ArticleScientific reports2026
Numerical investigation of liquid-Cooled battery thermal management system configurations for a lithium-ion battery pack with experimental validation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efficient thermal management is crucial for lithium-ion battery safety and longevity in Electric Vehicles (EVs). This study presents a numerical investigation and experimental validation of liquid cooling strategies for NMC lithium-ion battery modules, comparing serpentine (Configuration 1), parallel (Configuration 2), and parallel/counter-flow hybrid (Configuration 3) layouts. A custom-built 4-cell test rig validated against CFD simulations showed close agreement, with relative deviations below 0.6%, confirming model reliability. Under regulated flow conditions, clear differences in thermal and hydraulic behavior were observed. Configuration 1 exhibited the highest thermal stress, with peak temperatures reaching 75.7 [Formula: see text] (cell 7) and 74.1[Formula: see text] (cell 18) due to downstream heat accumulation and limited contact area, alongside the largest temperature difference (ΔT = 11.0 K) and highest pressure drop (27.3 Pa). Configuration 2 reduced peak pack temperature to 70.6 [Formula: see text] at cell 18 (6.7% lower vs. Configuration 1) and 64.7 [Formula: see text] at cell 7 (14.8% lower), achieving the best intra-cell uniformity (σ = 0.47 K, CV = 5.6%) and lowest pressure drop (9.1 Pa). Configuration 3 offered the most balanced cooling, lowering maximum cell temperature by 7.6% compared to Configuration 1 and 0.9% compared to Configuration 2, while the maximum temperature of cell 18 decreased by 11.8%. It achieved the narrowest inter-cell ΔT (4.1 K), a 62.5% and 11% reduction versus Configurations 1 and 2, respectively, with the lowest σ = 1.0 K (CV = 0.32%). Overall, serpentine cooling is simple but thermally inefficient, parallel flow is the most energy-efficient, and the hybrid parallel/counter-flow design delivers the best overall thermal balance while lowering the required pumping power by about 89%, making it the most suitable layout for safe and reliable EV battery operation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.