4.7 Article

Comparative analysis of single and two-phase models for CFD studies of nanofluid heat transfer

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCES
Volume 50, Issue 8, Pages 1343-1354

Publisher

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2011.03.008

Keywords

Nanofluids; Mixed convection; CFD; Single-phase model; Two-phase models

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Hydro Quebec
  3. Rio Tinto Alcan
  4. CANMET Energy Technology Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CFD predictions of laminar mixed convection of Al2O3-water nanofluids by single-phase and three different two-phase models (volume of fluid, mixture, Eulerian) are compared. The elliptical, coupled, steady-state, three-dimensional governing partial differential equations for laminar mixed convection in a horizontal tube with uniform heat flux are solved numerically using the finite volume approach. It is found that single-phase and two-phase models predict almost identical hydrodynamic fields but very different thermal ones. The predictions by the three two-phase models are essentially the same. For the problem under consideration the two-phase models give closer predictions of the convective heat transfer coefficient to the experimental data than the single-phase model; nevertheless, the two-phase models over-predict the enhancement of the convective heat transfer coefficient resulting from the increase of the alumina volume fraction. The results are calculated for two Reynolds numbers (1050 and 1600) and three nanoparticle volume concentrations (<2%). Although single-phase and two-phase models have been used before to analyze mixed convection of nanofluids, this is the first systematic comparison of their predictions for a laminar mixed convection flow which includes the hydrodynamic characteristics and the effect of temperature dependent properties. (C) 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available