Paper at a glance
| Publication | Details |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gökhan Sevilgen, Harun Dursun and Muhsin Kılıç |
| Journal | Sustainability 15(19), article 14162 |
| Published | 25 September 2023 |
| DOI | 10.3390/su151914162 |
| Reading scope | Abstract, Section 2 and result tables reviewed on 10 October 2026 |
What the researchers compared
The study combines experiments on an LTO battery module with transient numerical modeling. It compares multi-channel, serpentine and bottom cold plates, considering temperature distributions and pressure drop. The numerical comparison holds inlet mass flow constant across plate designs. Read the publisher’s article.
Connection to Lemonergy
This is useful background for battery thermal management and the proposed CCS top-cooling concept. A cooling comparison needs a defined baseline, equal operating conditions and measures beyond one peak temperature.
The paper studies its own geometry and LTO cells. It does not establish performance for a cooled CCS assembly, and Lemonergy’s linked concepts do not reproduce this experiment or its CFD model. The bottom cold plate is a catalog reference, not a claim of equivalence to the tested hardware.
Plan a comparison in Lemonergy
| Comparison question | Record with your study |
|---|---|
| Are the heat loads comparable? | Current profile, duration and heat-generation assumptions |
| Are boundary conditions comparable? | Initial temperature, ambient conditions, coolant inlet and flow |
| Is a cooler peak hiding uneven temperatures? | Peak temperature and differences between monitored locations |
| What is needed to build it? | Contact areas, flow path, packaging and pump requirements |
Use the characterized-inputs checklist and comparison-evidence requirements before making a performance claim for a new cooling arrangement.