Numerical Analysis of the Pulsating Heat Transfer of Ferrofluid in Helically Fluted Tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flow and heat transfer characteristics in the corrugated tube mainly depend on flow parameters and geometric configurations of the tube, such as corrugated cross-section, corrugated angle, corrugated arrangement, corrugated pitch and depth, pulsating flow frequency, coolant types, and Reynolds number. This paper presents the pulsating thermal characteristics of ferrofluid flowing in the fluted tube using the de-ionized water and 0.015% by volume as working fluid flowing in the test section. Eulerian two-phase turbulence model validation has been performed in both steady and pulsating flow. The finite volume approach discretizes the Eulerian two-phase model. Numerical results indicate that the longitudinal and transverse secondary flows are induced differently via the pulsating flow. The heat transfer characteristics of pulsating fluid flow are significantly larger than that of continuous fluid flow. A higher pulsating frequency induces a heat transfer enhancement. However, pulsating flow increases pressure due to more flow complexity and rough augmentation. Due to the disturbed fluid flow and higher swirling motion, the heat transfer augmentation increases and corresponds with the published 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".