4.7 Article

Exploring the effects of nanofluids on nucleate boiling: a theoretical and experimental investigation

期刊

JOURNAL OF THERMAL ANALYSIS AND CALORIMETRY
卷 148, 期 15, 页码 7881-7898

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10973-023-12278-y

关键词

Nanofluids; Nucleate boiling; Volume concentration; Particle size

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the performance of using a silver nanofluid as a coolant in a heat exchanger. It finds that the fluid flow rate has the most significant influence on effectiveness. Although the silver nanofluid shows better effectiveness compared to water, the cost of production and characterization of silver nanoparticles is not justified.
This study evaluates the performance of silver nanofluid as a coolant in a helical shell and tube heat exchanger using water as the hot fluid. The investigation characterizes silver nanoparticles and finds they are predominantly spherical and negatively charged, resulting in stable nanofluid. The study conducts multilevel factorial analysis using different volumetric fractions of nanoparticles. It identifies fluid flow rate as having the most significant influence on effectiveness, followed by the inlet temperature of the hot fluid and the volumetric fraction of nanoparticles. The study derives a linear regression equation from calculating the effectiveness of the heat exchanger. The smallest error between calculated and experimental effectiveness was 3.8%, observed at a volumetric flow of 40 L h(-1), with an average Reynolds number of 4018, and a hot fluid inlet temperature of 60 degrees C. Although the cost of producing and characterizing silver nanoparticles was not justified, the study expands knowledge about using a scarcely explored nanofluid as a coolant in heat exchangers. The analysis shows that although the silver nanofluid used in the present study showed an increase in effectiveness compared to its base fluid (water), the cost of production and characterization of the silver nanoparticles were not justified.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据