Heat Transfer and Entropy Generation in Concentric/Eccentric Double-Pipe Helical Heat Exchangers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Double-pipe helical heat exchangers are integral to contemporary mechanical refrigeration equipment. Modification of flow geometry has been widely adopted to enhance heat transfer performance of a heat exchanger. The objective of this study is to numerically investigate heat transfer and entropy generation in a double pipe helical heat exchanger with various cross-sections. A computational model for laminar convective heat transfer was developed and validated against the results from previously published literature. To capture entropy generation, the entropy balance equation for open system is adopted. Effect of inner pipe Dean number, inner pipe and annulus inlet mass flow rate ratio, eccentricity, and flow configuration (co-flow and counter-flow) were examined and discussed in light of computational results. To ensure fair comparison, the considered geometries have same inner pipe cross-section area, same annulus cross-section area, and same outer surface area of inner pipe. The results suggest that square cross-section offers best performance in term of heat transfer, pressure drop and entropy generation. In addition, concentric configuration is more appropriate for low flow rate application while eccentric outer configuration is more suitable for high flow rate application.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".