Performance comparison of relations for nanofluids properties in the CFD prediction of mixed convection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hydrodynamic and thermal fields for laminar mixed convection of an Al2O3 nanofluid in a horizontal tube with uniform heat flux at the solid-fluid interface have been calculated for two Reynolds numbers with six different combinations of published expressions for the viscosity and conductivity. The results include velocity and temperature profiles at different axial positions, the axial evolution of the centerline velocity and temperature, as well as that of the skin friction coefficient and the velocity vectors of the buoyancy induced secondary flow. They show that the prediction of all these quantities depends considerably on the expressions used to evaluate the viscosity and conductivity of the nanofluid. For example, the predicted enhancement of the convection heat transfer coefficient due to an increase of the particle volume fraction (from 0.6% to 1.6%) varies between 2.0% and 24.1% while the corresponding increase of the pressure drop varies between 8.7% and 96.6%. Comparisons of the calculated convection heat transfer coefficient with corresponding published experimental results indicate that among the tested combinations, those including the conductivity relation give better predictions of this quantity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".