, the flow force on a heavy-duty automatic transmission lock valve during the opening process is analyzed and optimized, and aiming to improve the opening smoothness of the lock valve. First, numerical simulation of the opening process of the main oil chamber flow path in the lock valve is carried out using dynamic mesh technology. The influence of internal flow field on the flow force under different parameters is studied. Second, the structural parameters and peaks of flow force obtained from the random sampling method are used as samples for training and prediction using the BP neural network. The prediction results pass the accuracy test. Last, the prediction results of the BP neural network are optimized using the genetic algorithm. Subsequent results show that this optimization method significantly reduces the flow force of spool and improves the stability of the lock valve during opening by only changing the structural parameters. It also provides a new systematic direction for the optimization of other nonlinear mapping relationships.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207