4.7 Article

Performance of water based CuO and Al2O3 nanofluids in a Cu-Be alloy heat sink with rectangular microchannels

Journal

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 86, Issue -, Pages 28-38

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.013

Keywords

Microchannel heat sink; CuO/water and Al2O3/water nanofluids; Heat transfer coefficient; Pressure drop

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Single phase forced convective heat transfer and fluid flow of CuO/water and Al2O3/water nanofluids have been experimentally investigated in a microchannel heat sink (MCHS). The heat sink consisted of 17 rectangular cross section microchannels with the dimensions of 400 mu m x 560 mu m. All the experiments have been performed at constant heat flux of 19 W/cm(2) and at the laminar flow regime 500 < Re < 2000. Heat transfer coefficient, Nu number, and also pressure drop in the MCHS have been measured and compared with the conventional correlations. Both nanofluids showed greater heat transfer performance and larger pressure drop in comparison with pure water. Results indicated that 0.2 vol.% CuO and 1 vol.% Al2O3 nanofluids enhanced the heat transfer coefficient up to 27% and 49%, respectively. In this regards, CuO nanoparticle was more efficient since it could be used in lower concentration. Furthermore, it was shown that the heat transfer coefficient increased with increasing the nanoparticle concentration but it was not true to say that the heat transfer enhancement increased with Reynolds number. The results of this study in conjunction with previous papers indicated that lower Nu numbers and higher heat transfer coefficients would be obtained in the MCHS in comparison with the conventional diameter heat exchangers. It showed the greater importance of both conductive and convective heat transfer mechanisms in this kind of heat exchangers. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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