4.6 Article

A benchmark study on the thermal conductivity of nanofluids

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
Volume 106, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.3245330

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  2. Directorate For Engineering [0812804] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reports or, the international Nanofluid Property Benchmark Exercise, or INPBE. in which the thermal conductivity of identical samples of colloidally stable dispersions of nanoparticles or nanofluids, was measured by over 30 organizations worldwide, using, a variety of experimental approaches, including the transient hot wire method, steady-state methods, and optical methods. The nanofluids tested in the exercise were comprised of aqueous and nonaqueous basefluids, metal and metal oxide particles, near-spherical and elongated particles, at low and high particle concentrations. The data analysis reveals that the data from most organizations lie within a relatively narrow band (+/- 10% or less) about the sample average with only few outliers. The thermal conductivity of the nanofluids was found to increase with particle concentration and aspect ratio. as expected from classical theory. There are (small) systematic differences in the absolute values of the nanofluid thermal conductivity among the various experimental approaches; however. such differences tend to disappear when the data are normalized to the Measured thermal conductivity of the basefluid. The effective medium theory developed for dispersed particles by Maxwell in 1881 and recently generalized by Nan et al. [J. Appl. Phys. 81, 6692 (1997)], was found to be in good agreement with the experimental data, suggesting that no anomalous enhancement of thermal conductivity was achieved in the nanofluids tested in this exercise. (C) 2009 American Institute of Physics. [doi: 10.1063/1.3245330]

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available