Buoyancy effects on upward and downward laminar mixed convection heat and mass transfer in a vertical channel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The objective of the present study is to investigate numerically the effects of thermal and buoyancy forces on both upward flow (UF) and downward flow (DF) of air in a vertical parallel‐plates channel. The plates are wetted by a thin liquid water film and maintained at a constant temperature lower than that of the air entering the channel. Design/methodology/approach The solution of the elliptical PDE modeling the flow field is based on the finite volume method. Findings Results show that buoyancy forces have an important effect on heat and mass transfers. Cases with evaporation and condensation have been investigated for both UF and DF. It has been established that the heat transfer associated with these phase changes (i.e. latent heat transfer) may be more or less important compared with sensible heat transfer. The importance of these transfers depends on the temperature and humidity conditions. On the other hand, flow reversal has been predicted for an UF with a relatively high temperature difference between the incoming air and the walls. Originality/value Contrary to most studies in channel heat and mass transfer with phase change, the mathematical model considers the full elliptical Navier‐Stokes equations. This allows one to compute situations of flow reversal.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".