MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416296753 · doi:10.1002/cjce.70153

Investigate effect of the pitch and helical fins height on the hydrothermal performance of the double‐pipe heat exchanger

2025· article· en· W4416296753 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Basim Freegah, Ammar A. Hussain Al‐Taee, Dhamyaa S. Khudhur, Zahraa. Khudhair

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat Transfer and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNusselt numberFinHeat exchangerPrandtl numberReynolds numberHeat transferFriction factorAnnular fin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study explores the impact of pitch and helical fin height on the hydrothermal performance of a two‐tube heat exchanger. Both numerical and experimental analyses were employed to investigate how different fin geometries influence pressure drop, heat transfer efficiency, and overall system performance. Six new models, denoted as Models B to G, featuring various helical fin configurations with distinct heights and angles using smooth copper plate fins, were developed alongside the traditional model (Model A), while maintaining the tube specifications of Model A. The findings demonstrate that helical fin angle and height play a significant role in shaping the thermal and hydrodynamic characteristics of the heat exchanger. Optimal fin configurations were identified to enhance heat transfer effectiveness while minimizing pressure losses, offering valuable insights for the design of efficient two‐tube helical fin heat exchangers and underscoring the importance of geometric parameters in enhancing hydrothermal performance. The evaluation of the seven models under consistent conditions revealed notable enhancements. For instance, Model D exhibited a Nusselt number 56.5% higher than the conventional model, while Model F displayed a 51.84% increase. Models D and F achieved variation coefficients in the overall performance factor (OPF) of 1.63 and 1.12, respectively, surpassing the traditional model. Additionally, two equations derived from multiple regression analysis were formulated to establish relationships between the Nusselt number and friction factor with parameters such as the Reynolds number, Prandtl number, and fin pitch/height ratio.

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 score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicHeat Transfer and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207