Interaction of Heat Transfer Enhancement and Fouling in Operating Heat Exchangers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions of heat transfer enhancement and fouling can occur due the change in nature of the surface, operating condition, or the fluid itself. Interactions arising relating to higher clean heat transfer coefficients, and higher wall shear stresses of the enhanced surfaces are discussed in this paper. On the lab-scale, enhancement was often achieved by static elements, such as wire wrapping on a heated rod in an annular flow. Lab-scale tests of necessity suffered from effects of relatively short duration of runs, and re-circulation of a batch of liquid with the danger of changing the fluid composition during experiment. Nevertheless, initial fouling rate results consistent with expected trends could be achieved for hydrocarbon fouling, and particulate fouling. There is a continued need to better represent and compare performance of plain and enhanced surfaces over prolonged operating periods in industrial heat exchangers, using commercial enhancement technologies. Example case studies are discussed which demand different methods of comparing performances. A daily averaged cost analysis is identified as a possible systematic approach on the evaluation of the economic benefit of the use of enhancement devices. This is illustrated for a case study example where tube insert is used as an enhancement option.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".