Transient Operation of Sensible Fixed-Bed Regenerators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fixed-bed regenerator is a type of air-to-air energy exchanger and recently introduced for energy recovery application in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems because of their high heat transfer effectiveness. The testing of fixed-bed regenerators (FBRs) is essential for performance evaluation and product development. American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) recently included guidelines for testing of FBRs in their respective test standards. The experiments on FBRs are challenging as they never attain a steady-state condition, rather undergoes a quasi-steady-state operation. Before reaching the quasi-steady state, FBRs undergo several transient cycles. Hence, the test standards recommend getting measurements after one hour of operation, assuming FBR attains the quasi-steady state regardless of test conditions. However, the exact duration of the initial transient cycles is unknown and not yet studied so far. Hence, in this paper, the duration of FBR’s transient operation is investigated for a wide range of design and operating conditions. The test standards’ recommendation for the transient duration is also verified. The major contributions of this paper are (i) quantifying the effect of design parameters (NTUo and Cr*) on the duration of transient operation and (ii) the investigation of the effect of sensor time constant on the transient temperature measurements. The results will be useful to predict and understand the transient behavior of FBRs accurately.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".