Advertisement

Heat and Mass Transfer

, Volume 55, Issue 1, pp 119–132 | Cite as

Pool boiling under the magnetic environment: experimental study on the role of magnetism in particulate fouling and bubbling of iron oxide/ethylene glycol nano-suspension

  • H. Arya
  • M. M. SarafrazEmail author
  • M. Arjomandi
Original
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

A set of experiments were conducted in a high-fidelity test rig to develop a new understanding on the role of magnetic field on the particulate fouling of iron oxide/ethylene glycol nano-suspension under a high heat flux pool boiling regime. Nano-suspensions were prepared at mass concentrations 0.1 and 0.2% and the tests were conducted up to heat flux 900 kW/m2. Influence of different operating parameters including heat flux, mass concentration of nanoparticles, the strength of magnetic field and bulk temperature on the pool boiling heat transfer coefficient (as an index for thermal performance) and particulate fouling resistance of the surface was experimentally investigated and discussed. Results showed that the presence of magnetic field lowers the fouling resistance and increases the heat transfer coefficient at any mass concentrations of test nanofluid. Likewise, an increase in the bulk temperature of nanofluid increased the heat transfer coefficient as well. For any mass concentrations, presence of the magnetic field suppressed the fouling rate. For all the experiments, the fouling thermal resistance reached the asymptotic point in which the fouling resistance remains constant. The value of the asymptotic point was increased with an increase in the mass concentration of nanofluid. Eventually, magnetic field was found to mitigate the fouling formation of nanoparticles at any heat fluxes, mass concentration and bulk temperature of nanofluids.

Nomenclature

h

heat transfer coefficient, W/m2. K

I

Current, Ampere

k

Thermal conductivity, W/m. K

q

Heat flux, kW/m2

Rf

Fouling resistance, m2. °C/kW

T

Temperature, °C or K

V

Voltage, volt

Z

axial distance between thermocouples, m

Sub-scripts

b

bulk

c

Clean

f

Fouling

W

wall

Greek letters

α

Heat transfer coefficient, W/m2. K

Difference

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors of this work appreciate the University of Adelaide and Centre for energy technology Denmark for the scientific support. The first author of this work tends to appreciate school of Mechanical Engineering, the University of Adelaide for their scientific support. Prof Maziar Arjomandi and M. M. Sarafraz are highly appreciated for their great scientific supports.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest for the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Sarafraz M, Arya A, Hormozi F, Nikkhah V (2017) On the convective thermal performance of a CPU cooler working with liquid gallium and CuO/water nanofluid: a comparative study. Appl Therm Eng 112:1373–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sarafraz M, Hormozi F (2014) Scale formation and subcooled flow boiling heat transfer of CuO–water nanofluid inside the vertical annulus. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 52:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sarafraz M, Hormozi F (2014) Convective boiling and particulate fouling of stabilized CuO-ethylene glycol nanofluids inside the annular heat exchanger. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 53:116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sarafraz M, Hormozi F (2014) Nucleate pool boiling heat transfer characteristics of dilute Al 2 O 3–ethyleneglycol nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 58:96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sarafraz M, Peyghambarzadeh S, Alavifazel S (2012) Enhancement of nucleate pool boiling heat transfer to dilute binary mixtures using endothermic chemical reactions around the smoothed horizontal cylinder. Heat Mass Transf 48:1755–1765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sarafraz M, Kiani T, Hormozi F (2016) Critical heat flux and pool boiling heat transfer analysis of synthesized zirconia aqueous nano-fluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 70:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peng H, Ding G, Jiang W, Hu H, Gao Y (2009) Heat transfer characteristics of refrigerant-based nanofluid flow boiling inside a horizontal smooth tube. Int J Refrig 32:1259–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim SJ, McKrell T, Buongiorno J, Hu L-w (2010) Subcooled flow boiling heat transfer of dilute alumina, zinc oxide, and diamond nanofluids at atmospheric pressure. Nucl Eng Des 240:1186–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Witharana S (2003) Boiling of refrigerants on enhanced surfaces and boiling of nanofluids. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ding Y, Chen H, Wang L, Yang C-Y, He Y, Yang W, Lee WP, Zhang L, Huo R (2007) Heat transfer intensification using nanofluids. KONA Powder Part J 25:23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu Z-H, Yang X-F, Xiong J-G (2010) Boiling characteristics of carbon nanotube suspensions under sub-atmospheric pressures. Int J Therm Sci 49:1156–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peyghambarzadeh S, Sarafraz M, Vaeli N, Ameri E, Vatani A, Jamialahmadi M (2013) Forced convective and subcooled flow boiling heat transfer to pure water and n-heptane in an annular heat exchanger. Ann Nucl Energy 53:401–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarafraz M, Hormozi F (2014) Experimental study on the thermal performance and efficiency of a copper made thermosyphon heat pipe charged with alumina–glycol based nanofluids. Powder Technol 266:378–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sarafraz M, Peyghambarzadeh S (2013) Experimental study on subcooled flow boiling heat transfer to water–diethylene glycol mixtures as a coolant inside a vertical annulus. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 50:154–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sarafraz M, Hormozi F, Peyghambarzadeh S (2015) Role of nanofluid fouling on thermal performance of a thermosyphon: are nanofluids reliable working fluid? Appl Therm Eng 82:212–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nikkhah V, Sarafraz M, Hormozi F, Peyghambarzadeh S (2015) Particulate fouling of CuO–water nanofluid at isothermal diffusive condition inside the conventional heat exchanger-experimental and modeling. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 60:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    He Y, Jin Y, Chen H, Ding Y, Cang D, Lu H (2007) Heat transfer and flow behaviour of aqueous suspensions of TiO 2 nanoparticles (nanofluids) flowing upward through a vertical pipe. Int J Heat Mass Transf 50:2272–2281CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    You S, Kim J, Kim K (2003) Effect of nanoparticles on critical heat flux of water in pool boiling heat transfer. Appl Phys Lett 83:3374–3376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xing M, Yu J, Wang R (2016) Effects of surface modification on the pool boiling heat transfer of MWNTs/water nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 103:914–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hu Y, Li H, He Y, Wang L (2016) Role of nanoparticles on boiling heat transfer performance of ethylene glycol aqueous solution based graphene nanosheets nanofluid. Int J Heat Mass Transf 96:565–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naphon P (2015) Effect of magnetic fields on the boiling heat transfer characteristics of Nanofluids. Int J Thermophys 36:2810–2819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verplaetsen F, Berghmans JA (1998) The influence of an electric field on the heat transfer rate during film boiling of stagnant fluids. Rev Gén Therm 37:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arias F (2010) Film boiling in magnetic field in liquid metals with particular reference to fusion reactor project. J Fusion Energ 29:130–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pourmehran O, Rahimi-Gorji M, Ganji DD (2017) Analysis of nanofluid flow in a porous media rotating system between two permeable sheets considering Thermophoretic and Brownian motion. Therm Sci 21(5):2057–2067Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tabassum R, Mehmood R, Pourmehran O, Akbar NS, Gorji-Bandpy M (2017) Impact of viscosity variation on oblique flow of Cu–H2O nanofluid. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part E: J Process Mech Eng 20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954408917732759
  26. 26.
    Yousefi M, Pourmehran O, Gorji-Bandpy M, Inthavong K, Yeo L, Tu J (2017) CFD simulation of aerosol delivery to a human lung via surface acoustic wave nebulization. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 16:2035–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fan L-W, Li J-Q, Li D-Y, Zhang L, Yu Z-T, Cen K-F (2015) The effect of concentration on transient pool boiling heat transfer of graphene-based aqueous nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci 91:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ali HM, Generous MM, Ahmad F, Irfan M (2016) Experimental investigation of nucleate pool boiling heat transfer enhancement of TIO 2-water based nanofluids. Appl Therm EngGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aminfar H, Mohammadpourfard M, Maroofiazar R (2014) Experimental study on the effect of magnetic field on critical heat flux of ferrofluid flow boiling in a vertical annulus. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 58:156–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee T, Lee JH, Jeong YH (2013) Flow boiling critical heat flux characteristics of magnetic nanofluid at atmospheric pressure and low mass flux conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf 56:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abdollahi A, Salimpour MR, Etesami N (2017) Experimental analysis of magnetic field effect on the pool boiling heat transfer of a ferrofluid. Appl Therm Eng 111:1101–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang P, Tarng YS (1998) Design optimization of cutting parameters for turning operations based on the Taguchi method. J Mater Process Technol 84:122–129Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sarafraz M, Nikkhah V, Nakhjavani M, Arya A (2017) Fouling formation and thermal performance of aqueous carbon nanotube nanofluid in a heat sink with rectangular parallel microchannel. Appl Therm Eng 123:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sarafraz M, Hormozi F, Peyghambarzadeh S (2014) Thermal performance and efficiency of a thermosyphon heat pipe working with a biologically ecofriendly nanofluid. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 57:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kamalgharibi M, Hormozi F, Zamzamian SAH, Sarafraz M (2016) Experimental studies on the stability of CuO nanoparticles dispersed in different base fluids: influence of stirring, sonication and surface active agents. Heat Mass Transf 52:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Salari E, Peyghambarzadeh SM, Sarafraz MM, Hormozi F (2016) Boiling thermal performance of TiO2 aqueous nanofluids as a coolant on a disc copper block. Period Polytech Chem Eng 60:106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moffat RJ (1988) Describing the uncertainties in experimental results. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 1:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sarafraz MM (2012) Nucleate pool boiling of aqueous solution of citric acid on a smoothed horizontal cylinder. Heat Mass Transf 48:611–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peyghambarzadeh S, Vatani A, Jamialahmadi M (2013) Influences of bubble formation on different types of heat exchanger fouling. Appl Therm Eng 50:848–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shahmoradi Z, Etesami N, Esfahany MN (2013) Pool boiling characteristics of nanofluid on flat plate based on heater surface analysis. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 47:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ciloglu D, Bolukbasi A (2015) A comprehensive review on pool boiling of nanofluids. Appl Therm Eng 84:45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abdollahi A, Salimpour MR, Etesami N (2016) Experimental analysis of pool boiling heat transfer of ferrofluid on surfaces deposited with nanofluid. Modarres Mech Eng 16(2):19–30Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Energy Resource EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.School of Mechanical Engineeringthe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations