Cited by 44Heat Transfer and OptimizationRefrigeration and Air Conditioning TechnologiesIcing and De-icing Technologies

Numerical prediction of frost properties and performance of fin–tube heat exchanger with plain fin under frosting

Hwang, Jieun, Cho, Keumnam·2014·International Journal of Refrigeration

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2014.04.026

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hwang, J., & Cho, K.
Affiliations
Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
Corresponding author
Cho, Keumnam
Venue
International Journal of Refrigeration
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
46
Pages
59-68
ISSN
0140-7007 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994871263
Cited by
44
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Refrigeration (publishedVersion)
Funders
Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP2010T100200474)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Heat Transfer and Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Icing and De-icing Technologies
Keywords
finned tube heat exchanger, frost formation, frost thickness, blockage ratio, local heat transfer rate, air volume flow rate, pressure drop, U-bend, plain fins, frost prediction, ε-NTU method

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review