MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998900533 · doi:10.1115/imece2002-39559

The Heat Transfer Characteristics of Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Cooling Devices

2002· article· en· W1998900533 on OpenAlexaff
Basel I. Ismail, R. Zhang, D. Ewing, James S. Cotton, J.S. Chang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Optimization
Canadian institutionsDana (Canada)McMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoolantMaterials sciencePressure dropMechanicsVolumetric flow rateInletHeat transferThermodynamicsMass flow rateExhaust gas recirculationHeat exchangerExhaust gasNuclear engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A one-dimensional steady state model was developed to predict the heat transfer performance of a shell (liquid)-and-tube (gas) heat exchanger used as a cooling device for exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) application where there is a significant temperature drop across the device. The predictions of the model results were compared with experimental measurements and the trends were found to be in good agreement for most of the transitional and turbulent regimes. The results showed that the exit gas temperature increases with increasing gas mass flow rate at fixed gas inlet temperature and coolant flow rate. It was also found that the exit gas temperature was essentially independent of the coolant flow rate for the typical operating range but did depend on the coolant inlet temperature. It was observed that the pressure drop across the cooling device was not a strong function of the gas inlet temperature. The heat-transfer effectiveness of the cooling device was found to slightly depend on the gas mass flow rate and inlet gas temperature. A preliminary analysis showed that fouling in the EGR cooling device can have a significant effect on both the thermal and hydraulic performance of the cooling device.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHeat Transfer and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207