Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer of Nanofluids Inside Helical Tubes at Constant Wall Temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the forced convection of alumina-water nanofluids within helical tubes, maintaining a constant wall temperature and assuming thermal equilibrium between the nanoparticles and the base fluid. The nanofluid model incorporates the effects of alumina (Al2O3) nanoparticle volume fraction, diameter, and temperature on thermophysical properties. The governing equations are solved using the Forward-Time Central-Space Finite Volume method in conjunction with the simple algorithm. Numerical results are validated against experimental data, demonstrating high accuracy. The study explores the effects of pitch size, curvature ratio, nanoparticle volume fraction, nanoparticle diameter, and Reynolds number on velocity contours, temperature profiles, secondary flow, thermophysical properties, friction coefficient, and heat transfer rate. Additionally, the figure of merit evaluates the impact of these parameters on the thermal performance of the system. The results indicate that an increase in Reynolds number and nanoparticle diameter negatively affects thermal performance, while higher nanoparticle volume fraction, curvature ratio, and pitch size enhance it. Furthermore, incorporating nanoparticles in straight tubes proves to be more advantageous compared to helical tubes. This study tested volumetric ratios of 1%, 2%, and 4%, which resulted in increases in heat transfer coefficients of 21%, 32%, and 43%, respectively, compared to pure water under similar conditions, such as Reynolds number and coil pitch.
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) | 0.000 | 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".