Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103269

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

A hybrid battery thermal management system coupling with PCM

and optimized thermoelectric cooling for high-rate
discharge condition
Xun Liu a, b, Lu-cheng Yao a, b, Chu-qi Su a, b, Xin Xiong a, b, Yi-Ping Wang a, b, *
a
Hubei Key Laboratory of Advanced Technology for Automotive Components, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China
b
Hubei Collaborative Innovation Centre for Automotive Components Technology, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The lithium-ion battery is now abundantly available in the market due to its excellent perfor­
Li-ion battery mance. However, battery overheating is increasingly prominent when the battery discharges at
Phase change material high speed. In this study, an active-passive BTMS (Battery Thermal Management System)
Thermoelectric cooler combining PCM (Phase Change Material) and TEC (Thermoelectric Cooler) was proposed. The
Transient supercooling effects of different TEC currents and delayed cooling at different PCM melting rates were analyzed
Pulse current shape
under the 4C discharge condition to enhance the thermal performance. The results demonstrate
that battery temperature gets effectively controlled as the TEC current increases, but the tem­
perature difference and PCM utilization are poor. However, applying a delayed current after the
PCM melting rate reaches 80% reduces energy consumption and provides better temperature
uniformity. Considering the large battery heat under 4C discharge, combined with the transient
supercooling effect of TEC, a continuous pulse current was used to provide additional cooling
power. Results show that the battery with TEC pulsed current operates 57.8% longer at 40 ◦ C with
a temperature difference maintained at 2.5 K under 4C discharge conditions compared with the
PCM model.

Nomenclature

Symbols
cp Heat capacity (J⋅kg− 1K− 1)
I Current (A)
Imax Maximum current of TEC (A)
k Thermal conductivity (W⋅m− 1 K− 1)
KTEC Thermal conductance of TEC (W⋅m− 1 K− 1)
q Volume heat generation rate of the battery (W⋅m− 3)
Qc Heat absorption of TEC (W)
Qh Heat release of TEC (W)
RTEC Resistance of TEC (Ω)
Tpcm PCM temperature (K)

* Corresponding author. Hubei Key Laboratory of Advanced Technology for Automotive Components, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China.
E-mail address: wangyiping@whut.edu.cn (Y.-P. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2023.103269
Received 31 March 2023; Received in revised form 29 June 2023; Accepted 6 July 2023
Available online 9 July 2023
2214-157X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
X. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103269

Greek symbols
α Seebeck coefficient (V⋅K− 1)
β Liquid volume fraction of PCM
θ Pulse angle
∇ Gradient operator
γ Latent heat of PCM (J⋅kg− 1)
ρ Density(kg⋅m− 3)
τ Pulse Width(s)

Subscripts
0 Initial
act Reaction heat
amb Ambient
l Liquid
ohm Ohmic heat
rev Reversible heat
s Solid
surf Solid surface

Abbreviations
BTMS Battery Thermal Management System
COP Coefficient of Performance
PCM Phase Change Material
TEC Thermoelectric Cooler

1. Introduction
Li-ion batteries become the premier technology for electric vehicles because of their superior specific energy and high reliability [1,
2]. Nevertheless, the reliability of batteries is critically reliant on the operating temperature. Specifically, low temperature decreases
the electrochemical reaction rate, while high temperature increases the battery degradation rate and may contribute to thermal
runaway [3]. The primary goal of BTMS is to operate the battery in the optimal region (20–45 ◦ C) while the temperature difference is
below 5 K [4].
PCM is currently extensively applied to BTMS due to its excellent heat absorption and temperature uniformity [5]. However, low
thermal conductivity and finite thermal storage capacity were main drawbacks of PCM [6]. Although some scholars have investigated
the utilization of high thermal conductivity additives to enhance PCM performance, including porous media, metal mesh and nano­
material additives, there are still problems of complicated and costly preparation of high-performance materials [7]. Therefore, other
active thermal management techniques are often coupled to recover the PCM latent heat, thereby forming a hybrid BTMS. Ling et al.
[8] counteracted the heat build-up in PCM with forced air and enhance the reliability. Kong et al. [9] used liquid cooling coupled PCM
to enhance the utilization of latent heat of PCM. However, air and water cooling have the disadvantages of complex structure and high
energy consumption. Therefore, it is essential to find a reliable and environmentally friendly thermal management technology.
Thermoelectric cooler (TEC) is an advanced active heat pump that utilizes the Peltier effect for refrigeration [10–12]. With its
excellent scalability and high reliability, TEC is an ideal solution for cooling electronic components, including batteries [13–15].
Compared with traditional cooling methods, TEC has the advantages of precise temperature control, noiseless, pollution-free, and easy
arrangement. Song et al. [16] designed an outdoor base station BTMS based on PCM and TEC, which effectively enhanced the insu­
lation of the battery. Pakrouh et al. [17] studied a hybrid liquid-TEC-PCM system in which the PCM was utilized to control the hot-side
temperature of the TEC. Although this approach avoids the possibility of leakage when the PCM is in direct contact with the battery, it
also reduces the heat transfer efficiency and compactness of the system. Jiang et al. [18] studied the thermal performance of cylindrical
battery modules based on thermoelectric cooling and direct contact with composite PCM. The method offers significant advantages in
temperature control compared to natural convection and liquid cooling. Also to improve TEC performance, the effects of TEC current,
thermal resistance, and the number of TEC internal thermoelectric arms on TEC cooling performance are analyzed. Liao et al. [19]
proposed a hybrid active & passive BTMS combined TEC and PCM, which can meet both cooling and heating requirements of Li-ion
batteries. Mainly from the structural aspects, the effects of the type of thermally conductive material, TEC arrangement and CPCM on
the overall BTMS thermal performance were analyzed. Moreover, TEC features transient supercooling, which allows additional
temperature drop to be obtained within a brief timeframe if the current is varied in a specific way [20]. The transient supercooling
technique could provide additional cooling in a short time, effectively eliminating local hot spots or on-demand cooling for specific
locations, nowadays it is mainly applied in chips, X-ray detectors [21]. Redmond et al. [22] used TEC transient supercooling to cope
with local hot spots on a stacked chip. Studies have shown that square-root pulses of transient current can provide 1.8 ◦ C more
refrigeration than stable state current.
To cope with the rapid temperature ramping and inferior temperature uniformity under high-rate battery discharge, an active-

2
X. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103269

Fig. 1. The physical model of battery pack.

Table 1
Material parameters.
1
Material Thermal conductivity (W⋅m− K− 1) Density(kg⋅m− 3) Heat capacity (J⋅kg− 1
K− 1)

Shell (Aluminum) 170 2700 875

Fin (Copper) 380 8900 385
TEC (Alumina) 18 3970 765
PCM (Liquid) 0.13 850 2146.7
PCM (Solid) 0.22 900 1780
Battery x, y: 40.1 z: 1.1 2521.8 1191.9

passive BTMS coupled PCM and TEC is proposed. The effects of different TEC currents and delayed cooling at different PCM melting
rates were analyzed. In addition, the TEC transient supercooling is proposed, optimizing the continuous pulse current to enhance the
thermal performance. The novelty of the paper is to investigate the effect of TEC current supply method on the battery thermal
performance at high-speed discharge, which offers a reference for the application of TEC in future hybrid BTMS.

2. Model
2.1. Physical model of BTMS
The module uses a PCM for wrapping the lithium battery and is encapsulated in an aluminum case. Considering the low thermal
conductivity, fins were added to enhance heat transfer, while TEC is connected for auxiliary cooling, as shown in Fig. 1. For ease of
installation, the thicknesses of the aluminum shell, PCM and copper fins are chosen to be 1, 2, and 3 mm, respectively. Meanwhile, the
PCM phase transition temperature and latent heat are 308.15 K and 113 kJ kg− 1, which ensure the stable initial state of PCM and the
full phase transition during the temperature rise. The material parameters were presented in Table 1.

2.2. Thermal model of battery

The thermal equilibrium equation of the lithium-ion battery could be expressed as:
∂T
ρcp = ∇(k∇T) + q (1)
∂t
Wang et al. [23] further divided the heat production of lithium-ion batteries into ohmic heat, reaction heat, and reversible heat
based on Bernard’s heat generation rate equation, which was expressed as follows:
q = qohm + qact + qrev (2)

where qohm, qact, and qrev correspond to the ohmic heat, reaction heat, and reversible heat. A detailed description of the specific
modeling parameters and values can be found in Ref. [24].

2.3. Heat transfer model of PCM

Before building the phase change heat transfer model, it is assumed that: the density of PCM is constant; Given the large viscosity of
the PCM, the PCM motion is neglected; Also, thermal radiation is not taken into account. The PCM heat transfer equation is described
as:
∂H
ρpcm = kpcm ∇2 T (3)
∂t

3
X. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103269

Table 2
Specification parameters of TEC.

Property Value

Hot side Temperature(K) 300

Qmax(W) 38
ΔTmax(K) 74
Imax(A) 3.8
Vmax(V) 16.7
Length(mm) 40
Width(mm) 40
High(mm) 4.8

Fig. 2. Model validation and grid dependency analysis.

H represents PCM enthalpy including the sensible heat enthalpy h and the phase transition enthalpy Δh, the specific equation is
shown below:
∫ Tpcm
h= cp,pcm dTpcm (4)
T0

Δh = βγ (5)

2.4. Theoretical analysis of TEC

The Peltier effect is observed when a constant current is applied to the TEC, causing a temperature difference between the two sides
of the module [25–29]. According to the Joule heat transfer in the module, the cold-side heat absorption Qc and the hot-side heat
release Qh are calculated as follows:

Qc = αITc − 0.5I 2 RTEC − KTEC (Th − Tc ) (6)

Qh = αITh + 0.5I 2 RTEC − KTEC (Th − Tc ) (7)

The TEC cooling efficiency was defined as:
Qc
COP = (8)
Qh − Qc
The TEC model used in this paper is TB-127-1.4-2.5 and the basic dimensions and parameters: Qmax, Tmax, Imax and Vmax are
available from the manual in Table 2. Combining Eqs. (9-11), RTEC, α, and KTEC could be obtained.
Qmax 2(Th − ΔTmax )
RTEC = 2
(9)
Imax (Th + ΔTmax )

Imax R
α= (10)
Th − ΔTmax

αImax (Th − ΔTmax )

KTEC = (11)
2ΔTmax

2.5. Boundary conditions

In the paper, the simulation was performed in the software COMSOL Multiphysics 6.0. The hot side of TEC is generally configured

4
X. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103269

Fig. 3. Comparison of battery temperature with various TEC input currents. (a) The maximum temperature; (b) The ΔT.

Fig. 4. Comparison of cooling performance with various TEC input currents. (a) TECs performance; (b) PCM melting rate.

with a water tank, and the software uses a water-cooled convective heat transfer boundary for equivalent calculations. Other surface
boundary heat transfer equations are as follows.
∂T ∂T
k1 = k2 (12)
∂n ∂n

∂T ( )
ksurf = hamb Tsurf − Tamb (13)
∂n

where k1 and k2 represent the thermal conductivities of solids, ∂∂Tn represent the temperature gradient, hamb represent the air convection
coefficient and its value is 4 W m− 2 K− 1.

2.6. Model validation and grid dependency

For validating the credibility of the established TEC model, a comparison was made with the parameters given by the manufacturer
[30] and the simulation results are displayed in Fig. 2(a). Meanwhile, grid-dependent simulations of the battery pack model were
performed under 4C-2A conditions, and three sets of grid models, were selected for simulation. Fig. 2(b) indicates that the temperature
difference between the groups is minor, and the accuracy of the simulation can be determined when the number of grids reaches 130,
000.

3. Results and analysis

To effectively evaluate the battery’s thermal performance, the following aspects are considered: the optimal temperature control
time t40 and t45, which is the time of maximum temperature achieving 40 ◦ C and 45 ◦ C; ΔT, the difference between the highest and
lowest values of all cell temperatures to observe the temperature uniformity; and the consideration of the PCM melting rate to reduce
energy consumption.

3.1. Influence of TEC steady-state current

To ensure excellent thermal performance under a 4C battery discharge condition, the TEC steady-state current values (1A–3A) are
simulated in this section. Fig. 3 illustrates that increasing in TEC steady-state current would facilitate longer temperature control time.
If the TEC without current input, t40 = 260s, once the current increases to 1A, t40 = 720s, control time was remarkably prolonged. The
comparison of various TEC currents on the ΔT was presented in Fig. 3(b). The increase in TEC input current will exacerbate the

5
X. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103269

Fig. 5. Comparison of battery temperature at various PCM melting rates. (a) The maximum temperature with 2A TEC; (b) The ΔT with 2A TEC; (c) The maximum
temperature with 3A TEC; (d) The ΔT with 3A TEC.

temperature difference. If the TEC current is 1A, the ΔT is controlled within 5 ◦ C until 860s. However, once the current is 3A, the time
was shortened to 340s and the ΔT is 8.2 ◦ C eventually. Therefore, when selecting a larger TEC input current in pursuit of higher heat
dissipation power, attention should be paid to the time of current application to maintain temperature uniformity.
Fig. 4(a) displays the comparison of TEC performance with various TEC input currents. Along with the current increases, heat
dissipation power gradually increases, but the COP decreases accordingly. To improve energy utilization, it is appropriate to control
the current of TEC within 2A. Fig. 4(b) shows the PCM melting rate at various TEC input currents. It is observed that the PCM melting
rate declines along with increasing current. When TEC current is 1A, the ultimate melting rate of PCM is 40%. And when the current is
3A, the PCM melting rate is approximately 0. Although TEC controls the temperature rises, the PCM utilization is less than 50% and the
PCM latent heat is underutilized.

3.2. Influence of TEC delay current

Since the continuous steady-state current leads to poorer battery temperature uniformity, this section considers the moment of TEC
current application and compares thermal performance after the PCM reaches different melting rates.
The comparison of battery temperature at various PCM melting rates is presented in Fig. 5. With the PCM melting rate increasing,
delayed cooling can effectively mitigate the increase in cell temperature difference, despite diminishing the temperature control time.
If PCM melting rate is less than 80%, turning on delayed cooling could still keep the battery maximum temperature below 45 ◦ C. Even
the PCM melting rate was 80%, the 2A delayed TEC current action, t45 = 815s, and the maximum effective temperature control time
was 90.6% of the total discharge time. When the TEC current is 3A, t45 = 845s, accounting for 93.9% of the entire discharge time.
Fig. 5(b) displays the comparison of ΔT at 2A TEC for different PCM melting rates. Better temperature uniformity can be found
provided by delayed cooling: At a 20% PCM melting rate, the time to reach a 5 ◦ C temperature difference is 580s, and the effective
temperature control time accounts for 64.4% of the whole discharge time. Yet, with an 80% PCM melting rate, the ΔT is always below
5 ◦ C throughout the discharge stage. Under the application of 3A TEC current, the temperature difference turns larger and the effective
control time is reduced. However, when the PCM melting rate is 80%, the battery temperature difference is still around 5 ◦ C.
A comparison of delayed cooling on the thermal performance at different PCM melting rates under two input currents was per­
formed. According to the simulation results, it is found that applying a delayed current of 2A at 80% PCM melting rate can enhance the
temperature uniformity as well as effectively control battery temperature rise.

3.3. Influence of TEC pulse current

In this section, the optimal parameters for a single current pulse operation are first investigated, based on which a study of
continuous pulse cooling is carried out. To facilitate current switching, several basic waveforms were selected for the study.
Considering the power and COP of the TEC, 2A was chosen as the reference current I0, the pulse current was defined as Im, and the pulse
current action time was τ, as illustrated in Fig. 6.

6
X. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103269

Fig. 6. Current pulses with various power functions.

Fig. 7. The cold side temperature of TEC. (a) t0 pulse with different amplitudes; (b) t0 pulse with different widths; (c) t1 pulse with different angles; (d) Different
continuous pulses.

7
X. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103269

Fig. 8. Battery’s thermal performance. (a) Comparison of the battery temperature in different models; (b) The temperature difference and PCM melting rate in PCM +
TEC model.

The cold side temperature of the t0 current at distinct amplitudes is shown in Fig. 7(a). For practical applications, the optimal pulse
shape is selected, taking into account the cooling capacity of transient supercooling while mitigating the temperature overshoot
phenomenon. When Im = 4A, the cold side temperature achieved the minimum value while overshoot is minimal, therefore, 4A is
selected as the pulse current of t0. The effect of pulse width on the t0 pulse current is further discussed in Fig. 7(b). As the t0 pulse width
grows, the cold-side temperature descends. Comprehensive consideration was made to select τ = 5s as the preferred pulse width for t0
pulse in the subsequent research.
As for the t1 pulse, in Fig. 7(c), when the angle is 30◦ , τ = 6.5s is chosen to reach the lowest temperature while the supercooling time
is the longest. Based on the optimized single current pulse, the impacts of continuous pulse currents on the cooling performance are
ulteriorly investigated in Fig. 7(d). The optimal pulse widths for t0 pulse τ1 = 5s and t1 pulse τ1 = 6.5s have been determined. Fig. 7(d)
shows the lowest temperature at t0+ (-t1) current, with optimal continuous cooling performance.
Considering that the battery with only PCM, t40 = 260s, the temperature control time is only 28.9% of the total discharge time.
Therefore, a combined TEC current (t0+t1) was applied in the first 300s to mitigate the battery temperature growth. Comparisons of
the temperatures in the PCM model and the PCM + TEC model are exhibited in Fig. 8(a). After applying the transient current, t40 =
780s, the temperature control time was extended to 86.7%. Eventually, the PCM melting rate reached 66%, while the temperature
difference was 2.5 K, demonstrating better thermal performance.

4. Conclusion
This paper introduces a hybrid BTMS that combines PCM and TEC. Additionally, the thermal performance of the BTMS was
evaluated in terms of TEC steady-state current, delay current and pulse current. The results show that:
1. Increase the TEC current, and the battery temperature is effectively reduced. When the current is 2A, the battery operates at
optimum temperature below 40 ◦ C. However, under continuous cooling with a larger TEC current, the battery temperature uni­
formity, PCM utilization, and TEC cooling efficiency deteriorate.
2. With the PCM melting rate increasing, delaying the application of TEC current can effectively improve the temperature homo­
geneity. At a 80% PCM melting rate, the delayed cooling using 2A TEC current, the temperature gradient throughout the discharge
phase is always less than 5 ◦ C. Meanwhile, t45 = 815s, the effective temperature control time accounts for 90.6% of the total
discharge time. By increasing the TEC current to 3A, the temperature control duration was increased by 30s, while the battery
temperature difference remained at about 5 ◦ C.
3. TEC continuous pulsed current generates additional cooling power. The battery exhibits better thermal performance with the
pulsed current. In the PCM model, t40 = 260s, the effective temperature control time is 28.9% of the total discharge time. In the
transient PCM + TEC model, t40 = 780s, the temperature control time is prolonged to 86.7%. 4C discharge ends with good battery
temperature uniformity with temperature difference maintained at 2.5 K.

Credit author statement

Xun Liu: Conceptualization, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.
Lu-cheng Yao: Writing - Original Draft, Methodology, Formal analysis.
Chu-qi Su: Performing the experiments.
Xin Xiong: Software.
Yi-Ping Wang: Writing - Review & Editing, Validation.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

8
X. Liu et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103269

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Hubei Key Technologies Research and Development Program (Grant No. 2021AAA006), Hubei
Province Support Enterprise Technology Innovation Development Project (Grant No. 2021BA015), the Special Fund of Hubei Long­
zhong Laboratory of Xiangyang Science and Technology Plan, and the 111 Project (B17034).

References
[1] M. Al-Zareer, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, A thermal performance management system for lithium-ion battery packs, Appl. Therm. Eng. 165 (2020), 114378.
[2] G. Zubi, R. Dufo-López, M. Carvalho, et al., The lithium-ion battery: state of the art and future perspectives, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 89 (2018) 292–308.
[3] Y. Chung, M.S. Kim, Thermal analysis and pack level design of battery thermal management system with liquid cooling for electric vehicles, Energy Convers.
Manag. 196 (2019) 105–116.
[4] A.A. Pesaran, Battery thermal models for hybrid vehicle simulations, J. Power Sources 110 (2) (2002) 377–382.
[5] X. Liu, C.-F. Zhang, J.-G. Zhou, et al., Thermal performance of battery thermal management system using fins to enhance the combination of thermoelectric
Cooler and phase change Material, Appl. Energy 322 (2022), 119503.
[6] W.Q. Li, S.J. Guo, L. Tan, et al., Heat transfer enhancement of nano-encapsulated phase change material (NEPCM) using metal foam for thermal energy storage,
Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 166 (2021), 120737.
[7] P. Zhang, X. Xiao, Z.W. Ma, A review of the composite phase change materials: fabrication, characterization, mathematical modeling and application to
performance enhancement, Appl. Energy 165 (2016) 472–510.
[8] Z. Ling, F. Wang, X. Fang, et al., A hybrid thermal management system for lithium ion batteries combining phase change materials with forced-air cooling, Appl.
Energy 148 (2015) 403–409.
[9] D. Kong, R. Peng, P. Ping, et al., A novel battery thermal management system coupling with PCM and optimized controllable liquid cooling for different ambient
temperatures, Energy Convers. Manag. 204 (2020), 112280.
[10] Y. Zhao, M. Lu, Y. Li, et al., Numerical investigation of an exhaust thermoelectric generator with a perforated plate, Energy. 263 (2023), 125776.
[11] H. Cai, Z. Ye, G. Liu, et al., Sizing optimization of thermoelectric generator for low-grade thermal energy utilization: module level and system level, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 221 (2023), 119823.
[12] S. Lan, R. Stobart, R. Chen, Performance comparison of a thermoelectric generator applied in conventional vehicles and extended-range electric vehicles, Energy
Convers. Manag. 266 (2022), 115791.
[13] M. Ge, Z. Li, Y. Zhao, et al., Experimental study of thermoelectric generator with different numbers of modules for waste heat recovery, Appl. Energy 322
(2022), 119523.
[14] Z.-G. Shen, L.-L. Tian, X. Liu, Automotive exhaust thermoelectric generators: current status, challenges and future prospects, Energy Convers. Manag. 195
(2019) 1138–1173.
[15] D. Ji, S. Hu, Y. Feng, et al., Geometry optimization of solar thermoelectric generator under different operating conditions via Taguchi method, Energy Convers.
Manag. 238 (2021), 114158.
[16] W. Song, F. Bai, M. Chen, et al., Thermal management of standby battery for outdoor base station based on the semiconductor thermoelectric device and phase
change materials, Appl. Therm. Eng. 137 (2018) 203–217.
[17] R. Pakrouh, M.J. Hosseini, A.A. Ranjbar, et al., A novel liquid-based battery thermal management system coupling with phase change material and
thermoelectric cooling, J. Energy Storage 64 (2023), 107098.
[18] L. Jiang, H. Zhang, J. Li, et al., Thermal performance of a cylindrical battery module impregnated with PCM composite based on thermoelectric cooling, Energy.
188 (2019), 116048.
[19] G. Liao, K. Jiang, F. Zhang, et al., Thermal performance of battery thermal management system coupled with phase change material and thermoelectric
elements, J. Energy Storage 43 (2021), 103217.
[20] Y.-W. Gao, C.-L. Shi, X.-D. Wang, Numerical analysis for transient supercooling effect of pulse current shapes on a two-stage thermoelectric cooler, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 163 (2019), 114416.
[21] R.H. Redus, A.C. Huber, J.A. Pantazis, Improved thermoelectrically cooled X/γ-ray detectors and electronics, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 458 (1) (2001)
214–219.
[22] M. Redmond, K. Manickaraj, O. Sullivan, et al., Hotspot cooling in stacked chips using thermoelectric coolers, IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Manuf. Technol. 3
(5) (2013) 759–767.
[23] W.B. Gu, C.Y. Wang, Thermal-electrochemical modeling of battery systems, J. Electrochem. Soc. 147 (8) (2000) 2910.
[24] J. Kang, Y. Jia, G. Zhu, et al., How electrode thicknesses influence performance of cylindrical lithium-ion batteries, J. Energy Storage 46 (2022), 103827.
[25] D. Luo, Y. Yan, Y. Li, et al., A hybrid transient CFD-thermoelectric numerical model for automobile thermoelectric generator systems, Appl. Energy 332 (2023),
120502.
[26] D. Luo, Y. Zhao, Y. Yan, et al., Development of two transient models for predicting dynamic response characteristics of an automobile thermoelectric generator
system, Appl. Therm. Eng. 221 (2023), 119793.
[27] S. Lan, Z. Yang, R. Chen, et al., A dynamic model for thermoelectric generator applied to vehicle waste heat recovery, Appl. Energy 210 (2018) 327–338.
[28] Z. Miao, X. Meng, L. Liu, Analyzing and optimizing the power generation performance of thermoelectric generators based on an industrial environment,
J. Power Sources 541 (2022), 231699.
[29] L. Liu, X. Meng, Z. Miao, et al., Design of a novel thermoelectric module based on application stability and power generation, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 31 (2022),
101836.
[30] https://kryothermtec.com/assets/dir2attz/ru/Rime-74.pdf.