Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260608912
Article in InternationalJournalofThermalSciences·June2014
DOI:10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2014.01.014
CITATIONS
37
READS
669
3authors,including:


22 PUBLICATIONS 170 CITATIONS 
65 PUBLICATIONS 293 CITATIONS 
Someoftheauthorsofthispublicationarealsoworkingontheserelatedprojects:
ThinFilmsandCoatingswithSpectralAlterationforEnergyApplications Viewproject
NumericalThermalCharacterizationofWaterhBNNanofluids Viewproject
AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyHakanErturkon17May2014.
Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Thermal Sciences
journal homepage: www.els evier.com/locate/ijts
Comparison of single and twophase models for nano ﬂ uid convection at the entrance of a uniformly heated tube
Sinan Göktepe, Kunt Atal ı k, Hakan Ertürk *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bo gaziçi University Istanbul, Turkey
article info
Article history:
Received 12 February 2013 Received in revised form 8 November 2013 Accepted 14 January 2014 Available online
Keywords:
Nanoﬂ uids Singlephase Twophase Heat transfer enhancement Laminar ﬂ ow Forced convection Full multiphase coupled
abstract
Macroscopic modeling of hydrodynamic and thermal behavior of nano ﬂ uid ﬂ ows at the entry region of uniformly heated pipe is studied. Singlephase models with and without thermal dispersion effect, Eulerian e Eulerian, and Eulerian e Mixture twophase models are evaluated by comparing predicted convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cients and friction factors with experimental results from literature. So lutions with two different velocity e pressure coupling algorithms, Full Multiphase Coupled, and Phase Coupled SemiImplicit Method for Pressure Linked Equations are also compared in terms of accuracy and computational cost. Dispersion model that uses velocity gradient to de ﬁ ne dispersion conductivity is found to be more effective at entry region compared to other singlephase models. However, twophase models predict convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient and friction factor more accurately at the entry re gion. Moreover, computational cost of Eulerian e Eulerian twophase model can be reduced up to 50% by implementing Full Multiphase Coupled scheme.
2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Engineered ﬂ uids made of a base ﬂ uid and nano sized particles such as CuO, Al _{2} O _{3} , or TiO _{2} [1] that form colloidal suspensions are referred as nano ﬂ uids [2] . The most commonly used base ﬂ uids are water and ethylene glycol due to their use in conventional thermal systems. Measured thermal conductivities of nano ﬂ uids are found to be exceeding predictions based on the Maxwell ’ s effective me dium theory that led many researchers to consider nano ﬂ uids as next generation heat transfer ﬂ uids [3] . Therefore, nano ﬂ uids 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 nano ﬂ uids. Many experimental studies were carried out to quantify thermal and ﬂ ow characteristics of nano ﬂ uids for laminar and turbulent ﬂ ow conditions [2,9 e13] . However, it is important to be able to model nano ﬂ uid ﬂ ow accurately in order to design equipment that operates with nano ﬂ uids. It was observed that addition of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 90 212 359 7356. Email addresses: snangoktepe@gmail.com (S. Göktepe), atalik@boun.edu.tr (K. Atalı k), hakan.erturk@boun.edu.tr (H. Ertürk).
12900729/ 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
nanoparticles to a base ﬂ uid, augments convective heat transfer together with an increase in pressure drop due to increased ther mal conductivity and viscosity [1,2,9 e13] . Therefore, modeling tools should estimate both of these behaviors accurately. Macroscopic models for nano ﬂ uid ﬂ ow and heat transfer can be classi ﬁ ed as singlephase and twophase models [1 e3,7,9 e15] . Singlephase approaches consider nanoparticles and base ﬂ uid as a single homogeneous ﬂ uid with respect to its effective properties [14] . Twophase approaches handle continuity, momentum and energy equations for particles and base ﬂ uid using three different methods. One of these methods used in this study is Eulerian e 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 Eulerian e Eulerian model (EEM) where separate continuity, momentum, and energy equations for each phase are solved. This approach is sug gested for ﬂ ows where interactions between phases are not well de ﬁ ned [17,18] . Although twophase models provide a better un derstanding of both phases, singlephase models are computa tionally more ef ﬁ cient, however provide less detail about each phase [18] . Forced convection of Al _{2} O _{3} e water/EG nano ﬂ uids in a uniformly heated tube at fully developed laminar and turbulent ﬂ ow regimes using a homogeneous singlephase model is studied by Maiga et al.
84
S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92
[14] . While their predictions underestimate measured heat transfer coef ﬁ cients, results indicate that addition of nanoparticles en hances convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient of Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid 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 coef ﬁ cient 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. Singlephase 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 Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid by considering temperature dependent properties. The reported increase in convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient of 2.5% Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid is 36% at a Peclet number of 6500. The results are in good agreement with the experimental data in the literature, suggesting that singlephase 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 Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid ﬂ ow using single phase models. Mirmasoumi et al. [24] investigated mixed convection of Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid in a horizontal tube using a twophase 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. Nano ﬂ uid forced convection in developing ﬂ ow in a tube subjected to constant heat ﬂ ux and temperature was studied by Bianco et al. [25] by using single and twophase models including volume of ﬂ uid (VOF), EMM, EEM considering both constant and temperature dependent properties. According to their results difference between homogeneous singlephase and two phase mixture model becomes signi ﬁ cant at 11% volume concen tration. Moreover, consideration of temperature dependent prop erties gives a better estimation of convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient. They observed that convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient for 2.5% Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid at a Reynolds number of 250 in creases up to 17%. Kalteh et al. [18] numerically studied CuO e water nano ﬂ uid laminar forced convection in a microchannel by twophase EEM. Although velocity and temperature differences between phases are negligible, EEM estimates convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient more accurately with respect to singlephase models. They also showed that particle e particle interactions have negligible effect on Nusselt number for laminar ﬂ ow. Lotﬁ et al. [16] evaluated homogeneous singlephase model, EMM, and EEM for Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid. 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 ef ﬁ cients and EMM is the most accurate model among three two phase models (EEM, EMM, VOF). Akbari et al. [26] compared sin gle and twophase models for mixed convection heat transfer of Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid. 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 coef ﬁ cients by twophase models are similar. Twophase models provide more accurate prediction of convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient with an overestimation, whereas singlephase model underpredicts convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient. Although singlephase models are found to be less accurate, it should be noted that the study did not include thermal dispersion models. Single and twophase models for Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid are also studied by Frad et al. [15] . They showed that twophase
models provide more accurate prediction of heat transfer of nano ﬂ uids for fully developed ﬂ ow. Although they are more accurate in predicting heat transfer, twophase models are computationally more expensive than singlephase 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 (PCSIMPLE) algorithm is widely used in literature due to its robustness [16,18,24,26] for EEM. Computational cost of twophase 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 PCSIMPLE. Considering the literature, there is no complete study that considers recent stateofthe art single and twophase models for laminar forced convection of nano ﬂ uids. This study aims at evalu ating singlephase and twophase models by considering the effect of temperature dependent properties, and dispersion effects for singlephase models, together with the ﬁ rst time use of FMC for twophase EEM of nano ﬂ uid forced convection. Results are compared with experimental data available in literature in terms of error and required CPU time. Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid with 42 nm nanoparticles is considered throughout the study due to availability of experimental data in the literature.
2. Mathematical models
2.1. Singlephase model
Singlephase models assume that base ﬂ uid and nanoparticles have the same temperature and velocity ﬁ eld. Therefore, continu ity, momentum and energy equations can be solved as if the ﬂ uid were a classical Newtonian ﬂ uid by using effective properties of nano ﬂ uid. Effective properties are functions of particle size ( d _{p} ), type, shape, and particle volume concentration ( _{f} _{p} ) and tempera ture [2,14,27] . In this study, for the homogeneous singlephase (SPM) Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid model with constant properties, nano ﬂ uid thermal conductivity ( k _{n}_{f} ) is determined by the correlation reported by Hamilton e Crosser [28] to take a simpler thermal conductivity model into account together with other advanced models. The formulation can be given as;
^{k}
nf
^{k}
bf
k _{p} þ ð n 1 Þ k _{b}_{f} ð n 1 Þ k _{b}_{f} k _{p} f _{p}
¼
k _{p} þ ð n 1 Þ k _{b}_{f} þ k _{b}_{f} k _{p} f _{p}
(1)
where, k _{b}_{f} and k _{p} are the base ﬂ uid 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 Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid, 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;
^{k}
nf
^{k}
bf
¼
1 þ 64 : 7 f ^{0} ^{:} ^{7}^{4}^{6}^{0}
p
^{} d bf
d
p
0 : 3690
bf ^{!} 0 : 7476
k
p
k
_{P}_{r} 0 : 9955 _{R}_{e} 1 : 2321 disp
(2)
where, d _{b}_{f} is molecular diameter of base ﬂ uid (0.29 nm, for water). For this study we considered Al _{2} O _{3} particles with 42 nm diameter. The Prandtl number ( Pr ) and the dispersion Reynolds number ( Re _{d}_{i}_{s}_{p} ) in this correlation are de ﬁ ned as;
S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e 92
85
Pr ¼
^{m}
^{b}^{f} bf
r bf a
^{R}^{e} disp ^{¼}
r ^{b}^{f} k ^{B} T
_{3}
pm
2
bf ^{l} bf
(3)
(4)
where, r _{b}_{f} is the density of base ﬂ uid, k _{B} is the Boltzmann constant, T is the absolute temperature, _{l} _{b}_{f} is the mean free path between base ﬂ uid molecules (0.17 nm, for water), _{a} _{b}_{f} is the thermal diffu sivity of base ﬂ uid and m _{b}_{f} is the temperature dependent base ﬂ uid viscosity (Pas) that is de ﬁ ned in Ref. [29] as follows;
m _{b}_{f}
¼ 2 : 414 10 ^{} ^{5} 10
247
: 8
T
140
(5)
In this paper homogeneous singlephase model with tempera ture dependent thermal conductivity is referred as SPT. For the homogeneous singlephase models, effective thermal conductivities are de ﬁ ned as;
k _{e}_{f}_{f} ¼ k _{n}_{f}
(6)
Density ( r _{n}_{f} ) and heat capacity of nano ﬂ uid ( c _{p}_{,}_{n}_{f} ), on the other hand, are estimated by using classical mixture models [10,14,25] as follows;
c p ; nf ¼ ^{1} ^{} ^{f} p ^{r} bf ^{c} p ; bf ^{þ} ^{r} p ^{f} p ^{c} p ; p
^{r} nf
^{r} nf ¼ 1 ^{f} p ^{r} bf þ ^{f} p ^{r} p
(7)
(8)
Maiga et al. [14] presented a 2nd degree polynomial curve ﬁ t to experimental data for Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid viscosity as;
^{m}
nf
^{m} bf
^{2}
¼ 123 f _{p} þ 7 : 36 f _{p} þ 1
(9)
which is used for all single phase models in this study.
2.2. Singlephase dispersion model
Singlephase dispersion model and homogeneous models are differentiated by how the nano ﬂ uid effective conductivity is de ﬁ ned. Xuan and Roetzel [20] introduced small perturbations in the momentum and energy equation to account for dispersion ef fects. Dispersion effects are then represented as an additional term in nano ﬂ uid effective conductivity and referred as dispersion con ductivity ( k _{d} ) and can be de ﬁ ned as in Refs. [20] and [21] . For dispersion models, effective nano ﬂ uid conductivity is given
as;
k eff ¼ k nf þ k disp
(10)
where, k _{n}_{f} is the nano ﬂ uid thermal conductivity determined by a correlation such as Eq. (1) or (2) . Formulation suggested by Xuan and Roetzel [20] (SPD1) can be given as;
k _{d}_{i}_{s}_{p} ¼ C _{1} ^{} rc _{p} ^{} _{n}_{f} f _{p} d _{p} Ru
(11)
where, C _{1} is an empirical constant that calibrates model to exper imental data, u is the ﬂ ow velocity in x direction, and R is the radius of pipe. A second formulation is suggested by Mokmeli and Saffar Avval [21] (SPD2) and it can be given as;
^{k} disp ^{¼} ^{C} 2 ^{r}^{c} p _{n}_{f} ^{f} p
v u R
v
r
d
p
(12)
where, C _{2} is an empirical constant that calibrates model to exper imental data. When C _{1} or C _{2} are set to zero, both models are reduced to the homogeneous singlephase model.
2.3. Twophase models
For twophase nano ﬂ uid models, it is assumed that base ﬂ uid and nanoparticles can have different velocity and temperature ﬁ elds. Volume of Fluid (VOF), Eulerian e Mixture model (EMM), and Eulerian e Eulerian model (EEM) are the three common twophase models used in modeling of nano ﬂ uids [26] . Volume of ﬂ uid model is not considered in this study since it is suggested for free surface ﬂ ows [30] .
2.3.1. Eulerian e Mixture twophase model In EMM, continuity, momentum, and energy equations are solved for the mixturephase and the phase velocities are deter mined by empirical correlations. The continuity equation for EMM is given as;
V $ ð r _{m} ^{!} _{m} Þ ¼ 0
v
(13)
where, the massaveraged velocity or mixture velocity, ^{!} v _{m} ; for twophase mixture is de ﬁ ned as;
_{!} m _{¼} ^{r} p ^{f} p ^{!} p ^{þ} ^{r} bf ^{f} bf ^{!} bf
v
v
v
r m
(14)
where, ^{!} v _{p} is the particle velocity, ^{!} v _{b}_{f} is the base ﬂ uid velocity, and r _{m} is the mixture density for twophase mixture that is de ﬁ ned as;
^{r} m ^{¼} ^{f} p ^{r} p ^{þ} ^{f} bf ^{r} bf
^{(}^{1}^{5}^{)}
The steady state momentum equation for twophase mixture is;
r
m
^{!}
v _{m} $ V v
^{!}
m
^{} ¼ V P þ m _{m} V v þ V v
m
!
!
þ V $
f r
bf bf
!
v
dr ; bf
!
v
dr ; bf
m
þ
T
f r
p p
!
v
dr ; p
!
v
dr ; p
(16)
where, P is the pressure, m _{m} is the viscosity of mixture that is equal to base ﬂ uid viscosity ( _{m} _{m} ¼ _{m} _{b}_{f} ), ^{!} v _{d}_{r} _{;} _{p} ; and ^{!} v _{d}_{r} _{;}_{b}_{f} are the drift
velocity of particles and base ﬂ uid, respectively. Here, ^{!} v dr ; p and
^{!} v _{d}_{r} _{;} _{b}_{f} for twophase mixture are de ﬁ ned as;
^{!} dr ; p ^{¼} ^{v}
v
^{!} _{p}
^{!} v _{m}
^{!} dr ; bf ^{¼} ^{v}
v
^{!} bf v
^{!} _{m}
(17)
(18)
The steady state energy equation for twophase mixture is given
as;
V $ f _{p} v
^{!} p ^{r} p ^{i} p ^{þ} ^{f} bf
^{!} bf r bf i bf ¼ V $ k eff V T
v
(19)
where, i _{b}_{f} and i _{p} are the enthalpy of base ﬂ uid and particles, respectively. Effective thermal conductivity for twophase mixture model k _{e}_{f}_{f} is de ﬁ ned as;
k _{e}_{f}_{f} ¼ f _{p} k _{p} þ f _{b}_{f} k _{b}_{f}
(21)
The volume fraction equation for twophase mixture is;
V $ f p r p
^{!} v _{m} ¼ V $ f _{p} r _{p} 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 particles ð ^{!} v _{p} Þ relative to base ﬂ uid ð ^{!} v _{b}_{f} Þ and it is de ﬁ ned as;
^{!} bf ; p ^{¼} ^{v}
v
^{!} bf v
^{!} _{p}
(23)
The relation between drift velocity and relative velocity can be presented as;
^{!} dr ; p ^{¼} ^{!} ^{v} p ; bf
v
^{} ^{} r ^{p} f ^{p}
r
m
^{!} bf ; p
v
(24)
The relative velocity is given by Manninen et al. [31] through Schiller and Naumann [32] drag formulation as follows;
^{!} v bf ; p ^{¼}
d
^{2}
p
^{r} p ^{r} m
18 ^{m} bf f d
r
p
^{!} a
f d ¼
1 þ 0 : 15 Re ^{0} ^{:} ^{6}^{8}^{7} 0 : 0183 Re _{p}
p
^{!}
a ¼ g
^{!} ð v
^{!} _{m} $ V Þ v
^{!} _{m}
Re _{p} 1000 Re _{p} > 1000
(25)
(26)
(27)
where, ^{!} a and ^{!} g are the particle ’ s and gravitational acceleration, respectively. The particle Reynolds number ( Re _{p} ) for EMM is de ﬁ ned as;
Re _{p} ¼ ^{U} ^{m} ^{d} ^{p} ^{r} ^{m}
m
m
(28)
2.3.2. Eulerian e Eulerian twophase model In EEM, momentum and energy equations are solved for each phase. Interactions between phases are de ﬁ ned by additional terms that represent momentum and heat exchange between phases [33] . The steady continuity equation for each phase is given as;
^{v} ^{f} bf ^{r} bf ^{u} bf
þ
^{1}
^{v} ^{f} bf ^{r} bf ^{v} bf
v
x
r
v
r
¼ 0
v ^{f} p ^{r} p u p
v r f _{p} r _{p} v _{p}
þ ^{1} 

v 
x r 
v 
r 
¼ 0
(29)
(30)
where, u and v are the velocity components in axial ( x ) and radial ( r ) directions, respectively. For steady ﬂ ow, axialmomentum equations for base ﬂ uid and particles can be given, respectively as;
u bf ^{v} ^{f} bf ^{r} bf ^{u} bf þ u bf ^{v} ^{f} bf ^{r} bf ^{v} bf
v
v
v x ^{þ} v
þ ð F _{d} Þ _{x} þ ð F _{v}_{m} Þ _{x}
x
P
v
r
_{x} ^{f} bf ^{m} bf v u ^{b}^{f}
v
v
x
þ ^{1} r v
¼ ^{f} bf
_{r} ^{f} bf ^{m} bf ^{r} v u ^{b}^{f}
v
v
r
u p v ^{f} p ^{r} p u p
v x
^{þ}
u _{p} ^{v} ^{f} ^{p} ^{r} ^{p} ^{v} ^{p} ¼ f _{p}
v
r
P
v
v x ^{þ} v
_{x} f p m p
v
v
u _{p}
v
x
f p m p r ^{v} ^{u} ^{p}
þ ^{1} r v
ð F _{v}_{m} Þ _{x} þ ð F _{c}_{o}_{l} Þ _{x}
v
_{r}
v
r
ð F _{d} Þ _{x}
(31)
(32)
Similarly, the radialmomentum equations can be written as;
v bf ^{v} ^{f} bf ^{r} bf ^{u} bf þ v bf ^{v} ^{f} bf ^{r} bf ^{v} bf
v
x
v P
v
r
v
r
_{x} ^{f} bf ^{m} bf v v ^{b}^{f}
v
^{þ} v
þ
v
x
ð F _{d} Þ _{r} þ ð F _{v}_{m} Þ _{r}
þ ^{1} r v
¼ ^{f} bf
^{} ^{m} bf v ^{b}^{f} ^{2}
r
_{r} ^{f} bf ^{m} bf ^{r} v v ^{b}^{f}
v
v
r
(33)
v p v ^{f} p ^{r} p u p
v x
^{þ}
v _{p} ^{v} ^{f} ^{p} ^{r} ^{p} ^{v} ^{p}
v r
^{¼} ^{} ^{f} ^{p} v r ^{þ} v _{x} ^{f} ^{p} ^{m} ^{p} v x
v
P
v
v
v _{p}
_{r} f p m p
þ ^{1} r v
ð F _{v} _{m} Þ _{r} þ ð F _{c}_{o}_{l} Þ _{r}
v
v
v _{p}
v
r
m p
v
p
^{2}
r
ð F _{d} Þ _{r}
(34)
where, ^{!} F _{v}_{m} is the virtual mass force due to relative acceleration of phases [17] . Since it has negligible effect on heat transfer as shown
in Ref. [18] , it is neglected in this study. ^{!} F _{c}_{o}_{l} is particle e particle
collision force, and F _{d} is the drag force between the ﬂ uid and particle phases de ﬁ ned by phase interaction equations. The drag
force between phases is de ﬁ ned as;
!
^{!}
F _{d}
¼ b v
^{!} bf v
^{!} _{p}
(35)
where, b is the friction factor, which depends on particle volume concentration and particle size. For dilute solutions ( _{f} _{b}_{f} 0.8), _{b} is de ﬁ ned by Syamlal and Gidaspow [33] as;
b ¼
3
4
_{C} d ^{f} p ^{f} bf
d
p
^{!} v bf ^{!} v p
f
2 : 65 bf
(36)
where, C _{d} is the drag coef ﬁ cient and can be predicted by;
C _{d} ¼
8
<
:
_{p} 1 þ 0 : 15 Re ^{0} ^{:} ^{6}^{9}^{7}
24
Re
p
0 : 44
Re _{p} 1000
Re _{p} < 1000
(37)
Here, particle Reynolds number, Re _{p} , is de ﬁ ned as;
Re _{p} ¼
^{f} bf ^{r} bf
^{!} v bf v d p
^{!}
p
^{m} bf
(38)
Collision force of particles, ^{!} F _{c}_{o}_{l} ; is de ﬁ ned by Bouillard et al. [34] as;
^{!} F col ¼ G ^{f} bf V ^{f} bf
(39)
where, G ( f _{b}_{f} ) is the particle e particle interaction modulus and it is
de ﬁ ned as;
G f _{b}_{f} ¼ exp 600 f _{b}_{f} 0 : 376
(40)
Once momentum equations for each phase and the related
phase interaction equations are de ﬁ ned, energy equations for each phase can be presented as follows;
v
_{x} ^{f} bf ^{r} bf ^{u} bf ^{c} p ; bf ^{T} bf ^{þ}
v
v
_{r} ^{f} bf ^{r} bf ^{v} bf ^{c} p ; bf ^{T} bf
v
¼
_{x} ^{f} bf ^{k} eff ; bf v T ^{b}^{f}
^{v}
v
v
x
h _{v} T _{b}_{f} T _{p}
þ ^{1} r v
v
_{r} ^{f} bf ^{k} eff ; bf ^{r} v T ^{b}^{f}
v
r
(41)
S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e 92
87
v
v
_{x}
f _{p} r _{p} u p c p ; p T p þ
v
v
_{r}
f _{p} r _{p} v p c p ; p T p
¼
^{v}
v
_{x}
^{f} p ^{k} eff ; p
v
T _{p}
v
x
þ ^{1} r v
v
_{r}
^{f} p ^{k} eff ; p ^{r} v T ^{p}
v
r
þ h v T bf T p
(42)
where, k _{e}_{f}_{f}_{,}_{p} and k _{e}_{f}_{f}_{,}_{b}_{f} are the effective thermal conductivity of base ﬂ uid and particles, and h _{v} is volumetric interphase heat transfer coef ﬁ cient between phases. The temperature for particle and base ﬂ uid phases are T _{p} and T _{b}_{f} , respectively. Volumetric interphase heat transfer coef ﬁ cient is de ﬁ ned as;
h v ¼ 6 1 f _{b}_{f}
_{d} p
h _{p}
(43)
For mono dispersed particles, particle heat transfer coef ﬁ cient, h _{p} , is estimated by a correlation presented by Wakao and Kaguei [35] through particle Nusselt number ( Nu _{p} ) as;
Nu
_{p} ¼ ^{h} ^{p} ^{d} ^{p} ¼ 2 þ 1 : 1 Re ^{0} ^{:} ^{6} Pr ^{1} ^{=} ^{3}
^{k}
bf
p
(44)
where, Pr is the Prandtl number of base ﬂ uid. The particle Reynolds number is de ﬁ ned by Eq. (38) . The effective conductivities for particle and base ﬂ uid phases are presented as [18] ;
3.1. Singlephase model
For singlephase model, momentum, energy, and continuity
equations are solved with effective nano ﬂ uid properties for prob lem domain in Fig. 1. Third order powerlaw scheme is used in discretization of momentum, energy and pressure equations. Semi Implicit Method of Pressure Linked Equations (SIMPLE) algorithm is used for velocity pressure coupling. A convergence criterion is used so that residuals for all equations are less than 1 10 ^{} ^{6} . Boundary conditions for governing equations of singlephase model are de ﬁ ned considering the noslip condition at the wall;
u ð x ; R Þ ¼ v ð x ; R Þ ¼ 0
and uniform inlet velocity
u ð 0 ; r Þ ¼ U ;
v ð 0 ; r Þ ¼ 0
with constant wall heat ﬂ ux ð q _{w} Þ condition, expressed as;
00
^{} ^{k} eff
v
T
v
r
^{} r ¼ R
00
¼ q _{w}
(52)
(53)
(54)
Dispersion model empirical constants C _{1} and C _{2} in Eqs. (14) and (15) are determined according to the experimental data provided by Ref. [12] .
^{k} eff ; bf ^{¼} k ^{b} ^{;} ^{b}^{f}
^{f}
bf
and
^{k} eff ; p ^{¼} k ^{b} ^{;} ^{p}
f
p
where, k _{b}_{,}_{p} and k _{b}_{,}_{b}_{f} are de ﬁ ned as;
k b ; bf
¼ 1
p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 ^{f} bf
k _{b}_{f}
k b ; p ¼
p
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1 ^{f} bf
ð uA þ ½ 1 u GÞ k _{b}_{f}
(45)
(46)
(47)
(48)
with u ¼ 7.26 10 ^{} ^{3} for spherical particles and G is de ﬁ ned as;
G ¼
0
@
^{2}
B ð A 1 Þ
_{2} ln ^{A}
1 ^{B}
B
A
A ^{} 1
B
A
^{} _{} B 1 _{} B þ 1
1 ^{B}
2
A
1 A
(49)
3.2. Twophase models
Eulerian e Eulerian model (EEM) and EMM are used with the third order powerlaw scheme for solving momentum and energy equations. The third order Quadratic Upstream Interpolation for Convective Kinetics (QUICK) scheme is used to solve volume frac tion equation. For EMM, SIMPLE algorithm is used for pressure and velocity coupling. However, for EEM, in addition to Phase Coupled SIMPLE (PCSIMPLE) algorithm that is widely used in literature, a different algorithm, namely Full Multiphase Coupled (FMC), is used for coupling scheme to assess its accuracy and ef ﬁ ciency. Phase CoupledSIMPLE is a wellestablished, widely used, and robust algorithm, where phase velocities are solved in a segregated manner with a pressure correction. Velocity, shared pressure, and volume fraction corrections are coupled simultaneously in FMC algorithm. Although FMC is expected to be more ef ﬁ cient, diver gence may occur at high particle volume concentrations due to volume fraction equation [17] . Boundary conditions for EMM are de ﬁ ned based on noslip
condition at wall for mixture phase as;
u _{m} ð x ; R Þ ¼ v _{m} ð x ; R Þ ¼ 0
(55)
where, parameters A and B for spherical particles are given as;
A ¼ ^{k} ^{p}
^{k}
bf
B ¼ 1 : 25 ^{1} ^{} ^{f} ^{b}^{f}
^{f}
bf
_{!} 10
9
and uniform inlet velocity for base ﬂ uid and particle phases, respectively;
(50) 
u _{b}_{f} ð 0 ; r Þ ¼ U _{b}_{f} ; 
v _{b}_{f} ð 0 ; r Þ ¼ 0 
(56) 
(51) 
u _{p} ð 0 ; r Þ ¼ U _{p} ; 
v _{p} ð 0 ; r Þ ¼ 0 
(57) 
where, U _{p} ¼ U _{b}_{f} are mean velocities of base ﬂ uid and particles. Uniform constant heat ﬂ ux at wall is applied as,
3. Problem statement and numerical method
Finite Control Volume method is used to solve numerically the equations for nano ﬂ uid ﬂ ow and heat transfer. The problem domain is presented in Fig. 1 that is discretized by a uniform structured grid.
^{} ^{k} eff
v
T
v
r
^{} r ¼ R
00
¼ q _{w}
(58)
Similarly, the boundary conditions for EEM are de ﬁ ned with respect to noslip at boundaries for base ﬂ uid and particle phases as;
88
S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e92
Fig. 1. Problem geometry and boundary conditions.
u _{b}_{f} ð x ; R Þ ¼ v _{b}_{f} ð x ; R Þ ¼ 0
u _{p} ð x ; R Þ ¼ v _{p} ð x ; R Þ ¼ 0
(59)
(60)
with uniform inlet velocity for base ﬂ uid and particle phases as;
u _{b}_{f} ð 0 ; r Þ ¼ U _{b}_{f} ; 
v _{b}_{f} ð 0 ; r Þ ¼ 0 
u _{p} ð 0 ; r Þ ¼ U _{p} ; 
v _{p} ð 0 ; r Þ ¼ 0 
(61)
(62)
and constant wall heat ﬂ ux for particle ﬂ uid mixture as;
^{} ^{f} p ^{k} eff ; p
v
T _{p}
v
r
_{} r ¼ R ^{þ} ^{f} bf ^{k} eff ; bf v T ^{b}^{f}
v
r
3.3. Model validation
^{} r ¼ R ^{¼} ^{q}
00
_{w}
(63)
A grid independence study is carried out in order to ensure grid independent solutions. Three different grid resolutions are compared with correlation given by Shah [36] and experimental data reported in Ref. [12] . The results indicate that 15 2000 grid yielded a grid independent solution. For both single and two phase models the local Nusselt number for nano ﬂ uids ( Nu _{n}_{f}_{,}_{x} ) de ﬁ ned as;
_{N}_{u} nf ; x _{¼} h ð x Þ D
^{k}
nf
^{q}
00
w ^{D}
k _{n}_{f} ð T _{w} T mean Þ
¼
^{(}^{6}^{4}^{)}
Variation in local Darcy friction factor ( f _{x} ) was also checked, and results indicate that 15 2000 grid has 0.7% error with respect to the theoretical value of Darcy friction factor for the fully developed region. Darcy friction factor used here is de ﬁ ned as;
_{f} x _{¼} 8 s _{w} ð x Þ
^{r} bf ^{U} ^{2}
(65)
where, s _{w} ( x ) is local wall shear stress, U is the mean axial velocity. Reynolds number for nano ﬂ uids is de ﬁ ned as;
Re ¼ ^{r} ^{n}^{f} ^{D}^{U}
^{m} nf
4. Results and discussion
(66)
The goal of this study is to assess effectiveness of single and two phase models for predicting thermal and hydrodynamic charac teristics of nano ﬂ uids. Therefore, solutions for singlephase ho mogeneous, singlephase dispersion, twophase Eulerian e Mixture, and twophase Eulerian e Eulerian models are compared with experimental data presented by Wen and Ding [12] at x / D ¼ 63 and
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 any ambiguity regarding de ﬁ nition of singlephase models. Comparisons of local Nusselt numbers for 1.6% Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid are presented in Figs. 2 and 3 . Singlephase models un derestimate Nu _{n}_{f}_{,} _{x} at the entry region of circular tube, whereas both twophase models overestimate Nu _{n}_{f}_{,} _{x} as can be seen from Figs. 2 and 3 . Error with experimental values are 31.4% and 19.6% at 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. Nu _{x} pre dictions of our EMM and EMM by Ref. [26] are very close to each other. Slight difference between models might be due to variation
of thermal properties of Al _{2} O _{3} used. In this study thermophysical
properties of Al _{2} O _{3} are taken from National Institute for Standards and Technology [37] . An additional comparison with experimental data from Ref. [12] in terms of local convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient ( h _{x} ) versus x / D is also presented in Figs. 4 e7 to prevent any possible ambiguity due to de ﬁ nition of nano ﬂ uid thermal conductivity. Fig. 4 indicates that at the very beginning of entry region, effect of temperature dependency of properties is limited since the ﬂ ow is not fully affected by the thermal boundary conditions and the temperature difference is not signi ﬁ cant. The effect increases as the ﬂ ow develops as it can be observed from comparison of SPM and SPT. Table 2 suggests that use of temperature dependent nano ﬂ uid conductivity model increases solution accuracy up to 4% for single phase models. Comparison of dispersion models reveals that, SPD2, that uses dispersion conductivity formulation by Eq. (12) , is more accurate in predicting heat transfer coef ﬁ cient at entry region compared to SPD1, which uses formulation by Eq. (11) . As shown in Table 2 , SPD2 model is approximately 8% more accurate in pre dicting heat transfer coef ﬁ cient compared to SPD1. In Table 2 and Fig. 5 , it is also shown that for volume fraction of 1.6% at Reynolds number of 1050, predictive accuracy of EMM becomes superior to that of EEM as the ﬂ ow develops. However the difference between two models is very small and as far as the accuracy of the models are considered, such difference can be neglected. It is also observed that both EEM and EMM start overpredicting as ﬂ ow develops. Based on Figs. 2 and 4 , and Tables 2 e 4 , it can be concluded that the best singlephase model is SPD2. However, there is no clear indication on the better twophase model, since both EEM and
Table 1 Singlephase models and corresponding effective property models.
Model name 
Thermal conductivity model(s) 
Viscosity model 

k nf 
k disp 
m nf 

SPM 
Eq. (1) 
0 
Eq. (9) 
SPT 
Eq. (2) 
0 
Eq. (9) 
SPD1 
Eq. (2) 
Eq. (11) 
Eq. (9) 
SPD2 
Eq. (2) 
Eq. (12) 
Eq. (9) 
S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e 92
89
Fig. 2. Comparison of singlephase models with experimental data [12] for 1.6% Al _{2} O _{3} ewater nano ﬂuid at Re ¼ 1050.
Fig. 5. Comparison of convective heat transfer coef ﬁcients ( h _{x} ) of twophase model with experimental data at Re ¼ 1050 for 1.6% Al _{2} O _{3} e water nanoﬂ uid.
Fig. 3. Comparison of twophase models with experimental data [12] for 1.6% Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂuid at Re ¼ 1050.
Fig. 4. Comparison of convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cients ( h _{x} ) of singlephase model with experimental data at Re ¼ 1050 for 1.6% Al _{2} O _{3} ewater nano ﬂuid.
Fig. 6. Comparison of convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cients of SPD2 with experimental data at Re ¼ 1050 [12] for three different volume concentrations (0.6%, 1%, and 1.6%).
Fig. 7. Comparison of convective heat transfer coef ﬁcients of EEM with experimental 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 coef ﬁ cient for _{f} _{p} 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 coef ﬁ cient for _{f} _{p} 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% 

Table 4 Error in convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient for _{f} _{p} ¼ 0.6%. 

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

EEM 

14.4% 
6.0% 
0.6% 
8.5% 

EMM 

19.2% 
6.5% 
1.2% 
7.8% 

SPM 
31.4% 

22.0% 

18.8% 

12.6% 

SPT 
12.8% 

20.5% 

17.0% 
10.6% 

SPD1 

27.8% 

16.2% 
10.9% 
2.0% 

SPD2 
23.8% 
13.6% 
9.6% 
1.6% 
EMM have different accuracies at different volume fractions as shown in Tables 2 e 4 . For example, for volume fraction of 1% EMM model prediction error is smaller than that of EEM. However, for volume fraction of 0.6%, the opposite is true. Overall, results suggest that at entrance region, EEM performs better with low particle concentrations, whereas EMM performs better at higher particle volume concentrations. The prediction accuracies of SPD2 and EEM are investigated at different concentrations in Figs. 6 and 7 with Tables 2 e 4 . Results indicate that, EEM model underestimates convective heat transfer
Fig. 9. Comparison of estimated Darcy friction factors of singlephase model at Re ¼ 1050 for 1.6%, 1%, and 0.6% Al _{2} O _{3} e water nanoﬂ uid.
coef ﬁ cient at the beginning of entry region where, SPD2 under predicts until the calibration point ( x / D ¼ 176). However, as ﬂ ow develops, EEM starts overestimating the convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient. Results in Tables 2 e 4 also suggest that calibration constant for SPD2 is independent of volume fraction and SPD2 and SPD1 perform best near the calibration point as expected. Accuracy of models at different Reynolds numbers is also 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 sults are compared with experimental data from Ref. [12] . Both dispersion models were calibrated based on the experimental data by Ref. [12] at axial location of x / D ¼ 178 for Reynolds number of 1050 and volume fraction of 1.6%. Comparison of models in Fig. 8 reveals that the most accurate model in the Reynolds numbers range considered is the SPD2. Despite considering each phase individually, both twophase models underestimate the change in Nusselt number with chang ing Reynolds numbers. Although SPD2 is calibrated for Reynolds 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 Nu _{n}_{f}_{,} _{x} of 1.6% Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂuid at x/D ¼ 116 for different Reynolds numbers ( Re ¼ 1050, 1320, 1600, 1810).
Fig. 10. Comparison of estimated Darcy friction factors of Eulerian eEulerian two phase model at Re ¼ 1050 for 1.6%, 1%, and 0.6% Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂuid.
S. Göktepe et al. / International Journal of Thermal Sciences 80 (2014) 83e 92
91
Table 5 Computational time [ s ] comparison of FMC and PCSIMPLE.
f _{p} [%] 
Eulerian e Eulerian model 
Singlephase 
Eulerian e Mixture 

FMC 
PCSIMPLE 
SIMPLE 
SIMPLE 

0.6 
82.2 
157.1 
77.6 
552.8 
1 
89.8 
158.6 
78.1 
572.7 
1.6 
111.7 
163.8 
81.7 
566.5 
accuracy can be achieved with a single calibration for different volume fractions and Reynolds numbers, SPD2, is suggested for applications where calibration data is available. On the other hand, for nano ﬂ uids with no prior experimental studies, one of the two phase models is suggested. Another objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of single and twophase models in the estimation of hydrodynamic characteristics of nano ﬂ uids. Estimated Darcy friction factors are presented in Figs. 9 and 10 for SPD2 and EEM, respectively for three volume fractions (0.6%, 1%, 1.6%). EMM model in not considered here since, the model showed no change in the friction factor compared to that of homogenous singlephase model. The single phase model estimated less than 1% change in friction factor with respect to base ﬂ uid for all three volume fractions. However, this contradicts the data reported by experimental studies such as Ref. [38] . Hwang et al. [38] reported 4.2% increase in friction factor for 0.3% Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid at a Reynolds number of 400. The EEM model estimated 2% increase in friction factor for the same nano ﬂ uid at a Reynolds number of 400. Based on estimated results, singlephase models estimate no change in friction factor. The major drawback of twophase models is their computa tional expense. The required CPU time was measured as 163.8 s for EEM using PCSIMPLE algorithm, 77.6 s for singlephase models, and 566.5 s for EMM for 1.6% Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid ﬂ ow at a Reynolds number of 1050 as shown in Table 5 . The numerical studies presented in this study were performed on a workstation operating at a Quad Core 2.4 GHz CPU and all four cores were used in calculations. Although, PCSIMPLE is a very robust method, it is computationally expensive. A remedy might be the use of Full Multiphase Coupled (FMC) scheme for dilute nano ﬂ uid systems. Fig. 11 shows that the predicted h _{x} distribution is identical for FMC and PCSIMPLE. As shown in Table 5 , computational cost of EEM model can be reduced by approximately 65%.
Fig. 11. Comparison of two coupling algorithms for 1.6% Al _{2} O _{3} ewater nano ﬂuid at Re ¼ 1050.
5. Conclusion
Single and twophase models have been investigated for the characterization of laminar forced convection of Al _{2} O _{3} e water nano ﬂ uid with various concentrations in a circular tube. Single phase thermal dispersion model suggested by Mokmeli and SaffarAvval [21] is found to be the most accurate singlephase model. It is recommended for applications, when calibration data is available, thermal analysis is the objective, and computational ef ﬁ ciency is important. Furthermore, it is shown that for Reynolds numbers and particle volume fractions considered in this study, calibration constant used in the de ﬁ nition of dispersion conduc tivity is independent of Reynolds number and volume fraction of particles. Therefore, the model can be used at varying Reynolds numbers and particle volume concentrations without any re calibration. It is also observed that Eulerian e Eulerian and Euler ian e Mixture models under predict heat transfer coef ﬁ cient at the beginning of the entry region then, as the ﬂ ow develops both models start to over predict the heat transfer coef ﬁ cient. Consid ering its computational ef ﬁ ciency, Eulerian e Eulerian twophase model is recommended for applications, when no prior experi mental data is available and prediction of both heat transfer and pressure drop is important. For the Eulerian e Eulerian two phase model, computational cost can be reduced by the use of Full Multiphase Coupling algorithm without sacri ﬁ cing solution accu racy. The transport between phases in Eulerian e Eulerian two phase model is estimated based on correlations derived for macro parti cles. Developing relations more suitable for nanoparticles are required to further improve the prediction accuracy of Eulerian e Eulerian two phase model.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank The Scienti ﬁ c and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) for support under the grant 111M1777 of the 1001 Program.
Nomenclature
C _{1} , C _{2} C _{d} c _{p} 
calibration constants for SPD1 and SPD2, respectively drag coef ﬁ cient heat capacity 
d 
particle diameter 
D 
diameter of tube 
^{!} 

F 
force vector 
f 
Darcy friction coef ﬁ cient 
h 
convective heat transfer coef ﬁ cient 
G 
particle e particle interaction modulus 
^{!} 
gravitational acceleration vector 
g 

i 
enthalpy 
k 
thermal conductivity 
k _{B} 
Boltzmann constant 
L 
length 
n 
shape factor 
Nu _{x} 
local Nusselt number 
q ^{0}^{0} 
heat ﬂ ux 
P 
pressure 
Pe 
Peclet number 
Pr 
Prandtl number 
R 
radius of pipe 
Re 
Reynolds number 
T 
temperature 
U 
axial mean velocity 
u , v 
x and r velocity components, respectively 

Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.