JOURNAL OF THERMOPHYSICS AND HEAT TRANSFER

Vol. 27, No. 2, April–June 2013

Statistical Analysis of Nanofluid Heat Transfer in

a Heat Exchange System

Y. Vermahmoudi,∗ S. M. Peyghambarzadeh,† and M. Naraki†

Islamic Azad University, Mahshahr, Iran
and
S. H. Hashemabadi‡
Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, 16846 Tehran, Iran
DOI: 10.2514/1.T4062

A statistical experimental design method (the Taguchi method with L9 orthogonal array robust design) has been
implemented to optimize experimental conditions for maximizing the overall heat transfer coefficient of Fe2 O3 –water
nanofluid in an air-cooled heat exchanger. The following controllable factors, each one at three levels, were chosen as
operating conditions: nanofluid concentration (0.15, 0.4, and 0.65 vol %), nanofluid temperature (50, 65, and 80°C),
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.T4062

nanofluid flow rate (0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 m3 ∕h), and airflow rate (740, 870, and 1009 m3 ∕h). Analysis of the experiments
indicated that the airflow rate has the most contribution in the overall heat transfer coefficient of nanofluid with
42.3%. The optimum levels were determined for the four factors as follows: nanofluid concentration 0.65 vol %,
nanofluid temperature 50°C, nanofluid flow rate 0.5 m3 ∕h, and airflow rate 1009 m3 ∕h. The predicted overall heat
transfer coefficient of nanofluid at those conditions was 87.23 W∕m2 K. The confirmation experiment has also been
carried out at the optimum conditions. There is a good agreement between the predicted and the experimental results.

Nomenclature economy and less emission. Reducing vehicle weight by optimizing

A = total heat transfer area, m2 design and the size of the cooling system is a necessity for making the
Cp = specific heat, J∕Kg ⋅ K world green. Addition of fins is one of the approaches to increase the
F = logarithmic temperature correction factor, dimensionless cooling rate of air-cooled heat exchangers. This provides greater heat
L = level transfer area and enhances the air convective heat transfer coefficient.
m = number of experiments However, the traditional approach of increasing the cooling rate
_
m = mass flow rate, kg∕s by using fins and microchannels has already reached its limit [1]. In
n = number of repetitions addition, heat transfer fluids such as water and ethylene glycol exhibit
P = percent of contribution very low thermal performance. As a result, there is a need for new
T = temperature, K and innovative heat transfer fluids for improving heat transfer rate in
U = overall heat transfer coefficient, W∕m2 ⋅ K the aerospace cooling systems. Nanofluids seem to be a potential
V = variance replacement of conventional coolants in the engine cooling system.
Y = value of results Recently, there has been considerable research indicating superior
Y− = average value of results heat transfer performances of nanofluids. Sonawane et al. [2]
performed a complete experimental study of the physical properties,
Subscripts heat transfer, and pressure drop of aviation turbine fuel-based
Al2 O3 , TiO2 , and CuO nanofluids for potential regenerative cooling
c = cold application in semicryogenic rocket engines. Williams and Roux
Er = error [3,4] investigated several different channel-insert configurations as
F = factor miniature heat exchangers using graphite foam, copper fins, or
h = hot nanoparticles dispersed within the cooling fluid. Experiments and
i = in computational fluid dynamics were simultaneously conducted to
o = out measure the chip temperatures as a means of determining the
T = total effectiveness of various cooling strategies.
Farajollahi et al. [5] investigated experiments for heat transfer
characteristics of γ-Al2 O3 –water and TiO2 –water nanofluids in a
I. Introduction shell and tube heat exchanger under turbulent flow conditions. They

N OWADAYS, continuous industrial development and high

prices of energy persuade aerospace industries to apply energy
saving methods such as high-efficiency engines. A high-efficiency
engine features not only higher performance but also better fuel
Received 26 October 2012; revision received 3 January 2013; accepted for
publication 5 January 2013; published online 21 March 2013. Copyright ©
2013 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All
rights reserved. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use,
on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright
Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include
the code 1533-6808/13 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
*Department of Chemical Engineering, Mahshahr Branch.
†
Department of Chemical Engineering, Mahshahr Branch;
peyghambarzadeh@gmail.com (Corresponding Author).
‡ mentioned coefficient was the reverse. Leong et al. [8] studied the
Computational Fluid Dynamic Research Laboratory, School of Chemical
Engineering.
320
observed that maximum enhancement of the overall heat transfer
coefficients for γ-Al2 O3 –water and TiO2 –water nanofluids
compared with the base fluid is approximately 20 and 24%,
respectively. Leong et al. [6] studied the effect of the air Reynolds
number and coolant Reynolds number in the application of 0–2 vol%
Cu–ethylene glycol nanofluids in an automobile radiator. Their
results showed that the overall heat transfer coefficient of nanofluid is
15% greater than that of the base fluid at a constant Reynolds number.
Jwo et al. [7] performed an investigation to analyze the effects of
concentration, inlet flow temperature, and flow rates on the overall
heat transfer coefficient of Al2 O3 –water nanofluid in a multichannel
heat exchanger. They observed that the overall heat transfer
coefficient ratio was higher at higher nanoparticle concentrations and
mass flow rates but the effect of temperature on the previously
convective heat transfer coefficient and overall heat transfer
 VERMAHMOUDI ET AL.
coefficient of copper nanofluid in a shell and tube heat recovery
exchanger. It was observed that about 16.9% enhancement was
recorded for ethylene glycol with 1% copper nanoparticles compared
with the base fluid. Pandey and Nema [9] reported a study of heat
transfer characteristics in a corrugated plate heat exchanger using
nanofluid containing an Al2 O3 nanoparticle in water at different
concentrations (0–4 vol%) in turbulent flow. The maximum
enhancements of convective and overall heat transfer coefficients for
a 2 vol% alumina nanofluid compared with the base fluid were more
than 11 and 10%, respectively. Lotfi et al. [10] demonstrated that
using mono-walled carbon nanotube–water nanofluid with a low
concentration of 0.015 wt % in a horizontal shell and tube heat
exchanger could enhance the overall heat transfer coefficient
compared with water as the base fluid. Peyghambarzadeh et al.
[11,12] investigated the effect of Al2 O3 –water and Al2 O3 –ethylene
glycol nanofluids in different concentrations on the performances of
the convective heat transfer coefficient of an automobile radiator
having turbulent flow. They have figured out that convective heat
transfer coefficients of Al2 O3 –water and Al2 O3 –ethylene glycol
nanofluids showed an interesting increase of about 45 and 40%
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.T4062
compared with the base fluids in the best conditions, respectively.
Some other critical papers have also been published that can be useful
for the interested readers in this field [13–16]. As can be seen in the
previous literature, there is a lack of statistical analysis of the
operating parameter. The authors showed that nanoparticle
concentration and also nanofluid and airflow rates have a direct
effect on the overall heat transfer coefficient and temperature has the
reverse effect. However, nothing could be found about comparison of
the effective parameters. Which one of the operating variables has the
greatest impact on the heat transfer performance in this type of heat
exchanger?
In the present work, the influence of some operating conditions on
the overall heat transfer coefficient of an air-cooled heat exchanger
was investigated. To optimize the design of an existing process, it
is necessary to identify which factors, among the preceding
parameters, have the greatest influence and interrelationship. Hence,
the analyses using conventional experimental methods are ineffi-
cient. The efficient analyses of the complex system using statistical
experimental design [17,18] and the Taguchi method [19–23] have
been performed recently. Taguchi’s approach complements two
important areas: first, he clearly defines a set of orthogonal arrays
(OAs), each of which can be used for many experimental situations;
second, he devises a standard method for analysis of results. The
combination of standard experimentation design techniques and
Fig. 1 The schematic of the experimental setup.
321
analysis method in the Taguchi approach produces consistency and
reproducibility rarely found in any statistical method. In using the
Taguchi design of experiments, two objectives must be satisfied.
First, the number of trials must be determined. Second, the conditions
for each trial must be specified [24]. Experiments using the Taguchi
method allow several effects of factors to be simultaneously
determined effectively and efficiently. By applying this technique,
one can significantly reduce the time required for experimental
investigation. This is an important step in investigating the effects of
multiple factors on the performance as well as the influence of
individual factors to determine which factor has more influence and
which one has less [25]. Thus, by using the Taguchi method, the
optimum level for each factor is determined. After the optimum
conditions are chosen and predicted, the confirmation experiments
should be performed with the prediction. This confirmation
experiment is necessary and important, as it provides direct proof of
the methodology. In the Taguchi method, results of the experiments
are analyzed and, by studying the main effects of each factor, the
general trends of the influencing factors can be characterized. The
characteristics can be controlled, such that a lower or a higher value of
a particular factor produces the preferred result. Thus, the levels of
influencing factors, to produce the best results, can be predicted [26].
This paper describes a case study investigating the influencing
parameters such as temperature, nanofluid flow rate, airflow rate, and
nanofluid concentration on the overall heat transfer coefficient of an
air-cooled heat exchanger by the Taguchi method. The objectives of
this work are: 1) to evaluate the effect of each parameter on the overall
heat transfer coefficient and 2) to apply the statistical Taguchi
experimental design method on the optimization of factors and to find
a combination of parameters to achieve the maximum value of the
overall heat transfer coefficient.
II. Experimental
A. Apparatus
As shown in Fig. 1, the experimental setup used in this research
includes flow lines, a reservoir tank, two heaters, a centrifugal pump,
a flow meter, a forced draft fan, an airflow channel, a temperature
controller, four thermocouples, and a crossflow air-cooled heat
exchanger. The test section has the length of 38.4 cm and the width of
33 cm, where Fe2 O3 –water nanofluid (0.15–0.65 vol%) passes
through the 34 vertical finned tubes with stadium-shaped cross
section. The fins and the tubes are made with aluminum. For cooling
the working fluids, a forced fan (Techno Pars) that is capable of
 322
Table 1 Factors and their levels for design
of experiments
Factors Levels
1 2 3 1
A) Nanofluid concentration, vol% 0.15 0.4 0.65
B) Nanofluid temperature, °C 50 65 80
C) Nanofluid flow rate, m3 ∕h 0.3 0.4 0.5
D) Airflow rate, m3 ∕h 740 870 1009
adjusting the airflow rate from low to high (740–1009 m3 ∕h) was
installed close and face to face to the heat exchanger in the beginning
of a 1.5 m airflow channel. As a result, the indirect crossflow contact
between air and the working fluid leads to heat exchange between hot
working fluid flowing in the tubes and air across the tube bundle. A
centrifugal pump gives a constant flow rate, and its flow rate to the test
section is regulated by appropriate adjusting of a globe valve on the
recycle line to make the laminar flow regime (0.3–0.5 m3 ∕h). The
working fluid fills 35% of the reservoir tank, whose total volume is 20
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.T4062
l (height of 30 cm and diameter of 30 cm). The total volume of the
circulating liquid is constant in all the experiments and is equal to 7 l.
Five layer insulated tubes (Isopipe 0.75 in diameter) have been used
as connecting lines and covered with glass wool to reduce heat loss to
the surrounding. A flow meter (Technical Group LZM-15Z type) was
used to control and manipulate the flow rate with the precision of
0.1 l∕ min. For heating the working fluid, two electrical heaters
(6000 W) and a Proportional Integral Differential (PID) controller
were used to vary the liquid inlet temperature to the heat exchanger
between 50 and 80°C. Four Resistance temperature detector (RTDs)
(Pt-100 Ω) were implemented on the flow lines to record inlet and
outlet temperatures of the air and liquid flow. The installed thermo-
couple on the heat exchanger inlet was connected to a PID controller
to set the inlet temperature of the liquid at a specific set point. The
temperatures from the thermocouples were measured by three digital
multimeters (SU-105PRR, SAMWON ENG), and the other one was
measured by a PID controller and indicator (TC-4 Series) with an
accuracy of
0.1°C. The uncertainty in the measurements has
been calculated according to Moffat [27], who indicates that the
uncertainty in the overall heat transfer coefficient is
15%.
Because the nanoparticles always tend to be agglomerated due to
very strong van der Waals interactions, preparation of homogeneous
suspension remains a technical challenge. To avoid complications
due to the presence of the dispersant/surfactant, in this study the
nanofluid was stabilized considering the variation of pH. As
previously demonstrated [28], the stability condition at pH  11.1 is
the best for Fe2 O3 nanoparticles. At this condition, nanofluids were
stable for a week, which is longer than the time needed for the
experiments. Therefore, all the experimental data reported in this
study have been obtained at this pH.
Overall heat transfer coefficient U is calculated according to the
classical heat transfer formula:
∘
mCP T hin − T hout 
U
Ao FΔT LMTD
where ΔT LMTD is the logarithmic mean temperature difference and
calculated as follows:
T hi − T co  − T ho − T ci 
ΔT LMTD  h i
T hi −T co 
Ln T ho −T ci 
F is the logarithmic temperature correction factor for the given flow
arrangement taken from Incropera and DeWitt [29].
B. Design of Experiments
This study considers four controllable factors (nanofluid
concentration, nanofluid temperature, nanofluid flow rate, and
airflow rate), and each factor has three levels as shown in Table 1. If a
full factorial experimental design is employed, the number of
permutations would be 34 . However, the fractional factorial design
VERMAHMOUDI ET AL.
Table 2 L9 OAs
Factors levels
Run no. A B C D Response U, W∕m2 ⋅ K
1 1 1 1 72.823
2 1 2 2 2 76.229
3 1 3 3 3 79.816
4 2 1 2 3 85.931
5 2 2 3 1 76.528
6 2 3 1 2 71.732
7 3 1 3 2 82.519
8 3 2 1 3 78.869
9 3 3 2 1 74.407
reduced the number of experiments to nine. An L9 OA [21] (Table 2)
is chosen, where L and subscript 9 denote the Latin square and the
number of experiments, respectively. This OA was chosen due to no
interaction among the factors. Each row of the matrix represents one
run. The numbers 1, 2, and 3 in Table 2 indicate the first, second, and
third levels of a factor, respectively. Therefore, the experimental
results (overall heat transfer coefficient in W∕m2 ⋅ K) in Table 2 can
be obtained by combining the values of levels in Table 1 and the L9
OA. For example, the test conditions in test 7 are the nanofluid
concentration of 0.65 vol% (level 3 of factor A), the nanofluid
temperature of 50°C (level 1 of factor B), the nanofluid flow rate of
0.5 m3 ∕h (level 3 of factor C), and the airflow rate of 870 m3 ∕h (level
2 of factor D). Accordingly, a standard analysis by using the average
of results is applied to evaluate the experimental results. Usually, for
standard analysis, the choice of one of the quality characteristics
(QCs) is needed only for determination of the optimum condition,
and three types of QCs are applicable: 1) lower is better (LB),
2) nominal is best (NB), and 3) higher is better (HB). Because the
target of this study is to obtain the maximum value of the overall heat
transfer coefficient of Fe2 O3 –water nanofluid in the heat exchanger,
the QC with HB is required.
III. Results and Discussion
A. Taguchi Results
For analysis of the results and optimization of conditions for
setting the control factors, Qualitek-4 (QT4) software was used. QT4
version 4.75 is the windows version software for automatic design
and analysis of Taguchi experiments.
According to the design of experiments based on the Taguchi
method in Table 2, runs 1–9 were performed. In the Taguchi method,
the main effect of control factors indicates the trend of influence of a
factor. The main effects were calculated using average results. The
(1)
(2)
Fig. 2 Effects of nanofluid and airflow rate factors on the overall heat
transfer coefficient.
 VERMAHMOUDI ET AL. 323

effects of airflow rate, temperature, concentration, and nanofluid Table 3 ANOVA for the overall heat transfer coefficient
flow rate on the overall heat transfer coefficient were shown in Figs. 2
Factor DOFF SSF VF PF , %
and 3. Figure 2 shows that increasing the flow rates of air and
nanofluid increases the overall heat transfer coefficient. Figure 3 A) Nanofluid concentration, vol% 2 8.769 4.384 5.14
B) Nanofluid temperature, °C 2 39.985 19.992 23.44
demonstrated that augmenting the nanofluid concentration enhances C) Nanofluid flow rate, m3 ∕h 2 46.26 23.13 27.12
the mean response but increasing the nanofluid temperature has a D) Airflow rate, m3 ∕h 2 75.566 37.783 44.3
negative effect and causes reduction in the mean response. Two Other/error 0 — — — — — —
mechanisms may cause this reduction in heat transfer coefficient with Total 8 170.581 85.289 100
increasing temperature: 1) rapid alignment of nanoparticles in lower
viscosity fluids, leading to less contact between nanoparticles, and
2) depletion of particles in the near-wall fluid phase, leading to an
mn X
L
intrinsically lower thermal conductivity layer at the wall [30]. SSF  Y
F − Y
T 2 (6)
L k1 k
B. Analysis of Variance Results
Another technique for optimization of the results suggested by the where Y
Fk is the average value of the measurement results of a certain
Taguchi method is analysis of variance (ANOVA). This information factor in the kth level. The variance of each factor, V F , is given by
displays the relative influence of the factors and interaction to the
variation of the results. ANOVA is similar to regression, which is SSF
VF  (7)
used to investigate and model the relationship between a response DOFF
variable and one or more independent variables. However, ANOVA
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.T4062

differs from regression in two ways: the independent variables are Additionally, the variance of error, V Er , is given by [20]
qualitative, and no assumption is made about the nature of the
P
relationship. SST − D FA SSF
The percentage contribution of each factor, PF [20], is given by V Er  (8)
mn − 1
SSF − DOFF V Er 
PF  × 100 (3) Initially, Y
Fk was obtained from the response column in Table 2. By
SST substituting Y
Fk and Y
T into Eq. (6), the factorial sum of squares, SSF ,
for each factor was calculated individually. Using Eq. (4), the total
In Eq. (3), DOFF represents the degree of freedom for each factor, sum of squares, SST , was determined. By substituting SSF and DOFF
which is obtained by subtracting one from the number of the level of in Eq. (7), the variance of each factor was achieved, and by
each factor (L). The total sum of squares, SST [20], is given by substituting SSF and SST into Eq. (8) the variance of error, V Er , was
m
X
X n  obtained, which is zero in this study. Finally, by substituting SSF ,
SST  Y 2i − mnY
T 2 (4) SST , SSF , and DOFF  2 into Eq. (3), the percentage contribution of
j1 i1 j each factor, PF , was determined sequentially. These values are
presented in Table 3.
where The last column of ANOVA indicates the influences of factors and
interactions assigned to the column to the variations of the results.


Pn The row labeled other/error, on the other hand, contains information
X
m i1 Y i about the sources of variability of the results. This line indicates
Y
T 
j
(5) information about the influence from three sources: 1) uncontrollable
j1
mn (noise) factors, 2) factors that are not included in the experiment, and
3) experimental error. Contribution of each factor on overall heat
where m represents the number of experiments carried out in this transfer coefficient PF is presented in Fig. 4. It can be found that
study, n represents the number of repetitions under the same airflow rate is the most effective factor on the response (overall heat
experimental conditions, and Y i is the value of the measurement transfer coefficient) with 44.3%, which was also indicated in the
results of a certain run. The factorial sum of squares, SSF , [20] is study of Leong et al. [8], and, after that, are nanofluid flow rate and
given by nanofluid temperature with 27.12 and 23.44%, respectively.

Fig. 3 Effects of nanofluid inlet temperature and nanofluid Fig. 4 Contribution of each factor on the overall heat transfer
concentration factors on the overall heat transfer coefficient. coefficient.
 324 VERMAHMOUDI ET AL.

Table 4 Optimum conditions and performance of the overall heat

transfer coefficienta
Factor Level description Level Contribution
A) Nanofluid concentration, vol% 0.65 3 0.95
B) Nanofluid temperature, °C 50 1 2.77
C) Nanofluid flow rate, m3 ∕h 0.5 3 1.97
3
D) Airflow rate, m ∕h 1009 3 3.89
Total — — — — 9.577
a
The current grant average of performance is 77.65 W∕m2 ⋅ K, and
the expected result at optimum conditions is 87.23 W∕m2 ⋅ K.

Table 5 Results of confirming the experiment and statistical model at optimum conditions
Operating conditions Predictedresult, Experimental result,
W∕m ⋅ K W∕m ⋅ K
Nanofluid concentration, Nanofluid temperature, Nanofluid flow rate, m3 ∕h Airflow rate,m3 ∕h
vol% °C
0.65 50 0.5 1009 87.23 90.07
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.T4062

After analysis of ANOVA, the optimum conditions for the
experiment can be reported. The QT4 software calculates the
performance at the optimum conditions based on chosen QCs.
Optimum conditions and best performance for our case study are
shown in Table 4. According to the Taguchi method, airflow rate has
the highest contribution in the overall heat transfer coefficient with
3.89. The best setting for control factors is 1) nanofluid concentration
0.65 vol %, 2) nanofluid temperature 50°C, 3) nanofluid flow rate
0.5 m3 ∕h, and 4) airflow rate 1009 m3 ∕h.
The current grand average (i.e., arithmetic average for all trials) for
the overall heat transfer coefficient is around 77.65 W∕m2 ⋅ K.
However, at optimum conditions, the overall heat transfer coefficient
is improved to around 87.23 W∕m2 ⋅ K.
C. Confirmation Test
After determination of optimum conditions using the statistical
analysis, a confirming test was carried out at these conditions in order
to test the accuracy of the predicted results. The results are presented
in Table 5. Comparing the results of this experiment with those of the
statistical model shows a very good consistency. This indicates that
there is a good agreement between the predicted values and the
experimental values, with only 3% error, and confirms that the
experimental design is effective enough to obtain the optimum value
of the overall heat transfer coefficient in only 9 runs instead of 81.
IV. Conclusions
An experimental study was carried out to analyze the overall heat
transfer coefficient of Fe2 O3 –water nanofluid in a heat exchanger.
Effects of the following controllable factors on the overall heat
transfer coefficient have been studied using the Taguchi method:
nanofluid temperature (50, 65, and 80°C), nanofluid concentration
(0.15, 0.4, and 0.65 vol%), nanofluid flow rate (0.3, 0.4, and
0.5 m3 ∕h), and airflow rate (740, 870, and 1009 m3 ∕h). It was
observed that the overall heat transfer coefficient of Fe2 O3 –water
nanofluid increases with increasing the nanofluid concentration,
nanofluid flow rate, and airflow rate and decreasing the nanofluid
temperature. It has been shown that airflow rate and nanofluid
flow rate are the most influencing parameters on the overall heat
transfer coefficient of Fe2 O3 –water nanofluid. Optimum operating
conditions for maximizing the overall heat transfer coefficient of
nanofluid are nanofluid concentration 0.65 vol%, nanofluid
temperature 50°C, nanofluid flow rate 0.5 m3 ∕h, and airflow rate
1009 m3 ∕h. Confirmation of the experiment was also carried out. It
was found that the prediction error of the statistical model is only 3%.
This confirms that there is a good agreement between the predicted
and the experimental values. By using the Taguchi method for the
design of experiments, the optimum value of the overall heat transfer
coefficient of nanofluid was obtained in only 9 runs instead of 81.
It should also be mentioned that from the practical point of view it
is not costly to add even a small amount of a nanoparticle to water to
gain a very small increase in heat transfer performance. To have the
same increase in the overall heat transfer coefficient, it would be less
costly and more practical to increase the airflow or nanofluid flow
rates. Meanwhile, some associated problems like stability and
sedimentation should also be studied in detail.
References
[1] Kulkarni, D. P., Vajjha, R. S., Das, D. K., and Oliva, D., “Application of
Aluminum Oxide Nanofluids in Diesel Electric Generator as Jacket
Water Coolant,” Applied Thermal Engineering, Vol. 28, Nos. 14–15,
2008, pp. 1774–1781.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.11.017
[2] Sonawane, S., Bhandarkar, U., Puranik, B., and Kumar, S. S.,
“Convective Heat Transfer Characterization of Aviation Turbine Fuel–
Metal Oxide Nanofluids,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer,
Vol. 26, No. 4, 2012, pp. 619–628.
doi:10.2514/1.60249
[3] Williams, Z. A., and Roux, J. A., “Foam, Fin and Nanoparticle Thermal
Management of Power Amplifiers Using Liquid Cooling,” Journal of
Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2009, pp. 162–169.
doi:10.2514/1.39497
[4] Williams, Z. A., and Roux, J. A., “Flow Rate and Graphite Foam
Thermal Management for a Power Amplifier Array,” Journal of
Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2010, pp. 411–418.
doi:10.2514/1.46648
[5] Farajollahi, B., Etemad, S. Gh., and Hojjat, M., “Heat Transfer of
Nanofluids in a Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger,” International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 53, Nos. 1–3, 2010, pp. 12–17.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2009.10.019
[6] Leong, K. Y., Saidur, R., Kazi, S. N., and Mamun, A. H., “Performance
Investigation of an Automotive Car Radiator Operated with Nanofluid-
Based Coolants (Nanofluid as a Coolant in a Radiator),” Applied
Thermal Engineering, Vol. 30, Nos. 17–18, 2010, pp. 2685–2692.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.07.019
[7] Jwo, C. S., Jeng, L. Y., Teng, T. P., and Chen, C. C., “Performance of
Overall Heat Transfer in Multi-Channel Heat Exchanger by Alumina
Nanofluid,” Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Vol. 504, No. 1, 2010,
pp. S385–S388.
doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2010.02.051
[8] Leong, K. Y., Saidur, R., Mahlia, T. M. I., and Yau, Y. H., “Modeling of
Shell and Tube Heat Recovery Exchanger Operated with Nanofluid
Based Coolants,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
Vol. 55, No. 4, 2012, pp. 808–816.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2011.10.027
[9] Pandey, S. D., and Nema, V. K., “Experimental Analysis of Heat
Transfer and Friction Factor of Nanofluid as a Coolant in a Corrugated
Plate Heat Exchanger,” Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science,
 VERMAHMOUDI ET AL.
Vol. 38, April 2012, pp. 248–256.
doi:10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2011.12.013
[10] Lotfi, R., Rashidi, A. M., and Amrollahi, A., “Experimental Study on the
Heat Transfer Enhancement of MWNT-Water Nanofluid in a Shell and
Tube Heat Exchanger,” International Communications in Heat and
Mass Transfer, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2012, pp. 108–111.
doi:10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2011.10.002
[11] Peyghambarzadeh, S. M., Hashemabadi, S. H., Jamnani, M. S., and
Hoseini, S. M., “Improving the Cooling Performance of Automobile
Radiator with Al2 O3 ∕water Nanofluid,” Applied Thermal Engineering,
Vol. 31, No. 10, 2011, pp. 1833–1838.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.02.029
[12] Peyghambarzadeh, S. M., Hashemabadi, S. H., Hoseini, S. M., and
Jamnani, M. S., “Experimental Study of Heat Transfer Enhancement
Using Water/Ethylene Glycol Based Nanofluids as a New Coolant for
Car Radiators,” International Communications in Heat and Mass
Transfer, Vol. 38, No. 9, 2011, pp. 1283–1290.
doi:10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2011.07.001
[13] Xuan, Y., and Li, Q., “Heat Transfer Enhancement of Nanofluids,”
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2000,
pp. 58–64.
doi:10.1016/S0142-727X(99)00067-3
Wang, X. Q., and Majumdar, A. S., “Heat Transfer Characteristics of
Downloaded by MONASH UNIVERSITY on May 23, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.T4062
[14]
Nanofluids: A Review,” International Journal of Thermal Science,
Vol. 46, No. 1, 2007, pp. 1–19.
doi:10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2006.06.010
[15] Saidur, R., Leong, K. Y., and Mohammad, H. A., “A Review on
Applications and Challenges of Nanofluids,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2011, pp. 1646–1668.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.035
[16] Vajjha, R. S., and Das, D. K., “A Review and Analysis on Influence of
Temperature and Concentration of Nanofluids on Thermophysical
Properties, Heat Transfer and Pumping Power,” International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 55, Nos. 15–16, 2012, pp. 4063–4078.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.03.048
[17] Carbone, C., Tomasello, B., Ruozi, B., Renis, M., and Puglisi, G.,
“Preparation and Optimization of PIT Solid Lipid Nanoparticles via
Statistical Factorial Design,” European Journal of Medicine Chemistry,
Vol. 49, March 2012, pp. 110–117.
doi:10.1016/j.ejmech.2012.01.001
[18] Hosseini, S., Taghizadeh, M., and Eliassi, A., “Optimization of
Hydrothermal Synthesis of H-ZSM-5 Zeolite for Dehydration of
Methanol to Dimethyl Ether Using Full Factorial Design,” Journal
of Natural Gas Chemistry, Vol. 21 No. 3, 2012, pp. 344–351.
doi:10.1016/S1003-9953(11)60375-7
[19] Kim, K. D., Kim, S. H., and Kim, H. T., “Applying the Taguchi Method
to the Optimization for the Synthesis of TiO2 Nanoparticles by
Hydrolysis of TEOT in Micelles,” Colloids and Surfaces A:
Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, Vol. 254, Nos. 1–3, 2005,
pp. 99–105.
doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2004.11.033
325
[20] Chou, C. S., Wu, C. Y., Yeh, C. H., Yang, R. Y., and Chen, J. H., “The
Optimum Conditions for Solid-State-Prepared Y3x Cex Al2 O12
Phosphor Using the Taguchi Method,” Advanced Powder Technology,
Vol. 23, No. 1, 2012, pp. 97–103.
doi:10.1016/j.apt.2010.12.016
[21] Mohammadi, T., and Safavi, M. A., “Application of Taguchi Method in
Optimization of Desalination by Vacuum Membrane Distillation,”
Desalination, Vol. 249, No. 1, 2009, pp. 83–89.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2009.01.017
[22] Yusoff, N., Ramasamy, M., and Yusup, S., “Taguchi’s Parametric
Design Approach for the Selection of Optimization Variables in a
Refrigerated Gas Plant,” Chemical Engineering Research and Design,
Vol. 89, No. 6, 2011, pp. 665–675.
doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2010.09.021
[23] Kaminari, N. M. S., Schultz, D. R., Ponte, M. J. J. S., Ponte, H. A.,
Marino, C. E. B., and Neto, A. C., “Heavy Metals Recovery from
Industrial Wastewater Using Taguchi Method,” Chemical Engineering
Journal, Vol. 126, Nos. 2–3, 2007, pp. 139–146.
doi:10.1016/j.cej.2006.08.024
[24] Chiang, K. T., “Optimization of the Design Parameters of Parallel-Plain
Fin Heat Sink Module Cooling Phenomenon Based on the Taguchi
Method,” International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer,
Vol. 32, No. 9, 2005, pp. 1193–1201.
doi:10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2005.05.015
[25] Madaeni, S. S., and Koocheki, S., “Application of Taguchi Method in the
Optimization of Wastewater Treatment Using Spiral-Wound Reverse
Osmosis Element,” Chemical Engineering Journal, Vol. 119, No. 1,
2006, pp. 37–44.
doi:10.1016/j.cej.2006.03.002
[26] Chou, C. S., Lin, S. H., Peng, C. C., and Lu, W. C., “The Optimum
Conditions for Preparing Solid Fuel Briquette of Rice Straw by a Piston-
Mold Process Using the Taguchi Method,” Fuel Processing Technology,
Vol. 90, Nos. 7–8, 2009, pp. 1041–1046.
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2009.04.007
[27] Moffat, R. J., “Describing the Uncertainties in Experimental Results,”
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1988, pp. 3–17.
doi:10.1016/0894-1777(88)90043-X
[28] Peyghambarzadeh, S. M., Hashemabadi, S. H., Naraki, M., and
Vermahmoudi, Y., “Experimental Study of Overall Heat Transfer
Coefficient in the Application of Dilute Nanofluids in the Car Radiator,”
Applied Thermal Engineering, Vol. 52, No. 1, 2013, pp. 8–16.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.11.013
[29] Incropera, F. P., and DeWitt, D. P., Introduction to Heat Transfer,
3rd ed., Wiley, New York, 1996, pp. 642–644.
[30] Yang, Y., Zhang, Z. G., Grulke, E. A., Anderson, W. B., and Wu, G.,
“Heat Transfer Properties of Nanoparticle-in-Fluid Dispersions
(Nanofluids) in Laminar Flow,” International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer, Vol. 48, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1107–1116.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2004.09.038