MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055425445 · doi:10.1243/09544070jauto1416

Evaluation of the Thermofluid Performance of an Automotive Engine Cooling-Fan System Motor

2010· article· en· W2055425445 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric Savory, Robert J. Martinuzzi, J. Ryval, Z Li, M. Blissitt

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgarySiemens (Canada)Western University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsFluentMechanical fanAutomotive industryMechanical engineeringHeat transferAutomotive engineeringRotational speedAirflowFinWork (physics)EngineeringWater coolingFlow (mathematics)Internal combustion engine coolingMechanicsAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental tests and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations using the commercial code FLUENT were carried out to investigate the effects of the fan support hub geometry on the component heat transfer and cooling air flow through a simplified model of an electric motor for an automotive cooling-fan system, since little is known about the thermofluid dynamics of such machines. It has been found that the presence of radial ribs on the fan hub has a significant effect on drawing cooling air through the motor, particularly at lower air flowrates, regardless of the rotational speed. In addition, the rotational speed, hub diameter, fin height, and rib width are important parameters for inducing flow inside the hub while the tip gap and hub depth are not as influential. Increasing the number of ribs or fins has little impact on the performance of the hub. Good agreement was found between the experimental and predicted temperatures from heat transfer simulations of the motor for representative underhood environmental conditions. The present work shows that a valuable CFD tool can be developed to predict the temperature distribution inside the motor and offers a guide to the methodology whereby design modifications may be made to improve motor performance for a given application.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile EngineeringSame topicHeat Transfer and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207