MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497152292 · doi:10.4271/2006-01-1037

Effect of Fan Hub Configuration on the Cooling Airflow through Electric Motors in Engine Cooling Fan Systems

2006· article· en· W1497152292 on OpenAlexaff
Z. Li, Eric Savory, J. Ryval, Robert J. Martinuzzi, M. Blissitt

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirflowFan coil unitFan-inMechanical fanAutomotive engineeringInternal combustion engine coolingWater coolingAir coolingElectric motorElectrical engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceAir conditioning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typical automotive engine-cooling fan assemblies include an electric motor having a driveshaft coupled to a fan. The typical fan includes a hub, which extends from the driveshaft to the root of the fan blades. Radial ribs are incorporated within the hub to stiffen the fan structure. The fan hub including the ribs pulls cooling air through the motor, thus preventing it from overheating. Experimental tests and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations have been carried out to investigate the effects of fan hub configurations on cooling airflow through the electric motor in automotive cooling fan systems. It has been found that radial ribs on the fan hub have significant effects on drawing cooling air through the motor. The comparison of the simulation results with the pressures measured in laboratory experiments show good agreement.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207