MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323540113 · doi:10.1007/s42452-023-05327-6

Numerical investigation of nanofluid heat transfer in the wall cooling panels of an electric arc steelmaking furnace

2023· article· en· W4323540113 on OpenAlexaff
Milad Babadi Soultanzadeh, Mojtaba Haratian, Babak Mehmandoust, Alireza Moradi

Bibliographic record

VenueSN Applied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanofluidCoolantMaterials scienceSteelmakingHeat transferThermalWater coolingElectric arc furnaceHeat fluxElectric arcMechanicsComputational fluid dynamicsVolumetric flow rateNuclear engineeringComposite materialMetallurgyMechanical engineeringThermodynamicsElectrodeEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wall cooling panels are typically a kind of electric arc furnace equipment that has precisely influence on different aspects of the steelmaking process. This investigation employs a CFD method to evaluate the thermal performance of water cooling panels in real operating conditions to validate the numerical method followed by replacing cooling water with Al 2 O 3 /Water nanofluid coolant. The results are revealed that the high rate of receiving heat flux and generated vortexes with low-velocity cores lead to hot spots inducing on bends and elbows. In the operating flow rate, the maximum temperature of the hot-side wall decrease by 14.4% through increasing the nanoparticle concentration up to 5%, where the difference between maximum temperature and average temperature on the hot-side decrease to 12 degrees. According to the results, use of nanofluid coolant is a promising method to fade the hot spots out on the hot-side and gifting a lower and smoother temperature distribution on the panel walls of thereby prolonging the usage period of panels.

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)0.001
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSN Applied SciencesSame topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207