The Effect of Outlet Manifold Location of Liquid-Cooled Battery Thermal Management Systems on Pumping Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrothermal performances of two water-cooled thermal management systems (TMSs) for cooling lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are compared through three-dimensional simulations of laminar flow and heat transfer in TMSs, as well as conduction heat transfer with volumetric heat generation inside the battery cell.Maximum cell temperature and temperature variation across the cell are used to evaluate thermal performances of TMSs.The TMSs are different from each other by location of outlet manifold.In the bottom outlet (BO) design, the outlet is located at the bottom of the TMS's case, while in the middle outlet (MO) design, the outlet manifold is located at the middle of the TMS's case.Both designs provide safe operational temperature for LIBs, although the thermal performance of BO design is slightly higher than that of the MO design.This is due to distribution of water over a larger surface area in the BO TMS compared with the MO TMS.To provide a better insight on practical applications of TMSs, their thermal performances are described based on pumping power.Due to a shorter path from the inlet to the outlet in the MO design, compared with the BO design, the pressure drop is lower in the MO TMS.As a result, at a given flow rate, the MO TMS operates with a lower pumping power compared with the BO TMS.The present study suggests that selecting an appropriate TMS highly depends on design priorities.If the main goal is to maintain the cell temperature as low as possible, the BO design is an effective TMS.If the design goal is to minimize the pumping power, the MO TMS is an effective cooling system.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".