See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260608912

Comparison of single and two-phase models

for nanofluid convection at the entrance of a
uniformly heated tube

Article in International Journal of Thermal Sciences · June 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2014.01.014

CITATIONS READS

37 669

3 authors, including:

Kunt Atalık Hakan Erturk

Bogazici University Bogazici University
22 PUBLICATIONS 170 CITATIONS 65 PUBLICATIONS 293 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Thin Films and Coatings with Spectral Alteration for Energy Applications View project

Numerical Thermal Characterization of Water-hBN Nanofluids View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hakan Erturk on 17 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Thermal Sciences

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

Comparison of single and two-phase models for nanofluid convection

at the entrance of a uniformly heated tube
Sinan Göktepe, Kunt Atalık, Hakan Ertürk*
aziçi University Istanbul, Turkey
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bog

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

Article history: Macroscopic modeling of hydrodynamic and thermal behavior of nanofluid flows at the entry region of
Received 12 February 2013 uniformly heated pipe is studied. Single-phase models with and without thermal dispersion effect,
Received in revised form EulerianeEulerian, and EulerianeMixture two-phase models are evaluated by comparing predicted
8 November 2013
convective heat transfer coefficients and friction factors with experimental results from literature. So-
Accepted 14 January 2014
lutions with two different velocityepressure coupling algorithms, Full Multiphase Coupled, and Phase
Available online
Coupled Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure Linked Equations are also compared in terms of accuracy and
computational cost. Dispersion model that uses velocity gradient to define dispersion conductivity is
Keywords:
Nanofluids
found to be more effective at entry region compared to other single-phase models. However, two-phase
Single-phase models predict convective heat transfer coefficient and friction factor more accurately at the entry re-
Two-phase gion. Moreover, computational cost of EulerianeEulerian two-phase model can be reduced up to 50% by
Heat transfer enhancement implementing Full Multiphase Coupled scheme.
Laminar flow Ó 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Forced convection
Full multiphase coupled

1. Introduction nanoparticles to a base fluid, augments convective heat transfer

Engineered fluids made of a base fluid and nano sized particles
such as CuO, Al2O3, or TiO2 [1] that form colloidal suspensions are
referred as nanofluids [2]. The most commonly used base fluids are
water and ethylene glycol due to their use in conventional thermal
systems. Measured thermal conductivities of nanofluids are found
to be exceeding predictions based on the Maxwell’s effective me-
dium theory that led many researchers to consider nanofluids as
next generation heat transfer fluids [3]. Therefore, nanofluids are
considered for many engineering applications such as, cooling of
electronics [4,5], vehicle thermal management [6], and solar energy
systems [7,8]. Design and analysis of such systems necessitate ac-
curate estimation of hydrodynamic and thermal characteristics of
nanofluids.
Many experimental studies were carried out to quantify thermal
and flow characteristics of nanofluids for laminar and turbulent
flow conditions [2,9e13]. However, it is important to be able to
model nanofluid flow accurately in order to design equipment that
operates with nanofluids. It was observed that addition of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90 212 359 7356.
E-mail addresses: snangoktepe@gmail.com (S. Göktepe), atalik@boun.edu.tr
(K. Atalık), hakan.erturk@boun.edu.tr (H. Ertürk).
together with an increase in pressure drop due to increased ther-
mal conductivity and viscosity [1,2,9e13]. Therefore, modeling
tools should estimate both of these behaviors accurately.
Macroscopic models for nanofluid flow and heat transfer can be
classified as single-phase and two-phase models [1e3,7,9e15].
Single-phase approaches consider nanoparticles and base fluid as a
single homogeneous fluid with respect to its effective properties
[14]. Two-phase approaches handle continuity, momentum and
energy equations for particles and base fluid using three different
methods. One of these methods used in this study is Euleriane
Mixture model (EMM) where momentum and energy equations are
solved for mixture phase coupled with continuity equation for each
phase, then phase velocities are related by empirical correlations
[16,17]. The other method that is used in this study is the Euleriane
Eulerian model (EEM) where separate continuity, momentum, and
energy equations for each phase are solved. This approach is sug-
gested for flows where interactions between phases are not well
defined [17,18]. Although two-phase models provide a better un-
derstanding of both phases, single-phase models are computa-
tionally more efficient, however provide less detail about each
phase [18].
Forced convection of Al2O3ewater/EG nanofluids in a uniformly
heated tube at fully developed laminar and turbulent flow regimes
using a homogeneous single-phase model is studied by Maiga et al.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2014.01.014
1290-0729/Ó 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
84 S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92
[14]. While their predictions underestimate measured heat transfer
coefficients, results indicate that addition of nanoparticles en-
hances convective heat transfer coefficient of Al2O3ewater nano-
fluid with 10% particle concentration by 60% at a Reynolds number
of 250 [14]. Experimental studies such as [19] reported that the
increase in convective heat transfer coefficient exceeds that of
effective thermal conductivity. This indicates that there are
different mechanisms in heat transfer enhancement for forced
convection other than the enhancement in thermal conductivity.
Single-phase thermal dispersion models are introduced in Refs.
[20] and [21] to account for energy transport by random movement
of nanoparticles, that is also known as thermal dispersion effects.
Using thermal dispersion model presented in Ref. [20], Ozerinc
et al. [22] studied fully developed laminar forced convection of
Al2O3ewater nanofluid by considering temperature dependent
properties. The reported increase in convective heat transfer coef-
ficient of 2.5% Al2O3ewater nanofluid is 36% at a Peclet number of
6500. The results are in good agreement with the experimental
data in the literature, suggesting that single-phase models
considering thermal dispersion and temperature dependent
properties are capable of predicting heat transfer behavior more
accurately. Moraveji et al. [23] showed that convective heat transfer
increases as particle size decreases for developing Al2O3ewater
nanofluid flow using single phase models.
Mirmasoumi et al. [24] investigated mixed convection of Al2O3e
water nanofluid in a horizontal tube using a two-phase EMM. They
have shown that particle concentration is higher near the wall and
bottom of the tube, hence uniform particle distribution is not valid
for all cases. Nanofluid forced convection in developing flow in a
tube subjected to constant heat flux and temperature was studied
by Bianco et al. [25] by using single and two-phase models
including volume of fluid (VOF), EMM, EEM considering both
constant and temperature dependent properties. According to their
results difference between homogeneous single-phase and two-
phase mixture model becomes significant at 11% volume concen-
tration. Moreover, consideration of temperature dependent prop-
erties gives a better estimation of convective heat transfer
coefficient. They observed that convective heat transfer coefficient
for 2.5% Al2O3ewater nanofluid at a Reynolds number of 250 in-
creases up to 17%.
Kalteh et al. [18] numerically studied CuOewater nanofluid
laminar forced convection in a micro-channel by two-phase EEM.
Although velocity and temperature differences between phases are
negligible, EEM estimates convective heat transfer coefficient more
accurately with respect to single-phase models. They also showed
that particleeparticle interactions have negligible effect on Nusselt
number for laminar flow. Lotfi et al. [16] evaluated homogeneous
single-phase model, EMM, and EEM for Al2O3ewater nanofluid.
The study neglected temperature dependency of properties and did
not include thermal dispersion models. They reported that two-
phase models overestimate fully developed heat transfer co-
efficients and EMM is the most accurate model among three two-
phase models (EEM, EMM, VOF). Akbari et al. [26] compared sin-
gle and two-phase models for mixed convection heat transfer of
Al2O3ewater nanofluid. Their study covers homogeneous single-
phase and two phase models (VOF, EMM, EEM) with temperature
dependent properties. It is reported that estimated convective heat
transfer coefficients by two-phase models are similar. Two-phase
models provide more accurate prediction of convective heat
transfer coefficient with an overestimation, whereas single-phase
model underpredicts convective heat transfer coefficient.
Although single-phase models are found to be less accurate, it
should be noted that the study did not include thermal dispersion
models. Single and two-phase models for Al2O3ewater nanofluid
are also studied by Frad et al. [15]. They showed that two-phase
models provide more accurate prediction of heat transfer of
nanofluids for fully developed flow.
Although they are more accurate in predicting heat transfer,
two-phase models are computationally more expensive than
single-phase models due to the increased number of equations to
be solved. Despite being expensive, the Phase Coupled Semi Im-
plicit Method for Pressure Linked Equations (PC-SIMPLE) algorithm
is widely used in literature due to its robustness [16,18,24,26] for
EEM. Computational cost of two-phase EEM can be reduced by
using Full Multiphase Coupled (FMC) algorithm for velocity and
pressure coupling where equations are solved simultaneously
rather than in a segregated manner like PC-SIMPLE.
Considering the literature, there is no complete study that
considers recent state-of-the art single and two-phase models for
laminar forced convection of nanofluids. This study aims at evalu-
ating single-phase and two-phase models by considering the effect
of temperature dependent properties, and dispersion effects for
single-phase models, together with the first time use of FMC for
two-phase EEM of nanofluid forced convection. Results are
compared with experimental data available in literature in terms of
error and required CPU time. Al2O3ewater nanofluid with 42 nm
nanoparticles is considered throughout the study due to availability
of experimental data in the literature.
2. Mathematical models
2.1. Single-phase model
Single-phase models assume that base fluid and nanoparticles
have the same temperature and velocity field. Therefore, continu-
ity, momentum and energy equations can be solved as if the fluid
were a classical Newtonian fluid by using effective properties of
nanofluid. Effective properties are functions of particle size (dp),
type, shape, and particle volume concentration (fp) and tempera-
ture [2,14,27].
In this study, for the homogeneous single-phase (SPM) Al2O3e
water nanofluid model with constant properties, nanofluid thermal
conductivity (knf) is determined by the correlation reported by
HamiltoneCrosser [28] to take a simpler thermal conductivity
model into account together with other advanced models. The
formulation can be given as;


knf kp þ ðn  1Þkbf  ðn  1Þ kbf  kp fp
¼
 (1)
kbf kp þ ðn  1Þkbf þ kbf  kp fp
where, kbf and kp are the base fluid and nanoparticle thermal
conductivities, respectively and n ¼ 3 is the shape factor for
spherical particles. This correlation does not consider temperature
and particle size dependency of thermal conductivity. To account
for temperature and particle size dependency of thermal conduc-
tivity of Al2O3ewater nanofluid, correlation suggested by Chon
et al. [29] is used. This is a more advanced correlation compared to
that of presented by Hamilton and Crosser [28]. The formulation
can be given as;
 0:3690 !0:7476
knf 0:7460 dbf kp
¼ 1 þ 64:7fp Pr 0:9955 Re1:2321
disp
kbf dp kbf
(2)
where, dbf is molecular diameter of base fluid (0.29 nm, for water).
For this study we considered Al2O3 particles with 42 nm diameter.
The Prandtl number (Pr) and the dispersion Reynolds number
(Redisp) in this correlation are defined as;
 S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92 85

mbf where, C2 is an empirical constant that calibrates model to exper-

Pr ¼ (3)
rbf abf imental data. When C1 or C2 are set to zero, both models are
reduced to the homogeneous single-phase model.
rbf kB T
Redisp ¼ (4)
3pm2bf lbf 2.3. Two-phase models

where, rbf is the density of base fluid, kB is the Boltzmann constant,
T is the absolute temperature, lbf is the mean free path between
base fluid molecules (0.17 nm, for water), abf is the thermal diffu-
sivity of base fluid and mbf is the temperature dependent base fluid
viscosity (Pa-s) that is defined in Ref. [29] as follows;
mbf ¼ 2:414  105  10T140
247:8
In this paper homogeneous single-phase model with tempera-
ture dependent thermal conductivity is referred as SPT.
For the homogeneous single-phase models, effective thermal
conductivities are defined as;
keff ¼ knf
For two-phase nanofluid models, it is assumed that base fluid
and nanoparticles can have different velocity and temperature
fields. Volume of Fluid (VOF), EulerianeMixture model (EMM), and
EulerianeEulerian model (EEM) are the three common two-phase
models used in modeling of nanofluids [26]. Volume of fluid
model is not considered in this study since it is suggested for free
surface flows [30].
(5)
2.3.1. EulerianeMixture two-phase model
In EMM, continuity, momentum, and energy equations are
solved for the mixture-phase and the phase velocities are deter-
mined by empirical correlations. The continuity equation for EMM
(6) is given as;

Density (rnf) and heat capacity of nanofluid (cp,nf), on the other V$ðrm !
v mÞ ¼ 0 (13)
hand, are estimated by using classical mixture models [10,14,25] as
follows; where, the mass-averaged velocity or mixture velocity, !
v m ; for

 two-phase mixture is defined as;
1  fp rbf cp;bf þ rp fp cp;p
cp;nf ¼ (7) ! r p fp !
v p þ rbf fbf !
v bf
rnf vm ¼ (14)
rm


rnf ¼ 1  fp rbf þ fp rp (8) where, !v p is the particle velocity, !
v bf is the base fluid velocity, and
rm is the mixture density for two-phase mixture that is defined as;
Maiga et al. [14] presented a 2nd degree polynomial curve fit to
experimental data for Al2O3ewater nanofluid viscosity as; rm ¼ fp rp þ fbf rbf (15)
mnf
¼ 123f2p þ 7:36fp þ 1 (9) The steady state momentum equation for two-phase mixture is;
mbf
   T

which is used for all single phase models in this study. rm !v m $V!
v m ¼ VP þ mm V!
v m þ V!
vm


2.2. Single-phase dispersion model þ V$ fbf rbf !
v dr;bf !
v dr;bf þ fp rp !
v dr;p !
v dr;p
(16)
Single-phase dispersion model and homogeneous models are
differentiated by how the nanofluid effective conductivity is where, P is the pressure, mm is the viscosity of mixture that is equal
defined. Xuan and Roetzel [20] introduced small perturbations in to base fluid viscosity (mm ¼mbf), ! v dr;p ; and !
v dr;bf are the drift
the momentum and energy equation to account for dispersion ef- velocity of particles and base fluid, respectively. Here, ! v dr;p and
fects. Dispersion effects are then represented as an additional term !v dr;bf for two-phase mixture are defined as;
in nanofluid effective conductivity and referred as dispersion con-
ductivity (kd) and can be defined as in Refs. [20] and [21]. !
v dr;p ¼ !
vp !
vm (17)
For dispersion models, effective nanofluid conductivity is given
as;
v dr;bf ¼ !
! v bf  !
vm (18)
keff ¼ knf þ kdisp (10) The steady state energy equation for two-phase mixture is given
as;
where, knf is the nanofluid thermal conductivity determined by a



correlation such as Eq. (1) or (2). Formulation suggested by Xuan
V$ fp !
v p rp ip þ fbf !
v bf rbf ibf ¼ V$ keff VT (19)
and Roetzel [20] (SPD1) can be given as;
 
kdisp ¼ C1 rcp nf fp dp Ru (11) where, ibf and ip are the enthalpy of base fluid and particles,
respectively. Effective thermal conductivity for two-phase mixture
where, C1 is an empirical constant that calibrates model to exper- model keff is defined as;
imental data, u is the flow velocity in x direction, and R is the radius
keff ¼ fp kp þ fbf kbf (21)
of pipe. A second formulation is suggested by Mokmeli and Saffar-
Avval [21] (SPD2) and it can be given as; The volume fraction equation for two-phase mixture is;
  vu R


kdisp ¼ C2 rcp nf fp
V$ fp rp !
v m ¼ V$ fp rp !
(12)
vr dp v dr;p (22)
86 S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92

The slip velocity or relative velocity, represents velocity of the



v fbf rbf ubf v fbf rbf vbf
particles ð!
v p Þ relative to base fluid ð!
v bf Þ and it is defined as;
vbf þ vbf
vx  vr  
!
v bf; p ¼ !
v bf  !
vp (23) vP v vvbf 1v vv (33)
¼ fbf þ fbf mbf þ fbf mbf r bf
vr vx vx r vr vr
The relation between drift velocity and relative velocity can be vbf
presented as;  mbf 2 þ ðFd Þr þ ðFvm Þr
r
 
! r p fp !


v dr;p ¼ !
v p; bf  v bf; p (24)  
rm v fp rp up v fp rp vp vP v vv
vp þ vp ¼ fp þ fp mp p
vx vr vr vx vx
The relative velocity is given by Manninen et al. [31] through  
1v vv v
Schiller and Naumann [32] drag formulation as follows; þ fp mp p  mp 2p  ðFd Þr
r vr vr r


d2p rp  rm !  ðFvm Þr þ ðFcol Þr
!
v bf; p ¼ a (25)
18mbf fd rp (34)
!
 where, F vm is the virtual mass force due to relative acceleration of
1 þ 0:15Re0:687 Rep  1000 phases [17]. Since it has negligible effect on heat transfer as shown
fd ¼ p (26) !
0:0183Rep Rep > 1000 in Ref. [18], it is neglected in this study. F col is particleeparticle
!
collision force, and F d is the drag force between the fluid and
! !
v m $VÞ!
a ¼ g  ð! vm (27) particle phases defined by phase interaction equations. The drag
force between phases is defined as;
! !

where, a and g are the particle’s and gravitational acceleration, !
respectively. The particle Reynolds number (Rep) for EMM is F d ¼ b !v bf  !
vp (35)
defined as;
where, b is the friction factor, which depends on particle volume
Um dp rm concentration and particle size. For dilute solutions (fbf  0.8), b is
Rep ¼ (28)
mm defined by Syamlal and Gidaspow [33] as;

3 fp fbf !

2.3.2. EulerianeEulerian two-phase model b¼ Cd v bf  !
v p f2:65
bf (36)
In EEM, momentum and energy equations are solved for each
4 dp
phase. Interactions between phases are defined by additional terms
where, Cd is the drag coefficient and can be predicted by;
that represent momentum and heat exchange between phases [33].
The steady continuity equation for each phase is given as; 8

< 24 1 þ 0:15Re0:697 Rep < 1000


 Cd ¼
Rep p
(37)
v fbf rbf ubf 1 v fbf rbf vbf :
0:44 Rep  1000
þ ¼ 0 (29)
vx r vr
Here, particle Reynolds number, Rep, is defined as;



v fp rp up
1 v r fp rp vp fbf rbf !
v bf  !

v p dp
þ ¼ 0 (30)
vx r vr Rep ¼ (38)
mbf
!
where, u and v are the velocity components in axial (x) and radial (r) Collision force of particles, F col ; is defined by Bouillard et al.
directions, respectively. [34] as;
For steady flow, axial-momentum equations for base fluid and

!
particles can be given, respectively as; F col ¼ G fbf Vfbf (39)



v fbf rbf ubf v fbf rbf vbf
ubf þ ubf where, G(fbf) is the particleeparticle interaction modulus and it is
vx  vr   defined as;
vP v vubf 1v vu (31)
¼ fbf þ fbf mbf þ fbf mbf r bf



vx vx vx r vr vr
G fbf ¼ exp  600 fbf  0:376 (40)
þ ðFd Þx þ ðFvm Þx


 Once momentum equations for each phase and the related
v fp rp up v fp rp vp   phase interaction equations are defined, energy equations for each
vP v vu
up þ up ¼ fp þ fp m p p phase can be presented as follows;
vx vr vx vx vx
 
þ
1v vu
fp mp r p  ðFd Þx v
 v

r vr vr fbf rbf ubf cp; bf Tbf þ fbf rbf vbf cp; bf Tbf
vx vr
   
 ðFvm Þx þ ðFcol Þx v vTbf 1v vT
¼ fbf keff; bf þ fbf keff; bf r bf
(32) vx vx r vr vr


 hv Tbf  Tp (41)
Similarly, the radial-momentum equations can be written as;
 S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92 87

v
 v
 3.1. Single-phase model

fp rp up cp; p Tp þ fp rp vp cp; p Tp
vx vr
   
 For single-phase model, momentum, energy, and continuity
v vTp 1v vT
¼ fp keff ; p þ fp keff; p r p þ hv Tbf  Tp equations are solved with effective nanofluid properties for prob-
vx vx r vr vr
lem domain in Fig. 1. Third order power-law scheme is used in
(42)
discretization of momentum, energy and pressure equations. Semi
Implicit Method of Pressure Linked Equations (SIMPLE) algorithm is
where, keff,p and keff,bf are the effective thermal conductivity of base
used for velocity pressure coupling. A convergence criterion is used
fluid and particles, and hv is volumetric interphase heat transfer
so that residuals for all equations are less than 1  106.
coefficient between phases. The temperature for particle and base
Boundary conditions for governing equations of single-phase
fluid phases are Tp and Tbf, respectively. Volumetric interphase heat
model are defined considering the no-slip condition at the wall;
transfer coefficient is defined as;

 uðx; RÞ ¼ vðx; RÞ ¼ 0 (52)
6 1  fbf
hv ¼ hp (43) and uniform inlet velocity
dp
For mono dispersed particles, particle heat transfer coefficient, uð0; rÞ ¼ U; vð0; rÞ ¼ 0 (53)
hp, is estimated by a correlation presented by Wakao and Kaguei
[35] through particle Nusselt number (Nup) as; with constant wall heat flux ðq00w Þ condition, expressed as;

hp dp vT
Nup ¼ ¼ 2 þ 1:1Re0:6
p Pr
1=3
(44) keff ¼ q00w (54)
kbf vr r¼R
Dispersion model empirical constants C1 and C2 in Eqs. (14) and
where, Pr is the Prandtl number of base fluid. The particle Reynolds
(15) are determined according to the experimental data provided
number is defined by Eq. (38). The effective conductivities for
by Ref. [12].
particle and base fluid phases are presented as [18];

kb; bf 3.2. Two-phase models

keff; bf ¼ (45)
fbf
EulerianeEulerian model (EEM) and EMM are used with the
and third order power-law scheme for solving momentum and energy
equations. The third order Quadratic Upstream Interpolation for
kb; p Convective Kinetics (QUICK) scheme is used to solve volume frac-
keff; p ¼ (46)
fp tion equation. For EMM, SIMPLE algorithm is used for pressure and
velocity coupling. However, for EEM, in addition to Phase Coupled
where, kb,p and kb,bf are defined as; SIMPLE (PC-SIMPLE) algorithm that is widely used in literature, a
different algorithm, namely Full Multiphase Coupled (FMC), is used

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi for coupling scheme to assess its accuracy and efficiency.
kb; bf ¼ 1 1  fbf kbf (47)
Phase Coupled-SIMPLE is a well-established, widely used, and
robust algorithm, where phase velocities are solved in a segregated

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi manner with a pressure correction. Velocity, shared pressure, and
kb; p ¼ 1  fbf ðuA þ ½1  uGÞkbf (48) volume fraction corrections are coupled simultaneously in FMC
algorithm. Although FMC is expected to be more efficient, diver-
with u ¼ 7.26  103 for spherical particles and G is defined as; gence may occur at high particle volume concentrations due to
0 1 volume fraction equation [17].
  Boundary conditions for EMM are defined based on no-slip
2 @ BðA  1Þ A B  1 B þ 1A
G ¼   ln B   (49) condition at wall for mixture phase as;
1  AB A 1  B 2 1  AB 2
A
um ðx; RÞ ¼ vm ðx; RÞ ¼ 0 (55)
where, parameters A and B for spherical particles are given as;
and uniform inlet velocity for base fluid and particle phases,
respectively;
kp
A ¼ (50)
kbf ubf ð0; rÞ ¼ Ubf ; vbf ð0; rÞ ¼ 0 (56)

!10
1  fbf
9 up ð0; rÞ ¼ Up ; vp ð0; rÞ ¼ 0 (57)
B ¼ 1:25 (51)
fbf
where, Up ¼ Ubf are mean velocities of base fluid and particles.
Uniform constant heat flux at wall is applied as,

3. Problem statement and numerical method vT
keff ¼ q00w (58)
vr r¼R
Finite Control Volume method is used to solve numerically the
equations for nanofluid flow and heat transfer. The problem Similarly, the boundary conditions for EEM are defined with
domain is presented in Fig. 1 that is discretized by a uniform respect to no-slip at boundaries for base fluid and particle phases
structured grid. as;
88 S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92

Fig. 1. Problem geometry and boundary conditions.

ubf ðx; RÞ ¼ vbf ðx; RÞ ¼ 0 (59) x/D ¼ 115 for a Reynolds number of 1050. Comparison of single-
phase models that are used here is presented in Table 1 to clarify
up ðx; RÞ ¼ vp ðx; RÞ ¼ 0 (60) any ambiguity regarding definition of single-phase models.
Comparisons of local Nusselt numbers for 1.6% Al2O3ewater
with uniform inlet velocity for base fluid and particle phases as; nanofluid are presented in Figs. 2 and 3. Single-phase models un-
derestimate Nunf,x at the entry region of circular tube, whereas both
ubf ð0; rÞ ¼ Ubf ; vbf ð0; rÞ ¼ 0 (61) two-phase models overestimate Nunf,x as can be seen from Figs. 2
and 3. Error with experimental values are 31.4% and 19.6% at
up ð0; rÞ ¼ Up ; vp ð0; rÞ ¼ 0 (62) x/D ¼ 63 and x/D ¼ 116, respectively for SPM. For EEM, error values
are 0.9% and 7.7% at the same locations, respectively. Nux pre-
and constant wall heat flux for particle fluid mixture as; dictions of our EMM and EMM by Ref. [26] are very close to each
other. Slight difference between models might be due to variation
 
vTp vT of thermal properties of Al2O3 used. In this study thermophysical
 fp keff; p þ fbf keff; bf bf ¼ q00w (63) properties of Al2O3 are taken from National Institute for Standards
vr r¼R vr r¼R
and Technology [37]. An additional comparison with experimental
data from Ref. [12] in terms of local convective heat transfer coef-
ficient (hx) versus x/D is also presented in Figs. 4e7 to prevent
3.3. Model validation
any possible ambiguity due to definition of nanofluid thermal
conductivity.
A grid independence study is carried out in order to ensure grid
Fig. 4 indicates that at the very beginning of entry region, effect
independent solutions. Three different grid resolutions are
of temperature dependency of properties is limited since the flow is
compared with correlation given by Shah [36] and experimental
not fully affected by the thermal boundary conditions and the
data reported in Ref. [12]. The results indicate that 15  2000 grid
temperature difference is not significant. The effect increases as the
yielded a grid independent solution. For both single and two phase
flow develops as it can be observed from comparison of SPM and
models the local Nusselt number for nanofluids (Nunf,x) defined as;
SPT. Table 2 suggests that use of temperature dependent nanofluid
hðxÞD q00w D conductivity model increases solution accuracy up to 4% for single-
Nunf ;x ¼ ¼ (64) phase models. Comparison of dispersion models reveals that, SPD2,
knf knf ðTw  Tmean Þ
that uses dispersion conductivity formulation by Eq. (12), is more
Variation in local Darcy friction factor (fx) was also checked, and accurate in predicting heat transfer coefficient at entry region
results indicate that 15  2000 grid has 0.7% error with respect to compared to SPD1, which uses formulation by Eq. (11). As shown in
the theoretical value of Darcy friction factor for the fully developed Table 2, SPD2 model is approximately 8% more accurate in pre-
region. Darcy friction factor used here is defined as; dicting heat transfer coefficient compared to SPD1. In Table 2 and
Fig. 5, it is also shown that for volume fraction of 1.6% at Reynolds
8sw ðxÞ number of 1050, predictive accuracy of EMM becomes superior to
fx ¼ (65)
rbf U 2 that of EEM as the flow develops. However the difference between
two models is very small and as far as the accuracy of the models
where, sw(x) is local wall shear stress, U is the mean axial velocity. are considered, such difference can be neglected. It is also observed
Reynolds number for nanofluids is defined as; that both EEM and EMM start over-predicting as flow develops.
Based on Figs. 2 and 4, and Tables 2e4, it can be concluded that
rnf DU
Re ¼ (66) the best single-phase model is SPD2. However, there is no clear
mnf indication on the better two-phase model, since both EEM and

Table 1
4. Results and discussion Single-phase models and corresponding effective property models.

Model name Thermal conductivity model(s) Viscosity model

The goal of this study is to assess effectiveness of single and two-
phase models for predicting thermal and hydrodynamic charac- knf kdisp mnf
teristics of nanofluids. Therefore, solutions for single-phase ho- SPM Eq. (1) 0 Eq. (9)
mogeneous, single-phase dispersion, two-phase EulerianeMixture, SPT Eq. (2) 0 Eq. (9)
and two-phase EulerianeEulerian models are compared with SPD1 Eq. (2) Eq. (11) Eq. (9)
SPD2 Eq. (2) Eq. (12) Eq. (9)
experimental data presented by Wen and Ding [12] at x/D ¼ 63 and
 S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92 89

Fig. 5. Comparison of convective heat transfer coefficients (hx) of two-phase model

Fig. 2. Comparison of single-phase models with experimental data [12] for 1.6% with experimental data at Re ¼ 1050 for 1.6% Al2O3ewater nanofluid.
Al2O3ewater nanofluid at Re ¼ 1050.

Fig. 6. Comparison of convective heat transfer coefficients of SPD2 with experimental

Fig. 3. Comparison of two-phase models with experimental data [12] for 1.6% Al2O3e data at Re ¼ 1050 [12] for three different volume concentrations (0.6%, 1%, and 1.6%).
water nanofluid at Re ¼ 1050.

Fig. 4. Comparison of convective heat transfer coefficients (hx) of single-phase model Fig. 7. Comparison of convective heat transfer coefficients of EEM with experimental
with experimental data at Re ¼ 1050 for 1.6% Al2O3ewater nanofluid. data at Re ¼ 1050 [12] for three different volume concentrations (0.6%, 1%, and 1.6%).
90 S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92

Table 2
Error in convective heat transfer coefficient for fp ¼ 1.6%.

Model x/D ¼ 22 x/D ¼ 63 x/D ¼ 116 x/D ¼ 178

EEM 12.1% 7.7% 11.3% 25.6%

EMM 12.8% 8.1% 10.8% 25.0%
SPM 38.4% 37.6% 27.3% 21.3%
SPT 38.2% 36.5% 25.1% 17.5%
SPD1 32.8% 28.0% 12.1% 0.0%
SPD2 24.2% 23.1% 9.5% 0.1%

Table 3
Error in convective heat transfer coefficient for fp ¼ 1%.

Model x/D ¼ 22 x/D ¼ 63 x/D ¼ 116 x/D ¼ 178

EEM 16.7% 5.7% 4.4% 15.5%

EMM 17.4% 6.2% 3.9% 14.9%
SPM 36.6% 29.5% 23.6% 17.3%
SPT 35.9% 28.7% 22.6% 16.2%
SPD1 31.0% 21.0% 11.7% 1.7%
SPD2 24.9% 17.0% 9.5% 1.3%
Fig. 9. Comparison of estimated Darcy friction factors of single-phase model at
Re ¼ 1050 for 1.6%, 1%, and 0.6% Al2O3ewater nanofluid.

Table 4
Error in convective heat transfer coefficient for fp ¼ 0.6%. coefficient at the beginning of entry region where, SPD2 under-
Model x/D ¼ 22 x/D ¼ 63 x/D ¼ 116 x/D ¼ 178 predicts until the calibration point (x/D ¼ 176). However, as flow
develops, EEM starts overestimating the convective heat transfer
EEM 14.4% 6.0% 0.6% 8.5%
EMM 19.2% 6.5% 1.2% 7.8%
coefficient. Results in Tables 2e4 also suggest that calibration
SPM 31.4% 22.0% 18.8% 12.6% constant for SPD2 is independent of volume fraction and SPD2 and
SPT 12.8% 20.5% 17.0% 10.6% SPD1 perform best near the calibration point as expected.
SPD1 27.8% 16.2% 10.9% 2.0% Accuracy of models at different Reynolds numbers is also
SPD2 23.8% 13.6% 9.6% 1.6%
investigated in terms of Nusselt number for volume fraction of 1.6%.
In Fig. 8 Nusselt number predictions of models at different Reynolds
numbers (Re ¼ 1050, 1320, 1600, 1810) are presented and the re-
EMM have different accuracies at different volume fractions as sults are compared with experimental data from Ref. [12]. Both
shown in Tables 2e4. For example, for volume fraction of 1% EMM dispersion models were calibrated based on the experimental data
model prediction error is smaller than that of EEM. However, for by Ref. [12] at axial location of x/D ¼ 178 for Reynolds number of
volume fraction of 0.6%, the opposite is true. Overall, results suggest 1050 and volume fraction of 1.6%.
that at entrance region, EEM performs better with low particle Comparison of models in Fig. 8 reveals that the most accurate
concentrations, whereas EMM performs better at higher particle model in the Reynolds numbers range considered is the SPD2.
volume concentrations. Despite considering each phase individually, both two-phase
The prediction accuracies of SPD2 and EEM are investigated at models underestimate the change in Nusselt number with chang-
different concentrations in Figs. 6 and 7 with Tables 2e4. Results ing Reynolds numbers. Although SPD2 is calibrated for Reynolds
indicate that, EEM model underestimates convective heat transfer number of 1050, the model can predict the trend in experimental
data accurately for other Reynolds numbers as well. Since desired

Fig. 8. Comparison of accuracy of models in predicting Nunf,x of 1.6% Al2O3ewater Fig. 10. Comparison of estimated Darcy friction factors of EulerianeEulerian two-
nanofluid at x/D ¼ 116 for different Reynolds numbers (Re ¼ 1050, 1320, 1600, 1810). phase model at Re ¼ 1050 for 1.6%, 1%, and 0.6% Al2O3ewater nanofluid.
 S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92 91

Table 5 5. Conclusion
Computational time [s] comparison of FMC and PC-SIMPLE.

fp [%] EulerianeEulerian model Single-phase EulerianeMixture Single and two-phase models have been investigated for the
FMC PC-SIMPLE SIMPLE SIMPLE
characterization of laminar forced convection of Al2O3ewater
nanofluid with various concentrations in a circular tube. Single-
0.6 82.2 157.1 77.6 552.8
phase thermal dispersion model suggested by Mokmeli and
1 89.8 158.6 78.1 572.7
1.6 111.7 163.8 81.7 566.5 Saffar-Avval [21] is found to be the most accurate single-phase
model. It is recommended for applications, when calibration data
is available, thermal analysis is the objective, and computational
efficiency is important. Furthermore, it is shown that for Reynolds
accuracy can be achieved with a single calibration for different numbers and particle volume fractions considered in this study,
volume fractions and Reynolds numbers, SPD2, is suggested for calibration constant used in the definition of dispersion conduc-
applications where calibration data is available. On the other hand, tivity is independent of Reynolds number and volume fraction of
for nanofluids with no prior experimental studies, one of the two- particles. Therefore, the model can be used at varying Reynolds
phase models is suggested. numbers and particle volume concentrations without any re-
Another objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of calibration. It is also observed that EulerianeEulerian and Euler-
single and two-phase models in the estimation of hydrodynamic ianeMixture models under predict heat transfer coefficient at the
characteristics of nanofluids. Estimated Darcy friction factors are beginning of the entry region then, as the flow develops both
presented in Figs. 9 and 10 for SPD2 and EEM, respectively for three models start to over predict the heat transfer coefficient. Consid-
volume fractions (0.6%, 1%, 1.6%). EMM model in not considered ering its computational efficiency, EulerianeEulerian two-phase
here since, the model showed no change in the friction factor model is recommended for applications, when no prior experi-
compared to that of homogenous single-phase model. The single- mental data is available and prediction of both heat transfer and
phase model estimated less than 1% change in friction factor with pressure drop is important. For the EulerianeEulerian two phase
respect to base fluid for all three volume fractions. However, this model, computational cost can be reduced by the use of Full
contradicts the data reported by experimental studies such as Ref. Multiphase Coupling algorithm without sacrificing solution accu-
[38]. Hwang et al. [38] reported 4.2% increase in friction factor for racy. The transport between phases in EulerianeEulerian two phase
0.3% Al2O3ewater nanofluid at a Reynolds number of 400. The EEM model is estimated based on correlations derived for macro parti-
model estimated 2% increase in friction factor for the same nano- cles. Developing relations more suitable for nanoparticles are
fluid at a Reynolds number of 400. Based on estimated results, required to further improve the prediction accuracy of Euleriane
single-phase models estimate no change in friction factor. Eulerian two phase model.
The major drawback of two-phase models is their computa-
tional expense. The required CPU time was measured as 163.8 s for Acknowledgments
EEM using PC-SIMPLE algorithm, 77.6 s for single-phase models,
and 566.5 s for EMM for 1.6% Al2O3ewater nanofluid flow at a The authors would like to thank The Scientific and Technological
Reynolds number of 1050 as shown in Table 5. The numerical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for support under the grant
studies presented in this study were performed on a workstation 111M1777 of the 1001 Program.
operating at a Quad Core 2.4 GHz CPU and all four cores were used
in calculations. Although, PC-SIMPLE is a very robust method, it is
computationally expensive. A remedy might be the use of Full Nomenclature
Multiphase Coupled (FMC) scheme for dilute nanofluid systems. C1, C2 calibration constants for SPD1 and SPD2, respectively
Fig. 11 shows that the predicted hx distribution is identical for FMC Cd drag coefficient
and PC-SIMPLE. As shown in Table 5, computational cost of EEM cp heat capacity
model can be reduced by approximately 65%. d particle diameter
D diameter of tube
!
F force vector
f Darcy friction coefficient
h convective heat transfer coefficient
G particleeparticle interaction modulus
!
g gravitational acceleration vector
i enthalpy
k thermal conductivity
kB Boltzmann constant
L length
n shape factor
Nux local Nusselt number
q00 heat flux
P pressure
Pe Peclet number
Pr Prandtl number
R radius of pipe
Re Reynolds number
T temperature
U axial mean velocity
Fig. 11. Comparison of two coupling algorithms for 1.6% Al2O3ewater nanofluid at u, v x and r velocity components, respectively
Re ¼ 1050.
!v velocity vector
92 S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92

Greek letters [12] D.S. Wen, Y.L. Ding, Experimental investigation into convective heat transfer
of nanofluids at the entrance region under laminar flow conditions, Int. J. Heat
a diffusivity
Mass Transf. 47 (2004) 5181e5188.
b friction coefficient [13] Y.M. Xuan, Q. Li, Investigation on convective heat transfer and flow features of
l mean free path between molecules nanofluids, J. Heat Transf. Trans. ASME 125 (2003) 151e155.
m dynamic viscosity [14] S.E.B. Maiga, C.T. Nguyen, N. Galanis, G. Roy, Heat transfer behaviours of
nanofluids in a uniformly heated tube, Superlattices Microstruct. 35 (2004)
f volume fraction 543e557.
s shear stress [15] M.H. Fard, M.N. Esfahany, M.R. Talaie, Numerical study of convective heat
r density transfer of nanofluids in a circular tube two-phase model versus single-phase
model, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 37 (2010) 91e97.
[16] R. Lotfi, Y. Saboohi, A.M. Rashidi, Numerical study of forced convective heat
transfer of nanofluids: comparison of different approaches, Int. Commun. Heat
Subscripts and superscripts Mass Transf. 37 (2010) 74e78.
bf base fluid [17] T. Ahmad, S.L. Plee, J.P. Myers, FLUENT Theory Guide, ANSYS Inc., 2010.
[18] M. Kalteh, A. Abbassi, M. Saffar-Avval, J. Harting, Eulerian-Eulerian two-phase
col collision numerical simulation of nanofluid laminar forced convection in a micro-
eff effective property channel, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 32 (2011) 107e116.
disp dispersion [19] S.Z. Heris, S.G. Etemad, A.N. Esfahany, Experimental investigation of oxide
nanofluids laminar flow convective heat transfer, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
d drag Transf. 33 (2006) 529e535.
dr drift [20] Y.M. Xuan, W. Roetzel, Conceptions for heat transfer correlation of nanofluids,
in inlet Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 43 (2000) 3701e3707.
[21] A. Mokmeli, M. Saffar-Avval, Prediction of nanofluid convective heat transfer
m mixture
using the dispersion model, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 49 (2010) 471e478.
nf nanofluid [22] S. Özerinç, A.G. Yazıcıog lu, S. Kakaç, Numerical analysis of laminar forced
out outlet convection with temperature-dependent thermal conductivity of nanofluids
p particle and thermal dispersion, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 62 (2012) 138e148.
[23] M.K. Moraveji, M. Darabi, S.M. Haddad, R. Davarnejad, Modeling of convective
r, x radial and axial directions, respectively heat transfer of a nanofluid in the developing region of tube flow with compu-
w wall tational fluid dynamics, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 38 (2011) 1291e1295.
v volumetric [24] S. Mirmasoumi, A. Behzadmehr, Numerical study of laminar mixed convection
of a nanofluid in a horizontal tube using two-phase mixture model, Appl.
vm virtual mass Therm. Eng. 28 (2008) 717e727.
[25] V. Bianco, F. Chiacchio, O. Manca, S. Nardini, Numerical investigation of
nanofluids forced convection in circular tubes, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009)
References 3632e3642.
[26] M. Akbari, N. Galanis, A. Behzadmehr, Comparative analysis of single and two-
phase models for CFD studies of nanofluid heat transfer, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 50
[1] J. Sarkar, A critical review on convective heat transfer correlations of nano-
(2011) 1343e1354.
fluids, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 3271e3277.
[27] Y.M. Xuan, Q. Li, Heat transfer enhancement of nanofluids, Int. J. Heat Fluid
[2] U.S. Choi, J.A. Eastman, Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nano-
Flow 21 (2000) 58e64.
particles, in: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Expo-
[28] R.L. Hamilton, O.K. Crosser, Thermal conductivity of heterogeneous 2-
sition, San Francisco, CA, 1995.
component systems, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. 1 (1962) 187.
[3] P. Keblinski, S.R. Phillpot, S.U.S. Choi, J.A. Eastman, Mechanisms of heat flow in
[29] C.H. Chon, K.D. Kihm, S.P. Lee, S.U.S. Choi, Empirical correlation finding the
suspensions of nano-sized particles (nanofluids), Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 45
role of temperature and particle size for nanofluid (Al2O3) thermal conduc-
(2002) 855e863.
tivity enhancement, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87 (2005).
[4] V. Sridhara, L.N. Satapathy, Al2O3-based nanofluids: a review, Nanoscale Res.
[30] C.W. Hirt, B.D. Nichols, Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free
Lett. 6 (2011) 456.
boundaries, J. Comput. Phys. (1981) 201e225.
[5] L. Godson, B. Raja, D. Mohan Lal, S. Wongwises, Enhancement of heat transfer
[31] M. Manninen, V. Taivassalo, S. Kallio, On the Mixture Model for Multiphase
using nanofluidsdan overview, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 629e
Flow, VTT Publications 288, 1996.
641.
[32] L. Schiller, A. Naumann, A drag coefficient correlation, Z. Ver. Deutsch. 77
[6] W. Yu, D.M. France, S.U.S. Choi, J.L. Routbort, Review and Assessment of
(1935) 318e320.
Nanofluid Technology for Transportation and Other Applications, Argonne
[33] M. Syamlal, D. Gidaspow, Hydrodynamics of fluidization e prediction of wall
National Laboratory, 2007.
to bed heat-transfer coefficients, AIChE J. 31 (1985) 127e135.
[7] R. Saidur, K.Y. Leong, H.A. Mohammad, A review on applications and chal-
[34] J.X. Bouillard, R.W. Lyczkowski, D. Gidaspow, Porosity distributions in a
lenges of nanofluids, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 1646e1668.
fluidized-bed with an immersed obstacle, AIChE J. 35 (1989) 908e922.
[8] E. Natarajan, R. Sathish, Role of nanofluids in solar water heater, Int. J. Adv.
[35] N. Wakao, S. Kaguei, Heat and Mass Transfer in Packed Beds, Gordon and
Manuf. Technol. (2009) 1e5.
Breach Sceince Publisheers, Inc., New York, 1982.
[9] S.Z. Heris, M.N. Esfahany, S.G. Etemad, Experimental investigation of
[36] R.K. Shah, A.L. London, Laminar Flow Forced Convection in Ducts, Academic
convective heat transfer of Al2O3/water nanofluid in circular tube, Int. J. Heat
Press, New York, 1978.
Fluid Flow 28 (2007) 203e210.
[37] R.G. Munro, Evaluated material properties for a sintered alpha-Al2O3, J. Am.
[10] B.C. Pak, Y.I. Cho, Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed fluids
Ceram. Soc. 80 (1997) 1919e1928.
with submicron metallic oxide particles, Exp. Heat Transf. 11 (1998) 151e170.
[38] K.S. Hwang, S.P. Jang, S.U.S. Choi, Flow and convective heat transfer charac-
[11] A.D. Sommers, K.L. Yerkes, Experimental investigation into the convective
teristics of water-based Al2O3 nanofluids in fully developed laminar flow
heat transfer and system-level effects of Al2O3epropanol nanofluid,
regime, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 52 (2009) 193e199.
J. Nanopart. Res. 12 (2010) 1003e1014.

View publication stats