Experimental Investigation Into the Influence of Varying Stagger on the Performance of a Pin-Fin Array
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A six row pin-fin array was constructed with a spanwise spacing of 2.5 diameters, streamwise spacing of 1.5 diameters and a height to diameter ratio of 1. The streamwise stagger of alternate rows was continuously varied from fully in-line to fully staggered. Tests were carried out at Reynolds numbers of 2.7 × 104 and 2.3 × 104, corresponding to maximum velocities, in the low subsonic range, of 21 m/s and 18 m/s respectively. These results showed that the array averaged heat transfer was greatest from a fully staggered array and had a minimum at a stagger slightly greater than fully in-line. However, with increasing stagger, the array-averaged friction factor grew at a greater rate than the heat transfer. The ensuing analysis of the total array performance, considering both the magnitude of heat transfer and the losses within the array, showed that the fully in-line array had the highest ratio of heat transfer enhancement to friction factor enhancement. Therefore, if pressure loss was a design criterion, the fully in-line array was preferable. However, if pressure loss was not a constraint, then the staggered array was preferable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".