4.7 Article

Comparative investigation of convective heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of MWCNT, Fe3O4, and MWCNT/Fe3O4 nanofluids

Journal

CASE STUDIES IN THERMAL ENGINEERING
Volume 47, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.csite.2023.103095

Keywords

Convective heat transfer; Thermal conductivity; Viscosity; Hybrid nanofluid; Multi-walled carbon nanotube; Pressure drop

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work focuses on the study of the convective heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of a hybrid nanofluid. Multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) NF, Fe3O4 NF, and MWCNT/Fe3O4 HNFs with different concentrations were prepared. The convective heat transfer coefficient and pressure drop were investigated and compared. The results showed that the MWCNT/Fe3O4 HNFs exhibited higher heat transfer coefficients and larger pressure drops compared to the base fluid, indicating their potential as an effective heat transport medium.
The present work discusses the experimental investigation of the convective heat transfer (CHT) and pressure drop characteristics of a hybrid nanofluid (HNF). The multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) NF, Fe3O4 NF, and MWCNT/Fe3O4 HNFs with 0.025 wt% to 0.2 wt% concentrations were prepared through ultrasonic dispersion. The CHT coefficient of the three NFs was investigated in a cylindrical test section at different Reynolds numbers (Re) and compared. As an outcome, the CHT coefficients of the MWCNT/Fe3O4 HNFs ranged from 1823.2 to 2030.5 W/m(2).K, which is 6%-15.9% more than the base fluid. Furthermore, the MWCNT/Fe3O4 HNFs outperformed the MWCNT and Fe3O4 NFs individually during the CHT coefficient enhancement. At Re of 1000-1600, the increase in pressure drop of the MWCNT NF, Fe3O4 NF, and MWCNT/Fe3O4 HNFs varied from 62.4% to 91.7% as compared to water. Therefore, it is expected that the MWCNT/Fe3O4 HNF could be an effective heat transport medium.

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