MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Numerical Analysis of the Local Heat Transfer Coefficient in a Rotating Hollow Rotor Shaft Liquid Cooling System for Electric Traction Motors

2024· article· en· W4403277533 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew L. Lee, Ofelia A. Jianu, Narayan C. Kar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTraction motorRotor (electric)Traction (geology)Heat transfer coefficientMechanical engineeringElectric motorMechanicsHeat transferMaterials scienceComputer coolingAutomotive engineeringPhysicsEngineeringThermal management of electronic devices and systems

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the fluid flow and local heat transfer coefficient associated with a rotating liquid hollow rotor shaft cooling system for electric traction motors. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is utilized to simulate the fluid flow and heat transfer phenomena to obtain the local heat transfer coefficient. A comparison is conducted between a stationary and a rotating hollow rotor shaft cooling system using 50/50 ethylene glycol water mixture. The shaft rotation is found to alter the fluid flow through the development of vortices and a secondary flow due to the Coriolis and centrifugal effect. The alteration of the fluid flow is found to enhance the fluid turbulence, significantly increasing the local heat transfer coefficient when compared to the non-rotating case. This results in a significant decrease in the maximum operating temperature of the shaft surface. It is concluded that the local heat transfer coefficients change significantly along the length of the hollow shaft resulting in non-uniform temperature distributions. This can allow for the identification of regions of low thermal performance within the 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 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 score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207