Comparison of Single and Two-Phase Models for the Study of Mixed Convection Flows With Nanofluids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The single phase and three different two phase models (Volume of fluid, Mixture and Eulerian) are used to analyse laminar mixed convection flow of Al2O3-water nanofluids in a horizontal tube, in order to evaluate their prediction ability. The flow is considered steady and developing. The fluid’s physical properties are temperature dependent whereas those of the solid particles are constant. A uniform heat flux is applied at the fluid-solid interface. Two different Reynolds numbers and three different volume fractions have been considered. The governing three-dimensional partial differential equations are elliptical in all directions and coupled. Predicted convective heat transfer coefficients, velocity, and temperature profiles, as well as secondary flow’s velocity vectors and temperature contours are compared at different axial positions. To validate the comparisons and verify the accuracy of the results, the numerical predictions are compared with corresponding experimental data. There are essentially no differences between the predictions of the two-phase models; however their results are significantly different from those of the single-phase approach. Two-phase model results are closer to the experimental data, but they show an unrealistic increase in heat transfer for small changes of the particle volume fraction. Hydrodynamically, the two-phase and single-phase approaches perform almost the same but their thermal predictions are quite different.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".