Advertisement

Effects of temperature and particles volume concentration on the thermophysical properties and the rheological behavior of CuO/MgO/TiO2 aqueous ternary hybrid nanofluid

Experimental investigation
  • S. M. Mousavi
  • F. Esmaeilzadeh
  • X. P. WangEmail author
Article
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

In the present study, the impacts of nanoparticles volume concentration and temperature on the thermophysical properties and the rheological behavior of water-based CuO/MgO/TiO2 ternary hybrid nanofluids were elucidated. Five types of CuO/MgO/TiO2 aqueous THNFs (ternary hybrid nanofluids) including A (33.4 mass% CuO/33.3 mass% MgO/33.3 mass% TiO2), B (50 mass% CuO/25 mass% MgO/25 mass% TiO2), C (60 mass% CuO/30 mass% MgO/10 mass% TiO2), D (25 mass% CuO/50 mass% MgO/25 mass% TiO2) and E (25 mass% CuO/25 mass% MgO/50 mass% TiO2) were fabricated. All experiments were performed under the temperature range of 15–60 °C in the solid volume concentration range of 0.1–0.5%. The experimental results demonstrated that the rheological and the thermophysical properties of THNFs depend not only on the nanoparticles volume concentration, but also on the temperature of THNFs. All the THNFs demonstrated Newtonian behavior. The dynamic viscosity and the thermal conductivity of THNFs increased with enhancing solid particles volume concentration and temperature. The highest increment in thermal conductivity as compared to distilled water was obtained for the C type of THNFs at 0.5 solid vol% in 50 °C. The specific heat capacity of THNFs first decreased up to 35 °C and then increased with raising temperature. The highest reduction of specific heat capacity of THNFs was found for the C type of THNFs. The surface tension of B and C types of THNFs increased with the particles volume concentration enhancement. In the cases of low particles volume, the surface tension of THNFs was lower than that of the distilled water, for a concentration of the nanoparticles of 1.0%. Four new correlations were developed to predict the viscosity, thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity and density of the THNFs. All the proposed correlations had a satisfactory accuracy of ± 1%.

Keywords

Ternary hybrid nanofluids Thermal conductivity Viscosity Specific heat capacity Volume concentration 

List of symbols

\( C_{\text{p}} \)

Specific heat capacity, J (g·K)−1

K

Thermal conductivity, W (m·K)−1

T

Temperature, °C

Subscripts

bf

Base fluid

nf

Nanofluid

np

Nanoparticles

Abbreviations

DW

Distilled water

SDS

Sodium dodecyl sulfate

NPs

Nanoparticles

THNFs

Ternary hybrid nanofluids

Greek symbols

ρ

Density, g cm−3

φ

Volume fraction

μ

Dynamic viscosity, mPa s

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFE0204200) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51776170). The authors also would like to express their appreciation to the Shiraz University and the 111 project (B16038) for the support.

References

  1. 1.
    Lee S, Choi SUS, Li S, Eastman JA. Measuring thermal conductivity of fluids containing oxidenanoparticles. J Heat Transf. 1999;121:280–9.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2825978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aly Wael IA. Numerical study on turbulent heat transfer and pressure drop of nanofluid in coiled tube-in-tube heat exchangers. Energy Convers Manag. 2014;79:304–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.12.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ettefaghi E, Rshidi A, Ghobadian B, Najafi G, Khoshtaghaza MH, Sidik NAC, Yadegari A, Hong WX. Experimental investigation of conduction and convection heat transfer properties of a novel nanofluid based on carbon quantum dots. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf. 2018;90:85–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2017.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kasaeian A, Daviran S, Azarian RD, Rashidi A. Performance evaluation and nanofluid using capability study of a solar parabolic trough collector. Energy Convers Manag. 2015;89:368–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.09.056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wen D, Lin G, Vafaei S, Zhang K. Review of nanofluids for heat transfer applications. Particuology. 2009;7:141–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2009.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandrasekar M, Suresh S, Chandra Bose A. Experimental investigations and theoretical determination of thermal conductivity and viscosity of Al2O3/water nanofluid. Exp Therm Fluid Sci. 2010;34:210–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2009.10.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keblinski P, Eeastman JA, Cahil DG. Nanofluids for thermal transport. J Mater Today. 2005;8:36–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(05)70936-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baratpour M, Karimipour A, Afrand M, Wongwises S. Effects of temperature and concentration on the viscosity of nanofluids made of single-wall carbon nanotubes in ethylene glycol. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf. 2016;74:108–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2016.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suresh S, Venkitaraj KP, Selvakumar P, Chandrasekar M. Effect of Al2O3–Cu/water hybrid nanofluid in heat transfer. Exp Therm Fluid Sci. 2012;38:54–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2011.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sarkar J, Ghosh P, Adil A. A review on hybrid nanofluids: recent research, development and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;43:164–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baghbanzadeh M, Rashidi A, Rashtchian D, Lotfi R, Amrollahi A. Synthesis of spherical silica/multiwall carbon nanotubes hybrid nanostructures and investigation of thermal conductivity of related nanofluids. Thermochim Acta. 2012;549:87–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2012.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amiri A, Shanbedi M, Eshghi H, Zeinali Heris S, Baniadam M. Highly dispersed multiwalled carbon nanotubes decorated with Ag nanoparticles in water and experimental investigation of the thermophysical properties. Phys Chem. 2012;116:3369–75.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp210484a.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jyothirmayee Aravind SS, Ramaprabhu S. Graphene wrapped multiwalled carbon nanotubes dispersed nanofluids for heat transfer applications. Appl Phys. 2012;112:123404.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4769353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sundar LS, Hashim Farooky Md, Naga Sarada S, Singh MK. Experimental thermal conductivity of ethylene glycol and water mixture based low volume concentration of Al2O3 and CuO nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf. 2013;41:41–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2012.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sundar LS, Singh MK, Sousa ACM. Enhanced heat transfer and friction factor of MWCNT–Fe3O4/water hybrid nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf. 2014;52:73–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2014.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Madhesh D, Kalaiselvam S. Experimental study on heat transfer and rheological characteristics of hybrid nanofluids for cooling applications. Exp Nanosci. 2015;10:1194–213.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17458080.2014.989551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yarmand H, Gharekhani S, Ahmadi G, Seyed shirazi SF, Baradaran S, Montazer E, Zubir MNM, Alehashem M, Kazi SN, Dahari M. Graphene nanoplatelets-silver hybrid nanofluids for enhanced heat transfer. Energy Convers Manag. 2015; 100:419-28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.05.023.
  18. 18.
    Soltani O, Akbari M. Effects of temperature and particles concentration on the dynamic viscosity of MgO-MWCNT/ethylene glycol hybrid nanofluids: experimental study. J Physica E: Low-Dimens Syst Nanostruct. 2016;84:564–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physe.2016.06.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takabi B, Gheitaghy AM, Tazraei P. Hybrid water-based suspension of Al2O3 and CuO nanoparticles on laminar convection effectiveness. Thermophys Heat Transf. 2016;30:523–32.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.T4756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yarmand H, Gharekhani S, Seyed shirazi SF, Goodarzi M, Amiri A, Sarsam WS, Alehashem M, Dahari M, Kazi SN. Study of synthesis, stability and thermophysical properties of graphene nanoplatelet/platinum hybrid nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf. 2016;77:15–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2016.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Toghraie D, Chaharsoghi VA, Afrand M. Measurement of thermal conductivity of ZnO–TiO2/EG hybrid nanofluids. Therm Anal Calorim. 2016;125:527–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-016-5436-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eshgarf H, Afrand M. An experimental study on rheological behavior of non-Newtonian hybrid nano- Coolant for application in cooling and heating systems. Exp Therm Fluid Sci. 2016;76:221–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2016.03.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sekhar YR, Sharma KV. Study of viscosity and specific heat capacity characteristics of water based Al2O3 nanofluids at low particle concentrations. Exp NanoSci. 2015;10:86–102.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17458080.2013.796595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kumar S, Sokhal GS, Singh J. Effect of CuO–distilled water based nanofluids on heat transfer characteristics and pressure drop characteristics. Int Eng Res Appl. 2014;4:28–37.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/225/1/012168.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zyla G. Thermophysical properties of ethylene glycol based yttrium aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12-EG) nanofluids. Int Heat Mass Transf. 2016;92:751–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.09.045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abareshi M, Goharshiadi EK, Zebarjad SM, Fadafan HK, Youssefi A. Fabrication, characterization and measurement of thermal conductivity of Fe3O4 nanofluids. J Magn Magn Mater. 2010;322:3895–901.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2010.08.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang L, Xu J, Du K, Zhang X. Recent developments on viscosity and thermal conductivity of nanofluids. Powder Technol. 2017;317:348–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2017.04.061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hemmat Esfe M, Saedodin S, Biglari M, Rostamian H. An experimental study on thermophysical properties and heat transfer characteristics of low volume concentrations of Ag–water nanofluid. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf. 2016;74:91–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2016.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ganeshkumar J, Kathirkaman D, Raja K, Kumaresan V, Velraj R. Experimental study on density, thermal conductivity, specific heat, and viscosity of water–ethylene glycol mixture dispersed with carbon nanotubes. Thermal Sci. 2017;21:255–65.  https://doi.org/10.2298/TSCI141015028G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pak BC, Cho YI. Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed fluids with submicron metallic oxide particles. Exp Heat Transf. 1998;11:151–70.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08916159808946559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Batchelor GK. The effect of Brownian motion on the bulk stress in a suspension of spherical particles. J Fluid Mech. 1997;83:97–117.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112077001062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang X, Xu X, Choi SUS. Thermal conductivity of nanoparticles–fluid mixture. J Thermophys Heat Transf. 1999;131:474–80.  https://doi.org/10.2514/2.6486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maxwell CA. Treatise on electricity and magnetism. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Oxford University Press; 1904.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hamilton RL, Crosser OK. Thermal conductivity of heterogeneous two-component systems. Ind Eng Chem Fundam. 1962;1:187–91.  https://doi.org/10.1021/i160003a005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eapen J, Rusconi R, Piazzo R, Yip S. The classical nature of thermal conduction in nanofluids. J Heat Transf. 2010;132:102402-1.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lu S, Lin H. Reflective conductivity of composite containing aligned spherical inclusions of finite conductivity. J Appl Phys. 1996;79:6761–9.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.361498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roetzel W, Prinzen S, Xuan Y, Cremers CY, Fine HA. Measurement of thermal diffusivity using temperature oscillations thermal conductivity, vol. 21. New York: Plenum Press; 1990. p. 201–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01441907.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yoo DH, Hong KS, Yang HS. Study of thermal conductivity of nanofluids for the application of heat transfer fluids. Thermochim Acta. 2007;455:66–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2006.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kurt H, Kayfeci M. Prediction of thermal conductivity of ethylene glycol–water solutions by using artificial neural networks. Appl Energy. 2009;86:2244–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.12.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Challoner AR, Powell RW. Thermal conductivity of liquids: new determinations for seven liquids and appraisal of existing values. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A. 1956;238:90–106.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1956.0205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cahill DG. Thermal conductivity measurement from 30 to 700 K: the 3ωmethod. Rev Sci Instrum. 1990;61:802–8.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1141498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Qiu L, Zheng XH, Su GP, Tang DW. Design and application of a freestanding sensor based on 3ω technique for thermal-conductivity measurement of solids, liquids, and nanopowders. Int J Thermophys. 2013;34:2261–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-011-1075-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Qiu L, Zhu N, Zou H, Feng Y, Zhang X, Tang D. Advances in thermal transport properties at nanoscale in china. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf. 2018;125:413–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2018.04.087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Qiu L, Zhang X, Zhu J, Tang D. Note: Non-destructive measurement of thermal effusivity of a solid and liquid using a freestanding serpentine sensor-based 3ω technique. Rev Sci Instrum. 2011;82:086110.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3626937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Qiu L, Zhu N, Zou H, Tang D, Wen D, Feng Y, Zhang X. Inhomogeneity in pore size appreciably lowering thermal conductivity for porous thermal insulators. App Therm Eng. 2017;4311:34800–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.11.066.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Qiu L, Schieder K, Radwan SA, Larkin LS, Saltonstall CB, Feng Y, Zhang X, Norris PM. Thermal transport barrier in carbon nanotube array nano-thermal interface materials. Carbon. 2017;6223:30483–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2017.05.037.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Paul G, Chopkar M, Manna I, Das PK. Techniques for measuring the thermal conductivity of nanofluids: a review. Ren Sust Energy Rev. 2010;14:1913–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ijam A, Saidur R, Ganesan P, Moradi Golsheikh A. Stability, thermo-physical properties, and electrical conductivity of graphene oxide-deionized water/ethylene glycol based nanofluid. Int Heat Mass Transf. 2015;87:92–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.02.060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sundar LS, Sharma KV, Singh MK, Sousa ACM. Hybrid nanofluids preparation, thermal properties, heat transfer and friction factor—A review. Renew Sust Energy Rev. 2017;68:185–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Green D, Maloney J. Perry‘s chemical engineers handbook. Lawrence: 7th, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, University of Kansas; 1997.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    O’Hanley H, Buongiorno J, McKrell T, Hu L-W. Measurement and model correlation of specific heat capacity of water-based nanofluids with silica, alumina and copper oxide nanoparticles. Int Mech Eng Congr Expos. 2011;10:1209–14.  https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2011-62054.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mahian O, Kolsi L, Amani M, Estelle P, Ahmadi G, Kleinstreuer C, Marshall Jeffrey S, Siavashi M, Taylor RA, Niazmand H, Wongwises S, Hayat T, Kolanjiyil A, Kasaeian A, Pop L. Recent advances in modeling and simulation of nanofluid flows-Part I: Fundamental and theory. Phys Rep. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2018.11.004.
  53. 53.
    Ghadimi A, Saidur R, Metselaar HSC. A review of nanofluid stability properties and characterization in stationary conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2011;54:4051–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2011.04.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vandsburger L. Synthesis and covalent surface modification of carbon nanotubes for preparation of stabilized nanofluid suspensions. Montreal: McGill University; 2009.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chen H, Ding Y, Tan C. Rheological behaviour of nanofluids. New J Phys. 2007;9:367.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/9/10/367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rashmi W, Ismail AF, Sopyan I, Jameel AT, Yusof F, Khalid M, Mubarak NM. Stability and thermal conductivity enhancement of carbon nanotube nanofluid using gum Arabic. Exp Nano Sci. 2011;6:567–79.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17458080.2010.487229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Machrafi H, Lebon GP. The role of several heat transfer mechanisms on the enhancement of thermal conductivity in nanofluids. Continuum Mech Thermodyn. 2016;28:1461–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00161-015-0488-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Aybar HS, Sharifpur M, Azizian MR, Mehrabi M, Meyer JP. A review of thermal conductivity models for nanofluids. J Heat Transf Eng. 2015;36:1085–110.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01457632.2015.987586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, School of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery Institute, Advanced Research Group for Gas Condensate RecoveryShiraz UniversityShirazIran
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Thermo-Fluid Science and EngineeringMinistry of Education, Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations