MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790180334 · doi:10.11159/jffhmt.2018.001

Natural Convection in an Annular Enclosure: Influence of Magnetic Field-dependent Thermal Conductivity on Heat Transfer

2018· article· en· W2790180334 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mohammadhossein Hajiyan, Shohel Mahmud, Mohammad Biglarbegian, Hussein A. Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass Transfer · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnclosureNatural convectionThermal conductivityHeat transferMagnetic fieldMaterials scienceConvective heat transferMechanicsThermal conductionThermalConvectionThermodynamicsPhysicsComposite materialEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the natural convection heat transfer characteristics are investigated inside an annular enclosure containing Magnetic Nanofluid (MNF) (i.e., Fe3O4 nanoparticles are dispersed in Kerosene). A uniform magnetic field (H) is applied along the axial direction of the enclosure. Magnetic field-dependant thermal conductivity (k) of the MNF is considered as a nonlinear function which is interpolated from the experimental results. Finite element method is utilized to solve the governing equations for various magnetic field strengths, volume fractions of MNF, and Rayleigh numbers. Average Nusselt numbers along the hot wall are calculated and compared for different scenarios. The results show that the applied magnetic field has a significant effect on the heat transfer rate, more specifically on the Nusselt number, in the enclosure for higher volume fractions of nanoparticles. Thermal conductivity enhancement as a result of using magnetic field can be used for various applications such as thermal energy storage in which the heat transfer needs to be accurately controlled.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass TransferSame topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207