Comparison of Fluid Flow and Thermal Characteristics of Sequential and Simultaneous Crossflow Heat Exchangers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In current research, forced convective heat transfer performance of sequential and simultaneous heat exchanger modules are numerically investigated. The both modules of heat exchangers are identical in height, frontal area, and volume. The simulations have been conducted on serpentine finned heat exchangers in air-to-liquid crossflow orientation. ANSYS FLUENT, a widely used finite volume method based commercial code has been used in the numerical simulations. The heat transfer is concurrently obtained for single phase automatic transmission fluid (ATF) and 50-50 ethylene glycol-water mixture (EG). In liquid-side, the inlet temperature of ATF and EG have been kept constant at 150C and 105C respectively. For both the sequential and the simultaneous orientations, ATF and EG at various mass flow rates within a laminar flow regime have been cooled by air with inlet constant temperature of 25C and velocity of 6.3 m/s. Heat transfer and flow parameters, including approach temperature, heat transfer rate, heat transfer coefficient, effectiveness, and pressure drop have been predicted for the both heat exchanger modules. For a given Reynolds number, simultaneous module predicts significant enhancement of heat transfer rate as well as heat transfer coefficient than that of the conventional sequential module. The liquid-side pressure drop in simultaneous module is predicted significantly higher than that of the sequential module which necessitates a more powerful pump for potential applications. However, difference in the airside pressure drop between the two modules is predicted to be insignificant.
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) | 0.001 | 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".