Thermal-Hydraulic Behaviour Comparison of Two Novel Lattice Structures with Simple Cubic BCC Lattice Structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additively manufactured lattice structures have the potential to replace traditional fins in heat exchangers. In this study, two new lattice structures with different strut diameters are modelled (namely TYPE-A, TYPE-B, TYPE-C, TYPE-D) and numerically compared with a simple cubic BCC (SC-BCC) lattice structure. The results show that all the lattice structures outperform SC-BCC lattice structure in terms of heat transfer. However, they also exhibit a higher pressure drop than SC-BCC lattice. Although the TYPE-A lattice has the highest lattice heat transfer coefficient, due to its lower fin efficiency, it exhibits less heat transfer than the TYPE-D lattice. TYPE-B lattice, which is a modified version of the TYPE-A lattice, shows less heat transfer and pressure drop. To identify the lattice structure with the best thermal-hydraulic behaviour, area goodness factor of each lattice structure is evaluated. The results reveal that TYPE-A lattice has an area goodness factor almost 50% higher than the SC-BCC lattice. This indicates that TYPE-A lattice structure is better suited for heat transfer applications where high heat transfer is required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".