Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 135, Issue 1, pp 73–82 | Cite as

Experimental study on the effect of copper oxide nanoparticles on thermophysical properties of ethylene glycol–water for using in indirect heater at city gate stations

  • A. R. RahmatiEmail author
  • M. Reiszadeh


This study aimed to investigate the increase in heat transfer in the indirect heater at a city gate station (CGS) with the addition of copper oxide (CuO) nanoparticles to water–ethylene glycol base fluids. Indirect heaters are typically used at CGSs to raise the heat transfer coefficient of output gas flow from − 5 to 15 °C. Moreover, manufacturing laboratory equipment in the presence of water–ethylene glycol base fluid and the nanoparticle in volume fractions of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 at a temperature of 40–70 °C was discussed using dimensional simulation and analysis. The physical properties of the base fluid and nanofluid were measured using precise devices. Heat transfer tests for the base and nanofluid, as well as replacing of the air by gas, were conducted in a simulated and developed device. According to the obtained results with respect to the changes in convection and conduction heat transfer, enhancement of temperature difference at a rate of 36% was observed in the indirect heater with nanoparticle volume concentration of 0.2% at a temperature of 70 °C. Moreover, the Nusselt number showed a relatively good agreement with theoretical discussions.


Copper oxide nanofluid Heat transfer Indirect heater Gas compressibility fluid Air 

List of symbols


Cross-sectional area (m2)


Specific heat (J kg−1 K−1)


Pipe diameter (m)


Heat transfer coefficient (W m−2 K−1)


Thermal conductivity (W m−1 K−1)


Nanotube length (m)


Length of test tube (m)


Nusselt number


Pressure (Pa)


Reynolds number


Temperature (K)


Velocity vector (m s−1)


Volume (m3)


Prandtl number


Mean temperature (K)

\(\mathop m\limits^{.}\)

Mass rate (kg s−1)



Base fluid










Cold fluid


Hot fluid






Ethylene glycol




Copper oxide

Greek symbols

\(\Delta P\)

Pressure drop (P)a


Density (kg m−3)


Dynamic viscosity (kg m−1 s−1)


Volume fraction


  1. 1.
    Kargaran M, Arabkoohsar A, Hagighat-Hosini SJ, Farzaneh-Kord V, Farzaneh-Gord M. The second law analysis of natural gas behavior within a vortex tube. Therm Sci. 2013;17(4):1079–92.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farzaneh-Gord M, Hashemi S, Sadi M. Energy destruction in Iran’s natural gas pipe line network. Energy Explor Exploit. 2007;25(6):393–406.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farzaneh-Gord M, Sadi M. Enhancing energy output in Iran’s natural gas pressure drop stations by cogeneration. J Energy Inst. 2008;81(4):191–6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi SUS, Eastman JA. Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles, no.1 ANL/MSD/CP—84938, CONF-951135--29. Argonne National Lab., IL, USA. 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nadooshan AA, Esfe MH, Afrand M. Evaluation of rheological behavior of 10W40 lubricant containing hybrid nano-material by measuring dynamic viscosity. Phys E. 2017;92:47–54.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Toghraie D, Chaharsoghi VA, Afrand M. Measurement of thermal conductivity of ZnO–TiO2/EG hybrid nanofluid. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2016;125:527–35.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hemmat Esfe M, Naderi A, Akbari M, Afrand M, Karimipour A. Evaluation of thermal conductivity of COOH-functionalized MWCNTs/water via temperature and solid volume fraction by using experimental data and ANN methods. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2015;121:1273–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hemmat Esfe M, Saedodin S, Yan W-M, Afrand M, Sina N. Study on thermal conductivity of water-based nanofluids with hybrid suspensions of CNTs/Al2O3 nanoparticles. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2016;124:455–60.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nadooshan AA. An experimental correlation approach for predicting thermal conductivity of water-EG based nanofluids of zinc oxide. Phys E Low Dimens Syst Nanostruct. 2017;87:15–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dardan E, Afrand M, Isfahani AHM. Effect of suspending hybrid nano-additives on rheological behavior of engine oil and pumping power. Appl Therm Eng. 2016;109:524–34.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodarzi M, Kherbeet AS, Afrand M, Sadeghinezhad E, Mehrali M, Zahedi P, Wongwises S, Dahari M. 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. 2016;76:16–23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Toghraie D, Mokhtari M, Afrand M. Molecular dynamic simulation of Copper and Platinum nanoparticles Poiseuille flow in a nanochannels. Phys E. 2016;84:152–61.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Afrand M, Najafabadi KN, Sina N, Safaei MR, Kherbeet AS, Wongwises S, Dahari M. Prediction of dynamic viscosity of a hybrid nano-lubricant by an optimal artificial neural network. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf. 2016;76:209–14.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vafaei M, Afrand M, Sina N, Kalbasi R, Sourani F, Teimouri H. Evaluation of thermal conductivity of MgO-MWCNTs/EG hybrid nanofluids based on experimental data by selecting optimal artificial neural networks. Phys E. 2017;85:90–6.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shamshirband S, Malvandi A, Karimipour A, Goodarzi M, Afrand M, Petković D, Dahari M, Mahmoodian N. Performance investigation of micro- and nano-sized particle erosion in a 90° elbow using an ANFIS model. Powder Technol. 2015;284:336–43.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Afrand M. Experimental study on thermal conductivity of ethylene glycol containing hybrid nano-additives and development of a new correlation. Appl Therm Eng. 2017;110:1111–9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Afrand M, Nazari Najafabadi K, Akbari M. Effects of temperature and solid volume fraction on viscosity of SiO2-MWCNTs/SAE40 hybrid nanofluid as a coolant and lubricant in heat engines. Appl Therm Eng. 2016;102:45–54.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shahsavani E, Afrand M, Kalbasi R. Experimental study on rheological behavior of water–ethylene glycol mixture in the presence of functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes. J Therm Anal Calorim 1-9.
  19. 19.
    Afrand M, Nadooshan AA, Hassani M, Yarmand H, Dahari M. Predicting the viscosity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes/water nanofluid by developing an optimal artificial neural network based on experimental data. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf. 2016;77:49–53.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nadooshan, AA, Esfe MH, Afrand M. Prediction of rheological behavior of SiO2-MWCNTs/10W40 hybrid nanolubricant by designing neural network. J Therm Anal Calorim 1-8.
  21. 21.
    Xuan Y, Li Q. Heat transfer enhancement of nanofluids. Int J Heat Fluid Flow. 2000;21(1):58–64.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li Q, Xuan Y. Convective heat transfer and flow characteristics of Cu-water nanofluid. Sci China Ser E Technol Sci. 2002;45(4):408–16.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Farzaneh-Gord M, Arabkoohsar A, Rezaei M, Deymi-DashteBayaz M, Rahbari HR. Feasibility of employing solar energy in natural gas pressure drop stations. J Energy Inst. 2011;84(3):165–73.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farzaneh-Gord M, Arabkoohsar A, Dasht-bayaz MD, Farzaneh-Kord V. Feasibility of accompanying uncontrolled linear heater with solar system in natural gas pressure drop stations. Energy. 2012;41(1):420–8.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farzaneh-Gord M, Arabkoohsar A, Dasht-bayaz MD, Machado L, Koury RNN. Energy and exergy analysis of natural gas pressure reduction points equipped with solar heat and controllable heaters. Renew Energy. 2014;72:258–70.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Behseresht A, Noghrehabadi A, Ghalambaz M. Natural-convection heat and mass transfer from a vertical cone in porous media filled with nanofluids using the practical ranges of nanofluids thermo-physical properties. Chem Eng Res Des. 2014;92(3):447–52.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Noghrehabadi A, Ghalambaz M, Ghanbarzadeh A. Effects of variable viscosity and thermal conductivity on natural-convection of nanofluids past a vertical plate in porous media. J Mech. 2014;30(03):265–75.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hussein AM, Bakar RA, Kadirgama K, Sharma KV. Heat transfer enhancement with elliptical tube under turbulent flow TiO2-water nanofluid. Therm Sci. 2016;20(1):89–97.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mehmood R, Nadeem S, Sher Akbar N. Non-aligned ethylene-glycol 30% based stagnation point fluid over a stretching surface with hematite nano particles. J Appl Fluid Mech. 2016;9:1359–66.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Masuda H, Ebata A, Teramae K. Alteration of thermal conductivity and viscosity of liquid by dispersing ultra-fine particles. Dispersion of Al2O3, SiO2 and TiO2 ultra-fine particles, pp. 227-233 (1993).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wen D, Ding Y. Formulation of nanofluids for natural convective heat transfer applications. Int J Heat Fluid Flow. 2005;26(6):855–64.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xuan Y, Roetzel W. Conceptions for heat transfer correlation of nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2000;43(19):3701–7.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buckingham E. On physically similar systems: illustrations of the use of dimensional equations. Phys Rev. 1914;4(4):345–76.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Langhaar HL. Dimensional analysis and theory of models, vol. 2. New York: Wiley; 1951.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Handbook, ASHRAE Fundamentals. American society of heating, refrigerating and air-conditioning engineers. Atlanta: Inc.; 2009.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ebrahimnia-Bajestan E, Moghadam MC, Niazmand H, Daungthongsuk W, Wongwises S. Experimental and numerical investigation of nanofluids heat transfer characteristics for application in solar heat exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2016;92:1041–52.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pak BC, Cho YI. Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed fluids with submicron metallic oxide particles. Exp Heat Transf Int J. 1998;11(2):151–70.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brinkman HC. The viscosity of concentrated suspensions and solutions. J Chem Phys. 1952;20(4):571.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yu W, Choi SUS. The role of interfacial layers in the enhanced thermal conductivity of nanofluids: a renovated Maxwell model. J Nanopart Res. 2003;5(1–2):167–71.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dittus FW, Boelter LMK. Heat transfer in automobile radiators of the tubular type. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf. 1985;12(1):3–22.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ding Y, Alias H, Wen D, Williams RA. Heat transfer of aqueous suspensions of carbon nanotubes (CNT nanofluids). Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2006;49(1):240–50.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    He Y, Jin Y, Chen H, Ding Y, Cang D, Huilin L. Heat transfer and flow behaviour of aqueous suspensions of TiO2 nanoparticles (nanofluids) flowing upward through a vertical pipe. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2007;50(11):2272–81.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Heris SZ, Esfahany MN, Etemad SG. Experimental investigation of convective heat transfer of Al2O3/water nanofluid in circular tube. Int J Heat Fluid Flow. 2007;28(2):203–10.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Anoop KB, Sundararajan T, Das SK. Effect of particle size on the convective heat transfer in nanofluid in the developing region. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2009;52(9):2189–95.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liu B. Fuzzy process, hybrid process and uncertain process. J Uncertain Syst. 2008;2(1):3–16.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lira I. Evaluating the measurement uncertainty: fundamentals and practical guidance. Am J Phys. 2003;71:93–4.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kline SJ, McClintock FA. Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments. Mech Eng. 1953;75(1):3–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of KashanKashanIran

Personalised recommendations