Numerical Investigation of Subcooled Boiling Heat Transfer in Helically-Coiled Tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subcooled boiling heat transfer in helically-coiled tubes offers better heat transfer performance than any other types of boiling processes due to its ability to capture high heat flux with a relatively low wall superheat. This study investigates turbulent subcooled forced convection boiling performances of water-vapour in a helically-coiled tube with various operating conditions i.e. operating pressure, heat, and mass flux. Developed CFD model is validated against previously published experimental results using the RPI model. The model is developed based on the Eulerian-Eulerian framework coupled with k-ε RNG turbulence model and Standard Wall-Function. A good agreement is found between numerical prediction and experimental counterpart for the bulk fluid temperature and non-dimensional length. The result indicates that the subcooled boiling heat transfer in a helically-coiled tube tends to improve heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop in the domain. Subcooled boiling starts at the inner side of the helically-coiled tube (f=9900) due to the existence of secondary flow that comes from the coil curvature. Heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop increased with increasing heat flux and decreasing mass flux, and operating pressure. This is caused by the bubble movement and convective heat transfer phenomena in a helically-coiled tube. Finally, this study can provide a guideline for future research of the subcooled boiling in a helically-coiled tube.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".