MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412699887 · doi:10.11159/ffhmt25.171

Computational Study of Melting and Solidification in a Prototype Four-pass Thermal Storage Module

2025· article· en· W4412699887 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Luca Crnjac, Kamran Siddiqui, Anthony G. Straatman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... International Conference on Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Change Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThermalThermal energy storageMaterials scienceComputer scienceNuclear engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineeringThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A computational study is presented that utilizes the enthalpy-porosity model in ANSYS-Fluent to predict melting and solidification for the base case of a simple four-pass thermal storage module containing a paraffin phase change material.The prototype module is a rectangular prism of square cross-section oriented vertically with four stainless steel tubes passing through it for passage of a heat transfer fluid (HTF).The computational model was calibrated in a previous study and was utilized with the properties provided for the PCM.Comparisons between the computed results and experimental results reported previously for the same module show that the enthalpy-porosity model predicts the flow, the interface structure and the melting time reasonably well.The same model predicts the evolution of the interface structure during solidification reasonably well but over-predicts the solidification time by more than double.This implies that calibration must be done for both processes to capture the impacts of the different interface structure and the impact that temperature gradient and interface evolution have on processes and thermophysical properties.Comparisons of the outlet temperatures during melting were also reasonably well predicted in terms of trend and value.In its current form, the model is useful for the development of heat transfer elements that consider enhancements to shorten charging (melting) times of the module.The results of this study are a baseline from which enhancements in terms of HTF flowrate and heat transfer elements can be compared.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... International Conference on Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass TransferSame topicPhase Change Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207