Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

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

Enhancing heat transfer in a heat exchanger: CFD study of twisted

tube and nanofluid (Al2O3, Cu, CuO, and TiO2) effects
Valiyollah Ghazanfari a, *, Armin Taheri b, Younes Amini a, Fatemeh Mansourzade a
a
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Research School, Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Huihe Qiu This study investigates the influence of nanofluids on heat exchanger efficiency using 3-D
Keywords:
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The objective is to optimize the performance of twisted
Nanofluids tubes by analyzing various pitch lengths (P = 180, 135, 90, 67.5, and 45 mm). The method’s
Twisted tube accuracy is validated by comparing experimental and numerical data from previous studies. The
Heat exchanger performance analysis focuses on key parameters such as heat transfer factors, outlet temperatures, and pressure
CFD drops, encompassing a wide range of flow rates (0.5 kg/s to 2 kg/s). The findings demonstrate
Pressure drop that using nanofluids in twisted tubes significantly enhances heat transfer while slightly
increasing pressure drop. Specifically, when compared to the smooth tube device with six baffles,
employing 0.1 vol% Cu and 0.15 vol% Al2O3 nanoparticles in the twisted tube with a pitch length
of 45 mm leads to heat transfer improvements of 1.04 and 1.12 times, respectively. Moreover,
eliminating baffles favoring the optimized twisted tube configuration results in a notable
reduction in pressure drop by approximately 1.55 times. These results highlight the potential of
nanofluid implementation in enhancing heat exchanger efficiency and offer valuable insights for
designing and optimizing heat transfer systems in various industrial applications.

1. Introduction
The optimization of pressure drop reduction and enhancement of heat transfer is crucial for the efficient operation of various
systems, such as heat exchangers, nuclear power plants, cooling and heating industries, food processing, combined cycle systems, and
pharmaceutical industries [1]. With the growing concern for energy conservation due to the energy shortage, significant attention has
been directed toward energy-saving strategies [2]. Consequently, numerous studies have recently been conducted to improve heat
exchanger performance [3–6]. Techniques for enhancing heat transfer can be broadly categorized into passive and active methods [5].
Active methods, such as vibration and surface acoustics, require external forces, whereas passive methods involve fluid additives or
unique surface geometries. Both passive and active methods have shown improvements in the heat transfer factor, allowing for higher
efficiency with reduced contact area. This approach reduces pressure drop and associated pump costs [6,7]. In traditional heat ex­
changers, introducing baffles has been a common practice to enhance turbulence intensity in fluid flow, resulting in improved heat
transfer factors at the expense of increased pressure drop [8,9]. Alternative methods, including twisted tubes, swirl flow generators,
spiral strips, and coils, have induced turbulent flow patterns [1,10–13]. Notably, numerous recent studies have reported advancements
in these areas.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vghazanfary@aeoi.org.ir (V. Ghazanfari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2023.103864
Received 26 September 2023; Received in revised form 3 December 2023; Accepted 3 December 2023
Available online 6 December 2023
2214-157X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Tan et al. conducted a numerical investigation on pressure drop and heat transfer efficiency in a twisted tube device, exploring
various geometrical parameters. Their results indicated that the twisting flow becomes more pronounced as the A/B ratio increases and
the pitch length decreases [14]. Wang et al. employed a twisted tube with dimples to enhance heat transfer performance. At a Reynolds
number of 2000, compared to a twisted tube without dimples, the twisted tube with dimples exhibited maximum enhancements of
19.96 % and 26.68 % in friction factor and Nusselt number, respectively [15]. Tang et al. conducted experimental and numerical
analyses on heat transfer in a device with a twisted tube. They attributed the heat transfer improvement in twisted oval tubes to
secondary and helical flows [16]. Gu et al. proposed an advanced V-rows triangular tube structure for a twisted elliptical tube to
enhance heat transfer. Their study covered Reynolds numbers ranging from 2000 to 10,000, and the findings demonstrated that
irregular channel coupling, concurrent flow, and vortex schemes, along with a smaller twisted pitch and larger aspect ratio of twisted
elliptical tubes, induce secondary flow and increased turbulence [17]. Luo and Song investigated the thermal efficiency improvement
of a double-tube device incorporating a twisted tube. Their results indicated that the twisted tube creates a secondary flow that en­
hances heat transfer. The maximum enhancements in friction factor and Nusselt number of the twisted tube were 118 % and 157 %
higher than those of a straight annular tube, respectively. The maximum thermal performance coefficient within the range of studied
geometrical parameters was 1.98 [18]. Li et al. studied the variation of secondary flow in a twisted tube device to enhance its effi­
ciency. Their findings demonstrated that using a twisted tube enhances the impact of secondary flow on the primary flow, resulting in
more uniform temperature distribution and intensified radial mixing of the fluid. The study investigated the heat transfer properties of
water and engine oil at low Reynolds numbers, and the twisted tube exhibited enhancements of 2.42–2.76 times in Nusselt number and
1.48–1.56 times in friction factor compared to a smooth tube [19].
In recent years, the application of nanofluids has been extensively explored in various fields of thermal engineering, including
nuclear reactors, solar energy systems, electronic equipment, automobile industries, and medical applications [20–29]. Nanofluids are
fluids that contain nanoparticles, and they exhibit enhanced thermophysical properties. Among the various types of nanofluids, Cu,
CuO, Al2O3, and TiO2 nanofluids have gained significant attention among researchers [30–34]. Peyghambarzadeh et al. conducted
experimental investigations on the heat transfer performance of Al2O3 and CuO nanofluids in a microchannel heat sink. The experi­
ments were conducted over a wide range of Reynolds numbers, from 500 to 2000. The results showed that 1.0 vol% Al2O3 and 0.2 vol%
CuO nanofluids improved the heat transfer coefficient by up to 49 % and 27 %, respectively [35]. Hozien et al. experimentally
investigated the pressure drop and heat transfer characteristics of 0.25 % Ag, TiO2, and ZnO nanofluids in a helical coil. The inlet
temperature of the nanofluid was varied from 30 ◦ C to 60 ◦ C, and five different coil pitches of 10, 8, 6, 4, and 2 cm were used. The
results indicated that increasing the coil pitch led to a decrease in pressure drop and Nusselt number. The nanofluids exhibited im­
provements in Nusselt number of up to 11.8 %, 28.7 %, and 17.8 % for Ag, TiO2, and ZnO nanofluids, respectively, with corresponding
increases in pressure drop of 25.4 %, 28.5 %, and 23.5 % [36].
These studies highlight the potential of nanofluids to improve heat transfer performance and provide insights into their application
in various thermal engineering systems. The present research addresses the mechanical limitations of twisted tubes and explores the
use of Al2O3, Cu, CuO, and TiO2 nanofluids in heat exchangers. The specific objectives of our work include: The solution method is
validated by comparing present results with published experimental and numerical data. This step ensures the accuracy and reliability
of the present simulation approach. A twisted tube device with different pitch lengths is simulated. By analyzing the outlet temper­
ature, pressure drop, and heat transfer factor, the performance of the twisted tube device with that of a smooth tube device without
baffles and a device with six baffles is compared. The influence of Al2O3, Cu, CuO, and TiO2 nanofluids on the performance of twisted
heat exchangers is investigated. Specifically, the effects of nanofluid concentration (0.05, 0.1, and 0.15 vol%) on pressure drop and
thermal performance are examined.
This research aimed to contribute to the existing literature by exploring the application of nanofluids in twisted tube heat ex­
changers, which, to the best of our knowledge, have not been previously investigated. This work has the potential to provide valuable
insights into the performance enhancement of heat exchangers and contribute to advancements in thermal engineering.

2. Model description
2.1. Geometrical parameters
A schematic scheme of the single twisted tube is presented in Fig. 1. The characteristics of the twisted tube, including the a, b, and p
(pitch length), can be observed.
Table 1 presents the twisted tube device’s geometrical parameters, including the seven tubes.
By selecting a twisted tube configuration with dimensions a = 16 and b = 25, we aimed to achieve a lateral surface area
approximately equivalent to the smooth tubes (d = 20 mm). This approach enables us to conduct a comparative analysis and evaluate

Fig. 1. Schematic scheme of the twisted tube.

2
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Table 1
The main design data of the device with a twisted tube.

Parameter Value

Shell diameter 90 (mm)

Shell length 600 (mm)
Inlet Shell (Diameter) 30 (mm)
Outlet Shell (Diameter) 30 (mm)
a 16 (mm)
b 25 (mm)
Pitch length-1 (p) 45 (mm)
Pitch length-2 (p) 67.5 (mm)
Pitch length-3 (p) 90 (mm)
Pitch length-4 (p) 135 (mm)
Pitch length-5 (p) 180 (mm)
Number of tubes 7
Tube bundle geometry Triangular (30 ◦ )
Tube bundle pitch 30 (mm)

the performance of the heat exchangers under nearly similar conditions.

In Fig. 2, twisted tubes with different pitch lengths are shown.
In the present device (Fig. 3), there is no baffle. The flow inlet is at the bottom right, while the outlet is at the top left.
The hydraulic diameter for the heat exchanger with the smooth and twisted tubes is as follows:
4Ac
Dh smooth tube = ,
π(Dshell + nDtube )
( )
π Dshell 2 − nDtube 2
Ac = (1)
4

4Ac
Dh twisted tube = ( ( )) ))
a+b a+b
π Dshell + n 2 2
Dshell + n

( )
π Dshell 2 − nab
Ac = (2)
4

Fig. 2. Different pitch lengths for the twisted tube.

3
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Fig. 3. The twisted tube device with tube pitch = 90 mm.

2.2. Boundary condition

In our study, the temperature boundary condition for the tube walls is set to 450 K. This means that the walls of the twisted tubes
are maintained at a constant temperature of 450 K throughout the simulation. The temperature of the inlet shell, which refers to the
outer shell surrounding the twisted tubes, is considered to be 300 K. This is the temperature at which the fluid enters the system
through the inlet shell. The outlet nozzle, where the fluid exits the system, is set to a zero gauge pressure condition. This means that the
pressure at the outlet nozzle is taken as a reference point, typically atmospheric pressure. For the outer shell wall, a zero heat flux
condition is adopted. This implies that there is no heat transfer across the outer shell wall, meaning that the heat remains constant or
does not exchange with the surroundings. Our study employs both water and different nanofluids as the working fluids in the heat
exchanger. The mass flow rates range from 0.5 kg/s to 2 kg/s for the inlet shell, indicating the varying rates at which the fluid enters the
system.

2.3. Governing equations

The continuity equation and the momentum and energy equations for turbulent flow are written as [37,38]:
∂u ∂v ∂w
+ + =0 (3)
∂x ∂y ∂z
( ) [ ( )]
∂u ∂u ∂u ∂p ∂2 u ∂2 u ∂2 u
ρ u +v +w =− + (μ + μt ) + + (4)
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2
( ) [ ( )]
∂v ∂v ∂v ∂p ∂2 v ∂2 v ∂2 v
ρ u +v +w =− + (μ + μt ) + + (5)
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂y ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2
( ) [ ( )]
∂w ∂w ∂w ∂p ∂2 w ∂2 w ∂2 w
ρ u +v +w =− + ρg + (μ + μt ) + + (6)
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2
( )
∂T ∂T ∂T ∂2 T ∂2 T ∂2 T
ρCp (u + v + w ) = (λ + λt ) + + (7)
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2

Hence, p is the pressure, T is the temperature, ρ is the density. u, v, and w are the velocities in the x, y, and z directions. g is gravity
acceleration. λt and μt are the turbulent conductivity and viscosity, respectively, which are calculated in the turbulent models.
In our study, turbulence models are employed in the simulation instead of the laminar flow equations mentioned earlier. The
turbulence models used in our study include the standard k-ε model, RNG model, and realized k-ε model. Each of these models has
specific characteristics and applications. The standard k-ε model is commonly used in industrial and environmental applications. It is
suitable for confined flows where Reynolds shear stresses play a significant role [39]. The RNG model is an improved version of the
epsilon equation and provides a more comprehensive representation of different scales of motion [40]. The realized k-ε model is known
for accurately predicting the spreading rate of round and planar jets. It also demonstrates superior performance in capturing the flow
characteristics of complex structures [41].
In our study’s computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method, the field variables are calculated by solving the conservation equations.
The CFD method has been used in many practical problems [42–44]. A coupled pressure-based algorithm is adopted for solving the
equations. This algorithm simultaneously solves the momentum equations and the pressure-based continuity equation. The mo­
mentum and pressure correction equations are determined in a single step using the calculated pressure and face mass fluxes. The other
conservation equations are solved in a segregated algorithm, where they are decoupled from the momentum and pressure equations
[45]. The iterative solution method is used to solve the nonlinear form of the equations, and the iterations continue until the
convergence criteria are met. Our study implements a convergence criterion of 10− 7 for continuity, 10− 7 for momentum, and 10− 8 for
energy equations. A second-order upwind algorithm is employed for discretizing the computational domain, which helps ensure ac­
curate numerical calculations within the domain.

4
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

k and ε are calculated from the following transport equations for the steady state [38,46]:
[( ) ]
∂ ∂ μ ∂k
(ρkui ) = μ+ t + μt S2 − ρε (8)
∂xi ∂xj σk ∂xj
[( ) ]
∂ ∂ μt ∂ε ε( ) ε2
(ρεui ) = μ+ + C1ε μt S2 − C2ε ρ (9)
∂xi ∂xj σε ∂xj k k

k2 Cp μt √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
μt = ρ C μ ,λt = ,S = 2Si,j Si,j ,C1ε = 1.44 C2ε = 1.92 Cμ = 0.09 σ k = 1.0 σ ε = 1.3 Prt = 0.85
ε Prt

Where i or j = 1, 2, 3 signifies the three components of the variables in the x, y, and z directions.
For steady-state, the transport equations for the realizable k–ε model are written as [38,47]:
[( ) ] ( )
∂ ( ) ∂ μ ∂k ∂ui ∂ui ∂uj
ρkuj = μ+ t + ηt + − ρε (10)
∂xj ∂xj σ k ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj ∂xi
[( ) ]
∂ ( ) ∂ μt ∂ε ε2
ρεuj = μ+ + C 1 ρS ε − C 2 ρ √̅̅̅̅̅ (11)
∂xj ∂xj σ ε ∂xj k + εν

[ ( )
η ] Sk √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ 1 ∂ui ∂uj
C1 = max 0.43, ,η = ,S= 2Si,j Si,j ,Si,j = + ,C2 = 1.92,σ ε = 1.2,σk = 1.0,
η+5 ε 2 ∂xj ∂xi

The transport equations for the RNG approach are expressed for steady-state conditions as follows [48,49]:
[( ) ]
∂ ( ) ∂ μ ∂k
ρkuj = μ+ t + Pt − ρε (12)
∂xj ∂xj σ k ∂xj
[( ) ]
∂ ( ) ∂ μt ∂ε ε ε2
ρεuj = μ+ + C1ε Pk − C2ε ∗ ρ (13)
∂xj ∂xj σ ε ∂xj k k

Cμ η3 (1 − η/η0 ) Sk ( )0.5
C2ε ∗ = C2ε + ,η = ,S = 2Sij Sij ,Cμ = 0.0845,η0 = 4.38,β= 0.012,Si,j
1 + βη3 ε
( )
1 ∂ui ∂uj
= + ,C1ε = 1.42,C2ε = 1.68,σε = 0.7194,σ k = 0.7194,
2 ∂xj ∂xi

2.4. Thermophysical properties of nanofluid

This study employs Al2O3, TiO2, CuO, and Cu nanofluids as working fluids in the device with twisted tubes. The characteristics of
nanoparticles and pure water are displayed in Table 2.
The density of nanofluid (ρnf ) can be considered as follows [51]:
ρnf = (1 − φ)ρf + φρp (14)

Hence, φ is the nanofluid volume fraction equal to 0.05, 0.1, and 0.15. The subscript “p”, “nf”, and “f” symbolize the nanoparticle,
nanofluid, and base fluid, respectively.
The specific heat of nanofluid (Cpnf ) can be considered as follows [37]:

(1 − φ)ρf Cpf + φρp Cpp

Cpnf = (15)
ρnf
The thermal conductivity of nanofluid can be calculated as follows [52,53]:
( )
/ λp +2λf +2φ λp − λf
λnf λf = ( ) (16)
λp +2λf − φ λp − λf

Table 2
Thermo-physical specifications of nanoparticles and pure water [37,50].

C (J/kg K) ρ (kg/m3 ) λ (W/mK) α (m2 /s)

water 4179 997.1 0.605 1.47
Al2 O3 765 3970 40 1317
TiO2 686.2 4250 8.9538 30.7
CuO 535.6 6500 20 57.45
Cu 385 8933 400 1163

5
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Many researchers have studied viscosity as one of the essential characteristics of nanofluid. The viscosity of nanofluids is as follows:
For Al2O3 [54]:
/
μnf μf = 123φ2 +7.3φ+1 (17)

For TiO2 [55]:

/
μnf μf = 108φ2 +5.45φ+1 (18)

For Cu [56]:
/
μnf μf = 468.72φ2 +3.645φ+0.995 (19)

For CuO [32]:

( )
1
ln μnf = A − B A= 20587φ2 +15857φ+1078.3 B= − 107.12φ2 +53.548φ+2.8715 (20)
T

2.5. Validation and grid independence

In our study, verification and grid independence analyses were performed by comparing our results with the findings of Tan et al.
[7]. Their research involved both numerical analysis using Fluent 6.3 with the SIMPLE algorithm and experimental testing of a heat
exchanger system. Tan et al. used the experimental system of a heat exchanger with a double-pipe configuration. In this setup (Fig. 4),
cold water flowed through the twisted tube, while hot water flowed through the round shell side. This configuration allowed them to
investigate the twisted tube’s pressure drop and heat transfer performance.
The parameters “a" and “b" mentioned in our description equal 14.5 mm and 24 mm, respectively. These values likely correspond to
specific dimensions or geometrical characteristics of the twisted tube used in the experimental setup. Additionally, the twist pitch
length, which refers to the distance between consecutive twists of the tube, was specified as 200 mm in the experiment conducted by
Tan. By comparing our results with the findings of Tan et al. [7], we aimed to verify the accuracy of our numerical analysis and ensure
grid independence, which means that our results are not significantly influenced by the size or resolution of the computational grid
used in the simulation.
In this study, grid independence analysis was performed using four grids: courser, course, fine, and finer. This analysis helps
determine the appropriate grid resolution for accurate and reliable results. After conducting the grid independence study, we selected
the grid that yielded satisfactory results. Fig. 5 shows the mesh quality of the twisted tubes and the number of cells in the heat
exchanger. The mesh quality refers to the overall quality of the computational mesh, affecting the numerical simulation’s accuracy and
convergence. The mesh generation process was carried out using Gambit 2.4.6.
Fig. 6 illustrates the variation of pressure drop and heat transfer factor in 104 < Re < 6 × 104. A comparison of the fine and finer
results showed no notable difference. The fine mesh, as the efficient one, is selected for numerical simulation.
Pressure drop performance of twisted oval tubes obtained from experimental data as follows [7]:
ρut Dh Vt 4Ac πab
f = 0.347Re− 0.26
, Re = , ut = , Dh = ( ), Ac = (21)
μ At a+b 4
π 2

Where, Vt is tube side flow rate, At is the tube’s cross-section, a and b are the Inner major axis and Inner minor axis, respectively.

Fig. 4. The tube side heat transfer and pressure drop efficiency testing system [7].

6
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Fig. 5. The quality of meshes in twisted tubes.

Fig. 6. Comparison of heat transfer and pressure drop performance between four different grids in the twisted tube heat exchanger.

Fig. 7 (a) and (b) compare Nu and f in turbulent models, including the realizable k-ε model, the RNG model, and the standard k–ε
model.
Based on the analysis and comparison with experimental and numerical data, the results obtained in our study show good
agreement with the published data. From Fig. 7, it can be observed that the difference between our findings and the experimental data
is less than 5 %. This indicates a high level of accuracy in predicting the heat exchanger’s performance. Moreover, the discrepancy

7
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Fig. 7. Comparison of present results with numerical and experimental published data (a) Nu (b) f [7].

between our results and the numerical published data is less than 2 %. This small difference could be attributed to the variation in
numerical methods used in the two studies, with the published study employing the SIMPLE algorithm and our study using a coupled
solution method.
Additionally, the three turbulent models (standard k-ε, RNG model, and realized k-ε) employed in our study exhibit good trends in
the results. Among these models, the realized k-ε model is particularly noteworthy due to its accuracy in predicting results equivalent
to the experimental data. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the grid independence and numerical solution method
employed in our study are reliable for analyzing the performance of the heat exchanger. While our manuscript focuses on the shell-side
performance of the twisted tube heat exchanger, we conducted tube-side experimental measurements to validate the accuracy of our
numerical model. The tube-side experimental data served as a means to verify the reliability and fidelity of our numerical simulations.
Although our study mainly emphasizes the shell-side performance, we recognized the importance of validating our numerical
model by comparing it with experimental data. By conducting tube-side experiments and comparing the results with our numerical
simulations, we aimed to establish confidence in the accuracy of our model for predicting the heat transfer and fluid flow charac­
teristics in the twisted tube heat exchanger.

3. Results and discussion

In previous works, the focus was primarily on exploring the geometrical changes of pipes. This often involved investigating
modifications such as the pipes’ shape, size, or arrangement. The objective was to understand how these geometric alterations impact
heat transfer performance. On the other hand, some studies have concentrated solely on evaluating the use of different nanofluids.
Nanofluids are created by dispersing nanoparticles (such as Al2O3, Cu, TiO2, etc.) in a base fluid, typically water. The unique properties
of nanoparticles can potentially enhance heat transfer characteristics when introduced into the fluid. However, the present article
takes a more comprehensive approach by investigating two key factors simultaneously. Firstly, it examines the changes in the twisting
pitch of the pipes. Twisting pitch refers to the distance between consecutive twists or turns in the pipe. The fluid flow behavior and heat
transfer characteristics can be influenced by manipulating the twisting pitch. Secondly, the article explores the effect of different
nanofluids with varying concentrations. This involves examining the impact of nanoparticles dispersed in the base fluid at different
volume fractions. By varying the nanoparticle concentration, the fluid’s thermal conductivity and convective heat transfer properties
can be modified. By considering both the twisting pitch modifications and the implementation of nanofluids, the present study aims to
provide a more comprehensive understanding of their combined effects on heat transfer performance. The intention is to investigate
how these two factors interact and influence the overall heat transfer characteristics within the system. This approach allows for a
more detailed analysis of the complex interplay between geometric modifications and nanofluid utilization, leading to a more
comprehensive evaluation of the heat transfer enhancement potential of the twisted pipe configuration. The results of this study can

8
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Fig. 8. The contour of temperature in the different devices.

contribute to the development of more efficient heat transfer systems by optimizing both geometric parameters and the imple­
mentation of nanofluids.
This study investigates the performance of heat exchangers with different geometric and operational conditions using the
realized k-ε turbulence model. The goal is to achieve efficient heat transfer while minimizing pressure drop. The devices under
consideration include smooth tubes with and without baffles and twisted tubes with varying pitch lengths. Specifically, the present
device consists of seven smooth tubes with six baffles. The dimensions of the outer shell are specified as DShell = 90 mm and LShell =
600 mm, while the inner tube diameter is dTube = 20 mm. The baffles have a cut of 36 % (which refers to the percentage of the baffle
width that is open) and a central baffle spacing of 86.0 mm. Mass flow rates ranging from 0.5 kg/s to 2 kg/s are considered to
simulate the performance of these heat exchangers. The working fluid used in the simulations is pure water. Fig. 8 presents the
temperature contour for a mass flow rate of 0.5 kg/s in the different devices. This contour plot illustrates the temperature dis­
tribution within the heat exchanger, allowing for visual analysis and comparison of the temperature profiles among the different
configurations.
According to this figure, the outlet temperature of the shell in the device with six baffles is higher than the twisted tube, while the
value of the smooth tube without a baffle is the lowest.
In Fig. 8, it can be observed that the outlet temperature of the shell in the heat exchanger device with six baffles is higher compared
to the twisted tube configuration. On the other hand, the smooth tube without any baffles exhibits the lowest outlet temperature
among the considered devices. This difference in outlet temperature can be attributed to the variations in heat transfer characteristics
and flow patterns in the different heat exchanger configurations. The presence of baffles in the device with six baffles promotes
increased heat transfer between the fluid flowing through the tubes and the fluid in the shell side, resulting in a higher outlet tem­
perature for the shell fluid. In contrast, the twisted tube configuration likely offers enhanced heat transfer due to the increased surface
area and improved fluid mixing. As a result, the outlet temperature of the shell fluid in the twisted tube configuration is lower
compared to the device with six baffles. The smooth tube without baffles exhibits the lowest outlet temperature since it lacks any
additional features or structures that can enhance heat transfer. The absence of baffles leads to reduced heat transfer efficiency and
lower outlet temperatures for the shell fluid.
The twisted tube configuration in a heat exchanger increases surface area compared to a smooth tube configuration. The surface
area increase can vary depending on the design parameters and the degree of tube twisting. The twisted tube geometry introduces
additional corrugations and secondary flow patterns, which enhance the convective heat transfer between the fluid and the tube
surface. These secondary flows disrupt the boundary layer and promote better mixing and heat transfer characteristics. As a result,
the effective surface area available for heat transfer is increased. The increased surface area in twisted tubes can be attributed to
two main factors. First, the twisted tube geometry introduces more contact points between the fluid and the tube surface, leading to
increased heat transfer surface area compared to a smooth tube. Second, the secondary flow patterns induced by the tube twisting
enhance the convective heat transfer process, effectively increasing the effective surface area available for heat transfer.
The exact quantification of the surface area increase depends on various factors such as the geometric parameters of the twisted
tube (e.g., pitch, twist angle), the tube diameter, and the specific heat exchanger design.
Fig. 9 shows the velocity contour in the heat exchanger with six baffles, no baffles, and the twisted tube. The flow enters from the
right bottom and exits from the left top. Fig. 9 shows that the flow hits the baffle plate, and the flow direction is altered. Thus, the shell
space behind the baffle is not effectively used for crossflow. As can be seen, with a mass flow rate of 2 kg/s, the velocity value is up to 4

9
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Fig. 9. The contour of velocity in the different devices (flow rate = 2 kg/s).

m/s. In the heat exchanger without the baffle and twisted tube, the flow does not circulate, and the circulation velocity is lower than in
the heat exchanger with the baffle.

3.1. Twisted tube performance in different pitch lengths

This investigation focused on improving the thermal efficiency of the heat exchanger by considering different pitches of twisted
tubes (P = 45, 67.5, 90, 135, and 180 mm). The simulations were conducted for pure water with flow rates ranging from 0.5 to 2 kg/s,
while the heat exchanger’s characteristics remained as specified in Table 2.
Figs. 10–12 presents the temperature distributions, pressure drop, and heat transfer factor for the devices equipped with twisted
tubes. These results are compared to those obtained for a smooth tube without baffles and a smooth tube with six baffles. The pressure
drop and outlet temperature obtained from the CFD calculations are included in the results. The heat transfer factor is determined
using the Log Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD) method [57], which is a commonly used approach in heat exchanger analysis.
Fig. 10 reveals that the outlet temperature is lowest for the device with a smooth tube and no baffles. However, the results indicate
that substituting smooth tubes with twisted tubes increases the outlet temperature. They are furthermore, reducing the pitch length of
the twisted tube results in higher outlet temperatures. For instance, at a flow rate of 2 kg/s, the outlet temperatures for pitches of 180,
135, 90, 67.5, and 45 mm are reported as 316.5, 318.8, 322.0, 324.1, and 326.5 K, respectively. Comparing the outlet temperatures of
the twisted tube configurations with a pitch of 45 mm to the device with six baffles, it is observed that the temperature difference is 6.7,

Fig. 10. Influence of pitch length on outlet temperature.

10
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Fig. 11. The variation of pressure drop in different pitch lengths.

Fig. 12. Influence of pitch length on the heat transfer factor.

6.5, and 3.5 K, respectively. This indicates that using twisted tubes significantly enhances the outlet temperature, particularly at higher
flow rates.
These findings suggest that implementing twisted tubes in the heat exchanger can improve thermal performance, as evidenced by
the higher outlet temperatures compared to smooth tube configurations. The reduction in pitch length further enhances the outlet
temperature, providing potential opportunities for optimizing heat transfer efficiency in the heat exchanger system.
According to the information provided, Fig. 11 illustrates the pressure drop across the different heat exchanger configurations with
variable flow rates. The results indicate that the device with six baffles exhibits a significant difference in pressure drop compared to
the other devices, especially at higher flow rates. Comparing the smooth tube configuration with others, it is observed that using
twisted tubes with a pitch of 45 mm increases the pressure drop by approximately 25 %. On the other hand, employing six baffles
increases the pressure drop by around 122 % compared to the smooth tube configuration. Furthermore, changing the pitch length from
180 mm to 45 mm in the twisted tube configuration increases the pressure drop by approximately 10 %, equivalent to the pressure drop
observed in the smooth tube configuration. These findings suggest that baffles in the heat exchanger significantly increase the pressure
drop, with a substantial impact at higher flow rates. Additionally, using twisted tubes, especially with a smaller pitch length, also
contributes to an increase in pressure drop compared to the smooth tube configuration.
Fig. 12 demonstrates the heat transfer factor in different heat exchanger configurations. The results indicate that the presence of six
baffles in the heat exchanger leads to a significant enhancement in the heat transfer factor, with an increase of up to 117 % compared to
the configuration with no baffles. This suggests that the baffles effectively promote heat transfer between the fluid flowing through the
tubes and the fluid in the shell side. Furthermore, using twisted tubes with a pitch of 180 mm instead of smooth tubes results in a 20 %
increase in the heat transfer factor. This improvement can be attributed to the enhanced heat transfer characteristics of the twisted tube
configuration, such as increased surface area and improved fluid mixing.
Additionally, changing the pitch length from 180 mm to 135, 90, 67.5, and 45 mm leads to further increases in the heat transfer
factor, corresponding to improvements of 7 %, 13 %, 25 %, and 37 %, respectively. This suggests that reducing the pitch length in the
twisted tube configuration enhances heat transfer performance. Comparing the twisted tube with a pitch of 45 mm to the smooth tube

11
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

configuration, it is observed that the heat transfer factor can be improved by 57 % by utilizing the twisted tube. These findings
highlight the significant impact of both baffles and twisted tubes on the heat transfer performance of the heat exchanger. The presence
of baffles and the use of twisted tubes, particularly with smaller pitch lengths, can substantially improve the heat transfer factor,
indicating enhanced thermal efficiency of the heat exchanger system.
Fig. 13 determines the total heat transfer in different heat exchanger configurations. The results show that the presence of six baffles
in the heat exchanger leads to a significant enhancement in the total heat transfer, with an increase of up to 80 % compared to the
configuration with no baffles. Moreover, using twisted tubes with a pitch of 180 mm instead of smooth tubes results in a 22 % increase
in the total heat transfer.
Additionally, changing the pitch length from 180 mm to 135, 90, 67.5, and 45 mm increases the total heat transfer, corresponding
to improvements of 6 %, 10 %, 17 %, and 27 %, respectively. This suggests that reducing the pitch length in the twisted tube
configuration enhances heat transfer performance.
Using twisted tubes with smaller pitch lengths offers several advantages in terms of heat transfer performance. Implementing
twisted tubes with smaller pitch lengths can lead to higher outlet temperatures than smooth tube configurations. The swirling flow
induced by twisted tubes enhances convective heat transfer, improving heat transfer performance and higher outlet temperatures.
Twisted tubes with smaller pitch lengths increase the heat transfer factor, representing the heat transfer efficiency in the heat
exchanger. Smaller pitch lengths provide more surface area for heat exchange and promote better fluid mixing, enhancing heat transfer
efficiency. Utilizing twisted tubes with smaller pitch lengths increases the total heat transfer in the heat exchanger. Reducing the pitch
length enhances the convective heat transfer, resulting in a higher overall heat transfer rate. Using twisted tubes with smaller pitch
lengths aims to approach the thermal efficiency of configurations with baffles. By maximizing turbulence and secondary flow gen­
eration, twisted tubes with smaller pitch lengths can approach the heat transfer performance of configurations with baffles while
minimizing the associated pressure drop. While using twisted tubes with smaller pitch lengths increases the pressure drop compared to
smooth tube configurations, it can be lower than configurations with baffles. Twisted tubes offer a balance between improved heat
transfer efficiency and acceptable pressure drop, making them an attractive option for enhancing heat transfer performance. Overall,
the advantages of using twisted tubes with smaller pitch lengths include increased outlet temperature, enhanced heat transfer effi­
ciency, improved total heat transfer, and the potential to approach the performance of configurations with baffles while minimizing
pressure drop. These factors contribute to improved thermal performance and efficiency of the heat exchanger system.
While twisted tubes with smaller pitch lengths can offer improved heat transfer performance, it is important to carefully assess the
associated limitations and disadvantages, such as increased pressure drop, manufacturing complexity, fouling concerns, fluid distri­
bution issues, material compatibility, and limited generalizability. Proper design, maintenance, and optimization strategies are
necessary to mitigate these challenges and ensure the effective and efficient operation of the heat exchanger system.
The investigation also considered the effects of using a nanofluid on thermal efficiency, which will be discussed in the subsequent
section. Utilizing nanofluids, which are suspensions of nanoparticles in a base fluid, is a popular approach to enhance heat transfer in
various heat transfer applications. The next section of the research likely explores the impact of nanofluids on the thermal efficiency of
the heat exchanger, and the results will shed light on the effectiveness of using nanofluids in improving overall heat transfer
performance.

3.2. Twisted tubes performance using different nanofluids

Figs. 14–16 present the outlet temperature, pressure drop, and heat transfer factor results for different flow rates ranging from 0.5
to 2 kg/s. The comparison is made between a smooth tube with six baffles using pure water and a twisted tube with a pitch of 45 mm
using pure water and various nanofluids, including Al2O3, Cu, TiO2, and CuO, with volume fractions of 0.05, 0.1, and 0.15. Fig. 14

Fig. 13. Influence of pitch length on the total heat transfer.

12
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Fig. 14. The variation of outlet temperature with different nanofluids.

focuses on the outlet temperatures for the different configurations. Sub-figs (a), (b), and (c) represent the outlet temperatures for
volume fractions of 0.05, 0.1, and 0.15, respectively. Comparing the nanofluids to pure water, it is observed that the outlet temper­
atures generally show an increasing trend for all nanofluids, including TiO2, CuO, Al2O3, and Cu. This improvement is consistent across
all flow rates and volume fractions studied. In particular, for the Cu nanofluid with a volume fraction of 0.1, as shown in Fig. 14 (b), the
outlet temperature is higher than that of the smooth tube with six baffles using pure water. Additionally, utilizing a volume fraction of
0.15 for CuO, Al2O3, and Cu results in higher outlet temperatures than the smooth tube with six baffles, as depicted in Fig. 14 (c). These
findings suggest that using nanofluids, especially Cu-based nanofluids with higher volume fractions, can improve outlet temperatures
compared to pure water and the smooth tube with six baffles configuration.
According to Fig. 15, which compares the pressure drops of different devices, including pure water and nanofluids (Al2O3, Cu, TiO2,
and CuO), several observations can be made. In sub-figures (a), (b), and (c), the pressure drops for volume fractions of 0.05, 0.1, and
0.15 are presented, respectively. Firstly, a notable difference can be observed between the pressure drop obtained from the smooth
tube with six baffles and the other twisted tube configurations, particularly at flow rates ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 kg/s. This difference
becomes more pronounced as the flow rate increases. In the case of the 0.05 nanofluid volume fraction, as shown in Fig. 15 (a), the
pressure drop is approximately similar to that of the base fluid (pure water). This suggests that the nanofluid does not significantly

13
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Fig. 15. The comparison of the pressure drop with different nanofluids.

affect the pressure drop at this volume fraction. However, Fig. 15 (b) demonstrates that as the nanofluid volume fraction increases, the
pressure drop also increases. This indicates that higher nanofluid volume fraction results in higher pressure drops than the base fluid.
Furthermore, Fig. 15 (c) compares the pressure drops between the nanofluids (Cu, CuO, TiO2, and Al2O3) and the base fluid. It
shows that the maximum difference in pressure drop, compared to the base fluid, is approximately 30 % for Cu nanofluid, 26 % for CuO
nanofluid, 22 % for TiO2 nanofluid, and 19 % for Al2O3 nanofluid. However, in the case of the 0.15 vol fraction of Cu nanofluid, it is
interesting to note that the pressure drop is approximately 55 % lower than the device with six baffles. This suggests that the specific
conditions and properties of the Cu nanofluid at this particular volume fraction result in a significantly lower pressure drop compared
to the six-baffle configuration.
Fig. 16 compares the heat transfer factors for different configurations, including the twisted tube with pure water, nanofluids
(Al2O3, Cu, TiO2, and CuO), and the smooth tube with six baffles using pure water. The heat transfer factors for volume fractions of

14
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Fig. 16. The comparison of the heat transfer factor with different nanofluids.

0.05, 0.1, and 0.15 are presented. It is observed that the heat transfer factors of the nanofluids generally exhibit an increasing trend
compared to the base fluid (pure water). Specifically, the nanofluids containing TiO2, CuO, Al2O3, and Cu improve the heat transfer
factor across all flow rates and volume fractions studied. Fig. 16 (a) shows that at a concentration of 0.05 for all nanofluids, the heat
transfer factor is lower than that of the device with six baffles using pure water. This suggests that the nanofluids do not significantly
improve the heat transfer factor compared to the six-baffle configuration at this volume fraction. However, Fig. 16 (b) demonstrates
that for the Cu nanofluid with a volume fraction of 0.1, the heat transfer factor is higher than that of the smooth tube with six baffles.
This indicates that the Cu nanofluid enhances the heat transfer performance at this specific concentration compared to the six-baffle
configuration. Moreover, Fig. 16 (c) reveals that utilizing a volume fraction of 0.15 for CuO, Al2O3, and Cu results in higher heat
transfer factors than the smooth tube with six baffles. This suggests that increasing the volume fraction of these nanofluids leads to
improved heat transfer performance relative to the six-baffle configuration.

15
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

Furthermore, the results indicate an improvement in the heat transfer factor when increasing the nanofluid volume fraction from
0.05 to 0.1 and from 0.1 to 0.15. Specifically, about 10 % and 20 % improvements in the heat transfer factor are observed for the
nanofluid volume fractions of 0.1 and 0.15, respectively, compared to the nanofluid volume fraction of 0.05. These findings highlight
the potential of nanofluids, particularly those containing Cu, CuO, Al2O3, and TiO2, to enhance the heat transfer performance
compared to the smooth tube with six baffles, with the degree of improvement depending on the nanofluid volume fraction.
In summary, the analysis of the twisted tubes using different nanofluids reveals several key findings. Firstly, nanofluids generally
exhibit higher outlet temperatures than pure water, with Cu-based nanofluids showing the most significant improvement. Secondly,
the pressure drop increases with higher nanofluid volume fractions, but certain nanofluids, such as Cu, CuO, Al2O3, and TiO2 at a
volume fraction of 0.15, can result in lower pressure drops compared to the smooth tube with six baffles. Lastly, the heat transfer
factors of the nanofluids are generally higher than those of pure water, with Cu-based nanofluids at volume fractions of 0.1 and 0.15
demonstrating the most significant enhancements.
These results suggest that utilizing nanofluids, especially those containing Cu, CuO, Al2O3, and TiO2, in twisted tube heat ex­
changers can improve heat transfer performance compared to traditional configurations. The choice of nanofluid volume fraction is
crucial, as higher volume fractions generally lead to better heat transfer and increased pressure drops. Therefore, a trade-off between
heat transfer enhancement and pressure drop should be considered when selecting the appropriate nanofluid volume fraction.
It is important to note that the results presented in the analysis are specific to the conditions and parameters used in the study. The
performance of twisted tubes and nanofluids can vary depending on nanoparticle concentration, fluid properties, flow rates, and
geometric configurations. Other considerations, such as nanofluids’ stability and long-term behavior, should be considered when
implementing them in practical applications.
Further research and experimentation are necessary to explore the performance of twisted tubes with nanofluids in different
operating conditions and to assess the economic feasibility and environmental impact of using nanofluids for heat transfer
enhancement.

4. Conclusion
In this study, our main objective was to enhance the thermal efficiency and reduce the pressure drop in a twisted tube heat
exchanger compared to a smooth tube with six baffles. We conducted three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simu­
lations, considering different twisted tube configurations with varying pitch lengths and nanofluids. The results showed that shorter
twisted pitch lengths improved heat transfer due to increased flow disturbance and contact surface area. A pitch length of 45 mm was
identified as the optimal choice. Increasing the nanoparticle volume fraction improved thermal efficiency but also led to an increase in
pressure drop. Cu nanoparticles provided the highest thermal efficiency, but they caused a higher pressure drop compared to other
nanoparticles. Al2O3 nanoparticles exhibited the lowest pressure drop while maintaining a relatively high thermal efficiency, sur­
passing CuO and TiO2 nanoparticles. Comparing the device with six baffles, implementing 0.1 and 0.15 vol fractions of Cu nano­
particles increased the heat transfer factor by 1.04 and 1.14 times, respectively, while reducing the pressure drop by 1.55 and 1.44
times, respectively.
Similarly, using 0.1 and 0.15 vol fractions of Al2O3 nanoparticles resulted in a heat transfer factor increase of 0.95 and 1.12 times,
respectively, and a reduction in pressure drop by 1.65 and 1.55 times, respectively. Based on our findings, we recommend utilizing a
twisted tube heat exchanger with a pitch length of 45 mm and either 0.1 vol fraction of Cu nanoparticles or 0.15 vol fraction of Al2O3
nanoparticles. This approach would improve efficiency and reduce pressure drop by approximately 1.55 times compared to the device
with six baffles. In conclusion, this study provides insights into optimizing the thermal efficiency and pressure drop characteristics of
twisted tube heat exchangers. Our findings offer practical recommendations for design improvements and nanoparticle selection to
enhance application performance.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Valiyollah Ghazanfari: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing. Armin Taheri: Investigation, Writing – original draft. Younes Amini: Conceptualization, Methodology. Fatemeh
mansourzade: Investigation, Writing – original draft.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Nomenclature

a twisted tube minor axis (mm)

b twisted tube major axis (mm)
Cp specific heat (J/kg.K)

16
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

k thermal conductivity (W/m.K)

p pressure (Pa)
p length of twist pitch (mm)
T temperature (K)
u velocity in the x direction (m/s)
v velocity in the y direction (m/s)
w velocity in the z direction (m/s)
x, y, z position coordinates

Greek symbols
α thermal expansion coefficient (m2 /s)
ε viscous dissipation rate (m2/s3)
μ dynamic viscosity (Pa.s)
φ particle volume concentration
ρ density (kg/m3)

Subscripts
f base fluid
nf nanofluid
p nanoparticle

References
[1] M. Talebi, F. Lalgani, Assessment of thermal behavior of variable step twist in the elliptical spiral, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 170 (2021), 107126.
[2] M.A. Hassan, M.A. Kassem, A. Kaood, Numerical investigation and multi-criteria optimization of the thermal–hydraulic characteristics of turbulent flow in
conical tubes fitted with twisted tape insert, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 147 (12) (2022) 6847–6868.
[3] M. Nakhchi, M. Hatami, M. Rahmati, Experimental investigation of heat transfer enhancement of a heat exchanger tube equipped with double-cut twisted tapes,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 180 (2020), 115863.
[4] D. Yang, T.S. Khan, E. Al-Hajri, Z.H. Ayub, A.H. Ayub, Geometric optimization of shell and tube heat exchanger with interstitial twisted tapes outside the tubes
applying CFD techniques, Appl. Therm. Eng. 152 (2019) 559–572.
[5] K. Nanan, C. Thianpong, M. Pimsarn, V. Chuwattanakul, S. Eiamsa-ardd, Flow and thermal mechanisms in a heat exchanger tube inserted with twisted cross-
baffle turbulators, Appl. Therm. Eng. 114 (5) (2017) 130–147.
[6] N. Zheng, W. Liu, Z. Liu, P. Liu, F. Shan, A numerical study on heat transfer enhancement and the flow structure in a heat exchanger tube with discrete double
inclined ribs, Appl. Therm. Eng. 90 (2015) 232–241.
[7] X.-h. Tan, D.-s. Zhu, G.-y. Zhou, L.-d. Zeng, Experimental and numerical study of convective heat transfer and fluid flow in twisted oval tubes, Int. J. Heat Mass
Tran. 55 (2012) 4701–4710.
[8] S. Liu, M. Sakr, A comprehensive review on passive heat transfer enhancements in pipe exchangers, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19 (2013) 64–81.
[9] V. Ghazanfari, M. Imani, M.M. Shadman, Y. Amini, Numerical study on the thermal performance of the shell and tube heat exchanger using twisted tubes and
Al2O3 nanoparticles, Prog. Nucl. Energy 155 (2023), 104526.
[10] A. Feizabadi, M. Khoshvaght-Aliabadi, A.B. Rahimi, Experimental evaluation of thermal performance and entropy generation inside a twisted U-tube equipped
with twisted-tape inserts, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 145 (2019), 106051.
[11] Y. Amini, M. Mokhtari, M. Haghshenas, M. Gerdroodbary, Heat transfer of swirling impinging jets ejected from Nozzles with twisted tapes utilizing CFD
technique, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 6 (2015) 104–115.
[12] A. Kaood, O.G. Fadodun, Numerical investigation of turbulent entropy production rate in conical tubes fitted with a twisted-tape insert, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Tran. 139 (2022), 106520.
[13] A.H. Al-Tohamy, O.G. Fadodun, A. Kaood, Hydrothermal performance of a turbulent nanofluid with different nanoparticle shapes in a duct fitted with various
configurations of coiled-wire inserts, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 148 (15) (2023) 7795–7810.
[14] X.-h. Tan, D.-s. Zhu, G.-y. Zhou, L. Yang, 3D numerical simulation on the shell side heat transfer and pressure drop performances of twisted oval tube heat
exchanger, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 65 (2013) 244–253.
[15] T. Wang, Q. Zhang, K. Song, K. Zhang, M. Su, X. Wu, Thermodynamic characteristics of a novel combination of three-start twisted tube and oval dimples, Case
Stud. Therm. Eng. 37 (2022), 102284.
[16] X. Tang, X. Dai, D. Zhu, Experimental and numerical investigation of convective heat transfer and fluid flow in twisted spiral tube, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 90
(2015) 523–541.
[17] H. Gu, Y. Chen, B. Sundén, J. Wu, N. Song, J. Su, Influence of alternating V-rows tube layout on thermal-hydraulic characteristics of twisted elliptical tube heat
exchangers, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 159 (2020), 120070.
[18] C. Luo, K. Song, Thermal performance enhancement of a double-tube heat exchanger with novel twisted annulus formed by counter-twisted oval tubes, Int. J.
Therm. Sci. 164 (2021), 106892.
[19] X. Li, S. Liu, S. Tang, X. Mo, L. Wang, D. Zhu, Analysis of heat transfer characteristics and entransy evaluation of high viscosity fluid in a novel twisted tube,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 210 (2022), 118388.
[20] Z. Rahnama, G. Ansarifar, Nanofluid application for heat transfer, safety, and natural circulation enhancement in the NuScale nuclear reactor as a small modular
reactor using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling via neutronic and thermal-hydraulics coupling, Prog. Nucl. Energy 138 (2021), 103796.
[21] K. Al-Farhany, A.D. Abdulsahi, Study of mixed convection in two layers of saturated porous medium and nanofluid with rotating circular cylinder, Prog. Nucl.
Energy 135 (2021), 103723.
[22] Z. Ghorbanali, S. Talebi, Investigation of a nanofluid-based natural circulation loop, Prog. Nucl. Energy 129 (2020), 103494.
[23] S. Husain, S. AhmadKhan, M.A. Siddiqui, Wall boiling of Al2O3-water nanofluid: effect of nanoparticle concentration, Prog. Nucl. Energy 133 (2021), 103614.
[24] R. Saidur, K. Leong, H. Mohammed, A review on applications and challenges of nanofluids, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (3) (2011) 1646–1668.
[25] Z. Rahnama, G. Ansarifar, Predicting and optimizing the thermal-hydraulic, natural circulation, and neutronics parameters in the NuScale nuclear reactor using
nanofluid as a coolant via machine learning methods through GA, PSO and HPSOGA algorithms, Ann. Nucl. Energy 161 (2021), 108375.
[26] K. Hadad, Z. Kowsar, Twofold application of nanofluids as the primary coolant and reactivity controller in a PWR reactor: case study VVER-1000 in normal
operation, Ann. Nucl. Energy 97 (2016) 179–182.

17
V. Ghazanfari et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 53 (2024) 103864

[27] S.M. Mousavi, Z.S. Alborzi, S. Raveshiyan, Y. Amini, Applications of nanotechnology in the harvesting of solar energy, in: Nanotechnology Applications for Solar
Energy Systems, Wiley Online Books, 2023, pp. 239–256.
[28] A. Kaood, M.A. Hassan, Thermo-hydraulic performance of nanofluids flow in various internally corrugated tubes, Chem. Eng. Proces. - Process Intensificat. 154
(2020), 108043.
[29] A. Kaood, M. Abubakr, O. Al-Oran, M.A. Hassan, Performance analysis and particle swarm optimization of molten salt-based nanofluids in parabolic trough
concentrators, Renew. Energy 177 (2021) 1045–1062.
[30] A.A. Minea, M.G. Moldoveanu, Studies on Al2O3, CuO, and TiO2 water-based nanofluids: a comparative approach in laminar and turbulent flow, J. Eng.
Thermophys. 26 (2017) 291–301.
[31] B.A. Khuwaileh, F.I. Al-Hamadi, D. Hartanto, Z. Said, M. Ali, On the performance of nanofluids in APR 1400 PLUS7 assembly: neutronics, Ann. Nucl. Energy 144
(2020), 107508.
[32] M. Hemmat Esfe, S.M. Motallebi, D. Toghraie, A novel experimental and statistical study on ethylene glycol-based nanofluid enriched by MWCNT and CuO
nanoparticles, Ann. Nucl. Energy 177 (2022), 109283.
[33] O.G. Fadodun, A. Kaood, M.A. Hassan, Investigation of the entropy production rate of ferrosoferric oxide/water nanofluid in outward corrugated pipes using a
two-phase mixture model, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 178 (2022), 107598.
[34] H. Wei, H. Moria, K.S. Nisar, R. Ghandour, A. Issakhov, Y.-L. Sun, A. Kaood, Effect of volume fraction and size of Al2O3 nanoparticles in thermal, frictional and
economic performance of circumferential corrugated helical tube, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 25 (2021), 100948.
[35] S. Peyghambarzadeh, S. Hashemabadi, A. Chabi, M. Salimi, Performance of water based CuO and Al2O3 nanofluids in a Cu–Be alloy heat sink with rectangular
microchannels, Energy Convers. Manag. 86 (2014) 28–38.
[36] O. Hozien, W.M. El-Maghlany, M.M. Sorour, Y.S. Mohamed, Experimental study on heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics utilizing three types of water
based nanofluids in a helical coil under isothermal boundary condition, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 128 (2021) 237–252.
[37] V. Ghazanfari, M. Talebi, J. Khorsandi, R. Abdolahi, Effects of water based Al2O3, TiO2, and CuO nanofluids as the coolant as the coolant, Prog. Nucl. Energy 91
(2016) 285–294.
[38] E. Ozden, I. Tari, Shell side CFD analysis of a small shell-and-tube heat exchanger, Energy Convers. Manag. 51 (2010) 1004–1014.
[39] M. Abdollahzadeh, M. Esmaeilpour, R. Vizinho, A. Younesi, J. Pàscoa, Assessment of RANS turbulence models for numerical study of laminar-turbulent
transition in convection heat transfer, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 115 (2017) 1288–1308.
[40] G. Jahanmir, F. Farhadi, Twisted bundle heat exchangers performance evaluation by CFD (CJ12/5054), Int. Commun. Heat Mass Tran. 39 (2012) 1654–1660.
[41] H. Wei, Y. Chen, Assessment of different turbulence models on the large scale internal heated water pool natural convection simulation, Ann. Nucl. Energy 131
(2019) 23–38.
[42] V. Ghazanfari, A.A. Salehi, A.R. Keshtkar, M.M. Shadman, M.H. Askari, Numerical simulation using a modified solver within OpenFOAM for compressible
viscous flows, European J. Comput. Mech. 28 (6) (2019) 541–572.
[43] Y. Amini, V. Ghazanfari, M. Heydari, M.M. Shadman, A.G. Khamseh, M.H. Khani, A. Hassanvand, Computational fluid dynamics simulation of two-phase flow
patterns in a serpentine microfluidic device, Sci. Rep. 13 (1) (2023) 9483.
[44] V. Ghazanfari, A.A. Salehi, A.R. Keshtkar, M.M. Shadman, M.H. Askari, Modeling and simulation of flow and uranium isotopes separation in gas centrifuges
using implicit coupled density-based solver in OpenFOAM, European J. Comput. Mech. 29 (1) (2020) 1–26.
[45] V. Ghazanfari, A.A. Salehi, A. Keshtkar, M.M. Shadman, M.H. Askari, Numerical simulation using a modified solver within OpenFOAM for compressible viscous
flows, European J. Comput. Mech. 28 (6) (2020) 541–572.
[46] G. Jahanmir, F. Farhadi, Twisted bundle heat exchangers performance evaluation by CFD (CJ12/5054), Int. Commun. Heat Mass Tran. 39 (2012) 1654–1660.
[47] R. Shaheed, A. Mohammadian, H.K. Gildeh, A comparison of standard k–ε and realizable k–ε turbulence models in curved and confuent channels, Environ. Fluid
Mech. 19 (2019) 543–568.
[48] V. Yakhot, S.A. Orszag, S. Thangam, T.B. Gatski, C.G. Speziale, Development of turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion technique, Phys. Fluid.
Fluid Dynam. 4 (7) (1992) 1510–1520.
[49] M. Barzegar Gerdroodbary, M. Jafaryar, M. Sheikholeslami, Y. Amini, The efficacy of magnetic force on thermal performance of ferrofluid in a screw tube, Case
Stud. Therm. Eng. 49 (2023), 103187.
[50] V. Velagapudi, R.K. Konijeti, C.S.K. Aduru, Empirical correlations to predict thermophysical and heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids, Therm. Sci. 12 (2)
(2008) 27–37.
[51] V. Ghazanfari, M. Talebi, J. Khorsandi, R. Abdolahi, Thermalehydraulic modeling of water/Al2O3 nanofluid as the coolant in annular fuels for a typical VVER-
1000 core, Prog. Nucl. Energy 87 (2016) 67–73.
[52] R.L. Hamilton, O.K. Crosser, Thermal conductivity of heterogeneous two-component systems, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 1 (1962) 187–191.
[53] X. Zhang, H. Gu, M. Fujii, Effective thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of nanofluids containing spherical and cylindrical nanoparticles, Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 31 (6) (2007) 593–599.
[54] X. Wang, X. Xu, S.U.S. Choi, Thermal conductivity of nanoparticle -fluid mixture, J. Thermophys. Heat Tran. 13 (1999) 474–480.
[55] B. Pak, Y. Cho, Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed fluids with submicron metallic oxide particles, Exp. Heat Trans. Int. J. 11 (2) (1998)
151–170.
[56] H. Chen, Y. Ding, Y. He, C. Tan, Rheological behaviour of ethylene glycol based titania nanofluids, Chem. Phys. Lett. 444 (2007) 333–337.
[57] F. Incropera, D. Dewitt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, fourth ed., John Wiley, New York, 1996.

18