MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406048608 · doi:10.3390/en18010180

Design and Optimization of the Heatsink of a Level 1 Electric Vehicle Charger

2025· article· en· W4406048608 on OpenAlexaff
Iheanyi Emmanuel Ebere, Ashraf Ali Khan, Samuel Ogundahunsi, Emeka Ugwuemeaju, Usman Ali Khan, Shehab Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectric vehicleAutomotive engineeringHeat sinkComputer scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The onboard circuits of EV chargers comprise heat-producing electronic devices such as MOSFETs and diodes for switching and power conversion operations. A heatsink must dissipate this generated heat to extend the devices’ life and prevent component thermal stress or failure. This study primarily investigates the optimal heatsink geometry and pin configuration, which offers the most efficient temperature versus cost performance. MATLAB/Simulink (R2024a) was used to model a Level 1 charger using eight MOSFETs and four diodes. Various heatsink geometries were modeled using the ANSYS (2024 R1) Workbench and Fluent software to optimize the sink’s thermal performance. The analyses were performed under transient conditions using natural and forced cooling scenarios. The 2 mm wide plate fin heatsink with 44 fins yielded the best result. Further enhancement of the best-performing naturally cooled model improved the switches and diodes temperatures by 14% and 4%, respectively. The performance of the heatsink was further improved by applying a cooling fan to achieve an up to 25% diode and 40% MOSFET thermal dissipation efficiency. The results of this study show that the most efficient cooling performance and cost are realized when the optimum combination of fin spacing, proximity from the cooling fan, and fin geometry is selected.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207