MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323041773 · doi:10.18280/mmep.100109

Numerical Study of the Effect of Air Bubble Location on the PCM Melting Process in a Rectangular Cavity

2023· article· en· W4323041773 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abbas Fadhil Khalaf, Farhan Lafta Rashid, Ali Basem, Mohammed H. Abbas

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubbleMechanicsProcess (computing)Materials scienceAir bubbleMechanical engineeringPhysicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The technique of phase change thermal storage is an effective solution to overcoming the problem of a mismatch between the supply of energy and the demand for it. In this work, a numerical investigation of the influence of an air bubble placement on the paraffin wax melting (PCM) inside of a rectangular cavity is described. The PCM refers to the melting of paraffin wax. In order to conduct a numerical investigation of the research, the enthalpy-porosity combination (the ANSYS / FLUENT 16 program) is used. For the purpose of this experiment, phase change materials for paraffin wax are being used (RT58). As a result of examining several locations of the air bubble (top, center, and bottom) in the rectangular cavity, this paper investigates the influence of air bubbles on the dissolution process and heat transfer. Additionally, the paper investigates the influence of air bubbles on the amount of time that it takes for paraffin wax to melt. When compared to the presence of air bubbles in the center, the presence of air bubbles at the bottom and top of the solution has resulted in a 7% reduction in the amount of time needed to complete the process of dissolution. It has been shown that the presence of air bubbles naturally advances the dissolving process, and it has also been demonstrated that the dissolution process will be accelerated when it is known that the volume of PCMs is greater since it includes the volume of air bubbles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207