On the Hydrothermal Behavior of Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in a Helical Double-Tube Heat Exchanger with Curved Swirl Generator; Impacts of Length and Position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hydrothermal behavior in a helical double-tube heat exchanger is numerically estimated. A new type of swirl generator with two sections, including; outer curved blades and a semi-conical section with two holes in the inner section, is employed. Two geometrical factors, containing the length (L1) and the position of the swirl generator (S), are used for investigation. The calculations were performed by a commercial FVM code, ANSYS FLUENT 18.2. The numerical outcomes show that a shorter length of the swirl generator leads to a better hydrothermal behavior. Accordingly, the model with L1 = 100 mm at m˙ = 0.008 kg/s achieves the maximum thermal performance by about 17.65, 53.85, and 100% enhancement compared to the models L1 = 200, 300 mm, and without swirl generator. Among the different studied positions of the swirl generator, the maximum heat transfer coefficient and average Nusselt number in entire mass flow rates belong to the case with position S = 0.3π mm. Moreover, the thermal performance of the case with S = 0.3π mm is higher than cases with S = 0.1π mm, S = 0.5π mm, and without swirl generator by about 11.11, 53.84, and 100%, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".