Influence of a curved conical turbulator on heat transfer augmentation in a helical double‐pipe heat exchanger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The rate of heat transfer in helical pipes is much more than straight pipes. In the present study, heat transfer and fluid flow in a double‐coil heat exchanger with an innovative swirl generator with a curved structure in the inner channel (hot side) are studied, numerically. The proposed turbulator has a curved structure and 12 blades to produce swirl flows. Also, two holes are considered at the semi‐conical part of the turbulator. The effects of geometrical parameters of the proposed turbulator including the inner radius of the turbulator and the radius of the turbulator's holes are evaluated. Results indicate that the maximum effectiveness belongs to the case with inner diameter of the turbulator and radius of turbulator' holes equal to 19 and 3.6 mm, respectively, at . Also, the generated swirl flows by the turbulator has a significant influence on heat transfer augmentation. Furthermore, a high inner radius of the turbulator leads to an increase in heat transfer rate and effectiveness, consequently. As a result, by increasing the inner radius of turbulator by 26.7%, the effectiveness rises by 80% (maximum at = 0.008 kg/s). Increasing the radius of turbulator's hole by 133.34% leads to an growth in effectiveness of about 50% (maximum at = 0.058 kg/s).
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".