Heat Transfer, Friction Factor Analysis Of Fe3o4 Nanofluid Flow In A

Double Pipe U-Bend Heat Exchanger With And Without Longitudinal

Strip Inserts

N.T.Ravi Kumar1, P.Bhramara1, L.Syam Sundar2

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, J.N.T.U. College ofEngineering,
Hyderabad,India.
ntravi23@gmail.com
2
Center for Mechanical Technology and Automation, Department of Mechanical
Engineering,University of Aveiro,Portugal.
sslingala@gmail.com
N.T.Ravi Kumar, phone no.08123663173

Abstract:The paper reports on the experimental estimation of heat transfer and friction
factor of Fe3O4-water nanofluid flow in an inner tube of a double pipe U-bend heat
exchanger with and without longitudinal strip inserts under turbulent flow conditions. To
estimate the heat transfer and friction factor of Fe 3O4-water nanofluid experiments were
conducted at different Reynolds numbers ranging from 15000 to 30000, different
nanofluid concentrations ranging from 0.005% to 0.06% and different longitudinal strip
inserts with different aspect ratios (AR) of AR = 1, 2 and 4 .The experimental results
show that using the inserts in the experiments, Nusselt number of a nanofluid increases
with increase of the Reynolds number and particle concentrations and decrease of aspect
ratio of longitudinal strip inserts. For 0.06% nanofluid at a Reynolds number of 28,954,
the nusselt number enhancement is 14.7% and 41.29% without inserts and with an insert
of AR=1, respectively, compared to water data without inserts. Also for 0.06% of the
nanofluid at a Reynolds number of 28,954, the friction factor penalty is 1.092-times and
1.267-times without inserts and with an insert of AR=1, respectively, compared to water
data without inserts.

Keywords:Heat Transfer, Nusselt number, Longitudinal Strip Inserts, Friction factor,

Friction penalty.

Introduction: The double pipe heat exchangers are commonly employed heat transfer
equipment in areas like food, chemical, gas, effluent heating and oil industries because of
their simple design, compactness and ease of usage. The double pipe heat exchangers are
extensively used in small scale industries because of their low cost of maintenance and
design. Commonly employed single phase heat transfer fluids in these industrial heat
exchangers are water (W), propylene glycol (PG), engine oil (EO),ethylene glycol (EG)
etc. For these single phase fluids the drawback is their low thermal conductivity
properties which can be enhanced by employing a new kind of fluid having high thermal
conductivity such as nanofluids. Choi [1] and his team developed a new class of high
thermal conductivity fluid known as nanofluid, which is prepared by dispersing solid
particles of nanometer size in the base fluids like water, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol
and engine oil etc., and noticed an improvement in thermal conductivity values
compared to base fluids. The advantages of nanoparticles are uniform dispersion of
nanoparticles, no agglomeration of particles, and hence no clogging in the pipes. These
features along with their improved convective heat transfer characteristic make the use of
nanofluids in heat exchange devices highly advantageous.
El-Maghlany et al. [2] observed enhancement of effectiveness and the number of
transfer units (NTU) of the double pipe heat exchanger using Cu/water
nanofluids.Zamzamian et al. [3] noticed heat transfer enhancement of 37% for 1.0%
weight of CuO/ EG and 26% for 1.0% weight of Al 2O3/EG in a double pipe heat
exchanger, while for the plate heat exchanger the heat transfer enhancement was 49%
and 38%, respectively. Khedkar et al. [4] observed overall heat transfer augmentation of
16% with 3% volume concentration of Al2O3/water nanofluids flow in a concentric tube
heat exchanger. Rabienataj Darzi et al. [5] observed heat transfer enhancement under
turbulent flow conditions as 20% for 1.0% volume concentration of Al 2O3/water flow in a
double pipe heat exchanger.Wu et al. [6] prepared alumina/water nanofluids with
concentrations of 0.78–7.04 wt. % and observed heat transfer and pressure drop both in
laminar and turbulent flow conditions inside a double pipe helically coiled heat
exchanger and they observed heat transfer augmentation of the nanofluids of 0.37–3.43%
in comparison to water.Reddy and Rao [7] observed heat transfer and friction factor
augmentation by 10.73% and 8.73% for0.02% volume concentration of 40:60% ethylene
glycol and water mixture based TiO 2 nanofluid flow in a double pipe heat exchanger at
15,000 Reynolds number. Arani et al. [8] observed Nusselt number enhancement under
fully developed turbulent flow conditions by using TiO2/water nanofluid in a
horizontal double tube counter flow heat exchanger.Hemmat Esfe and Saedodin [9]
calculated convective heat transfer coefficient of MgO/water nanofluid flow in a double
pipe heat exchanger at different particle concentrations of 0.005, 0.01, 0.015, 0.02 and
the nanoparticles diameter of 60, 50, 40 and 20 nm.Aghayari et al. [10] noticed Nusselt
number enhancement of 24% and heat transfer enhancement of 19% for 0.3%
volumefraction of Al2O3/water nanofluid flow in a double pipe heat exchanger.Sonawane
et al. [11] prepared Al2O3 nanofluids and used in a double pipe heat exchanger; they
observed 16% overall heat transfer augmentation at 3992 Reynolds number and 3%
volume concentration. Sudarmadji et al. [12] prepared hot Al2O3/water nanofluid flowing
inside tube, whereas the cold water flows in an annulus tube and calculated heat transfer
coefficient for different volume concentrations of 0.15%, 0.25% and 0.5% and observed
Nusselt number augmentation of 40.5% compared to pure water under 0.5% volume
concentration.Goodarzi et al. [13] conducted heat transfer experiments and observed heat
transfer augmentation of 16.2% for 0.06% weight fraction of nitrogen-doped graphene
(NDG) nanofluids for Reynolds numbers between 5000 and 15,000.Duangthongsuk and
Wongwises [14] noticed heat transfer augmentation from 6 to 11% at 0.2% volume
concentration of TiO2/water nanofluid flowunder turbulent flow conditions in a horizontal
double tube counter flow heat exchanger.Bahiraei et al. [15] studied numerically the heat
transfer characteristics of waterbased Mn–Zn ferrite magnetic nanofluid flow in a
counter flow double pipe heat exchanger; they observedthat increasing particle size,
volume concentration and magnetic field yield higher values of heat transfer rate and
pressure drop. Demir et al. [16] numerically investigated the forced convection flow of
water-based nanofluids with Al2O3 and TiO2 nanoparticles in a horizontal tube with
constant wall temperature.Sajadi and Kazemi [17] observed heat transfer augmentation of
22% at 0.25% of TiO2/water nanofluid flow at 5000 Reynolds number in a double pipe
heat exchanger. Huminic and Huminic [18] numerically studied heat transfer
characteristics of TiO2 andCuO nanofluids flow in a double tube helical heat exchanger
under laminar flow conditions and they observed thatwith increase of particle
concentrations heat transfer enhanced noticeably.Choi and Zhang [19] studied
numerically by using a finite element method (FEM) the laminar forced convection heat
transfer of the Al2O3-water nanofluid flowing in a pipe with a return bend and they
observed Nusselt number augmentationwith increasing Prandtl number and Reynolds
number. Remarkably, in their majority of the studies pertaining to the use of nanofluids in
double pipe heat exchangers observed higher heat transfer rates with practically
trivialincrease in friction. Shakiba and Vahed [20] observed the hydrothermal
characteristics of Fe3O4-water nanofluid at 4.0% volume concentration in a counter flow
double pipe heat exchanger using control volume technique and single phase model.

For a flow in a pipe,greater heat transfer rates can be attained by enhanced turbulence,
which can be created by employing longitudinal strip inserts in the test section. The
concept of longitudinal strip inserts in a tube as turbulence enhancers was first used by
Liu [21] and he conducted experiments in the fully developed turbulent flow region.
Later, Heish and Wen [22], Hsieh and Huang [23], performed heat transfer experiments
for water flow in a tube with longitudinal strip inserts in the Reynolds number range from
1700 - 4000 and they observed enhanced heat transfer rates.Saha and Langille [24] also
conducted heat transfer and pressure drop experiments in the laminar region using
longitudinal strip inserts for water flow in a tube. Based on this literature, the use
oflongitudinal strip inserts for commonly used fluids yields better heat transfer
enhancement.
Longitudinal strips for nanofluids flowing in a tube were employed by Sundar and
Sharma [25]. They performed heat transfer and friction factor experiments with Al2O3
nanofluid in a tube with longitudinal strip inserts and, for a 0.5% volume concentration of
the Al2O3nanofluid and a longitudinal strip insert with aspect ratio equal to 1, they
observed 76.20% and 80.19% of heat transfer enhancement as compared to water flowing
in a plain tube, for Reynolds number values of 3000 - 22,000, respectively. Sundar et al.
[26], performed experiments using a 0.5% volume concentration of the Al2O3 nanofluid
and a longitudinal strip insert with aspect ratio equal to 1 and observed an heat transfer
augmentation of 32.12% and 14.50% for Reynolds number values of 700 and 2200,
respectively. Prasad et al. [27], performed experiments using a 0.03% volume
concentration of the Al2O3 nanofluid in a double pipe heat exchanger and a longitudinal
strip insert of aspect ratio equal to 1 and observed heat transfer augmentation of 47.35%
with a friction penalty of 1.21-times, as compared to water flowing in a tube with no
longitudinal strip insert. Sundar et al. [28] performed experiments and observed a Nusselt
number augmentation for 0.3% volume concentration of MWCNT/ Fe 3O4 hybrid
nanofluid flowing in a tube without inserts of32.72% and with longitudinal strip inserts
of aspect ratio equal to1 of 50.99% at 22000 Reynolds number.Data for Fe 3O4 nanofluids
flowing in an inner tube of a U-bend double pipe heat exchanger with longitudinal strip
inserts is not available; therefore, the present work is primarily concentrated on the
estimation of heat transfer, friction factor for a double pipe heat exchanger usingFe 3O4
nanofluid flowing through the inner tube with longitudinal strip inserts.The experiments
were conducted with particle volume concentration from 0% - 0.06%, Reynolds number
ranging from15000 -30000, using Fe3O4 nanofluid and longitudinal strip inserts of aspect
ratios 1, 2 and 4.For different operating conditions and longitudinal strip inserts, the
thermal performance of heat exchanger isdetermined. Based on the experimental data,
new Nusselt number and friction factor correlations are proposed

2. Experiment:
2.1. Preparation of nanofluids
The magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemicals, USA
[29] and the nanofluids were prepared by dispersing nanoparticles in distilled water. The
bulk quantity required i.e., 15 L of nanofluids was prepared in the particle volume
concentration range of 0.005%, 0.01%, 0.03% and 0.06%. For the uniform dispersion of
nanoparticles in the base fluid (water) the surfactant Cetyl Trimethyl ammonium bromide
(CTAB) (approximately equal to 1/10th of weight of nanoparticles) was used. The
quantity of nanoparticles required for known percentage of volume concentration was
estimated from Eq. (1) which is given below.

[ ( )
]
W Fe o 3 4

ρFe o
Volume Concentration , ϕ= × 100[1]
3 4

( )( )
WFe o W
3 4
+ water
ρF e o
3 4
ρwater
where' ϕ ' is the percentage of volume concentration, W water=15000g, ρ F e o =5180kg/m3, 3 4

ρwater =998.5 kg/m3 and W F e o = weight of Fe3O4 nanoparticles required.

3 4

The required quantities of nanoparticles and surfactant for a specific percentage of

volume concentrations (i.e, 0.005%, 0.01%, 0.03% and 0.06%) are given in Table 1.

Table 1

Quantity of nanoparticles and surfactant used for the preparation of 15 L of nanofluid.

ϕ (%) Nanoparticles used for 15 L, (g) Surfactant used for 15 L, (g)

0.005 4.364 0.436426

0.01 8.728 0.872897
0.03 26.19 2.619213
0.06 52.39 5.239999
To prepare a water based 0.005% volume concentrations of nanofluids, an amount of
4.364 g of Fe3O4 nanoparticles and 0.4364 g of CTAB surfactant was used in 15 L of
distilled water. The surfactant (0.4364 g) was mixed in 15 L of distilled water and
sonicated in ultrasonic bath for about two hours then the required quantity of
nanoparticles (4.364 g) was added and sonicated for another two hours. Due to the small
capacity of the ultrasonicator, sonication process had been split in to three batches of 5
liters each. After that, the nanofluid is stirred with a high speed stirrer for 24 hours for
uniform dispersion as shown in Fig.1. Similar procedure was adapted for the preparation
of 0.01%, 0.03% and 0.06% volume concentrations of Fe 3O4 nanofluids. For the
estimation of heat transfer coefficient; the thermophysical properties of Fe3O4 nanofluids
was used from the data of Sundar et al. [30] and it is shown in Table 2 for different
temperatures and volume concentrations.

Table 2
Property T ϕ =0.0 % ϕ =0.005 % ϕ =0.01 % ϕ =0.03 % ϕ =0.06 %
(oC)
( ρ ¿ , kg /m3 20 998.5 998.8 999.10 999.7 1000.9
40 992 992.3 992.60 993.21 994.42
60 983.3 983.6 983.90 984.51 985.71
(k ), W /mK 20 0.6024 0.604 0.6055 0.6087 0.6149
40 0.6314 0.6341 0.6367 0.6421 0.6527
60 0.653 0.6564 0.6598 0.6666 0.6802
( μ ) , m. Pa. s 20 0.79 0.7916 0.7931 0.7963 0.8025
40 0.54 0.5403 0.5406 0.5413 0.5425
60 0.3 0.3009 0.3018 0.3038 0.3075
(C p), J /kgK 20 4182 4181.8 4181.5 4181.1 4180.2
40 4178 4177.8 4177.5 4177.1 4176.2
60 4183 4182.8 4182.5 4182.1 4181.2
Prandtl 20 5.48 5.4766 5.4731 5.4663 5.4525
number
40 3.57 3.5584 3.5468 3.5238 3.4775
60 1.92 1.9163 1.9125 1.905 1.89

2.2. Experimental Setup

The schematic diagram of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2a and the test section
details are shown in Fig. 2b. whereas the actual view (photograph) of the setup is shown
in Fig, 2c.The experimental setup consists of: (a) two concentric tube heat exchangers,
(b) data logger with personal computer (c) cooling and heating water tanks, (d) set of
thermocouples, (e) U-tube manometer and (f) flow meters for both hot and cold fluids.
The test section consists of a concentric double pipe with a stainless steel (SS304) inner
tube of inner diameter (ID) 0.019 m and outer diameter (OD) 0.025 m, and a galvanized
iron annulus pipe of inner diameter (ID) 0.05 m and outer diameter (OD) 0.056 m. The
test section has a two-pass arrangement for the inner tube (Fig. 1b); the bend is placed at
a distance of 2.26 m with a radius of 0.160 m. The total length of the inner tube is 5 m
and the effective length of each heat region is 2.26 m. The heat loss from the test section
is decreased by covering the annulus tube with asbestos rope. The four thermocouples
(resistance temperature detectors (RTD) type) were fitted to measure the inlet and outlet
temperatures of the hot fluid (water or nanofluid) and cold fluid. Thermocouple sensitive
needles are connected to the data acquisition system and the readings were recorded in
the computer for further processing. Prior to the useof thermocouples in the test section,
they are calibrated and their resolution is ±0.1 oC resolution. The flow is assumed to be
hydro dynamically fully developed in the test section considering the aspect ratio (l/d; l:
length; d: diameter) is equal to 263.
Two flow meters (Magnetic inferential type) of Dasmesh make were used to measure the
flow rates of hot fluid (water or nanofluids) and cold fluid. The hot fluid was
supplied through the inner tube, while the cold fluid, which is the cooling medium, flows
through the galvanized iron annulus tube. In the test section, the fluids in the inner tube
and annulus tube flows in a counter flow direction. The temperature of the cold water
(annulus side) was maintained at around 29 oC and kept constant flow rate of 8 LPM
(0.133 kg/s) whereas the hot Fe3O4 nanofluid (tube side) with constant inlet temperature
of 60oC from the hot fluid tank was supplied through the inner tube at different massflow
rates of 8, 10, 12 and 14 LPM (0.133–0.233 kg/s). The experiments were performed
successively at different particle concentrations of 0.005%, 0.01%, 0.03% and 0.06%.
Each concentration nanofluid of 15 liters was prepared freshly and employed in the
experiments. The temperatures of hot and cold nanofluids were recorded at steady state
conditions. Before using the Fe3O4 nanofluid, the test section was calibrated with water as
the working fluid. The test section is cleaned with pure water before conducting
experiments with different concentration nanofluids. The thermo physical properties of
the nanofluid were estimated at mean temperature. The formulae used for Nusselt number
calculations are shown in Section 3.
The pressure drop through the inner tube of the test section wasrecorded by placing a U-
tube manometer between both ends ofthe tube. To attain this purpose, 4-mm holes were
drilled at both ends of the inner tube and connected using flexible tubing to the U-
tubemanometer; mercury (Hg) is used as the manometric fluid and the equivalent height
is recorded as a function of the mass flow rate. The system attains steady state after
nearly 2 hours of operation; under steady state conditions, the readings of four
thermocouples are recorded and used for heat transfer calculations. The logarithmic mean
temperature difference (LMTD) method is used to calculate the inside heat transfer
coefficient of the nanofluid. The thermophysical properties of Fe 3O4 nanoparticles and
distilled water at 200C are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Water/Particle Mean Density Thermal Specific heat Viscosity

diameter (kg/m3) Conductivity (kJ/kg K) (mPa.s)
(W/mK)
Fe3O4 36nm 5180 80.4 670 --
 Water -- 998.5 0.6024 4182 0.79
2.3 Preparation of Longitudinal strip inserts

The photograph withdimensions of the different longitudinal strip inserts made of

aluminum are used in the experiments were shown in Fig. 2d. The aspect ratios and
dimensions of longitudinal srtip inserts are shown in Table 4. Based on the hydraulic
diameter, the mass flow rate of the Fe3O4 nanofluids in the inner tube with the
longitudinal strip inserts is calculated. The formula used to calculate the hydraulic
diameter is shown below.
4A
D h= [2]
p
Where p is the perimeter, A is the cross-sectional area.

Table 4

Longitudinal strip inserts Aspect w(m) h(m) Dh(m) Dh/Di

ratio (AR)=w/h

AR=1 0.012 0.012 0.005183 0.2727

AR=2 0.012 0.006 0.008839 0.4652

AR=4 0.012 0.003 0.011032 0.5806

3. Data analysis

3.1 Experimental Nusselt number

Rate of heat flow(tube side fluid),Q h= ṁh ×C p ,h × ( T h ,i −T h , o )[3]
Rate of heat flow (annulus side fluid),Qc =ṁ c ×C p ,c × ( T c, o−T c ,i ) [4]
Q avg
U i=

( )
∆ T 1−∆T 2
Overall heat transfer coefficient (tube side), Ai
ln
( )
∆T 1
∆T 2

[5]
 Q avg
Uo=

( )
∆ T 1−∆ T 2
Overall heat transfer coefficient (annulus side), Ao [6]
ln
( )
∆T1
∆T2

Qh +Qc
Where Qavg = ; ∆ T 1=( T h ,i −T c , o ) and ∆ T 2=( T h , o−T c, i )
2

Neglecting fouling, the relation for overall heat transfer coefficient (tube side) for a

double pipe heat exchanger is given as:

1
=
1
+
ln
+
( )
Do
Di1 [7]
U i A i h o A o 2 πKL hi A i

Where ' U o ' or ‘U i ' is the overall heat transfer co-efficient for annulus side or tube side

respectively, ‘L’ is the length of the heat exchanger, ‘K’ is the thermal conductivity of the

tube material. The value (ho) annulus heat transfer coefficient in Eq. (7) is calculated

using the eq. (8) of Gnielinski [31].

Nu =
( 2)
f
( ℜ−1000 ) Pr
[8]
1.07+12.7 ( ) ( Pr −1 )
o 0.5
f 2 /3
2

−2
f =(1.58−ln ( ℜ )−3.82) ; 0.5< Pr <2000 ; 2300< ℜ<1 06

4A
D h= =Do −Di [9]
p

π
Where A is the flow area and calculated as A=
4
( Do2−Di2 ).
The Nusselt number value found from Eq. (8) is used to compute the annulus heat

transfer coefficient (ho) using the thermal conductivity of annulus fluid at mean

temperature and the hydraulic diameter (Dh) and the equation is given below.

Nu o K o
h o= [10]
Dh

The value of ho, which is calculated from Eq. (10), is substituted in Eq. (7) to find the

inner tube-side heat transfer coefficient (hior hnf); the Nusselt number of nanofluid (Nunf)

can be calculated by using the equation given below.

hnf × D i
Nu nf = [11]
K nf

Based on the flow rate at the inlet of the tube the Reynolds number will be changing

which is given as:

ℜnf = ( ρvμd ) [12]

i

nf

Based on the nanofluid thermal conductivity, specific heat and viscosity, the Prandtl

number can be calculated at nanofluid mean temperature.

Pr nf = ( μ Ck ) [13]
p

nf

3.2 Experimental Friction factor

The following expression is used to calculate the friction factor.

∆P
f=
Li
( )
2
ρ v [14]
×
Di 2

Where ' ∆ P' =P1 −P2, the pressure difference which is determined based on the mercury

column height difference in the U-tube manometer.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Nusselt number of water and nanofluids

To experimental test rig is calibrated with water as working fluid.Initially heat

transferexperiments were performed using water as the working fluidflowing through the

inner tube of the double pipe heat exchanger.Initially water is heated up to 60 0C and then

delivered to theinner tube of the heat exchanger, while the cold fluid (water) at around

250C is circulatedthrough the annulus side of the heat exchanger. The mass flow rate

through the tube side is varied from 8 to 14 LPM, while the mass flow rate ofannulus tube

fluid (cold water) is fixed as 8 LPM during the experiments. The heat transferbetween the

cold and hot streamswas estimated by using Eqs. (3) and (4) and the deviation was

observed to be ±2.5%, which indicates that heat loss is small and can be neglected. The

heat transfer coefficient on the tube-side (hi) wascalculated based on the annulus side heat

transfer coefficient (ho). The Eq. (8) of Gnielinski [31] is employed to estimate the

Nusselt numberof annulus fluid and then calculate the annulus fluid (h o) basedon the

thermal conductivity of the annulus side fluid at mean temperature and hydraulic

diameter (Dh). The value of (ho) calculated using Eq. (10) is substituted in Eq. (7) for the

estimation ofthe tube-side heat transfer coefficient (hi) and then the Nusselt

number(Nu) is determined using Eq. (11), which involves , inner tube diameter (d),(hi)

and thermal conductivity (k) at bulk mean temperature.The estimated tube-side Nusselt

number is shown inFig. 3 along with values obtained from Eq. (15) of Dittus-Boelter[32],

i.e.
Nu=0.023 ℜ0.8 Pr 0.4 [15]

The experimental values andthose predicted by Dittus-Boelter [32] have a maximum

deviation of less than ±2.5%; which validates the previous verification that negligible

heat losstakes place from the experimental test section to atmosphere.The different

volume concentrations of nanofluid i.e. (0.005%,0.01%, 0.03% and 0.06%) were tested in

the experimental test rig. Through the tubeside the hot nanofluidflows at the temperature

of 600C, whereas through the annulus side water circulates initially at around 25 0C. The

mass flow rates through the tube-side are8, 10, 12 and 14 LPM, respectively, and the

annulus side mass flow rateis kept constant at 8 LPM throughout the experiments. As

stated earlier, the tube-side heat transfer coefficient (hi) was determined based on the

annulus fluid heat transfer coefficient (ho). Eq. (11) is employed to evaluate the nanofluid

heat transfer coefficient (hnf=hi) and then the Nusselt number

(Nunf=hnfdi/knf).Theexperimental Nusselt number is shown in Fig. 4 for

differentconcentrations of the nanofluid and for the base fluid, and it canbe seen that the

Nusselt number increases with increasing valuesof the Reynolds number and theparticle

concentration. At thesame Reynolds number, the nanofluid has higher Nusselt number as

compared to that of water. For 0.005% volumeconcentration of nanofluid the Nusselt

number is enhanced by 1.72% and 2.29% for Reynoldsnumber of 16,545 and 28,954,

respectively, as compared to that of the base fluid (water); likewise, for the 0.06%

volume concentrationnanofluid, the enhancement in the Nusselt number is 9.76%

and14.7% for Reynolds number of 16,545 and 28,954, respectively, ascompared to that

of water. Prasad et al. [27] also observed similar trend of increased Nusselt number with
increasing values of nanofluid concentration by using Al2O3nanofluid flowing in a

doublepipe U-bend heat exchanger. As a primary investigation, theNusselt number values

for the Fe3O4nanofluid found experimentallyare compared against available Nusselt

numbercorrelations for other nanofluids, in particular TiO2and Cu nanofluids, i.e.:

Sajadi and Kazemi [17] for TiO2 nanofluid:

Nu=0.067 ℜ0.71 Pr 0.35 +0.0005 ℜ [16]

5000< ℜ< 3× 1 04 ; 0.2<ϕ <0.25 %

Xuan and Li [33] equation for Cu nanofluid:

Nu=0.0059 ( 1+7.6286 ϕ0.6886 Pe d0.001 ) ℜ0.9238 Pr 0.4 [17]

10000< ℜ< 22500; 0<ϕ <1.5 %

The experimental values of the Prandtl number, Reynolds number, and volume

concentration are introduced in Eq. (16) of Sajadi and Kazemi [17] and Eq. (17) of Xuan

andLi [33] for the estimation of the Nusselt number. The present experimental Nusselt

numberdata for Fe3o4nanofluid is presented in Fig. 5 along with the valuespredicted by

employingEqs. (16) and (17); it can be seen thatfor particle concentration of 0.06% the

experimental Nusselt number with Fe3O4nanofluid is higher by 8.6% and 12.33% for the

Reynolds number of 16,478 and 28,837, respectively, than the valuesof Sajadi and

Kazemi [17]. Similarly, for the same values of Reynolds number and concentration, the

Nusselt number for the Fe3o4nanofluid is 8.2% and 4.3%, respectively, which is lower
than the values of Xuanand Li [33]. These comparisons are clear indicative of like

trends;however, the nanoparticles considered are different, the values forthe Nusselt

number, as expected, are also different.

4.2. Nusselt number of water and nanofluid flow in an inner tube with

longitudinal strip inserts

The procedure as described earlier isfurther used to conduct heat transfer experiments

first with waterand later with nanofluid flowing through the double pipe heat exchanger

inner tube with longitudinal strip inserts. The experiments areconducted using

longitudinal strip insertsof different AR values, i.e.: 1, 2 and 4. Eq. (11) is used to

calculate the experimentalNusselt number for water flowing through an inner tube with

longitudinal strip inserts and the data is presented in Fig. 6 along with thedata of Hsieh

and Huang [23] for comparison. For single phase fluid flow in a tube with longitudinal

strip inserts the equation ofHsieh and Huang [23] is given as below:

( ) ( )
0.14 −0.74
μb Dh
Nu=1.233 ( Gz )0.38 ( AR+1 )0.41 [18]
μw Di

Hsieh and Huang [23] conducted the experiments in the laminar region; while in the

present work, the experiments are conducted in the turbulent region. For water flowing in

the inner tube, it can be seen in Fig. 6 that the Nusselt number enhancement is 14.47%

with an insert of AR = 1 when compared to the inner tube with noinserts.

For 0.01%, 0.03% and 0.06%nanofluids, flowing through the inner tube withinserts of

AR equal to 1, 2 and 4, the experimental Nusselt number are presented in Figs. 7a–7c.
Amongthe three longitudinal strip inserts (AR = 1, 2 and 4), the insert withAR = 1 yields

the highest Nusselt number. The results shown in Fig. 7a indicatefor 0.01% nanofluid,

likewise, Fig. 7b indicates that the Nusselt number enhancementfor the 0.03% nanofluid

and AR = 1 is 19.91% and 30.90% as comparedto the nanofluid and water flow,

respectively, in bothcases with no inserts. Fig. 7c shows that the Nusselt number

augmentation for the 0.06% nanofluid, AR = 1 is 23.11% and41.29%, as compared to the

nanofluid and water flow, respectively,in both cases with no inserts.

The present experimental Nusselt number data for the 0.06% nanofluid withAR = 1 is

shown in Fig. 8 along with the data of Sundar andSharma [25] for Al 2O3 nanofluid which

is correlated by the followingequation:

( )
−0.3345
Nu 0.7484 D
=0.04532 ( ℜ ) ( 0.001+ AR )0.001 ( 0.001+ ϕ )0.0437 h [19]
Pr
0.4
Di

In the measured Reynolds number range, the current experimental Nusselt number of

nanofluid ismore compared to the data of Sundar and Sharma [25] for Al 2O3 nanofluid.

The magnetic Fe3o4 nanofluids are more advantageous than Al 2O3 nanofluids because of

the higher thermal conductivity of the Fe3o4 nanoparticles.

The data obtained in this work for the experimental Nusseltnumber of water and

nanofluid flow in the innertube of the heat exchanger with longitudinal strip inserts is

correlated into a generalequation, which takes into account the Prandtlnumber, particle

volume concentration, Reynolds numberand insert aspect ratio.The proposed equation

has a standard deviation of 2.328% and an average deviation of 1.885% and is given as

below:

( )
−0.12
0.82 0.46 2.212 0.0152 Dh
Nu Reg =0.01783 ℜ Pr ( 1+ϕ ) ( 1+ AR ) [20]
Di
 15000< ℜ< 30000; 0<ϕ <0.06 % ; 2.84 < Pr< 3.155; 0< AR< 4

The values calculated using Eq. (20) is presented in Fig. 9 along with the experimental

values. This equation also predictsthe Nusselt number for water by making the volume

particle concentrationequal to zero (ϕ = 0).

4.3. Friction factor of water and nanofluids

The experimental friction factor iscalculated based on the pressuredifference between the

entrance and exit of the heat exchanger inner tube by using the U-tube manometer, while

the pressuredrop across the bend region is neglected. The experimental frictionfactor data

using Eq. (14) is presented in Fig. 10 along with the frictionfactor values obtained with

Blasius [34], Eq. (21), and Petukhov[35], Eq. (22), equations for single phase fluid, i.e.

f =4 ×0.0791 ℜ−0.25[21]

3000< ℜ< 105

−2
f =( 0.790 lnRe−1.64 ) [22]

3000< ℜ< 5× 106

The deviation observed between the experimental friction factorvalues and the values

determined using Eq. (21) of Blasius [34]and Eq. (22) of Petukov [35] is ±2.5%. Fig. 11

presents the friction factorvalues calculated using Eq. (14) for different volume

concentrationsof the Fe3O4nanofluid. The friction factor of the Fe3O4nanofluid increases

with decreasing values of Reynolds number and increasingparticle volume concentration.

The mass flow rate and the viscosity of the nanofluidare the main providers to the friction
factor enhancement. For a particle concentration of 0.005%, with Reynoldsnumber values

of 16,545 and 28,954 the friction factor enhances by 1.018-times and 1.01-times

respectively, as compared to waterdata. Likewise, for a particle concentration of 0.06%,

with the similar Reynolds number values the friction factor enhances by 1.079timesand

1.092-times, respectively, as compared to water data.The benefit allied with the

significant heat transfer augmentationmakes the friction factor penalty practically

negligible.

4.4. Friction factor of water and nanofluids withlongitudinal strip inserts in a tube flow

Additionally experiments were conducted for water and Fe3O4nanofluidflowing in the

inner tube of the double pipe U-bend heat exchangerwith longitudinal strip inserts. The

experimental were conducted using longitudinal strips with aspect ratios of 1, 2, and 4,

respectively.Eq. (14) is employed to estimate the experimental friction factor ofwater

flowing in the inner tube with longitudinal strip insertsand the data is shown in Fig. 12

along with the data of Hsiehand Huang [23] for the sake of validation. The correlation

proposedby Hsieh and Huang [23] for single phase fluid flow in a tubewith longitudinal

strip inserts is given below:

( )
1.18
−0.44 Dh
f =49.96 ( ℜ ) ( AR )−1.53[23]
Di

Hsieh and Huang [23] performed their experiments for the laminarregion; while in the

present work, the friction factor is calculated for the turbulent region. From Fig. 12 it can

be observed thatthe friction factor increase for water flow in the presence of theinsert i.e.

AR = 1 is 1.079-times as compared to water flowwithout inserts for a Reynolds number

of 28,970.
The experimental friction factor datafor the Fe3O4 nanofluid with different volume

concentrations (i.e. 0.01%, 0.03% and 0.06%) flowing with insert having AR = 1, 2 and 4

are presented in Figs. 13a, 13b and 13c respectively. Among the three insert aspect ratios

verified (i.e. AR = 1, 2 and4), AR = 1 has the highest increase in friction factor since

thisinsert yields the major reduction in flow area. Fig. 13a shows that the friction factor at

a Reynolds number of 28,970 for the0.01% nanofluid and using AR = 1 increases by

1.129-times as compared with the same nanofluid without inserts; when compared to

waterwithout inserts and at the same Reynolds number, the friction

factorincreasesby1.159-times. Likewise, from Fig. 13b it can be seenthat the friction

factor at a Reynolds number of 28,970 for the0.03% nanofluid and AR = 1 increases by

1.137-times as compared with the same nanofluid without inserts; when compared to

waterwithout inserts and at the same Reynolds number, the friction factorincreases by

1.214-times. The trend seen in the previous figures isalso seen in Fig. 13c, where the

friction factor with a Reynoldsnumber of 28,970 for the 0.06% nanofluid and AR = 1

increases by1.16-times as compared with the same nanofluid without inserts; when

compared to water without inserts and at the same Reynoldsnumber, the friction factor

increases by 1.267-times. Sundar andSharma [25] have developed a friction factor

correlation for Al2O3nanofluids flow in a tube with longitudinal strip inserts and

theexpression is shown below:

( )
−0.6420
−0.3840 −0.001 0.004593 Dh
f =1.184 ( ℜ ) ( 0.001+ AR ) ( 0.001+ ϕ ) [24]
Di

Fig. 14 shows the comparison between present experimentalfriction factor of 0.06%

volume concentration of Fe3O4nanofluidwith the data of Sundar and Sharma [25] for
Al2O3nanofluids.From the figure it is clearly evident that the friction factor of present

workhas predicted more as compared to Al2O3nanofluids, but thisenhancement is very

small.The friction factor correlation is suggestedon the similar lines ofEq. (24) based on

the present experimental data of Fe3O4nanofluidand is formulated by Eq. (29), which has

a standard deviation of 2.173% and an average deviation of 1.717%.

( )
−0.081
−0.2409 Dh
f =0.2902 ℜ ( 1+ ϕ )1.95 ( 1+ AR )0.0039 [25]
Di

3000< ℜ< 30000; 0<ϕ <0.06 % ; 0< AR< 12

Eq. (25) also predicts the friction factor value for water by making the

particlevolume concentration equal to zero (ϕ = 0). The valuesobtained by employing Eq.

(25) are shown in Fig. 15 along withthe experimental values.

5. Conclusions

In the present work experiments were conducted on a double pipe U- bend heat

exchangerto estimate theheat transfer, friction factor while the Fe3O4nanofluid flows

through itsinner tube with and without longitudinal strip inserts. It is observedthat heat

transfer increases with increasing values of Reynolds number, particle concentration, and

it is further increases withthe decreasing values of the aspect ratio of the longitudinal

stripinserts. For the 0.06% nanofluid at a Reynolds number of 28,954,the Nusselt number

enhancement is nearby to14.7% and 41.29% without inserts and with an insert of AR = 1,

respectively, as comparedto water data without inserts. For the similar volume

concentration(i.e.0.06%) of the Fe3O4 nanofluid at a Reynolds number of 28,954,the

friction factor penalty is nearby to 1.092-times and 1.267-times without inserts and with

an insert of AR = 1, respectively,as compared to water data without inserts. The use of

longitudinalstrip inserts additionallyaugments the turbulence in the inner tube ofthe heat
exchanger which yields higher values of its performance dueto the enhanced overall heat

transfer coefficient. Due to the use of inserts the pumping power increases which is

largely compensatedby the enhanced heat transfer rates.

Appendix A

Based on the procedure of Kline and McClintock [36], the uncertainties associated in rate

of heat flow through tube the side (Qh), the rate of heat flow through the annulus side

(Qc), friction factor (f) and nusselt number (Nu) were calculated.

The expressions were shown below:

(a) Rate of heat flow (tube side) (Qh)

∆ Qh
Qh= ṁh ×C p ,h × ( ∆T )h ⟹
Qh

√(( )( ) ( ))
∆ ṁh 2 ∆ C p ,h 2 ∆ T 2
= + + [A1]
ṁh C p ,h T h

(b) Rate of heat flow (annulus side) (Qc)

∆Q c
Q c =ṁ c ×C p ,c × ( ∆ T )c ⟹
Qc

√( ( )( ) ( ))
2 2
∆ ṁ c ∆ C p ,c ∆T
2
= + + [A2]
ṁ c C p ,c T c

(c) Friction factor (f)

√(( ) ( ) ( ) )[A3]
∆P 2 ∆ ρ 2 2∆v 2
∆P ∆f
f= ⟹ = + +
( )
Li ρ v2 f P ρ v
×
Di 2

(d) Nusselt number (Nu)

 √(( ) ( ) )[A4]
∆h 2 ∆k 2
hd ∆ Nu
Nu= ⟹ = +
k Nu h k

Table 4

Uncertainty of parameters

Parameter Uncertainty (%)

Rate of heat flow (tube side) (Qh) ±2.6

Rate of heat flow (annulus side) (Qc) ±2.6
Nusselt number (Nu) ±2.5
Friction factor (f) ±2.8
Reynolds number (Re) ±3.2

Table 5

Accuracy and range of the measuring instruments

Description No. Type/Model Accuracy Range

Volume flow rate of cold fluid 1 Dasmesh (Magnetic ± 1000C, 1ml 0-1 L

Inferential), India

Volume flow rate of hot nanofluid 1 Dasmesh (Magnetic ± 1000C, 1ml 0-1 L

Inferential), India
 U-tube manometer 1 Lazer products Ltd, India 1 mm 0-50cm

Inlet and outlet bulk temperature of cold 2 RTD PT 100 thermocouple ± 0.10C -200 to

fluid 5000C

Inlet and outlet bulk temperature of hot 2 RTD PT 100 thermocouple ± 0.10C -200 to

nanofluid 5000C

References

1. S.U.S. Choi, Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles, in:

Proceedings of the 1995 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition San Francisco, CA, USA, 1995.

2. W.M. El-Maghlany, A.A. Hanafy, A.A. Hassan, M.A. El-Magid, Experimental

study of cu-water nanofluid heat transfer and pressure drop in a horizontal double-
tube heat exchanger, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 78 (2016) 100–111.
3. A. Zamzamian, S.N. Oskouie, A. Doosthoseini, A. Joneidi, M. Pazouki,
Experimental investigation of forced convective heat transfer coefficient in
nanofluids of Al2O3 /EG and CuO/EG in a double pipe and plate heat exchangers
under turbulent flow, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci. 35 (2011) 495–502.
4. R.S. Khedkar, S.S. Sonawane, Kailas L. Wasewar, Water to nanofluids heat
transfer in concentric tube heat exchanger: experimental study, Procedia Eng. 51
(2013) 318–323.
5. A.A. Rabienataj Darzi, Mousa Farhadi, Kurosh Sedighi, Heat transfer and flow
characteristics of Al2O3–water nanofluid in a double tube heat exchanger, Int.
Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 47 (2013) 105–112.
6. Z. Wu, L. Wang, B. Sundén, Pressure drop and convective heat transfer of water
and nanofluids in a double-pipe helical heat exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 60
(2013) 266–274.
7. M.C.S. Reddy, V.V. Rao, Experimental investigation of heat transfer coefficient
and friction factor of ethylene glycol water based TiO 2 nanofluid in double pipe
heat exchanger with and without helical coil inserts, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf. 50 (2014) 68–76.
8. A.A. Arani, J. Amani, Experimental investigation of diameter effect on heat
transfer performance and pressure drop of TiO2 –water nanofluid, Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 44 (2013) 520–533.
9. M. Hemmat Esfe, S. Saedodin, Turbulent forced convection heat transfer and
thermophysical properties of MgO–water nanofluid with consideration of
different nanoparticles diameter, an empirical study, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 119
(2015) 1205–1213.
10. R. Aghayari, H. Maddah, M. Zarei, M. Dehghani, S.G.K. Mahalle, Heat transfer
of nanofluid in a double pipe heat exchanger, Int. Sch. Res. Notices (2014) 1–7
736424.
11. S.S. Sonawane, R.S. Khedkar, K.L. Wasewar, Study on concentric tube
heatexchanger heat transfer performance using Al2O3–water based nanofluids,
Int.Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 49 (2013) 60–68.
12. S. Sudarmadji, S. Soeparman, S. Wahyudi, N. Hamidy, Effects of cooling process
of Al2O3 -water nanofluid on convective heat transfer, Faculty Mech. Eng. Trans.
42 (2014) 155–161.
13. M. Goodarzi, A.Sh. Kherbeet, M. Afrand, E. Sadeghinezhad, M. Mehrali, P.
Zahedi, S. Wongwises, M. Dahari, Investigation of heat transfer performance and
friction factor of a counter-flow double-pipe heat exchanger using nitrogen-doped,
graphene-based nanofluids, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 76 (2016) 16–23.
14. W. Duangthongsuk, S. Wongwises, Heat transfer enhancement and pressure drop
characteristics of TiO2 –water nanofluid in a double-tube counter flow heat
exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 52 (2009) 2059–2067.
15. M. Bahiraei, M. Hangi, Investigating the efficacy of magnetic nanofluid as a
coolant in double-pipe heat exchanger in the presence of magnetic field, Energy
Convers. Manage. 76 (2013) 1125–1133.
16. H. Demir, A.S. Dalkilic, N.A. Kürekci, W. Duangthongsuk, S. Wongwises,
Numerical investigation on the single phase forced convection heat transfer
characteristics of TiO2 nanofluids in a double-tube counter flow heat exchanger,
Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 38 (2011) 218–228.
17. A.R. Sajadi, M.H. Kazemi, Investigation of turbulent convective heat transfer and
pressure drop of TiO2/water nanofluid in circular tube, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transf. 38 (2011) 1474–1478.
18. G. Huminic, A. Huminic Heat, Transfer characteristics in double tube helical heat
exchangers using nanofluids, Int. J, Heat Mass Transf. 54 (2011) 4280–4287.
19. J. Choi, Y. Zhang, Numerical simulation of laminar forced convection heat
transfer of Al2O3 /water nanofluid in a pipe with return bend, Int. J. Thermal Sci.
55 (2012) 90–102.
20. A. Shakiba, K. Vahedi, Numerical analysis of magnetic field effects on hydro-
thermal behavior of a magnetic nanofluid in a double pipe heat exchanger, Journal
of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 402 (2016) 131– 142.
21. M.H. Liu, Turbulent heat transfer in horizontal circular tube with strip inserts,
M.S. thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen
University, Chinese, 1996.
22. S.-S. Heish, M.-Y. Wen, Developing three dimensional laminar mixed convection
in a circular tube inserted with longitudinal strip inserts, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
19 (1996) 299–310.
23. S.-S. Hsieh, I.-W. Huang, Heat transfer and pressure drop of laminar flow in
horizontal tubes with/without longitudinal inserts, J. Heat Transf. 122 (2000)
465–475.
24. S.K. Saha, P. Langille, Heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of laminar
flow through a circular tube with longitudinal strip inserts under uniform wall heat
flux, J. Heat Transf. 124 (2002) 421–432.
25. L.S.Sundar, K.V. Sharma, Heat transfer enhancements of low volume
concentration Al2O3 nanofluid and with longitudinal strip inserts in a circular tube,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 53 (2010) 4280–4286.
26. L.S. Sundar, K.V. Sharma, R.A. Bakar, M.K. Singh, Heat transfer enhancement
and friction factor of water/Al2O3 nanofluid in a circular tube with longitudinal
strip inserts under laminar flow, Int. J. MicroscaleNanoscale Thermal Fluid
Transp. Phenom. 3 (4) (2012) 309–325.
27. P.V.D. Prasad, A.V.S.S.K.S. Gupta, L.S. Sundar, M.K. Singh, A.C.M. Sousa,
Heat transfer and friction factor of Al2O3 nanofluid flow in a double pipe U-tube
heat exchanger and with longitudinal strip inserts: an experimental study, J.
Nanofluids 4 (2015) 293–301.
28. L.S. Sundar, G. Otero-Irurueta, M.K. Singh, A.C.M. Sousa, Heat transfer and
friction factor of multi-walled carbon nanotubes–Fe3O4 nanocomposite nanofluids
flow in a tube with/without longitudinal strip inserts, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 100
(2016) 691–703.
29. www.sigma-aldrich.com.
30. L.S. Sundar, M.K. Singh, A.C.M. Sousa, Investigation of thermal conductivity
and viscosity of Fe3O4 nanofluid for heat transfer applications, Int. Commun. Heat
Mass Transf. 44 (2013) 7–14.
31. V. Gnielinski, New equations for heat and mass transfer in turbulent pipe and
channel flow, Int. Chem. Eng. 16 (1976) 359–368.
32. F.W. Dittus, L.M.K. Boelter, Heat Transfer in Automobile Radiators of the
Tubular Type, vol. 11, University California Publication in Engineering, 1930.
33. Y. Xuan, Q. Li, Investigation on convective heat transfer and flow features of
nanofluids, J. Heat Transf. 125 (2003) 151–155.
34. H. Blasius, Boundary layers in fluids with small friction, Z. Math. Phys. 56 (1908)
1–37.
35. B.S. Petukhov, Heat transfer and friction in turbulent pipe flow with variable
physical properties, in: J.P. Hartnett, T.F. Irvine (Eds.), Advances in Heat
Transfer, Academic Press, New York, 1970, pp. 504–564.
36. S.J. Kline, F.A. McClintock, Describing uncertainties in single sample
experiments, Mech. Eng. 75 (1953) 3–8.
Figures
Fig. 2. (a) Line diagram of an experimental setup, 2(b) Test section details
 Fig. 2c. Photograph of experimental setup

Fig.2d.The photograph of different aspect ratios of longitudinal strip inserts

Fig. 3 Comparison of the experimental tube side Nusselt number for hot water

against the values predicted by Dittus-Boelter relation [32]

Fig.4. Experimental Nusselt number of hot Fe3O4 nanofluid at different particle

concentrations and Reynolds number

 Fig. 5 Experimental Nusselt number of hot Fe3O4 nanofluid is compared with the

data of Sajadi and Kazemi [17] and Xuan and Li [33]

Fig. 6 Nusselt number data for water flowing through a tube with longitudinal strip

inserts and comparison with the results of Hsieh and Huang [23] and Liu [21]
Fig. 7.a.Experimental Nusselt number of 0.01% nanofluid flow in an inner tube

and with and without longitudinal strip inserts

Fig. 7.b.Experimental Nusselt number of 0.03% nanofluid flow in an inner tube

and with and without longitudinal strip inserts

Fig. 7.c.Experimental Nusselt number of 0.06% nanofluid flow in an inner tube

and with and without longitudinal strip inserts

Fig. 8 Nusselt number comparison between the 0.06% nanofluid experimental

values of the present study and the values of Sundar and Sharma [25]

Fig. 9.Experimental Nusselt number values are compared with the proposed

equation values
Fig. 10 Experimental friction factor of tubeside hot water is compared with the

values of Blasius [34] and Petukov [35]

Fig. 11 Experimental friction factor of different volume concentrations of hot

nanofluid flow in an inner tube of double pipe heat exchanger

Fig. 12 Experimental friction factor of water flow in the inner tube of the double

pipe heat exchanger with longitudinal strip inserts along with Hsieh and Huang

[23] data

Fig. 13a.Experimental friction factor of 0.01% nanofluid flow in an inner tube

and with longitudinal strip inserts

Fig. 13b.Experimental Nusselt number of 0.03% nanofluid flow in an inner tube

and with longitudinal strip inserts

Fig. 13c.Experimental friction factor of 0.06% nanofluid flow in an inner tube

and with longitudinal strip inserts

Fig. 14 Friction factor comparison between the 0.06% nanofluid experimental

values of the present study and the values of Sundar and Sharma [25]

Fig. 15.Comparison of experimental friction factor values with the proposed

regression equation