4.7 Article

Investigation of boiling heat transfer of titania nanofluid flowing through horizontal tube and optimization of results utilizing the desirability function approach

Journal

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
Volume 378, Issue -, Pages 104-123

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2020.09.077

Keywords

Heat transfer coefficient (HTC); Reynolds number; CFD; Concentration; Correlation; Desirability function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An experimental investigation on flow boiling was conducted to examine the heat transfer coefficient of water and water-TiO2 nanofluid. The results showed that the heat transfer coefficient of the nanofluid increased with higher Reynolds number, pressure, and volumetric concentration. The greatest enhancement in heat transfer coefficient was observed at Reynolds number 24,000, concentration 0.20%, and pressure 2.5 bar.
A flow boiling experimental investigation was performed to examine the heat transfer coefficient of water and water-TiO2 nanofluid. During investigation, the Reynolds number varied from 8000 to 24,000, pressure from 1 to 2.5 bar, and volumetric concentration of nanofluid from 0.05 to 0.20%. Supplied heat flux was 143 kWm(-2). Experimental results of water were in good agreement with CFD investigation and Chen correlation. It was noticed that the HTC of water and water-TiO2 nanofluid enhanced with the enhancement in Reynolds number and pressure. HTC of water-TiO2 nanofluid was greater than the water and enhanced with the enhancement in volumetric concentration. The highest increment in the HTC of water-TiO2 nanofluid in comparison to water was noticed for Reynolds number 24,000, concentration 0.20%, and pressure 2.5 bar which was 76.7%. Correlations of the HTC of titania nanofluid were developed. To optimize the HTC of water-TiO2 nanofluid desirability function approach was utilized. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. 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