MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526662471 · doi:10.3390/app6110332

Further Investigation on Laminar Forced Convection of Nanofluid Flows in a Uniformly Heated Pipe Using Direct Numerical Simulations

2016· article· en· W2526662471 on OpenAlexaff
Ghofrane Sekrani, Sébastien Poncet

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanofluidLaminar flowMaterials scienceThermodynamicsReynolds numberHeat transfer coefficientHeat transferForced convectionNanoparticleMechanicsNanotechnologyTurbulencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present paper, laminar forced convection nanofluid flows in a uniformly heated horizontal tube were revisited by direct numerical simulations. Single and two-phase models were employed with constant and temperature-dependent properties. Comparisons with experimental data showed that the mixture model performs better than the single-phase model in the all cases studied. Temperature-dependent fluid properties also resulted in a better prediction of the thermal field. Particular attention was paid to the grid arrangement. The two-phase model was used then confidently to investigate the influence of the nanoparticle size on the heat and fluid flow with a particular emphasis on the sedimentation process. Four nanoparticle diameters were considered: 10, 42, 100 and 200 nm for both copper-water and alumina/water nanofluids. For the largest diameter d n p = 200 nm, the Cu nanoparticles were more sedimented by around 80%, while the A l 2 O 3 nanoparticles sedimented only by 2 . 5 %. Besides, it was found that increasing the Reynolds number improved the heat transfer rate, while it decreased the friction factor allowing the nanoparticles to stay more dispersed in the base fluid. The effect of nanoparticle type on the heat transfer coefficient was also investigated for six different water-based nanofluids. Results showed that the Cu-water nanofluid achieved the highest heat transfer coefficient, followed by C, A l 2 O 3 , C u O , T i O 2 , and S i O 2 , respectively. All results were presented and discussed for four different values of the concentration in nanoparticles, namely φ = 0 , 0 . 6 % , 1 % and 1 . 6 % . Empirical correlations for the friction coefficient and the average Nusselt number were also provided summarizing all the presented results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207