Material selection and manufacturing for high‐temperature heat exchangers: Review of state‐of‐the‐art development, opportunities, and challenges
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many energy systems demand heat transfer at high temperatures to keep up with high demand for power, so high‐temperature material that can perform and last under these harsh conditions is needed for heat exchangers. The engineering requirements for these high‐temperature heat exchanger material call for high thermal conductivity, high resistance to fracture, high resistance to creep deformation, environmental stability in environments associated with the application, and high modulus of elasticity while maintaining low cost to make and maintain. Naturally, ceramics are a good solution for this endeavor. In the past, high‐temperature heat exchangers made from ceramics have been used. We provide examples of ceramics in relevant heat exchange applications and provide motivation where additive manufacturing (AM) can improve efficiency. AM for the relevant material is under development, and we provide insight on the AM of ceramic materials and examples of AM heat exchangers keeping cost in mind. The motivation of the review paper is to provide a framework for material and manufacturing selection for high‐temperature heat exchangers for AM to keep up with the demand for better efficiency, better material, better manufacturing, and cost moving forward with AM technology in high‐temperature ceramic heat exchangers.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it