Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.
2014, 8(3): 320–329
DOI 10.1007/s11705-014-1437-7
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Application of different CFD multiphase models to investigate
effects of baffles and nanoparticles on heat transfer
enhancement
Ali SHAHMOHAMMADI, Arezou JAFARI (✉)
Chemical Engineering Department, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 114-14115, Iran
© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract In this work, the effect of baffles in a pipe on
heat transfer enhancement was studied using computa-
tional fluid dynamics (CFD) in the presence of Al2O3
nanoparticles which are dispersed into water. Fluid flow
through the horizontal tube with uniform heat flux was
simulated numerically and three dimensional governing
partial differential equations were solved. To find an
accurate model for CFD simulations, the results obtained
by the single phase were compared with those obtained by
three different multiphase models including Eulerian,
mixture and volume of fluid (VOF) at Reynolds numbers
in range of 600 to 3000, and two different nanoparticle
concentrations (1% and 1.6%). It was found that multi-
phase models could better predict the heat transfer in
nanofluids. The effect of baffles on heat transfer of
nanofluid flow was also investigated through a baffled
geometry. The numerical results show that at Reynolds
numbers in the range of 600 to 2100, the heat transfer of
nanofluid flowing in the geometry without baffle is greater
than that of water flowing through a tube with baffle,
whereas the difference between these effects (nanofluid
and baffle) decreases with increasing the Reynolds
number. At higher Reynolds numbers (2100–3000) the
baffle has a greater effect on heat transfer enhancement
than the nanofluid.
Keywords CFD simulation, heat transfer, nanofluid,
baffle, single phase model, multiphase model
1 Introduction
Heat transfer is one of the most important industrial
Received May 8, 2014; accepted June 29, 2014
E-mail: ajafari@modares.ac.ir
processes. Throughout any industrial facility, heat must be
added, removed, or moved from one process stream to
another. The heat transfer improvement techniques are
known as heat transfer enhancement. Many investigations
have been made to find new heat transfer enhancement
methods. The enhancing heat transfer mechanisms are
classified as active and passive methods [1,2]: the former
requires an external power to keep the enhancement
mechanism such as stirring the fluid, whereas the latter
applies baffles in the flow path or dispersion of
nanoparticles in fluids (nanofluids) without using an
external force.
Due to dispersion of only small amount of nanoparticles
into based fluid, the heat transfer will be enhanced [3].
These fluids are often treated as a two phase mixture of
nanoparticles in a carrier phase, but in small volume
fraction of nanoparticles they can be assumed as a single
phase. Because of simplicity of single phase approach, it
has been used for many investigations [4,5]. The other
passive method for heat transfer enhancement is to apply
several baffles in flow path. Baffles change the flow
direction and are used in many processes such as
clarifying, water cooling, clear wells, and reservoirs
water treatment facilities [6]. There are several numerical
and experimental studies on the heat transfer of nanofluids
or systems including baffles [7–13]. Laminar forced
convection of Al2O3/water through an annular was studied
numerically using single phase approach by Izadi et al. [7].
This research showed that the dimensionless axial velocity
does not change with the volume fraction of nanoparticles,
while the heat transfer rate increases with increasing its
concentration. Rostamani et al. [8] used single phase
approach to investigate heat transfer of three different
nanofluids (copper oxide (CuO)/water, alumina (Al2O3)/
water, and titanium oxide (TiO2)/water) through a long
duct. They observed that CuO had better heat performance
when the Reynolds number and volume fraction are
 Ali SHAHMOHAMMADI et al. Application of different CFD multiphase models 321

constant, whereas heat transfer rates and wall shear stress 2 Governing equations
increase with increasing the nanoparticle concentration.
Applying two phase mixture model for turbulent mixed 2.1 Single phase model
convection heat transfer of Al2O3/water nanofluid through-
out a horizontal curved tube indicates that by increasing the
nanoparticle concentration, the flow turbulence intensity In the single phase model, the mixture of nanoparticles and
decreases, but the Nusselt number increases [8]. Kalteh et the fluid phase are considered as a single fluid with
al. [10] numerically studied the force convection of Cu/ effective properties. Using this assumption, the conserva-
water nanofluid into a microchannel using Eulerian as a tive equations of mass, momentum and energy are as
two phase model. They concluded that heat transfer rate follow:
could be enhanced by increasing the nanoparticle con- ∂


↕ ↓
centration and Reynolds number as well as decreasing the þ r$
v ¼ 0, (1)
∂t
nanoparticle diameter. Akbari et al. [11] presented a
comparative analysis between single phase and two phase ↕ ↓
∂
v ↕ ↓↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓
models (Eulerian, mixture and volume of fluid (VOF)) for þ r
v v ¼ – rp þ r2 v þ
g , (2)
laminar mixed convection in a horizontal tube. Compar- ∂t
ison of experimental convection heat transfer coefficient
with results of Eulerian, mixture, VOF and single phase ∂ ↕ ↓
ð
Cp T Þ ¼ – r:q – τ : r v : (3)
models illustrates that two phase methods can better ∂t
predict the behavior of the system. Other comparison of In order to calculate the thermo physical properties of
these models but for turbulent flow regime show that the nanofluids, there are several correlations in literature, and
mixture model predicts closer values to experimental in this study for density, viscosity, heat capacity [11] and
results than Eulerian and single phase model [12]. Huminic thermal conductivity [17], the following equations have
et al. [13] investigated the effects of nanoparticle been used:
concentration and operation temperature on the heat
transfer performance of water/Fe3O4 nanofluid flow
nf ¼ ð1 – φÞ
f þ φ
p , (4)
through a thermosyphon heat pipe. They concluded that
with increasing the nanoparticle concentration the tem- nf ¼ ð1 þ 0:025φ þ 0:015φ2 Þf , (5)
perature difference between evaporator and condenser
decreases and the nanofluid has a better heat performance
ð
Cp Þnf ¼ ð1 – φÞð
Cp Þf þ φð
Cp Þp , (6)
than pure water.
Applying baffle is another common method to increase
the heat transfer rate and several experimental studies on Kp þ 2Kf – 2φðKf – Kp Þ
Knf ¼ : (7)
the heat transfer performance of baffles have been reported Kp þ 2Kf þ φðKf – Kp Þ
[6,14–16]. Rectangular, triangular, circular porous and
nonporous baffles with different orientations were used to All properties are calculated using the average bulk
increase the heat transfer [6]. Kurtbas [15] used a single temperature.
baffle into a channel and concluded that the baffle
compared to a straight channel significantly increases the 2.2 Two phase models
heat transfer. The other experimental investigation on
porous baffles shows that these devices are more efficient The Eulerian-Eulerian approach can be used to model
at low Reynolds numbers than at high Reynolds numbers. solid-liquid mixtures at high volume fractions. In nano-
Also, the heat transfer increases with raising the pore fluids, because of extremely large number of nanoparticles
density, thickness and height of baffles [16]. and their small size, this approach can be implemented in
In the literature there is no report on comparison of the systems including nanofluids [18]. The Eulerian-
nanofluid with baffle on the heat transfer enhancement. In Eulerian models such as VOF, mixture and Eulerian are
addition, nanofluid flow through baffled geometries has not the most popular ones.
been investigated yet. Therefore, the main objective of this
study is to compare effects of baffles with those of 2.2.1 VOF
nanofluids on the heat transfer enhancement by using a
nanofluid in the baffled geometry. It should be mentioned VOF can model two or more immiscible fluids by solving a
that because it is not so clear that which method, single or single set of momentum equations and tracking the volume
multiphase, is the best for nanofluids, the results of two fraction of each fluid throughout the domain while the
phase models (Eulerian, mixture and VOF) are compared mass conservative equation is different for each phase. In
with those of the single phase model and the best one was this method all physical properties are calculated using the
chosen for CFD simulations. weight average between phases based on the volume
322 Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2014, 8(3): 320–329

fraction throughout each control volume [18]. Mass ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓

v dr,k ¼ v k – v m: (14)
conversion is expressed as follow:

 The conservative energy equation for the mixture takes
∂
↕ ↓ the following form:
þ r: φq
q v q ¼ 0,
∂t
n

∂X n X ↕ ↓
X ðφk
k hk Þ þ r: φk v k ð
k hk þ pÞ
n
∂t k¼1
φq ¼ 1: (8) k¼1
↕ ↓
q¼1 ¼ – r:ðqm Þ – τ m : r v k þ SE , (15)
In this model all physical properties are calculated by where SE is the sensible enthalpy and SE includes any
Xn
volumetric energy source. In this study there is no energy
N¼ φq Nq . Momentum and energy equations are source so SE is assumed to be zero.
q¼1
The volume fraction equation for the secondary phase p
similar to Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively. is given by:
!
2.2.2 Mixture ∂
 Xn
↕ ↓ ↕ ↓
ðφ
Þ þ r: φp
p v m ¼ – r: φp
p v dr,p : (16)
∂t p p k¼1
The conservative equation of continuity, momentum and
energy for the mixture and the volume fraction equation for The relative (slip) velocity is defined as the velocity of
secondary phases are solved in the mixture model. The secondary phase relative to velocity of the primary phase
relative velocities between phases are calculated by (f):
algebraic expressions [19,20]. The governing equations ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓
for this model can be expressed as follow. v pf ¼ vp – vf : (17)
The continuity equation:
Relation between drift velocity and relative velocity are
∂
m
 expressed as follow:
↕ ↓
þ r:
m v m ¼ 0, (9)
∂t Xn
↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ φk
k ↕ ↓
↕ ↓ v dr,p ¼ v pf – v : (18)
where vm is the mass-average velocity:
k¼1

m fk
n

X 
↕ ↓ Manninen method [20] is used to obtain the relative
φk
k v k
↕ ↓ k¼1 velocity which is given by:
vm ¼ : (10)

m τ p dp2 ð
p –
m Þ ↕ ↓
↕ ↓
v pf ¼ a: (19)

m is the mixture density: 18f fdrag
p
X
n
To calculate the drag function Schiller and Neumann’s

m ¼ ðφk
k Þ, (11) [21] correlation is used:
k¼1
(
φk is the volume fraction of phase k. 1 þ 0:15Re 0:687 Re £1000
fdrag , (20)
The momentum equation: 0:0183Re Re ³1000
∂
↕ ↓

↕ ↓↕ ↓

↕ ↓

m v m þ r:
m v m v m where acceleration a is defined as:
∂t
h
i
 ↕ ↓
↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ ∂vm
¼ – rp þ r: m r v m þ
m g þ F ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓
a ¼ g – v m :r v m – :
! ∂t
X n
↕ ↓ ↕ ↓
þ r: φk
m v dr,k v dr,k , (12)
k¼1 2.2.3 Eulerian
↕ ↓
where n is the number of phases, F is the body force, and
m is viscosity of the mixture: The Eulerian model solves equation of continuity,
momentum and energy for each phase but includes a
X
n
single pressure field for all phases. In this model, the
m ¼ ðφk k Þ, (13)
k¼1
interaction between primary and secondary phases is
expressed in term of a drag and lift forces. The volume
↕ ↓
v dr,k is the kth phases drift velocity: fraction of each phase is measured by integrating its
 Ali SHAHMOHAMMADI et al. Application of different CFD multiphase models 323

↕ ↓

volume fraction intro the domain and the summation of ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓
where Qpq ¼ h v p – v q is heat exchange coefficient and
volume fraction of all phases is equal to unity [18].
Conservative of mass: h ¼ ð6Kq φq φp Nup Þ=dp2 . Ranz and Marsha correlation [23]

 is used to calculate Nup :
∂ ↕ ↓
ðφq
q Þ þ r: φq
q v q ¼ 0, (21)
∂t Nup ¼ 2 þ 0:6Re 0:5
Pr 0:333
q : (29)
↕ ↓
where vq
is the velocity of phase q.
Momentum balance: 2.3 Turbulent standard k-ε model
∂
↕ ↓


↕ ↓↕ ↓

φq
q v q þ r: φq
q v q v q The standard k-ε model has been chosen as the turbulence
∂t
h i model. The turbulence kinetic energy, k, and its rate of
↕ ↓ ↕ ↓
¼ – φq rp þ φq r: q r v þ φq
q g dissipation, ε, are defined as follow:
X
n
↕ ↓ ↕ ↓
∂ ∂
þ R pq þ F lift,q , ð
kÞ þ ð
kuj Þ
(22) ∂t ∂xj
p¼1   
∂  ∂k
X
n ¼ þ t þ Gk þ Gb –
ε – YM þ SE (30)
↕ ↓ ∂xj k ∂xj
where R pq is the phases interaction force and is equal
and
p¼1
to: ∂ ∂
X ↕ ↓
↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ ð
εÞ þ ð
εuj Þ
n
K pq v p – v q , (23) ∂t ∂xj
  
p¼1 ∂ t ∂ ε ε
¼ þ þ C1ε ðGk þ C3ε Gb Þ
↕ ↓ ∂xj ε ∂xj k
K pq is the interphase momentum exchange coefficient:
ε2
–
C2ε þ Sk , (31)
↕ ↓ φq φp
fq ↕ ↓
p dp2 k
K pq ¼ , τp ¼ , (24)
τp 18q where Gk , Gb , and YM are the generation of turbulence
kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients, the
f is the drag friction and calculated using Schiller and generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to buoyancy,
Naumann [21] method as: and the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in
CD Re compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate,
f ¼ , (25) respectively; C2ε and C1ε are the constants and established
24
to ensure that the model performs well for certain
8 canonical flows; Sk and SE denote the source terms.
< 24ð1 þ 0:15Re 0:678
Þ
CD ¼ Re £1000 ,
: Re
0:44 Re > 1000 3 Numerical implementation
 
↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ In this study, commercial Gambit software was used to

q  v p – v q dp
Re ¼ : (26) create the geometries. Two pipes with the same diameter
q 4.5 mm and length 970 mm, but one pipe has seven
baffles perpendicular to the flow path were considered
The lift force can be given by [22]:
as simulation domain and the grids were generated.
↕ ↓


↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ Figures 1 and 2 show the pipes used in simulations and
F lift,q ¼ – 0:5
q φp v p – v q  r  v q : (27)
the related grids. To divide the geometry into separate
Energy balance: control volumes, more than 4  105 tetrahedral computa-
The enthalpy equation is written for each phase in tional cells, 8  105 triangular elements and 1.1  105
Eulerian multiphase method: nodes were used.
The continuity, momentum and energy balance equa-
∂
 ∂Pq tions have been solved through control volume formula-
↕ ↓ ↕ ↓
ðφq
q hq Þ þ r: φq
q v q hq ¼ – – rq q – τ q
∂t ∂t tion using Fluent software. The simpler algorithm has been
used for pressure velocity coupling. The presto solver
↕ ↓
X
n
↕ ↓ specification was used for pressure, second-order upwind
: rvq þ Qpq , (28)
p¼1
for momentum and energy, and first-order upwind for the
volume fraction. The under-relaxation factors were set to
324 Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2014, 8(3): 320–329

Fig. 1 (a) Schematic view of pipe1, and (b) grid of pipe 1

Fig. 2 (a) Schematic view of pipe 2 with seven internal baffles, and (b) grid of pipe 2

be 0.3 for the pressure, 0.6 for the momentum, 0.7 for geometries to ensure that the numerical results are grid
energy, and 0.2 for volume fraction. These factors have independent. For this purpose, three different grids have
effect on the convergence of the system. Constant inlet been selected for both geometries and in order to compare
temperature 295 K, constant heat flux 300 W at sidewall of them, the Nusselt number at the distance x = 285 mm from
pipes, and unsteady sate condition with 0.1 time step and the entrance was measured. Pure water flow through pipes
flow time 200 s were assumed for all cases. Water as the at inlet temperature 295 K and constant heat flux 300 W
base fluid and Al2O3 nanoparticles with diameter 45 nm at pipe sidewall were used in this section. Figure 1(b) and
and in two different concentrations ( < 2%) are used in Figure 2(b) show the grid which was produced for these
simulations. Thermo-physical properties of water and two pipes. As shown in Table 2, there are no significant
Al2O3 is shown in Table 1. differences between Nusselt numbers of grids 2 and 3 in
Table 1 Thermo-physical properties of Al2O3-water nanofluids both pipes. Therefore, the second grid for each pipe has
Al2O3 Pure water been chosen for calculations.
–3
Density /(kg$m ) 3970 997.13
4.2 Validation of the model
Thermal conductivity /(W$mK–1) 40 0.613
Cp /(J$kg–1$K–1) 768 4180 Pipe 1 and its boundary conditions which are used in this
Viscosity /cp – 0.891 study are the same as those reported by Wen and Ding [24].
In order to validate the model, numerical results at different
Reynolds numbers and nanoparticle volume fractions have
4 Results and discussion been compared with the experimental data (Figs. 3 and 4).
This contrast has been performed at two positions (x =
4.1 Grid independency check 285 mm and 522 mm) from entrance of the geometry and
also includes comparison of single phase method and two
The grid independency test has been conducted for both phase models (Eulerian, mixture and VOF) to find an
 Ali SHAHMOHAMMADI et al. Application of different CFD multiphase models 325

Table 2 Nusselt number at different grids

Pipe 1 Pipe 2
Grid
1 2 3 1 2 3
Mesh volume 4.51  10 5
7.32  10 5
1.12  106
5.23  10 5
8.74  10 5
1.45  106
Number of nodes 1.18  105 1.3  105 1.7  105 1.03  105 2  105 2.3  105
Nusselt number 3.43 5.5 5.64 5.82 6.7 6.63

Fig. 3 Comparison of numerical and experimental data at x = Fig. 4 Comparison of numerical and experimental data at x =
285 mm (a = 0.6%, b = 1%, c = 1.6%) 522 mm (a = 0.6%, b = 1%, c = 1.6%)

accurate approach for simulations. phase models are closer to experimental results, whereas
Figures 3 and 4 clearly indicate that predictions of two predictions of the single phase method are lower than the
326 Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2014, 8(3): 320–329

experiment. It should be mentioned that this result already
stated by Akbari et al. [11]. As Figs. 3 and 4 show, the
increases of Reynolds number and the volume fraction of
nanoparticles due to creation of vortices and high viscosity
of nanofluid, respectively, improve the heat transfer.
For comparison between Eulerian and mixture method
at higher nanoparticle concentration, the above simulations
were run at 10% concentration of Al2O3. The result of
Eulerian and mixture method at x = 522 of pipe 1 (pipe
without baffle) is shown in Figure 5. It is clear that Eulerian
and mixture predict very close and they can be used instead
of each other.
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the Eulerian, mixture and
VOF models give the same result but the VOF model is for
two position of pipe 2 (x = 285 mm and 522 mm) and the
wide range (750 to 3000) of Re number were measured. As
shown in Fig. 6, the introduction of baffles improves heat
transfer. In addition, a sudden jump in Nusselt number
occurs when Reynolds number increases from 2000 to
2100 because of the transition from laminar to turbulence
flow.
Figure 7 shows the influence of baffle (pipe 2) and
nanofluid (pipe 1) with different volume fractions on the

Fig. 5 Difference between Eulerian and mixture models at 10%

concentration of nanoparticle

two immiscible fluid which has a clear interface, and

nanofluids do not have it so the VOF model cannot be
applied to nanofluid [18]. To further investigate the
difference between Eulerian and mixture model, Nusselt
number at turbulent regime and nanoparticle concentration
of 1% is measured and the results are presented in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, there is no significant difference
between Eulerian and mixture models. Because of the Fig. 6 Effect of baffle (pipe 2) on Nusselt number at (a) x = 285
more complexity of Eulerian model, the mixture model mm, and (b) x = 522 mm
was used for the simulation.
heat transfer enhancement. The results show that at low
4.3 Comparative analysis on effects of nanofluid and baffle Reynolds number (Re < 1000), the effect of nanofluid is
greater on the Nusselt number, but with increasing the
In order to study the geometry effect of baffle, seven Reynolds number this situation changes. As shown in
baffles (perpendicular to the flow path) are applied into Fig. 7, at Reynolds numbers between 1000 and 2000, the
pipe 1 and pipe 2. The Nusselt number for pure water at heat transfer of pure water flowing into baffled geometry is

Table 3 Comparison between Eulerian and mixture models at turbulent regime

285 mm 522 mm
Reynolds number Nu (Eulerian) Nu (mixture) Nu (Eulerian) Nu (mixture)
2100 20.64 21.88 18.01 19.34
2500 27.43 28.68 23.58 25.67
3000 28.8 30.23 27.23 28.51
 Ali SHAHMOHAMMADI et al. Application of different CFD multiphase models
Fig. 7 Effects of baffle (pipe 2) and the nanofluid (pipe 1) with
different volume fractions on the Nusselt number at (a) x = 285
mm, and (b) x = 522 mm
more than that of nanofluid flowing through pipe 1
(geometry without baffle) with nanoparticles at concentra-
tion of 1%–1.6%. But at Reynolds numbers more than
2100 (turbulence regime), the baffle has a significant
effect. Therefore, in laminar flow regime, nanofluids with
concentration greater than 1.6% can improve the heat
transfer but the sedimentation of nanoparticles may cause
some problem into the system.
Figure 8 shows the temperature contour of baffled and
non-baffled geometry at two different Reynolds numbers
for 0.45 m to 0.522 m of tube. The nanofluid has 1.6%
nanoparticles. It is clear that at Re = 1600, the distribution
of nanofluid is more smooth than that of water through
baffled geometry but at Re = 2500 in baffled geometry
there are more region with high temperature and the
Fig. 8 Temperature contour of fluid flow through baffled and non-baffled geometry (a) at Re = 1600 and (b) at Re = 2500
327
Fig. 9 Effect of baffle on heat transfer of Al2O3/water nanofluids
(a: x = 285 mm, b: x = 522 mm)
temperature is at maximum around the baffle.
4.4 Simultaneous effects of nanofluid and baffle on heat
transfer enhancement
As described above, the presence of nanoparticles in base
fluid and baffle in geometry enhances the heat transfer. In
this section, the effects of these parameters are considered
together. Heat transfer of water with 1.6% concentration of
nanoparticles (Al2O3), flowing through the baffled geo-
metry was investigated at two section of pipe (x = 285 mm,
x = 522 mm). As shown in Fig. 9, at both laminar and
turbulence flow regime, the nanofluid flow through baffled
geometry has a greater effect on the enhancement of heat
transfer than its flow through empty tube. So the
328 Front. Chem. Sci. Eng. 2014, 8(3): 320–329

combination of this two heat enhancement passive Greek letter

methods has a significant influence on heat transfer but
Density
baffles may cause the sedimentation of nanoparticles in
φ Volume fraction
tube.
 Viscosity
τ Stress strain tensor
5 Conclusions Subscribe
nf Nanofluid
Single phase model were compared with three different
f Primary phase
two-phase models (Eulerian, Mixture and VOF) to find an
accurate model for CFD simulation. The results demon- p Secondary phase
strated that two-phase models are more precise than single m Mixture
phase model. Among the three two-phase models, the
mixture model is the simplest one, so it was selected for References
CFD simulation.
Both the dispersion of nanoparticles in base fluid and the 1. Bergles A E. Handbook of Heat Transfer. 3rd ed. New York:
use of baffle in geometry have great influence on heat McGraw-Hill, 1998
transfer but in the laminar region the nanoparticle has a 2. Bergles A E. The implications and challenges of enhanced heat
better heat transfer and in the turbulence flow region the transfer for the chemical process industries. Journal of Chemical
baffle has a greater effect. Also, using both factors Engineering Research and Design, 2001, 79(4): 437–444
(nanoparticle and baffled geometry) together increases 3. Choi S U S, Eastman J A. Enhancing Thermal Conductivity of
heat transfer but it may increase the sedimentation of Fluids with Nanoparticles. San Francisco: International Mechanical
nanoparticles. Engineering Congress and Exhibition, 1995
4. Keblinksi P, Phillpot S R, Choi S U S, Eastman J A. Mechanisms of
heat flow in suspensions of nano-sized particles (nanofluids).
Nomenclature International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2002, 45(4):
855–863
5. Tynjälä T. Theoretical and numerical study of thermomagnetic
convection in magnetic fluids. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree.
Cp Specific heat
Finland: Lappeenranta University of Technology, 2005
K Conductivity 6. Walde S P, Kriplani V M. Review of heat transfer enhancement in
↕ ↓
v Velocity different types of baffles and their orientations. International Journal
↕ ↓ of Engineering Science and Technology, 2012, 4: 1367–1372
g Gravity
7. Izadi M, Behzadmehr A, Jalali-Vahida D. Numerical study of
↕ ↓
F Body force developing laminar forced convection of a nanofluid in an annulus.
dp Particle diameter International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 2009, 48(11): 2119–2129
8. Rostamani M, Hosseinizadeh S F, Gorji M, Khodadadi J M.
f Drag function
Numerical study of turbulent forced convection flow of nanofluids
h Convective heat transfer coefficient
in a long horizontal duct considering variable properties. Interna-
P Pressure tional Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 2010, 37(10):
Re Reynolds number 1426–1431
↕ ↓ 9. Ghaffari O, Behzadmehr A, Ajam H. Turbulent mixed convection of
F lift,q Lift force
a nanofluid in a horizontal curved tube using a two-phase approach.
↕ ↓
Rpq Phases interaction force International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 2010, 37
(10): 1551–1558
CD Drag coefficient
10. Kalteh M, Abbassi A, Saffar-Avval M, Harting J. Eulerian-Eulerian
↕ ↓
Qpq Heat exchange coefficient two-phase numerical simulation of nanofluid laminar forced
↕ ↓
q Heat flux convection in a microchannel. International Journal of Heat and
Fluid Flow, 2011, 32(1): 107–116
Pr Prandtl number
11. Akbari M, Galanis N, Behzadmehr A. Comparative analysis of
Kpq Interphase momentum exchange coefficient single and two-phase models for CFD studies of nanofluid heat
↕ ↓ transfer. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 2011, 50(8):
v dr,p Drift velocity
↕ ↓ 1343–1354
v pf Relative velocity
12. Lotfi R, Saboohi Y, Rashidi A M. Numerical study of forced
↕ ↓
a Acceleration convective heat transfer of nanofluids: Comparison of different
 Ali SHAHMOHAMMADI et al. Application of different CFD multiphase models
approaches. International Communications in Heat and Mass
Transfer, 2010, 37(1): 74–78
13. Huminic G, Huminic A. Numerical study on heat transfer
characteristics of thermosyphon heat pipes using nanofluids. Journal
of Energy Conversion and Management, 2013, 76: 393–399
14. Tzeng S C, Jeng T M, Wang Y C. Experimental study of forced
convection in asymmetrically heated sintered porous channels with/
without periodic baffles. International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 2006, 49(1–2): 78–88
15. Kurtbas I. The effect of different inlet conditions of air in a
rectangular channel on convection heat transfer: Turbulence flow.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 2008, 33(1): 140–152
16. Ko K H, Anand N K. Use of porous baffles to enhance heat transfer
in a rectangular channel. International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 2003, 46(22): 4191–4199
17. Rashmi W, Ismail A F, Khalid M, Faridah Y. CFD studies on natural
convection heat transfer of Al2O3-water nanofluids. Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer, 2011, 47(10): 1301–1310
329
18. Fluent 6.3 Users Guide. Lebanon: Fluent Inc., 2006
19. Jafari A, Tynjälä T, Mousavi S M, Sarkomaa P. Simulation of heat
transfer in a ferrofluid using computational fluid dynamics
technique. Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 2008, 29(4): 1197–1202
20. Jafari A, Tynjälä T, Mousavi S M, Sarkomaa P. CFD simulation and
evaluation of controllable parameters effect on thermomagnetic
convection in ferrofluids using Taguchi technique. Journal of
Computers and Fluids, 2008, 37(10): 1344–1353
21. Schiller S, Naumann A. A Drag Coefficient Correlation. Berlin: Z
Ver Deutsch Ing., 1935, 318–320
22. Drew D A, Lahey R T. In Particulate Two-Phase Flow. Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993
23. Ranz W E, Marshall W R. Evaporation from drops. Part I. Journal of
Chemical Engineering Progress, 1952, 48: 141–146
24. Wen D, Ding Y. Experimental investigation into convective heat
transfer of nanofluids at the entrance region under laminar flow
conditions. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2004,
47(24): 5181–5188