MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293115981 · doi:10.11159/htff22.178

Ansys Mechanical Automation using Python for the Steady State Thermal Analysis of Fins

2022· article· en· W4293115981 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Shaimi, Rabha Khatyr, Jâafar Khalid Naciri

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre National pour la Recherche Scientifique et Technique
KeywordsPython (programming language)AutomationThermalModelicaComputer scienceMechanical engineeringThermal analysisState of artMaterials scienceEngineeringSimulationProgramming languagePhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical investigation of the heat transfer enhancement through fins using the Ansys Mechanical solver is presented. Results are given for a uniform fin with elliptical cross-sections and uniform heat flux applied on its base while heat is dissipated to its surroundings by convection from both its lateral surface and tip. The peak temperature at the base of the fin is used to evaluate the thermal performance. Ansys Mechanical solver is automated using Python scripting to run 792 simulations for various materials, fin lengths, and ratios between the minor and major axes of the elliptical cross-sectional shape for both cases of natural and forced convection. The use of the original automated numerical procedure significantly decreases the computational time and the user intervention. It was found that the thermal performance is improved by increasing the length of the fin, using a material with higher thermal conductivity, or having a ratio between the minor and major axes of the ellipse that is farther from unity. Forced convection gives better thermal performance compared to natural convection.

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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicHeat Transfer and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207