Effect of interfacial thermal resistance and nanolayer on estimates of effective thermal conductivity of nanofluids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colloidal suspensions of nanoparticles (nanofluids) are materials of interest for thermal engineering, because their heat transfer properties are typically enhanced as compared to the base fluid one. Effective medium theory provides popular models for estimating the overall thermal conductivity of nanofluids based on their composition. In this article, the accuracy of models based on the Bruggeman approximation is assessed. The sensitivity of these models to nanoscale interfacial phenomena, such as interfacial thermal resistance (Kapitza resistance) and fluid ordering around nanoparticles (nanolayer), is considered for a case study consisting of alumina nanoparticles suspended in water. While no significant differences are noticed for various thermal conductivity profiles in the nanolayer, a good agreement with experiments is observed with Kapitza resistance ≈10−9 m2K/W and sub-nanometer nanolayer thickness. These results confirm the classical nature of thermal conduction in nanofluids and highlight that future studies should rather focus on a better quantification of Kapitza resistance at nanoparticle-fluid interfaces, in order to allow bottom up estimates of their effective thermal conductivity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".