International Journal of Thermal Sciences 92 (2015) 50e57

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Thermal Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijts

A numerical study of water based Al2O3 and Al2O3eCu hybrid

nanofluid effect on forced convective heat transfer
Abdolreza Moghadassi*, Ehsan Ghomi, Fahime Parvizian
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Arak University, Arak 38156-8-8349, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this work, a CFD modeling of a horizontal circular tube was presented to investigate the effect of
Received 26 November 2013 nanofluids on laminar forced convective heat transfer. The water-based Al2O3 and Al2O3eCu hybrid
Received in revised form nanofluid with 0.1% volume concentration and average particle size of 15 nm was considered. The so-
12 August 2014
lutions were based on both single- and two-phase approaches. The results showed a higher convective
Accepted 27 January 2015
heat transfer coefficient for the hybrid nanofluid. In comparison to the single phase approach, the
Available online 23 February 2015
proposed mixture model revealed a better agreement with the experimental data. An energetic per-
formance of fluid flowing was evaluated too. For these hybrid nanofluids, the average Nusselt number
Keywords:
Convective heat transfer
increase was 4.73% and 13.46% in compared to Al2O3/water and pure water, respectively.
CFD © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Hybrid nanofluid
Laminar flow

1. Introduction
Fluids such as water and oils have low thermal conductivity
compared to the most of solids [1,2], so some modified techniques
can be developed to overcome this limitation. Dispersing fine
particles in the size range of micro/millimeter can enhance the
thermal conductivity compared to the base fluid. However, using
this type of fluids may result in some problems such as erosion,
clogging in small situation, low stability of suspension and pressure
drop. In 1995, Choi [3] for the first time used a suspension of
nanoparticles named as nanofluids.
Several researches studied different types of nanofluids in both
laminar and turbulent regimes numerically and experimentally
[4e19]. The first study on convective heat transfer of nanofluids in
circular tube was presented by Pak and Cho [4]. They experimen-
tally examined the turbulent friction and heat transfer behaviors of
Al2O3 and TiO2 nanofluids in a circular tube. They found that the
increase in Nusselt number depends on the volume concentration,
and accordingly they proposed a new correlation for the turbulent
connective heat transfer. Xuan and Li [5,6] studied the single-phase
flow and heat transfer performance of nanofluids under turbulent
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a-moghadassi@araku.ac.ir, a.moghadassi@gmail.com
(A. Moghadassi).
flow in tubes. Their experimental results showed that the convec-
tive heat transfer coefficient and nanofluids Nusselt number would
be increased with the Reynolds number and the volume fraction of
nanoparticles under the turbulent flow. Wen and Ding [7] experi-
mentally investigated the convective heat transfer behavior of wa-
ter-Al2O3 nanofluid flowing through a copper tube in laminar flow
regime. They found that the enhancement was particularly signifi-
cant in the inlet region decreasing with the axial distance. Heris
et al. [8,9] investigated the convective heat transfer of Al2O3 and
CuO nanofluids in water as a base fluid with different concentra-
tions in annular tube and laminar flow under a constant wall
temperature boundary condition.
Maiga et al. [10] numerically investigated the forced convection
flow of Al2O3/water and Al2O3/Ethylene Glycol nanofluids in the
laminar regime and showed that ethylene glycol as a base fluid
had a better heat transfer enhancement than water. Moraveji et al.
[11] studied the numerical turbulent forced convective heat
transfer and friction factor in a tube using Fe3O4 magnetic nano-
fluid with the average diameter of 36 nm. They proposed two
analytical equations for the Nusselt number and friction factor
based on the dimensionless numbers. Labibet al. [12] investigated
the effect of base fluids (water and Ethylene Glycol) and CNTs and
Al2O3 as hybrid nanofluids in the forced convective heat transfer
using a two-phase mixture model. The results show that Ethylene
Glycol as a base fluid gives better heat transfer enhancement than
water. Bianco et al. [13] numerically analyzed the turbulent forced

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2015.01.025
1290-0729/© 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
 A. Moghadassi et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 92 (2015) 50e57 51

convection flow of Al2O3/water nanofluid in a circular tube sub- 3. Mathematical modeling

jected to a constant and uniform heat flux at the wall. They used
the single and two phase models and compared the results in 3.1. Geometric configuration
different concentrations. R. Lotfi et al. [14] numerically studied the
forced convective of nanofluid that consisted of Al2O3/water in Fig. 2 shows the numerical domain as a two-dimensional tube
horizontal tubes. A two-phase Eulerian model has been used for with 1 m length and 10 mm inner diameter according to the
the first time to study such a flow field; comparison of this model experiment setup. Tube wall boundary condition was considered as
with a single-phase model indicated a better agreement with a constant heat flux of 9549.29 W/m2. An average size of 15 nm was
experimental results. He et al. [15] and Bianco et al. [16] investi- assumed for the hybrid particles with volume fraction of 0.1% for all
gated the laminar convection of nanofluids using Euleriane- cases.
Lagrangian approach. Their results were comparable with the
available experimental data. In some researches, the two-phase
mixture theory was used to predict the phase behavior of nano- 3.2. Governing equations
particles [17e19]. They studied the effect of nanoparticles diam-
eter on the nanofluid fluid in horizontal curved tubes with circular 3.2.1. Single phase model
cross section. The dimensional governing equations for steady state condition
In this research, the CFD models were presented for fully (continuity, momentum, and energy) using the single model are as
developed laminar flows in a uniformly heated tube based on follows [22]:
two models (two-phase mixture model and single phase model). Single Phase, Continuity equation:
The modeling was done considering 0.1 volume percent of Al2O3

and Al2O3eCu with 15 nm average size dispersed in distilled V$ rnf n ¼ 0 (1)
water as the base fluid. The main purpose of this article is to
examine the effects of flow rate and specially hybrid nanofluid on Momentum equation:
the Nusselt number and friction factor in a steady state system


with computational fluid dynamic tools. In order to confirm the V$ rnf nn ¼ VP þ V$ mnf Vn (2)
modeling results, a comparison with the experimental data
Energy equation:
presented by Suresh et al. [20] was done and an acceptable
agreement was observed in the case of mixture model.


V$ rnf CnT ¼ V$ knf VT (3)

2. Experimental set-up

A schematic of experimental set-up presented by Suresh et al.

3.2.2. Mixture model
[20] was shown in Fig. 1. The experimental set up consists of a
In modeling, it is assumed that the coupling between the phases
calming section, test section, pump, cooling unit, and a fluid
is strong and the particles closely follow the fluid. Also, it is
reservoir. The test section tube is wound with ceramic beads coated
considered that each phase has its own velocity and within any
electrical SWG Nichrome heating wire with 120 U resistance. Ac-
control volume there are volume fractions for primary and sec-
cording to the experimental system, the calming section of straight
ondary phases. Instead of utilizing the governing equations sepa-
copper with dimensions similar to the test section was considered
rately for each phase, the continuity, momentum and fluid energy
to ensure a fully developed flow and to eliminate the inlet effect in
equations for the mixture are employed for the mixture. Therefore,
the test section. A constant heat flux (9549.29 W/m2) was applied
the dimensional governing equations (continuity, momentum, and
on tube wall. Nanocrystalline aluminaecopper hybrid (Al2O3eCu)
energy) for the mixture model are as follows [22e25].
powder was prepared by a thermochemical synthesis method
Continuity equation:
which consists of the following stages: spray-drying, oxidation of
precursor powder, reduction by hydrogen and homogenization. V$ðrm Vm Þ ¼ 0 (4)
Soluble nitrates of copper and aluminium were the starting mate-
rials. The average size of hybrid particles was 15 nm. Complete Momentum equation:
details about the preparation of these hybrid nanoparticles have !
been presented in Refs. [20,21]. X
n
V$ðrm Vm Vm Þ ¼ VP þ V$ðmm VVm Þ þ V$ fk rk Vdr;k Vdr;k
k¼1
 rm;i Bm gðT  Ti Þ
(5)

where, rm is the mixture density.

Fig. 1. Schematic of experimental setup [21]. Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of numerical domain (test section).
52 A. Moghadassi et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 92 (2015) 50e57

Eq. (16) presents the friction factor based on isothermal condi-

rm ¼ ð1  fÞrf þ frp (6) tions as a dimensionless representation of the pressure drop:

where F is the volume fraction of solid or liquid phases. Dp D

f¼  (16)
Energy equation: ru2 2 L
n

X 
where, Dp, L, r and u are the pressure drop between inlet and
V$ rk Cpk fk Vk T ¼ V$ðKm VTÞ (7)
outlet, distance of between two pressure taps, density and velocity,
k¼1
respectively.
Volume fraction equation
 

3.3. Thermo physical properties of nanofluids
V$ fp rp Vm ¼ V$ fp rp Vdr;p (8)
The physical and thermal properties such as density, viscosity,
where, Vm is mass average velocity. specific heat and thermal conductivity of the Al2O3/water nanofluid
Pn can be calculated using relations listed in Table 1. The thermo-
k¼1 fk rk Vk physical properties of water and 0.1% Al2O3eCu/water hybrid
Vm ¼ (9)
rm nanofluid were estimated as presented in Table 2 for the single-
Vdr,k is the drift velocity for the secondary phase, k, i.e. the phase model. Nanoparticles with average diameter of 15 nm were
nanoparticles considered in the present study. This is related to the considered in two-phase mixture model based on experimental
relative velocity as follows. work [20].

Xn
fk rk
Vdr;k ¼ Vpf  V (10) 3.4. Boundary conditions and numerical method
i¼1
rm fk
In the present study, the single phase approach and mixture
The slip velocity (relative velocity) is defined as the velocity of a model are numerically investigated. The SIMPLE (semi-implicit
secondary phase (nanoparticle, p) relative to the velocity of the method for pressure -related equations) algorithm [31,32] is used
primary phase (water, f). for dealing with the coupling between velocity and pressure. In the
tube inlet, the uniform axial velocity profiles, Vin (based on Rey-
Vpf ¼ Vp  Vf (11)
nolds number) and Tin (the initial temperature) have been speci-
The relative velocity is determined using Eq. (12) proposed by fied. Boundary conditions of tube wall consist of non-slip wall
Manninen et al. [26], while Eq. (13) developed by Schiller and condition and constant heat flux, so that the flux is calculated using
00
Naumann [27] is used to calculate the drag function, fdrag. q ¼ Q/pDl. For the tube outlet section, it is assumed that the flow
and temperature fields are fully developed implying all axial de-
 
rp d2p rp  rm rivatives are zero.
Vpf ¼ a (12)
18mf fdrag rp
4. Results and discussion

1 þ 0:15Re0:687 Rep  1000
fdrag ¼ p (13) 4.1. Grid optimization and validation
0:0183Rep Rep > 1000
The acceleration (a) in Eq. (12) is: In order to ensure the grid independency of the results, six
different mesh distributions were tested. As shows in Fig. 3, it is
a ¼ g  ðVm  VÞVm (14) obvious that the grid sizes with 1600 and 24 nodes are satisfactory
The average Nusselt number and heat the transfer coefficient is in the axial and radial directions, respectively. It means that the grid
calculated using the following equations [11]: numbers increase does not make a great difference the accuracy of
the results.
q
00
hd To validate the numerical analysis, a comparison with the pre-
h¼
 and Nu ¼ (15) vious traditional expressions and experimental results for pure
Tw  Tf k
water is undertaken. Fig. 4 shows the simulation results for laminar
flows under the constant heat flux at the Reynolds number of 1892
where, q00 is the heat flux, Tw and Tf are the average temperature of after passing the first section of tube and reaching a fully developed
the wall and the average bulk temperature of fluid, respectively, D is flow (x > 200 mm). They indicate a good agreement with the
the tube diameter and k is the fluid thermal conductivity. experimental data and Shah's equation [33]:

Table 1
Thermophysical properties of nanofluids and the models used to calculate them.

S. No. Thermo-physical property Model Formulae

3 
1 Density (kg/m ) Pak and Cho [4]. rnf
r ¼ 1 þ Kr f where Kr ¼ rrs  1

2 Specific heat (J/kg K) Xuan and Roetzel [28]. Cp;nf 1þKc f rs Cp;s
Cp ¼ 1þKr f where Kc ¼ rCp  1
mnf
3 Viscosity (mPa s) Einstein [29]. m ¼ 1 þ Km f where Km ¼ 2:5
4 Thermal conductivity (W/m K) Maxwell [30]. Knf
k
¼ 1 þ Kk f where Kk ¼ 3
 A. Moghadassi et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 92 (2015) 50e57 53

Table 2
Thermophysical properties of water and nanofluids at inlet temperature [20].

Properties Water 0.1% Al2O3eCu/water

Density (kg/m3) 997.7 1001.3

Specific heat (J/kg K) 4180 4176.83
Viscosity (mPa s) 0.855 0.930
Thermal conductivity (W/m K) 0.613 0.620

Fig. 5. Comparison of the friction factor obtained from the present workwith theo-
reticaland experimental data.

Fig. 3. Grid independency for pure water flow.

Fig. 6. Simulation results for Nusselt numbers of water and 0.1% nanofluids (Al2O3 and
Al2O3eCu hybrid) and comparison with experimental data.

To determine the theoretical friction factor, the HagenePoiseuille

equation [34] calculated by (f ¼ 64/Re) is used and the comparison of
the friction factor obtained from the numerical results with the
theoretical and experimental data are shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4. Variation of Nusselt number along the axial direction at a Reynolds number of
1892.
4.2. Heat transfer and friction factor of single phase model

Fig. 6 shows the variation of computed Nusselt number using

 1 the simulations for pure water, Al2O3/water and Al2O3eCu/water
D 3 D
Nu ¼ 1:953 Re$Pr for Re$Pr  33:33 (17) hybrid nanofluids with 0.1% volume concentration in comparison
x x to the reference experimental research [20] in laminar flow range.
As shown in this figure, the average Nusselt number of water and

D D nanofluid increase is dependent on different parameters such as
Nu ¼ 4:364 þ 0:0722 Re$Pr for Re$Pr < 33:33 (18) volume concentration (even at low levels) and Reynolds number.
x x
The movement of particles due to the Brownian diffusion and
54 A. Moghadassi et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 92 (2015) 50e57

thermophoresis increases the thermal conductivity and viscosity of

nanofluids significantly near the centerline while the velocity
profile is flattened. As can see in eq. (15), the Nusselt numbers were
calculated using the average temperature of wall, the average bulk
temperature, and the actual heat flux. So, the flattened velocity
profile decreases the difference between the average tube wall
temperature and the bulk mean temperature of nanofluids, and it
enhances the heat transfer coefficient which results in a higher
Nusselt number. It is established that the rate of heat transfer in
terms of Nusselt number enhances for hybrid nanofluid in com-
parison to water and Al2O3/water nanofluid numerically and
experimentally. The average increases in Nusselt number for are
about 4.73% and 13.46% for hybrid Al2O3eCu and Al2O3 nanofluid,
respectively. This means that adding a small amount of copper
nanoparticles could be accompanied with approximately 5% in-
crease in the heat transfer.
As previously mentioned, the addition of nanoparticles im-
proves the heat transfer, while it creates a little pressure drop in the
system; the small nanoparticles in the base liquid do not cause a
great change in the flow behavior of the fluid. These pressure drop
characteristics in terms of the friction factor are depicted in Fig. 7.
As it can be seen, the friction factor using the nanofluid is higher
than with pure water. This increase is due to viscosity as the
Fig. 8. Evolution of the Performance Evaluation Criterion (PEC) versus Reynolds
effective parameter. The average increases in friction factor are bout number.
6.93% and 15.53% for hybrid Al2O3eCu and Al2O3 nanofluids,
respectively.
where m_ is the mass flow rate (kg/s), V_ the volumic flow rate (m3/s),
4.3. Energetic performance evaluation criterion (PEC) DT and DP are temperature and pressure differences between the
outlet and inlet sections respectively.
Although Figs. 6 and 7 provide good information about heat The merits of nanofluids for heat transfer enhancement depend
transfer and friction factor of nanofluids, their overall efficacy is on the compromise between thermal conductivity increase and
somewhat more difficult to evaluation. There are several ways to viscosity increase. In this objective, Fig. 8 shows the evolution of
characterize the energetic or thermal performance of a fluid flow- this energetic criterion with the Reynolds number in the case of
ing in a specific device. We can use the PEC [35] (performance water and nanofluids. We can notice that all measurements lead to
evaluation criterion) defined below and based on an energetic PEC values under those corresponding to the case of water.
global approach. It is defined as the ratio of heat transferred to the
required pumping power in the test section: 4.4. Comparison of single-phase and two-phase (mixture) model

_ p $DT
m$C The effect of solid nanoparticles volume concentration (0.1%) on
PEC ¼ (19)
_
V$DP t the thermal behavior of water-based Al2O3 and Al2O3eCu hybrid

Fig. 7. Simulation results for friction factor of water and 0.1% nanofluids (Al2O3 and Fig. 9. Comparison between calculated average Nusselt numbers with the experi-
Al2O3eCu hybrid) and comparison with experimental data. mental data for f ¼ 0.1% Al2O3/water nanofluid.
 A. Moghadassi et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 92 (2015) 50e57 55

Fig. 11 shows the accuracy of the predicted results using the

single and mixture models in compared to the experimental data
[20]. The maximum mean deviation from experimental data for the
single phase model and the mixture model were 8.48% and 4.76%,
respectively.

4.5. Correlations proposed

According the simulation results, the Nusselt numbers and

friction factors in the horizontal tube as a function of the Reynolds
number were correlated as follows:
For Al2O3/water nanofluid:
1
Nu ¼ 0:119Re0:593 Pr 3 ð1 þ fÞ69:23 (20)

f ¼ 103:46Re1:10 ð1 þ fÞ99:71 (21)

For Al2O3eCu/water hybrid nanofluid:
1
Nu ¼ 0:125Re0:592 Pr 3 ð1 þ fÞ77:13 (22)

Fig. 10. Comparison between calculated average Nusselt numbers with the experi-
mental data for f ¼ 0.1% Al2O3eCu/water hybrid nanofluid. f ¼ 133:57Re1:12 ð1 þ fÞ112:45 (23)

nanofluids was studied in a horizontal tube using single-phase and
mixture model approaches. The single phase model is simpler and its
computation needs less time and CPU storage. It is assumed that the
liquid phase and the particles are in the thermal equilibrium and
move with the same speed while in the two phase model each phase
has its own velocity vector field. As it can be seen from Figs. 9 and 10,
using the actual (two-phase) model results are in a better agreement
with experimental data for Al2O3/water and Al2O3eCu/water,
respectively. Adding the nanoparticles to the fluid changes the flow
structure, thus beside thermal conductivity increase, the chaotic
movement, dispersion and fluctuation of nanoparticles especially
near the tube wall lead to the increase of energy exchange rates and
heat transfer rates between the fluid and the tube wall. For two-phase
model, the hybrid nanoparticles are 4% higher than Al2O3 nano-
particle because of adding a small amount of Cu nanoparticles.
Fig. 12 shows the comparison of calculated Nusselt number ac-
cording to eqs. (20) and (22) and the simulation results. As shown
in this figure, the correlated Nu data were in good agreement with
the simulated ones and the maximum deviation is about 7%.
As it can be seen from eqs. (21) and (23), the predicted friction
factor values for the single of single-phase model are compared to
the modeling values and a good agreement is achieved with 5%
and þ7% deviations shown in Fig. 13.
5. Conclusions
In this research, the steady state laminar (Re < 2300) region
containing 0.1% volume concentration of Al2O3 and Al2O3eCu with
15 nm average size dispersed in distilled water using the straight

Fig. 12. Comparison of average Nusselt number between the developed correlation
Fig. 11. Deviation between the results of two models and experimental data [20]. results.
56 A. Moghadassi et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 92 (2015) 50e57
Fig. 13. Comparison of friction factor between the developed correlation results for
single phase model.
circular tube was simulated using the CFD modeling approach. For
this purpose, two different methods (single-phase and two-phase
models) were considered. Comparisons between the models and
the reference experimental data were carried out in terms of the
average Nusselt number. To investigate the flow and convective
heat transfer characteristics, the pressure drop and convective heat
transfer coefficient were measured through the circular tube with
constant heat flux condition. The results revealed that:
1. The heat transfer coefficient and consequently the Nusselt
number are improved with the increase of Reynolds number.
The addition of nanoparticles increases the pressure drop and
consequently the friction factor coefficient.
2. In the single-phase model, the average increase in the Nusselt
number for hybrid nanofluid is about 4.73% and 13.46% in
comparison with Al2O3/water and pure water respectively. This
means that adding a small amount of Cu nanoparticles results in
approximately 5% increase in the heat transfer.
3. Compared to the single-phase model, the mixture approach
result in a more accurate prediction of the experimental data.
Also in the mixture model, the value obtained for the hybrid
nanoparticle is 4% higher than Al2O3 nanoparticle.
4. Two equations for the average Nu number and friction factor
based on the dimensionless numbers are correlated showing a
good agreement with the experimental data.
References
[1] S. Kakac, A. Pramuanjaroenkij, Review of convective heat transfer enhance-
ment with nanofluids, Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 52 (2009) 3187e3196.
[2] 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. Comm. Heat Mass Trans. 38 (2011) 218e228.
[3] S.U.S. Choi, Enhancing Thermal Conductivity of Fluids with Nanoparticles,
Developments and Applications of Nan-newtonian Flows, FED-vol. 231/MD-
vol. 66, 1995, pp. 99e105.
[4] B.-C. Pak, Y.-I. Cho, Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed
fluids with submicron metallic oxide particles, Exp. Heat. Trans. 11 (1998)
151e170.
[5] Y.M. Xuan, Q. Li, Heat transfer enhancement of nanofluids, Int. J. Heat Fluid
Flow 21 (2000) 58e64.
[6] Y.M. Xuan, Q. Li, Investigation on convective heat transfer and flow features
ofnanofluids, J. Heat. Trans. 125 (2003) 151e155.
[7] D. Wen, Y. Ding, Experimental investigation into convective heat transfer of
nanofluids at the entrance region under laminar flow conditions, Int. J. Heat
Mass Trans. 47 (24) (2004) 5181e5188.
[8] S.Z. Heris, S.G. Etemad, M.N. Esfahany, Experimental investigation of oxide
nanofluids laminar flow convective heat transfer, Int. Comm. Heat. Fluid Flow.
33 (2006) 529e535.
[9] S.Z. Heris, M.N. Esfahany, S.G. Etemad, Experimental investigation of
convective heat transfer of Al2O3/water nanofluid in circular tube, Int. J
Heat Fluid Flow 28 (2) (2007) 203e210.
[10] S. El BecayeMaïga, S.J. Palm, C.T. Nguyen, G. Roy, N. Galanis, Heat transfer
enhancement by using nanofluids in forced convection flows, Int. J. Heat.
Mass Trans. 26 (4) (2005) 530e546.
[11] M.K. Moraveji, M. Hejazian, Modeling of turbulent forced convective heat
transfer and friction factor in a tube forFe3O4 magnetic nanofluid with
computational fluid dynamic, Int. Comm. Heat Mass Trans. 39 (2012)
1293e1296.
[12] M.N. Labib, M.J. Nine, H. Afrianto, H. Chung, H. Jeong, Numerical investigation
on effect of base fluids and hybrid nanofluid in forced convective heat
transfer, Int. J. Thermal Sci. 71 (2013) 163e171.
[13] V. Bianco, O. Manca, S. Nardini, Numerical investigation on nanofluids tur-
bulent convection heat transfer inside a circular tube, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 50
(2011) 341e349.
[14] R. Lotfi, Y. Saboohi, A.M. Rashidi, Numerical study of forced convective heat
transfer of nanofluids: comparison of different approaches, Int. Comm. Heat
Mass Trans. 37 (2010) 74e78.
[15] Y. He, Y. Men, Y. Zhao, H. Lu, Y. Ding, Numerical investigation into the
convective heat transfer of TiO2nanofluids flowing through a straight tube
under the laminar flow conditions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009)
1965e1972.
[16] V. Bianco, F. Chiacchio, O. Manca, S. Nardini, Numerical investigation of
nanofluids forced convection in circular tubes, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009)
3632e3642.
[17] A. Akbarinia, R. Laur, Investigating the diameter of solid particles effects on a
laminar nanofluid flow in a curved tube using a two phase approach, Int. J.
Heat Fluid Flow 30 (4) (2009) 706e713.
[18] S. Mirmasoumi, A. Behzadmehr, Numerical study of laminar mixed convection
of a nanofluid, in a horizontal tube using two-phase mixture model, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 28 (2008) 717e727.
[19] S. Mirmasoumi, A. Behzadmehr, Effect of nanoparticles mean diameter on
mixed convection heat transfer of a nanofluid in a horizontal tube, Int. J. Heat
Fluid Flow 29 (2008) 557e566.
[20] S. Suresh, K.P. Venkitaraj, P. Selvakumar, M. Chandrasekar, Effect of Al2O3eCu/
water hybrid nanofluid in heat transfer, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 38 (2012)
54e60.
[21] S. Suresh, K.P. Venkitaraj, P. Selvakumar, M. Chandrasekar, Synthesis of
Al2O3eCu/water hybrid nanofluids using two step method and its thermo
physical properties, Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Aspects 388
(2011) 41e48.
[22] M.K. Moraveji, R.M. Ardehali, CFD modeling (comparing single and two-phase
approaches) on thermal performance of Al2O3/water nanofluid in mini-
channel heat sink, Int. Comm. Heat Mass Trans. 44 (2013) 157e164.
[23] M. Hejazian, M.K. Moraveji, A comparative analysis of single and two-phase
models of turbulent convective heat transfer in a tube for TiO2 nanofluid
with CFD, Numer. Heat. Transf. Part A 63 (2013) 795e806.
[24] A. Behzadmehr, M. Saffar-Avval, N. Galanis, Prediction of turbulent forced
convection of a nanofluid in a tube with uniform heat flux using a two phase
approach, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 28 (2007) 211e219.
[25] A. Akbarinia, A. Behzadmehr, Numerical study of laminar mixed convection of
a nanofluid in horizontal tube using two-phase mixture model, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 28 (2008) 717e727.
[26] M. Manninen, V. Taivassalo, S. Kallio, On the Mixture Model for Multiphase
Flow, vol. 288, VTT Publications, 1996. Technical Research Center of
Finland.
[27] L. Schiller, A. Naumann, A drag coefficient correlation, Z. Ver. Dtsch. Ing. 77
(1935) 318e320.
[28] Y.,W. Roetzel, Conceptions for heat transfer correlation of nanofluids, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 43 (2000) 3701e3707.
[29] A. Einstein, Investigation on the Theory of Brownian Motion, Dover, New
York, 1956.
[30] J.C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, second ed., Clarendon
Press, Oxford, UK, 1881.
[31] W.Q. Tao, Recent Advance in Computational Heat Transfer, Science Press,
Beijing, 2000, pp. 64e79 in Chinese.
[32] W.Q. Tao, Numerical Heat Transfer, second ed., Xi’an Jiaotong Press, 2001 (in
Chinese).
[33] R.K. Shah, Thermal entry length solutions for the circular tube and par-
allel plates, in: Proceedings of Third National Heat Mass Transfer Con-
ference, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, 1975, p. 1 (Paper No.
HMT-11-75).
[34] F.P. Incropera, D.P. De Witt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, fourth
ed., Wiley, New York, 1996.
 A. Moghadassi et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 92 (2015) 50e57 57

[35] G. Roy, I. Gherasim, F. Nadeau, G. Poitras, C.T. Nguyen, Heat transfer perfor- _ mass flow rate (kg/s)
m:
mance and hydrodynamic behavior of turbulent nanofluid radial flows, Int. J. _ volumic flow rate (m3/s)
V:
Therm. Sci. 58 (2012) 120e129.
Greek symbols
Glossary
r: density, kg/m3
m: Viscosity of the fluid, kg/m.s
C: Specific heat, J/kg K
ф: volume concentration
f: Friction factor
DP: pressure drop, Pa
h: Average convective heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K
Nu: Average Nusselt number
T: Average temperature, K Subscripts
k: Thermal conductivity, W/m K
q: Heat flux, W/m2 exp: experimental
D: Tube diameter nf: nanofluid
Pr: Prandtl number f: fluid
L: length of the tube, m p: particle
P: power, W dr: drift
Q: heat flow m: mixture
Re: Reynolds number corr: correlation
PEC: performance evaluation criterion