MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776489769 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23121

Investigation of the combination of TiO<sub>2</sub> nanoparticles and drag reducer polymer effects on the heat transfer and drag characteristics of nanofluids

2017· article· en· W2776489769 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sadra Paryani, Ahmad Ramazani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNusselt numberDrag coefficientNanofluidDragMaterials scienceHeat transferHeat transfer coefficientThermodynamicsConvective heat transferReynolds numberSuspension (topology)TurbulenceMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To compensate for drag increment due to the addition of nanoparticles to heat‐transfer fluids, it seems that one could add drag reducer polymeric agents to these fluids. So, in this work, experiments were carried out for solutions of two types of polyacrylamide (FLOPAAM 3330S and FLOPAAM 3630S) at three distinct concentrations (25, 40, and 55 ppm), and TiO 2 ‐water nanofluid at concentrations of 0.015, 0.02, 0.025, and 0.03 L/L. The steady state turbulent convective heat transfer and the friction factor of the suspension of TiO 2 in a dilute solution of very high molecular weight, polyacrylamide (hybrid fluid), in a coiled tube were analyzed. Experimental measurements were carried out from a Reynolds number of 11 000 to 21 000 and a constant temperature (24 °C) of the cool bath. The obtained results have shown that for the suspension of nanoparticles, the Nusselt number and drag coefficient increase, whereas for dilute solutions containing only the drag reducer agent, both the Nusselt number and the drag coefficient decrease. However, the combination of the nanoparticle and polymeric drag reducer agent increased the heat transfer coefficient, but decreased the drag coefficient, especially at the highest measured Reynolds number (Re = 21 000).

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207