MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178107058 · doi:10.1115/ajkfluids2015-22239

Study of the Melting Behavior in a PCM-Based Thermal Energy Storage

2015· article· en· W2178107058 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Khairul Bashar, Kamran Siddiqui

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Change Materials Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhase-change materialThermal energy storageLatent heatMaterials scienceHeat transferEnergy storageThermodynamicsThermalThermal energySensible heatRenewable energyConvectionMechanicsElectrical engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermal energy storages are becoming important due to their significance in energy conservation as well as for the uninterrupted supply of thermal energy from renewable energy sources. The latent heat-based thermal energy storage systems utilizing phase change material (PCM) are gaining much attention due to some inherent advantages compared to sensible heat-based storage systems. However, the heat transfer process associated with the phase change in a PCM is complex and not well understood. In the present study, the melting process in a PCM-based thermal storage is experimentally studied. Two different configurations of the heat source were considered; horizontal and U-tube heat sources. The results show that the heat source shape has a significant influence on the solid to liquid phase change process (melting). The results also show that for the horizontal heat source configuration, the solid-liquid interface has a wavy profile, which is attributed to the convective cells in the melted domain of the PCM. These convective cells also influence the heat transfer coefficient, which decreased with an increase in the melted fraction. In U-tube configuration, the heat is non-uniformly transferred to the PCM domain.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhase Change Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207