MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789321111 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23150

An automatic refrigerant circuit generation method for finned‐tube heat exchangers

2018· article· en· W2789321111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiwen Cen, Jianyao Hu, Fangming Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefrigerantHeat exchangerElectronic circuitComputer scienceTube (container)Electromagnetic coilMicro heat exchangerMechanical engineeringSimulationEngineeringPlate heat exchangerElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Design of finned‐tube heat exchangers or coils, and in particular their refrigerant circuits, depends primarily on experimental data and the associated development cost is in general rather high. Taking into consideration the high number of possible refrigerant circuits, the input of each circuit into a particular design computational tool would be a very time‐consuming operation. In the present work, we present a model to automatically generate refrigerant circuits for finned‐tube heat exchangers based on a recursive algorithm. The model assumes that a tube is only connected to those that are in its neighbourhood. In this way the total number of connecting bend tubes is a minimum and, as a consequence, material usage is at its lowest level. In addition, a finned‐tube heat exchanger performance simulation model is developed to evaluate the performance of a finned‐tube heat exchanger with the automatically generated circuit. This simulation model can handle arbitrary refrigerant circuits and it is sufficiently user‐friendly to allow the easy inclusion of new features. In addition, it can simulate coil performance by analyzing the coil into uneven length elements and by considering non‐uniform air distribution at minimal computational cost. The simulation results of the model have a maximum ±10 % error compared with experimental data, most within ±5 % deviation of the experimental data. The automatically generated circuits are evaluated on the basis of the heat exchanger performance simulation results. This combined feature has the potential of being a powerful tool in designing finned‐tube heat exchangers.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicHeat Transfer and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207