International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET)

Volume 10, Issue 03, March 2019, pp. 1135–1145, Article ID: IJMET_10_03_116
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijmet/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3
ISSN Print: 0976-6340 and ISSN Online: 0976-6359

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

SIMULATION OF HEAT EXCHANGE BETWEEN

TRANSMISSION UNITS OF AN AUTOMOTIVE
TRUCK
Dolgushin А.А.
Candidate of Technical Sciences, Assistant Professor, Novosibirsk State Agricultural
University, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation

Voronin D.M.
Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Novosibirsk State Agricultural University,
Novosibirsk, Russian Federation

Mamonov O.V.
Lecturer, Novosibirsk State Agricultural University, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation

ABSTRACT
This article details the approach to minimize energy expenditures when using
vehicle transmissions. This approach comprises certain mathematical simulation
techniques which help to study and minimize energy expenditures of transmission unit
systems. The use of mathematical simulation, when defining an optimum temperature of
a transmission unit system, is based on comparison of stabilization temperatures in real
conditions, changeover points and optimum temperatures of transmission units. As a
criterion of optimization, we suggest using minimization of a resource expenditure
function for a whole system of units. This article details possible variants of heat
interaction between units and provides guidelines for achieving a target changeover
point of a vehicle transmission. We studied possible variants of heat interaction between
units and provided recommendations for achieving a target changeover point of a
vehicle transmission.
Key words: transmission, heat interaction between units, heat exchange simulation,
optimum temperature, changeover point, heat distribution.
Cite this Article: Dolgushin А.А., Voronin D.M., Mamonov O.V., Simulation of
Heat Exchange Between Transmission Units of an Automotive Truck, International
Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology 10(3), 2019, pp. 1135–1145.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/issues.asp?JType=IJMET&VType=10&IType=3

1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, vehicle efficiency is determined by the amount of resources spent and the volume
of wastes produced per run unit of work unit. The main consumable resource is energy
generated by an IC engine by burning engine fuel. The amount of consumable fuel depends on

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1135 editor@iaeme.com

 Simulation of Heat Exchange Between Transmission Units of an Automotive Truck

the amount of work and energy losses in transmission units. Besides, the amount of combustible
fuel determines the amount of hazardous substances emitted by a vehicle to the environment
along with exhaust gases. This gets even worse at low temperatures as lubrication oil viscosity
is higher.
Based on the research findings [1,2], using vehicles under subzero conditions increases
engine fuel consumption by 7–9 %. Research by W. Frank shows a significant increase in CO2
emission at subzero temperatures [3]. According to research data [4], when ambient temperature
reaches 20 С below zero, CO2 emissions from a moving vehicle increase by 5 %. Furthermore,
the need for additional engine warm-up leads to additional emissions of pollutants [5].
Despite of numerous studies on resource saving during use of vehicles, energy losses
associated with operation of transmission units were considered negligible, and most of these
studies focus on ways to increase engine efficiency. However, continuous increase in costs of
energy resources, environmental law enforcement and higher penalties for contamination of the
environment make researchers to turn their attention to operational efficiency of transmission
units. According to the given data [6], one light motor vehicle consumes an average of 340 l of
engine fuel per year to overcome friction forces in transmission units. Given the number of
vehicles in the world, they consume up to 208 000 m litres of gasoline and diesel fuel to
overcome friction forces.
Studies of energy transfer through transmission reduction gears show that mechanical
friction in gears and oil churning are the main reasons for energy losses [7,8]. At positive
temperatures 52 % of total losses comes to mechanical friction, and 40 % to oil churning [9].
At subzero temperatures the percentage of losses due to oil churning and splashing rises, as oil
viscosity is higher.
At the current level of science and technology it is obviously impossible to avoid power
losses in transmission units. However, some works [10,11] indicate there is potentially a
possibility to reduce losses up to 50 %.
One of the ways to do that is to improve design of transmission reduction gears. According
to the work [12], replacing standard spur gears with skew gears leads to a successful energy
loss reduction. Use of gears with shorter teeth helps to reduce friction and decrease unit
temperature by 20 %.
From the perspective of vehicle owners, methods which would help to reduce losses in real
operating conditions are of most interest. Among them is the use of low-viscosity lubrication
oils. Replacing the standard oil with a test oil helped to reduce friction in gears by 16–19 %
[13]. However, this result occurs only in a limited temperature range.
Another way to reduce power losses is regulation of a thermal regime of transmission units
by using various technical devices. In production environment, we usually talk about external
sources of thermal energy which can use vapour-air mixture [14] or exhaust gas heat [15] as
heat conductor.
The work [16] proves that the critical factor for reduction of power losses in transmission
is monitoring and ensuring the thermal regime of all transmission units. At the first stage, the
solution comprises justification of the optimum thermal operating regime of transmission
reduction gears in terms of energy expenditures. The work [17] determines an optimum regime
as a thermal regime of a unit which correlates with minimum energy resource expenditures to
ensure this thermal regime and resource expenditures to overcome a friction torque in the unit.
At the second stage, there is a need to justify a temperature range of units which ensures
minimum resource expenditures, as well as to develop a strategy to achieve these temperatures
within the transmission unit system.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1136 editor@iaeme.com

 Dolgushin А.А., Voronin D.M., Mamonov O.V.

The objective of this work is to develop mathematical models of heat exchange between
transmission units which would help to simulate thermal interaction within the unit system,
justify target temperature levels and the strategy to achieve them.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Apart from the optimum operating regime of a unit, other important features are steady running
conditions of the unit and its temperature stabilization regime. The stabilization regime of a unit
is characterized by some conditional temperature constancy. By the stabilization regime we
mean an operating regime of a unit characterized by equality between heat, that enters the unit,
and heat that goes from its surface to the environment. The stabilization temperature value
depends on environmental conditions, operating regime of the unit, design and configuration of
the transmission, etc.
Beside two temperature regimes, we have to take into consideration minimum and
maximum operating temperatures of a unit. If stabilization and optimization temperatures go
beyond allowable operating regimes, then minimization and stabilization regimes should not be
considered while minimizing expenditures. Some adjustments in terms of expenditure
minimization should be made here, keeping in mind that these adjustments should be directed
towards optimization.
Temperature limitations are conditioned by viscosity-temperature properties of the lubricant
oil used in transmission. In general, the temperature range is limited by the oil temperature that
corresponds with the minimum oil viscosity needed for an accident-free start of a vehicle and
by the oil temperature that causes a significant decrease in viscosity change rate accompanied
by a temperature raise (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Dependency of oil viscosity on temperature — General View

In these conditions, if the target optimum temperature of a reduction gear is lower than the
final pre-heat temperature Тopt≤Т1, then Т1 shall be considered the optimum temperature. If the
equation is Тopt≥Т2, then Т2 shall be considered optimum.
We take the stabilization regime as an initial operating regime. Expenditures are minimized
when the unit temperature goes from the stabilization temperature to the temperature needed
for expenditure optimization. Here we shall make some adjustments within allowable regimes.
Each unit has its optimum temperature regime, conditioned by the intent of the given unit
and its performance features. To ensure such temperature regime means to use the unit to its

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1137 editor@iaeme.com

 Simulation of Heat Exchange Between Transmission Units of an Automotive Truck

full capacity. The optimum thermal regime of a unit is however just conditionally optimum,
and reflects neither real work of the unit nor its interaction with other units. That is why
determination and further maintenance of the rational thermal regime of vehicle units as a whole
are important, both scientifically and practically.
This being so, a system is divided into subsystems, and it is expected that thermal regime
affects only subsystem units. Each subsystem in its thermal regime may be looked at
independently.
Let's divide a system of units into subsystems with observationally equivalent thermal
regimes. Then define a resource expenditure function for the whole system:
S=S(x1 ;x2 ;…,xn )=S1 (x1 ;x2 ;…,xn )+S2 (x1 ;x2 ;…,xn )+…+Sk (x1 ;x2 ;…,xn ), (1)
where:
x1, x2, … , xn – are values, representing thermal regimes of units;
Sj (x1;x2;…;xn) – expenditure functions for various resources;
j=1, 2, …, k are types of resources used to ensure the thermal regime.
Expenditures (1) are determined for the following constraint system:
(1)
Тmin ≤Т (1) (x1 ;x2 ;…,xn ) ≤ Т(1)
max
(2)
Тmin ≤ Т(2) (x1 ;x2 ;…,xn ) ≤ Т(2)
max (2)
…
(m) (m) (m)
{Тmin ≤ Т (x1 ;x2 ;…,xn ) ≤ Тmax
where:
Т(i) (x1; x2; … ; xn) – are thermal regimes of units, i=1, 2, …, m;
Тmin(i) and Тmax(i) – are minimum and maximum temperature values of given units, i=1, 2, …,
m.
Via Ti (temperature of the i-unit) we can determine S(i) — total costs of using the i-unit at
the unit's temperature Ti, i=1, 2, …, m. Thus, minimization of resource expenditures involves
(1) (2)
determination of temperature intervals from Тi to Тi for each unit. Achievement of such
interval during heat exchange will lead to minimization of all resource expenditures
S=S(x1 ;x2 ;…,xn ).
While studying thermal regimes of a vehicle, we used simulation methodology at large.
Taking into consideration operating features and characteristics of units, we used methods of
mathematical simulation to design a math model of thermal regimes of units included into an
airtight unit system. Optimization of thermal regimes of transmission units was performed with
respect to minimization of resource expenditures. By using an expenditure function analysis
technique and mathematical analysis methods, we managed to determine the way this function
changes depending on a thermal regime of each particular unit and a system of units as a whole.
Relying on the methods of determination of the object system temperature, we defined
changeover points of a system of units in various states and with various system features.

3. FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS

To determine thermal operating regimes of units let's discuss temperature characteristics of each
unit and relations between them. It is worth reminding that we talk about four characteristics
here: optimum regime temperature, stabilization regime temperature, temperature interval of
operation, minimum and maximum operating temperatures of a unit. Let's label them
opt
respectively: Тi , Тstabil
i , Тmin max
i , Тi . For each unit we also determine its current temperature in
real time t: Ti (t). Further on, if the time is not specified, the temperature of a unit will be Ti.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1138 editor@iaeme.com

 Dolgushin А.А., Voronin D.M., Mamonov O.V.

Thermal regimes are marked on the 0Ti axis (unit temperature), Fig. 2. The figure also shows
opt
the direction of total expenditure decrease from Тstabil
i to Тi .

Figure 2. Thermal regimes of the i-unit and direction of total expenditure decrease
The Figure 2 illustrates the case when optimum and stabilization operating regimes of a unit
are within an allowable range. Let's discuss cases when this requirement is not met, e.g. when
opt
Тi ≤Тstabil
i .
When there is no overlap between the allowable regime interval [Тmin i ; Тi
max
] and the
opt stabil
optimum-stabilization temperature regime interval [Тi ; Тi ], then the allowable regime
interval shall be considered optimum.
The direction of expenditure decrease depends on the position of intervals. If the interval
opt
[Тi ; Тstabil
i ] lies to the left of the interval [Тmin max
i ; Тi ] (Fig. 3), the direction shall be from Тmax
i
min opt stabil min max
to Тi . If the interval [Тi ; Тi ] is to the right of [Тi ; Тi ], then expenditure
minimization is from Тi to Тi (Fig. 4). The case when Топт
min max ст
i >Тi does not affect the approach
to determination of the direction of expenditure decrease.

opt
Figure 3 Thermal regimes of the i-unit when the interval [Тi ; Тstabil
i ] is to the left of [Тmin max
i ; Тi ]

opt
Figure 4 Thermal regimes of the i-unit when the interval [Тi ; Тstabil
i ] is to the right of [Тmin max
i ; Тi ]
Let's now discuss overlapping of intervals.
opt
Assume that Тi ≤Тstabil
i . In this case heat exchange is controlled by decreasing temperature
of a unit (heat transfer or cooling). Here, the minimum optimization interval value is max
opt
(Тmin
i ;Тi ), and the maximum value is min(Тi ;Тi
max stabil
).
opt
If Тi >Тstabil
i , then control is performed by increasing the unit temperature (heat input or
warm-up). The minimum optimization interval value is max (Тmin i ;Тi
stabil
), and the maximum
max opt
value is min(Тi ;Тi ).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1139 editor@iaeme.com

 Simulation of Heat Exchange Between Transmission Units of an Automotive Truck

Further on, we will address this interval as the optimization interval of the i-unit, and its
threshold values as optimum regime and stabilization regime temperatures.
Now, let's turn to the process of heat exchange within the system of transmission units and
between units and the environment by looking at a tandem drive three-axle truck. In this case
the main components are a speed-change gearbox, an intermediate axle and a rear axle. Due to
design similarities of intermediate and rear axles (equal mass, identical materials, same
dimensions, etc.), the system of transmission units of such vehicle can be presented as a two-
unit system: gearbox and drive axles. Thus, the heat exchange equation for the system of units
looks as follows:
 ΔQ1+ΔQ2–ΔQenv=0, J (3)
where:
ΔQ1 – is the amount of heat released by the first unit to the system, J;
ΔQ2 – is the amount of heat released by the second unit to the system, J;
ΔQenv – is heat losses due to interaction with the environment, J.
We believe that if heat is absorbed by the i-unit, the ΔQi value is negative, and a negative
ΔQenv value means that heat is transferred to the system of units from the environment.
At low ambient temperatures heat losses are significant and relatively similar to the amount
of heat emitted by the system. Thus, it makes sense to discuss cases when the system of units
is thermally isolated from the environment or heat losses to the environment are insignificant.
Let's look at an ideal case of heat exchange when no heat is lost to the environment, i.e.
ΔQenv=0. The heat exchange equation is as follows:
ΔQ1+ΔQ2=0, J (4)
We think that the first unit is a heat source, and the second one is a heat consumer. Then we
get the following equation of heat balance for the whole system:
ΔQ1=ΔQ2, J (5)
where:
ΔQ2 – is the amount of heat the second unit gets during heat exchange, J.
According to the physical meaning, the amount of heat generated by the first unit to the
system and the amount of heat the second unit gets from the system can be defined by the
following linear equation:
ΔQ1 =ccap-1 Ма1 (Т1 -Т), J (6)
ΔQ2 =ccap-2 Ма2 (Т-Т2 ), J (7)
where:
сcap-i – is a specific heat capacity of the multicomponent i-unit, J/(kg K);
Маi – is the weight of the i-unit, kg;
Т – is a changeover point of the unit system, K;
Тi – is the initial temperature of the i-unit, K.
We believe that heat exchange in the unit system takes place when units reach a changeover
point. Thereupon, temperatures of Т1 and Т2 units in equations (6) and (7) are none other than
stabilization regime temperatures of units Тstabil1 and Тstabil
2 . Thus, we can find the system
changeover point based on the equation of the system thermal balance (5):
ccap-1 Ма1 Тstabil
i , + ccap-2 Ма2 Тstabil
2 ,
Т= =Тc/o, K (8)
ccap-1 Ма1 +ccap-2 Ма2

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1140 editor@iaeme.com

 Dolgushin А.А., Voronin D.M., Mamonov O.V.

Let's take a look at an isolated two-unit system in terms of expenditure minimization. Let
opt opt
Т1 and Т2 be temperatures of unit regimes in which total operating expenditures are
minimum. These temperatures shall be defined with account of the adjustment described for a
given unit.
Let's discuss relations between stabilization temperatures and optimum temperatures of
units on the assumption that Тstabil
1 >Тstabil
2 , where stabilization temperature is the second
threshold value of the selected range of the given interval. Let's call it stabilization temperature
to show that expenditure minimization takes place when the temperature changes from
stabilization to optimum.
opt opt
Case 1. Тstabil
1 <Т1 and Тstabil
2 <Т2 , expenditures cannot be minimized by means of heat
exchange between units. Here, a warm-up from an external source shall be considered. A
specific case is using a heat exchanger with the temperature over Тstabil
1 . The heat exchanger is
included into the unit system, forming a three-element system with one heat source (heat
exchanger) and two consumers (both units).
opt opt
Case 2. Тstabil
1 <Т1 and Тstabil
2 >Т2 , expenditures cannot be minimized by means of heat
exchange between units as well, because heat cannot be transferred from a cold body to a hot
one. Here, the first unit shall be warmed up, and the second unit shall be cooled. There is no
point in using a heat exchanger. Expenditure minimization is performed only at the unit level.
opt opt
Case 3. Тstabil
1 >Т1 and Тstabil
2 <Т2 , this is the case when heat transfer from the first unit to the
second unit can help to minimize expenditures. Let's get back to this case later.
opt opt
Case 4. Тstabil
1 >Т1 and Тstabil
2 >Т2 , expenditure minimization cannot be reached by means of
heat exchange as both units require cooling. Here we talk about an external cooler to cool both
units. A specific case is using a heat exchanger with the temperature lower than Тstabil
2 . Adding
a heat exchanger forms a three-element system with two heat sources (both units) and one
consumer (heat exchanger).
Let's get back to the third case. In this case the changeover point can be determined by the
formula (8). There are three options of how optimum unit temperatures correlate with each
other, given that the changeover point Тc/o of units is known and meets the following condition:
Тstabil
2 <Tc/o<Тstabil
1 .
Option 1. The optimum temperature of the first unit is higher than the optimum temperature of
opt opt
the second unit. i.e. Т1 >Т2 .
The following figure illustrates regimes of the unit system in this case (Fig. 5): There are
three parallel temperature axes: the lowest one represents the temperature of the whole system,
the one in the middle — unit 1, and the upper one — unit 2. Let's label this axes as follows: T
— system temperature axis, T1 — 1st unit temperature axis, and T2 — 2nd unit temperature axis.
On the T-axis let's denote main operating regimes of units: optimum regimes and stabilization
regimes. On the T1-axis: main operating regimes of the first unit and its temperature at the
moment (t). On the T2-axis: main operating regimes of the second unit and its temperature at
the moment (t). Under axes we will mark the direction of resource minimization from the
stabilization regime to the optimum regime.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1141 editor@iaeme.com

 Simulation of Heat Exchange Between Transmission Units of an Automotive Truck

Figure 5. Diagram of thermal regimes of units in the system

There are three possible types of relations between the changeover point and the optimum
opt opt opt opt
temperature of given units: Tc/o>Т1 , Т2 ≤Tc/o≤Т1 , Tc/o<Т2 .
Let's denote the resource expenditure function based on the 1st unit temperature by S1 (T1),
and the resource expenditure function based on the 2nd unit temperature — by S2 (T2). To solve
the problem, let's use the temperature of conditional optimization of the second unit in relation
c/o
to the first one Т1 , and the temperature of conditional optimization of the first unit in relation
c/o c/o
to the second one Т2 . The Т1 temperature is the temperature of the first unit during heat
opt
exchange at which the second unit reaches the Т2 temperature. Its value is defined by the
thermal balance equation:
ccap-1 Ма1 (Тstabil
1 – Т) = ccap-2 Ма2 (T–Тstabil
2 ), J (9)
Then,
optstabil
c/o stabil ccap-2 Ма2 (Т2 −Т2 )
Т1 =Т1 – , K (10)
ccap-1 Ма1

Similarly, we determine the temperature Тc/o

2 . This is the temperature of the second unit
opt
during heat exchange at which the first unit reaches the Т1 temperature. Based on this, the
changeover point of the second unit during heat exchange can be determined as follows:
opt
c М (Тstabil –Т1 )
c/o stabil cap-1 а1 1
Т2 =Т2 - ,K (11)
ccap-2 Ма2
opt opt
Case 1.1. Assume Tc/o>Т1 , then Tc/o>Т2 . During heat exchange between two units, the first
opt
unit cannot reach the Т1 temperature. That is why minimum expenditures for the first unit are
observed at Tc/o. The second unit reaches the Топт2 temperature during heat exchange. This
temperature determines minimum expenditures for the second unit. The first unit temperature
is Тc/o c/o
1 . Let's mark Tc/o and Т1 on the diagram of thermal regimes (Fig. 6). The minimum of
total resource expenditures S1(T1)+S2(T2) for the first unit is within the Tc/o ≤T1 ≤Тc/o
1 interval,
opt
and within the Т2 ≤T2≤Tc/o interval for the second unit.

opt
Figure 6. Diagram of thermal regimes at Tc/o >Т1

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1142 editor@iaeme.com

 Dolgushin А.А., Voronin D.M., Mamonov O.V.

opt opt
Case 1.2. Let's discuss the case when Т2 ≤Tc/o≤Т1 . The following figure illustrates thermal
regimes in this case (Fig. 7):

opt opt
Figure 7. Diagram of thermal regimes at Т2 ≤Tc/o≤Т1
c/o c/o opt c/o opt
Given the temperature Т1 , there are two options: Т1 ≥Т1 и Т1 <Т1 .
c/o opt opt c/o
If Т1 ≥Т1 , then Т2 ≤Т2 , because when the temperature of the first unit decreases, first
c/o
the Т1 temperature is reached, and then while the first unit is further cooling down and the
opt
second one is getting warmer, the Т1 temperature is reached; and the temperature of the second
c/o opt c/o opt c/o
unit is Т2 . Thus, minimization is observed at Т1 ≤T1≤Т1 , Т2 ≤T2≤Т2 .
c/o opt opt c/o c/o opt
If Т1 <Т1 , then Т2 >Т2 . In this case minimization is observed at Т1 <T1<Т1 ,
c/o opt
Т2 <T2<Т2 . In the Case 1.2 optimum thermal regimes of system units are between their
optimum and conditionally optimum regimes.
opt
Case 1.3. If Tc/o<Т2 , minimization of expenditures can be achieved within the temperature
opt c/o
range Tc/o≤T1≤Т1 , Т2 ≤T2≤Tc/o, because when the first unit is cooling down to Tc/o its
opt
temperature goes through the Т1 regime. This case is symmetrical to the Case 1.1.
Option 2. The optimum temperature of the first unit is equal to the optimum temperature of the
opt opt
second unit. i.e. Т1 =Т2 .
Let's call this temperature Topt. There are several options for this temperature: Tc/o>Topt,
Tc/o=Topt, Tc/o<Topt.
Case 2.1. If Tc/o>Topt, then we solve the problem of expenditure minimization given that
c/o
Tc/o≤T1≤Т1 , Topt≤T2≤Tc/o.
Case 2.2. If Tc/o=Topt, expenditures are minimum, problem solved.
c/o
Case 2.3. If Tc/o<Topt we solve the problem for Topt≤T1≤Tc/o, Т2 ≤T2≤Tc/o.
Option 3. The optimum temperature of the first unit is lower than the optimum temperature of
opt opt
the second unit. i.e. Т1 <Т2 .
opt c/o opt
Case 3.1. When Tc/o>Т2 , we solve the problem with the condition: Tc/o≤T1≤Т1 , Т2 ≤T2≤Tc/o.
opt opt
Case 3.2. When Т1 ≤Tc/o≤Т2 , the solution is T1=T2=Tc/o.
opt opt c/o
Case 3.3. When Tc/o<Т1 , we solve the problem with the condition: Tc/o≤T1≤Т1 , Т2 ≤T2≤Tc/o.
As a result, in the third case the minimum of resource expenditures during heat exchange is
reached in unit regimes which fall between the changeover point and the optimum regime of
one unit and a conditionally optimum regime of another unit. And in the case 3.2 the optimum
regime is reached at the changeover point of both units.

4. CONCLUSIONS

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1143 editor@iaeme.com

 Simulation of Heat Exchange Between Transmission Units of an Automotive Truck

It is possible to minimize resource expenditures during use of vehicle transmissions through

management of thermal operating regimes of transmission units. We have suggested a thermal
regime mathematical model for a system of transmission units, based on experimental and
theoretical determination of changeover points and optimum temperatures of transmission units
in question. We have discussed the use of heat exchange between units and determined intervals
of thermal regimes in which total operating expenditures of transmission are minimum. We
have justified structural solutions based on the idea of combining units into a thermal system
by using additional airtight technical devices on a vehicle. For situations where heat
exchange between units cannot minimize energy expenditures, we suggest including an
additional heat source or a cooler into the system of transmission units. By ensuring the system's
target changeover point, it is possible to minimize energy expenditures on transmission units,
which leads to reduce consumption of engine fuel and minimize environmental impact.

REFERENCES
[1] Anisimov, I., Ivanov, А., Chikishev, Е., Chainikov, D., Reznik, L. and Gavaev, А.
Assessment of adaptability of natural gas vehicles by the constructive analogy method.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 12(6), 2017, pp. 1006-
1017.
[2] Weilenmann, M., Favez, J.-Y. and Alvarez, R. Cold-start emissions of modern passenger
cars at different low ambient temperatures and their evolution over vehicle legislation
categories. Atmospheric Environment, 43(15), 2009, pp. 2419–2429.
[3] Frank, W. A novel exhaust heat recovery system to reduce fuel consumption. Proceedings
of the World Automotive Congress, FISITA, London, England, 2010, pp. 1-10.
[4] Chainikov, D., Chikishev, E., Anisimov, I. and Gavaev A. Influence of ambient temperature
on the CO2 emitted with exhaust gases of gasoline vehicles. Innovative Technologies in
Engineering VII International Scientific Practical Conference, Conference Proceedings,
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, 2016. p. 12109.
[5] Merkisz, J., Pielecha, I., Pielecha, Ja. and M. Szukalski Exhaust emission from combat
vehicle engines during start and warm-up. Transport Problems, 6(2), 2011, pp. 121–126.
[6] Holmberg, K., Andersson, P. and Erdemir A. Global energy consumption due to friction in
passenger cars. Tribology international, 47, 2012, pp. 221–234.
[7] Seetharaman, S., Kahraman, A., Moorhead, M. D., and Petry-Johnson, T. T. Oil Churning
Power Losses of a Gear Pair: Experiments and Model Validation. ASME J. Tribol, 131(2),
2009, p. 022202.
[8] Patel, D.P. and Patel, J.M. An experimental investigation of power losses in manual
transmission gear box. International Journal of Applied Research in Mechanical
Engineering, 2(1), 2012. pp. 1–5.
[9] Molari, G. and Sedoni E. Experimental evaluation of power losses in a power-shift
agricultural tractor transmission. Biosystems engineering, 100(2), 2008, pp. 177–183.
[10] Höhn, B.-R., Michaelis, K., and Hinterstoißer, M. Optimization of gearbox
efficiency. Goriva Maziva, 48(4), 2009, pp 462–480.
[11] Michaelis, K., Höhn, B.R. and Hinterstoißer, M. Influence factors on gearbox power loss.
Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, 63(1), 2011, pp. 46–55.
[12] Magalhães, L., Martins, R., Locateli, C. and Seabra, J. Influence of tooth profile and oil
formulation on gear power loss. Tribol, 43, 2010, pp. 1861–1871.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1144 editor@iaeme.com

 Dolgushin А.А., Voronin D.M., Mamonov O.V.

[13] Nirvesh, S. Mehta, Nilesh, J. Parekh and Ravi, K. Dayatar Improve the Thermal Efficiency
of Gearbox Using Different Type of Gear Oils. International Journal of Engineering and
Advanced Technology, 2(4), 2013, pp. 120-123.
[14] Gabitov, I.I., Negovora, A.V., Khasanov, E.R., Galiullin, R.R., Farhshatov, M.N.,
Khamaletdinov, R.R., Martynov, V.M., Gusev, D., Yunusbaev, N.M. and Razyapov, M.M.
Risk reduction of thermal damages of units in machinery heat preparation for load
acceptance. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 14(3), 2019, pp. 709–716.
[15] Dolgushin, А.A, Voronin, D.M., Gus'kov, Y.A. and Kurnosov, A.F. Engine exhaust heat
recovery. Scientific and technical achievements of AIC, 30(8), 2016, pp. 87–90.
[16] Douglas, CE and Thite, A Effect of lubricant temperature and type on spur gear efficiency
in racing engine gearbox across full engine load and speed range. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology, 229(9), 2015,
pp. 1095–1113.
[17] Dolgushin, A.A., Voronin, D.M. and Mamonov O.V. Methodology of justification for
transmission unit thermal regimes. Scientific and technical achievements of AIC, 32(9),
2018, pp. 89–92.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJMET/index.asp 1145 editor@iaeme.com