See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236213846

Pressure drop and convective heat transfer of

water and nanofluids in a double-pipe helical
heat exchanger

Article in Applied Thermal Engineering · October 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.06.051

CITATIONS READS

66 537

3 authors:

Zan Wu Lei Wang

Lund University Lund University
67 PUBLICATIONS 684 CITATIONS 51 PUBLICATIONS 352 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bengt Sunden
Lund University
687 PUBLICATIONS 5,599 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

nanofluids, micro-nanostructured heat transfer surfaces and phase change, heat exchngers, gas
turbine cooling, fuel cells and electrolyzers View project

PhD study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lei Wang on 26 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 266e274

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Pressure drop and convective heat transfer of water and nanofluids in

a double-pipe helical heat exchanger
Zan Wu, Lei Wang, Bengt Sundén*
Department of Energy Sciences, Lund University, P.O. Box 118, Lund SE-22100, Sweden

h i g h l i g h t s

Pressure drop and heat transfer characteristics of alumina/water nanofluids in helical heat exchangers were experimentally investigated.

An accurate correlation was developed for laminar flow in helically coiled tubes.

Secondary flow intensity mitigation due to nanofluids may neutralize the benefit from the thermal conductivity increase.

No anomalous heat transfer enhancement was found.

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

Article history: Pressure drop and convective heat transfer characteristics of water and five alumina/water nanofluids of
Received 3 April 2013 weight concentrations from 0.78% wt. to 7.04% wt. were experimentally investigated for both laminar
Accepted 26 June 2013 flow and turbulent flow inside a double-pipe helically coiled heat exchanger. Effect of nanoparticles on
Available online 16 July 2013
the critical Reynolds number is negligible. A new correlation was developed for laminar flow in helically
coiled tubes, which can predict the experimental heat transfer data very well. For turbulent flow, the
Keywords:
Seban and McLaughlin correlation can accurately predict the thermal behavior of water and nanofluids
Nanofluid
when nanofluid properties are taken into account. For both laminar flow and turbulent flow, no
Pressure drop
Heat transfer
anomalous heat transfer enhancement was found. The heat transfer enhancement of the nanofluids
Helically coiled tube compared to water is from 0.37% to 3.43% according to the constant flow velocity basis. Figure of merit
Heat exchanger based on the constant Reynolds number can be misleading and should not be used for heat transfer
Figure of merit enhancement comparison. Additional possible effects of nanoparticles, e.g., Brownian motion, thermo-
phoresis and diffusiophoresis, on the convective heat transfer characteristics of the nanofluids are
insignificant compared to the dominant thermophysical properties of the nanofluids. No multiphase
phenomenon was found and the tested alumina nanofluids can be treated as homogeneous fluids.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The flow field in helically coiled tubes is affected by centrifugal

Helically coiled tubes and double-pipe helical heat exchangers
belong to the most common passive heat transfer enhancement
devices in many applications including nuclear reactors, food pro-
cessing, electronics, air-conditioning, waste heat recovery, power
production, environmental engineering, manufacturing industry
and space applications, due to their high heat and mass transfer
coefficients, compact design, narrow residence time distributions
and ease of manufacture [1]. Therefore, knowledge about the
pressure drop and convective heat transfer characteristics in heli-
cally coiled tubes and helical heat exchangers are very important.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ46 46 2228605; fax: þ46 46 2224717.
E-mail address: bengt.sunden@energy.lth.se (B. Sundén).
forces, which induce a secondary flow field with a couple of
vortices in a cross-section of the tube. The fluid in the central part is
driven toward the outer wall by the centrifugal force, then returns
to the inner wall by flowing back along the wall, as illustrated in
Mori and Nakayama [2]. Compared with straight tubes, the above-
mentioned secondary flow in helical tubes enhances heat transfer
rates as it reduces the temperature gradient across the tube cross-
section, producing an additional convective heat transfer mecha-
nism perpendicular to the main flow.
Nanofluids are engineered colloidal suspensions of nano-
particles of a base fluid [3], which are more stable than micropar-
ticle colloids, with little particle setting, channel erosion and
clogging. In addition, nanofluids also have novel properties that
make them potentially important in heat exchangers, nuclear re-
actors, electronics cooling, fuel cells, pharmaceutical processes,

1359-4311/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.06.051
 Z. Wu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 266e274 267

Nomenclature T temperature (K)

u velocity (m s1)
Ai inner surface area of the inner tube (m2) w weight concentration
Ao outer surface area of the inner tube (m2)
cp specific heat at constant pressure (J kg1 K1) Greek symbols
Dc coil diameter of curvature (m) DP pressure drop (Pa)
da hydraulic diameter of the annulus (m) F volume concentration
di diameter of the inner tube (m) l mean free path (m)
dp particle diameter (m) m dynamic viscosity (Pa s)
De Dean number, Reb(di/Dc)0.5 r density (kg m3)
eA mean absolute deviation (%) sN standard deviation (%)
fapp apparent friction factor
h heat transfer coefficient (W m2 K1) Subscripts
ha annulus heat transfer coefficient (W m2 K1) b bulk
k thermal conductivity (W m1 K1) c cold side
Kn Knudsen number ci cold side inlet
L length of the helical heat exchanger (m) co cold side outlet
LMTD logarithmic mean temperature difference (K) exp experimental
m mass flow rate (kg s1) f base fluid
n number of turns h hot side
Nu Nusselt number, hdi/k hi hot side inlet
p pitch of helical coil (m) ho hot side outlet
Pr Prandtl number, cpm/k n nanofluid
q heat flux (W m2) p nanoparticles
r figure of merit pre predicted
Re Reynolds number, rudi/m

food industry, etc. [4]. For example, nanofluids generally provide
higher thermal conductivity compared to their base fluids. Con-
centration, size, dispersion and stability of nanoparticles and fluid
temperature affect the determination of the thermal conductivity
of nanofluids [5]. Heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids in
straight tubes have been extensively studied, as shown in reviews
of Dalkilic et al. [6], Huminic and Huminic [7] and Taylor et al. [8].
However, no agreement on anomalous heat transfer enhancement
has been achieved. Sergis and Hardalupas [9] stated statistically
that most of the previous studies indicated low heat transfer
enhancement; 11% of the sample showed deterioration of the heat
transfer coefficient and 3% indicated no enhancement at all. An
earlier study by Xuan and Li [10] stated anomalous enhancement.
Buongiorno [3] considered seven slip mechanisms which can pro-
duce a relative velocity between the nanoparticles and the base
fluid, and concluded that only Brownian diffusion and thermo-
phoresis are important slip mechanisms. The abnormal heat
transfer enhancement was proposed to be related to the property
variation within the solid/liquid boundary layer due to the effect of
temperature gradient and thermophoresis. Timofeeva et al. [11]
also stated that the complexity and the controversy of nanofluid
systems are related to the solid/liquid boundary layer between
nanoparticles and the base liquid, at which significant surface area
of nanoparticles contributes to the fluid properties, resulting in
three-phase systems (instead of traditional consideration of
nanofluids as two-phase systems of solid and liquid). On the other
hand, Williams et al. [12] showed that existing correlations accu-
rately reproduced the turbulent convective heat transfer behavior
of nanofluids in tubes by adopting the measured temperature- and
loading-dependent thermal conductivities and viscosities of the
nanofluids in analysis and stated that the anomalous enhancement
could be an analysis artifact. Yu et al. [13] analyzed a large database
related to nanofluids flowing inside straight tubes and presented
that the turbulent heat transfer coefficients of nanofluids can
be predicted quite accurately with the standard single-phase
equations.
So far, studies on heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids in
helically coiled tubes or double-pipe helical heat exchangers are
scarce. Akhavan-Behabadi et al. [14] experimentally showed higher
Nusselt numbers of multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT)/oil
nanofluids compared to base fluid (oil) inside vertical helically coiled
tubes under uniform wall temperature condition for laminar flow.
Mukesh Kumar et al. [15] experimentally observed that the
maximum enhancement of the tube side heat transfer coefficient
was up to 24.6% for alumina/water nanofluids based on the constant
Dean number. Mohammed and Narrein [16] and Narrein and
Mohammed [17] performed numerical investigations of effects of
different geometrical parameters and material, diameter and volume
concentration of nanoparticles on the hydraulic and thermal char-
acteristics in helically coiled tube heat exchangers under laminar
flow conditions. Sasmito et al. [18] conducted a numerical study of
laminar nanofluid flows (alumina/water and copper/water) in coiled
square tubes, and stated that adding 1% nanofluid (volumetric con-
centration) improved the heat transfer performance; however,
further addition tended to deteriorate heat transfer performance.
The purpose of this experimental study is to investigate and
evaluate the pressure drop and convective heat transfer perfor-
mance of water and g-Al2O3/water nanofluids of different con-
centrations in a double-pipe helically coiled heat exchanger, for
both laminar flow and turbulent flow.
2. Experiment
2.1. Experimental apparatus and method
A schematic illustration of the experimental setup is shown in
Fig. 1a. It consists of two loops, for the cold and hot fluids,
respectively. The hot water or nanofluid runs in the hot closed loop,
while cold water is forced in the cold open loop. Water or nanofluid
is heated in a 50-L reservoir by an imbedded electric heater of 6 kW
fixed at the bottom of the reservoir. The heated fluid is pumped
from the reservoir, and then it passes a control valve, enters the
268 Z. Wu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 266e274

Fig. 1. Schematic illustrations of (a) experimental rig, and (b) helically coiled tube.

inner helically coiled tube of the helical heat exchanger, goes into a
rotameter, and returns to the reservoir. For the cold loop, water
flows through the pump from a water tank, passes a control
valve, enters the rotameter for volume flow rate measurement,
and then goes into the annulus counter-currently. Each loop has
two rotameters of small and large ranges for accurate flow rate
measurement. A differential pressure transducer with an accuracy
of 0.075% of the set span was used to measure the pressure drop
across the inner tube. All rotameters were calibrated for water and
nanofluids of different concentrations at different temperatures by
using a stopwatch and measuring cylinders. The inlet and outlet
temperatures of the inner tube and the annulus were measured by
four calibrated copper-constantan thermocouples with an accuracy
of 0.1 K, respectively. All temperature measurements were
 Z. Wu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 266e274
recorded by a data logger. Uncertainties of the measurements were
listed in Table 1.
The double-pipe helically coiled heat exchanger considered was
constructed by copper tubes and standard copper connections. The
inner helically coiled tube, shown in Fig. 1b, has an inner diameter
(di) of 13.28 mm. The outer surface of the inner tube was enhanced
by circular fin arrays (not shown in Fig. 1b) with a fin height of
3.2 mm. The ratio of the outer surface area (Ao) to the inner surface
area (Ai) of the inner tube is 4.83. The outer helically coiled tube has
an inner diameter of 26 mm. The approximate hydraulic diameter
of the annulus side (da) is 8 mm (fin arrays not considered). The
number of turns (n) of the helical coils is 4.5, and each coil has a coil
diameter of curvature (Dc, measured from the center of the inner
tube) of 254 mm. The pitch of the helical coil (p) is 34.5 mm. The
total length of the tested helical heat exchanger is 3.591 m.
The inlet temperature of the hot fluid was maintained at
28.0  3.0  C. The inlet temperature of the cold fluid was kept at
5.5  0.5  C. Test conditions were considered stable as the deviation
was below 0.15 K when the thermal equilibrium conditions were
achieved. For each test condition, four measurements were recor-
ded and averaged. Also, repeatability of the experiments was very
good, with a deviation less than 1.0%.
2.2. Nanofluid preparation and properties
Untreated concentrated g-Al2O3/water nanofluid with spherical
alumina nanoparticles of 40-nm mean diameter was purchased
from a commercial company (Nanophase Technologies Corpora-
tion, US). No surfactants were added in the nanofluid. Different
amounts of concentrated nanofluid were diluted in tap water to
obtain nanofluids with low weight concentrations. The diluted
nanofluid mixture was mechanically stirred for 0.5 h followed by
ultrasonic vibration for 4 h. The final milk-like nanofluid was very
stable and no particle setting was found, at least within two weeks.
Tap water was used as the base fluid. To obtain weight concentra-
tions, a certain volume of the stable nanofluid was weighed for
several times to obtain the average value. The density of tap water
used in weight concentration calculation was measured by a bal-
ance and a measuring cylinder at different temperatures. Five
nanofluids with weight concentrations, 0.78% wt., 2.18% wt., 3.89%
wt., 5.68% wt. and 7.04% wt. were obtained and tested in the hot
loop. Volume concentration F of the nanofluid can be obtained
from its weight concentration w:
wrf
F ¼
ð1  wÞrp þ wrf
The volume concentrations of the five tested nanofluids are
0.20%, 0.56%, 1.02%, 1.50% and 1.88%, respectively. The density of the
nanofluid was calculated by
Table 1
Uncertainties estimation for primary measurements and dependent quantities.
Primary measurements
Diameter 0.05 mm
Length 0.2 mm
Temperature 0.1 K
Inner tube flow rate, range: 30e540 L h1
2.0% at the lowest flow rate
Annulus flow rate, range: 30e300 L h1 2.0% at the lowest flow rate
Pressure drop across the inner tube 1.5% at the lowest flow rate
Dependent quantities
Mass flow rate m, kg s 1
2.0%
Heat flux q, W m2 2.8%
LMTD, K 1.5%
Apparent Darcy friction factor fapp 3.3%
Heat transfer coefficient h, W m2 K1 3.2%
269
rn ¼ ð1  FÞrf þ Frp (2)
The specific heat of the nanofluid was calculated by
rn cpn ¼ ð1  FÞrf cpf þ Frp cpp (3)
where cpn, cpf and cpp are specific heats of the nanofluid, the base
fluid and the particle, respectively. The effective dynamic viscosity
and thermal conductivity of nanofluids can be calculated by exist-
ing formulas that have been obtained for two-phase mixtures, i.e.,
the well-known Einstein equation [19] for dynamic viscosity and
the Maxwell model [20] for thermal conductivity. Maiga et al. [21]
and Williams et al. [12] proposed dynamic viscosity and thermal
conductivity equations based on limited experimental data for the
g-Al2O3/water nanofluid. Table 2 lists these formulas and their
respective applicable ranges. Fig. 2 illustrates the relative viscosity
and thermal conductivity of g-Al2O3/water nanofluids versus vol-
ume concentrations based on the formulas listed in Table 2. Both
dynamic viscosity and thermal conductivity increase with increase
in volume concentration of nanoparticles. The dynamic viscosity
calculated by the Einstein equation [19] is lower than that of the
other two equations. The equation of Williams et al. [12] gives the
highest viscosity and thermal conductivity values. The Maxwell
equation [20] and the Maiga et al. equation [21] present similar
thermal conductivity behavior. In this study, the well-known Ein-
stein equation [19] and the Maxwell equation [20] were adopted to
analyze the experimental data. As shown by Drew and Passman
[22], Wen and Ding [23] and Zhang et al. [24] and others, the Ein-
stein equation [19] and the Maxwell model [20] are in good
agreement with the experimental results at low volume concen-
trations (F < 2.0%).
2.3. Data analysis
The apparent Darcy friction factor was calculated by the
following equation:
di DP
fapp ¼ 2$ (4)
L ru2
The heat flux q was averaged between the heat transferred by
the inner hot fluid qh and the heat absorbed by the annulus cold
water qc:

  
qh þ qc cph mh ðThi  Tho Þ þ cpc mc ðTco  Tci Þ
q ¼ ¼ (5)
(1) 2 2
Table 2
Several existing equations for effective dynamic viscosity and thermal conductivity
of nanofluids.
Authors Equations
Einstein [19] Theoretical model for dilute non-interacting
suspensions of small, rigid, spherical particles,
F < 2%: mn ¼ mf ð1 þ 2:5FÞ
Maxwell [20] Effective medium theory, for dilute non-contact
suspensions of rigid spherical particles,
f þ2Fðkp kf Þ
F < 2%: kn ¼ kf kkppþ2k
þ2kf Fðkp kf Þ
Maiga et al. [21] Least-square curve fitting of three data sets
for g-Al2O3/water nanofluid:
mn ¼ mf ð1 þ 7:3F þ 123F2 Þ,
kn ¼ kf ð1 þ 2:72F þ 4:97F2 Þ
Williams et al. [12] Experimental correlation based on its own
data for g-Al2O3/water nanofluid:
mn ¼ mf ðTÞexp ½4:91F=ð0:2092  FÞ,
kn ¼ kf ðTÞð1 þ 4:5503FÞ
270 Z. Wu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 266e274

Before and after the nanofluid tests, water experiments were

conducted in the same double-pipe helically coiled heat exchanger
to verify the nanofluid stability, as shown in Fig. 3. The water
experimental data points before and after the nanofluid tests show
very similar thermal behavior, indicating very small and negligible
deposition of nanoparticles during the nanofluid tests.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Pressure drop

The relationship between the apparent Darcy friction factor fapp

Fig. 2. Rheological behavior of alumina nanofluids at 20  C based on existing equations
in Table 2: (a) relative viscosity vs. volume concentration; (b) relative thermal con-
ductivity vs. volume concentration.
The deviation in energy balance between the hot loop and the
cold loop is less than 1.0%. The logarithmic mean temperature
difference (LMTD) was determined by the following equation [25]
calculated from Eq. (4) and the Reynolds number Re for tap water is
illustrated in Fig. 4. The apparent friction factor decreases with Re
when Re < 6000, while it increases slowly when Re > 6000. In this
study, a critical Reynolds number of approximately 6000 was
assumed, which agrees with the transition value of 6494 calculated
by the transition criterion in Ito [26]. The Ito equation [26] and the
Seban and McLaughlin equation [27] can predict the experimental
value relatively well for both laminar flow and turbulent flow,
respectively. The apparent Darcy friction factors for the five nano-
fluids are presented in Fig. 5. Data of tap water is also included for
comparison. The transition from laminar flow to turbulent flow for
all the tested fluids occurs almost at the same Reynolds number.
Therefore, the transitional velocity of the nanofluids will be larger
than that of the base fluid due to the larger viscosity of the former
compared to the latter. The nanoparticles may stabilize the flow in
helically coiled tubes. However, more data are needed to verify this
phenomenon. No obvious difference exists among the six tested
fluids, especially in the laminar flow. During the turbulent flow, the
friction factor seems to increase with the nanoparticle concentra-
tion. Fig. 6a and b presents comparisons of the experimental fric-
tion factors with the predictive friction factors by the Ito equation
[26] and the Seban and McLaughlin equation [27] for laminar
flow and turbulent flow, respectively. Both equations can predict
the data points within a 30% error band. The Seban and
McLaughlin equation [27] tends to under-estimate the turbulent
friction factor, and this underestimated deviation increases with
Reynolds number and weight concentration of the nanoparticles.

ðThi  Tco Þ  ðTho  Tci Þ 3.2. Heat transfer in laminar flow

LMTD ¼ (6)
ln ½ðThi  Tco Þ=ðTho  Tci Þ
Assuming no fouling resistance and ignoring the wall thermal Fig. 7 demonstrates the relationship between Nub(Prb)0.4 and
the inner tube Dean number Deb (¼Reb(di/Dc)0.5) for laminar flow.
resistance due to the thin wall, large tube length and high thermal
conductivity of copper, the inner tube heat transfer coefficient h The subscript “b” indicates the average bulk temperature. All
was determined by

1
h ¼ h i (7)
Ai LMTD  h 1A
q a o

The annulus thermal resistance in Eq. (7) was also neglected

because of the following reasons: (1) the annulus heat transfer
coefficient ha is relatively large due to the intensive turbulence
induced by the fins on the outer surface of the inner tube; (2) Ao/
Ai ¼ 4.83; (3) the volumetric flow rate on the annulus side was kept
relatively large during the experiments; (4) a small change in h was
noticed for a 20% change of the annulus flow rate during the ex-
periments. Thus, Eq. (7) can be simplified as

q
h ¼ (8)
Ai $LMTD
Only the inner tube heat transfer coefficient was investigated
and evaluated in this study. Uncertainties of the dependent quan-
tities were listed in Table 1. Fig. 3. Water experimental data before and after nanofluid tests.
 Z. Wu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 266e274 271

Fig. 4. The fappeRe relationship for water and the laminar-to-turbulent transition.

properties used in the dimensionless numbers were calculated at

the average bulk temperature. The average bulk temperature was
estimated from the inner tube inlet and outlet temperatures. For
nanofluids, the nanofluid properties were used instead of those of
the base fluid. Temperature effects were accounted for in the
Prandtl number Prb. As shown in Fig. 7, the Nusselt number in-
creases with the Dean number. Tap water and the five nanofluids
present similar heat transfer characteristics. This indicates that the
net effect of nanoparticles on the heat transfer performance in
helically coiled tubes is probably insignificant. The thermal con-
ductivity increase by nanoparticles is beneficial for heat transfer,
whereas the secondary flow intensity induced by centrifugal forces
may be reduced by nanoparticles due to the larger viscosity and
density of the nanofluid compared to that of the base fluid.
A new correlation for water and nanofluids flowing inside he- Fig. 6. Darcy friction factor evaluations for (a) laminar flow, and (b) turbulent flow.
lically coiled tubes for laminar flow was developed:

presented in Table 3. The mean absolute error eA (%) and standard

Nub ¼ 0:089*De0:775 Pr0:4 (9)
b b
deviation sN (%) of the three correlations are provided in Table 4.
The coefficient of determination, R2, is equal to 0.995, indicating
that Eq. (9) fits the data very well. 3.3. Heat transfer in turbulent flow
Comparison of the newly proposed correlation Eq. (9) for
laminar flow in helically coiled tubes versus the other two existing Similar to the laminar flow, Fig. 9 presents the relationship be-
correlations: the Dravid et al. correlation [28] and the Kalb and tween Nub(Prb)0.4 and the inner tube Reynolds number Reb for the
Seader correlation [29], is given in Fig. 8. It is found that Eq. (9) gives turbulent flow. It is clear that Nub(Prb)0.4 increases with the Reb
the best prediction on the ground that all data points are located and all the six fluids show a similar trend. The Seban and
within a 5% error band except those with Nub < 13. The formulas
of the other two correlations and their applicable ranges are

Fig. 5. The fappeRe relationship for the six tested fluids. Fig. 7. Nub(Prb)0.4 vs. Deb for laminar flow.
272 Z. Wu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 266e274

Table 4
Evaluation of Eq. (9) and two existing correlations for laminar flow.

Fluid type Dravid et al. Kalb and Eq. (9)

[28] Seader [29]

eAa s Nb eA sN eA sN
Water 15.2 12.8 13.2 15.4 2.27 2.87
Nanofluid 0.78% wt. 16.7 13.4 14.1 16.2 2.24 3.29
Nanofluid 2.18% wt. 18.4 13.9 13.5 15.7 2.18 3.06
Nanofluid 3.89% wt. 18.2 13.5 13.1 16.1 1.95 2.68
Nanofluid 5.68% wt. 16.2 12.2 12.5 14.6 2.58 4.10
Nanofluid 7.04% wt. 18.0 13.8 13.4 16.6 2.75 4.06
a
h
Nuexp Nucal
i
1
PNP Nuexp Nucal 
ei ¼ Nuexp $100; eA ¼ NP $ i ¼ 1  Nuexp $100.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PNP ffi
ðe e RÞ
2
P P Nuexp Nucal
b
sN ¼ i¼1 i
Np 1 ; eR ¼ N1P $ Ni¼1 Nuexp $100.

as homogeneous fluids. Additional effects of nanoparticles, e.g.,

Fig. 8. Comparison of Eq. (9) with two existing correlations.
McLaughlin [27] correlation can predict the thermal behavior of
water and nanofluids very accurately, with a mean absolute error
and a standard deviation of 2.60% and 3.11%, respectively. The
existing correlation can accurately reproduce the turbulent
convective heat transfer behavior of nanofluids in helically coiled
tubes by adopting the properties of the nanofluids in the analysis.
The nanofluid density, specific heat, dynamic viscosity and thermal
conductivity were calculated by Eqs. (2) and (3), the Einstein
equation [19], and the Maxwell equation [20], respectively.
No abnormal heat transfer enhancement exists in our case
because of small nanoparticle/fluid slip flow. The liquid around the
nanoparticles can be regarded as a continuum because the Knudsen
number, Kn, which is defined as the ratio of the water molecule
mean free path to the nanoparticle diameter (l/dp ¼ 0.3/40), is
relatively small. Nanoparticle rotation can be ignored due to the
very low “rotational” Peclet number which was developed by Ahuja
[30] to evaluate particle rotation under the effect of shear stress.
Buongiorno [3] stated that Brownian diffusion and thermophoresis
may become important as slip mechanisms. Thus, these two slip
mechanisms were checked. For a 40-nm alumina nanoparticle and
a temperature of 300 K, the magnitudes of the time a nanoparticle
needs to diffuse a length equal to its diameter for Brownian diffu-
sion and thermophoresis can be estimated to 104 and 101 s,
respectively, which are much longer than that for turbulent
transport, 107 s [3]. A temperature gradient of 104 K/m was esti-
mated in our case to calculate the thermophoretic velocity. Due to
the prepared homogeneous nanofluid and negligible Brownian
diffusion and thermophoresis during experiments, diffusiophoresis
can also be ignored. Therefore, turbulent transport occurs without
any slip effects and nanoparticles move homogeneously with the
base fluid. It is concluded that the tested nanofluids can be treated
Brownian motion, thermophoresis and diffusiophoresis, on the
convective heat transfer characteristics of the nanofluids are
negligible compared to the dominant thermophysical properties of
the nanofluids.
3.4. Figure of merit
A figure of merit r ¼ hn/hf for the heat transfer coefficient ratio of
the nanofluid over the base fluid is adopted to compare the heat
transfer performance of the nanofluid to that of the base fluid, as
given in Yu et al. [31]. If r > 1, the nanofluid is beneficial for the heat
transfer coefficient. Because water and the five tested nanofluids
can be accurately reproduced by Eq. (9) for the laminar flow and the
Seban and McLaughlin correlation [27] for the turbulent flow, the
figure of merit can be obtained based on Eq. (9) and the Seban and
McLaughlin correlation [27]. It should be noted that the appropriate
property equations mentioned above in Section 2.2 should be used.
Different comparison bases can be used to obtain the figure of
merit, such as constant Reynolds number basis and constant flow
velocity basis [31]. However, the constant Reynolds number basis
can be misleading because the net result for the constant Reynolds
number comparison is a combination of the nanofluid property
effect and the flow velocity effect. Due to the higher viscosity of the
nanofluid, the flow velocity in the nanofluid is generally higher
than that of the base fluid at the same Reynolds number, which
provides an advantage for the nanofluid over the base fluid. If the
base fluid is to be pumped at the same flow velocity as the nano-
fluids, it may approach or exceed the thermal performance of the
nanofluid. The result based on constant Reynolds number will be
more misleading at higher estimated or measured relative viscos-
ity. This misleading effect can be seen clearly in Fig. 10. Over 40%

Table 3
Description of three existing heat-transfer correlations.

Authors Correlations

Laminar flow
Dravid et al. [28] Applicable range: 50 < Deb < 2000, 5 < Prb < 175.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Nub ¼ ð0:65 Deb þ 0:76Þ$Pr0:175
b
Kalb and Seader [29] Applicable range: 80 < Deb < 1200, 0.7 < Prb < 5.
Nub ¼ 0:913$De0:476
b
$Pr0:200
b
Turbulent flow
Seban and Applicable range: 6000 < Reb < 65,600, 2.9 < Prb <
McLaughlin [27] 5.7, Dc/d ¼ 17, 104
0:1
Nub ¼ 0:023$Re0:85
b Pr0:4
b ðd=Dc Þ
Fig. 9. Nub(Prb)0.4 vs. Reb for turbulent flow.
 Z. Wu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 266e274 273

enhancement of the nanofluid relative to the base fluid depends on

temperature, base fluid type, nanoparticle properties, nanoparticle
concentrations and other factors that affect the nanofluid proper-
ties, such as surfactants, nanoparticle agglomeration, etc. According
to Eq. (10), the enhancement of the inner tube heat transfer coef-
ficient will be 0.37%, 1.03%, 1.93%, 2.67% and 3.38% for the 0.78% wt.,
2.18% wt., 3.89% wt., 5.68% wt. and 7.04% wt. alumina/water
nanofluid at an average bulk temperature of 20  C for laminar flow,
respectively. For turbulent flow at the average bulk temperature of
20  C, according to Eq. (11), the heat transfer enhancement will be
0.37%, 1.05%, 1.92%, 2.72% and 3.43% for the 0.78% wt., 2.18% wt.,
3.89% wt., 5.68% wt. and 7.04% wt. alumina/water nanofluid,
respectively, when compared with water at the same flow velocity.
These low values of enhancement are not very clear in Fig. 10b, due
to measurement uncertainties and the enhancement decrease
induced by the reduction of secondary flow intensity by nano-
particles. Secondary flow intensity mitigation may neutralize the
benefit from the thermal conductivity increase. Overall, the
enhancement is not very promising for heat transfer purposes
when the pressure drop penalty and the cost of nanoparticles need
to be considered. To achieve high heat transfer enhancement,
development of new nanoparticle materials which can enhance the
thermal conductivity greatly and increase the viscosity slowly or
even reduce viscosity simultaneously will be very promising.
The results of this study differ from those of previous studies by
Akhavan-Behabadi et al. [14] and Mukesh Kumar et al. [15], which
may be attributed to the following reasons. The main reason is that
the heat transfer enhancement comparison was based on constant
Reynolds number or constant Dean number in Akhavan-Behabadi
et al. [14] and Mukesh Kumar et al. [15], which, as stated above,
may give misleading results. The other reason might be that
Fig. 10. Heat transfer coefficient comparisons: (a) h vs. Reb for the constant Reynolds different base fluids, nanoparticles and nanofluid preparation
number basis, with dynamic viscosity calculated by the Williams et al. equation [12], methods used in the above investigations presented different ef-
and (b) h vs. u for the constant flow velocity basis.
fects on physical properties and secondary flow field, therefore
giving rise to different results.
heat transfer enhancement can be obtained for the 7.04% wt.
nanofluid compared to water for the constant Reynolds number 4. Conclusions
basis, as shown in Fig. 10a. The viscosity in the Reynolds number of
Fig. 10a was calculated by the Williams et al. equation [12] instead Heat transfer characteristics of tap water and five alumina
of the Einstein equation [19] used in the above analysis. The Wil- nanofluids with 0.78% wt., 2.18% wt., 3.89% wt., 5.68% wt. and 7.04%
liams et al. equation [12] gives a larger viscosity increase for wt. nanoparticle concentrations were experimentally investigated
nanofluids than the Einstein equation [19], which induces a more for both laminar flow and turbulent flow inside a double-pipe he-
obviously misleading result of the heat transfer enhancement. lically coiled heat exchanger. Effect of nanoparticles on the critical
However, from Fig. 10b at the same flow velocity, the heat transfer Reynolds number is negligible. By using Eqs. (2) and (3), the Ein-
enhancement of nanofluids over the base fluid is much less than stein equation [19] and the Maxwell equation [20] to calculate
that of the constant Reynolds number. Thus, the anomalous heat nanofluid properties at the average bulk temperature, tap water
transfer enhancement shown in Fig. 10a is just an analysis artifact. and the five nanofluids showed similar pressure drop and heat
The method based on the constant Reynolds number comparison transfer performances, which indicates that the net effect of
should not be used. nanoparticles on the heat transfer performance in helically coiled
Based on the constant flow velocity basis, the following equa- tubes is probably insignificant. Secondary flow intensity mitigation
tions for evaluation of heat transfer enhancement can be generated due to the larger viscosity and density of the nanofluid may
from Eq. (9) and the Seban and McLaughlin [27] correlation: neutralize the benefit from the thermal conductivity increase. A
new correlation was developed for laminar flow for water and
!0:775 !0:6
0:375 !0:4 nanofluid flowing inside helically coiled tubes, which can predict
hn rn kn mf cpn the experimental data very accurately. The applicable range of Eq.
¼ (10)
hf rf kf mn cpf (9) is: 100 < Deb < 1300, 4.0 < Prb < 7.0, F < 2.0%. For turbulent
flow, the Seban and McLaughlin correlation [27] can predict the
for laminar flow, and thermal behavior of water and the five nanofluids very accurately
using the properties of nanofluids. For both laminar flow and tur-
!0:85 !0:6
0:45 !0:4 bulent flow, no anomalous heat transfer enhancement was found.
hn rn kn mf cpn The heat transfer enhancement of the five nanofluids over tap
¼ (11)
hf rf kf mn cpf water ranges from 0.37% to 3.43% for the constant flow velocity
basis for both laminar and turbulent flows. Figure of merit based on
for turbulent flow. The figure of merit hn/hf is a function of the constant Reynolds number can be misleading and should not be
the properties of the nanofluid and water. Thus, heat transfer used to evaluate heat transfer enhancement because the net result
274 Z. Wu et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 60 (2013) 266e274
for the constant Reynolds number comparison is a combination of
the nanofluid property effect and the flow velocity effect. Possible
additional effects of nanoparticles, e.g., Brownian motion, ther-
mophoresis and diffusiophoresis, on the convective heat transfer
characteristics of the nanofluids were negligible compared to the
dominant thermophysical properties of the nanofluids. No multi-
phase phenomenon was found and the tested alumina nanofluids
can be treated as homogeneous fluids.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from the Swedish Energy Agency is gratefully
acknowledged. Special thanks to Mr. Ingjald Andreasson for his
work on the experimental rig.
References
[1] T.J. Rennie, G.S. Raghavan, Numerical studies of a double-pipe helical heat
exchanger, Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2005) 1266e1273.
[2] Y. Mori, W. Nakayama, Study on forced convective heat transfer in curved
pipes, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 8 (1965) 67e82.
[3] J. Buongiorno, Convective transport in nanofluids, ASME Journal of Heat
Transfer 128 (2006) 240e250.
[4] R. Sarkar, K.Y. Leong, H.A. Mohammad, A review on applications and chal-
lenges of nanofluids, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011)
1646e1668.
[5] S.M.S. Murshed, K.C. Leong, C. Yang, A combined model for the effective
thermal conductivity of nanofluids, Applied Thermal Engineering 29 (2009)
2477e2483.
[6] A.S. Dalkilic, N. Kayaci, A. Celen, M. Tabatabaei, O. Yildiz, W. Daungthongsuk,
S. Wongwises, Forced convective heat transfer of nanofluids e a review of the
recent literature, Current Nanoscience 8 (2012) 949e969.
[7] G. Huminic, A. Huminic, Application of nanofluids in heat exchangers: a
review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012) 5625e5638.
[8] R. Taylor, S. Coulombe, T. Otanicar, P. Phelan, A. Gunawan, W. Lv, G. Rosengarten,
R. Prasher, H. Tyagi, Small particles, big impacts: a review of the diverse appli-
cations of nanofluids, Journal of Applied Physics 113 (2013) 011301.
[9] A. Sergis, Y. Hardalupas, Anomalous heat transfer modes of nanofluids: a
review based on statistical analysis, Nanoscale Research Letters 6 (2011) 391.
[10] Y. Xuan, Q. Li, Investigation on convective heat transfer and flow feature of
nanofluids, ASME Journal of Heat Transfer 125 (2003) 151e155.
[11] E.V. Timofeeva, W. Yu, D.M. France, D. Singh, J.L. Routbort, Nanofluids for heat
transfer: an engineering approach, Nanoscale Research Letters 6 (2011) 182.
[12] W. Williams, J. Buongiorno, L.W. Hu, Experimental investigation of turbulent
convective heat transfer and pressure loss of alumina/water and zirconia/
water nanoparticle colloids (nanofluids) in horizontal tubes, ASME Journal of
Heat Transfer 130 (2008) 042412.
View publication stats
[13] W. Yu, D.M. France, E.V. Timofeeva, D. Singh, J.L. Routbort, Convective heat
transfer of nanofluids in turbulent flow, in: Carbon Nano Materials and
Applications Workshop, South Dakota, Oct. 30eNov. 1, 2011.
[14] M.A. Akhavan-Behabadi, M.F. Pakdaman, M. Ghazvini, Experimental investi-
gation on the convective heat transfer of nanofluid flow inside vertical heli-
cally coiled tubes under uniform wall temperature condition, International
Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 39 (2012) 556e564.
[15] P.C. Mukesh Kumar, J. Kumar, S. Suresh, K. Praveen Babu, Heat transfer
enhancement in a helically coiled tube with Al2O3/water nanofluid under
laminar flow condition, International Journal of Nanoscience 11 (2012)
1250029.
[16] H.A. Mohammed, K. Narrein, Thermal and hydraulic characteristics of nano-
fluid flow in a helically coiled tube heat exchanger, International Communi-
cations in Heat and Mass Transfer 39 (2012) 1375e1383.
[17] K. Narrein, H.A. Mohammed, Influence of nanofluids and rotation on heli-
cally coiled tube heat exchanger performance, Thermochimica Acta 564
(2013) 13e23.
[18] A.P. Sasmito, J.C. Kurnia, A.S. Mujumdar, Numerical evaluation of laminar heat
transfer enhancement in nanofluid flow in coiled square tubes, Nanoscale
Research Letters 6 (2011) 376.
[19] A. Einstein, Eine neue bestimmung der molekul-dimension (A new determi-
nation of the molecular dimensions), Annalen der Physik 19 (1906) 289e306.
[20] J.C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, second ed., Clarendon
Press, Oxford, UK, 1881.
[21] S.E. Maiga, S.J. Palm, N.C. Tam, R. Gilles, G. Nicolas, Heat transfer enhance-
ments by using nanofluids in forced convection flows, International Journal of
Heat and Fluid Flow 26 (2005) 530e546.
[22] D.A. Drew, S.L. Passman, Theory of Multicomponent Fluids, Springer, Berlin,
1999.
[23] D. Wen, Y. Ding, Experimental investigation into convective heat transfer of
nanofluids at entrance region under laminar flow conditions, International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 47 (2004) 5181e5188.
[24] Z. Zhang, H. Gu, M. Fujii, Effective thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity
of nanofluids containing spherical and cylindrical nanoparticles, Experimental
Thermal and Fluid Science 31 (2007) 5593e5599.
[25] B. Sundén, Introduction to Heat Transfer, WIT Press, Southampton, 2012.
[26] H. Ito, Laminar flow in curved pipes, Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 11
(1969) 653e663.
[27] R.A. Seban, E.F. McLaughlin, Heat transfer in tube coils with laminar
and turbulent flow, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 6 (1963)
387e395.
[28] A.N. Dravid, K.A. Smith, E.W. Merrill, P.L.T. Brian, Effect of secondary fluid
motion on laminar flow heat transfer in helically coiled tubes, Advances in
Chemical Engineering 17 (1971) 1114e1122.
[29] C.E. Kalb, J.D. Seader, Heat and mass transfer phenomena for viscous flow in
curved circular tubes, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 15
(1972) 801e817.
[30] A. Ahuja, Augmentation of heat transport in laminar flow of polystyrene
suspensions, Journal of Applied Physics 46 (1975) 3408e3425.
[31] W. Yu, D.M. France, E.V. Timofeeva, D. Singh, J.L. Routbort, Thermophysical
property-related comparison criteria for nanofluid heat transfer enhancement
in turbulent flow, Applied Physics Letters 96 (2010) 213109.