Influence of Plate Geometry on Sensible Effectiveness of Fixed-Bed Regenerators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fixed-bed regenerator (FBR) is one type of air-to-air energy exchanger used to reduce the energy consumption in HVAC systems. Use of corrugated plates is one way to improve the heat transfer performance of FBRs. In this study, the sensible effectiveness and average heat transfer coefficient of an FBR with corrugated plates are compared with that of an FBR with parallel plates. The effectiveness of corrugated plate FBR is experimentally evaluated in a small-scale test facility. A validated numerical model is used to predict the performance of the parallel plate FBR. The average heat transfer coefficient of corrugated FBR is determined from the measured data and Kays and London regenerator correlation. The heat transfer coefficient and effectiveness of corrugated plate FBR are 150% and 37% higher than that of parallel pate FBR at a Reynolds number of 1450. Results from the present study can be used to design FBRs and evaluate their effectiveness for a range of Reynolds numbers from 500 to 1450.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".