Melting and solidification performance in two horizontal <scp>shell‐and‐tube</scp> heat exchangers with different structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a critical problem of latent heat thermal energy storage remains the low thermal conductivity of phase change materials (PCMs), which can lead to low heat transfer rate. Structural optimization design is an effective solution for this problem. In this work, two horizontal shell-and-tube heat exchangers (HEs) with one inner tube (n = 1) and four inner tubes (n = 4) are designed keeping the same amount of PCM and water flow rate, and their melting and solidification thermal performance and heat transfer characteristics are compared. The results show that in comparison with one-inner-tube HE, the temperature of detected points are affected by both upper and lower inner tubes for four-inner-tube HE, thus the differences in phase change process appear. In addition, the phase change time reduction rates are 34.1%, 33.39%, 28.82% at Tin (inlet water temperature) = 75°C, 80°C, 85°C during charging process, and 17.2%, 27.69%, 36.67% at Tin = 10°C, 15°C, 20°C during discharging process, respectively. In comparison with the one-inner-tube HE, the theoretical efficiency of four-inner-tube HE is increased from 75.88% to 90.34%. Although more friction loss should be paid by four-inner-tube HE, a lower energy consumption and a higher heat-energy ratio are achieved. Based on the results of this study, the amount of cumulative heat per energy consumption is 1.52 × 108 and 2.88 × 108 for one-inner-tube and four-inner-tube HE, respectively.
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".