Electrochemical–Thermal Evaluation of an Integrated Thermal Management System for Lithium‐Ion Battery Modules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thermal management of lithium‐ion (Li‐ion) batteries using phase change materials (PCM) demonstrate advantages such as compactness and reduced weight compared to conventional active cooling systems. However, the heat accumulation in PCM due to ineffective cooling and added thermal inertia may lead to thermal management system failure. In this study, a hybrid active–passive thermal management system for a Li‐ion battery module is presented. Graphite nanopowder and highly oriented pyrolytic graphite sheets are employed to improve the low thermal conductivity of the PCM. The thermophysical properties of the nano‐enhanced PCM (NePCM) with various mass fractions are experimentally explored. A streamlined electrochemical–thermal coupled model for batteries is used to develop an air‐assisted hybrid thermal management system model. The effects of nanoparticles mass fraction, thickness of the PCM layer, and air inlet temperature on the module thermal behavior during a standard driving cycle are investigated. The hybrid system can maintain the module temperature within the safe limits and provide excellent temperature uniformity. The results reveal that an enhanced thermal conductivity is essential to recover the thermal energy storage capacity of PCM during the driving cycle. The proposed cooling approach presents a promising avenue for enhanced thermal management of Li‐ion battery modules.
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".