MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influence of flow attack angle on the heat transfer and pressure drop of hook-shaped fins and dimples

2025· article· en· W4412847730 on OpenAlexafffund
Karim Alrefaey, John Swift, Roger Kempers

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsAlberta EnergyYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPressure dropDimpleMaterials scienceMechanicsHeat transferHookFlow (mathematics)Mechanical engineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thermal – hydraulic performance of pin fin arrays can be adjusted to suit specific applications by altering the flow attack angle to reduce pumping power or improve heat transfer. This study investigates the effect of attack angle on hook-shaped pins and dimples. Numerical simulations were carried out to quantify the effect of attack angles ( α ) ranging from 0° to 90° in increments of 22.5° Water served as the working fluid, and the analysis spanned Reynolds numbers ( Re ) from 600 to 5000. The thermal performance of the array was evaluated using the average Nusselt number ( Nu avg ), hydraulic performance was assessed via the average friction coefficient ( f avg ), and the combined thermal-hydraulic performance relative to a bare surface was quantified by the overall thermal performance ( η o ). Results demonstrate that introducing an attack angle significantly enhances the thermal performance of the array. Specifically, an α of 22.5° led to a 44 % improvement in Nu avg at Re = 5000. Furthermore, certain configurations, such as α = 45°, 67.5°, and 90°, simultaneously improved heat transfer and reduced pressure drop. The findings demonstrate the potential of optimizing the array’s orientation for specific applications to enhance performance without increasing pumping power and, in some cases, to even reduce it.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Heat and Mass TransferSame topicHeat Transfer MechanismsFrench-language works237,207