MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055925300 · doi:10.1115/icmm2004-2332

Flow and Heat Transfer in a Simple Minichannel System Involving Two Straight Sections Separated by a 180° Bend

2004· article· en· W2055925300 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick H. Oosthuizen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Optimization
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanicsDimensionless quantityPrandtl numberReynolds numberOpen-channel flowBend radiusHeat transferRADIUSDuct (anatomy)GeometryPhysicsMaterials scienceHeat fluxFlow (mathematics)ThermodynamicsMathematicsTurbulenceBending

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steady, incompressible flow through a basic minichannel system has been considered. Slip at the wall has been assumed to be negligible. The channel has a rectangular cross-section. The flow enters the channel with a uniform velocity and temperature and passes through a straight channel section that has a length that is 30 times the width of the channel. The flow then passes around a 180° bend. Following the bend, the flow passes down another straight channel which also has a length of 30 times the size of the channel. A uniform heat flux is applied over the entire surface of the duct. The flow geometry does not represent any that is likely to occur in minichannel system applications but is adequate for the evaluation of the assumptions often adopted regarding pressure losses, flow development lengths and heat transfer rates in the preliminary design real such systems. The governing equations have been written in dimensionless form and solutions to these equations have obtained using a commercial finite-element software package, FIDAP. The solution has the following parameters: the Reynolds number, Re, the Prandtl number, Pr, the dimensionless height-to-width ratio of the channel H = h / w, and the dimensionless radius of the bend Ri = ri / w. Here w is the width of the channel, h is the height of the channel and ri is the radius of the inside surface of the bend. Results are only presented for P r = 0.7 and Ri = 1. Re values between 10 and 500 and H values between 0.5 and 2 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHeat Transfer and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207