Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer Characteristics of MWCNT/Heat Transfer Oil Nanofluid Flow inside Microfinned Helical Tubes with Constant Wall Temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments are performed to investigate the single-phase flow heat transfer augmentation of MWCNT/HT-B oil in both smooth and microfinned helical tubes with constant wall temperature. The tests in laminar regime were carried out in helical tubes with three curvature ratios of 2R/d=25, 30 and 35. Flow Reynolds number varied from 170 to 1800 resulting in laminar flow regime. The effect of some parameters such as the nanoparticles concentration, the dimensionless curvature radius (2R/d) and the Reynolds number on heat transfer was investigated for the laminar flow regime. The weight fraction of nanoparticles in base fluid was less than 0.4%. within the applied range of Reynolds number; results indicated that for smooth helical tube the addition of nanoparticles to the base fluid enhanced heat transfer remarkably. However, compared to the smooth helical tube, the average heat transfer augmentation ratio due to nanoparticle addition for finned tube was small, about 17%. Also, by increasing the weight fraction of nanoparticles in microfinned helical tubes, no substantial changes were observed in the rate of heat transfer enhancement. For the pressure drop, the results show that the pressure drop of nanofluids was slightly higher than the base fluid and increase as the volume concentrations go up.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".