Flow and heat transfer of a micropolar fluid sandwiched between viscous fluid layers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present analysis, a two-fluid model for blood flow through a horizontal channel is studied. The model essentially consists of a core region assumed to be a micropolar fluid and two viscous (Newtonian) fluid regions. Using the boundary and interface conditions proposed by Ariman et al. (J. Appl. Mech. ASME, 41, 1 (1974)), analytical expressions for velocity, microrotation velocity, and temperature are obtained. The solutions are also evaluated numerically and shown graphically for various governing parameters such as the material parameter, viscosity ratio, conductivity ratio, Eckert and Prandtl numbers on velocity, microrotation velocity, and temperature profiles. In addition, results for the rate of heat transfer, mass flow rate, and skin friction for different values of the physical parameters are presented in tabular form. It is found that effect of the material parameter is to suppress the flow and the viscosity ratio promotes the flow. It is also interesting to note that the material parameter and viscosity ratio affect the position of the point of flow separation for which the flow nature is reversed. Also, considering the solvent viscosity for air, water, and glycerin, the cell rotation on the flow has been tabulated for 0%, 20%, and 40% concentration. PACS Nos.: 44.15+a, 44.35.+c
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".