Heat Transfer Engineering

ISSN: 0145-7632 (Print) 1521-0537 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhte20

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Characteristics

of Dilute Alumina–Water Nanofluids in a Pipe at
Different Power Inputs

Richa Saxena, Dasaroju Gangacharyulu & Vijaya Kumar Bulasara

To cite this article: Richa Saxena, Dasaroju Gangacharyulu & Vijaya Kumar Bulasara
(2016) Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Characteristics of Dilute Alumina–Water Nanofluids
in a Pipe at Different Power Inputs, Heat Transfer Engineering, 37:18, 1554-1565, DOI:
10.1080/01457632.2016.1151298

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01457632.2016.1151298

Accepted author version posted online: 18

Feb 2016.
Published online: 21 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5862

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 12 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhte20
Heat Transfer Engineering, 37(18):1554–1565, 2016
Copyright 
C Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0145-7632 print / 1521-0537 online
DOI: 10.1080/01457632.2016.1151298

Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop

Characteristics of Dilute
Alumina–Water Nanofluids in a Pipe
at Different Power Inputs

RICHA SAXENA,1 DASAROJU GANGACHARYULU,2

and VIJAYA KUMAR BULASARA2
1
Department of Petroleum Engineering, DIT University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
2
Department of Chemical Engineering, Thapar University, Patiala, Punjab, India

This work addresses the effect of temperature on the thermophysical properties (i.e., density, viscosity, thermal conductivity,
and specific heat capacity) of alumina–water nanofluid over a wide temperature range (25◦ C–75◦ C). Low concentrations
(0–0.5% v/v) of alumina nanoparticles (40 nm size) in distilled water were used in this study. The pressure drop and the
effective heat transfer coefficient of nanofluids were also estimated for different power inputs and at different flow rates
corresponding to Reynolds numbers in the range of 1500–6000. The trends in variation of thermophysical properties of
nanofluids with temperature were similar to that of water, owing to their low concentrations. However, the density, viscosity,
and thermal conductivity of nanofluids increased, while the specific heat capacity decreased with increasing the nanoparticle
concentration. The convective heat transfer coefficient of the nanofluid and the pressure drop along the test section increased
with increasing the particle concentration and flow rate of nanofluid. Results showed that the heat transfer coefficient
increases, while the pressure drop decreases slightly with increasing the power input. This is because of the fact that
increasing power input to heater increases the bulk mean temperature of nanofluids, resulting in a decreased viscosity. The
prepared nanofluids were found to be more effective under turbulent flow than in transition flow.

INTRODUCTION exchangers, microchannels, cooling systems, nuclear reactors,

Nanofluids are engineered colloidal suspensions of
nanometer-sized (1–100 nm) solid particles (called nanopar-
ticles) in base fluids and have been proposed as a route for
surpassing the performance of heat transfer fluids in thermal
energy systems [1, 2]. Since solid materials have higher thermal
conductivity than fluids, the suspended particles are supposed to
increase the thermal conductivity and heat transfer performance
of base fluids. The stability of suspension is also an impor-
tant factor in the selection of nanoparticles [3]. Nanofluids have
superior thermal conductivity and convective heat transfer coef-
ficient compared to the base fluid, which makes them potentially
useful in many heat transfer applications such as compact heat
Address correspondence to Dr. Vijaya Kumar Bulasara, Department of
Chemical Engineering, Thapar University, Patiala 147004, Punjab, India.
E-mail: vkbulasara@thapar.edu.
concentrated solar power plants, fuel cells, automobiles, phar-
maceutical processes, domestic refrigerators, chillers, grinding
processes, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems,
waste heat recovery devices for boilers and furnaces, and other
types of heat exchangers [4–6]. Therefore, knowledge of the
physical, thermal, and flow properties of nanofluids is essential
in the selection of suitable nanofluids for specific applications.
The practical utility of a nanofluid as a heat transfer fluid is
best determined by its convective heat transfer coefficient [7].
Nanofluids were found to exhibit enhanced thermal properties,
especially thermal conductivity, even at very low concentrations
of suspended nanoparticles and are most suitable for rapid heat-
ing and cooling applications [8]. Increase in effective thermal
conductivity and changes in density, specific heat, and viscos-
ity are important indications of improved heat transfer behav-
ior of nanofluids [9]; however, the net benefit of nanofluids
as heat transfer fluids is determined through the heat transfer
coefficient and pressure drop. As a result of increased heat

1554
 R. SAXENA ET AL.
transfer coefficient, the nanofluids facilitate reduction in size
of thermal energy system (heat transfer equipment) and lead to
increased energy and fuel efficiency, reduced emissions, and im-
proved reliability. On the other hand, an increase in the density
and viscosity of a basefluid with the addition of nanoparticles
would contribute to pressure drop, thereby necessitating a high
pumping power [10–12]. Therefore, pressure drop during the
flow of nanofluids is also an important consideration in the eco-
nomic evaluation and final application of a nanofluid.
Extensive research has been carried out on water-based
nanofluids containing alumina (Al2 O3 ), TiO2 , and CuO nanopar-
ticles, besides a few studies on Cu, SiO2 , SiC, ZnO nanopar-
ticles, and carbon nanotubes [1–5, 9, 13–16]. It has been well
established that the thermal conductivity of nanofluids increases
with increasing volume fraction of nanoparticles, and their per-
formance is also affected by particle size, geometry and mi-
crostructure, type of solid material and base fluid, and solu-
tion pH [17]. One of the key studies on thermal conductivity
of nanofluids is an international nanofluid benchmark exercise
[18], in which the thermal conductivities of various nanoflu-
ids were measured and compared by 34 different organizations
worldwide using a variety of experimental approaches. This
study revealed that the Maxwell’s effective medium theory for
dispersed particles could predict well the experimental data.
In another study by Keblinski et al. [10], almost all the pre-
viously published data on thermal conductivity of nanofluids
have been found to lie between the well-known Hashin and
Shtrikman effective medium bounds, suggesting that the ther-
mal conductance behavior of nanofluids is similar to that of
binary solid composites or liquid mixtures. In addition to ther-
mal conductivity, the thermal dispersion and Brownian motion
of particles also play an important role in heat transfer enhance-
ment [19–21]. Further, particle migration is also a reason for
the enhancement of thermal conductivity and lowering of the
thermal boundary-layer thickness [22].
Very few articles described the effect of temperature on the
thermal conductivity of nanofluids, that too at high particle
concentrations (1–5% v/v) [23]. While the study of effective
thermal conductivity of nanofluids has received much atten-
tion in the last decade [24, 25], recent research focuses on ef-
fective viscosity, which influences the flow and heat transfer
characteristics of nanofluids [26]. Besides thermal conductiv-
ity and viscosity, other properties such as specific heat capacity
should also be considered to examine their influence on flow
and heat transfer properties of nanofluids because the increase
of thermal conductivity might be offset by a large increase
in viscosity and decreasing of effective specific heat capacity
[27, 28]. Unlike several studies that have focused on thermal
conductivity, the convective heat transfer coefficient and pres-
sure drop of nanofluids still need to be explored in more detail.
Williams et al. [12] showed that the Dittus–Boelter correlation
can be used to predict the Nusselt number for alumina and
zirconia nanofluids. The enhancement of convective heat trans-
fer in nanofluids at high Reynolds numbers is attributed to a
decrease in thermal boundary-layer thickness [29]. The forced
heat transfer engineering
1555
convective cooling performance of a nanofluid in a tube at a
given heat flux depends strongly on the flow rate and particle
fraction, and the gains in forced convection performance can
be significantly outweighed by the pressure drop penalty re-
sulted from their greatly enhanced viscosity [30]. The convec-
tive movement of nanoparticles in the turbulent core region and
the diffusion mechanism such as thermophoresis in the laminar
sublayer are believed to be the reasons for enhanced heat trans-
fer in turbulent flow conditions [31]. Ho and Lin [32] demon-
strated that the forced convection heat transfer performance of
alumina–water nanofluid in turbulent flow can be greatly en-
hanced by elevating its inlet temperature. Although nanofluids
enhance the heat transfer in forced convection, the Al2 O3 –water
nanofluids have shown poor heat transfer performance in natu-
ral convection and nucleate boiling as compared to pure water
[33, 34].
Since all previous studies on convective heat transfer using
nanofluids have been conducted at a particular power input, the
present study assumes significance in that the experiments are
performed at different power inputs in order to study the effect
of nanofluid temperature on the heat transfer and pressure drop
characteristics. Alumina nanoparticles were chosen in this work
as they are less expensive and easily dispersible in water without
needing additives such as surfactants and possess slightly higher
specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity than CuO, titania
and zirconia.
METHODOLOGY
Since high volume concentrations of nanoparticles result in
low specific heat capacity and increased pressure drop [35], di-
lute solutions of Al2 O3 –water nanofluids were considered in
this work. The uncertainty in the measurement of temperature
was ±0.1◦ C and pressure was ±0.2 Pa. The accuracy of the
flowmeter and other units was ±1%. Each experiment on esti-
mation of thermophysical properties of nanofluids was repeated
at least four times, while the forced convection experiments
were repeated at least three times, and average values have been
reported with a standard deviation of ±5% (formulas for cal-
culating the standard deviation were adopted from Buongiorno
et al. [18]).
Preparation of Nanofluids
Nanofluids are generally prepared by one of two methods,
namely, single-step or two-step [36]. The single-step method
involves simultaneous synthesis and dispersion of nanoparti-
cles in the base liquid to produce stable nanofluids, while the
two-step method involves dispersion of nanoparticles (obtained
by different methods) into the base liquid. In the present work,
water-based alumina nanofluid (0.1–0.5% v/v) was prepared
by a two-step method by adding a known amount of Al2 O3
vol. 37 no. 18 2016
1556 R. SAXENA ET AL.
nanoparticles (of 40 nm nominal size) into distilled water (with-
out using a surfactant) and keeping the solution in ultrasonic bath
for 2–3 h for proper mixing and stable dispersion. The prepared
nanofluids remained stable for 21 days, during which no signif-
icant changes in absorbance (determined by ultraviolet–visible
[UV-Vis] spectroscopy) and turbidity were noticed. A similar
observation has been reported in the literature [31, 37], wherein
the authors dispersed alumina nanoparticles (∼40 nm) in water
in an ultrasonic bath without using additives and observed that
dilute (0.3–0.5% v/v) nanofluids are stable for several weeks.
However, in the present work, freshly prepared nanofluids were
used in the measurement of thermophysical properties and in
forced convection experiments.
Measurement of Nanofluid Properties
The reliability and accuracy of the heat transfer coefficient
depend greatly on the experimental system calibration rather
than on the thermophysical property models of nanofluids [38].
Therefore, all the properties of nanofluids were determined ex-
perimentally. The accuracy associated with the measurements
of density, viscosity, specific heat capacity, and thermal conduc-
tivity are 99.8%, 99.5%, 99.7%, and 99.0%, respectively.
Density
The density of nanofluids at different temperatures is mea-
sured by using a pycnometer, which is also known as specific
gravity bottle or relative density bottle. It is a glass flask (5 ml
working volume) with a close-fitting ground-glass stopper hav-
ing a capillary hole through it. The precision of the pycnometer
used in this work is ±0.2% (±2 kg/m3). Distilled water was
used as the working liquid since the temperature-dependent val-
ues of density are known. The measured values of density (ρ) of
nanofluid were also compared with those calculated using the
following expression:
ρnf = (1 − φ)ρbf + φρnp (1)
Here, φ is the volume fraction of nanoparticles (0.1 vol.%
means φ = 0.001) and the subscripts nf , bf, and np represent the
nanofluid, base fluid, and solid nanoparticles respectively.
Viscosity
Viscosity of nanofluids is less investigated than thermal con-
ductivity. A Ubbelohde viscometer was used for measuring the
viscosity of nanofluids at different temperatures (measurement
error ±0.5%). This apparatus is cheap and easily available. A
Ubbelohde-type viscometer or suspended-level viscometer is
a measuring instrument that uses a capillary-based method of
measuring viscosity. By noting the time (t) the fluid takes to pass
through a known length (volume) of the capillary, the dynamic
heat transfer engineering
viscosity (μ) can be calculated as
tnf ρnf
μnf = μw (2)
tw ρw
where the subscript w represents distilled water.
An attempt has been made to fit a power-law model to the
experimental data based on Eq. (3) using a nonlinear regression
method to evaluate the exponents “a” and “b”:
μnf = μw (1 + φ)a (Tnf )b (3)
Here, the temperature of nanofluid (T nf ) is in ◦ C and Eq. (3)
is valid only for 20◦ C ≤ T nf ≤ 80◦ C.
Specific Heat Capacity
The specific heat capacity of nanofluids was determined by
differential scanning calorimetry (DSC 821e, Mettler Toledo)
using sapphire as the standard reference for calibration (mea-
surement error ±0.3%). The three-step DSC procedure was
followed to measure specific heat capacity. In the first step,
a measurement was taken with two empty sample pans made of
aluminum. In the second step, measurement was taken with the
reference sample in one pan, keeping the other pan empty. And
in the final step, the measurement was taken for the nanofluid
sample in one pan, keeping the other pan empty. A detailed
procedure for DSC analysis is available elsewhere [39, 40].
The experimental heat capacity values were also compared with
those calculated from energy balance around the heat exchanger
(Eq. (4)), assuming perfect heat transfer between the two fluids
without accounting for heat losses [41]. The average energy bal-
ance error was 8.2%, while the minimum and maximum errors
were 4.3% and 12.8%, respectively:
ṁ w C P,w Tw
C P,nf = (4)
ṁ nf Tnf
Most of the previous studies used the ideal gas mixture cor-
relation (Eq. (5)) for estimating the specific heat capacity of
nanofluids from the individual heat capacities [42]:
C P,nf = (1 − φ)C P,bf + φC P,np (5)
However, the relation described by Eq. (5) deviates consider-
ably from experimental observations [43]; therefore, it was not
used in the present work. The specific heat capacity of nanoflu-
ids can be closely estimated using the volume fraction mixture
rule [44, 45] given by Eq. (6):
(ρC P )nf = (1 − φ)(ρC P )bf + φ(ρC P )np (6)
Thermal Conductivity
Thermal conductivity is an important parameter in enhancing
the heat transfer performance of a base fluid with a suspension
of nanoparticles. Among the different techniques available for
vol. 37 no. 18 2016
 R. SAXENA ET AL.
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of experimental setup (not to scale).
measurement of thermal conductivity of nanofluids, the tran-
sient hot-wire method has been extensively used in literature.
Recently, the KS-1 probe of the KD2 Pro thermal property an-
alyzer, which is also based on the transient hot-wire method,
has emerged as the simplest and most convenient way of de-
termining the thermal conductivity of low-viscosity fluids such
as water and other aqueous solutions [18, 46, 47]. Therefore,
the thermal conductivity was measured by using the KD2 Pro
thermal properties analyzer supplied by Decagon Devices Inc.,
USA (measurement error ±1%). The KD2 Pro is a battery-
operated device consisting of a hand-held controller and sensor
that can be inserted into the medium for measuring the thermal
properties.
Forced Convection Experiments
Experimental Setup
The experimental setup used to perform convective heat
transfer experiments is shown in Figure 1. It consisted of a
1.4-m-long copper test section (12.7 mm outer diameter and
0.5 mm thickness) with heating facility. A transition length
(calm length) of 1.6 m was used (prior to the test section) to
eliminate the entrance effect and ensure fully developed flow in
the test section. The storage tank had a capacity of 3 L and
was fitted with a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) con-
trolled heater. A magnetic drive pump was used to circulate
the nanofluid to the test section. The test section (copper pipe)
was first wound with sheet mica followed by Nichrome heating
wire, giving a maximum power of 500 W. It was then insulated
by layers of ceramic fiber, glass wool, and asbestos rope to pre-
vent radial heat loss. The temperature difference between the
insulated surfaces of the experimental facility and the ambient
was found to be less than 10◦ C. The terminals of the Nichrome
wire were attached to a tapped autotransformer, by which the
heat flux can be varied by varying the voltage. The power input
to heater is measured by a wattmeter with ±5 W accuracy. In
total, 12 calibrated resistance temperature detector (RTD) Pt100
sensors with 0.1◦ C accuracy were used to measure the tempera-
heat transfer engineering
1557
tures T1 to T12 , wherein T1 and T8 represent the temperatures of
nanofluid at the inlet (T1 ≈ 35◦ C) and outlet, respectively, and
T2 through T7 represent the outside temperatures of the cop-
per pipe (test section) at different locations separated by 0.2 m
to each other. Here, T1 and T8 were measured by temperature
sensors immersed in the mixing chambers provided at the two
ends of the test section. A rotameter (with 0.02 L/min accu-
racy) and an inclined tube manometer were used to measure
the volumetric flow rate and pressure difference across the test
section, respectively. A stainless-steel heat exchanger (pipe-in-
pipe type) with countercurrent flow pattern was used to cool
the nanofluid (from T9 to T10 ) at outlet using cooling water
(T11 ≈ 25◦ C). Each experiment was conducted for at least
2 hours until the attainment of steady state with a minimum
of three repetitions, and the data were acquired manually. After
attaining steady state, the temperature measurement at the outlet
(T8 ) remained stable with good accuracy and precision (<1%
error). The flow rate of the nanofluid was adjusted using a globe
valve and the experiments were repeated for different power in-
puts. The uncertainty analysis was carried out using the method
described by Cieśliński and Kaczmarczyk [15], considering the
measurement errors. Calculations indicated that the uncertain-
ties involved in the estimation of friction factor, heat transfer
coefficient, Reynolds number, and Nusselt number are ±3.2%,
±2.7%, ±1.6% and ±2.4%, respectively. The constant heat flux
boundary condition was applied in the present work.
Heat Transfer Coefficient
The rate of heat transfer (Q) to the nanofluid can be calculated
as
Q = ṁ nf C P,nf (T8 − T1 ) (7)
The heat transfer rate in the cylindrical test section is given
by
(Ts,o − Ts,i )
Q = 2πk L (8)
ln(do /di )
Here, k is the thermal conductivity of copper, L is the length
of the test section, T s,o is the outside surface temperature of the
copper pipe, T s,i is the inside surface temperature of the copper
pipe, and do and di are the outer and inner diameters of the pipe.
The outside surface temperature of the copper pipe, T s,o is
evaluated as follows:
T2 + T3 + T4 + T5 + T6 + T7
Ts,o = (9)
6
The value of T s,i can be obtained by equating Eqs. (7) and
(8).
Now the heat transfer coefficient (hi ) of nanofluid can be
found using the following expression:
Q
hi = (10)
πdi L(Ts,i − Tb )
vol. 37 no. 18 2016
1558 R. SAXENA ET AL.

Here, T b is the bulk mean temperature of nanofluid, given by 1040

0 vol%, experiment
T1 + T8 1030
Tb = (11) 0.1 vol%, experiment
2 1020
0.5 vol%, experiment
Equation (1)

Density (kg/m3)
The Reynolds and Nusselt numbers are evaluated at the bulk
1010
mean temperature of nanofluid as
1000
di u nf ρnf
Re = (12)
μnf 990

980
h i di
Nu = (13) 970
knf
960
Here, unf is the velocity of nanofluid inside the test section. 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
In the present work, Q was calculated by using Eq. (7), and was
Temperature (°C)
substituted in Eqs. (8) and (10) to obtain T s,i and hi , respectively.
Figure 2 Variation in density of Al2 O3 –water nanofluid with temperature
The heat transfer coefficient (hi ) and the Nusselt number (Nu)
(0 vol% refers to water).
presented here are the surface-averaged values and not the local
values.
Eq. (1) can be applied for estimating the density of dilute alu-
mina nanofluids with good accuracy. However, the magnitude
Pressure Drop and Friction Factor of deviation gradually increases with increase in temperature
(>60◦ C) as well as particle concentration. A similar obser-
The pressure drop across the test section (p) was obtained
vation was made by Teng and Hung [40], who studied the
from manometer readings and the friction factor (f ) was evalu-
density of nanofluids at low temperatures (10–40◦ C). The au-
ated using the Darcy–Weisbach equation as follows:
thors used a value of 3880 kg/m3 for the density of nanopar-
 
2di p ticles (ρnp ) in Eq. (1), versus 3970 kg/m3 in the present study.
f = (14) This could be the reason for the observation of large deviation
ρnf u 2nf L
(>1%) of calculated values from the experimental values in their
Hwang et al. [48] showed that the friction factor correlation study.
for the single-phase flow can be extended to water-based Al2 O3 Figure 3 shows the variation of viscosity of alumina–water
nanofluids. Under fully developed laminar conditions, the Darcy nanofluid with temperature. It was observed that the dynamic
friction factor of dilute Al2 O3 –water nanofluid follows Eq. (15): viscosity of nanofluid decreases with increasing the temper-
64 ature. As the temperature increases, the intermolecular forces
f = (15) decrease because of the increased velocities of individual
Re
molecules. This could be the reason for lowering of nanofluid
Under turbulent conditions, the friction factor of dilute viscosity with increase in temperature. On the other hand, the
Al2 O3 –water nanofluid can be closely related to Colebrook dynamic viscosity increased with an increase in the particle
equation [49], given here:
  
1 ε di 2.51 0.0014
√ = −2 log10 + √ (16) 0 vol%, experiment
f 3.7 Re f 0.1 vol%, experiment
0.0012
 0.1 vol%, literature [27]
Here, ε di is the relative roughness of the pipe. 0.5 vol%, experiment
Viscosity (Pa·s)

0.0010 Equation (3)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0.0008

Density and Viscosity 0.0006

Figure 2 shows the variation in density of nanofluid with 0.0004

temperature from 25◦ C to 75◦ C. It can be observed from this
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
figure that the density of nanofluids decreases with increase
in temperature, while it increases with volume fraction of Temperature (°C)
nanoparticles. The difference between the experimental and Figure 3 Variation in viscosity of Al2 O3 –water nanofluid with temperature
calculated density values was less than 0.5%, suggesting that (0 vol% refers to water).

heat transfer engineering vol. 37 no. 18 2016

 R. SAXENA ET AL. 1559

concentration. Similar trends in the variation of viscosity with 0.80

Thermal conductivity (W/m·°C)

temperature and concentration have been reported by Adio et al. 0.78 0 vol%, KD2 Pro
[26] for alumina–glycerol nanofluid. The viscosity data re- 0.1 vol%, KD2 Pro
0.76 0.5 vol%, KD2 Pro
ported by Sekhar and Sharma [27] for 0.1 vol.% alumina–water Model 6 (Table 1)
0.74
nanofluid match closely with the measured values of viscosity
and also with Eq. (3) proposed in the present work (as shown in 0.72

Figure 3). However, the variation in viscosity was predominant 0.70

at low temperatures and the deviation in viscosity of nanofluid 0.68
from the base fluid decreased gradually as the temperature 0.66
was raised. It is also evident that Eq. (3) fits well with the 0.64
experimental data with less than 4% error. The values of “a”
0.62
and “b” obtained by nonlinear regression analysis were 59.556
and 0.00023, respectively (R2 = 0.9992). A large value of “a” 0.60
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
indicates that the viscosity is very much sensitive to particle
Temperature (°C)
concentration and a small value of “b” implies that the tempera-
ture dependence of viscosity of nanofluids is the same as that of Figure 5 Effect of temperature on thermal conductivity of Al2 O3 –water
nanofluids (0 vol% = water).
the base fluid. It should be noted that the use of Eq. (3) is limited
to nanofluid temperatures (T nf ) between 20◦ C and 80◦ C only.
deviation (up to 2%) as the entropy change and heat losses were
ignored.
Specific Heat Capacity

The effect of temperature on the specific heat capacity of Thermal Conductivity

water based alumina nanofluid is presented in Figure 4. From
this figure, it can be noted that the heat capacity of nanofluids
is more susceptible to particle concentration than to tempera-
ture in the temperature range 25–75◦ C. The specific heat of the
base fluid (water) was almost constant; however, a slight (0.6%)
increase in the values of CP (from DSC) with temperature was
noticed for the nanofluids. The heat capacity of nanofluids de-
creased with increasing the particle concentration, and the CP
values of 0.1 vol.% nanofluid were 0.5–1.0% lower than for the
base fluid, while, the CP values of 0.5 vol.% nanofluid were
2.1–2.7% lower than those of the base fluid. The heat capac-
ity values calculated using Eq. (6) are very close to those ob-
tained from DSC with a negligible deviation (<0.5%). On the
other hand, Eq. (4) yielded very irregular results with a large
4.40
0 vol%, DSC
4.35 A: 0 vol%
0.1 vol%, DSC
Heat capacity (kJ/kg·°C)
It has been well established that the thermal conductivity of
nanofluids is more temperature sensitive than that of the base
fluid [13]. Figure 5 shows the effect of temperature on the ther-
mal conductivity of Al2 O3 –water nanofluids. The values of ther-
mal conductivity increased with increasing the temperature as
well as particle concentration. It can be observed that the effec-
tive thermal conductivity varies nonlinearly with temperature,
and it is more sensitive to temperature at high temperatures. At
low temperatures (below 40◦ C), a small increase (<5%) in the
values of thermal conductivity was noticed for nanofluids, and a
considerable increase (>10%) was noticed at high temperatures
(above 40◦ C) in comparison with the base fluid. The decrease
in the difference of thermal conductivities approaching 20◦ C
indicates that the thermal conductivity is less sensitive to tem-
perature and particle concentration at low temperatures. This
observation is in accordance with the findings of Das et al. [23],
who noticed increased thermal conductivity difference with in-

B: 0.1 vol%
C: 0.5 vol% 0.5 vol%, DSC creased temperature for Al2 O3 –water nanofluids (1 and 4 vol.%)
4.30
Equation (6)
Equation (4)
over the temperature range of 21–51◦ C. They suggested that the
4.25 strong temperature dependence of nanofluid thermal conduc-
4.20 tivity at high temperatures is due to the stochastic motion of
(A)
(B) nanoparticles. Chandrasekar and Suresh [19] explored that ad-
4.15 (A)
(B)
ditional energy transport in nanofluids can arise from the Brown-
4.10 (C) ian motion of particles induced by the effect of stochastic forces.
(C) Jang and Choi [20] also explained that the Brownian motion of
4.05
nanoparticles in the base fluid dominates at high temperatures
4.00 resulting in enhanced thermal conductivity. Therefore, it is ob-
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
vious to observe an increase in the difference of thermal con-
Temperature (°C) ductivity of a nanofluid from its base fluid at high temperatures.
Figure 4 Specific heat capacity of Al2 O3 –water nanofluids (0 vol% refers to Although several studies have been reported on the thermal
water). conductivity of nanofluids [13, 16, 19, 23], none of them has
heat transfer engineering vol. 37 no. 18 2016
1560 R. SAXENA ET AL.

Table 1 Model parameters for thermal conductivity (with T nf in ◦ C)

Model parameters
Model Expression k0 k1 k2 m n R2 value

Model 1 k = k0 (1 + φ)(Tnf − 20) 0.018 — — — — 0.5701

Model 2 k = k0 + k1 (1 + φ)(Tnf − 20) 0.601 2.31 × 10—3 — — — 0.7689
Model 3 k = k0 + k1 φ + k2 (Tnf − 20) 0.585 8.045 2.35 × 10—3 — — 0.9824
Model 4 k = k0 (1 + φ)m (Tnf − 20)n 0.521 — — 12.09 0.071 0.9704
Model 5 k = k0 (1 + φ)m + k1 (Tnf − 20)n 0.614 2.14 × 10—5 — 12.63 2.147 0.9896
Model 6 k = k0 + k1 (1 + φ)m + k2 (Tnf − 20)n 0.088 0.521 7.35 × 10−5 14.63 1.841 0.9960

presented any correlation for dilute nanofluids over a wide range
of temperatures. Therefore, some simple model equations (pre-
sented in Table 1) were considered to correlate the experimental
values of thermal conductivity with temperature (◦ C). In Ta-
ble 1, k0 , k1 , and k2 are the coefficients and “m” and “n” are the
exponents. Among the six different model equations, the one
described by Model 6 fits best (error < 2%) to the experimental
data with an R2 value of 0.9960. The values of the exponents
and coefficients obtained for Model 6 suggest that the thermal
conductivity of dilute alumina–water nanofluids is affected pri-
marily by the particle concentration rather than the temperature
(since k1 > k2 and m > n) in the studied range of temperatures.
Pressure Drop and Friction Factor
The values of the pressure drop of nanofluids during the
convective heat transfer experiments are shown in Table 2. From
this table, it is clear that the pressure drop increases nonlinearly
as the flow rate increases. The pressure drop of nanofluids was
slightly higher than the base fluid and increased with increasing
the concentration of nanoparticles due to increased viscosity.
This observation is in good agreement with that reported by
Duangthongsuk and Wongwises [50] for TiO2 –water nanofluids.
However, for any particular flow rate, an increase in the power
input to heater resulted in significant increase in the bulk mean
temperature of nanofluids. It can also be observed from this
table that the higher the power input, the lower is the pressure
drop. This is probably because the increase of power input leads
to increasing of fluid temperature, which, in turn, reduces the
viscosity of nanofluid (as in Figure 3) and results in the reduction
of pressure drop. In comparison with the base fluid, the pressure
drop values (p < 12%) observed in the present study (for
Re ≈ 6000 and φ = 0.1%) are well below that reported (30%)
in the literature [49] for 0.135 vol.% Al2 O3 –water nanofluid at
a Reynolds number of 20,000.
A plot of friction factor versus Reynolds number is shown in
Figure 6. A comparison of the experimental data with Eqs. (15)
and (16) is also made in the figure. The relative roughness of
pipe (ε/di ) was found to be 0.0012 (using water at Re > 10,000)
following the procedure outlined by Fotukian and Esfahany [49].
The results for the friction factor are in accordance with those
reported by Sharma et al. [43] for 0.1 vol.% and Suresh et al. [37]
for 0.5 vol.%. Increase in nanoparticle concentration resulted in
increase in the friction factor values due to increased pressure
drop. On the other hand, increase in the power input to the
heater (or increase in nanofluid temperature) caused a slight
decline in the friction factor values. At low Reynolds number
(Re ≈ 1500), the experimental values matched closely with Eq.
(15), and at moderate Reynolds numbers (3000 and 4500) they
deviated significantly from Eq. (15). However, from moderate

Table 2 Experimental data of pressure drop and heat transfer coefficient for alumina–water nanofluid

Heat transfer coefficient,

Bulk mean temperature, T b (◦ C) Pressure drop, p (Pa) hi (W/m2-◦ C)
Power Flow rate Reynolds
input (W) (L/min) number, Re 0% 0.1% 0.5% 0% 0.1% 0.5% 0% 0.1% 0.5%

218.4 0.5 1512 ± 17 41.3 42.7 43.6 15.7 19.1 19.7 1586 1739 1868
218.4 1.0 3025 ± 34 38.2 39.6 40.4 70.6 82.3 88.5 1667 1835 1981
218.4 1.5 4537 ± 50 37.1 38.5 39.3 143.5 169.2 182.6 2026 2416 2683
218.4 2.0 6049 ± 67 36.6 38.0 38.8 225.4 263.9 287.2 2793 3436 4195
312.9 0.5 1538 ± 23 44.1 45.5 46.9 15.7 18.2 19.2 1680 1823 1946
312.9 1.0 3064 ± 34 39.6 40.9 42.3 68.7 78.1 81.1 1824 2006 2220
312.9 1.5 4582 ± 37 38.0 39.4 40.8 138.2 163.4 174.7 2199 2455 2933
312.9 2.0 6110 ± 54 37.3 38.7 40.1 210.6 248.2 265.8 2917 3788 4618
475.7 0.5 1557 ± 28 48.8 50.6 52.3 14.7 17.2 17.3 1847 1995 2126
475.7 1.0 3094 ± 40 41.9 43.7 45.3 66.3 69.2 73.2 2012 2215 2514
475.7 1.5 4617 ± 38 39.6 41.4 43.0 127.4 142.5 152.1 2354 2601 3295
475.7 2.0 6155 ± 53 38.4 40.3 41.9 195.8 227.8 236.3 3196 4050 5172

heat transfer engineering vol. 37 no. 18 2016


0.10
0.09
0.08
Friction factor, f
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0 1000 2000
Reynolds number, Re
Figure 6 Variation in friction factor with Reynolds number (0 vol% refers to water).
to high Reynolds numbers (3000 to 6000), the experimental
values approached Eq. (16). Therefore, it can be observed that
Eq. (15) is only valid for laminar flow conditions, while the
Colebrook relation described by Eq. (16) is equally valid for
transition as well as turbulent flows. The lowest values of friction
factor were observed at the maximum flow rate corresponding to
Re ≈ 6000.
Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient
The values of the convective heat transfer coefficient of
nanofluids at different flow rates and volume concentrations
for three different power inputs are presented in Table 2. The
heat transfer coefficient was observed to increase with increas-
ing the nanoparticle concentration as well as flow rate. This
observation is in accordance with the findings of Ho and Lin
[32], who reported an increase in the values of convective heat
transfer coefficient with increasing the fluid flow rate as well as
inlet temperature. Under laminar flow condition (Re ≈ 1500),
the heat transfer coefficient values increased by 8–10% and
15–18%, respectively, for 0.1 vol.% and 0.5 vol.% nanofluids.
This is in good agreement with the reported increase of 8% for
0.3 vol.% Al2 O3 –water nanofluid under Re < 600 [48]. Under
turbulent flow condition (Re ≈ 6000), the heat transfer coef-
ficient values increased by 23–30% and 50–62%, respectively,
for 0.1 vol.% and 0.5 vol.% nanofluids. This observation is
also in accordance with the 48% increase reported by Fotukian
and Esfahany [49] for 0.05 vol.% Al2 O3 –water nanofluid under
Re > 10,000. A similar observation has been recently reported
by Zhang et al. [51]: that the enhancement in heat transfer co-
efficient (hi ) for SiO2 –water nanofluid increases with Reynolds
number because of Brownian motion of nanoparticles, ther-
mophoresis, and thermal diffusion. The authors observed that
only 2% enhancement in hi is possible in laminar flow (Re ≈
1500), while nearly 60% enhancement can be achieved in tur-
bulent flow (Re ≈ 9000) for 2% v/v nanofluid [51]. A detailed
discussion of the mechanisms of heat transport in nanofluids
is available elsewhere [16, 19, 24, 31]. Existing literature re-
ports on the heat transfer in nanofluids do not describe the
heat transfer engineering
R. SAXENA ET AL. 1561
Rescaled and error bars added
0.065
Vol%
0% 0.1% 0.5%
0.060
Power
218 W
input
313 W
476 W 0.055
0.050
0.045
0.040
Equation (15)
0.035
Equation (16)
0.030
3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Axis titles and legend are the same as those on the left
effect of power input to the heater. However, the present study
makes an attempt to quantify the effect of power input on the
heat transfer performance of water-based alumina nanofluids.
It was observed that the convective heat transfer using dilute
alumina–water nanofluids is more effective at high power inputs
(or high fluid temperatures). An increase of power input from
218 W to 313 W caused an improvement up to 12%, and further
increase in power input to 476 W resulted in an additional 15%
increment, leading to an overall enhancement of heat transfer
coefficient up to 27% (evaluated as hen = hnf /hbf – 1, based on
fixed volumetric flow rate and particle concentration). The ob-
served increase in heat transfer coefficient with increasing the
power input is probably due to the beneficial effects of enhance-
ment of thermal conductivity of the nanofluid and correspond-
ing decrease of viscosity at elevated temperatures (Figures 3
and 5).
A plot showing the variation of Nusselt number with increas-
ing Reynolds number is presented in Figure 7. The values of the
Nusselt number obtained in this work are comparable with those
reported by Sharma et al. [43]. From this figure it is clear that the
Nusselt number of dilute Al2 O3 –water nanofluids is positively
correlated to all the three parameters, namely, Reynolds num-
ber, nanoparticle concentration, and power input. The values of
Nu increased nonlinearly with the increase in Re, φ, and power
input (W in ). A correlation described by Eq. (17) was fitted to
the experimental data in order to quantify the dependence of
Nusselt number on these parameters.
N u = a(Re)b (1 + 100φ)c (Win )d (17)
The values obtained for exponents a, b, c, and d by a nonlinear
regression analysis were 0.309, 0.451, 0.455, and 0.203, respec-
tively, with R2 = 0.9319. The values of the exponents reveal
that the Nusselt number is governed by Reynolds number and
volume fraction of nanoparticles rather than the power input. A
parity chart comparing the values of Nu evaluated experimen-
tally (Nuexp ) and Nu obtained from the preceding correlation
(Nucal ) is shown in Figure 8. From this figure, it can be observed
that the preceding relation holds well with acceptable devia-
tion (all data points are within ±10% region). Therefore, the
vol. 37 no. 18 2016
1562 R. SAXENA ET AL.

100 temperature, while it increases rapidly with particle concentra-

Vol% tion. Model 6 presented in Table 1 can be used for approximate
90 0% 0.1% 0.5% interpretation of the thermal conductivity values of water-based
Power

476 W
Nusselt number, Nu

alumina nanofluids at low concentrations. The specific heat ca-

input

80 313 W

70
218 W pacity (CP ) values of dilute alumina–water nanofluids can be
estimated using Eq. (6) with high accuracy (error < 0.5%). The
0.1%, literature [43]
60 thermal conductivity of nanofluid increased while the specific
50 heat capacity decreased with increasing the particle concen-
tration, because of higher thermal conductivity and lower heat
40 capacity of nanoparticles compared to the base fluid (water).
30 The thermal conductivity of nanofluids increases with tempera-
ture, and temperature has little effect on the CP of nanofluids in
20
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
the range investigated (25◦ C–75◦ C). The experimental values of
friction factor for Reynolds numbers 3000 and 4500 were very
Reynolds number, Re
close to those interpreted by the Colebrook equation. Therefore,
Figure 7 A plot of Nusselt number versus Reynolds number (0 vol% refers to the Colebrook equation deduced for turbulent flow of single flu-
water).
ids can be extended to estimate the pressure drop characteristics
of dilute alumina nanofluids in transition flow. Pressure drop
tends to decrease with increasing the power input (or heat flux)
because increase in nanofluid temperature decreases its viscos-
ity. At the maximum Reynolds number (Re ≈ 6000), the friction
factor was found to be minimum and the Nusselt number was
maximum. Therefore, the prepared nanofluids are more effec-
tive under turbulent flow conditions than under transition flow.
It was also observed that the convective heat transfer coefficient
increases (and pressure drop decreases slightly) with increasing
power input.

NOMENCLATURE

CP specific heat capacity (J/kg-◦ C)

d pipe diameter (m)
Figure 8 Comparison of calculated Nusselt number with experimentally DSC differential scanning calorimetry
observed Nusselt number. f friction factor
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-◦ C)
correlation given by Eq. (17) is supposed to predict the depen-
k thermal conductivity (W/m-◦ C)
dence of Nusselt number on various parameters (Re, φ, and
L length of test section (m)
W in ) for different nanofluids, provided that the values of the co-
ṁ mass flow rate (kg/s)
efficient and exponents (a, b, c, and d) are correctly evaluated.
Nu Nusselt number
PID proportional-integral-derivative
Q heat transfer rate (J/s)
Re Reynolds number
CONCLUSIONS T temperature (◦ C)
t time (s)
This work uniquely reports the effect of power input on the u fluid velocity (m/s)
heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of nanofluids. The W power input to heater (W)
experimental results indicated that the addition of nanoparticles
does not generate anomalous behavior. It was observed that the
thermal conductivity and viscosity of nanofluids are highly sen- Greek Symbols
sitive to temperature, while the density and heat capacity are
little affected by the fluid temperature. The density of nanoflu- p pressure drop (Pa)
ids increases linearly with the volume fraction of nanoparti- T temperature difference (◦ C)
cles. However, it decreases nonlinearly with increase in the ε pipe roughness (m)
nanofluid temperature. The viscosity decreases with increase in μ fluid dynamic viscosity (Pa-s)
heat transfer engineering vol. 37 no. 18 2016
 R. SAXENA ET AL. 1563

ρ density (kg/m3) [9] Celata, G. P., D’Annibale, F., Mariani, A., Saraceno, L.,
φ particle volume fraction D’Amato, R., and Bubbico, R., Heat Transfer in Water-
Based SiC and TiO2 Nanofluids, Heat Transfer Engineer-
ing, vol. 34, no. 13, pp. 1060–1072, 2013.
Subscripts [10] Keblinski, P., Prasher, R., and Eapen, J., Thermal Con-
ductance of Nanofluids: Is the Controversy Over?, Journal
b bulk mean value of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 10, no. 7, pp 1089–1097,
bf base fluid (water) 2008.
cal calculated [11] Moghari, R. M., Talebi, F., Rafee, R., and Shariat, M., Nu-
en enhancement merical Study of Pressure Drop and Thermal Characteris-
exp experimental tics of Al2 O3 –Water Nanofluid Flow in Horizontal Annuli,
i inside Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 166–177,
in input 2015.
nf nanofluid [12] Williams, W., Buongiorno, J., and Hu, L.-W., Experimen-
np nanoparticles tal Investigation of Turbulent Convective Heat Transfer
o outside and Pressure Loss of Alumina/Water and Zirconia/Water
s surface Nanoparticle Colloids (Nanofluids) in Horizontal Tubes,
w water Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 130, no. 4, pp. 042412–7,
2008.
[13] Yu, W. France, D. M., Routbort, J. L., and Choi, S. U.
REFERENCES S., Review and Comparison of Nanofluid Thermal Con-
ductivity and Heat Transfer Enhancements, Heat Transfer
[1] Das, S. K., Choi, S. U. S., and Patel, H. E., Heat Transfer in Engineering, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 432–460, 2008.
Nanofluids—A Review, Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. [14] Sarkar, J., Ghosh, P., and Adil, A., A Review on Hybrid
27, no. 10, pp. 3–19, 2006. Nanofluids: Recent Research, Development and Applica-
[2] Choi, S. U. S., Nanofluids: A New Field of Scientific Re- tions, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 43,
search and Innovative Applications, Heat Transfer Engi- pp. 164–177, 2015.
neering, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 429–431, 2008. [15] Cieśliński, J. T., and Kaczmarczyk, T. Z., Pool Boiling of
[3] Trisaksri, V., and Wongwises, S., Critical Review of Heat Water–Al2 O3 and Water–Cu Nanofluids Outside Porous
Transfer Characteristics of Nanofluids, Renewable and Coated Tubes, Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 36, no. 6,
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 512–523, pp. 553–563, 2015.
2007. [16] Minea, A. A., Numerical Simulation of Nanoparticles Con-
[4] Chandrasekar, M., Suresh, S., and Bose, A. C., Experi- centration Effect on Forced Convection in a Tube With
mental Studies on Heat Transfer and Friction Factor Char- Nanofluids, Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 36, no. 13,
acteristics of Al2 O3 /Water Nanofluid in a Circular Pipe pp. 1144–1153, 2015.
Under Laminar Flow With Wire Coil Inserts, Experimen- [17] Timofeeva, E. V., Routbort, J. L., and Singh, D., Particle
tal Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 122–130, Shape Effects on Thermophysical Properties of Alumina
2010. Nanofluids, Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 106, no. 1,
[5] Mohammed, H. A., Bhaskaran, G., Shuaib, N. H., and pp. 014304–10, 2009.
Saidur, R., Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow Characteristics [18] Buongiorno, J., Venerus, D. C., Prabhat, N., McKrell, T.,
in Microchannels Heat Exchanger Using Nanofluids: A Townsend, J., Christianson, R., Tolmachev, Y. V., Keblin-
Review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. ski, P., Hu, L., Alvarado, J. L., Bang, I. C., Bishnoi, S.
15, no. 3, pp. 1502–1512, 2011. W., Bonetti, M., Botz, F., Cecere, A., Chang, Y., Chen, G.,
[6] Mohammed, H. A., Gunnasegaran, P., and Shuaib, N. H., Chen, H., Chung, S. J., Chyu, M. K., Das, S. K., Paola, R.
Heat Transfer in Rectangular Microchannels Heat Sink D., Ding, Y., Dubois, F., Dzido, G., Eapen, J., Escher, W.,
Using Nanofluids, International Communications in Heat Funfschilling, D., Galand, Q., Gao, J., Gharagozloo, P. E.,
and Mass Transfer, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1496–1503, 2010. Goodson, K. E., Gutierrez, J. G., Hong, H., Horton, M.,
[7] Liu, L., Kim, E. S., Park, Y., -G., and Jacobi, A. M., The Hwang, K. S., Iorio, C. S., Jang, S. P., Jarzebski, A. B.,
Potential Impact of Nanofluid Enhancements on the Per- Jiang, Y., Jin, L., Kabelac, S., Kamath, A., Kedzierski, M.
formance of Heat Exchangers, Heat Transfer Engineering, A., Kieng, L. G., Kim, C., Kim, J.-H., Kim, S., Lee, S. H.,
vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 31–41, 2012. Leong, K. C., Manna, I., Michel, B., Ni, R., Patel, H. E.,
[8] Nguyen, C. T., Roy, G., Gauthier, C., and Galanis, N., Heat Philip, J., Poulikakos, D., Reynaud, C., Savino, R., Singh,
Transfer Enhancement Using Al2 O3 –Water Nanofluid for P. K., Song, P., Sundararajan, T., Timofeeva, E., Tritcak,
an Electronic Liquid Cooling System, Applied Thermal T., Turanov, A. N., Vaerenbergh, S. V., Wen, D., With-
Engineering, vol. 27, no. 8–9, pp. 1501–1506, 2007. arana, S., Yang, C., Yeh, W.-H., Zhao, X.-Z. and Zhou,
heat transfer engineering vol. 37 no. 18 2016
1564 R. SAXENA ET AL.
S.-Q., A Benchmark Study on the Thermal Conductivity
of Nanofluids, Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 106, no. 9,
pp. 094312–14, 2009.
[19] Chandrasekar, M., and Suresh, S., A Review on the Mech-
anisms of Heat Transport in Nanofluids, Heat Transfer
Engineering, vol. 30, no. 14, pp. 1136–1150, 2009.
[20] Jang, S. P., and Choi, S. U. S., Role of Brownian mo-
tion in the Enhanced Thermal Conductivity of Nanofluids,
Applied Physics Letters, vol. 84, no. 21, pp. 4316–4318,
2004.
[21] Heris, S. Z., Esfahany, M. N., and Etemad, S. G., Ex-
perimental Investigation of Convective Heat Transfer of
Al2 O3 /Water Nanofluid in Circular Tube, International
Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 28, no. 2, pp.
203–210, 2007.
[22] Wen, D., and Ding, Y., Experimental Investigation Into
Convective Heat Transfer of Nanofluids at the Entrance
Region Under Laminar Flow Conditions, International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 47, no. 24, pp.
5181–5188, 2004.
[23] Das, S. K., Putra, N., Thiesen, P., and Roetzel, W., Temper-
ature Dependence of Thermal Conductivity Enhancement
For Nanofluids, Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 125, no. 4,
pp. 567–574, 2003.
[24] Wang, X.-Q., and Mujumdar, A. S., Heat Transfer Char-
acteristics of Nanofluids: A Review, International Journal
of Thermal Sciences, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2007.
[25] Wen, D., Lin, G., Vafaei, S., and Zhang, K., Review of
Nanofluids for Heat Transfer Applications, Particuology,
vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 141–150, 2009.
[26] Adio, S. A., Sharifpur, M., and Meyer, J. P., Investigation
Into Effective Viscosity, Electrical Conductivity, and pH
of γ-Al2 O3 -Glycerol Nanofluids in Einstein Concentration
Regime, Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 36, no. 14-15, pp.
1241–1251, 2015.
[27] Sekhar, Y. R., and Sharma, K. V., Study of Viscosity
and Specific Heat Capacity Characteristics of Water-Based
Al2 O3 Nanofluids at Low Particle Concentrations, Journal
of Experimental Nanoscience, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 86–102,
2015.
[28] Pak, B., and Cho, Y. I., Hydrodynamic and Heat Transfer
Study of Dispersed Fluids With Submicron Metallic Oxide
Particles, Experimental Heat Transfer, vol. 11, no. 2, pp.
151–170, 1998.
[29] Torii, S., and Yang, W.-J., Heat Transfer Augmentation
of Aqueous Suspensions of Nanodiamonds in Turbulent
Pipe Flow, Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 131, no. 4, pp.
043203–5, 2009.
[30] Ho, C. J., Huang, J. B., Tsai, P. S., Yang, Y. M., Water-
Based Suspensions of Al2 O3 Nanoparticles and MEPCM
Particles on Convection Effectiveness in a Circular Tube,
International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 50, no. 5,
pp. 736–748, 2011.
[31] Chandrasekar, M., and Suresh, S., Experiments to Explore
the Mechanisms of Heat Transfer in Nanocrystalline Alu-
heat transfer engineering
mina/Water Nanofluid Under Laminar and Turbulent Flow
Conditions, Experimental Heat Transfer, vol. 24, no. 3, pp.
234–256, 2011.
[32] Ho, C. J., and Lin, Y.J., Turbulent Forced Convection Effec-
tiveness of Alumina–Water Nanofluid in a Circular Tube
With Elevated Inlet Fluid Temperatures: An Experimental
Study, International Communications in Heat and Mass
Transfer, vol. 57, pp. 247–253, 2014.
[33] Ciloglu, D., and Bolukbasi, A., A Comprehensive Review
on Pool Boiling of Nanofluids, Applied Thermal Engineer-
ing, vol. 84, pp. 45–63, 2015.
[34] Wen, D., and Ding, Y., Experimental Investigation Into the
Pool Boiling Heat Transfer of Aqueous Based γ-Alumina
Nanofluids, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 7, no.
2–3, pp. 265–274, 2005.
[35] Sundar, L. S., and Sharma, K. V., Turbulent Heat Transfer
and Friction Factor of Al2 O3 Nanofluid in Circular Tube
With Twisted Tape Inserts, International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer, vol. 53, no. 7–8, pp. 1409–1416, 2010.
[36] Haddad, Z., Abid, C., Oztop, H. F., and Mataoui, A., A
Review on How the Researchers Prepare Their Nanofluids,
International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 76, pp.
168–189, 2014.
[37] Suresh, S., Selvakumar, P., Chandrasekar, M., and Raman,
V. S., Experimental Studies on Heat Transfer and Friction
Factor Characteristics of Al2 O3 /Water Nanofluid Under
Turbulent Flow With Spiraled Rod Inserts, Chemical En-
gineering and Processing: Process Intensification, vol. 53,
pp. 24–30, 2012.
[38] Duangthongsuk, W., and Wongwises, S., Effect of Ther-
mophysical Properties Models on the Predicting of the
Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient for Low Concentra-
tion Nanofluid, International Communications in Heat and
Mass Transfer, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1320–1326, 2008.
[39] Chieruzzi, M., Cerritelli, G. F., Miliozzi, A., and Kenny, J.
M., Effect of Nanoparticles on Heat Capacity of Nanoflu-
ids Based on Molten Salts as PCM For Thermal Energy
Storage, Nanoscale Research Letters, vol. 8, no. 1, pp.
448–449, 2013.
[40] Teng, T.-P., and Hung, Y.-H., Estimation and Experimen-
tal Study of the Density and Specific Heat for Alumina
Nanofluid, Journal of Experimental Nanoscience, vol. 9,
no. 7, pp. 707–718, 2014.
[41] Sommers, A. D., and Yerkes, K. L., Experimental Inves-
tigation Into the Convective Heat Transfer and System-
Level Effects of Al2 O3 –Propanol Nanofluid, Journal of
Nanoparticle Research, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1003–1014,
2010.
[42] Sarkar, J., A Critical Review on Convective Heat Transfer
Correlations of Nanofluids, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 3271–3277, 2011.
[43] Sharma, K. V., Sundar, L. S., and Sarma, P. K., Estimation
of Heat Transfer Coefficient and Friction Factor in the
Transition Flow With Low Volume Concentration of Al2 O3
Nanofluid Flowing in a Circular Tube and With Twisted
vol. 37 no. 18 2016
 R. SAXENA ET AL.
Tape Insert, International Communications in Heat and
Mass Transfer, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 503–507, 2009.
[44] Heris, S. Z., Nassan, T. H., Noie, S. H., Sardarabadi, H.,
and Sardarabadi, M., Laminar Convective Heat Transfer of
Al2 O3 /Water Nanofluid Through Square Cross-Sectional
Duct, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol.
44, pp. 375–382, 2013.
[45] Murshed, S. M. S., Determination of Effective Specific
Heat of Nanofluids, Journal of Experimental Nanoscience,
vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 539–546, 2011.
[46] Rashmi, W., Ismail, A. F., Sopyan, I., Jameel, A. T., Yusof,
F., Khalid, M., and Mubarak, N. M., Stability and Thermal
Conductivity Enhancement of Carbon Nanotube Nanofluid
Using Gum Arabic, Journal of Experimental Nanoscience,
vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 567–579, 2011.
[47] Amrollahi, A., Rashidi, A. M., Meibodi, M. E., and
Kashefi, K., Conduction Heat Transfer Characteristics and
Dispersion Behaviour of Carbon Nanofluids as a Func-
tion of Different Parameters, Journal of Experimental
Nanoscience, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 347–363, 2009.
[48] Hwang, K. S., Jang, S. P., and Choi, S. U. S., Flow
and Convective Heat Transfer Characteristics of Water-
Based Al2 O3 Nanofluids in Fully Developed Laminar Flow
Regime, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
vol. 52, no. 1–2, pp. 193–199, 2009.
[49] Fotukian, S. M., and Esfahany, M. N., Experimental Inves-
tigation of Turbulent Convective Heat Transfer of Dilute
γ-Al2 -O3 /Water Nanofluid Inside a Circular Tube, Inter-
national Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 31, no. 4,
pp. 606–612, 2010.
[50] Duangthongsuk, W., and Wongwises, S., An Experi-
mental Study on the Heat Transfer Performance and
Pressure Drop of TiO2 –Water Nanofluids Flowing Un-
der a Turbulent Flow Regime, International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 53, no. 1–3, pp. 334–344,
2010.
heat transfer engineering
1565
[51] Zhang, L., Lv, J., Bai, M., and Guo, D., Effect of Vibra-
tion on Forced Convection Heat Transfer for SiO2 –Water
Nanofluids, Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 36, no. 5, pp.
452–461, 2015.
Richa Saxena is an assistant professor in the De-
partment of Petroleum Engineering, DIT Univer-
sity, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. She received her
M.Tech. degree from Thapar University, Patiala, In-
dia, in 2013 and B.Tech. degree from Moradabad
Institute of Technology, Moradabad, India, in 2010.
She worked on heat transfer and pressure drop char-
acteristics of nanofluids during her master’s degree
as her thesis work.
Dasaroju Gangacharyulu is a professor in the De-
partment of Chemical Engineering, Thapar Univer-
sity, Patiala, India. He is also the Controller of Ex-
aminations for the university. He has more than
20 years of experience in teaching, research and in-
dustry. He has specialized in heat transfer and fluid
flow, nanofluids, heat pipes, hydrogen energy, en-
ergy management, energy storage, design of heat ex-
changers, thermal engineering, process design, pro-
cess modeling, and simulation. His research interests
include heat transfer enhancement using nanofluids and energy conservation and
integration.
Vijaya Kumar Bulasara is an assistant professor
in the Department of Chemical Engineering, Thapar
University, Patiala, India. He received his M.Tech.
and Ph.D. degrees in chemical engineering from In-
dian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India, in the
years 2008 and 2011, respectively. He has special-
ized in heat transfer in nanofluids, design of heat
exchanger networks, electroless plating, reaction en-
gineering and catalysis, adsorption, and membrane
separation. His research interests include heat trans-
fer enhancement using nanofluids and wastewater treatment. He is an editorial
board member for the International Journal of Chemical Research, Journal of
Catalyst & Catalysis, and Trends in Chemical Engineering.
vol. 37 no. 18 2016