Received: 12 October 2019
| Accepted: 24 December 2019
DOI: 10.1002/htj.21658
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A magnetic vortex generator for simultaneous
heat transfer enhancement and pressure drop
reduction in a mini channel
Mojtaba Bezaatpour
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Sahand University of Technology,
Tabriz, Iran
Correspondence
Mohammad Goharkhah, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering, Sahand
University of Technology, Tabriz
5331817634, Iran.
Email: goharkhah@sut.ac.ir
Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2020;1–22.
| Mohammad Goharkhah
Abstract
An active vortex generator is proposed for heat transfer
enhancement in heat sinks and heat exchangers and
removal of highly concentrated heat fluxes. It is based on
applying a uniform magnetic field of permanent magnets to
a magnetic fluid (ferrofluid) flowing in a heated channel.
Numerical simulations are carried out for a 2 Vol%
ferrofluid at different Reynolds numbers (150‐210) and
magnetic field intensities (0‐1400 G) to investigate the
possibility of simultaneous heat transfer enhancement and
pressure drop reduction by the proposed method. Compar-
isons are also made with the other conventional vortex
generators. Results indicate that the external magnetic field
acts as a vortex generator that changes the velocity
distribution, improves the flow mixing, and thereby
increases the convective heat transfer. Surprisingly, the
heat transfer enhancement is accompanied by a decrease of
the friction coefficient due to the flow separation and
decrease of the flow contact with the surface. It is also
concluded that increasing the magnetic field intensity,
decreasing the flow rate, and adding a second identical
magnetic vortex generator have favorable effects on both
pressure drop and heat transfer. A maximum of 37.8%
enhancement of heat transfer with a 29.18% reduction of
pressure drop has been achieved at the optimum condition.
KEYWORDS
flow mixing, forced convection, heat transfer, magnetic field effect,
magnetite ferrofluid, vortex generator
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/htj © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1
2 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

1 | INTRODUCTION

Efficient heat removal is an important prerequisite for any thermal system. However, the
importance of the cooling method is more acute in low Reynolds flow applications such as
micro‐electro‐mechanical systems, lab on the chips, microreactors, and microheat exchangers.
Owing to the low flow rates and predominantly laminar flow conditions, diffusion is the main
heat transfer mechanism in these systems. Thus, due to low flow mixing, the heat transfer
enhancement is a serious challenge in the absence of heat advection.
Fins1,2 and baffles3,4 have been extensively used in the past for heat transfer augmentation.
These methods are generally based on increasing the heat transfer area as well as the flow mixing.
Using vortex generators is another passive technique that causes increased flow turbulence
and consequently leads to better heat transfer performance of cooling applications such as heat
sinks and heat exchangers.5-8 Li et al9 and Song and Wang10 numerically investigated the heat
transfer performance and pressure drop for a fin and tube heat exchanger with longitudinal
vortex generators on and out of the fin surface, respectively. Heat transfer enhancement along
with a considerable pressure drop was observed in their results. Liang et al11 studied the effect
of winglet vortex generators (WVGs) mounted inside a circular tube at different attack and
inclination angles, as well as different winglet lengths. Their results indicated that WVGs could
generate longitudinal and transverse vortices to induce both impingement flow and
recirculation zone leading to higher heat transfer and comparatively lower pressure drop.
Based on decreasing pressure drop, an innovative vortex generator configuration, named
inclined projected winglet pair was examined by Oneissi et al.12 Their design showed superior
performance relative to the classical delta winglet pair.
Another group of studies can be distinguished in the literature that has utilized active heat
transfer enhancement techniques such as imposing magnetic and electric fields to the coolant
fluid.13-18 Among these methods, using ferrofluid under the influence of an external magnetic
field has been concentrated in recent years by many researchers.19,20
Ferrofluid is a colloidal suspension of single‐domain magnetic nanoparticles in a carrier
liquid.21 The advantage of a ferrofluid over conventional nanofluids is that it responses to the
external magnetic field. Thus, the flow and temperature fields can be manipulated by an applied
magnetic field to enhance the heat dissipation rate. The possibility of the heat transfer
enhancement by applying a constant and alternating magnetic field to the ferrofluid has been
verified in the previous experimental works. The increase of the pressure drop is also reported
as the side effect. Motozawa et al22 reported a 20% improvement in heat transfer coefficient in a
rectangular duct by applying an external magnetic field of an electromagnet. Goharkhah et al23
obtained 18.9% and 31.4% heat transfer enhancement for a water‐based magnetite (Fe3O4)
ferrofluid flow in a heated tube by application of constant and alternating magnetic field,
respectively. Li and Xuan24 carried out an experiment to investigate the heat transfer
characteristics of a magnetic fluid flowing around a fine wire under the influence of uniform
and nonuniform external magnetic fields. Moreover, Ghofrani et al25 studied the effect of an
alternating magnetic field on forced convection heat transfer of an aqueous ferrofluid flow
passing through a circular copper tube. A maximum of 27.6% enhancement in the convection
heat transfer was observed in their result. Sadeghinezhad et al26 experimentally investigated the
effect of a permanent magnet on the heat transfer characteristics of a hybrid graphene‐
magnetite nanofluid and reported a maximum enhancement of 82% in terms of the convective
heat transfer. Esmaeili et al27 carried out experiments on the effect of an external magnetic field
produced by a stator on heat transfer behavior of Fe3O4 nanoparticles with different mixtures of
BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH | 3

water and EG. They observed significant enhancements of heat transfer properties for the
magnetite nanofluids by the AC external magnetic field.
The above experimental works show that the external magnetic field is an important factor
that affects the convective heat transfer of the magnetic fluids. However, the experimental
works provide limited information about the mechanism behind the observations. On the other
hand, numerical simulations can be utilized for a precise discovery of magnetic field effects on
thermal and hydrodynamic behavior. In most numerical studies, the magnetic source has been
considered to be a magnetic dipole due to the simplicity of the magnetic force calculation.28-31 It
is also worth noting that the observed heat transfer enhancement in these works has been
attributed to the formation of the recirculation zone and the increase of the flow mixing.
Ganguly et al32 studied the heat transfer augmentation in the presence of one or several
magnetic line dipoles. The recirculation zone was resulted from the temperature‐dependent
magnetic susceptibility. Strek and Jopek33 numerically investigated the effect of a magnetic
dipole on convection heat transfer of ferrofluid in a two‐dimensional channel. They showed
that the temperature gradient between two isothermal surfaces caused nonuniform body forces
that could either improve or hinder the heat transfer. Goharkhah and Ashjaee34 studied forced
convective heat transfer of water‐based Fe3O4 nanofluid in a two‐dimensional channel in the
presence of an alternating nonuniform magnetic field produced by eight‐line source dipoles.
Their result indicated heat transfer enhancement with Reynolds number and magnetic field
intensity. Ghorbani et al35 simulated the effect of an external magnetic field on convection heat
transfer of a ferrofluid inside a two‐dimensional rectangular duct. Their results revealed that
ferrofluid particles movement along the magnetic field of a line dipole changes the streamline
patterns and enhances the heat transfer. Their results also showed that cooling rate is higher at
larger Reynolds numbers while increasing magnetic field strength would not necessarily result
in a noticeable improvement in heat transfer. Other magnetic field sources can also be found in
a number of numerical studies.36,37
The current work presents an active heat transfer enhancement method based on vortex
generation that can be utilized for the removal of highly concentrated heat fluxes in several
applications. In contrast to the conventional passive techniques such as longitudinal and WVGs
and baffles, the recirculation zones in the flow field and consequently the turbulence and flow
mixing are induced by the magnetic field of permanent magnets. Thus, the heat transfer
enhancement is accompanied by a decrease of the pressure drop due to the decrease of the flow
contact with the surface. Simulations are carried out at different Reynolds numbers and
magnetic field intensities to investigate the performance of the method in a heated mini
channel. Moreover, comparisons have been made with two different vortex generators; an
active vortex generator with magnetic dipole as the magnetic field source and a passive vortex
generator with baffles inserted in the mini channel.

2 | M A G N E T I C V O R T E X G E N E R A T O R AN D M I N I
C H A NN E L

As shown schematically in Figure 1, the studied geometry is a two‐dimensional H × L = 4

mm × 40 m parallel plate mini channel. The bottom and top surfaces of the channel are
isothermal and adiabatic, respectively. The coolant fluid is a 2 Vol% Fe3O4/water ferrofluid that
flows with uniform inlet velocity and temperature in the mini channel. The vortex generator
consists of two permanent magnets located near the top and bottom surfaces of the mini
4 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

channel. The uniform magnetic field generated by opposite poles of the permanent magnets is
imposed to the ferrofluid. Two cases of (a) a pair of permanent magnets located at x = 15 mm
and (b) two pairs of permanent magnets located at x = 7.5 and 15 mm, are studied separately.

3 | M A G N E T I C B O D Y F O R C E , G OV E RN I NG E Q UA T I O NS ,
A N D BO U N D A R Y CO N D I T I O N S

3.1 | Magnetic body force

Maxwell’s equation for a nonconducting fluid can be written as:

∇ ⋅ B = 0, (1)

∇ × H = 0, (2)

where B is the magnetic flux density, H is the magnetic field intensity, and M is the
magnetization. B, H, and M are related as:

B = μ0 (M + H ). (3)

The magnetization vector is conventionally assumed to be aligned with the magnetic field:

M = χm H , (4)

where χm is the magnetic susceptibility and is obtained from32

χ0
χm (T ) = . (5)
1 + β (T − T0 )

FIGURE 1 A, Geometrical configuration; B, External magnetic field distribution by opposite poles; and
(C) Grid distribution [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH | 5

Using Equations (1) to (5) the magnetic body force is calculated from

1
Fk = (M ⋅ ∇) B = μ χ (1 + χm ) ∇ (H ⋅ H ) + μ0 χm H ((H ⋅ ∇) χm ). (6)
2 0 m

The first term on the right‐hand side of Equation (6) results from a nonuniform magnetic
field while the second term becomes important when there is a spatial gradient in the magnetic
susceptibility, χm. In the current studied problem, the magnetic field created by the opposite
poles of the permanent magnets is almost uniform thus the first term is zero. However, since χm
is a function of temperature, spatial gradients of χm arise from the temperature variations in the
domain. Therefore, the magnetic body force will have only a uniform component in Y direction
as follows.37

−χ0 β ∂T→
Fk = μ0 χm H 2 j . (7)
[1 + β (T − T0 )]2 ∂y

3.2 | Continuity, momentum, and energy equations

Assuming steady‐state, two‐dimensional, homogeneous, and laminar flow conditions, the

governing equations of continuity, momentum, and energy for the fluid and solid domains can
be written as follows32:

∇ ⋅ (ρV ) = 0, (8)

∇ ⋅ (ρVV ) = −∇P + ∇ ⋅ (τij ) + Fk , (9)

∇ ⋅ (ρVCp T ) = ∇ ⋅ (k ∇ T ), (10)

where τij is the stress tensor and can be expressed in terms of the fluid viscosity and velocity
gradient as:

2
τij = μ ⋅ (∂vi/ ∂x j + ∂vj / ∂x i ) ⋅ − μδij ⋅ (∂vi/ ∂x i ). (11)
3

Moreover, the magnetic volume force, Fk calculated from Equation (7) is added to the
momentum equation to incorporate the effect of the external magnetic field on the magnetic
nanoparticles.

3.3 | Boundary conditions

The required boundary conditions for solving the governing equations are as follows. The
coolant ferrofluid inlet and bottom surface temperatures are 293 and 350 K, respectively.
The top surface is assumed to be insulated. The ferrofluid has a uniform inlet velocity and it is
6 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

at the atmospheric pressure at the channel outlet. Moreover, no‐slip condition and temperature
continuity exist at all fluid‐solid interfaces. That is,

∂Tf ∂Ts
u = v = 0, Tf = Ts, − kf = − ks . (12)
∂n ∂n

3.4 | Thermophysical properties

The ferrofluid properties such as density, specific heat, and viscosity are calculated as functions
of the magnetite nanoparticles and water as the base fluid from the following equation.38

ρnf = (1 − ∅) ρf + ∅ρnp , (13)

(ρCp)nf = (1 − ∅)(ρCp) f + ∅ (ρCp)np , (14)

μ nf = μ f (1 + 2.5∅), (15)

where the indices f, np, and nf refer to the base fluid, nanoparticle, and nanofluid, respectively.
Also, the thermal conductivity is calculated from39:

k nf = k Static + kBrownian, (16a)

⎡ (k np + 2k f ) − 2∅ (k f − k np) ⎤
k Static = k f ⎢ ⎥, (16b)
⎣ (k np + 2k f ) + ∅ (k f − k np) ⎦

kT
kBrownian = 5 × 10 4β ∅ρf Cp,f g (∅ , T ), (16c)
ρnp Dnp

where k = 1.3807 × 10−23 J/K and β is the fraction of the liquid volume which travels with a
particle, while modeling function g(T, ∅):

g = (−6.04∅ + 0.4705) T + 1722.3∅ − 134.63. (16d)

In above equations the pure water properties have been assumed to be temperature‐
dependent. Following models have been used to predict the thermophysical properties of
DI‐water.40

ρf = 2446 − 20.674T + 0.11576T 2 − 3.12895 × 10−4T 3 + 4.0505 × 10−7T 4

− 2.0546 × 10−10T 5, (17)

⎡ 247.8 ⎤
μ f = 2.414 × 10−5 × 10⎣ T −140 ⎦, (18)

k f = −1.13 + 9.71 × 10−3T − 1.31 × 10−5T 2. (19)

BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH | 7

The magnetite nanoparticles with a diameter of 20 nm are assumed to have a density of

ρ = 4950 (kg/m3). Furthermore, the thermal conductivity and the specific heat of the
nanoparticles are considered as k = 7(W/m·K) and Cp = 640(J/kg·K), respectively.

3.5 | Heat transfer and hydrodynamic parameters

Having calculated the temperature and velocity distribution, the nondimensional parameters
are used to evaluate the hydraulic and thermal performances. Following the usual definitions,
the local Nusselt number is defined as:

hD
Nu = , (20)
k

where D and k represent the hydraulic diameter and thermal conductivity, respectively. The
local convective heat transfer coefficient of h is calculated as:

q″
h= , (21)
(Tw − Tb)

where q″ is the surface heat flux and Tw and Tb are the bottom wall and bulk flow temperatures,
respectively. Moreover, the nondimensional fluid temperature is defined as:

(T − Tin )
θ= . (22)
(Tw − Tin )

The local Poiseuille number is calculated as a function of friction coefficient and Reynolds
number as follow.

Po = f . Re, (23)

where the friction resistance coefficient f is calculated from the shear stress using the following
relation:

2τw
f= . (24)
ρUin2

4 | NUMERI C A L MO DE LI N G , G RI D I N D E P E N D E N C Y ,
AND VAL ID A TI O N OF TH E N U M ER I C A L MET H O D

The finite‐volume method is used to solve the governing equations with respect to the
assumptions and boundary conditions. For the convective and diffusive terms a second‐order
upwind method has been used while the SIMPLE procedure has been introduced for the
velocity–pressure coupling. A structured nonuniform grid is used in the simulations as shown
in Figure 1C. The grid points are clustered near the walls where the velocity and temperature
gradients are large. To ensure that the calculations are accurate and grid‐independent, several
8 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

combinations of node numbers in longitudinal and lateral directions have been examined. The
nondimensional velocity distribution in the channel outlet is calculated for different grid sizes
at Re = 170 and the results are presented in Figure 2.
As shown, the grid distributions give almost identical results. Thus, 80 × 320 (80 nodes in
vertical and 320 nodes in the horizontal direction) has been used in the simulations.
An important point worth mentioning in Figure 2 is that the maximum velocity does not
locate at the channel mid‐plane but it is close to the bottom surface. The asymmetric velocity
profile results from the temperature dependence of the ferrofluid viscosity. Since the viscosity
has an inverse relation with the temperature, lower viscosities near the heated bottom surface
lead to higher velocities at this region.
To validate the numerical procedure, a comparison has been made between the current
numerical results and the experimental results of Ashjaee et al41 for a miniature heat sink with
magnetite ferrofluid as a coolant. Figure 3A shows the pressure drop variation along the heat
sink length for different Reynolds numbers at ϕ = 2% and B = 800 G. The local heat transfer
coefficient in the absence and presence of the external magnetic field for Re = 600 and ϕ = 3% is
also illustrated in Figure 3B.
It can be seen that there is a good agreement between the results with the maximum error of
less than 8%. This indicates that both hydrodynamic and heat transfer characteristics can be
predicted by the numerical method with reasonable accuracy.

5 | R E S U L T S AN D D I S C U S S I O N

Numerical simulations are carried out to explain the magnetic vortex generator and its thermal
and hydrodynamic performances in a heated mini channel. Different Reynolds numbers
between 150 and 210 and uniform magnetic field intensities between 0 and 1400 G are
considered in the simulations. Two cases of (1) a single vortex generator located at x = 15 mm
and (2) two vortex generators located at x = 7.5 and 15 mm, are studied separately.

F I G U R E 2 Nondimensional vertical velocity distribution in the channel outlet obtained from different grid
sizes Re = 170 [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH | 9

FIGURE 3 Experimental and numerical results of (A) pressure drop for different Reynolds number at
ϕ = 2% and B = 800G, (B) local convective heat transfer coefficient at ϕ = 3% and Re = 600 with B = 0 and
B = 1200 G for a miniature heat sink [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

5.1 | Mechanism of the magnetic vortex generator

Permanent magnets and magnetite ferrofluid are the main components of the magnetic vortex
generator. The former is used to generate a uniform magnetic field and the latter is used as the
working fluid to remove the heat from the bottom surface of the mini channel. Since the magnetic
field is assumed uniform between the permanent magnets, the magnetic body force originates
from the temperature gradient in the ferrofluid as mentioned in Equation (7). The resulting force
thus alters the regular flow distribution known as Poiseuille flow. Figure 4 qualitatively illustrates
the effect of magnetic field intensity on flow pattern and velocity distribution for both cases of two
and four permanent magnets at a constant Reynolds number of Re = 170.
Figure 4 visualizes the changes in the flow pattern and velocity distribution by applying an
external magnetic field. The observed behavior is almost similar for the cases (A) and (B). As
mentioned in Equation (7), the magnetic force is proportional to a negative sign of the temperature
gradient. Thus, the heated bottom and insulated top surface result in a magnetic force in the positive
Y direction. The upward magnetic force disturbs the boundary layer by deflecting the flow from the
straight direction toward the upper wall. This causes the flow separation on the bottom wall and
creates a back flow region that evolves from a small closed circulation zone to a large vortex, with an
increase of the magnetic field intensity. Moreover, since a portion of the channel is blocked by the
created vortex, the fluid reaches higher velocities above the vortex due to the mass continuity.
The temperature distribution and heat transfer characteristics of the ferrofluid are also
expected to be influenced due to the change of flow field under the external magnetic field.
Figure 5 shows the temperature distribution and the streamlines in the channel for different
cases of Figure 4.
Figure 5A shows that the applied magnetic field alters the streamlines near the magnets
location and forms a circulation zone above the bottom wall. This is the way the magnetic
vortex generator works. In fact, the magnetic field generated by the permanent magnets acts
like a baffle by blocking the flow path and removing the fluid away from the bottom surface.
This virtual baffle improves the flow mixing and changes the ferrofluid temperature
10 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

FIGURE 4 Flow pattern and velocity distribution in the presence of (A) two permanent magnets and (B)
four permanent magnets for different magnetic field intensities at Re = 170 [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

distribution. In other words, it disrupts the thermal boundary layer above the magnets and
consequently results in the increase of the convective heat transfer. Another point worth
mentioning is the formation of the second recirculation zone on the top wall at the high
magnetic field intensity of B = 1400 G. This can be explained as follows. The ferrofluid
experiences a velocity variation similar to that occurs while passing through a convergent‐
divergent nozzle. The ferrofluid is accelerated while moving on the large vortex on the bottom
wall due to the lower cross‐section area. The high‐velocity ferrofluid then clashes on the upper
surface and then deviates downward. Thus, the flow expansion and downward deviation of the
streamlines creates the second small vortex downstream on the upper wall. Moreover, it is
shown in Figure 5B that the two permanent magnet pairs have caused the formation of two
vortices on the bottom surface. However, the two vortices are replaced with a large vortex as
the magnetic field intensity increases to B = 1400. It can be concluded from Figure 5 that the
permanent magnets serve as active vortex generators that increase the flow mixing and cause
the thermal boundary layer disruption on the heated surface.

5.2 | Thermal performance

To quantify the effect of magnetic vortex generator on the ferrofluid heat transfer in the mini
channel, the dimensionless bulk temperature, θbulk along the channel is plotted for different
magnetic field intensities at Re = 170, in Figure 6.
BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH | 11

FIGURE 5 Streamlines and temperature distribution in the presence of (A) two permanent magnets and
(B) four permanent magnets for different intensities at Re = 170 [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

The dimensionless bulk temperature, θbulk is a measure of the coolant efficiency in heat
removal from the heated surface. Clearly, θbulk increases smoothly in the absence of the
magnetic field due to the heat transfer from the heated surface to the ferrofluid. It can be
observed in Figure 6 that θbulk increases due to the application of the constant magnetic field,
especially near the permanent magnets locations. It should also be noted that the
two relative maximums that occur on the curves of Figure 6B are due to the two vortices on
the bottom surface. However, two vortices grow, merge and form a large vortex as the magnetic
field intensity increases to B = 1400. Therefore, the θbulk has a single maximum for B = 1400.
Figure 7 shows the variation of local Nusselt number at different magnetic intensities along
the channel for the case of one and two pairs of permanent magnets.
As shown in Figure 7, for the case of no magnetic field, the Nusselt number decreases
gradually as the thermal boundary layer thickness increases with the distance from channel
inlet. It is also shown that different curves are obtained depending on the number of magnets
and the intensity of the magnetic field. Considering the case of one pair of permanent magnets
in Figure 7A, it can be observed that the Nusselt number decreases from the entrance to the
vicinity of magnets and falls below the no magnetic field curve for x/H between 3 to 4. Then,
the low heat transfer region is followed by a sharp increase of the heat transfer rate and the
maximum Nusselt number occurs approximately at x/H = 5. The reason for the decrease and
increase of ferrofluid convective heat transfer while passing through the magnet pairs can be
explained as follow. As shown in Figure 5 the generated vortex above the bottom surface causes
a successive thickening and shrink of the thermal boundary layer upstream and downstream of
12 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

FIGURE 6 Dimensionless bulk temperature variation along the channel in the presence of (A) two
permanent magnets and (B) four permanent magnets as a function of magnetic field intensity at Re = 170 [Color
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

the magnets, respectively. In these two regions the fluid flow has different directions with
respect to the mean flow. The resulting thickening and shrink of the thermal boundary layer
lead to decrease and increase of heat transfer rate, respectively. Generally, the second effect is
dominant and the average heat transfer is increased due to the applied magnetic field. After this
region, the magnetic field effect vanishes, the thermal boundary layer develops again and the
Nusselt number decreases and coincides to the zero magnetic field curve. In the case of multiple
magnetic field sources, Figure 7B indicates that two rise and falls appear on the Nusselt number
curves corresponding to the double recirculation zones at x = 7.5 and 15 mm, as expected.
However, it can be observed that the Nu variation for B = 1400 differs from that of the lower
magnetic field intensities. This is due to the fact that at this magnetic field intensity the two

FIGURE 7 Local Nusselt number variation in the presence of (A) two permanent magnets and (B) four
permanent magnets as a function of magnetic field intensity at Re = 170 [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH | 13

vortices on the bottom surface merge to form a single large vortex. This causes Nusselt number
to have only one long and huge ups and downs passing the vortex zone. Comparison of
Figures 7A and 7B also indicates that the heat transfer rate for the case of four magnets is higher
than that of two magnets.
Effect of Reynolds number on the flow field and temperature distribution is illustrated in
Figures 8A and 8B for the cases of two and four magnets, respectively.
Figure 8 indicates that the size of the recirculation zones has a reverse relation with the
Reynolds number. The magnetic force is weakened in comparison with the fluidic force as the
Reynolds number increases. Then, the magnetic force is able to slightly deflect the flow upward
and the size of the generated vortex decreases as a consequence.
Figure 9 shows the variation of local Nusselt number at different Reynolds number along the
channel for the case of one and double magnet pairs.
Figure 9 demonstrates that decreasing the Reynolds number causes the curves to deviate further
from the zero magnetic field case (B = 0). The magnetic body force dominates the fluidic force at
lower Reynolds numbers, the vortex zones become larger and results in further increase of the
Nusselt number. It can also be inferred from Figure 9 that the Reynolds number has different effects
on the Nusselt number in the absence and presence of the magnetic field. Increasing Reynolds
number increases the local Nusselt number for the no magnetic field cases by decreasing the thermal
boundary layer thickness. While, increase of the Reynolds number decreases the local Nusselt
number under the influence of the external magnetic field due to the decrease of the vortex size.

FIGURE 8 Flow field and temperature distribution in the presence of (A) two permanent magnets and
(B) four permanent magnets for different Reynolds number at B = 1200 G [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
14 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

FIGURE 9 Local Nusselt number variation in the presence of (A) two permanent magnets and (B) four
permanent magnets as a function of Reynolds number at B = 1200G [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

5.3 | Hydrodynamic performance

The active and passive vortex generators generally augment the heat transfer by increasing the
flow mixing and boundary layer disturbance. The differences arise from the hydrodynamic view
point. That is, the current magnetic vortex generator changes the thermal and velocity fields
without any physical inserts and obstacles in the channel. Therefore, it is expected to cause
lower pressure drop due to the lower fluid‐solid contact area. To investigate the hydrodynamic
performance of the magnetic vortex generator the friction factor and Poiseuille number have
been calculated for the studied cases. Figure 10 shows the variation of local nondimensional
wall shear stress (Po) along the channel at different magnetic intensities.

F I G U R E 1 0 Local Poiseuille number variation in the presence of (A) two permanent magnets and (B) four
permanent magnets as a function of magnetic field intensity at Re = 170 [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH | 15

It should be noted that in Equation (24), the sign of velocity gradient in τw definition has
been retained. Therefore, the sign change of the Poiseuille number from positive to negative
implies the existence of the flow separation. In contrast, the reattachment occurs where the Po
increases from a negative to a positive value. Therefore, there are one and two reattachment
points on each Po curve of Figures 10A and 10B, respectively corresponding to the generated
vortices, as expected. However, the case of B = 1400 G is an exception which shows only twice
Po sign change due to a single large vortex.
Figures 10A and 10B also show that, an increase of the magnetic field intensity increases the
magnitude of the friction coefficient as well as the distance between two reattachment points on
the lower wall. Variation of Po can be explained according to Figures 4. The Po number is
proportional to the wall shear stress thus it decreases with the increase of the hydraulic boundary
layer thickness. Therefore, Po clearly has the highest value at the channel entrance due to the thin
boundary layer. As the ferrofluid approaches the magnets, it is influenced by the localized
magnetic field. The vertical magnetic force causes the fluid to move upward and increase the
boundary layer thickness where the recirculation zone begins. As a result, Po number drops
significantly due to the decreasing solid‐fluid contact. In other words, Based on hydraulic
boundary layer thickness, decreasing and increasing in friction factor occurs where the flow
direction in the vortex zone is upward and downward, respectively. Moreover, the observed
fluctuations on the curves are due to the variation of boundary layer thickness along the vortex
regions as shown in Figure 4. After the vortex regions, the hydraulic boundary layer coincides to
that of zero magnetic field case and Po number decreases in the flow direction. Another important
observation that can be inferred from the comparison between Nusselt number (Nu) and Poiseuille
number (Po) curves, in Figures 7 and 10 is that the reattachment points are exactly the points
where the peaks and minimum values of Nusselt number occur under the effect of magnetic fields.
Figure 11 shows the Poiseuille number variation on the channel wall for different Reynolds
numbers.
According to Figure 11, the magnitude of the friction coefficient decreases with the
increase of the Reynolds number. As stated before, Po is inversely proportional to the velocity

F I G U R E 1 1 Local Poiseuille number variation in the presence of (A) two permanent magnets and (B) four
permanent magnets as a function of Reynolds number at B = 1200G [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
16 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

T A B L E 1 Average Nusselt and Poiseuille numbers and nondimensional bulk temperature at the outlet as a
function of magnetic field intensity for Re = 170

One vortex generator Two vortex generators

B Nu Po θout Nu Po θout
0 14.30 41.96 0.115 14.30 41.96 0.115
400 G 14.31 41.76 0.115 14.41 40.58 0.116
1000 G 14.88 39.85 0.119 15.04 37.80 0.121
1400 G 17.56 37.24 0.138 19.43 30.22 0.151

boundary layer thickness and consequently to the size of the recirculation zone. The size of
the bottom vortex decreases with the Reynolds number, as observed in Figure 8. Therefore,
the deviation of the curves from the no magnetic field case decreases with the Reynolds
number. After passing the recirculation zones, Poiseuille curves rapidly are mapped on to the
base profiles, as expected.

5.4 | Overall performance of the magnetic vortex generator

To determine the overall performance of the ferrofluid in the presence of the magnetic field,
the average Nusselt and Poiseuille numbers, as well as the non‐dimensionalnondimensional
bulk temperature at the outlet, are calculated for all the cases and results are summarized
in Tables 1 and 2 as functions of the magnetic field intensity and Reynolds number,
respectively.
According to Table 1, it is clear that the heat transfer is enhanced under the influence of
magnetic field in comparison with the no magnetic field case. The heat transfer is more
intensified by using two vortex generators. It can also be inferred from Table 1 that the
magnetic field influence on the heat transfer enhancement is more significant at higher
magnetic field intensities. A total of 25.3% and 38.8% enhancement of the average Nusselt
number are obtained for the single and two magnet pairs, respectively. On the other hand,
the average Nusselt number and dimensionless bulk temperature increase slightly with the
Reynolds number, as shown in Table 2. The heat transfer enhancement in the presence of the
magnetic field can be attributed to the resulting vertical magnetic force. That is, the magnetic

T A B L E 2 Average Nusselt and Poiseuille numbers and nondimensional bulk temperature at the outlet as a
function of Reynolds number for B = 1200 G

No source One vortex generator Two vortex generators

Re Nu Po θout Nu Po θout Nu Po θout

150 13.77 41.46 0.126 16.16 37.20 0.144 16.56 30.64 0.147
170 14.32 41.69 0.116 16.09 38.20 0.127 16.43 34.28 0.130
190 14.85 42.44 0.107 15.99 39.26 0.115 16.30 36.60 0.117
210 15.35 42.90 0.101 15.98 40.26 0.105 16.28 38.30 0.106
BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH | 17

force removes the heated fluid near the bottom wall and replaces it with the cold bulk fluid
from center of the channel, as observed in Figures 4 and 5. As an interesting result, Tables 1 and
2 show that the average friction coefficient is decreased in the presence of magnetic field. A
total of 13.2% and 29.18% reduction on average Poiseuille number are achieved for one and two
magnetic vortex generators, respectively.

5.5 | Comparison between the thermal and hydrodynamic

performance of the current vortex generator and other active
and passive vortex generators

As mentioned before, the current vortex generator uses permanent magnets for the
generation of the magnetic field. The vortex region created by the permanent magnets can
be generated similarly either by inserting a baffle in the channel42 or applying the magnetic
field of a line dipole.32 To evaluate the advantages of using permanent magnets over the
other methods, a comparison has been made on the hydrodynamic and thermal
performances of these vortex generators. Figure 12 illustrates the ferrofluid velocity and
temperature distributions obtained separately by a 1 mm (w) × 1.5 mm (h) baffle, a pair of
permanent magnets with B = 1200 G, and a magnetic line dipole with m = 0.28 A/m located
at x = 15 mm for Re = 170.
The vortices observed in Figure 12 originate from different mechanisms. The baffle acts like
an obstacle that prevents the fluid flow and deflects the streamlines to the top surface. On the
other hand, the nonuniform magnetic field and the temperature dependent magnetic
susceptibility that lead to the nonuniform magnetic force is the main reason for vortex
generation by the magnetic dipole. The magnetic field generated by the pair of permanent
magnets is uniform. However, the resulting upward magnetic force from the temperature
gradient is responsible for the formation of the recirculation zone. All the vortex generation
methods cause the thermal boundary layer disruption as well as an increase of the flow mixing.
Comparison between the parameters of nondimensional bulk temperature, local Nusselt
number, and local Poiseuille number obtained by using the permanents magnets, baffle, and the
magnetic dipole is shown in Figure 13A‐C, respectively.
Figure 13A indicates that all the vortex generators cause the significant augmentation of the
nondimensional bulk temperature. However, the permanent magnets are shown to be more
effective.
The Nusselt and Poiseuille number curves obtained for permanent magnets, baffle, and
magnetic dipole have different rise and falls with respect to the case of no vortex generator. The
Nusselt number variation is due to the different effects of the vortex generators on the thermal
boundary layer thickness. The decrease and increase of the local Nusselt number imply the
increase and decrease of the thermal boundary layer thickness, respectively. From the
hydrodynamic view point, the baffle has caused a sudden increase of the pressure drop, in
contrast to the other methods. This is due to the horizontal force exerted to the fluid flow in
opposite flow direction.42
The permanent magnet clearly has the most favorable effect on the pressure drop due to the
upward magnetic force that deflects the ferrofluid to the upper surface and decreases the
contact between the fluid and bottom surface. In this case, the magnetic field has a similar drag
reducing effect to that of the like blowing condition on the bottom surface.43 The overall effects
of the vortex generators on the main dimensionless parameters are summarized in Table 3.
18 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

FIGURE 12 A, Flow pattern and velocity distribution streamlines and (B) temperature distribution for the
cases of baffle, magnets, and dipole at Re = 170 [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Comparison of the average Nusselt number and the dimensionless bulk temperature at the
outlet shows that although all the methods improve the heat transfer rate, using permanent
magnets is much more beneficial. Moreover, permanent magnets result in a considerable
decrease of the pressure drop in contrast to the other two methods which increase the pressure
drop.

6 | C ON C LU S I O N

A magnetic vortex generator has been presented based on using magnetic nanofluid under the
influence of permanent magnets. It can be utilized in the design of more efficient and compact
heat sinks and heat exchangers. The hydrodynamic and heat transfer performance of the
current vortex generator has been investigated numerically at different Reynolds numbers,
volume fractions, and magnetic field intensities and compared with those of a baffle and
magnetic dipole as passive and active vortex generators, respectively. The following concluding
remarks have been obtained.

• The permanent magnets cause a significant heat transfer enhancement by creating

recirculation zones and changing the flow pattern in the studied mini channel.
• In contrast to the other passive and active vortex generators such as baffle and magnetic
dipole, the obtained heat transfer enhancement is accompanied by a decrease of the pressure
drop due to the flow separation and decrease of the flow contact with the surface.
BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH | 19

F I G U R E 1 3 A, Dimensionless bulk temperature, (B) local Nusselt number, and (C) local Poiseuille number
variation obtained by using baffle, dipole, and magnets at Re = 170 [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

• Increasing the magnetic field intensity, decreasing the flow rate, and adding a second vortex
generator are shown to have favorable effects on the pressure drop and heat transfer.
• A maximum of 37.8% enhancement of heat transfer with a 29.18% reduction of pressure drop
have been achieved for the optimum condition in the presence of two magnetic field sources.

T A B L E 3 Comparison between the main nondimensional parameters obtained by three different vortex
generators at Re = 170

Nu Po θout
Simple 14.32 41.96 0.1155
Baffle 14.45 73.62 0.1164
Dipole 14.86 51.58 0.1193
Magnets 16.09 38.20 0.1270
20 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

NOMEN C LAT U RE
B magnetic flux density (N · A−1 · m−1)
Cp specific heat (kj · kg−1 · K−1)
D hydraulic diameter (m)
f friction coefficient
FK Kelvin body force (N/m3)
h local heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 · K)
H magnetic field intensity (A · m−1), channels height (m)
k thermal conductivity (W · m−1 · K−1)
L channel length (m)
M magnetization(A · m−1)
n normal direction
Nu Nusselt number
Nu̅ ( 1 s
average Nusselt number s ∫0 Nudx )
P pressure drop (Pa)
Po Poiseuille number
Po̅
q″
average Poiseuille number μLU
heat flux (W/m2)
( )
ΔP . D2
in

Re Reynolds number
S magnets distance (m)
T temperature (K)
u velocity in x direction (m · s−1)
v velocity in y direction(m · s−1)
x, y directions

GREEK S YMBOL S
ϕ volume fraction
τ shear stress (Pa)
θ nondimensional temperature
χm magnetic susceptibility
χ0 differential magnetic Susceptibility (0.06)
ρ density (kg/m3)
μ dynamic viscosity (N · s/m2)
μ0 permeability of free space (4π × 10−7 N/A2)
β fraction of the liquid volume (k−1)
δ Kronecker delta

S U BS C RI P T S
b bulk
f fluid
in inlet
nf nanofluid
np nanoparticle
s solid
w bottom surface
0 at reference (300 K)
BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH | 21

ORCID
Mohammad Goharkhah http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1079-8437

REFERENCES
1. Sachdeva G, Kasana KS, Vasudevan R. Heat transfer enhancement by using a rectangular wing vortex
generator on the triangular shaped fins of a plate‐fin heat exchanger. Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2010;39(3):
151‐165.
2. Gupta M, Kasana KS. Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement and fluid flow with inline common‐
flow‐down vortex generators in a plate‐fin heat exchanger. Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2012;41(3):272‐288.
3. Gu X, Dong X, Liu M, Wang Y. Numerical research on heat transfer and flow resistance performance of
specially‐shaped rod baffle heat exchangers. Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2012;41(1):1‐9.
4. Nie JH, Chen YT, Hsieh HT. Effects of a baffle on separated convection flow adjacent to backward‐facing
step. Int J Therm Sci. 2009;48:618‐625.
5. Ahmed HE, Yusoff MZ, Hawlader MNA, Ahmed MI. Numerical analysis of heat transfer and nanofluid flow
in a triangular duct with vortex generator: two‐phase model. Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2016;45(3):264‐284.
6. Tanaka T, Itoh M, Hatada T, Matsushima H. Influence of inclination angle, attack angle, and arrangement of
rectangular vortex generators on heat transfer performance. Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2003;32(3):253‐267.
7. Althaher MA, Abdul‐Rassol AA, Ahmed HE, Mohammed HA. Turbulent heat transfer enhancement in a
triangular duct using delta‐winglet vortex generators. Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2012;41(1):43‐62.
8. Inaoka Kyoji, Uezu Hitoshi, Suzuki Kenjiro. Heat transfer enhancement of turbulent duct flow by vortex
generators attached to a large eddy break‐up manipulator. Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 1999;28(3):189‐200.
9. Li L, Du X, Zhang Y, Yang L, Yang Y. Numerical simulation on flow and heat transfer of fin‐and‐tube heat
exchanger with longitudinal vortex generators. Int J Therm Sci. 2015;92:85‐96.
10. Song K, Wang L. Effects of longitudinal vortex interaction on periodically developed flow and heat transfer
of fin‐and‐tube heat exchanger. Int J Therm Sci. 2016;109:206‐216.
11. Liang G, Islam MD, Kharoua N, Simmons R. Numerical study of heat transfer and flow behavior in a
circular tube fitted with varying arrays of winglet vortex generators. Int J Therm Sci. 2018;134:54‐65.
12. Oneissi M, Habchi C, Russeil S, Bougeard D, Lemenand T. Novel design of delta winglet pair vortex
generator for heat transfer enhancement. Int J Therm Sci. 2016;109:1‐9.
13. Kamali MA, Aminfar H, Mohammadpourfard M, Jahanshaloo L. Numerical investigation of nonuniform
transverse magnetic field effects on the flow and heat transfer of magnetic nanofluid in a sintered porous
channel. Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2019;48:3790‐3811.
14. Taheri MH, Mohammadpourfard M, Sadaghiani AK, Kosar A. Wettability alterations and magnetic field effects
on the nucleation of magnetic nanofluids: a molecular dynamics simulation. J Mol Liq. 2018;260:209‐220.
15. Mohammadpourfard M. Numerical study of ferrofluid flow and heat transfer in the presence of a non‐
uniform magnetic field in rectangular microchannels. Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2012;41(4):302‐317.
16. Vinod S, Philip J. Experimental evidence for the significant role of initial cluster size and liquid confinement
on thermo‐physical properties of magnetic nanofluids under applied magnetic field. J Mol Liq. 2018;257:1‐11.
17. Sheikholeslami M, Rashidi MM, Ganji DD. Numerical investigation of magnetic nanofluid forced convective
heat transfer in existence of variable magnetic field using two phase model. J Mol Liq. 2015;212:117‐126.
18. Mehryan SAM, Izadi M, Chamkha AJ, Sheremet MA. Natural convection and entropy generation of a ferrofluid
in a square enclosure under the effect of a horizontal periodic magnetic field. J Mol Liq. 2018;263:510‐525.
19. Amani M, Ameri M, Kasaeian A. Hydrothermal assessment of ferrofluids in a metal foam tube under low‐
frequency magnetic field. Int J Therm Sci. 2018;127:242‐251.
20. Wang CC, Chen CK. Mixed convection boundary layer flow on inclined wavy plates including the magnetic
field effect. Int J Therm Sci. 2005;44:577‐586.
21. Scherer C, Figueriedo Neto AM. Ferrofluids: properties and applications. Braz J Phys. 2005;35:718‐727.
22. Motozawa M, Chang J, Sawada T, Kawaguchi Y. Effect of magnetic field on heat transfer in rectangular duct
flow of a magnetic fluid. Phys Procedia. 2010;9:190‐193.
22 | BEZAATPOUR AND GOHARKHAH

23. Goharkhah M, Salarian A, Ashjaee M, Shahabadi M. Convective heat transfer characteristics of magnetite
nanofluid under the influence of constant and alternating magnetic field. Powder Technol. 2015;274:258‐267.
24. Li Q, Xuan Y. Experimental investigation on heat transfer characteristics of magnetic fluid flow around a
fine wire under the influence of an external magnetic field. Exp Therm Fluid Sci. 2009;33:591‐596.
25. Ghofrani A, Dibaei MH, Hakim Sima A, Shafii MB. Experimental investigation on laminar forced convection
heat transfer of ferrofluids under an alternating magnetic field. Exp Therm Fluid Sci. 2013;49:193‐200.
26. Sadeghinezhad E, Mehrali M, Akhiani AR, et al. Experimental study on heat transfer augmentation of
graphene based ferrofluids in presence of magnetic field. Appl Therm Eng. 2017;114:415‐427.
27. Esmaeili E, Ghazanfar Chaydareh R, Rounaghi SA. The influence of the alternating magnetic field on the
convective heat transfer properties of Fe3O4‐containing nanofluids through the Neel and Brownian
mechanisms. Appl Therm Eng. 2017;110:1212‐1219.
28. Sheikholeslami M, Rashidi MM, Ganji DD. Effect of non‐uniform magnetic field on forced convection heat
transfer of Fe3O4‐water nanofluid. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2015;294:299‐312.
29. Malekan M, Khosravi A, Zhao X. The influence of magnetic field on heat transfer of magnetic nanofluid in a
double pipe heat exchanger proposed in a small‐scale CAES system. Appl Therm Eng. 2019;146:146‐159.
30. Ganguly R, Sen S, Puri IK. Thermomagnetic convection in a square enclosure using a line dipole. Phys
Fluids. 2004;16:2228‐2236.
31. Sheikholeslami M, Vajravelu K, Rashidi MM. Forced convection heat transfer in a semi annulus under the
influence of a variable magnetic field. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2016;92:339‐348.
32. Ganguly R, Sen S, Puri IK. Heat transfer augmentation using a magnetic fluid under the influence of a line
dipole. J Magn Magn Mater. 2004;271:63‐73.
33. Strek T, Jopek H. Computer simulation of heat transfer through a ferrofluid. Phys Status Solidi. 2007;244:
1027‐1037.
34. Goharkhah M, Ashjaee M. Effect of an alternating nonuniform magnetic field on ferrofluid flow and heat
transfer in a channel. J Magn Magn Mater. 2014;362:80‐89.
35. Ghorbani B, Ebrahimi S, Vijayaraghavan K. CFD modeling and sensitivity analysis of heat transfer
enhancement of a ferrofluid flow in the presence of a magnetic field. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2018;127:544‐552.
36. Fadaei F, Molaei Dehkordi A, Shahrokhi M, Abbasi Z. Convective‐heat transfer of magnetic‐sensitive
nanofluids in the presence of rotating magnetic field. Appl Therm Eng. 2017;116:329‐343.
37. Bezaatpour M, Goharkhah M. Effect of magnetic field on the hydrodynamic and heat transfer of magnetite
ferrofluid flow in a porous fin heat sink. J Magn Magn Mater. 2019;476:506‐515.
38. Bezaatpour M, Goharkhah M. A novel heat sink design for simultaneous heat transfer enhancement and
pressure drop reduction utilizing porous fins and magnetite ferrofluid. Int J Numer Methods Heat Fluid Flow.
2019;29:3128‐3147.
39. Koo J, Kleinstreuer C. A new thermal conductivity model for nanofluids. J Nanoparticle Res. 2004;6:577‐588.
40. Bezaatpour M, Goharkhah M. Three dimensional simulation of hydrodynamic and heat transfer behavior of
magnetite nanofluid flow in circular and rectangular channel heat sinks filled with porous media. Powder
Technol. 2019;344:68‐78.
41. Ashjaee M, Goharkhah M, Khadem LA, Ahmadi R. Effect of magnetic field on the forced convection heat
transfer and pressure drop of a magnetic nanofluid in a miniature heat sink. Heat Mass Transf. 2015;51:953‐964.
42. Baheri Islami S, Dastvareh B, Gharraei R. An investigation on the hydrodynamic and heat transfer of
nanofluid flow, with non‐Newtonian base fluid, in micromixers. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2014;78:917‐929.
43. Al‐Sanea SA. Mixed convection heat transfer along a continuously moving heated vertical plate with suction
or injection. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2004;47:1445‐1465.

How to cite this article: Bezaatpour M, Goharkhah M. A magnetic vortex generator for
simultaneous heat transfer enhancement and pressure drop reduction in a mini channel.
Heat Transfer—Asian Res. 2020;1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/htj.21658