MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210346844 · doi:10.1109/tte.2022.3147976

Overview of Current Thermal Management of Automotive Power Electronics for Traction Purposes and Future Directions

2022· article· en· W4210346844 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Jones-Jackson, Romina Rodriguez, Yuhang Yang, Luis Lopera, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal management of electronic devices and systemsElectronicsPower electronicsAutomotive engineeringWater coolingHeat sinkReliability (semiconductor)Passive coolingAutomotive industryTraction (geology)Active coolingPower densityElectronic componentComputer coolingPower moduleMechanical engineeringCapacitorElectrical engineeringPower (physics)ThermalEngineeringAerospace engineeringVoltagePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of the thermal management solution has a significant impact on the reliability and power density of power electronics (PEs). As the electric vehicle (EV) industry moves toward increasing the efficiency and output power, the cooling system must effectively remove the excess heat dissipated in PEs. The main heat-generating components are the semiconductor switches, but other components, such as bus bars and power capacitors, also dissipate heat and require cooling. Currently, indirect, direct, and double-sided cooling methods are the most common in EVs and account for 14%–33% of the total volume of traction inverters. However, PE packaging sizes are expected to decrease, while the heat dissipation continues to increase; hence, advanced cooling technologies are being investigated. This article aims to review the thermal management strategies for major PE components in EVs as well as their failure modes since high temperatures can be detrimental to the performance of PEs. Cooling designs that are currently implemented in EVs and future cooling trends for the next generation of PEs are reviewed as well.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations99
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Transportation ElectrificationSame topicSilicon Carbide Semiconductor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207