International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 91–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i c h m t

Numerical study of convective heat transfer of nanofluids in a circular tube

two-phase model versus single-phase model☆
M. Haghshenas Fard a,⁎, M. Nasr Esfahany a, M.R. Talaie b
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 2 September 2009 Laminar convective heat transfer of nanofluids in a circular tube under constant wall temperature condition
is studied numerically using a CFD 1 approach. Single-phase and two-phase models have been used for
Keywords: prediction of temperature, flow field, and calculation of heat transfer coefficient. Effects of some important
Nanofluid parameters such as nanoparticle sources, nanoparticle volume fraction and nanofluid Peclet number on heat
Nanoparticle transfer rate have been investigated. The results of CFD simulation based on two-phase model were used for
Convective heat transfer
comparison with single-phase model, theoretical models and experimental data. Results have shown that
CFD
heat transfer coefficient clearly increases with an increase in particle concentration. Also the heat transfer
Circular tube
enhancement increases with Peclet number. Two-phase model shows better agreement with experimental
measurements. For Cu/Water nanofluid with 0.2% concentration, the average relative error between
experimental data and CFD results based on single-phase model was 16% while for two-phase model was 8%.
Based on the results of the simulation it was concluded that the two-phase approach gives better predictions
for heat transfer rate compared to the single-phase model.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction - Weight and cost reduction of thermal apparatus

- Minimal clogging and
Nanofluids are containing nanopowders with dimensions smaller - Microchannel cooling and miniaturization of systems.
than 100 nm and are suspended in base fluid such as water or ethylene
There are several published articles related to investigation of
glycol. Nanofluids were first used by Choi et al., at the Argon national
convective heat transfer of nanofluids, most of them are based on ex-
laboratory [1]. Nanofluids enhance the heat transfer rate of the base
perimental works [9–14].
fluids [2–4]. Addition of small amount of high thermal conductivity solid
Li and Xuan presented experimental study to investigate the heat
nanoparticles in base fluid increases the thermal conductivity, thus
transfer coefficient and friction factor of Cu/Water nanofluid up to 2%
increasing the heat transfer rate. In fact the reduction of the thermal
volume concentration [9,10]. The experimental results showed that
boundary layer thickness due to the presence of the nanoparticles and
the Nusselt number of Cu/Water nanofluid with 2% volume concen-
the random motion within the base fluid may have important contri-
tration was 60% higher than base fluid.
butions to such heat transfer improvement as well [5,6]. By increasing
Yang et al., reported experimental investigation of convective
the nanofluid concentration, the heat transfer rate increases, because
heat transfer of graphite/Water nanofluid in a horizontal tube heat
under these conditions the interaction and collision of nanoparticles
exchanger [11]. In this study effect of Reynolds number, volume
intensifies. Also diffusion and relative movement of particles near the
fraction, temperature and nanoparticle source on heat transfer
wall leads to rapid heat transfer from wall to nanofluid.
coefficient have been studied. The results illustrated that heat transfer
Use of nanofluids to increase the heat transfer rate has some benefits
coefficient increases with the Reynolds number and particle volume
such as [7,8]:
fraction.
- Heat transfer system size reduction Experimental studies on convective heat transfer of Cu/Water,
- Heat transfer improvement CuO/Water and Al2O3/Water nanofluids are reported by Zeinali et al.
[12,13].
The experimental set-up consisted of a one-meter annular tube,
which was constructed of 6 mm diameter inner cupper tube 0.5 mm
☆ Communicated by W.J. Minkowycz.
⁎ Corresponding author.
thick, and 32 mm diameter outer stainless steel tube. The nanofluid
E-mail address: Haghshenas@cc.iut.ac.ir (M. Haghshenas Fard). flows inside the inner tube while saturated steam entered the annular
1
Computational Fluid Dynamics. section, which created constant wall temperature condition.

0735-1933/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2009.08.003
92 M. Haghshenas Fard et al. / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 91–97

Praveen K. Namburu et al. presented a single-phase model to study

Nomenclature
the turbulent flow and heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids in a
circular tube. Their results showed that the nanofluid containing
B Body force (N/m3)
smaller diameter nanoparticles showed higher viscosity and Nusselt
CD Drag coefficient
number [15].
CP Specific heat capacity (Kj/Kg.k)
Akbarnia and Behzadmehr reported a CFD model based on single-
D Diameter (m)
phase model for investigation of laminar convection of Water/
E Relative error %
Al2O3 nanofluid in a horizontal curved tube. In their study, effects of
h Enthalpy (kj/kg)
buoyancy force, centrifugal force and nanoparticle concentration
g Acceleration due to the gravity(m/s2)
have been discussed [16].
k Thermal conductivity (w/mk)
Zeinali et al. proposed a dispersion model to account for the
L Tube length (m)
presence of nanoparticles in nanofluid. They showed that the disper-
P Pressure (Pa)
sion and random movement of nanoparticles inside the fluid change
Δp Pressure drop (Pa)
the structure of flow field and led to heat transfer enhancement [17].
Q Interphase heat transfer
Behzadmehr et al. and Mirmasoumi et al. have used two-phase
S External heat sources in energy equation
model for prediction of turbulent forced convection of a nanofluid in a
t Time (s)
tube with uniform heat flux. In their work the mixture model, based
T Temperature (°C)
on the single fluid two-phase model was employed in the CFD
U Interstitial velocity vector (m/s)
simulation [18,19].
The aim of this study is to compare two-phase and single-phase
models for prediction of laminar heat transfer in a tube with constant
Greek Symbols
wall temperature.
φ Volume fraction
The effects of Peclet number, particle volume fraction and nano-
ε Porosity
particle sources on heat transfer rate have been investigated under
µ Viscosity (kg/m.s)
laminar conditions. The CFD results have been compared to the
ρ Density (kg/m3)
theoretical models and experimental data reported by Zeinali et al.
σ Surface tension (N/m)
[12,13].
Γ Dispersion coefficient (kg/m.s)
2. Experimental background

Subscripts Experimental studies on convective heat transfer of Cu/Water,

f Fluid
nf Nanofluid
s Solid particle
w Wall
α, β Phases index
The effect of Peclet number and nanoparticle volume fraction on heat
transfer of different nanofluids has been studied. The augmentation of
heat transfer using nanofluids was found to be much higher than the
predictions of existing correlations.
There are a few publications dealing with numerical studies on
convective heat transfer of nanofluids [14–19].
Numerical modeling of heat transfer of nanofluids can be con-
ducted using two-phase or single-phase (homogeneous) approaches.
Most of the studies in this area have been made using homo-
geneous model. In this model it is assumed that the fluid phase and
nanoparticles are in thermal equilibrium with zero relative ve-
locity. This assumption is reasonable when the base fluid easily
fluidized, thus it can be approximately considered to behave as a
single fluid.
In two-phase model, base fluid and nanoparticles are considered as
two different liquid and solid phases with different momentums
respectively. In this model the eulerian or lagrangian framework can
be used. In the eulerian/eulerian framework, each phase is treated as
an interpenetrating continuum having separate transport equations.
Maiga et al., proposed a numerical formulation for investigation of
forced convective heat transfer of Water/Al2O3 and ethylene glycol/
Al2O3 nanofluids inside a heated tube [14]. The single-phase model
has been used for simulation. The results showed that heat transfer
increased with increasing particle volume fraction and ethylene
glycol/Al2O3 gave higher heat transfer enhancement than Water/
Al2O3 [14].
CuO/Water and Al2O3/Water nanofluids are reported by Zeinali et al.
[12,13].
The experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 1 and consisted of a one-
meter annular tube, which was constructed of 6 mm diameter inner
cupper tube with 0.5 mm thickness, and 32 mm diameter outer
stainless steel tube. The nanofluid flows inside the inner tube while
saturated steam enters the annular section, which created constant
wall temperature condition. The effect of Peclet number and
nanoparticle volume fraction on heat transfer of nanofluid has been
studied.
3. CFD modeling
The CFD approach uses a numerical technique for solving the
governing equations for a given flow geometry and boundary condi-
tions. In this paper flow pattern and temperature distribution through
a circular pipe were simulated using a commercial CFD package, CFX
version 11. The use of CFD reduces the number of necessary experi-
ments and gives results, which would hardly be accessible by mea-
surements [20,21].
The detailed flow field for the single-phase and two-phase flows in
a circular tube with constant wall temperature can be determined by
solving the volume-averaged fluid equations, as follows:
3.1. Single-phase flow equations
- Continuity equation:
∂ρ
+ ∇⋅ðρUÞ = 0: ð1Þ
∂t
- Momentum equation:
∂
ðρUÞ + ∇⋅ðρUUÞ = −∇P + ∇τ + B: ð2Þ
∂t
 M. Haghshenas Fard et al. / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 91–97 93

Fig. 1. Experimental set-up.

- Energy equation: coefficient, CD, depends only on the particle Reynolds number. CFX
software offers several different models for the drag curve, and also
∂ allows us to specify the drag coefficients directly. The Ishii Zuber drag
ðρhÞ + ∇⋅ðρUCP TÞ = ∇⋅ðk∇TÞ: ð3Þ laws automatically take into account dense particle effects. This is
∂t
done in different ways for different flow regimes:

3.2. Two-phase flow equations 24 0:687

CD = ð1 + 0:15 Re Þ: ð8Þ
Re
- Continuity equation:
In order to solve above-mentioned equations the thermophysical
∂ parameters of nanofluids such as density, viscosity, heat capacity, and
ðφ ρ Þ + ∇⋅ðφα ρα Uα −Γα ∇φα Þ = 0: ð4Þ
∂t α α thermal conductivity must be evaluated. These parameters are
defined as follows:
- Momentum equation:
- Viscosity and density:
∂ T
ðφ ρ U Þ + fφα ½ρα Uα Uα −μ eα ð∇Uα + ð∇Uα Þ Þg = φα ðBα −∇PÞ + Fα : The viscosity and density of the nanofluids can be calculated using
∂t α α α
the Drew and Passman relation [22]:
ð5Þ

- Energy equation: μ nf = ð1 + 2:5φÞμ f : ð9Þ

∂
ðφ ρ h Þ + ∇⋅½φα ðρα Uα hα −kα ∇Tα Þ ρnf = φρs + ð1−φÞρf : ð10Þ
∂t α α α
N
= ∑ ðΓαβ hβs −Γβαḣαs Þ + Q α + Sα : ð6Þ
β = 1; - Heat capacity:

In the energy equation, Q is the interphase heat transfer and the

The heat capacity equation presented as follows:
Ranz–Marshall model has been used.
For a particle in a moving incompressible Newtonian fluid, the φρS CPS + ð1−φÞρf CPf
Nusselt number is a function of the particle Reynolds number and the CPnf = : ð11Þ
ρnf
surrounding fluid Prandtl number. The most well tested correlation
for flow past a spherical particle is that of Ranz and Marshall:
- Thermal conductivity:
0:5 0:3
Nu = 2 + Re Pr for 0 < Re < 200 and 0 < Pr < 250: ð7Þ
Yu and Choi correlation can be used for calculation of nanofluid
effective thermal conductivity as follows [23]:
This is based on the boundary layer theory for steady flow past a
spherical particle. Its restriction to particle Reynolds number and
Prandtl number should be noted. " #
3
ks + 2kf + 2ðks −kf Þð1 + βÞ φ
For a particle of simple shape, immersed in a Newtonian fluid and knf = kf ð12Þ
which is not rotating relative to the surrounding free stream, the drag ks + 2kf −ðks −kw Þð1 + βÞ3 φ
94 M. Haghshenas Fard et al. / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 91–97

Fig. 2. Geometrical configuration of the problem.

in this equation β is the ratio of the nanolayer thickness to the original is taken to be normal to the boundary. At this boundary, the appro-
particle radius and β = 0.1 was used [23]. priate values for the velocity components and inlet temperature
Eqs. (9)–(11) were fed to CFX, for enabling the software to per- must be specified. In the cylindrical velocity component we would
form calculations of temperature distribution. specify:

3.3. Geometry and boundary conditions Uinlet = Ur;spec r þ Vθ;spec θ + WZ;spec Z: ð13Þ

The 3-D geometrical configuration of the problem under consid-

eration for CFD simulation is shown in Fig. 2. The dimensions of this At the tube outlet, “outlet flow” boundary condition was used. At
geometry are the same to the dimensions of experimental set-up used the outlet section flow field is assumed to be fully developed and
by Zeinali et al. [12,13]. To obtain a solution of the CFD model the relative static pressure is specified over the outlet boundary:
geometry of the tube with a numerical grid must be inserted in the
program. In this paper, the geometry and the mesh preparation for the Pstatic; out = Pspec : ð14Þ
geometry was performed with gambit version 2.2.30.
Several different grid sizes have been used to solve the governing
Laminar flow condition was used for liquid phase and No-slip
equations to check for grid incipiency. 40 *1400 unstructured grids (in
boundary condition was applied at the walls. The velocity of the fluid
r and z direction respectively) were found to be suitable for calcu-
at the wall boundary is set to zero, so the boundary condition for the
lations. The nodes were concentrated in the entrance region and near
velocity becomes:
the walls.
The continuity, momentum, and energy equations are non-linear
Uwall = 0: ð15Þ
partial differential equations, subjected to the following boundary
conditions:
At the tube inlet, “velocity inlet” boundary condition was used. The tube wall temperature was maintained at a constant
The magnitude of the inlet velocity is specified and the direction temperature.

Fig. 3. Nusselt number versus Pe1/3 for distilled water. Fig. 4. Pressure drop of distilled water versus Reynolds number.
 M. Haghshenas Fard et al. / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 91–97 95

The relations are as follows:


Cpnf ⋅ρnf U⋅A⋅ðTb2 −Tb1 Þ
hnf ðexpÞ = ð16Þ
π⋅D⋅L⋅ðTw −Tb ÞLM

= hnf ðexpÞ⋅D
Nunf ðexpÞ ð17Þ
knf

hnf ðCFDÞ⋅D
Nunf ðCFDÞ = ð18Þ
knf

  
D 13 μ nf 0:14
Nunf ðTheoryÞ = 1:86 Renf ⋅Prnf ⋅ ð19Þ
L μ wnf


ρnf UD
Renf = ð20Þ
μnf

Cpnf ⋅μnf
Prnf = : ð21Þ
knf

Fig. 5. Temperature and velocity profiles inside the tube at Pe = 6500.

4. Results and discussions
In order to establish accuracy of the numerical model, the
predicted Nusselt number for distilled water inside a tube with
constant wall temperature has been compared to the experimental
data and Seider–Tate relation (Eq. (14)) for laminar flow.
Fig. 3 shows the comparison between the experimental data,
theoretical model (Seider–Tate relation) and CFD predictions.
The CFD predictions show a good agreement with the experimen-
tal data, indicating the accuracy of the CFD model. The average rela-
tive error between experimental data and CFD predictions is about
7.5%.
Also for validation of the accuracy of fluid flow in the numerical
model, the predicted pressure drop was compared to the

Fig. 6. Temperature profile of Cu/Water nanofluid at Pe = 4000. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
96 M. Haghshenas Fard et al. / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 91–97
Fig. 7. Comparison between CFD predictions (based on single-phase and two-phase
models) and experimental data in Cu/Water nanofluid with 0.2% volume fraction.
experimental data and Hagen–Poiseuille correlation.

32μ:L U
ΔPðTheoryÞ = : ð22Þ
D2
Fig. 4 shows the pressure drop of the distilled water inside the tube
as a function of Reynolds number.
Good agreement exists between experimental data, CFD predic-
tions and theoretical model (Eq. (19)). The average relative error
between the experimental data and CFD results is 10.65%.
In experimental works [12,13], three kinds of nanofluids (Cu/Water,
CuO/Water, and Al2O3/Water) with different volume fractions of
nanoparticles inducing 0.2%, 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, 2%, 2.5%, and 3% in water
were used with Reynolds numbers varying between 700 and 2050.
In this section, the predicted Nusselt number using CFD analysis
based on single-phase and two-phase models for the mentioned
nanofluids has been compared to the experimental data reported by
Zeinali et al. [12,13].
Fig. 5 shows the development of the fluid velocity and temperature
profiles for various positions at Pe = 6500.
It can be seen from Eq. (16) that for calculation of Nusselt number,
the average temperature of nanofluid at inlet and outlet of the tube
must be specified. The temperature profile can be determined from
CFD results. A typical sample of temperature distribution of Cu/Water
(3%volume fraction) nanofluid at Peclet number = 4000 is shown in
Fig. 6. These results have got based on the two-phase model.
The color map, from red to blue, ranges from 300 K to 378 K for the
Cu/Water nanofluid temperature. It can be seen that the tube wall was
maintained at a constant temperature (378 K). It is clear that the
average temperatures of Cu/Water nanofluid at the inlet and outlet of
the tube are 300 K and 356 K. The same procedure can be done for
other nanofluids at different Peclet numbers. Now the Nusselt number
can be calculated using Eq. (18).
Fig. 8. Comparison between CFD predictions (based on single-phase and two-phase
models) and experimental data in Cu/Water nanofluid with 2% volume fraction.
Fig. 9. Experimental and predicted heat transfer coefficient for water and Cu/Water
nanofluid at different concentrations versus Peclet number.
To validate the accuracy of numerical models, the predicted heat
transfer coefficient based on single-phase model has been compared
to two-phase model, and the experimental data.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the heat transfer coefficient of Cu/Water
nanofluid with 0.2% and 2% volume fractions versus Peclet number
under two-phase and single-phase models. It can be seen that at the
constant Peclet number heat transfer coefficient increases with
nanoparticle volume fraction. Also it is clear from this figure that
the two-phase model is more precise than single-phase model. In
nanofluid with 0.2% concentration, the average relative error between
experimental data and CFD results based on single-phase model is
16.8% while for two-phase model is 8.07%. Also for nanofluid with 2%
concentration, the average relative errors for single-phase and two-
phase models are 17.6% and 11.08%, respectively. So in the next
sections the two-phase model has been used for prediction of Nusselt
number.
Figs. 9–11 show the experimental and predicted heat transfer
coefficients for water and three kinds of nanofluids at different con-
centrations versus Peclet number. There is a good agreement bet-
ween the experimental data and CFD results. It can be found that
the heat transfer coefficient for water is smaller than heat transfer
coefficient for nanofluids. Also heat transfer enhancement increases
with increasing particle volume fraction.
As shown in these figures, the heat transfer coefficients predicted
from the CFD simulation are lower than the experimental data. In fact
the CFD model tends to underpredict the heat transfer coefficient
Fig. 10. Experimental and predicted heat transfer coefficient for water and CuO/Water
nanofluid at different concentrations versus Peclet number.
 M. Haghshenas Fard et al. / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 91–97
Fig. 11. Experimental and predicted heat transfer coefficient for water and Al2O3/Water
nanofluid at different concentrations versus Peclet number.
especially at higher Peclet number. This can be explained by some
important phenomena that have major effect on heat transfer rate,
such as particles migration, clustering process due to non uniform
shear rate across the pipe cross section along with particle interac-
tions, stochastic movement and dispersion effects, which are
neglected at the CFD analysis. In all cases, the ratio of heat transfer
coefficient of the nanofluids to that of the pure water increases
significantly with Peclet number as well as nanofluid volume fraction.
The enhancement is more significant at high Peclet number. For
example in CuO/Water nanofluid at Pe = 6500, with changing volume
concentration from 0.2% to 3%, the heat transfer coefficient increases
to 27.8%. At Pe = 2500 the enhancement is just 13%.
The comparison of convective heat transfer coefficients predicted
by CFD, between different nanofluids is shown in Fig. 12.
This figure shows the increase in heat transfer coefficient at different
nanofluids for a fixed volume fraction of 3%. It can be seen that the CuO/
Water nanofluid has a higher heat transfer coefficient in comparison
to other nanofluids. This is due to the higher Prandtl number and
effective thermal conductivity of CuO/Water nanofluid than others.
5. Conclusions
In the present work the Computational Fluid Dynamics models
have been developed to predict the convective heat transfer
coefficient of different nanofluids in a circular tube.
The volume-averaged continuity, momentum, and energy equa-
tions were numerically solved using CFX version 11. Single-phase and
two-phase models have been used for prediction of temperature and
Fig. 12. Comparison of heat transfer coefficient between different nanofluids with 3%
volume fraction.
97
fluid flow distribution and calculation of heat transfer coefficient. It
has been shown that the two-phase model is more precise than the
single-phase model. The effects of some important parameters such as
Peclet number, particle volume fraction and nanofluid type on heat
transfer rate have been investigated under laminar conditions. Heat
transfer coefficient of nanofluids increases with an increase in the
volume fraction of nanofluids and Peclet number. At the fixed Peclet
number of 6500, the heat transfer coefficient for 3% CuO/Water
nanofluid increases by 1.54 times over the base fluid. Increasing the
nanofluid volume fraction from 0.2% to 3%, results in 27.8% increase in
the heat transfer coefficient.
At the particular volume fraction, CuO/Water nanofluid has higher
heat transfer coefficient. Computed heat transfer coefficients and
Nusselt numbers of different nanofluids are in good agreement with
theoretical models and the experimental data.
References
[1] S.E.B. Maiga, et al., Heat transfer enhancement by using nanofluids in forced
convection flows, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 26 (2005) 530–546.
[2] E. Abu-Nada, Z. Masoud, A. Hijazi, Natural convection heat transfer enhancement
in horizontal concentric annuli using nanofluids, International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 657–665.
[3] Y. Xuan, W. Roetzel, Conceptions of heat transfer correlations of nanofluids,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 43 (2000) 3701–3707.
[4] G. Roy, C.T. Nguyen, P.R. Lajoie, Numerical investigation of laminar flow and heat
transfer in a radial flow cooling system with the use of nanofluids, Superlattices
and Microstructures 35 (2004) 497–511.
[5] V. Trisakasri, S. Wongwises, Critical review of heat transfer characteristic of
nanofluids, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 11 (2007) 512–523.
[6] W. Daungthongsuk, S. Wongwises, A critical review of convective heat transfer of
nanofluids, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 11 (2007) 797–817.
[7] J.Y. Jung, H.S. Oh, H.Y. Kwak, Forced convective heat transfer of nanofluids in
microchannels, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 52 (2009) 466–472.
[8] G. Polidori, S. Fohanno, C.T. Nguyen, A note on heat transfer modeling of New-
tonian nanofluids in laminar free convection, International Journal of Thermal
Science 46 (2007) 739–744.
[9] Q. Li, Y. Xuan, Convective heat transfer and flow characteristic of Cu–Water
nanofluid, Science in China, Series E 45 (4) (2002) 408–416.
[10] Y. Xuan, Q. Li, Investigation on convective heat transfer and flo features of
nanofluids, ASME Journal of Heat Transfer 125 (2003) 151–155.
[11] Y. Yang, Z.G. Zhang, E.A. Grulke, W.B. Anderson, G. Wu, Heat transfer properties
of nanoparticle in fluid dispersions in laminar flow, International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer 48 (2005) 1107–1116.
[12] S. Zeinali Heris, S. Gh. Etemad, M. Nasr Esfahany, Experimental investigation
of oxide nanofluid laminar flow convective heat transfer, in circular tube,
International Communication in Heat and Mass Transfer 33 (2006) 529–533.
[13] S. Zeinali Heris, M. Nasr Esfahany, S. Gh. Etemad, Experimental investigation of
convective heat transfer of Al2O3/Water nanofluid in circular tube, International
Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 28 (2007) 203–210.
[14] S.E.B. Maiga, C.T. Nguyen, N. Galanis, G. Roy, Heat transfer behavior of nanofluids
in a uniformly heated tube, Superlattices and Microstructures 35 (2004) 543–557.
[15] P.K. Namburu, D.K. Das, K.M. Tanguturi, R.S. Vajjha, Numerical study of turbulent
flow and heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids considering variable
properties, International Journal of Thermal Science 48 (2009) 290–302.
[16] A. Akbarnia, A. Behzadmehr, Numerical study of laminar mixed convection of a
nanofluid in horizontal curved tube, Applied Thermal Science 27 (2007) 1327–1337.
[17] S. Zeinali Heris, M. Nasr Esfahany, S. Gh. Etemad, Numerical investigation of
nanofluid convective heat transfer tough a circular tube, Numerical Heat Transfer,
Part A: Applications 52 (2007) 1043–1058.
[18] A. Behzadmehr, M.S. Avval, N. Galanis, Prediction of turbulent forced convection of
a nanofluid in a tube with uniform heat flux using a two phase approach,
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 28 (2007) 211–219.
[19] S. Mirmasoumi, A. Bezadmehr, Effect of nanoparticles mean diameter on mixed
convection heat transfer of a nanofluid in a horizontal tube, International Journal
of Heat and Fluid Flow 29 (2008) 557–566.
[20] S.V. Patankar, “Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow”, Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, 1980.
[21] Malasekera, Versteeg, An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics, McGraw
Hill, New York, 1960.
[22] D.A. Drew, S.L. Passman, Theory of multicomponent fluids, Springer, Berlin, 1999.
[23] W. Yu, U.S. Choi, The role of international layers in the enhanced thermal
conductivity of nanofluids: a renovated Maxwell model, Journal on Nanoparticle
Research 5 (2003) 167–171.