MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984647657 · doi:10.1243/09544070jauto1125

Comparison of the effect of soot deposition on the flow and thermal characteristics of finned-plate-type and shell-and-tube-type exhaust gas recirculation cooling devices

2009· article· en· W1984647657 on OpenAlexaff
Fraser Charles, D. Ewing, James S. Cotton, Ihab Gerges, J-S. Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSootReynolds numberHeat exchangerMechanicsMaterials scienceTube (container)Exhaust gas recirculationShell and tube heat exchangerDeposition (geology)Friction factorDiesel fuelExhaust gasThermodynamicsChemistryComposite materialPhysicsTurbulenceCombustion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments were conducted to characterize the effect that diesel soot deposition has on the operational characteristics of a finned-plate-type compact exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) cooling device for Reynolds numbers from approximately 900 to 1200, typical of the values used in EGR applications. The results show that the Colburn j factor did not change significantly during diesel exhaust gas exposure for 5h at the lower Reynolds number, but the j factor and friction factor changed by 30–40 per cent during exposure for 5h at the Reynolds number of 1200. The Colburn j factor and friction factor for the plate-type device changed more slowly than those results for shell-and-tube heat exchangers at Reynolds numbers of 7000–9000, typical of the values used for these devices in EGR applications. Thus, the results show that the finned-plate-type compact heat exchanger operational characteristics should be less affected by soot deposition than the shell-and-tube devices in EGR applications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207