Numerical Study of the Effect of Plane Blind Side Gap Size on the Heat Transfer Rate From a Recessed Window to a Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heat transfer from a window recessed into a wall when there is a plane blind mounted over the window, the blind being in the same plane as the wall, has been considered. In such situations the blind is sometimes narrower than the window, i.e., there are gaps between the vertical edges of the blind and the vertical edges of the wall window opening. In the present study the effect of the size of the blind edge gaps on the window heat transfer has been numerically investigated. Conditions under which the flow over the window-blind system is laminar and under which it is turbulent have been considered. The present study, as in many previous window heat transfer studies, has only considered the convective heat transfer from the window to the surrounding room. The flow has been assumed to be steady and symmetrical about the window-blind vertical center-plane. The Boussinesq approach has been used and it has been assumed that the “window”, which is modeled as a plane surface, is at a uniform temperature. Attention has been restricted to the case where the window is at a higher temperature than the temperature of the room air, this room air being assumed to be at a uniform temperature far from the window. The solution has been obtained by numerically solving the governing equations using the commercial CFD solver FLUENT©. The k-epsilon turbulence model has been used in obtaining the solution. Results have only been obtained for a Prandtl number of 0.74, i.e., effectively the value for air. The effect of the dimensionless size of the blind side gaps on the window Nusselt number has been studied for various Rayleigh numbers; the results being used to determine under what conditions the blind side openings have a significant effect on the window heat transfer rate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".