Secondary Flow Effects in a Trapizoidal Minichannel Flow System Involving Two Straight Sections Separated by a 180° Bend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the flow in a minichannel passes around a bend, secondary flows can develop which can affect the flow, pressure drop and heat transfer rate in the bend and in the flow upstream and downstream of the bend. In order to investigate these effects in more detail attention has been given to flow in a simple minichannel system in which the flow enters the system with a uniform velocity and temperature and passes through a straight channel that has a length that is 10 times the size of the channel. The flow then passes around a rounded 180° bend. Following the bend, the flow passes down another straight channel which also has a length of 10 times the size of the channel. A uniform heat flux is applied over the entire surface of the channel. The channel has a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape. It has been assumed that the flow is steady and incompressible and that there is no slip at the channel walls. The governing equations have been written in dimensionless form and solved using a commercial finite-element based software package, FIDAP. The solution has the following parameters: the Reynolds number, the Prandtl number, the dimensionless radius of the bend and the ratio of the bottom-to-top widths of the channel. Results will only be presented for a Prandtl number 0.7 for Reynolds numbers of between 10 and 500 for various dimensionless bend radii and various bottom-to-top channel width ratios. The major concern in this work is with the extent of the influence of the secondary flow on the flow in the straight channel sections upstream and downstream of the bend. The effect of the channel shape and of the dimensionless channel corner radius on the pressure distributions and on the dimensionless wall temperature distributions, in the straight channel sections in particular, have been considered.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".