See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316600533

Characterization and performance of

nanofluids in plate heat exchanger

Conference Paper April 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 34

3 authors, including:

Vikas Kumar Arun Kumar Tiwari

GLA University GLA University
6 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 424 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vikas Kumar on 01 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 40704078 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

5th International Conference of Materials Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016)

Characterization and performance of nanofluids in plate heat

exchanger
Vikas Kumara,b *, Arun Kumar Tiwarib, Subrata Kumar Ghosha
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering,Indian School of Mines,Dhanbad 826004,Jharkhand, India
b
Departmnet of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Engineering and Technology, GLA University, Mathura 281406,Uttar Pradesh,India

Abstract

In the present study, the authors emphasized on characterization, heat transfer and exergetic performance of nanofluid in plate
heat exchanger (PHE) experimentally. The characterization of nanofluid incorporates the systematic measurement of
thermophysical properties of nanofluids. The heat transfer performance incorporate the heat transfer rate, convective heat transfer
coefficient, pumping power, exergy loss and exergetic efficiency of nanofluids. In this work, two types of nanofluids namely
CeO2/water and ZnO/water are employed. The experimental outcomes are compared with water and between nanofluids. The
experimental results revealed the best heat transfer performance is shown by ZnO/water nanofluid. The volume concentration of
the nanofluids varied from 0.5 - 2.0%. Flow rate of coolant varied from 0.5.0-2.0 lpm at 2 lpm of hot fluid. The inlet
temperatures of cold and hot fluid are 25 C and 50 C respectively.

2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Conference Committee Members of 5th International Conference of Materials
Processing and Characterization (ICMPC 2016).

Keywords:Plate heat exchnager, Nanofluid, thermal conductivity, heat transfer coefficient, exergy loss.

1. Introduction
The PHEs are combination of a pack of metal plates with corrugations. Each plate is designed with a port holes at
their ends to facilitate the passage of the working fluids media, between which heat transfer takes place. These plates
are assembled together between a frame plate (fixed) and a pressure plate (movable) and tightening bolts to

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91- 9651280776

E-mail address: vikaskumar.iitbhu@gmail.com

2214-7853 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Conference Committee Members of 5th International Conference of Materials Processing and
Characterization (ICMPC 2016).
 V. Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 40704078 4071

compress it. Each plate is equipped with a bordering gasket to fasten the plates channel to avoid the leakage. The
flow pattern of flowing fluid (i.e. hot and cold) is alternate in channels to create counter flow. The function of
corrugation of the plates to develop the turbulence between working fluids and also increases the strength of the
plate pack [1, 2]. The PHEs are widely used in chemical industries, food processing plants, power plants and central
cooling systems. The advantage of using PHE are their excellent heat transfer performance, compact design and
provides facility of alteration of the heat transfer area simply by addition or removal of the plates. There are so
many different types of corrugation are used in practical applications depending upon the heat transfer requirement.
The most commonly used corrugation type in PHE is chevron type. The corrugation of the plate provides a swirl
motion to the working fluids in chevron type. The corrugation angle , (i.e. chevron angle) ranges from 25 to 65.
On the basis of chevron angle, the performance of PHE is calculated in terms of heat transfer and the pressure drop.
The Corrugated plate shows higher heat transfer rates than plain ones. This happens due to increased surface area
and enhanced turbulence.
The main idea of suspending the nanoparticles in base fluid is developed by Choi [3] at Argonne National
Laboratory (ANL) laboratory, USA in 1995. The nanofluids are a potential coolant due to its superior
thermophysical properties over base fluids. The investigations on heat transfer performance using nanofluids in PHE
have been done by an umpteen number of researchers [4-14]. Alumina/water and ZnO/water nanofluids were
employed as a coolant in a PHE to study the heat transfer rate and pressure drop by Kwon et al. [15]. Their
outcomes revealed that nanofluid is not beneficial for augmenting the heat transfer. Pantzali et al. [16] employed
CuO/water nanofluids (4 vol. %) to analyze the its performance in a PHE and suggest that effectiveness of
nanofluids is affected by flow nature of coolant inside the PHE. Vajjha and Das [17] studied various nanofluids,
such as, alumina, silica and copper oxide with mixture of EG/Water (60/40) as a base fluid and concluded that as
the nanoparticle concentration increased, the specific heat capacity decreased. To study the thermal conductivity
(TC) and viscosity of nanofluids in terms of its temperatures, an umpteen number of investigation has been
performed by the numerous authors [12, 18-23]. Their outcomes show that nanofluid increases the thermal
conductivity and viscosity.
The major aim of the present study is to characterize nanofluids and investigate the performance of heat transfer rate
(HTR), heat transfer coefficient (HTC), pumping power and exergy loss and exergetic efficiency of CeO2/water and
ZnO/water nanofluid with variety of concentrations of nanofluid for different operating conditions experimentally.
Further these results are compared with each nanofluid for selecting one as a better nanofluid.

2. Experimental investigations
2.1. Synthesis of nanofluids
Firstly, water based nanofluids of desired concentrations (i.e. 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 vol. %) were prepared.
Further, the ultrasonification of nanofluids has been done for uniform dispersion of nanoparticles. The nanofluid is
subjected to ultrasonication process for breaking the agglomerated nanoparticles by employing a vibrator which
generates the ultrasonic pulses of 100W at 36 3 kHz .It should be noted that there is no sedimentation found
during the experimentation. The required thermophysical properties (i.e. thermal conductivity, viscosity, density
and specific heat) of nanofluid have been measured before conducting the experiment. The process of measurement
of thermophysical properties of aforementioned nanofluids are same as to previous investigation performed by
Tiwari et al.[24].

2.2. Experimental test rig and method

To perform the experiment, an experimental apparatus has been designed to probe in to heat transfer
performance of PHE for different operating conditions. The PHE, used in this experimentation, has purchased from
Alfa Laval India Limited. The model of CPHE is M3 FG. The operational data like design pressure is 10 bar, test
pressure and design temperature 13 bar and 100C respectively. The material of plate is SA 240 GR.316 with 0.5
mm thickness. The shape of corrugation in plates is chevron with 60 angle. The area of heat exchanger is 1.3 m2.
The detail geometrical data is given in Table No. 1. The schematic and photograph of experimental apparatus is
depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig.2 respectively.
4072 V. Kumar et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 40704078

Fig. 1. Schematic of Experimental test rig

The experimental test rig mainly consists of two fluid loops. The cold fluid loop and hot fluid loop. The cold fluid
loop comprises four components i.e. nanofluid tank (25 litre volumes), gear pump, gate valve and Coriollis flow
meter. Here, the nanofluid is working as cold fluid/coolant. Similarly, the hot fluid loop incorporates the DM water
tank (25 litre volume) with 4 kW heater, hot fluid pump, gate valve and flow meter. Water is working fluid in this
loop. There was proper insulation to minimize the heat loss.
In this experimentation, first of all we prepare the nanofluid solution of requisite concentration and fill it nanofluid
tank. Afterward the hot water is filled in DM water tank. The inlet temperature of nanofluid and hot DM water is set
by human machine interface (HMI). The desired inlet temperatures are 25C and 50C for nanofluid and hot DM
water respectively. The volume flow rates are set by Coriollis flow meter. Experimental unit run till to set
temperature of DM water and nanofluid is achieved. In this experiment there are four port temperatures for PHE
automatically displayed on the screen of HMI under steady state condition. Pressure between entrance and exit port
of the PHE for hot DM water and nanofluid is recorded manually by Pressure indicators. The volume flow rate of
nanofluid has been varied from 1.0 3.0 lpm while the volume flow rate of hot DM water is kept constant at 3 lpm.
 V. Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 40704078 4073

Fig. 2. Photograph of experimental test rig.

3. Data Analysis
Based on temperatures of hot and cold (nanofluid/cold water) fluid at outlet the HTR, HTC, pumping power,
exergy loss and exergetic efficiency of both nanofluids are calculated. The procedure of heat transfer and exergy
loss calculation is similar to that of investigation carried out by Tiwari et al. [24, 25] and Khairul et al. [8].
4. Results and discussion
Fig.3 displays the changes of the experimental measured values of thermal conductivity (TC) of CeO2/water and
ZnO/water nanofluid with different temperatures (i.e. 25.0C, 30.0C, 35.0C, 40.0C, 45.0C and 50.0C) for 3.0
vol. %. The measurement of TC of nanofluid has been done by thermal analyzer (KD2 Pro-thermal analyzer,
Decagon Company) with the help of transient hot wire method experimentally. It is seen that the value of TC of both
of nanofluids increases with increasing the temperature due to Brownian motion. It has been experimentally
observed that the enhancements in TC of ZnO/water nanofluid is more than CeO2/water nanofluid and water for all
temperature range at 0.5 vol. %. There are approximately 1.61%, 1.76%, 1.97%, 2.38%, 4.56% and 5.29%
enhancement in TC of ZnO/water nanofluid as compared to CeO2/water nanofluid for temperature 25.0C, 30.0C,
35.0C, 40.0C, 45.0C and 50.0C respectively.

Fig. 3. Variation of measured value of TC as a function of temperature.

4074 V. Kumar et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 40704078

The variation of viscosity of nanofluids in terms of temperature is depicted in Fig.5. In the present work, viscosity
of nanofluid are measured at 25.0C, 30.0C,35.0C,40.0C,45.0C and 50.0C experimentally. It is clear from Fig.
4, the viscosity of the nanofluid is increasing with the temperature nanofluid. The highest viscosity is recorded by
the CeO2/water nanofluid followed by ZnO/water nanofluid and water. The enhancements in viscosity for
ZnO/water nanofluid are calculated as 15.18%, 12.34%, 11.91%, 9.64%, 6.89% and 9.61% for 25.0C, 30.0C,
35.0C, 40.0C, 45.0C and 50.0 C at 0.5% vol. concentration as compared to water.

Fig.4. Effect of temperature on experimental measured viscosity.

The experiment was carried out in wide range concentrations (i.e. 0.5 vol. % - 2.0 vol. %) of CeO2 - water and
ZnO/water nanofluid with distinct flow rate of nanofluids (i.e. 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2 lpm) keeping hot water volume
flow rate constant at 2 lpm. The variation of HTR with volume flow rate of coolant is depicted in Fig. 5. The
augmentations in the HTR of ZnO/water nanofluid are 3.69%, 5.12%, 4.29% and 3.42% for 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 lpm
of coolant (cold water/nanofluid) respectively as compared to CeO2/water nanofluid. Further, these augmentations in
HTR for 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 lpm of coolant are approximately 14.66%, 13.37%, 17.28% and 20.17% respectively
as compared to water.

Fig.5. Comparison of HTR of water with different nanofluids.

 V. Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 40704078 4075

The effect of volume flow rate on the HTC of CeO2/water and ZnO/water nanofluid is obtained and has shown in
Fig. 6. For given condition, ZnO/water nanofluid shows best performance in terms of HTC. The enhancements in
HTC of ZnO/water nanofluid are 11.77%, 8.40%, 9.31% and 12.79% more than CeO2/water. Likewise for the same
nanofluid, the enhancements are 24.49%, 22.63%, 24.65% and 28.25% more than water.

Fig.6. Comparison of HTC of water with different nanofluids.

The changes in pumping power as a function of volume flow rate of nanofluids and water is presented in Fig. 7. It
has been observed that pumping power sharply increasing accordingly to volume flow rates of nanofluid and water.
This happen due to increased viscosity. The pumping power is lowest with water and highest for CeO2/water
nanofluid. The ZnO/water nanofluid requires lesser pumping power with respect to CeO2/water nanofluid. Thus, it
might be favourable for using ZnO/water in heat transfer application. Moreover, the pumping power in ZnO/water
nanofluid decreases by 21.32%, 19.51%, 10.95% and 9.39 % with respect to CeO2/water nanofluid for flow rates
0.5, 1.0, 1.5and 2.0 lpm respectively

Fig.7. Comparison of pumping power of water with different nanofluids.

4076 V. Kumar et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 40704078

Fig. 8 illustrates the variation of the exergy loss along with volume flow rates of nanofluids and water. It is observed
that water shows the highest exergy loss as compared to nanofluid for all operating conditions. The reduction in
exergy loss of ZnO/water nanofluid is found about 5.81%, 3.57%, 4.39% and 6.43% less for 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 lpm
respectively as compared to CeO2/water nanofluid. However, this reduction in exergy loss of ZnO/water nanofluid
are 15.15%, 10.84%, 11.16% and 11.12 % less as compared to water for 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 lpm volume flow
rate respectively.

Fig.8. Variation of exergy loss with volume flow rates of water and different nanofluids.

Fig. 9 represents the plots of exergetic efficiency or second law efficiency with respect to coolant volume flow rates
water and nanofluids for distinct operating condition. The exergetic efficiency (i.e. second law efficiency) of
corrugated type PHE decreases with increasing volume flow rate. The exergetic efficiency is highest with
ZnO/water followed by CeO2/water and water for given volume flow rate and 0.5 % vol. concentration of
nanofluids. The highest value of exergetic efficiency for ZnO/water are 8.24%, 10.58%, 12.67% and 17.85% for 0.5
vol. % concentration at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 lpm flow rates of volume with respect to CeO2/water nanofluid
respectively.

Fig.9. Variation of exergetic efficiency with volume flow rates of water and different nanofluids.
 V. Kumar et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 40704078 4077

4. Conclusion

The present experimental study focused on the benefits of using ZnO/water nanofluid over CeO2/water nanofluid
and water in a PHE. The temperatures of hot fluid (water) and cold fluid (water/nanofluids) at inlet are fixed at 50C
and 25C respectively. Similarly the volume flow rates of hot fluid are held fixed at 2 lpm whilst flow rates of
nanofluids varied. It is found that ZnO/water nanofluid shows outstanding performance in terms its TC and
viscosity. Its TC is highest and viscosity is lowest between water and CeO2/water nanofluid. As a result, the heat
transfer and exergetic performance of ZnO/water nanofluid are better than CeO2/water nanofluid and water. The
outcomes revealed that, ZnO/water nanofluid at volume flow rate 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 lpm could increase the HTR
and HTC about 3.69%, 5.12%, 4.29% and 3.42% and 11.77%, 8.40%, 9.31% and 12.79% respectively with
compared to CeO2/water nanofluid. Besides, a significant lower pumping power is observed for ZnO/water
nanofluid. However, the results reveal that, ZnO/water nanofluid could reduce the exergy loss 5.81%, 3.57%, 4.39%
and 6.43% for entire range of volume flow rates compared to CeO2/water nanofluid. Therefore, we concluded that
overall performances of ZnO/water nanofluid is better than water and CeO2/water nanofluid for all operating
conditions being considered in this experimental work.

References

[1] F.C.C. Galeazzo, R.Y. Miura, J.A.W. Gut, C.C. Tadini. Experimental and numerical heat transfer in a plate heat exchanger. Chem Eng Sci. 61
(2006) 71338.
[2] J.H. Lin, C.Y. Huang, C.C. Su. Dimensional analysis for the heat transfer characteristics in the corrugated channels of plate heat exchangers.
Int Commun Heat Mass 34 (2007) 30412.
[3] S. Choi. Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles, in Developments and Applications of Non-Newtonian Flows. ASME
FED 231/ MD 66. (1995 ) 99103.
[4] H.A. Mohammed, G. Bhaskaran, N.H. Shuaib, H.I. Abu-Mulaweh. Influence of nanofluids on parallel flow square microchannel heat
exchanger performance. Int Commu Heat Mass Transfer. 38 (2011) 1-9.
[5] R. Lotfi, A.M. Rashidi, A. Amrollahi. Experimental study on the heat transfer enhancement of MWNT-water nanofluid in a shell and tube heat
exchanger. Int Commu Heat Mass Transfer. 39 (2012) 108-11.
[6] S.D. Pandey, V.K. Nema. Experimental analysis of heat transfer and friction factor of nanofluid as a coolant in a corrugated plate heat
exchanger. Exp Therm Fluid Sci. 38 (2012) 248-56.
[7] V. Kumar, A.K. Tiwari, S.K. Ghosh. Application of nanofluids in plate heat exchanger: A review. Energy Convers Manage. 105 (2015) 1017-
36.
[8] M.A. Khairul, M.A. Alim, I.M. Mahbubul, R. Saidur, A. Hepbasli, A. Hossain. Heat transfer performance and exergy analyses of a corrugated
plate heat exchanger using metal oxide nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass. 50 (2014) 814.
[9] A. Zamzamian, S.N. Oskouie, A. Doosthoseini, A. Joneidi, M. Pazouki. Experimental investigation of forced convective heat transfer
coefficient in nanofluids of Al2O3/EG and CuO/EG in a double pipe and plate heat exchangers under turbulent flow. Exp Therm Fluid Sci. 35
(2011) 495502.
[10] M.H. Fard, M.R. Talaie, S. Nasr. Numerical and experimental investigation of heat transfer of ZnO/water nanofluid in the concentric tube
and plate heat exchangers. Therm Sci. 5 (2011) 183-94.
[11] T. Mar, S. Halelfadl, O. Sow, P. Estell, S. Duret, F. Bazantay. Comparison of the thermal performances of two nanofluids at low
temperature in a plate heat exchanger. Exp Therm Fluid Sci. 35 (2011) 153543.
[12] K. Anoop, J. Cox, R. Sadr. Thermal evaluation of nanofluids in heat exchangers. Int Commun Heat Mass. 49 (2013) 59.
[13] A.E. Kabeel, T.A. El Maaty, Y. El Samadony. The effect of using nano-particles on corrugated plate heat exchanger performance. Appl
Therm Eng. 52 (2013) 2219.
[14] D.R. Ray, D.K. Das, R.S. Vajjha. Experimental and numerical investigations of nanofluids performance in a compact minichannel plate heat
exchanger. Int J Heat Mass Transfer. 71 (2014) 73246.
[15] Y.H. Kwon, D. Kim, C. Li, J. Lee, D. Hong. Heat transfer and pressure drop characteristics of nanofluids in a plate heat exchanger J Nanosci
and Nanotech. 11 (2011) 576974.
[16] M.N. Pantzali, A.A. Mouza, S.V. Paras. Investigating the efficacy of nanofluids as coolants in plate heat exchangers (PHE). Chem Eng Sci
64 (2009) 3290300.
[17] R.S. Vajjha, D.K. Das. Specific heat measurement of three nanofluids and development of new correlations. ASME, J Heat Transfer. 131
(2009) 0716017.
[18] A. Karimi, M. Amin Abdolahi Sadatlu, B. Saberi, H. Shariatmadar, M. Ashjaee. Experimental investigation on thermal conductivity of water
based nickel ferrite nanofluids. Adv Powder Technol. (2015).
[19] A. Huminic, G. Huminic, C. Fleaca, F. Dumitrache, I. Morjan. Thermal conductivity, viscosity and surface tension of nanofluids based on
FeC nanoparticles. Powder Technology. 284 (2015) 78-84.
4078 V. Kumar et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 4 (2017) 40704078

[20] M. Hemmat Esfe, A. Karimipour, W.-M. Yan, M. Akbari, M.R. Safaei, M. Dahari. Experimental study on thermal conductivity of ethylene
glycol based nanofluids containing Al2O3 nanoparticles. Int J Heat Mass Transfer. 88 (2015) 728-34.
[21] L. Syam Sundar, E. Venkata Ramana, M.K. Singh, A.C.M. Sousa. Thermal conductivity and viscosity of stabilized ethylene glycol and water
mixture Al2O3 nanofluids for heat transfer applications: An experimental study. Int Commu Heat Mass Transfer. 56 (2014) 86-95.
[22] L. Syam Sundar, M.K. Singh, A.C.M. Sousa. Investigation of thermal conductivity and viscosity of Fe3O4 nanofluid for heat transfer
applications. Int Commu Heat Mass Transfer. 44 (2013) 7-14.
[23] H. Li, L. Wang, Y. He, Y. Hu, J. Zhu, B. Jiang. Experimental investigation of thermal conductivity and viscosity of ethylene glycol based
ZnO nanofluids. Applied Thermal Engineering. 88 (2015) 363-8.
[24] A.K. Tiwari, P. Ghosh, J. Sarkar. Performance comparison of the plate heat exchanger using different nanofluids. Exp Therm Fluid Sci. 49
(2013) 14151.
[25] A.K. Tiwari, P. Ghosh, J. Sarkar. Combined energy and exergy analysis of a corrugated plate heat exchanger and experimental investigation.
Int J Exergy. 15 (2014) 395-411.

View publication stats