MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124922051 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24034

Impact of mixed convection on flow dynamics and heat transfer through an isotropic porous triangular array of periodic heated/cooled cylinders

2021· article· en· W3124922051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Asif, Amit Dhiman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuoyancyPrandtl numberMechanicsHeat transferHeat transfer coefficientPorosityConvective heat transferThermodynamicsWork (physics)Materials scienceDragPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The effect of aiding and opposing buoyancy (−1 ≤ Ri ≤ 1) on flow and heat transfer across cylinders specifically arranged in an equilateral triangular array in a heat exchanger has not previously been studied. Periodic boundary condition in the transverse direction is imposed where porosity of the array ranges from 0.7 to 0.99. The influence of buoyancy and Prandtl number (1 and 50) on the flow structure and its effect on the overall heat transfer is thoroughly elucidated in the present work. The impact of aiding/opposing buoyancy on the thermal performance of the array is predominant at higher porosities. The average drag of the array of cylinders increases with an increase in the aiding buoyancy and decreases with an increase in opposing buoyancy with respect to forced convection. The porosity of the triangular array has an inverse relation with the average drag coefficient, barring few exceptions which are explained in detail in the present work. The heat exchange is assertively higher at opposing‐buoyancy cases for all values of porosity and Prandtl number. The present results are in agreement with the available experimental/numerical studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicHeat and Mass Transfer in Porous MediaFrench-language works237,207