final kevin wallace

P u r d u e U n i v e r s i t y C a l u m e t

S c h o o l o f T e c h n o l o g y

Research in Heat Transfer with Nanofluids

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Science in Technology

A Directed Project Proposal

By

Kevin G. Wallace

May 11, 2010

Committee Member Approval Signature Date

Lash Mapa, Chair _______________________________________ ____________

Mohammad A. Zahraee _______________________________________ ____________

Craig Engle _______________________________________ ____________

Research in Heat Transfer with Nanofluids 2

Table of Contents

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 3

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 4

Abstract / Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 5

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 7

Significance of the Problem .............................................................................................. 7

Purpose of the Project ...................................................................................................... 7

Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 8

Assumptions....................................................................................................................... 8

Delimitations ...................................................................................................................... 9

Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 9

Review of Literature / Background ............................................................................... 10

Procedures or Methodology ........................................................................................... 13

- Equipment Design .................................................................................................. 13

- Nomenclature ......................................................................................................... 15

- Equations................................................................................................................ 16

- Determining Properties .......................................................................................... 17

- Nanofluid Properties .............................................................................................. 17

Data and Calculations..................................................................................................... 18

- Test Coil ................................................................................................................. 18

- Reynolds Number Calculations ............................................................................. 19

- Experimental Data ................................................................................................. 21

- Experimental Calculations ..................................................................................... 22

- Observation ............................................................................................................ 24

Full Factorial Design....................................................................................................... 25

- Test Results ............................................................................................................ 26

Conclusions/Discussions ................................................................................................. 29

Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 31

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 31

References ........................................................................................................................ 32

Appendixes....................................................................................................................... 34


List of Figures

Figure 1: Nano Copper Oxide (CuO) [1] ............................................................................ 6 Figure 2: Flow model in section of helical pipe [11] ........................................................ 10 Figure 3: Helical Coiled Tubing (Heat Exchanger) Layout [13] ...................................... 11 Figure 4: Schematic of Experimental Set-Up ................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Experimental Set-Up and Test Cells ................................................................. 14 Figure 6: Drawing of Helical Test Coil Heat Exchanger .................................................. 18 Figure 7: Main Effects Plot ............................................................................................... 27 Figure 8: Interaction Plot .................................................................................................. 28 Figure 9: Nanofluid vs. Water ......................................................................................... 29 Figure 10: Heat Transfer Rate of Test Runs ..................................................................... 30 Figure 11: Cole-Parmer Heat-O-Matic Heater [6] ............................................................ 34 Figure 12: Cole-Parmer Variable Speed Pump [6] ........................................................... 35 Figure 13: HotMux Data Logger [9] ................................................................................. 36 Figure 14: Nano Copper Oxide [1] ................................................................................... 37 Figure 15: Nano Aluminum Oxide [1].............................................................................. 37


List of Tables

Table 1: Thermal Conductivity of Nanofluids .................................................................. 12 Table 2: Helical Test Coil Heat Exchanger Specifications ............................................... 18 Table 3: Dynamic Viscosity of Water [10] ....................................................................... 19 Table 4: Test 1 Data for Al2O3 ........................................................................................ 21 Table 5: Logged Data for Test 1; Inlet and Exit Temperature .......................................... 21 Table 6: DOE Set-Up ........................................................................................................ 25 Table 7: Test Results for each DOE Run .......................................................................... 26 Table 8: ANOVA for Y1 .................................................................................................. 26 Table 9: Cole-Parmer Heat-O-Matic Heater Data [6] ....................................................... 34 Table 10: Thermocouple Table [9] ................................................................................... 36 Table 11: Test 1Data ......................................................................................................... 38 Table 12: Test D Data ....................................................................................................... 39 Table 13: Test C Data ....................................................................................................... 40 Table 14: Test CD Data .................................................................................................... 41 Table 15: Test B Data ....................................................................................................... 42 Table 16: Test BD Data .................................................................................................... 43 Table 17: Test BC Data..................................................................................................... 44 Table 18: Test BCD Data .................................................................................................. 45 Table 19: Test A Data ....................................................................................................... 46 Table 20: Test AD Data .................................................................................................... 47 Table 21: Test AC Data .................................................................................................... 48 Table 22: Test ACD Data ................................................................................................. 49 Table 23: Test AB Data .................................................................................................... 50 Table 24: Test ABD Data ................................................................................................. 51 Table 25: Test ABC Data .................................................................................................. 52 Table 26: Test ABCD Data ............................................................................................... 53


Abstract / Executive Summary

An investigation in heat transfer characteristics with nanofluids has revealed that

when nanparticles are introduced to a conventional fluid in certain concentrations they

enhance the ability to transfer heat. These investigations are being conducted by

researchers worldwide for industrial, commercial, and residential applications because

the benefits may lower energy costs and less environmental impact. Water is a very

common fluid used in heat transfer applications; therefore the data collected from the

experiments may prove that nanofluids are a viable option in heat transfer applications.

This research will be conducted using a heated aqueous mixture of aluminum and copper

oxide nanoparticles and passed through helical coiled copper tubing (heat exchanger)

while being cooled by a fan. Measured from this research will be temperature and flow

to determine Reynolds Number, heat transfer rate, and an investigation of the deposition

of the nanoparticles on heat transfer surfaces. Significance among factors will be

determined by conducting a Factorial Design (Design of Experiment).


Introduction

A nanofluid is a mixture of water and suspended metallic nanoparticles. Since the

thermal conductivity of metallic solids are typically orders of magnitude higher than that

of fluids it is expected that a solid/fluid mixture will have higher effective thermal

conductivity compared to the base fluid. Thus, the presence of the nanoparticles changes

the transport properties of the base fluid thereby increasing the effective thermal

conductivity and heat capacity, which ultimately enhance the heat transfer rate of

nanofluids. Because of the small size of the nanoparticles (10-9

m), nanofluids incur little

or no penalty in pressure drop and other flow characteristics when used in low

concentrations. Nanofluids are extremely stable and exhibit no significant settling under

static conditions, even after weeks or months. In their work (Lee & Choi) on the

application of nanofluids reported significant cooling enhancement without clogging the

micro-channels.

Advancements in material technology have provided the opportunity to produce

material particles at the nano (10-9

) scale. These particles have very different properties,

like mechanical and electrical, than their full scale parent materials. Nanoparticles are

particles’ consisting of dimensions approximately 0.1-1000 nm in size. Some of the

common oxide nanoparticles being used in heat transfer research are Zinc Oxide (ZnO),

Copper Oxide (CuO), Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3), and Titanium Oxide (TiO2) while some

of the metal nanoparticles are Gold (Au), Silver (Ag), and Copper (Cu).

Figure 1: Nano Copper Oxide (CuO) [1]

Enhancement of heat transfer mechanism of nanofluids are attributed to chaotic

movement of the ultra-fine particles and increase in thermal conductivity due to the

suspension of nanoparticles, Nanofluids have the potential to revolutionize the way

heating or cooling needs are met in the future. Nanofluids that are able to increase the

efficiency of heat transfer will lead to lower operational and capital costs, which

translates into cost savings, reduction of waste and positive environmental impact.

However, nanotechnology is an emerging technology and research is needed to

understand the mechanism of heat transfer in nanofluids and apply the benefits in thermal

applications. Efforts are being made to recapture the nanoparticles suspended in the

nanofluids before the nanofluid is to be recycled. If this process proves to be a success

then nanoparticles can be continuously used and there would not be any concern of

nanoparticles polluting the environment.


Statement of the Problem

Behavior of nanofluids and modeling during heat transfer is still in the early

stages of development and therefore has not been fully investigated. Research is needed

to advance nanotechnology and to determine heat transfer applications for

nanoparticles/nanofluids. Research will help to understand the relationship of nanofluids

and heat transfer rates at various operational conditions. Experiments will also help to

understand the relationship of deposition of nanoparticles and its effect on heat transfer

rates. The research being conducted in this study uses two types of nanofluids at

different concentrations, temperatures, and at different flow rates.

Significance of the Problem

The mechanisms responsible for the flow characteristics and temperature changes

with nanoparticles are not fully understood. However, they may possess the ability to

enhance heat transfer. The main characteristic in nanofluid heat transfer is convection

heat transfer which is the transfer of heat from a solid surface (copper tubing) to a

medium (conventional fluid or nanofluid). To alter the convection heat transfer

coefficient, would change the heat transfer rates. It has been reported that deposition of

nanoparticles on the surface of the copper tubing, would yield an increase in energy

consumption and eliminate any benefits associated with the use of nanofluids. However,

the dispersion or suspension of nanoparticles in a conventional fluid (referred to as

nanofluid); without deposition or limited deposition and can enhance convection heat

transfer and may prove the significance of nanofluids. This may result in the

enhancement of energy transfer thus resulting in reduction of operational costs. In a

practical application where nanofluids may reduce operational cost could be radiant floor

heating. Radiant floor heating is a popular method of heating garages and basements and

relies on convection heat transfer. However, the water that is assisting in the transfer

comes from hot water heater. If the water in the heater were to be heated in a shorter

amount of time and dissipates its energy more efficiently due to the presence of

nanoparticles, then less energy would be consumed by the water heater.

Purpose of the Project

The purpose of this project is to determine the effect nanoparticles have on heat

transfer rates along with the effect deposition has on heat transfer rates using aluminum

and copper oxide nanoparticles at different concentrations, different flow rates, and at

different temperatures.


Definitions

Nano – 10

-9

Nanoparticle – particle with a size between 0.1-1000 nm

Nanofluid – nanoparticle mixed in a conventional fluid

Conventional Fluid – water, oil, ethylene glycol

Heating Element – converts electricity into heat

Convection – heat transfer between a solid and conventional fluid

Steady State – temperatures remain constant with time

Laminar – dominated by diffusion and velocity profile is nearly linear

Turbulent – dominated by turbulent mixing

Reynolds Number – transition between laminar and turbulent boundaries

Assumptions

It is important to assume that some of the nanoparticles will deposit on the copper

tubing and will not deposit on the rubber tubing. It is important to assume the

nanoparticles will not deposit on the rubber tubing. It is also important to assume that

there will be no heat loss as the nanofluid travels from the tank through the rubber tubing.

Experiments will be conducted using the same procedures and equipment and will have

the same factors monitored. Temperature and flow rates were measured at steady state

indicated by the temperatures steady for a ten minute period.


Delimitations

Constraining factors that will not be address are as follow:

Nanoparticle size – Limited to what is commercially available.

Heating element material and size – Determined by the amount of power.

necessary to heat the water in the tank to the desired temperatures.

Purity of the water – Restricted to lake water.

Fan speed – Single speed fan set to manufacturers specifications.

Copper tubing – Restricted to the manufacturers tolerances when drawing the

tubing over a mandrel.

Rubber Tubing and CPVC – Manufactures specifications.

Environmental conditions – Efforts will be made to control the temperature,

humidity, barometric pressure, however, their affect will not be considered.

Limitations

Budgetary constraints – Limits the items being used to conduct the experiment.

Horizontal orientation of the copper helical coil (heat exchanger).

Placing the copper helical coil (heat exchanger) at a predetermined distance above

the fans.

Bubbles on the surface of the heater – Bubbles will exist on the surface of the

heating element but will affect the final set temperature.

Study will be limited to evaluating heat transfer rates with aluminum and copper

oxide nanoparticles.

Research will be limited to evaluating heat transfer rates at predetermined

temperatures

Study will be limited to evaluating heat transfer rates at predetermined flow rates.

Use of water as conventional fluid to mix with the nanoparticles - Ethylene glycol

(engine coolant) has been used in other convection heat transfer experiments to

determine the effects of nanoparticles, however, to lessen our environmental

impact and requirements for disposal this research will be conducted using lake

water.

Accuracy of the thermocouple – Limited to the manufacturers specification which

could be % of reading or % of full scale.


Review of Literature / Background

Nanoparticles are very small nanometer sized particles with dimensions 0.1-1000

nm (nanometers) in size. Some of the common oxide nanoparticles being used in heat

transfer research are: Zinc Oxide (ZnO), Zirconia (ZrO2), Copper Oxide (CuO),

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3), and Titanium Oxide (TiO2) while some of the metal

nanoparticles are Gold (Au), Silver (Ag), and Copper (Cu). Conventional fluids being

mixed with nanoparticles are: water, ethylene glycol, and oil.

Water is a convenient and safe medium; however, it has poor heat transfer

characteristics which are a major disadvantage. For example, water is roughly three

orders of magnitude poorer in heat conduction than copper; as is the case with coolants

such as engine coolants, lubricants, and organic coolants. The use of nanofluids

(nanoparticles + conventional fluids), like water, may possess the ability to increase the

convection heat transfer characteristics of that particular fluid.

As fluids stream through a heat exchanger, the flow can be two distinct types:

laminar or turbulent. Laminar flow is smooth and the fluid moves in layers or paths

parallel to each other and leads to low heat transfer rates. In turbulent flow, the layers of

fluid mix until they are no longer distinguishable and leads to higher heat transfer rate.

Deficiencies in efficient heat transfer rates should be a result of design flaws in the

exchanger, not an effect of nanofluids. This section will review recent research of flow

characteristics within heat exchangers, the understanding of Reynolds number, and the

influence of nanoparticles on modern heat exchange research with respect to thermal

conductivity and viscosity. Although research has been conducted on heat exchange

designs for a long time, the field of nanofluids with respect to heat exchange transfer is

relatively new. Current research indicates, however, that nanoparticles do not pose a

problem to heat transfer designs.

Currently, researchers (JU, HUANG, XU, DUAN, & YU, 2001) are conducting

experiments to examine the effects of the nanoparticles disbursed into the fluid.

Experiments are being conducted routinely with helical coiled tubing. These experiments

are being conducted because most heat exchangers, condensers, and steam generators are

constructed with helical coiled tubing. The helical coiled tubing presents an interesting

challenge because of the effects of centrifugal force through the radial sections,

especially in small radial bends. The centrifugal force causes the fluid to become

unstable resulting in a Reynolds number that is no longer a constant value when

transitioning from laminar to turbulent flow.

Figure 2: Flow model in section of helical pipe [11]


An imaginary flow model in helical coiled pipe is pictured in Figure 1. As

mentioned before the hydraulic performance is influenced by centrifugal force and that

has a pronounced effect on the Reynolds number by causing it to increase significantly.

Shaukat Ali and Anwar Zaidl (All & Zaidl, 1979) in 1979 conducted

hydrodynamic experiments on spiral coiled tubing referred to as ascending equiangular

spiral tube coils. Equiangular spiral tube coils are spirals with no constant pitch but

varies along the length of the spiral whereas an Archimedian spiral has a constant pitch.

They wrote how the helical coil and spiral coil differ in flow characteristics because the

coil curvature remains constant which produces fully developed downstream flow. The

spiral coil, with its nonconstant spiral pitch and varying curvature, does not produce a

fully developed flow but instead creates a secondary flow that varies intensity.

Therefore, they determined there was a need for a calculation for critical Reynolds

number that incorporated the Reynolds numbers calculation for both straight and helical

coiled tubing. The following equation was also a basis for this experiment:

[ {

}

] [3]

Ko and Ting (Ko & Ting, 2006) analyzed forced convection with fully developed

laminar flow to determine optimal Reynolds number. They attempted to propose an

equation correlating optimal Reynolds number according to relevant design parameters.

The attempt at deriving an equation is because of the problems designers have with

helical coils like the effect of centrifugal force which may influence the heat transfer and

flow rate. Below is their Reynolds number equation along with the curvature ration

equation, known as the Dean number.

(

)

[13]

Figure 3: Helical Coiled Tubing (Heat Exchanger) Layout [13]

Heris, Etemad & Esfahany (Heris, Etemad, & Esfahany, CONVECTIVE HEAT

TRANSFER OF A Cu/WATER NANOFLUID FLOWING THROUGH A CIRCULAR

TUBE, 2009) studied the effects of convective heat transfer through circular tubing with

copper oxide nanofluid. The experiment was conducted with a laminar flow and constant

wall temperature. They noted in their research that others conducting similar


experiments have noticed significant increases in the heat transfer rate as compared to

water. Also noted in their research was a smaller heat transfer rate of Al2O3 in

comparison with water.

Heris, Etemad & Esfahany had equations to help assist them with determining the

volume fraction of nanoparticles, density of the nanofluid, and an equation to determine

the specific heat of the nanofluid. These equations were also a basis of this experiment.

Thermal Conductivity of nanofluids has been debated for years with many

different experiments being conducted to determine the many different factors, like

Reynolds number, or heat transfer coefficient, or heat transfer rate at laminar and

turbulent flow rates. In theoretical models A.K. Singh (Singh, 2008) remarks that

thermal conductivity depends on nanoparticle size, material, and concentration. For

example, a 1 nm particle will have a surface-to-volume ration of 1000 times greater than

that of a 1µm particle of the same material.

Table 1: Thermal Conductivity of Nanofluids


Procedures or Methodology

- Equipment Design

The following is the experimental schematic that was used during the testing of

this experiment;

Figure 4: Schematic of Experimental Set-Up

First, to observe the behaviors of nanoparticles in regards to the heat

transfer rate; 1/8‖ copper tubing (1/8‖ OD x .062‖ Wall) was formed into helical

coil heat exchanger with a centerline diameter of 1-1/4‖. The copper tubing test

pieces were placed in individual test cells that were housed in a 10‖ x 19‖ box.

The cells were formed with ½‖ foam insulation and a Plexiglas divider. To get

the fluid to the copper tubing 1/8‖ rubber hosed was used to minimize the

deposition of nanoparticles. The 1/8‖ rubber tubing was attached to brass barb

fittings that were attached to ½‖ CPVC. To get the fluid to the CPVC a ½‖ fiber

reinforce clear plastic tubing was used. Pumping the fluid through the tubing and

up to the CPVC was a variable speed pump used. The pump was fed from a 12 L


tank which acted as a reservoir for the nanofluid. J-type thermocouples were

placed in the brass barbed fittings, in the tank at the opening to the hose feeding

the pump, and at the end of the exit tubing that was filling a cup before being

discharged into the tank. The thermocouples were used to monitor temperatures

at each location to help determine the heat transfer rate of the fluid being tested.

Figure 5: Experimental Set-Up and Test Cells

The nanofluids were introduced to the holding tank which allowed the particles to

move its way upwards through the ½‖ fiber reinforce clear plastic tubing. The

nanofluids pass through helical coiled heat exchanger, which is being cooled by

fans, and then flow back into the tank. This process is repeated continually for all

16 experiments. Two helical coil heat exchangers were use to replicate each run

at the same operating conditions.


- Nomenclature

Cp – Specific Heat (J / g*K)

d – Inside Tube Diameter (cm)

m – Mass Flow Rate (g/s)

Rmax – Maximum Radius of Coil (cm)

Re – Renolds Number

∆T – Change in Temperature (K)

v – Velocity of Fluid (m/s)

µ- Dynamic Viscosity (kg/m*s)

– Nanoparticle Mass in Nanofluid Suspension (g)

– Nanoparticle Volume Fraction

- Nanoparticle Volume in Nanofluid Suspension (cm3)

- Total Volume of Nanofluid (cm3)

– Nanofluid Density (g/m3)

– Nanoparticle Density (g/m3)

– Density of Water (g/m3)

- Specific Heat of Nanofluid (J / g*K)

– Specific Heat of Nanoparticle (J / g*K)

- Specific Heat of Water (J / g*K)

- Specific Heat of Copper Oxide (J / g*K)

- Specific Heat of Aluminum Oxide (J / g*K)


- Equations

The following equations were utilized to determine the flow design and heat

transfer

- In order to determine the Reynolds number, the following equation was used:

[ {

}

] [3]

- The mass flow rate was calculated to determine the desired flow rate for

testing and the following equation was used:

[10]

- The heat transfer rate was calculated for each trial run and the following

equation was used:

[10]

- The nanoparticle volume in nanofluid suspension was calculated for each trial

run and the following equation was used:

[8]

- The nanoparticle volume fraction was calculated for each trial run and the

following equation was used:

[8]

- The nanofluid density was calculated for each trial run and the following

equation was used:

[8]

- The specific heat of Copper Oxide (CuO) was calculated for each trial run and

the following equation was used:

[18]

- The specific heat of Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) was calculated for each trial


[18]

- The specific heat of the nanofluid being tested was calculated for each trial


( )

[8]


- Determining Properties

The mass flow rate of each trial was determined by adjusting the pump at

different speeds, filling a cup over a specified time and then weighing the cup on

a scale. This is completed repeatedly until the desired flow was achieved. Once

the mass flow rate is established, the temperatures are recorded continuously (30

second intervals) for that particular flow rate.

- Nanofluid Properties

The nanofluid being used was aluminum and copper oxide and was mixed in

concentrations of 4g and 8g, however, the concentration of nano in the nanofluid

being used was 50%.


Data and Calculations

- Test Coil

Figure 6: Drawing of Helical Test Coil Heat Exchanger

TEST COIL Tube O.D. 1/8”

.3175 cm Tube I.D. .058”

.14732 Helical Coil Dia. 1-1/4”

3.175 cm Helical Coil Radius 5/8”

1.5875 cm Rmax 1.5875 cm

Table 2: Helical Test Coil Heat Exchanger Specifications


- Reynolds Number Calculations

The following procedure was utilized to determine the flow design and heat

transfer rate;

- Reynolds number needs to be calculated to determine the flow rates necessary

to conduct this experiment. Flow rates used will be above and below the

calculated Re critical. In order to determine the Reynolds number, the

following equation was used:

[ {

}

] [3]

[ {

}

]

(Note: High Reynolds Number due to effect of centrifugal force [11])

Significance of Reynolds Number (Re):

1. If Re is less than 7528.25, the flow is laminar

2. If Re is greater than 7528.25, the flow is turbulent

3. Critical Re for flow in helical coiled tubing.

This research project was designed to experiment with nanofluids at laminar and

turbulent flows regions through helical coiled tubing. In straight tubing laminar flow is

Re < 2000 and for turbulent flow Re > 4000. For this experiment the Critical Re was

calculated (7528.25), therefore, subsequent laminar and turbulent Re numbers had to be

derived. 3500 was selected for laminar flow and 8500 was selected for turbulent flow.

These Reynolds values will help ensure proper flow.

Table 3: Dynamic Viscosity of Water [10]

- The Mass Flow Rate for Re #3500 (Laminar Flow):

[10]

- The Mass Flow Rate for Re #8500 (Turbulent Flow):

[10]

VISCOSITY OF WATER μ @ 40° C .0006531 N s/m2


- Experimental Data

TEST 1 SET-UP Nanoparticle: Aluminum

Oxide (Al2O3) Concentration: 4 grams Temperature: 40 °C

Mass Flow Rate: Tank Volume:

1.555 g/sec 6000 ml

AL2O3 PROPERTIES Molecular Mass Al: 26.982 g/mol Molecular Mass O2: 16 g/mol Molecular Mass Al2O3: Mass in Solution: Density of Al2O3:

101.964 g/mo 2 grams 4.00 g/cm3

COLLECTED DATA Mass Flow Rate: 1.583 g/s Density of Water: .993 g/cm3 Inlet Temperature: 312.606 K Exit Temperature: Specific Heat Water:

310.146 K 4.1785J/g*K

Table 4: Test 1 Data for Al2O3

Test 1

Time Exit Temp (°C) Inlet Temp (°C)

4/22/2010 16:39 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:39 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:40 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:40 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:41 36.91 39.57

4/22/2010 16:41 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:42 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:42 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:43 37.17 39.83

4/22/2010 16:43 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:44 37.17 39.83

4/22/2010 16:44 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:45 37.17 39.83

4/22/2010 16:45 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:46 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:46 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:47 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:47 36.91 39.57

4/22/2010 16:48 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:48 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:49 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:49 37.17 39.57

Average 37.146 39.605

Kelvin 310.146 312.605 Table 5: Logged Data for Test 1; Inlet and Exit Temperature

Table #4 above represents the data that was collected and the information that was

calculated from the data. The data was collected using a HotMux Data Logger and J-


Type thermocouples. The thermocouple for ―Inlet Temp‖ was placed in the tank at the

point were the water was exiting the tank and entering the pump. The thermocouple for

―Exit Temp‖ was place in a cup just above the tank where the two hoses on the exit end

of the helical coiled tubing were placed. The placement allowed for one thermocouple to

take the average temperature of the fluid exiting the test cells.

- Experimental Calculations

- The Nanoparticle Volume in Nanofluid Suspension:

[8]

- The Nanoparticle Volume Fraction:

[8]

- The Nanofluid Density:

[8]


- The Specific Heat of Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3):

[17]

- The specific heat of the nanofluid being tested:

( )

[8]

(

)

- The heat transfer rate of Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3):


- Observation

The introduction of nanofluid to the tank of water caused an immediate

discoloration of the water. For example, when the CuO nanofluid was introduced

to the water, the water turned a dark dirty brown and when the Al2O3 nanofluid

was introduced to the water it turned a silvery color even though the

concentrations were extremely low (2g of nanoparticles in6 liters of water & 4

grams of nanoparticles in 6 liters of water)

The preliminary testing with water posed some challenges when trying to bring

the temperature to equilibrium for conducting the experiment indicated by

temperature fluctuations. This can be attributed to the changes in the ambient

temperature due to air conditioning effect in the room. The temperature would

fluctuate and required a significant amount of time to reach equilibrium. The

flow rate took some time to stabilize and slight movements to increase or decrease

the flow caused significant delays in the stabilizing of the flow rate.

The introduction of Al2O3 nanofluid to the tank helped to stabilize the

temperature at low and high flow rates. It also was very helpful in maintaining a

constant flow rate while conducting experiments at high and low temperatures.

Any adjustments to the pump resulted in quick changes and steady changes to the

flow rate. To obtain the desired temperature required time, however, once the

desired temperature was achieved the Al2O3 nanofluid was exceptional at

maintaining the steady state.

The introduction of CuO nanofluid to the tank had varying effects. At low flow

rate and low temperature the CuO nanofluid achieved a steady state fairly quickly.

However, at high flow and high temperature there were issues maintaining a

constant flow and constant temperature. Any adjustments required significant

amount of time to stabilize and then would only be stable for a 10-15 minutes

while the flow rate would decrease over time. This has been attributed to

deposition of nanoparticles on the surface of the heat exchanger (helical coiled

copper tubing). [12]


Full Factorial Design A B C D

1 Aluminum Low 40°C Low

A = Fluid

D Aluminum Low 40°C High

+ Copper

C Aluminum Low 50°C Low

- Aluminum

CD Aluminum Low 50°C High B Aluminum High 40°C Low

B = Concentration

BD Aluminum High 40°C High

+ High (grams)

BC Aluminum High 50°C Low

- Low (grams)

BCD Aluminum High 50°C High A Copper Low 40°C Low

C = Temperature

AD Copper Low 40°C High

+ 50°C

AC Copper Low 50°C Low

- 40°C

ACD Copper Low 50°C High AB Copper high 40°C Low

D = Flow Rate

ABD Copper high 40°C High

+ High (grams/min)

ABC Copper high 50°C Low

- Low (grams/min

ABCD Copper High 50°C High

Table 6: DOE Set-Up

The table above is the Factorial Design for this directed project and was established as a

means of determining what variables are interacting. Factorial Design is a part of Design

of Experiment (DOE). Factorial experiments are an experimental strategy in which

factors are varied together, instead of one at a time. Factors are variable that may or may

not have influence on the output response or levels. For this project there are (2) levels

and (4) factors. This type of Factorial Design is called a 24.

The two levels are as follows:

+ High

- Low

The four factors are as follows:

Fluid

Concentration

Temperature

Flow Rate

Considering all the factors in the experiment were fixed, Analysis of Variation (ANOVA)

was conducted to easily formulate and test hypothesis for each main effect and

interaction. The ANOVA results are given below.


- Test Results

Test Fluid Nanoparticle

Weight (g)

Inlet Temperature

(°K)

Exit Temperature

(°K) Mass Flow Rate (g/s)

Heat Transfer Rate (J/s)

1 Aluminum 2 312.605 310.146 1.583 16.260

D Aluminum 2 312.925 311.655 3.683 19.531

C Aluminum 2 322.736 318.588 1.550 26.874

CD Aluminum 2 322.246 320.350 3.750 29.723

B Aluminum 4 314.008 310.545 1.400 20.246

BD Aluminum 4 314.020 312.627 3.580 20.820

BC Aluminum 4 324.052 319.240 1.517 30.502

BCD Aluminum 4 325.051 323.001 3.766 32.264

A Copper 2 312.157 299.212 1.700 91.922

AD Copper 2 313.091 307.673 3.500 79.211

AC Copper 2 323.435 305.842 1.583 116.397

ACD Copper 2 323.994 309.831 3.580 211.926

AB Copper 4 314.650 311.175 1.480 21.476

ABD Copper 4 313.583 312.418 3.700 17.999

ABC Copper 4 323.863 318.087 1.630 39.337

ABCD Copper 4 323.447 320.533 3.400 41.404 Table 7: Test Results for each DOE Run

Table 8: ANOVA for Y1


Table #7 gives the results of ANOVA test for Y1. Listed in the ANOVA are the

following items:

Source – Source of the variation

DF - Degrees of Freedom

SS- Sum of Squares

MS – Mean Square

F – F test

Pr > F – Critical Value

The column titled Pr > F lists the values of concern. The values in this column that are

below 0.05 (x < 0.05) demonstrated a significant effect at 95% confidence level. For this

project, fluid and concentration where the source of variation that demonstrated a

significant effect. This means that temperature and flow were not significant factors to

the heat transfer rate of the nanofluid being tested. There is only one interaction that is

significant, which is fluid/concentration interaction.

Figure 7: Main Effects Plot

The figure above is the Main Effects Plot from the ANOVA test for Y1 at 95%

confidence interval. Fluid, with its steep line, shows that it is significant. Significance

correlates to that factor making a difference when the levels changes. Concentration,

with its steep line, also shows that it is significant. Temperature has a steep line, but not

as steep as Fluid or Concentration, therefore has no significant effect. Flow rate has a


line that is almost horizontal; therefore, it has no significance. It’s just another way of

verifying the ANOVA table in Table 8.

Figure 8: Interaction Plot

Pictured above in Figure 8 is the Interaction Plot for the ANOVA of Test Y1 at 95%

confidence interval. The plot reads like a regular graph with X and Y values. What is

shown is the interaction between the different factors. As the lines intersect that

represents an interaction and if they remain parallel or close to intersect but are not, then

there is no interaction. It’s just another way of verifying the ANOVA table in Figure #


Conclusions/Discussions

The effect of nanofluid on the temperature differential between inlet and exit

temperatures from the heat exchanger indicates that nanofluids will retain more heat than

water. The CuO nanofluid has a significant heat gain than either water or Al2O3

nanofluid as shown in Figure 9. The concentrations shown are for 2 grams of

nanoparticles per 6 liters of water.

Figure 9: Nanofluid vs. Water

This thermal behavior of nanofluids can be exploited in practical applications

where the temperature differential from inlet to exit can be increased for a given flow

rate. Al2O3 nanofluid stabilized the temperature differential much more than water or

CuO nanofluid.

0123456789

101112131415

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ave

rage

Te

mp

era

ture

Dif

fere

nce

°C

Time (minutes)

Nanofluid vs. Water

Water

Aluminum Oxide

Copper Oxide


Figure 10: Heat Transfer Rate of Test Runs

The heat transfer rates for different test runs indicates the test condition ACD,

which is for CuO nanofluids at low concentration, high flow rate and at high temperature

gave the highest heat transfer rate. CuO nanofluid at low concentrations has higher heat

transfer rates compared to Al2O3. Increase in the concentration of CuO nanofluid does

not improve the heat transfer rate significantly.

The Full Factorial DOE proved there were two significant factors with this

experiment. The first significant factor was fluid. This meant that the type of nanofluid

made a difference when the levels (nanofluids) changed. This probably due to copper

being a better conductor than aluminum. The second significant factor was concentration

of the nanofluid. Past experiments have discovered that certain concentrations with

particular nanofluids have a dramatic impact on thermal conductivity of heat transfer

rates. Plus, as mentioned before, with the size of the nanoparticle there is an increase in

the surface-to-volume ratio when increasing the concentration. However, once beyond

certain concentration this is not true because of deposition.

The reason for increase in heat transfer rates when nanofluids are used maybe

attributed to higher convective heat transfer coefficients that exists between copper wall

and the fluid. The nanoparticles maybe disturbing the boundary layer characteristics,

enhancing the coefficients. The particle shapes of CuO and Al2O3 are different, thus may

have an effect on the boundary layer.

Future experiments may want to focus on deposition in helical coiled tubing heat

exchangers because there is lack of information on this subject but there is abundance of

information on how fluid behaves in helical coiled tubing. Working from the DOE

model an experiment can be conducted such that fluid and concentration are the main

factors and then determine their significance to deposition.

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

165

180

195

210

225

Wat

ts

Test Run

Heat Transfer Rate

Heat Transfer Rate


Recommendations Repeating the same experiment with the same parameters but focusing on the

deposition of nanoparticles on the helical coiled tubing could provide useful data. The

data would determine the significance of deposition on heat transfer rates, on flow rates

of the nanofluid and even possibly determine usefulness of heat exchangers utilizing

nanofluids.

Further experimentation and analysis of data is needed using other type of

nanofluids, such as gold, silver, and titanium oxide. The abnormal behavior of the heat

transfer rates at specific Reynolds numbers can be further investigated by experimenting

with different temperature ranges. Different Reynolds number will determine the flow

rate specifics. Changes in the flow rates may produce a significant impact on the heat

transfer rate and prove the vitality of a specific nanofluid.

Modification to the heat transfer equipment could be made by introducing

computerized controls for the flow rates stabilization and for better control over

temperature changes for steady state.

Acknowledgements 1) Lash Mapa

Chair Committee Member

2) Mohammad Zahraee

3) Craig Engle

4) Rick Rickerson

5) Pete Peters

Committee Member

Committee Member

Mechanical and Manufacturing

Laboratory Specialist

Construction Engineering

Technology Laboratory

6) Purdue University Calumet

a. Faculty

b. Fellow Classmates

7) Urschel Laboratories


References 1. (n.d.). Retrieved from Nanophase Technology, We Make NanoTechnology Work:

www.nanophase.com

2. Ali, S. (2001). Pressure drop correlations for flow through regular helical coils.

Fluid Dynamics Research , 295-310.

3. All, S., & Zaidl, A. H. (1979). Head Loss and Critical Reynolds Number for Flow

in Ascending Equiangular Spiral Tube Coils. Ind. Eng. Process Des. Dev , 349-

353.

4. Bergman, T. (2009). NSF Perspective on Nanofluids for Heat Transfer. INPBE

Workshop. Beverly Hills.

5. Buongiorno, J. (2006). Convective Transport in Nanofluids. JOURNAL OF HEAT

TRANSFER , 128, 240-250.

6. Heat-O-Matic Immersion Heaters. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2010, from COLE-

PARMER, Delivering Solutions You Trust: www.cole-parmer.com

7. Heris, S. Z., Etemad, S. G., & Esfahany, M. N. (2009). CONVECTIVE HEAT

TRANSFER OF A Cu/WATER NANOFLUID FLOWING THROUGH A

CIRCULAR TUBE. Experimental Heat Transfer , 217-227.

8. Heris, S. Z., Etemad, S. G., & Esfahany, M. N. (2006). Experimental investigation

of oxide nanofluids laminar flow convective heat transfer. International

Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer , 529-535.

9. HotMux Thermocouple Data Logger. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2010, from DCC

Corporation: www.dcccorporation.com

10. Incropera, F. P., & DeWitt, D. P. (1996). Introduction to Heat Transfer. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

11. JU, H., HUANG, Z., XU, Y., DUAN, B., & YU, Y. (2001). Hydraulic

Performance of Small Bending Radius Helical Coil-Pipe. Journal of NUCLEAR

SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY , 38, 826-831.

12. KIM, H., KIM, J., & KIM, M. (2006). EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CHF

CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER-TIO2 NANO-FLUIDS. NUCLEAR

ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY , 38, 61-68.

13. Ko, T., & Ting, K. (2006). Optimal Reynolds number for the fully developed

laminar forced convection in a helical coiled tube. Energy , 2142-2152.

14. Kostic, M. M. (2006). CRITICAL ISSUES AND APPLICATION POTENTIALS

IN NANOFLUIDS RESEARCH. Multifunctional Nanocomposites, (pp. 1-9).

Honolulu.

15. Lee, S., & Choi, U. S. (n.d.). Application of Metallic Nanoparticle Suspension in

Advanced Cooling Systems. ASME Recent Advances in Solids/Structures and

Application of Metallic Materials , 227-234.

16. LI, Q., & XUAN, Y. (2002). Convective heat transfer and flow characteristics of

Cu-water nanofluid. SCIENCE IN CHINA , 45, 409-416.

17. Montgomery, D. C. (2005). DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTS.

Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

18. Perry, R. H., & Green, D. W. (1997). PERRY'S CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK. New York: McGraw-Hill.

19. Singh, A. K. (2008). Thermal Conductivity of Nanofluids. Defense Science

Journal , 58, 600-607.


20. Wang, X. Q., & Mujumdar, A. S. (2007). Heat transfer characteristics of

nanofluids: a review. International Journal of Thermal Sciences , 46, 1-19.

21. Wang, X., & Xu, X. (1999). Thermanl Conductivity of Nanoparticle-Fluid

Mixture. JOURNAL OF THERMODYNAMICS AND HEAT TRANSFER , 13, 474-

480.

22. Wen, D., & Ding, Y. (2005). Experimental investigation into the pool boiling heat

transfer of aqueous based γ-alumina nanofluids. Journal of Nanoparticle

Research , 7, 265-274.

23. Xuan, Y., & Li, Q. (2000). Heat transfer enhancement of nanofluids. Internation

Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow , 58-64.

24. Yang, Y., Zhang, G., Grulke, E. A., Anderson, W. B., & Wu, G. (2005). Heat

transfer properties of nanoparticle-in-fluid dispersions (nanofluids) in laminar

flow. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer , 1107-1116.


Appendixes

Appendix A: Model EW-03046-00, Cole-Parmer Immersion Heater [6]

Temp range Ambient to 212ºF (100ºC)

Heated area 6" L

Material Stainless steel

Immersion depth 4-1/2

Heater style Short Rod

Watts 1100

Power VAC 115

Table 9: Cole-Parmer Heat-O-Matic Heater Data [6]

Figure 11: Cole-Parmer Heat-O-Matic Heater [6]


Appendix B: Flow Pump Specifications [6]

SPECIFICATIONS: Model 75211-62, Cole-Parmer Variable Pump

Output:

Speed, Max.:

Model 75211-60, -62, -65, -67 9000 rpm

Speed, Min.:

Model 75211-60, -62, -65, -67 90 rpm

Torque output, Maximum: 12 oz-in (85 mN•m)

Flow-range:

Model 75211-62, -67; 0 to 7.0 gpm (purchase pump head separately)

Adjustment ranges: Clockwise Motor Rotation

Speed regulation, line: ±1%

Speed regulation, load: ±2%

Speed regulation, warm-up drift: ±10%

Duty Cycle: Continuous

Input:

Supply Voltage Limits: 90 to 130V AC or 200–260V AC

Frequency: 50/60 Hz

Current, max:

115V 2.3A

230V 1.4A

Installation Category: Installation Category II per IEC 664 (local level—appliances,

portable equipment, etc.)

Construction:

Dimensions: 7 in-L × 7 in-W × 5 in-H (17.8 × 17.8 × 12.7 cm)

Weight (Drive only): 8 pounds (3.6 kg)

Enclosure Rating: IP22 per IEC529

Centrifugal Pump

(75211-60, -65 only): Flow rate: 7 gpm

Maximum fluid temperature: 121°C (250°F)

Maximum system pressure: 200 psi

Differential pressure: 10 psi

Wetted parts: 316 SS and PTFE

Environment:

Temperature, Operating: 0°C to 40°C (32°F to 104°F)

Temperature, Storage: -45°C to 60°C (-49°F to 140°F)

Humidity: 10% to 90% non-condensing

Altitude: Less than 2000 m

Pollution Degree: Pollution Degree 2 per IEC 664 (indoor usage—lab, office)

Chemical Resistance: Exposed material is painted steel.

Compliance: 115V: UL508, CSA C22.2, No. 14-M91

230V (For CE Mark):

EN61010-1/A2: 1995 (EU Low Voltage Directive)

Figure 12: Cole-Parmer Variable Speed Pump [6]


Appendix C: Visual Hotmux Data Logger Software Specifications [9]

Figure 13: HotMux Data Logger [9]

SIZE - 1" High, 3.5" Deep, 6" Wide

WEIGHT - 8 Ounces

INTERFACES - 8 Differential thermocouple or milliVolt channels and cold junction

value, RS-232 Digital Channel. All interfaces connector terminated.

RESOLUTION - 12 Bit plus sign dual slope A/D conversion

ACCURACY - 1C .25% for E, J, K, T type thermocouples, for 10C to 30C HotMux

hardware Ambient (Useable Ambient range - 0C to 50C)

SPEED - Scan at maximum rate of 4 channels per second, per HotMux. One second

minimum channel interrogation period.

SOFTWARE - HOTMUX responds to 2 Byte interrogation with 2 Byte A/D channel

conversion reading. All timing, sequencing, temperature conversion, and data logging

functions accomplished by software. The program is written in Visual Basic and operates

under Windows 95, 98, 2000,NT and XP. File data is recorded in comma delimited Excel

format in .csv files.

POWER - The low power required to operate the HOTMUX circuitry is taken from the

RS-232 or USB adaptor data and control lines. Multi-port USB hubs may require

auxiliary power. No other power source is required for operating the system.

THERMOCOUPLE

TYPE

TEMPERATURE

RANGE F

TEMPERATURE

RANGE C

B

C

E

J

K

P

R

S

T

1058 to 3272

32 to 3000

-148 to 1832

32 to 1400

32 to 1832

32 to 2543

32 to 3000

32 to 3182

-256 to 752

570 to 1800

0 to 2315

-100 to 1000

0 to 760

0 to 1000

0 to 1395

0 to 1664

0 to 1750

-160 to 400

* Optional High Temperature range and resolution units available.

Table 10: Thermocouple Table [9]


Appendix D: Nano Particles Specifications [1]

Figure 14: Nano Copper Oxide [1]

NanoArc® Copper Oxide

Product Code #EXP - 0502

Typical Properties:

CuO, Purity = 99.0+%,

APS 31 nm (determined from SSA)

SSA = 32m2/g (BET)

Appearance = Black Powder

True Density = 6.5 g/cc

Crystal Phase = Monoclinic

Available in quantities from 25g to multi-

ton

Figure 15: Nano Aluminum Oxide [1]

NanoArc® Aluminum Oxide

Typical Properties:

Al2O3, Purity = 99.5+%,

APS 31 nm (determined from SSA)

SSA = 32m2/g (BET)

Appearance = White Powder

True Density = 4.00 g/cc

Crystal Phase = 70:30 delta:gamma


Appendix E: Calculations

Test#1 – Aluminum Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 11: Test 1Data

TEST 1 SET-UP Nanoparticle: Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3)

Concentration: 4 grams Temperature: 40 °C


1.555 g/sec 6000 ml

Test 1

Time Exit Temp (°C) Inlet Temp (°C)

4/22/2010 16:39 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:39 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:40 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:40 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:41 36.91 39.57

4/22/2010 16:41 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:42 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:42 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:43 37.17 39.83

4/22/2010 16:43 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:44 37.17 39.83

4/22/2010 16:44 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:45 37.17 39.83

4/22/2010 16:45 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:46 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:46 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:47 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:47 36.91 39.57

4/22/2010 16:48 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:48 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:49 37.17 39.57

4/22/2010 16:49 37.17 39.57

Average 37.146 39.605

Kelvin 310.146 312.605

AL2O3 PROPERTIES

Molecular Mass Al: 26.982 g/mol Molecular Mass O2: 16 g/mol

Molecular Mass Al2O3: Mass in Solution: Density of Al2O3:

101.964 g/mo 2 grams

4.00 g/cm3

COLLECTED DATA Mass Flow Rate: 1.583 g/s

Density of Water: .993 g/cm3 Inlet Temperature: 312.606 K Exit Temperature:

Specific Heat Water: 310.146 K

4.1785J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.1785 J/g*K Cps: .046 J/g*K

Vs: .500 cm3 Vt: v:

6000 ml 8.33333E-05 cm3

ρs: 4.00 g/cm3 ρnf: .993 g/cm3 ρw: .993 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.177 J/g*K 16.260 J/s


Appendix F: Calculations

Test #D – Aluminum Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 12: Test D Data

TEST D SET-UP Nanoparticle: Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3)



3.667 g/sec 6000 ml

Test D

Time Exit Temp Temp In

4/22/2010 17:33 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:33 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:34 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:34 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:35 38.63 39.7

4/22/2010 17:35 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:36 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:36 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:37 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:37 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:38 38.63 39.7

4/22/2010 17:38 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:39 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:39 38.9 39.96

4/22/2010 17:40 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:40 38.9 39.96

4/22/2010 17:41 38.9 39.96

4/22/2010 17:41 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:42 38.63 39.7

4/22/2010 17:42 38.63 39.96

4/22/2010 17:43 38.37 39.96

4/22/2010 17:43 38.63 39.96

Average 38.655 39.925

Kelvin 311.655 312.925

AL2O3 PROPERTIES




4.00 g/cm3




4.1785 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.1785 J/g*K

Cps: .046 J/g*K

Vs: .500 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml 8.33333E-05 cm3

ρs: 4.00 g/cm3

ρnf: .993 g/cm3

ρw: .993 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.177 J/g*K 16.260 J/s


Appendix G: Calculations

Test #C – Aluminum Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 13: Test C Data

TEST C SET-UP Nanoparticle: Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3)



1.555 g/sec 6000 ml

Test C


4/22/2010 19:34 45.53 49.76

4/22/2010 19:34 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:35 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:35 45.53 49.76

4/22/2010 19:36 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:36 45.53 49.76

4/22/2010 19:37 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:37 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:38 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:38 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:39 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:39 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:40 45.66 49.63

4/22/2010 19:40 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:41 45.66 49.89

4/22/2010 19:41 44.08 49.63

4/22/2010 19:42 45.4 49.63

4/22/2010 19:42 45.53 49.76

4/22/2010 19:43 45.4 49.63

4/22/2010 19:43 45.53 49.76

4/22/2010 19:44 45.79 49.76

4/22/2010 19:44 45.4 49.63

Average 45.588 49.736

Kelvin 318.588 322.736

AL2O3 PROPERTIES




4.00 g/cm3




4.181 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.181 J/g*K

Cps: .047 J/g*K

Vs: .500 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml 8.33333E-05cm3

ρs: 4.00 g/cm3

ρnf: .988 g/cm3

ρw: .988 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.180 J/g*K 26.874 J/s


Appendix H: Calculations

Test #CD – Water Aluminum Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 14: Test CD Data

TEST CD SET-UP Nanoparticle: Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3)



3.667 g/sec 6000 ml

Test CD


4/22/2010 18:40 47.12 49.23

4/22/2010 18:40 47.12 49.23

4/22/2010 18:41 47.38 49.23

4/22/2010 18:41 47.12 49.23

4/22/2010 18:42 47.24 49.36

4/22/2010 18:42 47.38 49.49

4/22/2010 18:43 47.51 49.36

4/22/2010 18:43 47.51 49.36

4/22/2010 18:44 47.38 49.23

4/22/2010 18:44 47.38 49.23

4/22/2010 18:45 47.38 49.23

4/22/2010 18:45 47.51 49.09

4/22/2010 18:46 47.38 49.23

4/22/2010 18:46 47.51 49.36

4/22/2010 18:47 47.38 49.23

4/22/2010 18:47 47.38 48.96

4/22/2010 18:48 47.51 49.36

4/22/2010 18:48 47.38 49.23

4/22/2010 18:49 47.51 49.36

4/22/2010 18:49 47.12 49.23

4/22/2010 18:50 46.98 49.09

4/22/2010 18:50 47.51 49.09

Average 47.350 49.246

Kelvin 320.350 322.246

AL2O3 PROPERTIES




4.00 g/cm3




4.181 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.1181 J/g*K

Cps: .047 J/g*K

Vs: .500 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml 8.33333E-05 cm3

ρs: 4.00 g/cm3

ρnf: .988 g/cm3

ρw: .988 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.180 J/g*K 29.723 J/s


Appendix I: Calculations

Test #B – Aluminum Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 15: Test B Data

TEST B SET-UP Nanoparticle: Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3)



1.555 g/sec 6000 ml

Test B


4/23/2010 17:07 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:07 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:08 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:08 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:09 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:09 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:10 37.83 41.02

4/23/2010 17:10 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:11 37.83 41.02

4/23/2010 17:11 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:12 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:12 37.57 40.76

4/23/2010 17:13 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:13 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:14 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:14 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:15 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:15 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:16 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:16 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:17 37.57 41.02

4/23/2010 17:17 36.5 41.02

Average 37.545 41.008

Kelvin 310.545 314.008

AL2O3 PROPERTIES




4.00 g/cm3




4.1785 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.1785 J/g*K

Cps: .046 J/g*K

Vs: 1.000 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml .00017 cm3

ρs: 4.00 g/cm3

ρnf: .994 g/cm3

ρw: .993 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.176 J/g*K 20.246 J/s


Appendix J: Calculations

Test #BD – Aluminum Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 16: Test BD Data

TEST BD SET-UP Nanoparticle: Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3)



3.667 g/sec 6000 ml

Test BD


4/23/2010 17:43 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:43 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:44 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:44 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:45 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:45 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:46 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:46 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:47 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:47 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:48 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:48 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:49 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:49 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:50 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:50 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:51 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:51 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:52 39.43 41.02

4/23/2010 17:52 39.7 41.02

4/23/2010 17:53 38.37 41.02

4/23/2010 17:53 39.7 41.02

Average 39.627 41.020

Kelvin 312.627 314.020

AL2O3 PROPERTIES




4.00 g/cm3




4.1785 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.1785 J/g*K

Cps: .046 J/g*K

Vs: 1.000 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml .00017 cm3

ρs: 4.00 g/cm3

ρnf: .994 g/cm3

ρw: .993 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.176 J/g*K 20.820 J/s


Appendix K: Calculations

Test #BC – Aluminum Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 17: Test BC Data

TEST BC SET-UP Nanoparticle: Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3)



1.555 g/sec 6000 ml

Test BC


4/23/2010 19:26 47.08 51.3

4/23/2010 19:27 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:27 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:28 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:28 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:29 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:29 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:30 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:30 46.82 51.3

4/23/2010 19:31 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:31 47.08 51.3

4/23/2010 19:32 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:32 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:33 47.08 51.04

4/23/2010 19:33 46.82 51.04

4/23/2010 19:34 44.97 51.04

4/23/2010 19:34 46.82 50.78

4/23/2010 19:35 46.82 50.78

4/23/2010 19:35 44.97 51.04

4/23/2010 19:36 43.91 51.04

4/23/2010 19:36 42.05 51.04

4/23/2010 19:37 42.05 51.04

Average 46.240 51.052

Kelvin 319.240 324.052

AL2O3 PROPERTIES




4.00 g/cm3




4.181 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.181 J/g*K

Cps: .047 J/g*K

Vs: 1.000 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml .00017 cm3

ρs: 4.00 g/cm3

ρnf: .989 g/cm3

ρw: .988 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.178 J/g*K 30.502 J/s


Appendix L: Calculations

Test #BCD – Aluminum Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 18: Test BCD Data

TEST BCD SET-UP Nanoparticle: Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3)



3.667 g/sec 6000 ml

Test BCD


4/23/2010 18:58 50.12 52.23

4/23/2010 18:58 50.12 52.23

4/23/2010 18:59 50.12 52.23

4/23/2010 18:59 50.12 52.23

4/23/2010 19:00 50.12 52.23

4/23/2010 19:00 49.86 51.97

4/23/2010 19:01 50.12 51.97

4/23/2010 19:01 49.86 52.23

4/23/2010 19:02 50.12 52.23

4/23/2010 19:02 50.12 52.23

4/23/2010 19:03 50.12 52.23

4/23/2010 19:03 50.12 51.97

4/23/2010 19:04 50.12 52.23

4/23/2010 19:04 50.12 51.97

4/23/2010 19:05 50.12 51.97

4/23/2010 19:05 50.12 51.97

4/23/2010 19:06 50.12 51.97

4/23/2010 19:06 49.86 51.97

4/23/2010 19:07 49.86 51.97

4/23/2010 19:07 49.86 51.7

4/23/2010 19:08 49.33 51.7

4/23/2010 19:08 49.59 51.7

Average 50.001 52.051

Kelvin 323.001 325.051

AL2O3 PROPERTIES




4.00 g/cm3




4.181 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.181 J/g*K

Cps: .047 J/g*K

Vs: 1.000 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml .00017 cm3

ρs: 4.00 g/cm3

ρnf: .988 g/cm3

ρw: .988 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.178 J/g*K 32.264 J/s


Appendix M: Calculations

Test #A – Copper Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 19: Test A Data

TEST A SET-UP Nanoparticle: Copper Oxide (CuO)



1.555 g/sec 6000 ml

Test A


4/28/2010 15:22 26.61 38.9

4/28/2010 15:22 26.07 39.17

4/28/2010 15:23 26.07 39.17

4/28/2010 15:23 26.61 39.17

4/28/2010 15:24 26.34 39.17

4/28/2010 15:24 26.07 39.17

4/28/2010 15:25 25.81 39.17

4/28/2010 15:25 25.81 39.17

4/28/2010 15:26 26.07 39.17

4/28/2010 15:26 26.07 39.17

4/28/2010 15:27 26.34 39.17

4/28/2010 15:27 26.07 39.17

4/28/2010 15:28 26.34 39.17

4/28/2010 15:28 26.07 39.17

4/28/2010 15:29 26.61 39.17

4/28/2010 15:29 26.34 39.17

4/28/2010 15:30 26.34 39.17

4/28/2010 15:30 26.34 39.17

4/28/2010 15:31 26.07 39.17

4/28/2010 15:31 26.07 39.17

4/28/2010 15:32 26.34 39.17

Average 26.212 39.157

Kelvin 299.212 312.157

CuO PROPERTIES

Molecular Mass Cu: 63.55 g/mol Molecular Mass O2: 16 g/mol

Molecular Mass CuO: Mass in Solution: Density of CuO:

79.55 g/mo 2 grams

6.45 g/cm3




4.1785 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.1785 J/g*K

Cps: .031 J/g*K

Vs: .310 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml 5.16796E-05 cm3

ρs: 6.45 g/cm3

ρnf: .993 g/cm3

ρw: .993 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.177 J/g*K 91.922 J/s


Appendix N: Calculations

Test #AD – Copper Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 20: Test AD Data

TEST AD SET-UP Nanoparticle: Copper Oxide (CuO)



3.667 g/sec 6000 ml

Test AD


4/27/2010 17:23 30.36 39.96

4/27/2010 17:23 30.63 39.96

4/27/2010 17:24 26.74 40.09

4/27/2010 17:24 33.97 40.09

4/27/2010 17:25 32.63 40.09

4/27/2010 17:25 32.1 40.36

4/27/2010 17:26 32.1 40.09

4/27/2010 17:26 28.62 40.09

4/27/2010 17:27 39.03 40.09

4/27/2010 17:27 39.03 40.09

4/27/2010 17:28 39.03 40.09

4/27/2010 17:28 39.03 40.09

4/27/2010 17:29 39.03 40.09

4/27/2010 17:29 39.03 40.09

4/27/2010 17:30 38.76 40.09

Average 34.673 40.091

Kelvin 307.673 313.091

CuO PROPERTIES



79.55 g/mo 2 grams

6.45 g/cm3




4.1785 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.1785 J/g*K

Cps: .031 J/g*K

Vs: .310 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml 5.16796E-05 cm3

ρs: 6.45 g/cm3

ρnf: .993 g/cm3

ρw: .993 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.177 J/g*K 79.211 J/s


Appendix O: Calculations

Test #AC – Copper Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 21: Test AC Data

TEST AC SET-UP Nanoparticle: Copper Oxide (CuO)



1.555 g/sec 6000 ml

Test AC


4/27/2010 19:07 31.82 50.41

4/27/2010 19:08 32.63 50.41

4/27/2010 19:08 32.09 50.41

4/27/2010 19:09 32.63 50.41

4/27/2010 19:09 32.63 50.41

4/27/2010 19:10 32.63 50.41

4/27/2010 19:10 33.16 50.41

4/27/2010 19:11 32.63 50.41

4/27/2010 19:11 33.96 50.41

4/27/2010 19:12 33.69 50.41

4/27/2010 19:12 32.63 50.41

4/27/2010 19:13 37.43 50.41

4/27/2010 19:13 35.83 50.67

4/27/2010 19:14 34.5 50.41

4/27/2010 19:14 33.43 50.41

4/27/2010 19:15 32.63 50.41

4/27/2010 19:15 29.95 50.41

4/27/2010 19:16 31.82 50.41

4/27/2010 19:16 31.82 50.67

4/27/2010 19:17 30.49 50.41

4/27/2010 19:17 31.29 50.41

Average 32.842 50.435

Kelvin 305.842 323.435

CuO PROPERTIES



79.55 g/mo 2 grams

6.45 g/cm3




4.181 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.181 J/g*K

Cps: .032 J/g*K

Vs: .310 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml 5.16796E-05 cm3

ρs: 6.45 g/cm3

ρnf: .988 g/cm3

ρw: .988 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.180 J/g*K 116.397 J/s


Appendix P: Calculations

Test #ACD – Copper Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 22: Test ACD Data

TEST ACD SET-UP Nanoparticle: Copper Oxide (CuO)



3.667 g/sec 6000 ml

Test ACD


4/27/2010 18:49 37.43 50.93

4/27/2010 18:49 36.89 50.93

4/27/2010 18:50 36.89 50.93

4/27/2010 18:50 36.63 50.93

4/27/2010 18:51 36.36 51.2

4/27/2010 18:51 35.83 51.2

4/27/2010 18:52 36.1 51.2

4/27/2010 18:52 35.83 51.2

4/27/2010 18:53 36.63 51.2

4/27/2010 18:53 36.63 50.93

4/27/2010 18:54 37.96 50.93

4/27/2010 18:54 37.69 50.93

4/27/2010 18:55 37.16 50.93

4/27/2010 18:55 37.43 50.93

4/27/2010 18:56 36.89 50.93

4/27/2010 18:57 36.89 50.93

4/27/2010 18:57 36.1 50.93

4/27/2010 18:58 37.43 50.93

4/27/2010 18:58 37.43 50.93

4/27/2010 18:59 36.36 50.93

4/27/2010 18:59 36.89 50.93

Average 36.831 50.994

Kelvin 309.831 323.994

CuO PROPERTIES



79.55 g/mo 2 grams

6.45 g/cm3




4.181 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.181 J/g*K

Cps: .032 J/g*K

Vs: .310 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml 5.16796E-05 cm3

ρs: 6.45 g/cm3

ρnf: .988 g/cm3

ρw: .988 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.180 J/g*K 211.926 J/s


Appendix Q: Calculations

Test #AB – Copper Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 23: Test AB Data

TEST AB SET-UP Nanoparticle: Copper Oxide (CuO)



1.555 g/sec 6000 ml

Test AB


4/28/2010 18:23 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:23 38.49 41.68

4/28/2010 18:24 38.23 41.41

4/28/2010 18:24 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:25 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:25 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:26 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:26 38.49 41.68

4/28/2010 18:27 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:27 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:28 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:28 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:29 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:29 38.1 41.55

4/28/2010 18:30 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:30 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:31 38.1 41.55

4/28/2010 18:31 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:32 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:32 38.1 41.55

4/28/2010 18:33 38.23 41.68

4/28/2010 18:33 36.89 41.68

Average 38.175 41.65

Kelvin 311.175 314.65

CuO PROPERTIES



79.55 g/mo 4 grams

6.45 g/cm3




4.1785 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.1785 J/g*K

Cps: .031 J/g*K

Vs: .620 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml .000103 cm3

ρs: 6.45 g/cm3

ρnf: .994 g/cm3

ρw: .993 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.176 J/g*K 21.476 J/s


Appendix R: Calculations

Test #ABD – Copper Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 24: Test ABD Data

TEST ABD SET-UP Nanoparticle: Copper Oxide (CuO)



3.667 g/sec 6000 ml

Test ABD


4/28/2010 18:57 39.55 40.35

4/28/2010 18:57 39.55 40.35

4/28/2010 18:58 39.55 40.35

4/28/2010 18:58 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 18:59 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 18:59 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:00 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:00 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:01 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:01 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:02 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:02 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:03 39.82 40.62

4/28/2010 19:03 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:04 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:04 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:05 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:05 39.55 40.62

4/28/2010 19:06 39.29 40.62

4/28/2010 19:06 39.29 40.62

4/28/2010 19:07 39.29 40.62

4/28/2010 19:07 37.16 40.62

Average 39.418 40.583

Kelvin 312.418 313.583

CuO PROPERTIES

Molecular Mass CuO: 16.55 g/mol Molecular Mass O2: 16 g/mol


79.55 g/mo 4 grams

6.45 g/cm3




4.1785 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.1785 J/g*K

Cps: .031 J/g*K

Vs: .620 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml .000103 cm3

ρs: 6.45 g/cm3

ρnf: .994 g/cm3

ρw: .993 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.177 J/g*K 17.999 J/s


Appendix S: Calculations

Test #ABC – Copper Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 25: Test ABC Data

TEST ABC SET-UP Nanoparticle: Copper Oxide (CuO)



1.555 g/sec 6000 ml

Test ABC


4/28/2010 21:28 44.99 50.8

4/28/2010 21:28 43.26 50.93

4/28/2010 21:29 44.46 50.8

4/28/2010 21:29 45.12 50.93

4/28/2010 21:30 45.25 50.8

4/28/2010 21:30 45.38 50.93

4/28/2010 21:31 45.38 50.93

4/28/2010 21:31 45.38 50.93

4/28/2010 21:32 45.38 50.66

4/28/2010 21:32 45.65 50.93

4/28/2010 21:33 45.12 50.93

4/28/2010 21:33 41.67 50.93

4/28/2010 21:34 45.65 50.66

4/28/2010 21:34 45.91 50.93

4/28/2010 21:35 45.91 50.66

4/28/2010 21:35 45.91 50.66

4/28/2010 21:36 45.91 50.93

4/28/2010 21:36 45.91 50.93

4/28/2010 21:37 45.91 50.93

4/28/2010 21:37 46.18 50.93

4/28/2010 21:38 41.94 50.93

4/28/2010 21:38 45.65 50.93

Average 45.087 50.863

Kelvin 318.087 323.863

CuO PROPERTIES



79.55 g/mo 4 grams

6.45 g/cm3




4.181 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.181 J/g*K

Cps: .032 J/g*K

Vs: .620 cm3

Vt: v;

6000 ml .000103 cm3

ρs: 6.45 g/cm3

ρnf: .989 g/cm3

ρw: .988 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.178 J/g*K 39.337 J/s


Appendix T: Calculations

Test #ABCD – Copper Oxide Nanofluid data calculations:

Table 26: Test ABCD Data

TEST ABCD SET-UP Nanoparticle: Copper Oxide (CuO)



3.667 g/sec 6000 ml

Test ABCD


4/28/2010 20:14 47.76 50.66

4/28/2010 20:14 47.76 50.66

4/28/2010 20:15 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:15 47.5 50.66

4/28/2010 20:16 47.76 50.66

4/28/2010 20:16 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:17 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:17 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:18 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:18 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:19 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:19 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:20 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:20 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:21 47.5 50.4

4/28/2010 20:21 47.76 50.4

4/28/2010 20:22 48.03 50.4

4/28/2010 20:22 48.29 50.4

4/28/2010 20:23 43.79 50.4

4/28/2010 20:23 48.03 50.4

4/28/2010 20:24 45.91 50.4

4/28/2010 20:24 48.03 50.4

Average 47.533 50.447

Kelvin 320.533 323.447

CuO PROPERTIES



79.55 g/mo 4 grams

6.45 g/cm3




4.181 J/g*K

CALCULATED DATA

Cpw: 4.181 J/g*K

Cps: .032 J/g*K

Vs: .620 cm3

Vt: v:

6000 ml .000103 cm3

ρs: 6.45 g/cm3

ρnf: .989 g/cm3

ρw: .988 g/cm3

Cpnf: q:

4.178 J/g*K 41.404 J/s

final kevin wallace

Documents