The latent heat recovery from boiler exhaust flue gas using shell and corrugated tube heat exchanger: A numerical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The excessively increasing environmental concerns along with reducing fossil fuel resources introduce the trend of increasing the efficiency of boiler via implementing waste heat recovery. In the present study, the potential of latent heat recovery is investigated in the middle‐size boiler exhaust flue gas using the shell and corrugated tube heat exchanger. The main purpose of the present study is efficiency growth in flue gases using latent heat recovery of the steam energy. The heat recovery analysis is evaluated by a validated computational fluid dynamics model by a commercial software. For this study, the effect of different tube arrangements, number of tubes, and flow direction in the shell on heat transfer and pressure drop were investigated. The results showed that in‐line arrangement of the tubes in the shell presents better thermal performance and also high pressure drop among the other arrangements. As a result, by considering the thermal performance and pressure drop, radial arrangement shows higher performance. According to the obtained results from Section 2 of the present study, by considering the radial arrangement of tubes in the shell, as the number of tube rises, the thermal performance declines.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".