MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283592302 · doi:10.11159/ehst22.137

Solidification Process inside a Novel Toroidal Tube Heat Exchanger

2022· article· en· W4283592302 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Reza Mohaghegh, Mohaghegh Bozorgi, Kasra Ghasemi, Syeda Humaira Tasnim, Shohel Mahmud

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference of Energy Harvesting, Storage, and Transfer · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCrystallization and Solubility Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeat exchangerToroidTube (container)Process (computing)Materials scienceMechanicsShell and tube heat exchangerMechanical engineeringComputer scienceNuclear engineeringPhysicsEngineeringComposite materialOperating systemPlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concentric tube and shell and tube latent heat exchangers filled with phase change material (PCM) in the tube part are interesting latent heat thermal energy storage (LHTES) systems that have attracted researchers' attention due to high energy storage density during the charging (melting) and discharging (solidification) processes. Inadequate phase change process reduces the thermal performance of LHTES systems. An effective design can facilitate and accelerate the phase change process. In this study, a novel toroidal shape is proposed for the inner part of the heat exchanger (tube) and the solidification process inside this tube is investigated. A mathematical model based on the enthalpy-porosity approach is developed and numerically solved by finite volume method to simulate the energy transport processes inside the system. The progression of the discharging process is also numerically visualized. Several transient heat transfer characteristics, e.g., thermal filed, solid fraction, average temperature, and energy released during solidification, are determined and depicted.

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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference of Energy Harvesting, Storage, and TransferSame topicCrystallization and Solubility StudiesFrench-language works237,207