The Effect of Exhaust Emission Conditions and Coolant Temperature on the Composition of Exhaust Gas Recirculation Cooler Deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) coolers are widely used on diesel engines to reduce in-cylinder NOx formation. A common problem is the accumulation of a fouling layer inside the heat exchanger, mainly due to thermophoresis that leads to deposition of particulate matter (PM), and condensation of hydrocarbons (HC) from the diesel exhaust. From a recent investigation of deposits from field samples of EGR coolers, it was confirmed that the densities of their deposits were much higher than reported in previous studies. In this study, the experiments were conducted in order to verify hypotheses about deposit growth, especially densification. An experimental set up which included a custom-made shell and tube type heat exchanger with six surrogate tubes was designed to control flow rate independently, and was installed on a 1.9 L L-4 common rail turbo diesel engine. The test cycle and conditions were higher PM/ lower HC with 75°C coolant temperature for 1.5h, then lower PM/ higher HC with 75°C or 35°C coolant temperature for 0.5h, which was repeated 3 times. Deposits from a tube were collected every cycle for a total of 6h. In the analysis, the deposit surface was observed with a scanning electron microscope, thickness was measured by an optical microscope, and the volatile content was analyzed by a thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA). The results of this study showed that including the cold coolant condition cycle could keep higher heat exchanger effectiveness compared to the hot coolant condition, even though total deposit weight was almost the same. In addition, growth of the deposit thickness was not seen with the cold coolant condition, which was confirmed via the measurements of deposit densification. These data indicate that there is possibly a correlation between repeated hydration of the deposit by condensed water and drying.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".