Publication | Closed Access
Specific Heat Measurement of Three Nanofluids and Development of New Correlations
293
Citations
10
References
2009
Year
EngineeringZinc OxideNanofluidsChemistryThree NanofluidsChemical EngineeringFluid PropertiesAluminum OxideThermodynamicsNew CorrelationsSilicon Dioxide NanoparticlesMaterials SciencePhysicsNanotechnologyNanomanufacturingThermal TransportThermal PropertyNanofluidicsHeat TransferSpecific Heat MeasurementNanomaterialsNatural SciencesApplied PhysicsThermal SensorThermal EngineeringThermophysical PropertyThermo-fluid Systems
The study measures the specific heat of aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, and silicon dioxide nanofluids and develops a new correlation for predicting their heat capacity. Nanoparticles (up to 10 vol %) were dispersed in 60:40 ethylene glycol/water or deionized water, measured from 315–363 K, and compared to existing specific‑heat models. The developed correlation predicts specific heat within ~2.7 % average error, outperforming existing models that showed poor agreement.
This paper presents the specific heat measurements of three nanofluids containing aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, and silicon dioxide nanoparticles. The first two are dispersed in a base fluid of 60:40 by mass of ethylene glycol and water (60:40 EG/W) and the last one in deionized water. Measurements were conducted over a temperature range of 315–363 K, which is the normal range of operation of automobile coolants and building heating fluids in cold regions. The nanoparticle volumetric concentrations tested were up to 10%. The measured values were compared with existing equations for the specific heat of nanofluids. A close agreement with the experimental data was not observed. Therefore, a new general correlation was developed for the specific heat as functions of particle volumetric concentration, temperature, and the specific heat of both the particle and the base fluid from the present set of measurements. The correlation predicts the specific heat values of each nanofluid within an average error of about 2.7%.
| Year | Citations | |
|---|---|---|
Page 1
Page 1