MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742561751 · doi:10.3390/en10081157

Analysis of Cooling Effectiveness and Temperature Uniformity in a Battery Pack for Cylindrical Batteries

2017· article· en· W2742561751 on OpenAlexafffund
Seham Shahid, Martin Agelin‐Chaab

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPlenum spaceBattery packInletBattery (electricity)Jet (fluid)Materials scienceVortexMechanicsVortex generatorElectrical engineeringPhysicsMechanical engineeringPower (physics)ThermodynamicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, techniques to improve cooling and temperature uniformity in a simple battery pack are examined. Four battery pack configurations are developed. In the first configuration, an inlet plenum is added to a simple battery pack. In the second configuration, jet inlets are incorporated along with the inlet plenum, and in the third configuration, multiple vortex generators are added in addition to the inlet plenum. Finally, in the fourth configuration, an inlet plenum, jet inlets, and multiple vortex generators are incorporated into the battery pack. The results conclude that by adding inlet plenum, multiple vortex generators, and jet inlets in the same configuration, significant improvements are observed. The results also show that the maximum temperature of the battery pack is reduced by ~5%, and the temperature difference between the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature exhibited by the battery pack is reduced by 21.5%. Moreover, there is a ~16% improvement in the temperature uniformity of a single cell.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations89
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207