Multi-Jet Impingement Heat Transfer With a Dimple-Pimple Patterned Jet Plate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of the present study is the evaluation of the heat transfer difference between a novel jet plate configuration and a conventional flat jet orifice plate. Physical mechanisms that lead to a change in Nusselt number when comparing both configurations are discussed in two regions: impingement and crossflow. In the presented work, both plates with identical inline arrays of (20 × 26) circular air jets impinging orthogonally on a flat target comprised of 20 segments parallel to the jet orifice plates, are studied. The first is a staggered configuration of a pimple-dimple (convex-concave) plate. This plate features two jet diameters: (a) 4.63 mm emanating from negative sphere of 14.63 mm in radius inward imprint; (b) 2.19 mm emanating from a positive sphere of 17.07 mm in radius, protruding from the base of the plate. The second jet plate is flat, which serves as a baseline for the heat transfer study. This plate has a constant jet orifice diameters of 3.49 mm, found based on the definition of total average open area of the first plate (NPR configuration). Heat transfer characteristics and turbulent flow structures are investigated over jet-averaged Reynolds numbers (Reav,j) of 5,000, 7,000, and 9,000. Jet-to-plate distance (Z/Dj) is varied between (2.4 – 6.0) jet diameters. A numerical study is carried out to compare various turbulence models (κε-EB, κε-Lag EB, κε-v2f, κω-SST, RST). Numerical simulations are analyzed in detail to explain the underlying mechanism of heat transfer enhancement, related to such geometries. The convex-concaved plate yields lower globally-averaged heat transfer coefficients when compared to a flat jet plate in the impingement region. However, enhancement up to 23% is seen in the crossflow region, where the crossflow effects are dominant in a maximum-crossflow configuration.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".