2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2005.10.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inverse method for electrodiffusional diagnostics of flows

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
26
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…1 (Rehimi et al 2006) verified this method by numerical simulations. The wall shear stress is calculated from wall shear rate using the Newton law:…”
Section: The Polarographic Methodsmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…1 (Rehimi et al 2006) verified this method by numerical simulations. The wall shear stress is calculated from wall shear rate using the Newton law:…”
Section: The Polarographic Methodsmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…the diffusion sub-layer is small enough compared to the viscous sub-layer in which it is generally considered that the near wall velocity field has a linear profile (Funfschilling, 2001;Rehimi et al, 2006). In our case of study, the Schmidt number is equal to Sc ¼1195.…”
Section: Inverse Methods For the Determination Of The Wall Shear Ratesmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Then Mao and Hanratty (1992) and Patankar (1980) used it to solve mass transfer problems. This method was well developed by Rehimi et al (2006) for known simulated solutions of the diffusion-convection equation. The concentration profile allowed the calculation of the instantaneous Sherwood number by integration of the equation using the Simpson method:…”
Section: Inverse Methods For the Determination Of The Wall Shear Ratesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This relationship has been used by several authors in different flow configurations (Labraga et al 2002;Tihon et al 2003); they found it relevant in unsteady flow conditions, even when compared with the inverse method (Rehimi et al 2006).…”
Section: Sobolik's Correctionmentioning
confidence: 99%