MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computationally effective machine learning approach for modular thermal energy storage design

2024· article· en· W4402537304 on OpenAlex
Davinder Singh, Tanguy Rugamba, Harsh Katara, Kuljeet Singh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Energy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Change Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Council
KeywordsModular designComputer scienceThermal energy storageThermalEnergy storageEfficient energy useMachine designEnergy (signal processing)EngineeringMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringPhysicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research presents an innovative approach that integrates computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and machine learning (ML) for the design and optimization of thermal energy storage (TES) systems. Heat discharging parametric analyses conducted using CFD serve as the basis for training ML models, including linear regression, K-nearest neighbor (KNN) regression, gradient boost regression (GBR), XGBoost, LightGBM , and neural network (NN). NN emerges as the most suitable for predicting time-dependent variations of concrete and heat transfer fluid (HTF) temperatures. The trained ML models offer an efficient alternative to traditional CFD simulations, enabling the prediction of temperatures in concrete thermal energy storage (CTES) modules under varying inlet conditions, velocities, and time. Leveraging these ML models, the research demonstrates the design of modular CTES cascaded systems with multiple modules in series and parallel configurations, significantly reducing computational cost and time by over 99% compared to full-scale CFD simulations. For instance, in predicting 4-hour time-dependent thermal behavior, CFD takes 97 s per data point and 238,500 s for a single module, compared to ML models’ 16-20 ms per data point and around 290 s per module, indicating their efficiency and scalability in predicting thermal discharge, especially for modular CTES system design and optimization. ML models also demonstrate computational efficiency for designing CTES systems involving multiple modules, taking approximately 765 s - 1047 s for various CTES system configurations, indicating their effectiveness over CFD in predicting thermal discharge for modular CTES systems. The integration of CFD and ML provides a streamlined workflow for designing and optimizing CTES systems, reducing computational efforts, cost, and time. Moreover, this workflow can be updated with additional training data to implement it for unique modular designs with different conditions. Such a generalization of this ML-based approach makes it applicable to a wide range of thermal energy storage designs and geometries, offering a promising avenue for future research and development in the field of thermal energy storage.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.218 · 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