MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computationally effective machine learning approach for modular thermal energy storage design

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

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied EnergySame topicPhase Change Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207