Burgers fluid flow in perspective of Buongiorno’s model with improved heat and mass flux theory for stretching cylinder

2020 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 31101
Author(s):  
Zahoor Iqbal ◽  
Masood Khan ◽  
Awais Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Diffusion Process ◽  
Mathematical Formulation ◽  
Thermal Relaxation ◽  
Mass Diffusion ◽  
Stretching Cylinder ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Buongiorno’S Model ◽  
Homotopy Analysis ◽  
Burgers Fluid ◽  
Diffusion Phenomena

In this study, an effort is made to model the thermal conduction and mass diffusion phenomena in perspective of Buongiorno’s model and Cattaneo-Christov theory for 2D flow of magnetized Burgers nanofluid due to stretching cylinder. Moreover, the impacts of Joule heating and heat source are also included to investigate the heat flow mechanism. Additionally, mass diffusion process in flow of nanofluid is examined by employing the influence of chemical reaction. Mathematical modelling of momentum, heat and mass diffusion equations is carried out in mathematical formulation section of the manuscript. Homotopy analysis method (HAM) in Wolfram Mathematica is utilized to analyze the effects of physical dimensionless constants on flow, temperature and solutal distributions of Burgers nanofluid. Graphical results are depicted and physically justified in results and discussion section. At the end of the manuscript the section of closing remarks is also included to highlight the main findings of this study. It is revealed that an escalation in thermal relaxation time constant leads to ascend the temperature curves of nanofluid. Additionally, depreciation is assessed in mass diffusion process due to escalating amount of thermophoretic force constant.

scholarly journals Estimation of Damage Induced by Single-Hole Rock Blasting: A Review on Analytical, Numerical, and Experimental Solutions

Energies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Mahdi Shadabfar ◽  
Cagri Gokdemir ◽  
Mingliang Zhou ◽  
Hadi Kordestani ◽  
Edmond V. Muho
Keyword(s):  
Structural Reliability ◽  
Numerical Models ◽  
Experimental Models ◽  
Rock Blasting ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Reliability Models ◽  
Fine Grain ◽  
Experimental Approaches ◽  
Engineering Projects

This paper presents a review of the existing models for the estimation of explosion-induced crushed and cracked zones. The control of these zones is of utmost importance in the rock explosion design, since it aims at optimizing the fragmentation and, as a result, minimizing the fine grain production and recovery cycle. Moreover, this optimization can reduce the damage beyond the set border and align the excavation plan with the geometric design. The models are categorized into three groups based on the approach, i.e., analytical, numerical, and experimental approaches, and for each group, the relevant studies are classified and presented in a comprehensive manner. More specifically, in the analytical methods, the assumptions and results are described and discussed in order to provide a useful reference to judge the applicability of each model. Considering the numerical models, all commonly-used algorithms along with the simulation details and the influential parameters are reported and discussed. Finally, considering the experimental models, the emphasis is given here on presenting the most practical and widely employed laboratory models. The empirical equations derived from the models and their applications are examined in detail. In the Discussion section, the most common methods are selected and used to estimate the damage size of 13 case study problems. The results are then utilized to compare the accuracy and applicability of each selected method. Furthermore, the probabilistic analysis of the explosion-induced failure is reviewed using several structural reliability models. The selection, classification, and discussion of the models presented in this paper can be used as a reference in real engineering projects.

scholarly journals Philosophers in research ethics committees—what do they think they’re doing? An empirical-ethical analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Gauckler
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Applied Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Practical Level

AbstractResearch ethics committees in Germany usually don’t have philosophers as members and if so, only contingently, not provided for by statute. This is interesting from a philosophical perspective, assuming that ethics is a discipline of philosophy. It prompts the question what role philosophers play in those committees they can be found in. Eight qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the self-perception of philosophers regarding their contribution to research ethics committees. The results show that the participants generally don’t view themselves as ethics experts. They are rather unanimous on the competencies they think they contribute to the committee but not as to whether those are philosophical competencies or applied ethical ones. In some cases they don’t see a big difference between their role and the role of the jurist member. In the discussion section of this paper I bring up three topics, prompted by the interviews, that need to be addressed: (1) I argue that the interviewees’ unwillingness to call themselves ethics experts might have to do with a too narrow understanding of ethics expertise. (2) I argue that the disagreement among the interviewees concerning the relationship between moral philosophy and applied ethics might be explained on a theoretical or on a practical level. (3) I argue that there is some lack of clarity concerning the relationship between ethics and law in research ethics committees and that further work needs to be done here. All three topics, I conclude, need further investigation.

scholarly journals Estimates of the mean difference in orthopaedic randomized trials: obligatory yet obscure

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauri Raittio ◽  
Antti Launonen ◽  
Ville M. Mattila ◽  
Aleksi Reito
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Ceiling Effect ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Power Calculations ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background Randomized controlled trials in orthopaedics are powered to mainly find large effect sizes. A possible discrepancy between the estimated and the real mean difference is a challenge for statistical inference based on p-values. We explored the justifications of the mean difference estimates used in power calculations. The assessment of distribution of observations in the primary outcome and the possibility of ceiling effects were also assessed. Methods Systematic review of the randomized controlled trials with power calculations in eight clinical orthopaedic journals published between 2016 and 2019. Trials with one continuous primary outcome and 1:1 allocation were eligible. Rationales and references for the mean difference estimate were recorded from the Methods sections. The possibility of ceiling effect was addressed by the assessment of the weighted mean and standard deviation of the primary outcome and its elaboration in the Discussion section of each RCT where available. Results 264 trials were included in this study. Of these, 108 (41 %) trials provided some rationale or reference for the mean difference estimate. The most common rationales or references for the estimate of mean difference were minimal clinical important difference (16 %), observational studies on the same subject (8 %) and the ‘clinical relevance’ of the authors (6 %). In a third of the trials, the weighted mean plus 1 standard deviation of the primary outcome reached over the best value in the patient-reported outcome measure scale, indicating the possibility of ceiling effect in the outcome. Conclusions The chosen mean difference estimates in power calculations are rarely properly justified in orthopaedic trials. In general, trials with a patient-reported outcome measure as the primary outcome do not assess or report the possibility of the ceiling effect in the primary outcome or elaborate further in the Discussion section.

scholarly journals Erratum

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 622-622
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension ◽  
Arterial Hypertension ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
International Study ◽  
Hypertension Management ◽  
Physician Survey ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Consensus Recommendations ◽  
Pulmonary Arterial

In “An international physician survey of pulmonary arterial hypertension management,” by Preston et al. ( Pulmonary Circulation 6:338–346), several corrections by the author were not incorporated into the final print version. The following sentence was added to the end of the second paragraph: “Furthermore, a recent survey of international PAH experts has also suggested that real-world practice patterns differ from consensus recommendations and between locations.12” In the “Discussion” section, these sentences were added after the first sentence: “Another international study of PAH experts was recently published. Like our study, the survey carried out by Ryan et al.12 identified differences between consensus recommendations and clinical practices.” A new entry (12) was added to the References: Ryan JJ, Butrous G, Maron BA. The heterogeneity of clinical practice patterns among an international cohort of pulmonary arterial hypertension experts. Pulm Circ 2014;4(3):441–451. The final version of the article can be found in the online edition. The publisher regrets these errors.

Discussion: Section 1

Drugs ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 37 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
&NA;
Keyword(s):  
Discussion Section
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document