COMPARATIVE NUMERICAL STUDY OF SINGLE-PHASE AND TWO-PHASE MODELS FOR BIO-NANOFLUID TRANSPORT PHENOMENA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation of laminar convection of Al 2 O 3–water bio-nanofluids in a circular tube under constant wall temperature conditions was conducted, employing a single-phase model and three different two-phase models (volume of fluid (VOF), mixture and Eulerian). The steady-state, three-dimensional flow conservation equations were discretised using the finite volume method (FVM). Several parameters such as temperature, flow field, skin friction and heat transfer coefficient were computed. The computations showed that CFD predictions with the three different two-phase models are essentially the same. The CFD simulations also demonstrated that single-phase and two-phase models yield the same results for fluid flow but different results for thermal fields. The two-phase models, however, achieved better correlation with experimental measurements. The simulations further showed that heat transfer coefficient distinctly increases with increasing nanofluid particle concentration. The physical properties of the base fluid were considered to be temperature-dependent, while those of the solid particles were constant. Grid independence tests were also included. The simulations have applications in novel biomedical flow processing systems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".