Meyer Viscosity 2016 PDF
Meyer Viscosity 2016 PDF
Meyer Viscosity 2016 PDF
numerical models
ABSTRACT
The enhanced thermal characteristics of nanofluids have made it one of the fastest-growing
research areas in the last decade. Numerous researches have shown the merits of nanofluids in
heat transfer equipment. However, one of the problems is the increase in viscosity due to the
suspension of nanoparticles. This viscosity increase is not desirable in the industry, especially
when it involves flow, such as in heat exchanger or micro-channel applications where lowering
pressure drop and pumping power are of significance. In this regard, a critical review of the
theoretical, empirical and numerical models for effective viscosity of nanofluids was presented.
volume fraction, size, shape, temperature, pH and shearing rate were reviewed. Other properties
such as nanofluid stability and magnetorheological characteristics of some nanofluids were also
nanoparticle volume fraction, size, shape, pH and shearing rate. Regarding the composite of
nanofluids, which can consist of different fluid bases and different nanoparticles, different accurate
correlations for different nanofluids need to be developed. Finally, there is a lack of investigation
into the stability of different nanofluids when the viscosity is the target point.
1
INTRODUCTION
Colloidal suspension dates back to Maxwell’s study in 1873 [1]. Though the idea behind his study
was vivid, the imposed problems were too enormous for profitable engineering solutions [2]. In
1995, Choi [3] came up with a pioneering idea based on Maxwell’s study and suspended ultrafine
particles (nanoparticles) in conventional heat transfer fluids. His invention has opened up a myriad
containing metallic (Ag, Au, Al, Cu, Ni, etc.), non-metallic (single- and multi-wall carbon
nanotube (SWCNT and MWCNT), Si, Graphene, etc.), metallic oxide (Al2O3, CuO, NiO2,TiO2,
etc.) and oxides of non-metals (SiO2, SiC, MgO, CaCO3, etc.) nanoparticles suspended in
conventional heat transfer fluids such as water, engine oil, ethylene glycol, transformer oil, gear oil
or mixture of two or more heat transfer fluids [2, 3]. When compared with previous microparticle
suspensions in conventional heat transfer fluids, it is a special type of fluid with numerous
applications potentials because of its enhanced thermal conductivity, stability and homogeneity [3,
4]. Microscale particles in suspensions lead to abrasion, clogging of flow paths, pressure drop and
high pumping power requirements, therefore, its sustainability was impossible. Besides, nanofluids
can reduce the pumping power in engineering equipment significantly and do not pose the problem
of clogging and abrasion of equipment flow paths [5–8]. Therefore, the design and engineering of
physical systems are now being tailored towards using nanofluid as working fluid.
The impact of colloidal suspension cuts across the fields of science, biological science, medical,
pharmaceutical and engineering. In the context of sustainable energy development and thermal
management, nanofluids are becoming more and more significant as the need for efficient thermal
microchannels and lab-on-chips come with high-density heat flux that needs quick heat removal for
2
efficient performance, stability and durability, which, from all indications, could be provided by
nanofluids for now [9-12]. The following are also emerging areas of applications of nanoparticles
and nanofluids: (i) they could be useful in medicine in the targeted treatment of malignant cells
without damaging healthy tissues, (ii) they could also be used in the biomedical field for drug
delivery for some special cases and (iii) they could also be used in surgery in order to increase the
The two most important parameters in bringing about the efficiencies highlighted above are the
thermal conductivity and the viscosity of the nanofluids [17-20]. The thermal conductivity and heat
capacity of the fluid determine to a great extent the heat removal capacity of the fluid. The higher
the thermal conductivity, the more heat the fluid can remove from thermal systems. On the other
hand, viscosity is mostly important in systems that require flow because flow properties such as the
Reynolds number, heat transfer coefficients and pressure drop are very much dependent on the
viscosity [21]. Therefore, if the viscosity is very high, there will be a penalty on the pumping
power requirement to achieve the system’s target. In the recent past, much research progress has
been made on the thermal conductivity of nanofluids [22-32], which are a few of the copious works
that can be found on theoretical and experimental reviews of the thermal conductivity of
nanofluids. However, concerning the viscosity of nanofluids, very few theoretical models have
been developed based on the unique properties of nanoparticles [2, 33]. Most theoretical models
available were developed for the suspension of microparticles. Notably, there are many different
types of empirical models of nanofluids, but their usage is often limited to specific types of
nanofluids, nanoparticle sizes and volume fractions [34, 35]. The available review articles on
nanofluid viscosity is very scarce [36, 37], and they lack the appraisal into the existing numerical
works on nanofluid viscosity, which is part of the focus of this paper. Some other researchers have
made efforts in partly reviewing nanofluid viscosity, however, their efforts were not exhaustive as
their focus was mainly on the review of the thermal conductivity of nanofluids [38–41].
3
The mismatch between model and experimental results obtained from studies [42–44] on the
rheological behaviour of nanofluids is of great concern. Besides, [2, 45] have shown that despite
good agreement between experimental and theoretical results in certain cases, a wide range of
constitutive factors need to be incorporated into the models in order to account for the rheological
behaviour of the nanofluids in widely varying conditions [39]. Therefore, this work critically looks
into the viscosity of nanofluids from an analytical, empirical and numerical view, points out loose
ends in existing research and its methodologies and proposes an algorithm-based approach for the
selection of appropriate nanofluid viscosity model(s). This review is divided into five sections, viz.
Numerical studies and 5. Conclusion. Subsections under Section 1 are classical theoretical models,
which give a detailed account of colloidal suspension viscosity models that predate the invention of
nanofluids; new theoretical models, which are the models derived based on the factors that have
been identified as key players in nanofluid viscosity enhancement such as particle size, zeta
potential, pH and electrical double layer and empirical correlations, which are products of various
experimental studies and observations that have been carried out on nanofluid viscosity. Section 3
accounts for the methods that have been used in establishing nanofluid viscosity experimentally,
starting from the preparation of nanoparticles and nanofluids, characterisation and testing,
nanofluid stability and its markers, factors affecting nanofluid viscosity and a cursory look into
nanofluid viscosity enhancement under Section 4 brings the following to the fore: the application
of artificial neural network systems (ANNs), genetic algorithm and fuzzy logics for the prediction
of the viscosity of nanofluid, with a concluding part identifying areas for further development and
4
The rheology of colloidal suspension encompasses the study of the behaviours of suspension in
relation to whether it is Newtonian or non-Newtonian and thus a measure of its viscosity with
respect to shearing stress and shearing rate. There are a number of factors that affect colloids
concentration, particle size, particle size distribution (PSD), packing fraction, electrical double
layer (EDL), aspect ratio of particles, particle interaction, particle agglomeration, zeta potentials,
pH, nanolayer and magnetic properties of some particles [46]. As mentioned previously, the earlier
Hypothetical analyses of the possible phenomena affecting the viscosity of nanofluids can be found
in the literature, though they are very limited when compared with the depth of the theoretical
models that can be found on thermal conductivity of nanofluids. However, several theoretical
studies have been conducted into the rheology of suspensions. The fundamental work by Einstein
[47] on infinite dilute suspensions of uncharged hard spheres based on the vorticity of the particle
shear field was the first available theoretical work on the viscosity of suspension that gave the
eff o 1
(1)
where eff is the effective viscosity of the suspension, o is the dynamic viscosity of the base fluid
and is the intrinsic viscosity of the suspension. This linear equation is based on the assumed
absence of interaction between the particles, and the coefficient is a function of shape of the
particle, which for hard spheres was given as 2.5. This model was stated to be valid for solid
volume concentration, 2% .
5
Numerous models were developed in efforts to extend the Einstein model to concentrated
suspensions [48–51] a few years after Einstein’s work. Contained in Table 1 is the comprehensive
list of other available classical models developed by various investigators [52–62] and are
applicable to the determination of the viscosity of solid-liquid suspension. These models differ
from one another, and no single model can predict data in the entire concentration range up to the
Contrary to the uncharged particles of Einstein [47], Smoluchowski [48] presented an effective
viscosity model for charged particles in electrolyte suspension given in Eq. (2). There was no
1 DE
2
eff o 1 2.5 1 2 (2)
k o a 2
where k is the specific conductivity of the electrolyte, a the radius of the solid particles, DE the
dielectric constants of the water and ζ the zeta potential of the particle with respect to the
electrolytic medium. There was no explanation of how this equation was achieved and this was
buttressed by researchers in the past [63, 64]. Based on experimental data, Bull in 1940 [64]
suggested that the effective viscosity of suspension of egg albumen varies with the square of the
Smoluchowski [48] gave effective viscosity of suspension with the square of zeta potential as well,
unfortunately when this equation was applied to Bull’s experimental data, it exaggerated the
predictions. Therefore, Bull [64] proposed a simple model for effective viscosity at isoelectric
point to be:
s
0.0112 e (3)
k
where s is the specific viscosity, e the electrophoretic mobility and k the specific
conductivity. Booth [63] in 1950 studied the overprediction (of viscosity of suspension with respect
6
to the effect of electroviscous force between particles and the suspending medium) made by
force effect on effective viscosity, which predicted the data of Bull [64] with a good degree of
e
I
eff o 1 2.5 1 bI
(4)
kbT
1
In 1922, Jefferey [49] furthered the work of Einstein for suspensions that contain ellipsoidal
particles. Based on the principle of dissipation of energy, the model presented was not different
from Einstein’s Eq. (1). However, the intrinsic viscosity was provided with two limits (minimum
and maximum) for both prolate and oblate spheroids of different ellipticity of the meridian section.
Therefore, as the particles approach the sphere in shape, the difference in the limits of the intrinsic
viscosity diminishes and hence reduces to Einstein’s model. Ward and Whitmore [65]
concluded that the intrinsic viscosity given by Einstein is a function of PSD ratio, which is
approximately 4.0 for an infinitely diluted suspension with PSD ratio 1:1 and approximately 1.9 for
PSD ratio exceeding 3:1. At the ratio of 1.5:1, the Einstein intrinsic value of 2.5 was obtained. This
was corroborated by the work of Vand [52]. Williams [66] also concluded that PSD is a key
parameter affecting the viscosity of solid-liquid suspension after experimenting with different size
(4, 8 and 12 µm) categories of glass spheres in an ethylene glycol-water mixture. He tried to fit the
data obtained into the equations of Mooney [53] and Roscoe [54] with relatively good success.
Maron and Fok [67] held that the duo of Mooney and Roscoe models did not satisfactorily predict
the experimental data of Williams [66], hence tried to fit the data with models of Maron and Fok
[67] that had been successfully tested with lattices and latex mixtures. After treating the
7
experimental data with the least-squares method to obtain model constants, they clearly showed
that if the intrinsic viscosity of Einstein’s model were to be between 3.15-3.35, the equations of
Mooney [53] and Roscoe [54] would have given a perfect fit to Williams’s data.
Applying a different viewpoint, Batchelor [55] considered the influence of interparticle interactions
to obtain the model in Eq. (5), for the relative viscosity of solid-liquid suspension for a case of
volume fraction, 4% . Within the limits of a very low particle concentration, this model
approaches Eq. (1), which means Batchelor’s model does not differ from Einstein’s model, i.e. at
low volume concentration, the assumption of non-interaction of particles as assumed in [47] is also
eff o 1 kH
2
(5)
where k H is the Huggin’s coefficient known also as the interaction parameter, this coefficient
accounts for interparticle interaction as opposed to hydrodynamic effects [68]. The semi-empirical
relationship proposed by Krieger and Dougherty [56] for shear viscosity covering the full spectrum
m
eff o 1
m (6)
where m is the maximum particle volume fraction at which flow can still occur (i.e. the
concentration at which the relative viscosity approaches infinity asymptotically), the intrinsic
viscosity [ ] was given as 2.5 for monodispersed suspensions of hard spheres. However, in
practical situations, particles are polydisperse in nature. Hence the assumption made by Krieger
and Dougherty [56] is not valid for all particulate suspensions and this has been accentuated with
underpredictions of this model when applied to viscosity data, for example, when it was applied to
8
Currently, there is a lack of unified models that can be used to predict the viscosity of colloids.
Most of the available classical models are built around particle volume concentration and when
tested, they all give different predictions as depicted in Fig. 1. The insets of Fig. 1 show the degree
of variations among the models. There is no clear-cut phenomenon to explain the erratic nature of
nanofluid viscosity data presented by different investigators. However, using these models to
predict the recent experimental data as depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 (for Al2O3-water and TiO2-
water respectively) shows their inability to accurately predict the suspension’s viscosity.
Generally, the discrepancies in reported viscosity data have mostly been ascribed to agglomeration
formation. Chen et al. [68], based on this widespread assertions, extended the theoretical work of
Krieger and Dougherty [56], which was based on packing fraction of monodispersed particles
without agglomeration. Chen et al. [68] assumed that if particle agglomerates were spherical, the
sphere would be of different sizes. Thus they derived a modified Krieger and Dougherty equation
as presented in Eq. (7), based on maximum packing fraction of agglomerates and the fractal index
of the agglomerates, which is an indication of degree of variation in the packing fraction from the
m
eff o 1 a (7)
m
a is given by a ma , where ma is the packing fraction of the aggregates. The viscosity was
assumed to follow a power law with a fractal index, D. Consequently, a becomes a aa a 3 D ,
In an attempt to bring together the two separate views, namely that (i) PSD affects the viscosity of
suspension and further that (ii) agglomeration, which is a function of interaction between particles,
affects the viscosity of suspension, Farris [70] suggested that agglomeration alone could not
describe the evolution of viscosity of nanofluids and that PSD was seen to play a role in the
viscosity trend. Therefore, if the PSD is discrete, the global relative viscosity of the non-interacting
9
monodispersed system of particles in suspensions may be calculated as the product of each
z
In general form r r i (8b)
i 1
where i is the zth class corresponding particle fraction and z stands for the different average
particle sizes contained in the distributions. The viscosity of each monodispersed suspension can
also be related to the maximum particle volume fraction, m with the proposed model in [71] given
as:
2
/
r i 1 0.75 i m (9)
1 i m
Chong et al. [71] determined experimentally the maximum particle volume fraction for a
monodispersed system of glass beads sized in microns using a specially developed orifice
viscometer. They reported m for their experiment as 0.605 and further proved that plotting the
r r 1 vs and extrapolating up to the point where the two axes variables meet will give the
m for any suspension. Storms et al. [72] expanded the work of Chong et al. [71] to understand the
effect of plydisperity (size ratio and % volume fraction of smaller particles) on the viscosity of
suspension. It was found that the viscosity is dependent on the size ratio and % volume fraction of
the small particles present. The model in Eq. (10) predicted the experimental data of Chong et al.
3.3m
Ri
r i 1 (10)
1 i m
10
where R is an adjustable parameter and varies from 0.7 to 1.25 depending on the size distribution.
If m is taken as 0.605 as Chong et al. [71] proposed, the exponent in Eq. (10) becomes 2. It should
be noted that Eqs. (9) and (10) are modified versions of the Eilers equation given below.
2
2.5
r 1 (11)
2 1 m
Determining m for monodispersed and bidispersed suspension, Dames et al. [73] applied an
empirical model in Eq. (12) to determine the maximum packing fraction for particle sizes Rlarge =
D5
m z z m
mono 0.271 D
1 (12)
N d i i
x
where z 1 1 m
mono z
and Dx i 1
z
N d
i 1
i i
x 1
where mmono is the maximum packing fraction of a monodispersed system and it is taken as 0.63, z
is the number of modal suspensions (mono, bi or multi), Dx is the x-th moment of particle size
distribution, i.e. D1 is the number average of the particle diameter. For a multidispersed mixture of
spherical particles, the technique given in Muralidaharan and Runkana [74] and Servais et al. [75]
m min Pi (13)
where Pi is the packing fraction of each class size i , calculated based on the following:
n
Pi ij j (14)
j 1
ij is the binary packing coefficient of classes i and j, and j is the volume fraction of the class j.
The procedures for calculating these two quantities are detailed in [74, 75].
11
It should be noted that all of these earlier works were done before the invention of nanofluids and
as such were basically on the suspension of microsolids and rigid spheres in fluid medium.
However, knowledge and ideas have been borrowed from these past works for the recent analyses
of the thermophysical properties of nanofluids. Again, some of these models were first published
more than 80 years ago. Therefore, the useability of these classical models on nanofluids is a
subject that should be critically analysed [76] because many factors that affect colloids in
Researchers have tried to predict the viscosity of nanofluids using the classical models on viscosity
of suspension without success. These models all predate the invention of nanofluids. Therefore,
some very salient characteristics such as nanolayer, pH, electrical double layer (EDL), zeta
potentials, temperature, capping layer, interparticle spacing and particle magnetic properties that
Chen et al. [68], based on an earlier work, considered an important factor (agglomeration) because
it affected the viscosity of nanofluids. After substituting some empirical data that described the
extremes of nanoparticle agglomeration, the viscosity of nanofluids given in Eq. (15) was derived.
1.5125
aa
1.2
r 1
0.605 a
(15)
Hosseini et al. [33] obtained a new dimensionless model for predicting the viscosity of nanofluids.
The relative viscosity was a function of formulated dimensionless groups, which contains the
following parameters: (i) viscosity of the base fluid, (ii) the hydrodynamic volume fraction of
nanoparticles, (iii) diameter of a nanoparticle, (iv) thickness of the capping layer, and (v)
model (Eq. 16) is the result of the combination of the dimensionless groups:
12
T d p
nf o .exp m h (16)
To 1 r
where nf is the viscosity of the nanofluids, o is the viscosity of the base fluid, h is the
the capping layer, To is a reference temperature taken to be 20 oC, and T is the measured
types of nanoparticles, types of base fluids and the interactions between them. , , are
empirical constants obtainable from the experimental data. However, there was no indication of
how these constants were derived and this makes the testing of these models against similar or
other nanofluids a problem. The model was also tested with limited samples of Al2O3-water-based
nanofluids, although it claimed good agreement with the experimental data tested.
Recent literature revealed that the theoretical analysis of the effective viscosity of nanofluids can
analysed the dispersion of nanoparticles in a fluid medium as a two-phase problem and considered
five parameters as affecting the effective nanofluid viscosity. The following parameters:
nanoparticle size, temperature, nanoparticle density, nanoparticle volume fraction in the fluid
medium and fluid physical properties were considered. Using the Brownian velocity relation
presented by Prasher et al. [77] in Eq. (17), the effective viscosity was derived as presented in Eq.
(18). A creeping flow assumption around the spherical nanoparticle was used in their derivation
and they introduced a correction factor, also based on very limited data to take care of the
simplification of their assumption. The model was tested in predicting effective viscosity of CuO-
H2O, CuO-EG, TiO2-EG, CuO-EG/H2O and Al2O3-H2O nanofluids and according to the results
presented, there was an acceptable level of agreement between the model and the experimental data
used.
13
1 18kbT
VB (17)
d p p d p
pVB d p2
nf o (18)
72C1
where kb is the Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature, p is the particle density, is the
distance between the centres of particles, VB is the Brownian velocity, C1 is the correction factor,
and d p is the particle diameter. VB , and the constant were C1 defined as:
3 dp (19)
6
constants c1 c4 are obtainable from experimental data. It should be stated here that this is one of
the very few theoretical analyses of nanofluid viscosity existing in the literature. However, the
required procedures as described by the authors to obtain this set of constants will not allow for
reproducibility of these constants and hence C1 may be difficult to calculate for other nanofluids
different from those in their work. We believe a better presentation of these constants can be made,
in fact, to our knowledge, the model has not been cited much in comparison with experimental data
Empirical Models
Ward in [78] recommended that experimental results should be expressed in the form of Eq. (21) to
allow easy comparison with theoretical models. He further noted that the intrinsic viscosity should
be determined experimentally, because it is difficult to evaluate the intrinsic viscosity from the
eff o 1 2 3 4 ..
2 3 4
(21)
14
Cheng and Law (CL) [80] reanalysed effective viscosity of suspensions based on Einstein’s model
to provide an exponential formula for the effective viscosity of nanofluids for volume fractions
higher than Einstein’s concentration regime. The CL model (Eq. 22), though similar to the general
model expression given by Batchelor [55] and Lundgren [57], however, provided the coefficient of
volume fraction up to the power of five. When compared with the experimental data reported by
2
35 5 2 105 35 5 2 3
3
1 2.5
8 4 16 8 12
4
1155 935 235 2 5 3 4
eff o (22)
128 96 96 48
3003 1125 1465 2 95 3 1 4 5 ......
256 64 192 96 48
where is the diffusion exponent. Avsec and Oblak [45] emphasise that Ward’s model as
presented in Eq. (23) is of little importance to nanoscale viscosity (nanoviscosity) and presented a
new model (Eq. 24) with a simple twist to Ward’s expression. This was derived using statistical
eff o 1 2.5 2.5 2 2.5 3 2.5 4 ...
2 3 4
(23)
eff o 1 2.5eff 2.5 eff 2 2.5 eff 3 2.5 eff 4 ...
2 3 4
(24)
3
h
where eff 1 (25)
a
eff is the effective volume fraction, h is the thickness of the nanolayer and a is the particle radius.
Apart from the theoretical models presented above, most of the available models for the
determination of nanofluid viscosity are correlations from very limited experimental data. These
models are not hybrid because they are in most cases developed from experimental data with a
15
confined volume fraction of nanoparticles, a few nanoparticle types (at most three for a model), a
small spectrum of the nanoparticle size and mostly spherical or assumed spherical in shape [81–
86].
It has been observed by investigators through experimental studies that the temperature of medium
of study, volume fraction, shear rate and size of nanoparticles affect the effective viscosity of
nanofluids [36, 87, 88]. However, an exhaustive examination of the existing empirical models
shows that in the majority of the correlations, researchers refrained from providing the effect of
temperature, shear rate and size of nanoparticles as they affect nanofluid viscosity in their
correlations.
Nguyen et al. [87], after a comprehensive investigation of the dynamic viscosity of alumina-water
nanofluids considering different nanoparticle volume fractions, sizes and temperatures, only
provide individual correlation equations for nanofluid viscosity based on the volume fraction and
temperature respectively. In fact, the models with temperature can only predict for 1%-4% volume
fraction, which was even inadequate for their experimental data. Similarly, Vakili-Nezhaad and
Dorany [89] provided two empirical models for the same nanofluids (SWCNTs/lube oil) based on
volume fraction and temperature. The correlations are polynomial function of volume fraction and
Eqs. (26) and (27) are valid for 0.01-0.2% volume fraction and 25-100 oC temperature respectively.
Rashin and Hemalatha [35] on the viscosity of CuO-coconut oil also proposed two separate models
to predict the mass fraction and temperature dependence of their experimental data. The mass
fraction model, similar to Batchelor’s equation [55], is presented alongside the temperature model
nf o 1 A B 2 (28)
16
nf Ce0.03T (29)
where is the mass fraction of nanoparticle to base fluid, T is the temperature in Kelvin, A, B and
C are parameters from regression analysis and unique to 20 nm CuO-coconut oil nanofluids at a
temperature range of 35-55 oC. Many other researchers just present their model as a linear or
polynomial function of the volume fraction without considering the effect of at least temperature
[90–94].
Heyhat et al. [21] presented a volume fraction exponential correlation relating the viscosity of
alumina-water nanofluid at volume fraction of 0.1-2%. The correlation (Eq. 30) averaged the effect
nf 5.989
Exp (30)
o 0.278
In 2012, Suganthi and Rajan [95] proposed a modified form of Einstein’s equation (Eq. 31a) by
replacing the volume fraction with agglomerate volume fraction similar to Chen et al. [68]. This
was done in order to account for the effect of agglomeration on the viscosity of nanofluid.
3 D
a Da
(31b)
d p
Generally, in nanofluids, agglomerates are of different sizes. Therefore, Eq. (31b) can be rewritten
Da
3 D
D
N
3 D
i ai (31c)
i
d
dp p
where i is the mass fraction of the aggregate i, Dai is the diameter of the aggregate i, N is the
number of aggregates present and D is the fractal dimension. The diameter of the nanoparticle
17
(ZnO) used is 35-40 nm. As the volume fraction increases up to 2%, the authors proposed a
modified Batchelor’s equation [55] as shown in Eq. (32) to take care of the effect of particle-
particle interactions:
Recently, Suganthi et al. [96] proposed a temperature-based power law correlation (Eq. 33) to
relate the effect of temperature on the viscosity of ZnO-propylene glycol (PG) nanofluid. Their
previous models (Eqs. 31 and 32) could not be applied here, probably because the trend of ZnO-PG
with increase in volume fraction is directly opposite to the trend in their experiment on ZnO-water
nanofluid [95]:
nf A B (33)
where is in degree Celsius, A and B are empirical constants, and are different for different
volume fractions. Singh et al. [97] offered a correction based on the Arrhenius functional form (Eq.
34) to predict the temperature dependence of 170 nm SiC-water-based nanofluid at volume fraction
Ea
nf ,T exp (34)
Rg T
where ,T is the viscosity at “infinite temperature”, Ea is the activation energy to viscous flow, Rg
is the universal gas constant and T is the temperature in Kelvin. The viscosity at infinite
temperature and the activation energy can be obtained from experimental data, using the
logarithmic form of the Arrhenius equation [98]. Also, Abareshi et al. [43] were able to fit their
experimental data at different volume fractions into the Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann (VFT) equation
[99], which took care of the temperature effect on nanofluid viscosity alone as shown below.
B
nf
T Ae T T o
o (35)
18
Eq. (35) was fitted for the two limiting volume fractions to produce two sets of the empirical
constants A, B and To. The problem with generating correlation through regression analysis of a
single parameter such as temperature is that when large numbers of volume fractions are involved,
the empirical constants become huge and untidy. This is also dependent on the number of constants
in the proposed model. For instance, Zyla et al. [100] proposed a nine-order polynomial correlation
to fit the viscosity of Y2O3-diethylene glycol (DIEG). The variable in their correlation is the
temperature of the nanofluid. The concentration studied was in five levels (5:5:25%). Therefore,
according to their model Eq. (36), the empirical constants totalled 50.
r a0 a1T a2T 2 a3T 3 a4T 4 a5T 5 a6T 6 a7T 7 a8T 8 a9T 9 (36a)
9
r aiT i (36b)
i 0
where ai ' s are the experimental constants and T is the temperature in degree Celsius.
Kulkarni et al. [101] gave a correlation, which is one of the few empirical works that take care of
both the temperature and volume fraction effect on the nanofluid viscosity. Another of such is the
work of Namburu et al. [34], in which they tried to fit their experimental data to existing equations
in the literature. However, the failure of the exercise spurred a new correlation given in Eq. (37),
Log nf Ae BT (37a)
Eq. (37a) is an empirical model with a correlation coefficient R2 = 0.99, developed for CuO-EG
nanofluids with volume concentration of CuO ≤ 6.12%. Constants A and B were calculated with
19
where RA 0.987 and RB 0.988 . Nguyen’s correlation [87] performed better than most of the
2 2
classical models. However, Yiamsawas et al. [102] showed that Nguyen’s correlations under
separately the volume fraction and temperature effects on the nanofluid viscosity. Consequently,
the correlation below was developed to predict the viscosity of titania-EG/water (20:80) and
alumina-EG/water (20:80) with volume fraction range of 1-4%. The experiments were conducted
between 15-60 oC, and the diameters of the titanium oxide and aluminium oxide used were 21 and
120 nm respectively.
are empirical constants obtained from regression analysis. Lately, Hemmat Esfe and Saedodin
[103] offered a two-variable correlation (namely temperature and volume fraction) for ZnO-EG
nanofluids. The correlation (Eq. 39) has an average deviation of 2% from the experimental data,
and the stability region over which it was tested is 25 ≤ T ≤50oC and 0.25 ≤ ≤ 5%:
0.9118e (39)
o
Azmi et al. [104] offered a water-based correlation based on the combined effects of volume
fraction, temperature and nanoparticle size on the effective viscosity of nanofluids. Using data
available in the literature on Al2O3, CuO and SiC with particle size ranging from 20-170 nm and
nf Tnf dp
C1 1 1 1 (40)
o 100 70 170
20
where C1 is empirical constant and the exponents , and are 11.3, 0.038 and 0.061
respectively. To test the performance of this model, they carried out new experiments on water-
based nanofluids of Al2O3, ZnO and TiO2. Generally, the model is valid for water-based nanofluids
of Al2O3, CuO, Sic, ZnO and TiO2 with particle diameter between 20-170 nm and volume fraction
≤ 4%. Khanafer and Vafai [105] also developed a three-parameter correlation to predict the
viscosity of Al2O3-water nanofluid. Their correlation shown below is valid for volume fraction
between 1-9%, temperature between 20-70 oC and nanoparticle diameter between 13-131 nm.
28.837 2 2 3 (41)
nf 0.4491 0.574 0.1634 2 23.053 2 0.0132 3 2354.735 3 23.498 2 3.0185 2
T T T dp dp
The model above predicted the viscosity changes with temperature of some data in the literature
with good accuracy. However, the performance of the model was not tested against volume
fraction increase.
Numerous studies have shown that the addition of nanoparticles to a Newtonian base fluid
sometimes turns the fluid to non-Newtonian. An example of this is the recent works of Yu et al.
[106] on aluminium nitride nanofluid and Halelfadl et al. [107], and Aladag et al. [108] on alumina
and carbon nanotube water-based nanofluids. In most situations, despite the non-Newtonian nature
of nanofluids, researchers will only provide correlations considering temperature and volume
fraction or both. According to Syam Sundar et al. [109], it is important to study the behaviour of
nanofluids with respect to change in shear rate, therefore empirical correlations should be designed
taking cognisance of this parameter. Hernández Battez et al. [88] investigated the rheology of ZnO
and ZrO2 suspended in Newtonian polyalphaolefin (PAO 6) base fluid. At low shear rates (0-700 s-
1
), all nanofluid samples behaved as Newtonian fluid; however, at higher shear rates (106 -107 s-1),
non-Newtonian shear thinning characteristics with varying trends were observed. This suggests that
the effect of shear rate is significant in the characterisation of nanofluid viscosity. Therefore, the
following correlations were proposed for the two types of nanofluids (ZnO and ZrO2) respectively:
21
r (cp) 52.80 9.76 107 0.172 0.912T 1.02 108 T 4.24 103T 2 (42)
r (cp) 53.78 9.25 107 0.202 0.937T 9.65 109 T 4.39 103T 2 (43)
In the equations above, is the shear rate, is the mass fraction and T is the temperature. The
correlations factored in the effect of shear rate using the least-squares approach with correlation
coefficients R2 > 0.995 in both cases. Earlier, Phuoc and Massoudi [110] noted that the addition of
and polyethylene oxide, PEO) nanofluids. They described the dependence of the yield stress on
volume concentrations as o en . Using the Casson equation (for flocculated suspended
rate for their base fluid plus dispersants, they found that the viscosity values predicted with
Casson’s equation were two orders of magnitude lower than the viscosity of the base fluid.
Moreover, the model does not consider the effect of particle concentration. Therefore, the
following correlation was proposed to characterise the combined effects of shear rate and volume
en 2 en 2
1 1
1
nf 2
2
(44)
The data used for the correlation in Eq. (44) were taken at 25 oC, where is the intrinsic viscosity
at infinite shear rate, and n are empirical constants dependent on the intercept of the plot of
against for all the volume fractions of nanofluids. A summarised description of the
12 12
nf
above empirical models and other empirical models [32, 44, 81–83, 85–87, 90–92, 94, 101, 109,
111–114] with regards to the concentration regime, particle size, temperature and remarks is
presented in Table 3.
22
EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
There are copious experimental studies on nanofluid thermal properties and their behaviours. These
studies mainly cut across the determination of nanofluid thermal conductivity [115–117],
convective heat transfer [118, 119], performance in heat pipes and microchannels [120–122], its
effectiveness in solar heaters and solar-related devices [123–126] and its behaviour in car engine
radiators [76, 127]. Few of these works focused on the viscosity of nanofluids and recently there
has been some new development in the experimental field, as researchers are now investigating the
thermal diffusivity and electrical conductivity of nanofluids and how these properties affect
thermal properties [128, 129]. For consistency in this review, the following are the experimental
The preparation of nanofluids can be classified into two groups: (i) preparation of dry
nanostructures and subsequent dispersion of the nanostructures in the base fluids, and (ii) an
infused method of preparing nanostructures in its intended base fluid medium. The first approach is
called the two-step method, in which case, nanostructure preparation is the first step to the
development of nanofluids. Nanostructures of sizes ranging from 1nm-100 nm are desired for
nanofluids [17, 130] and a wide range of nanostructures exist today, ranging from nanowires,
nanorods, nanofibres, nanocylinders, nanograins to nanoparticles [98, 131, 132], which can either
be developed from the smallest unit of matter (known as the bottom-up method) or fractured down
from bigger lumps to nano-sized particles (known as the top-down method) [133–135]. The most
common methods of nanostructures synthesis are broadly classified into physical and chemical
methods. Some of the physical methods are pulsed laser ablation [136–138], laser deposition and
matrix assisted pulsed laser evaporation (MAPPLE) [130, 139], and ball milling [133–135], while
the chemical methods are chemical precipitation [140–142], sonoelectrochemical synthesis [143–
148], spray pyrolysis [149, 150], chemical vapour deposition [151–153] and thermal
decomposition [154]. Details on other methods under these categories can be found in the past
23
publications [38, 155, 156]. After the synthesis of the desired nanostructure, the nanostructures are
dispersed in any intended base fluid medium using assisted dispersion with magnetic stirrer, high
shear homogeniser, high-pressure homogeniser and/or ultrasonication (probes and baths) [157,
158]. The production of nanofluids by this first method is very popular and by far the most
economical method which has been transformed to industrial scale of production. However, there
is a problem of stability with nanofluid prepared using this method. The second method is called
the single-step method because the process of preparing nanostructures (nanoparticles in most
cases) is infused into preparation of the nanofluids without any intermediate product, i.e. no dry
nanoparticles are produced, rather the nanofluids are produced in the form of a continuous process
[159, 160]. Nanofluids from this method are by far more stable, but it is very costly, which is one
Worthy of mention is the biological method of synthesis of metallic nanoparticles. Using different
biological substances such as algae [161], fungi [162, 163], plant extracts [164–168], bacteria
[169–171], yeast [172–175] and marine sponge [176] have been used to synthesise two metallic
nanoparticles, which are silver (Ag) and/or gold (Au). Thakkar et al. [177] established in their work
the need for eco-friendly metallic nanoparticle synthesis, vis-à-vis energy saving, poisonous gas
reduction and decline in the usage of toxic compounds. Therefore, a comprehensive usage of
different micro-organisms for the production of non-toxic metallic nanoparticles was highlighted.
Similarly, Elumalai et al. [164] and Krishnaraj et al. [165] synthesised silver nanoparticles from
different leave extracts and both studied their antibacterial activities. Table 4 gives an overview of
the classifications and different methods that have been used in the synthesis of nanostructures.
Nanofluid Stability
The versatility of nanofluids cuts across all phases of science and technology in human
developments and this is what makes it one of the most popular and fastest-growing research
entities in the world today. This versatility has also faced many challenges, most of which have
24
been met to a reasonable degree. However, the problem of the stability of nanofluids still persists.
Like stability in many other engineering systems, a stable nanofluid is when nanoparticles are
continually in their Brownian motions without cohesion and devoid of flocculation, agglomeration
and ultimately sedimentation. It may be said that at very low nanoparticle volume concentration,
stability does not pose a big threat in the face of the present methods of preparation of nanofluids.
instability becomes very pronounced vis-à-vis flocculation, agglomeration, settling down and
ultimately phase separation. Though, when first prepared with any combination of the different
dispersion methods available [157] (especially the two-step method), it displays good dispersion,
mostly because of the high shear, pressure or energy impacted into the homogenisation process.
However, with time, agglomeration formation occurs [178] as shown in Fig. 4. The time difference
between to when a homogeneous suspension is formed and t3 when full-phase separation occurs is a
function of compositions, i.e. particle volume concentration, nanoparticle type, type and
preparation, temperature of the suspension and density difference between the nanoparticles and
base fluid. For example, exploring three different dispersion methods, namely ultrasonication, ball
milling and high-pressure homogenisation (HPH), Fedele et al. [157] prepared deionized water (DI-
water) based nanofluids of CuO, TiO2 and single-wall carbon nanohorns (SWCNHs) to study their
stability. With sedimentation rate as stability marker, and applying static and shake dynamics (i.e.
samples were prepared and divided into two, first sets were kept stationary while the second sets
were shaken before measurement), they measured using dynamic light scattering to monitor the
variation in size of dispersed nanoparticles and SWCHNs over a period of 30 days. From their
findings, CuO and TiO2 dispersed using ball milling sedimented four days after preparation
whereas the same nanoparticles dispersed through ultrasonication lasted more than 15 days in
25
the nanofluid was made stable for more than 30 days without any sign of agglomeration or
precipitation.
Zamzamia et al. [158] formulated 90 days stable nanofluids of Al2O3 and CuO in ethylene glycol
and tested both in double-pipe and plate heat exchangers. Also, employing wet ball milling, Samal
et al. [179] produced and dispersed nanoparticles of Al-Cu alloy in DI-water to study its stability at
different pH. By measuring the zeta potential of the nanofluid as the pH is varied, their results
showed that pH is a major driver of stability of the nanofluid, with or without the addition of
surface active agents (surfactant). This is because pH modification has a direct link with the
electrostatic condition of the interface between the suspended particles and the fluid medium. In
another pH influence investigation, Wang et al. [180] systematically prepared optimised Al2O3-
water and Cu-water nanofluids by the two-step method using the zeta potential, nanoparticle size
and absorbency of the nanofluids as stability indicators. They varied the pH and surfactant
concentration (in this case, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (SDS)) to synthesise a stable
nanofluid as indicated by the measured values of zeta potential and absorbency. However, at the
optimised pH and surfactant concentration that depicted stable nanofluids from the above-measured
parameters, the measured size of nanoparticles in suspension was more than the starting materials
by a factor of 7.4 for Al2O3 and 7.5 for Cu. Although, the sizes were the minimum considering the
sizes reported with pH and surfactant variations, the sizes also coincided with the optimised pH and
surfactant concentration. Because the measured size was bigger than the size of the starting
materials, one of two things could be inferred here, namely that the reported starting materials were
not actually the size reported or there was agglomeration within the nanofluids prepared as the time
given for sonication might not have been enough (in this case one hour).
In stability characterisation, the key marker of stability from the available systematic experimental
investigations [157–159, 179, 180] can be narrowed down to the following: visual inspection for
26
transmittance and size measurement against time after preparation (for detecting agglomeration
and/or reduction in nanoparticle population). Some researchers have also deduced that rheological
characteristics, i.e. Newtonian, signify stable nanofluids and non-Newtonian characteristics signify
otherwise [181]. All these characterisation procedures have their deficiencies, which are still
preventing the report of either qualitative results or a report that represents the actual situation that
to the eyes and as such lacks substance in reporting the stability of nanofluids. However, it can be
Also, the quantitative approaches available such as turbidity measurement, zeta potential,
absorbency and nanoparticle size measurement all have restrictions. Either the volume
concentration must be in dilute regime (usually ≤ 1%), which is not always the case in real-life
applications or the opacity of the nanofluids is disrupting the proper measurement, in which case it
must be diluted as well. The idea of dilute concentration of samples in order to measure any of
these stability markers may not represent what is obtainable in the industry where a concentration
of up to 10% might be required for application in heat exchangers and other engineering problems.
Moreover, some nanoparticles are opaque in nature, e.g. Fe2O3, Fe3O4 Cu and CuO.
Experimental Set-ups
Measuring nanofluid viscosity seemingly looks very simple when the scale and sensitivity of
equipment requirement are compared with other aspects of the thermal properties of nanofluids.
Nevertheless, it is important to state that a good knowledge of the design of experiment and control
of variables to stability is required to be able to measure and report accurate data. At least five
types of viscometers with different principles of operations have been used in viscosity
measurements, viz. capillary tube viscometer [42, 94], vibro-viscometer [17, 182], rotating
viscometer which includes cone-plate, flat plate and concentric geometries [18, 32, 43, 44, 68, 76,
81, 82, 85, 86, 183–187], falling ball/falling piston viscometer [87] and cup-type viscometer.
27
Chen et al. [68] formulated an ethylene-glycol-based TiO2 nanofluid from dry nanoparticles using
the two-step method and in the absence of dispersant. After sonication of the nanofluid samples for
20 h each, samples were subjected to a rheological test using Bolin CVO rheometer that works
based on the principle of controlled shear stress. Al2O3-EG/water nanofluids were prepared and
sonicated in the presence of oleic acid as the surfactant, for 3 h. The suspension was further
agitated magnetically for 1 h to obtain a uniform homogenisation after which a rheological test was
viscometer (model: LVDV-II-Pro), which works by controlling the spindle shearing rate [76].
Chandrasekar et al. [32], with a similar set-up, measured the viscosity of Al2O3-water without
dispersant and sonicated for a period of 6 h. Table 5 shows various pieces of equipment that have
been used in the measurement of viscosity of different nanofluids with their measurement
principle. In a rather different set-up, Lee et al. [182] used a vibro-viscometer operating on a
Temperature
The reduction in the viscosity of conventional heat transfer fluids such as water, EG, PG, PAO,
engine oil and grease is an established phenomenon. The rate at which this occurs is commensurate
with the intrinsic properties of the fluid (intermolecular bond strength) [182]. Nanofluids, which
are a better replacement for these conventional fluids, have hardly been in use for two decades and
have drawn the attention of many in the industry, research centres and academia. In order to
understand and maximise the potential of these superfluids, a number of investigations into their
behaviours at different elevated temperatures have been carried out. Heating of fluids generally
supplies the molecules of the fluid with higher energy. This increase in energy contributes to
increased random motion and weakening of intermolecular forces holding the fluid molecules. This
phenomena result in a reduced resistance of the fluid to shearing flow, and by implication, a
does not in any way differ from the behaviour of the conventional fluid as stated in the paragraph
above. Kumaresan and Velraj [185] presented the relationship between temperature and the
viscosity of their nanofluid samples. In another recent report by Aladag et al. [108], CNT-water-
based nanofluid was investigated for its rheological properties at low temperature (2-10 oC). The
characteristic of the measured viscosity with respect to temperature increase was not different from
the behaviour of conventional heat transfer fluid as widely reported in literature. However, one
may conclude that the addition of surfactant in the experiment carried out by Kumaresan and
Velraj [185] might probably be responsible for the initial behaviour of the nanofluid.
With a much different type of nanofluid, Sahoo et al. [86] considered Al2O3-EG/water nanofluid
for its rheological characteristics. They found that it exhibited non-Newtonian behaviour at a very
low temperature. This behaviour specifically fitted into the characteristics of a Bingham plastic and
temperature increased across the volume fraction investigated, the viscosity of the nanofluid
decreased exponentially. Similar results were obtained by Syam Sundar et al. [188] when they
investigated the viscosity of nanofluids synthesised from magnetic Fe3O2 and EG-water mixture.
1.0%. Varying the % weight composition of the EG-water mixture (60:40, 40:60 and 20:80) did not
have any impact on the viscosity-temperature trends of the nanofluids. In fact, if the base fluid
involved was the highly viscous type such as glycerol, the addition of nanoparticles did not impair
the established relationship between the viscosities of nanofluids and temperature as shown in Fig.
5 [189].
29
Volume fraction
Volumetric concentration is the amount of nanoparticles dispersed in base fluid, usually less than
10% volume of the base fluid. Adequate research efforts have gone into discovering the effects of
reported so far show that an increase in volume fraction of nanoparticles increases the viscosity of
nanofluids [190]. For example, Chevalier et al. [94] studied the rheological behaviours of SiO2-
ethanol nanofluids in microchannels and observed a constant Newtonian behaviour of the nanofluid
over the range of volume fraction studied (1.1%-7%) and shear rate values of 5 × 103-5 × 104 s-1.
Regarding the evolution of viscosity of the nanofluid with the said volume fraction range, there
was a direct relationship, i.e. as the volume fraction was increased, the viscosity also increased.
Corcione [111] analysed different experimental data from diverse literature for possible parameters
that affect the viscosity of nanofluids. His observation centred on the significant increase in the
viscosity as the volume fraction increases. Phuoc and Massoudi [110] observed experimentally that
for Fe2O3-deionised water, the nanofluid volume concentration of Fe2O3 is a critical parameter that
influences the viscosity of the nanofluid. Across the shear rate range (13.2-264 s-1) tested at room
temperature, there was a noticeable viscosity increase for 1%-4% volume fraction concentration.
investigated by Prasher et al. [191]. Their experimental data were comparable with data from Das
et al. [192] and Wang et al. [193], showing the strong dependence of viscosity enhancement on
volume concentration. It was further reported that at volume fraction of less than 4% investigated,
the Al2O3-PG nanofluid behaviour was Newtonian and viscosity increased with an increase in
volume fraction. Some of the most recent works also corroborate this finding [21, 194, 195], except
for a more recent experimental work by Suganthi et al. [96] on the viscosity of ZnO-PG nanofluid.
Contrary to most publications, the authors discovered that the addition of ZnO nanoparticles to PG
up to 2% volume fraction reduced the viscosity below the viscosity of the base fluid (PG). They
offered an explanation in line with the bonding characteristics created between the ZnO
30
nanoparticles and the PG molecules. The hydrogen-bonding network that existed between the PG
molecules was weakened by the introduction of ZnO nanoparticles, which translates to viscosity
reduction. The effect is similar to the influence of increased temperature on the intermolecular
bonding of nanofluids.
Generally, the observed increase in viscosity with volume fraction of nanoparticles could be
explained in view of the fact that an increase in volume of particles dispersed in base fluid will
result in a pronounced drag effect on individual particles due to Brownian motion. Therefore, the
overall drag effect present in the medium will be increased, which, in turn, will lead to an increase
in dissipation of energy and the consequence of this is the observed increase in the nanofluid
viscosity. Furthermore, it can be explained by exploring the particle surface charge mechanism in
relation to the suspension medium. When charged nanoparticles are dispersed into polar base fluid
for instance, the attraction of counterion onto the nanoparticle surface is likely to occur and this
process creates the formation of electrical double layer (EDL). An increase in nanoparticle
concentration will reduce the interparticle distance and by extension the distance between the
EDLs. Therefore, the force of interaction between the EDLs known as electroviscous force
introduces an additional increase in viscosity [132]. Other forces such as solvation, hydration,
hydrophilic and hydrophobic forces become very important and influence the rheology of
nanofluids when the interparticle distance is reduced due to an increase in volume fraction [196].
Particle agglomeration has also been argued as one of the causes of an increase in viscosity of
nanofluids. According to Chen et al. [197], a well-dispersed nanofluid suspension shows lower
concentration beyond the dilute regime heightens the tendency of agglomeration in nanofluid
systems, especially when the Van der Waals force of attraction is significant. When agglomeration
occurs, it forms a porous particle with the liquid of the suspending medium filling the interstices.
31
This immobile additional liquid in the interstices causes an increase in the effective volume
Shear rate
The control of the flow property of suspensions is very important in many industrial applications,
such as in the manufacturing of paint, crude oil drilling, crude and petroleum product
transportation, and in food and consumer products. Rheological studies of these products give
insights into the type of control that needs to be applied for efficient product transportation and
delivery. For instance, in the petroleum industry where hydrate formation in crude oil
transportation creates a flow problem or sometimes total blockage of the flow path [198], the
knowledge of the behaviour of hydrate slurry to different shear stress/shear rate among other
influencing parameters will make the delivery more efficient and less expensive [199].
nanotubes has been studied over the past years [81, 84, 200]. Different rheological characteristics
have been reported ranging from Newtonian to non-Newtonian shear thinning, shear thickening,
thixotropic, etc. [81, 201]. In 2003, Tseng and Lin [83] investigated the rheology and structure of
TiO2-water nanofluid and found that within the volume fraction investigated (5-12%), the
nanoparticles are added to the Newtonian base fluid up to 5%, an initial yield stress was needed to
be exceeded before flow could be achieved. This feature puts the nanofluids in the viscoplastic
non-Newtonian regime. When flow occurs, increase in the shearing rate from 0-1000 s-1 clearly
shows shear thinning structure except at 5% and shear rate ≥ 700 s-1 (Fig. 6 (b)). During this
shearing process, agglomerate structures formed in the nanofluid are broken down until they form
an ordered arrangement without agglomeration within the limits of high shearing rates [83]. To
buttress this point, similar trends and explanations have been offered in a more recent investigation
by Yang et al. [202], who investigated the rheology of diamond and Al2O3 nanofluids relative to
32
the effect of agglomeration. Two Newtonian base fluids were employed, namely silicone oil
(Syltherm 800) and DI-water. From their findings, the addition of as low as 0.35 and 0.24% of
diamond and Al2O3 nanoparticles without stabiliser turn the fluid to non-Newtonian with shear
volume fraction, the nanofluid behaved as a Newtonian fluid while the non-stabilised counterpart
clearly showed a shear thinning phenomenon without thixotropy. As stated earlier, the Newtonian
characteristic of the stabilised sample was due to the ordered structure of the nanoparticles in
suspension (i.e. devoid of agglomeration), while in the non-stabilised sample, there was
agglomeration due to dominance of the Van der Waals force of attraction and at low shear rate, it
showed high resistance to flow. As the shear rate increased, the agglomerates were broken down
and the immobile liquids within the interstices of the porous agglomerates were released, which
further reduced the viscosity alongside the ordered structure that was created at high shearing rate.
In another recent paper, Aladag et al. [108] showed that shearing time also influenced the internal
different shearing times and shear rates up to ~ 4000 s-1, showed that stabilised CNT and Al2O3 in
water responded with shear thinning, thixotropic, and shear thickening, thixotropic, phenomena
respectively. During the ramp up shear rate (low-high) there was deagglomeration and/or
corresponding shear stress to the ramp down shear rate (high-low) was lower, which signifies the
thixotropic characteristics of the nanofluids as depicted in Fig. 7(a). But in the Al2O3 samples, the
characteristic was shear thickening with thixotropic phenomena as shown in Fig. 7(b). Based on the
shearing time experiments, it was clear from Fig. 7(b) that when the shearing time was relaxed,
sufficient time was provided for the rebuilding of the particle structure, which gave rise to the
increased ramp down shear stress shown for samples sheared for 180 and 240 seconds respectively.
Another work that showed shear thickening behaviour is the dispersion of Al2O3 in R141b
33
Size of nanoparticles
A size of 1-100 nm particles is desired for nanofluid suspensions [203]. However, particles larger
than 100 nm have also been experimented with [82, 204]. Nguyen et al. [205] investigated the
effect of particle size (36 and 47 nm) on the viscosity of Al2O3-water nanofluids and reported that
the viscosity of both particles were similar at volume fraction below 4%. However, at higher
volume fraction, the viscosity was clearly higher in 47 nm. He et al. [206] also observed that a
bigger agglomerated size of TiO2 had higher viscosity compared with a smaller agglomerated size.
Contradictory reports [94, 207–209] have shown that smaller particle size led to an increase in
viscosity. The results from these reports appear to be reasonable given the following explanation.
When nanoparticles are dispersed in fluid medium, two major interactions are possible: particle-
fluid interaction and particle-particle interaction. These interactions have been termed first and
second electroviscous effects respectively [128]. Another prevalent interaction is the Van der
Waals force of attraction between particles. The electroviscous effect (EVE) present in the
nanofluid medium determines the agglomeration and hence the degree of Brownian motion effects
of the particles. For example, if the particle concentration is fixed, a reduced size of nanoparticles
translates into an increased overall surface area of solid-liquid interaction and also solid-solid
interaction, i.e. there will be an increase in the EVE present in the nanofluids, which, in turn, gives
rise to an increase in viscosity. Similarly, if the overall surface area of solid-liquid interface is
reduced, the EVE will be reduced. Thus, a reduction in viscosity had been observed experimentally
(Fig. 8) due to the increased size of nanoparticles [94, 132, 207–211]. A bigger particle size giving
a higher viscosity could be the result of particle agglomeration, as one of the reports clearly stated
[206].
In Eq. (1), the intrinsic viscosity [η] was provided as 2.5 for uncharged hard spherical particles.
However, due to the different processes of nanoparticle preparation [136, 156], the most correct
opinion is that nanoparticles always carry charges and in the absence or reduced strength of EVE,
34
there will be pH domination of the viscosity evolution in the nanofluid, which may further the
determines the intrinsic viscosity and it has been shown to be more than 2.5 when the agglomerate
is not spherical [212]. Anoop et al. [132] proposed that the intrinsic viscosity is not a shape
function, rather an EVE and agglomeration function. Eq. (45) was derived for the electroviscous
intrinsic viscosity and Eq. (46) for the agglomeration intrinsic viscosity:
EV 1 p (45)
a fa (46)
where p is the electroviscous coefficient and f a is the agglomeration factor, taken to be two
Shape of nanoparticles
Virtually all reported works on the thermophysical properties of nanofluids either assumed or
claimed their nanoparticles were spherical in shape except for those that worked with carbon
nanotubes (CNTs) and a few other works on different nanoparticles [98, 213]. Shape factor, which
is a measure of total surface area of particles, is related to the degree of solid-liquid interactions at
the interface. Timofeeva et al. [98] note that as the sphericity of particles reduces, there is a
corresponding increase in shape factor. Consequently, a larger surface area is presented for active
solid-liquid interactions. The same authors presented a correlation to describe the viscosity of
alumina-EG/water nanofluid with varying shapes. Although the proposed equation (Eq. 47) is more
of a replica of Batchelor’s equation (Eq. 48) [55], the authors elucidated that the coefficients A1
and A2 were higher than what was obtainable with Batchelor’s [55] even for spherical and non-
reacting particles, and these coefficients also varied with particle shapes.
35
The variation in viscosity as presented in [98] is the only data available with regard to different
shapes of nanoparticles in the same experimental set-up and conditions. Although some researches
on colloidal suspensions of shapes other than spheres had been carried out [213–215], they only
considered rod-like shapes. The increase in shape factor of particles has been thought to be one of
the causes of increase in nanofluid viscosity. However, the evolution of viscosity as presented by
Timofeeva et al. [98] was anomalous and without a distinctive relationship with shape/shape factor
of the nanoparticles.
Another factor that could cause a difference in the viscosity data of different nanoparticle shapes
could lie in the aerodynamics of these shapes in the suspended medium. A streamlined shape poses
less resistance to flow as compared with an irregular shape or sharp-edged shapes that resist flow
because it is difficult for such shapes to fall in ordered streamlines and as such they dissipate more
energy, which results in increased viscosity of the suspension. In view of the above, it is imperative
pH becomes important in the engineering of nanofluids given the prospect of data available,
emphasising the effect of zeta potential on the thermophysical properties of nanofluids. Zeta
potential defines the electrokinetic potential of the EDL and this influences the electrostatic
behaviour of nanofluids. The effect of pH on nanofluids’ zeta potential and thickness of EDL was
part of the investigation carried out by Rubio-Hernández et al. [212]. Manipulating the pH values
has been shown to bring about viscosity decrease [98]. However, manipulation should be carefully
carried out with respect to its effect on zeta potential, because an increase in the viscosity of
nanofluid with changes in pH values was also reported [211]. This is probably due to the fact that
the effect of pH manipulations on zeta potential values was not monitored and must have affected
the stability of the suspension. It has been shown that the Van der Waals force of attraction
dominates the interaction between nanoparticles when the pH of nanofluid is at the isoelectric point
36
(IEP). Because at IEP, the zeta potential is equal to zero and this hastens the agglomeration rate
[178].
The particle surface charge Q is directly related to the zeta potential as presented in Eq. (49) and
the critical zeta potential (ζcritical), which defines the critical surface charge, is also affected by
volume concentration [129]. The effect of volume loading is such that the value of zeta potential is
moved from below critical to above critical, i.e. ζ < ζcritical – ζ > ζcritical, consequently, there is a
Q 4 r o a (49)
where r is the relative permittivity of the medium, o is the vacuum permittivity of the medium, a
is the radius of the particle, ζ is the zeta potential of the nanofluids. At this juncture, the following
how-ever, it greatly affects the ζ potential, which equally reduces the electrical conductivity
of nanofluids;
pH modification reduces the viscosity of nanofluids when carefully carried out such that the
synergetic research is needed to be carried out on the zeta potential, pH and electrical
Nanofluid viscosity amplification is a multifactorial issue. Base fluid properties such as density,
thermal conductivity, viscosity and pH are definitely part of the factors that affect the overall
properties of nanofluids such as stability, thermal conductivity and viscosity. As the name “base
fluid” implies, it is the basis on which all enhancements are built. Many conventional heat transfer
fluids have been experimented with different nanoparticles, in different mixing ratios and very
common in the literature. However, researches claiming that base fluid properties influence the
37
viscosity enhancement have not presented any exhaustive experimental data probing the extent to
which the intrinsic properties of base fluids influence the viscosity enhancement of nanofluids.
Nonetheless, Syam Sundar et al. [188] investigated the viscosity of nanofluids synthesised from
magnetic Fe3O2 and three different EG-water mixtures as the base fluids, namely EG:water –
60:40, 40:60 and 20:80. Enhancement of approximately 300% was recorded for the sample
prepared from the 60:40 ratio, which was higher than that of other nanofluids. Wang et al. [193]
measured the viscosity of Al2O3 dispersed in water and EG. In their experiment, the viscosity of
Al2O3-water increased by 20-30% at 3% volume fraction and it was dependent on the dispersion
method, while for the Al2O3-EG sample at 3.5%, the viscosity increase was approximately 40%.
Recently, Yu et al. [106] dispersed aluminium nitride into EG and PG as base fluids and studied
their thermal conductivity and rheology. The rheological study shows that the enhancement in EG
These researches buttress the implication of base fluid in nanofluid viscosity. However, as
conventional heat transfer fluids are the bases for nanofluid synthesis, the same nanoparticles (i.e.
particles from the same metal or oxide of metal, equal volume fraction, equal average size, etc.)
have exhibited different behaviours in the same base fluid medium. Therefore, it is expedient to
probe into this area more deeply and possibly the unresolved cause of viscosity enhancement of
Nanofluids are not restricted to function as a heat transfer working fluid alone as the majority of its
widely reported applications implied. For instance, its applicability has been studied in motor
vehicle engine radiators [8, 127], heat pipes [121], solar applications [123], boiling and
condensation systems [69, 192], circular tube heat exchangers [119], etc. In all cases cited, it has
served as heat transfer agent alone. There is a high prospect of nanofluids doubling as lubricant
cum heat transfer agent [216]. For example, it can be very useful in rotating shaft lubrication,
journal bearings, bearing seals or even at the ball and socket joint in motor vehicles. However, all
38
the above-mentioned applications come with high thermal energy generation, which will lower the
viscosity of any lubricant fluid, including nanofluids. Magnetic nanofluids, also called ferrofluids,
magnetic fluids and/or MRNF [217, 218], are a type of nanofluids in which the suspended
nanoparticles that are influenced by magnetic fields [219]. These fluids have been proved to be
magnetic field [181, 220, 221]. Issues about its stability are of great concern owing to the fact that
magnetic nanoparticles (α- and -Fe2O3, Fe3O4, CoFe2O4, Co, Fe-C, MnFe2O4, MgFe2O3, Fe3N, Ni,
Fe, Fe-Co or Ni-Fe) are very heavy. Therefore, settling down or sedimentation due to gravitational
effect is a common drawback of MRNF nanofluids. Even with relatively viscous basefluids [43],
agglomerates. This is one way to measure the stability of the magnetic nanofluids [181, 219]. To
overcome the stability problem, different methods of synthesising magnetic nanoparticles have
been explored, some of which are wet-grinding [222], chemical co-precipitation [223–225] and
solvothermal [43] methods. Co-precipitation is the most favoured because it is rapid and the size of
magnetic nanoparticles can be controlled flexibly and efficiently by parametric variation of inputs
into the co-precipitation reaction [219]. In addition, the problem of non-compatibility of surfactant
used in the preparation of the particles with the desired carrier fluid is eliminated. Also, particles
derived from other methods, such as thermal decomposition of organometallic compounds have
been shown to lose their magnetisation due to poor crystallisation and/or oxidation[226].
with this, sedimentation can be overcome because sedimentation velocity is directly proportional to
the square of the particle diameter (i.e. V d 2 ) [181]. However, the problem created by size ≤ 10
size. It means even in the absence of an external magnetic field, interactions between particles will
still cause instability in their respective carrier/base fluids with effects like zippering and
39
agglomeration. Therefore, stability is usually instituted in magnetic nanofluids and nanofluids
generally, using sterical surface coating of nanoparticles with the addition of surfactant (surface
temperature. Presently, there are commercialised magnetorheological fluids (MRF) (fluids that
contain magnetic microparticles) that can operate in an environment with temperature up to 200 oC
[227]. However, these MRF fluids are disadvantaged just like the early colloids; they have an
abrasive nature in service and they settle down quickly, hence the urgency and importance of stably
and properly engineered MRNFs for lubrication application. At the switching on and off of the
magnetic field, external to the site of application of these fluids (MRNFs), a renewed lubrication
effect can be created and maintained by manipulating the strength and uniformity of the magnetic
field, thereby creating not only an efficient lubrication (in terms of volume and power
requirements) even at high temperatures, but also a durable system. Owing to this tuneable
NUMERICAL STUDIES
Employing the recent high computational power and the knowledge of algorithm, a new window of
opportunity has been opened to the nanofluid research community on the prediction models for
thermal properties of these highly revered heat transfer fluids. Rudyak and Krasnolutskii [228]
model the interaction between nanoparticles and the carrier fluid molecules. Based on the
interaction potentials (basically a geometric function) of the particle-molecule, they simulated the
40
In early works by Huseyin and Muhammet [229], Hojjat et al. [230] and Papari et al. [231],
artificial neural network (ANN) had been applied for the prediction of thermal conductivity of
different nanofluids with good agreement with the values obtainable in the literature. Less than a
year after, Mehrabi et al. [232], using an FCM-based neuro-fuzzy inference system and genetic
algorithm-polynomial neural network alongside experimental data, developed two new models for
The use of ANN is now gaining momentum in the prediction of the thermal properties of
nanofluids including the viscosity of different nanofluids. This is imperative because viscosity is a
known determinant parameter in the effective usage and design based on nanofluids. Yousefi et al.
[233], Bahiraei et al. [234] and Hajir and Yousefi [235] have now successfully applied the neural
network and genetic algorithm to the modelling of nanofluid viscosity for different nanofluids.
Mehrabi et al. [236] developed four different models for the prediction of nanofluid viscosities for
four different water-based nanofluids (Al2O3, CuO, TiO2 and SiO2) based on the FCM-based
adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. The results of the respective models were compared with
the experimental data points and some prominent correlations from the literature. The degree of
prediction of the FCM-ANFIS models was good. Atashrouz et al. [237], using data from the
literature, recently modelled the viscosity of nine nanofluids based on the group method of data
handling and polynomial neural network system (hybrid GMDH-PNN). The experimental data
EG, and TiO2-water. Nine models were presented for individual nanofluids with average absolute
relative deviation of 2.14%. Employing the GMDH-PNN algorithm, a model can be regarded as a
set of neurons in which different pairs of the neurons in each layer are connected through a
polynomial of the second order, which then produces new neurons in the following layer. This
representation can be employed in modelling and predicting highly non-linear experimental data as
an inputs-outputs system.
41
It should be mentioned that this is probably the only algorithm-based work on the prediction of the
thermal conductivity and viscosity of nanofluids so far, therefore, researchers need to do more
There is the possibility of creating a viscosity model database from which a selection can be made.
To select nanofluid viscosity models which conform to a set of predetermined criteria, necessitates
the use of a generic algorithm. Based on the diversity of the models available and used in
predicting the viscosity of nanofluids, there is an emphasised need to select an appropriate model.
For the selection of a viscosity model that is likely going to be used for prediction, the criteria and
The algorithm for the selection of appropriate models consists of defining arrays and sub-arrays,
which can be used to represent the attributes of each model. In Fig. 10, R, S up to V are viscosity
models with features and attributes given as R1, R2...R6, S1, S2...S6, and V1, V2,…V6
respectively. The system of arrays and sub-arrays defined for each model renders the following
features, among others, in a structured form for decision-making: the empirical or theoretical
nature of the model, its error margin, a mechanism for its formulation, its specificity (i.e.
applicability to a range of nanofluids) and the range of parameters used in defining the models.
Priority indices as shown in Fig. 10 represent the definition of selection criteria. The parameters are
allocated index numbers and 0 precedes 1 in terms of priority. After the implementation of search
and sort algorithm, more than one model may be presented as fitting the criteria set in their order of
priority. Models selected are tested for performance as depicted in the flow chart of Fig. 9.
The actual problem lies in selecting models with a broad range of parameters. The decision-based
selection algorithm can contain an infinite range of parameters in its search routine, and can be
42
recursively implemented. This ultimately can be used to build up a database of appropriate models
Conclusions
In this review, an attempt was made to throw more light on the understanding of nanofluid
viscosity models and their evolution from the classical to numerical models using the findings
available in the literature. The pioneering work of Einstein was developed to predict the viscosity
of non-interacting and hard microsphere suspension in dilute regime. The majority of the
subsequent classical works on the viscosity of suspension were carried out to further extend
Einstein’s work to a concentrated regime [55, 62, 68]. These efforts show the importance of the
influence of increase in volume fraction on the viscosity of suspension. However, none of the
classical models was developed for the estimation of nanofluid viscosity. Recently, a few new
theoretical models have been developed taking into consideration some of the characteristics of
nanofluids such as nanoparticle size, hydrodynamic volume fraction, particle density, aggregate
diameter and capping layer thickness. The empirical models were applied to characterise the
temperatures and shear rates. It was noted that most empirical models were developed considering
affected by multiple factors such as volume fraction, particle size, particle shape, shearing rate,
shearing time, particle agglomeration, base fluid properties and nanolayer. Therefore, the review
conventional heat transfer fluid leads to an increase in viscosity of the fluid. A further increase in
particle volume fraction has been shown to lead to non-linear increment in the viscosity (Fig. 2 and
3). The viscosity of nanofluids decreases with an increase in temperature and it is usually described
43
by an exponential curve (Fig. 5). It is desirable to prepare the nanofluid with particle size ≤ 100
nm, because a bigger size in the microregime hinders practical application due to abrasion, higher
rate of settlement, pressure drop in flow line and clogging of equipment. Experiments have shown
that nanoparticle size is another very important factor that influences the viscosity of nanofluids.
Typically, as the particle size reduces, the viscosity of suspension increases [94, 207–209]. The
increase has been ascribed to an increase in particle-particle interactions due to increased Brownian
motion and if the system is not sterically or electrostatically stabilised, there may be agglomeration,
which increases the viscosity as many studies have shown. Other influencing factors reviewed were
nanoparticle shape, shearing rate, pH and electrical conductivity, and base fluid.
The stability of nanofluids is essential for its eventual implementation for practical purposes.
Experimental results available have shown that the methods of nanofluid preparation especially
from the two-step method go a long way in dictating the stability of nanofluid. Fedele et al. [157]
showed that the ultrasonication method of nanoparticles dispersion was more effective than ball
milling when they prepared DI-water-based nanofluids of CuO, TiO2 and SWCNHs. The addition
[157, 180]. However, there have been reports that surfactant and pH sometimes lead to an
unnecessary increase in viscosity of nanofluids when not properly modified [82, 211]. This review
also showed that the present methods of investigating the stability of nanofluids are deficient
because they do not represent what is obtainable in the practical situations that nanofluids might be
subjected to.
Lastly, the emerging numerical methods available for the prediction of nanofluids viscosity were
also presented. Molecular dynamics simulation and the use of artificial intelligence (artificial
neural networks) are fast gaining ground due to their ability to model the non-linear nature of
viscosity data. The ANN-based models have shown good predictions with reduced % AARD and
44
can take a wide range of influencing factors into consideration compared with most empirical
models that are built around a single parameter such as temperature or volume fraction.
Regarding the composite of nanofluids, which can consist of different fluid bases and different
nanoparticles, different accurate correlations for different nanofluids for a specific range of volume
fraction, nanoparticle size and temperature (with or without surfactant) need to be developed.
Future direction
The review of Wong and De Leon [238] on the current and future trends of nanofluids dealt
extensively with the present potentials obtainable from the use of nanofluids. Others that have
reviewed the current areas of applications of nanofluids include Yu and Xie [239] and Wang and
Mujumdar [6]. The following are the key areas common to all the above-mentioned reviews:
reactor cooling;
– use of nanofluid as motor vehicle coolants such as in engine oil, transmission fluid, grease
– nanofluids as fuel enhancer to boost energy recovery and reduce greenhouse and poisonous
All the above bullet points have been appropriately dealt with in more elaborate manner [238–240].
However, there are still few areas that need attention. Firstly, the enhanced properties of
nanofluids can be employed in boosting energy storage and recovery in solar ponds. A solar pond
consists of a body of fluid used in the collection and storage of thermal energy. Research has
shown the possibility of using saturated saltwater for heat and energy generation [241]. With the
invention of nanofluid, it is believed that heat transfer mechanism of a saltwater solar pond vis-à-
45
vis absorption and storage can be enhanced with the use of nanofluid. Recently, Al-Nimr and Al-
Dafaie [242] numerically investigated the use of Ag-water nanofluid and mineral oil in a two-layer
nanofluid solar pond. They found that high absorption coefficient is required for better
performance and this was observed to be directly related to an increase in volume fraction.
Therefore, at high nanoparticle concentration, the nanofluid solar pond was found to be more
effective that the conventional saltwater solar pond. In this regard, there is the need for
experimental validation and more robust numerical research to further unlock nanofluid potential
for use in solar ponds. Secondly, nanofluid stability is an important issue as already highlighted in
modification, nanofluid suspension can be electrostatically stabilised [179, 180]. Studies have
shown that as the pH of nanofluids moves further away from the IEP, the higher the absolute value
of zeta potential, which is the measure of stability. It should be noted that most of these studies
were carried out at room temperature. Until very recently, there has been no study on the effect of
temperature on the pH of nanofluids [189, 243]. These studies [189, 243] have shown that
intensify research efforts in this regard with the hope of producing nanofluid at a pH and
temperature where zeta potential is in the stable region, such that if the nanofluid is kept at this
temperature for a period, its stability can be studied. Lastly, the need to study sonication energy
and nanofluid stability with respect to viscosity enhancement is of paramount importance. In many
experiments, as shown in this review, researchers just chose an arbitrary number of hours for their
ultrasonication. This method is not standard as is the reporting as well. Further experimental
investigation should be carried out to study the impact of ultrasonication on the viscosity and
stability of nanofluids. Above all, the experimental values on ultrasonication should be reported on
other researchers.
46
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The funding obtained from the National Research Foundation of South Africa (NRF), Stellenbosch
University/University of Pretoria Solar Hub, CSIR, EEDSM Hub, NAC and IRT SEED is
NOMENCLATURE
a particle radius
ai empirical constants
A empirical parameter
bI characteristics of electrolyte
B empirical parameter
C1 correction factor
C empirical constant
dp nanoparticle diameter
Da aggregate diameter
DE dielectric constant
DI deionized
e charge
E empirical constant
47
Ea activation energy
fa agglomeration factor
h thickness of nanolayer
k specific conductivity
kb Stephan-Boltzmann constant
kH Hugging’s coefficient
p electroviscous coefficient
R adjustable parameter,
48
to initial time after preparation
T suspension temperature
To reference temperature
V sedimentation velocity
VB Brownian velocity
Greek Symbols
empirical constant
diffusion coefficient
empirical constant
shear rate
intrinsic viscosity
zeta potential
r relative viscosity
empirical constant
e electrophoretic mobility
49
i viscosity corresponding to ith class particle size distribution
s specific viscosity
1 4 dimensionless parameters
p nanoparticle density
empirical constant
shear stress
o yield stress
crowding factor
50
z ultimate packing fraction
empirical constant
empirical constant
Subscripts
a aggregate
b Boltzmann
B Brownian
eff effective
EV electroviscous
f fluid
h hydrodynamic
i ith class
j jth class
m maximum
nf nanofluid
o reference
p particle
r relative
s separation
Superscripts
n empirical constant
51
z number of modal suspensions (mono, bi or multi)
REFERENCES
[2] Masoumi, N., Sohrabi, N., and Behzadmehr, A., A new model for calculating the effective
viscosity of nanofluids, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 0555011–
0555016, 2009.
[3] Choi, S.U.S., Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluid with nanoparticles, ASME. pp. 99–
[4] Lee, S., Choi, U.S., and Li, S., Measuring thermal conductivity of fluids containing oxide
[5] Murshed, S.M.S., Leong, K.C., and Yang, C., Thermophysical and electrokinetci properties
of nanofluids - A critical review, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 28, pp. 2109–2125,
2008.
[6] Xiang-Qi, W., and Arun, S.M., A review on nanofluids - part II: experiments and
applications, Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 24, no. 04, pp. 631–648,
2008.
[7] Vajjha, R.S., Das, D.K., and Namburu, P.K., Numerical study of fluid dynamic and heat
transfer performance of Al2O3 and CuO nanofluids in the flat tubes of a radiator,
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 613–621, 2010.
[8] Peyghambarzadeh, S.M., Hashemabadi, S.H., Jamnani, M.S., and Hoseini, S.M., Improving
[9] Nguyen, C.T., Roy, G., Gauthier, C., and Galanis, N., Heat transfer enhancement using
52
[10] Tsai, C.Y., Chien, H.T., Ding, P.P., Chan, B., Luh, T.Y., and Chen, P.H., Effect of structural
[11] Ma, H.B., Wilson, C., Borgmeyer, B., Park, K., and Yu, Q., Effect of nanofluid on the heat
transport capability in an oscilating heat pipe, Applied Physics Letters, vol. 88, no. 143116,
[12] Nguyen, C.T., Roy, G., Lajoie, P.R., and Maiga, S.E.B., Nanofluids Heat Transfer
IASME/WSEAS Int. Conf. on Heat Transfer, Thermal Engineering and Environment. pp.
[13] Jain, P., El-Sayed, I., and El-Sayed, M., Au nanoparticles target cancer, nano today, vol. 2,
[14] Sun, X., Liu, Z., Welsher, K., Robinson, J.T., Goodwin, A., Zaric, S., and Dai, H., Nano-
Graphene Oxide for Cellular Imaging and Drug Delivery., Nano research, vol. 1, no. 3, pp.
203–212, 2008.
[15] Pankhurst, Q. a, Connolly, J., Jones, S.K., and Dobson, J., Applications of magnetic
nanoparticles in biomedicine, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, vol. 36, no. 13, pp.
R167–R181, 2003.
[16] Gupta, A.K., and Gupta, M., Synthesis and surface engineering of iron oxide nanoparticles
for biomedical applications., Biomaterials, vol. 26, no. 18, pp. 3995–4021, 2005.
[17] Lee, J.-H., Hwang, K.S., Jang, S.P., Lee, B.H., Kim, J.H., Choi, S.U.S.S., and Choi, C.J.,
53
[18] Yu, W., Xie, H., Chen, L., and Li, Y., Investigation of thermal conductivity and viscosity of
ethylene glycol based ZnO nanofluid, Thermochimica Acta, vol. 491, no. 1-2, pp. 92–96,
2009.
[19] Eastman, J. a. A., Phillpot, S.R.R., Choi, S.U.S.U.S., and Keblinski, P., Thermal Transport
in Nanofluids, Annual Review of Materials Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 219–246, 2004.
[20] Maïga, S.E., Palm, S.J., Nguyen, C.T., Roy, G., and Galanis, N., Heat transfer enhancement
by using nanofluids in forced convection flows, International Journal fo Heat and Fluid
[21] Heyhat, M.M.M., Kowsary, F., Rashidi, A.M.M., Memenpour, M.H., Amrollahi, A., and
pressure drop of water-based Al2O3 nanofluids in fuly developed flow regime, Experimental
[22] Quaresma, J.N.N., Macêdo, E.N., da Fonseca, H.M., Orlande, H.R.B., Cotta, R.M., Macedo,
E.N., and Fonseca, H.M.D., An Analysis of Heat Conduction Models for Nanofluids, Heat
[23] Wang, J.J., Zheng, R.T., Gao, J.W., and Chen, G., Heat conduction mechanisms in
nanofluids and suspensions, Nano Today, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 124–136, 2012.
[24] Wen, D., Lin, G., Vafaei, S., and Zhang, K., Review of nanofluids for heat transfer
[25] Philip, J., and Shima, P.D., Thermal properties of nanofluids, Advances in Colloid and
[26] Buschmann, M.H., Thermal conductivity and heat transfer of ceramic nanofluids,
International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 62, no. 0, pp. 19–28, 2012.
[27] Mallick, S.S., Mishra, A., and Kundan, L., An investigation into modelling thermal
conductivity for alumina-water nanofluids, Powder Technology, vol. 233, pp. 234–244,
2013.
54
[28] Fan, J., and Wang, L., Heat conduction in nanofluids: Structure-property correlation,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 54, no. 19, pp. 4349–4359, 2011.
[29] Saleh, R., Putra, N., Prakoso, S.P., and Septiadi, W.N., Experimental investigation of
thermal conductivity and heat pipe thermal performance of ZnO nanofluids, International
[30] Altan, C.L., Elkatmis, A., Yuksel, M., Aslan, N., and Bucak, S., Enhancement of thermal
[31] Gupta, S.S., Siva, M. V, Krishnan, S., Sreeprasad, T.S., Singh, P.K., Pradeep, T., and Das,
Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 110, no. 084302, pp. 1–7, 2011.
[32] Chandrasekar, M., Suresh, S., and Bose, A.C., Experimental investigations and theoretical
Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 210–216, 2010.
[33] Hosseini, S., Moghadassi, A., and Henneke, D.E., A new dimensionless group model for
determining the viscosity of nanofluids, J. Therm Anal calorim, vol. 100, pp. 873–877,
2010.
[34] Namburu, P.K., Kulkarni, D.P., Misra, D., and Das, D.K., Viscosity of copper oxide
nanoparticles dispersed in ethylene glycol and water mixture, Experimental Thermal and
[35] Rashin, M.N., and Hemalatha, J., Viscosity studies on novel copper oxide – coconut oil
nanofluid, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 48, pp. 67–72, 2013.
[36] Mahbubul, I.M., Saidur, R., and Amalina, M.A., Latest developments on the viscosity of
nanofluids, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 874–885,
2012.
55
[37] Sundar, L.S., Sharma, K.V., Naik, M.T., and Singh, M.K., Empirical and theoretical
[38] Das, S.K., Choi, S.U.S., and Patel, H.E., Heat transfer in nanofluids - A review, Heat
[39] Okhio, C., Hodges, D., and Black, J., Review of Literature on Nanofluid Flow and Heat
[40] Wang, X.-Q., and Mujumdar, A.S., Heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids: a review,
International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2007.
[41] Wang, X., and Mujumdar, A., A review on nanofluids-part I: theoretical and numerical
investigations, Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 25, no. 04, pp. 613–630,
2008.
[42] Moosavi, M., Goharshadi, E.K., and Youssefi, A., Fabrication, characterization and
of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 599–605, 2010.
[43] Abareshi, M., Sajjadi, S.H., Zebarjad, S.M., and Goharshadi, E.K., Fabrication,
[44] Kole, M., and Dey, T.K., Effect of aggregation on the viscosity of copper oxide-gear oil
nanofluids, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1741–1747, 2011.
[45] Avsec, J., and Oblak, M., The calculation of thermal conductivity, viscosity and
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 50, no. 21-22, pp. 4331–4341, 2007.
56
[46] Meyer, J.P., Nwosu, P., Sharifpur, M., and Ntumba, T., Parametric analysis of effective
viscosity models for nanofluids, Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical
[47] Einstein, A., A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions, Annalen der Physik, vol. 4,
[49] Jeffery, G.B., The Motion of Ellipsoidal Particles Immersed in a Viscous Fluid, Proceedings
of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 102, no. 715,
[50] Taylor, G.I., The viscosity of a fluid containign small drops of another fluid, Proc. Roy.
[51] Brinkman, H.C., The viscosity of concentrated suspensions and solutions, Journal of
[52] Vand, V., Viscosity of solutions and suspensions. I. Theory, The Journal of Physical
[53] Mooney, M., The viscosity of a concentrated suspension of spherical particles, Journal of
[54] Roscoe, R., The viscosity of suspensions of rigid spheres, Journal of Applied Physics, vol.
[55] Batchelor, G., The effect of Brownian motion on the bulk stress in the suspension of
sphrerical particles, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 83, no. 01, pp. 97–117, 1977.
[56] Krieger, I., and Dougherty, T., A mechanicsm for non-Newtonian flow in suspensions of
[57] Lundgren, T.S., Slow flow through stationary random beds and suspensions of spheres,
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 51, no. 02, pp. 273–299, 1972.
57
[58] Graham, A.L., On the viscosity of suspensions of solid spheres, Applied Scientific Research,
[59] Saitô, N., Concentration dependence of the viscosity of high polymer solution, J. Phys. Soc.
[60] Hatschek, E., The general theory of viscosity of two phase systems, Trans. Faraday Soc.,
[61] Thomas, C.U., and Muthukumar, M., Three-body hydrodynamic effects on viscosity of
suspensions of spheres, The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 5180, 1991.
[62] Frankel, N., and Acrivos, A., On the viscosity of a concentrated suspension of solid spheres,
[63] Booth, F., The electroviscous effect for suspensions of solid spherical particles, Proceedings
of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 203, no.
[64] Bull, H., The electroviscous effect in egg albumin solutions, Trans. Faraday Soc., no. 80,
[65] Ward, S., and Whitmore, R., Studies of the viscosity and sedimentation of suspensions Part
1.-The viscosity of suspension of spherical particles, British Journal of Applied Physics, vol.
[66] Williams, P.S., Flow of concentrated suspensions, Journal of Applied Chemistry, vol. 3, no.
[67] Maron, S., and Fok, S., Effect of concentration on flow behavior of glass sphere
[68] Chen, H., Ding, Y., and Tan, C., Rheological behaviour of nanofluids, New Journal of
[69] Kole, M., and Dey, T.K., Thermophysical and pool boiling characteristics of ZnO-ethylene
glycol nanofluids, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 62, pp. 61–70, 2012.
58
[70] Farris, R., Prediction of the viscosity of multimodal suspension from unimodal viscosity
[71] Chong, J., Christiansen, E., and Baer, A., Rheology of concentrated suspensions, Journal of
applied polymer science, vol. 15, no. 1971, pp. 2007–2021, 1971.
[72] Storms, R.F., Ramarao, B.V., and Weiland, R.H., Low shear rate viscosity of bimodally
dispersed suspensions, Powder Technology, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 247–259, 1990.
[73] Dames, B., Morrison, B.R., and Willenbacher, N., An empirical model predicting the
[74] Muralidharan, G., and Runkana, V., Rheological Modeling of Spherical Polymeric Gels and
Dispersions Incorporating the Influence of Particle Size Distribution and Surface Forces,
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 48, no. 19, pp. 8805–8811, 2009.
[75] Servais, C., Jones, R., and Roberts, I., The influence of particle size distribution on the
processing of food, Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 51, pp. 201–208, 2002.
[76] Kole, M., and Dey, T.K., Viscosity of alumina nanoparticles dispersed in car engine coolant,
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 677–683, 2010.
[77] Prasher, R., Bhattacharya, P., and Phelan, P.E., Brownian-Motion-Based Convective-
Conductive Model for the Effective Thermal Conductivity of Nanofluids, Journal of Heat
[78] Graf, W.H., Hydraulics of Sediment Transport, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1971.
[79] Batchelor, G.K., and Green, J.T., The hydrodynamic interaction of two small freely-moving
spheres in a linear flow field, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 401–427, 1972.
[80] Cheng, N., and Law, A., Exponential formula for computing effective viscosity, Powder
[81] Chen, H., Ding, Y., He, Y., and Tan, C., Rheological behaviour of ethylene glycol based
titania nanofluids, Chemical Physics Letters, vol. 444, pp. 333–337, 2007.
59
[82] Tseng, W.J., and Chen, C., Effect of polymeric dispersant on rheological behavior of nickel-
terpineol suspensions, Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 347, no. 1, pp. 145–153,
2003.
[83] Tseng, W.J., and Lin, K., Rheology and colloidal structure of aqueous TiO2 nanoparticle
suspensions, Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 355, pp. 186–192, 2003.
[84] Chen, H., Ding, Y., Lapkin, A., and Fan, X., Rheological behaviour of ethylene glycol-
titanate nanotube nanofluids, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 11, pp. 1513–1520,
2009.
[85] Horri, B.A., Ranganathan, P., Selomulya, C., and Wang, H., A new empirical viscosity
model for ceramic suspensions, Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 2798–
2806, 2011.
[86] Sahoo, B.C., Vajjha, R.S., Ganguli, R., Chukwu, G.A., and Das, D.K., Determination of
Correlations, Petroleum Science and Technology, vol. 27, pp. 1757–1770, 2009.
[87] Nguyen, C.T., Desgranges, F., Galanis, N., Roy, G., Maré, T., Boucher, S., Angue Mintsa,
H., Maré, T., and Mintsa, H.A., Viscosity data for Al2O3 - water nanofluid - hysteresis: is
[88] Hernández Battez, A., Viesca, J.L., González, R., García, A., Reddyhoff, T., and Higuera-
Garrido, a., Effect of Shear Rate, Temperature, and Particle Concentration on the
Rheological Properties of ZnO and ZrO2 Nanofluids, Tribology Transactions, vol. 57, no. 3,
[89] Vakili-Nezhaad, G., and Dorany, A., Effect of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube on the
Viscosity of Lubricants, Energy Procedia, vol. 14, no. 1998, pp. 512–517, 2012.
[90] Garg, J., Poudel, B., Chiesa, M., Gordon, J.B., Ma, J.J., Wang, J.B., Ren, Z.F., Kang, Y.T.,
Ohtani, H., Nanda, J., McKinley, G.H., and Chen, G., Enhanced thermal conductivity and
60
viscosity of copper nanoparticles in ethylene glycol nanofluid, Journal of Applied Physics,
[91] Godson, L., Raja, B., Lal, D.M., and Wongwises, S., Experimental Investigation on the
[93] Colla, L., Fedele, L., Scattolini, M., and Bobbo, S., Water-Based Fe2O3 Nanofluid
[94] Chevalier, J., Tillement, O., and Ayela, F., Rheological properties of nanofluids flowing
through microchannels, Applied Physics Letters, vol. 91, no. 233103, pp. 1–3, 2007.
[95] Suganthi, K.S., and Rajan, K.S., Temperature induced changes in ZnO–water nanofluid:
Zeta potential, size distribution and viscosity profiles, International Journal of Heat and
[96] Suganthi, K., Anusha, N., and Rajan, K., Low viscous ZnO–propylene glycol nanofluid: a
potential coolant candidate, Journal of nanoparticle research, vol. 15, no. 1986, pp. 1986–
1–6, 2013.
[97] Singh, D., Timofeeva, E., Yu, W., Routbort, J., France, D., Smith, D., and Lopez-Cepero,
[98] Timofeeva, E. V., Routbort, J.L., and Singh, D., Particle shape effects on thermophysical
properties of alumina nanofluids, Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 014304–1
– 10, 2009.
61
[99] Takeuchi, A., Kato, H., and Inoue, A., Vogel--Fulcher--Tammann plot for viscosity scaled
with temperature interval between actual and ideal glass transitions for metallic glasses in
liquid and supercooled liquid states, Intermetallics, vol. 18, pp. 406–411, 2010.
[100] Żyła, G., Witek, A., and Cholewa, M., Viscosity of diethylene glycol-based Y2O3
[101] Kulkarni, D., Das, D., and Chukwu, G.A., Temperature dependent rheological property of
[102] Yiamsawas, T., Dalkilic, A.S., Mahian, O., and Wongwises, S., Measurement and
Temperatures and Comparisons with Literature Reports, Journal of Dispersion Science and
[103] Hemmat Esfe, M., and Saedodin, S., An experimental investigation and new correlation of
viscosity of ZnO–EG nanofluid at various temperatures and different solid volume fractions,
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 55, pp. 1–5, 2014.
[104] Azmi, W.H., Sharma, K. V, Mamat, R., Alias, a B.S., and Misnon, I.I., Correlations for
thermal conductivity and viscosity of water based nanofluids, IOP Conference Series:
[105] Khanafer, K., and Vafai, K., A critical synthesis of thermophysical characteristics of
nanofluids, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 54, no. 19-20, pp. 4410–
4428, 2011.
[106] Yu, W., Xie, H., Li, Y., and Chen, L., Experimental investigation on thermal conductivity
and viscosity of aluminum nitride nanofluid, Particuology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 187–191, 2011.
[107] Halelfadl, S., Estellé, P., Aladag, B., Doner, N., and Maré, T., Viscosity of carbon nanotubes
62
[108] Aladag, B., Halelfadl, S., Doner, N., Maré, T., Duret, S., Estellé, P., and Haleifadl, S.,
[109] Syam Sundar, L., Singh, M.K., and Sousa, A.C.M., Investigation of thermal conductivity
Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 44, pp. 7–14, 2013.
[110] Phuoc, T.S.X., and Massoudi, M., Experimental observations of the effects of shear rates
[111] Corcione, M., Empirical correlating equations for predicting the effective thtermal
[112] Sekhar, Y.R., and Sharma, K. V., Study of viscosity and specific heat capacity
[113] Kitano, T., Kataoka, T., and Shirota, T., An empirical equation of the relative viscosity of
polymer melts filled with various inorganic fillers, Rheol. Acta, vol. 20, pp. 207–209, 1981.
[114] Bobbo, S., Fedele, L., Benetti, A., Colla, L., Fabrizio, M., Pagura, C., and Barison, S.,
Viscosity of water based SWCNH and TiO2 nanofluids, Experimental Thermal and Fluid
[115] Paul, G., Chopkar, M., Manna, I., and Das, P.K., Techniques for measuring the thermal
conductivity of nanofluids: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 14,
[116] Sundar, L.S., Farooky, M.H., Sarada, S.N., and Singh, M.K., Experimental thermal
conductivity of ethylene glycol and water mixture based low volume concentration of Al2O3
63
and CuO nanofluids, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 41, no.
[117] Vajjha, R.S., and Das, D.K., Experimental determination of thermal conductivity of three
nanofluids and development of new correlations, International Journal of Heat and Mass
[118] Mansour, R.B., Galanis, N., and Nguyen, C.T., Experimental study of mixed convection
with water–Al2O3 nanofluid in inclined tube with uniform wall heat flux, International
[119] Fotukian, S.M., and Esfahany, M.N., Experimental study of turbulent convective heat
transfer and pressure drop of dilute CuO/water nanofluid inside a circular tube, International
Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 214–219, 2010.
[120] Liu, Z.-H., and Li, Y.-Y., A new frontier of nanofluid research – Application of nanofluids
in heat pipes, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 55, no. 23-24, pp.
6786–6797, 2012.
[121] Wang, P.-Y., Chen, X.-J., Liu, Z.-H., and Liu, Y.-P., Application of nanofluid in an inclined
mesh wicked heat pipes, Thermochimica Acta, vol. 539, pp. 100–108, 2012.
[122] Hajian, R., Layeghi, M., and Sani, K.A., Experimental study of nanofluid effects on the
thermal performance with response time of heat pipe, Energy Conversion and Management,
[123] Saidur, R., Meng, T.C., Said, Z., Hasanuzzaman, M., and Kamyar, A., Evaluation of the
[124] Yousefi, T., Shojaeizadeh, E., Veysi, F., and Zinadini, S., An experimental investigation on
64
[125] Yousefi, T., Veisy, F., Shojaeizadeh, E., Zinadini, S., and Veysi, F., An experimental
collectors, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 39, no. 0, pp. 207–212, 2012.
[126] Yousefi, T., Veysi, F., Shojaeizadeh, E., and Zinadini, S., An experimental investigation on
the effect of Al2O3-H2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar collectors, Renewable
[127] Nieh, H.-M., Teng, T.-P., and Yu, C.-C., Enhanced heat dissipation of a radiator using oxide
nano-coolant, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 77, pp. 252–261, 2014.
[128] Murshed, S.M.S., Leong, K.C., and Yang, C., Determination of the effective thermal
[129] White, S.B., Shih, A.J., and Pipe, K.P., Investigation of the electrical conductivity of
propylene glycol-based ZnO nanofluids, Nanoscale Research Letters, vol. 6, pp. 346–350,
2011.
[130] Rella, R., Spadavecchia, J., Menera, M.G., Capone, S., and Taurino, A., Acetone and
ethanol solid-state gas sensor based on TiO2 nanoparticles thin film deposited by matrix
assisted pulsed laser evaporation, Sensors and Actuators B, vol. 127, pp. 426–431, 2007.
[131] Madaria, A.R., Kumar, A., Ishikawa, F.N., and Zhou, C., Uniform, highly conductive, and
patterned transparent films of a percolating silver nanowire network on rigid and flexible
substrates using a dry transfer technique, Nano Research, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 564–573, 2010.
[132] Anoop, K.B., Kabelac, S., Sundararajan, T., and Das, S.K., Rheological and flow
Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 034909 1–7, 2009.
[133] Janot, R., and Guérard, D., One-step synthesis of maghemite nanometric powers by ball
milling, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, vol. 333, pp. 302–307, 2002.
65
[134] Chin, P.P., Ding, J., Yi, J.B., and Liu, B.H., Synthesis of FeS2 and FeS nanoparticles by
[135] Lam, C., Zhang, Y.F., Tang, Y.H., Lee, C.S., Bello, I., and Lee, S.T., Large-scale synthesis
of ultrafine Si nanoparticles by ball milling, Journal of Crystal Growth, vol. 220, pp. 466–
470, 2000.
[136] Franzel, L., Bertino, M.F., Huba, Z.J., and Carpenter, E.E., Synthesis of magnetic
nanoparticles by paulsed laser ablation, Applied Surface Science, vol. 261, pp. 332–336,
2012.
[137] Cristoforetti, G., Pitzalis, E., Spiniello, R., Ishak, R., Giammanco, F., Muniz-Miranda, M.,
Ablation in different organic solvents, Applied Surface Science, vol. 258, pp. 3289–3297,
2012.
[138] Mutisya, S., Franzel, L., Barnstein, B.O., Faber, T.W., Ryann, J.J., and Bertino, M.F.,
[139] Manera, M.G., Taurino, A., Catalano, M., Rella, R., Caricato, A.P., and Buonsanti, R.,
Enhancement of the optically activated NO2 gas sensing response of brookite Ti2
[140] Singh, V., and Chauhan, P., Structural and optical characterization of CdS nanoparticles
prepared by chemical precipitation, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, vol. 70, pp.
1074–1079, 2009.
[141] Chen, J.-F., Wang, Y.-H., Guo, F., Wang, X.-M., and Zheng, C., Synthesis of Nanoparticles
66
[142] Hsu, W.-C., Chen, S.., Kuo, P.., Lie, C.., and Tsai, W.., Preparation of NiCuZn ferrite
nanoparticles from chemical co-precipitation method and the magnetic properties after
sintering, Materials Science and Engineering: B, vol. 111, no. 2-3, pp. 142–149, 2004.
[143] Zhu, J., Liu, S., Palchik, O., Koltypin, Y., and Gedanken, A., Shape-controlled synthesis of
silver nanoparticles by pulse sonoelectrochemical methods, Langmuir, no. 23, pp. 6396–
6399, 2000.
[144] Mastai, Y., Polsky, R., Koltypin, Y., Gedanken, A., and Hodes, G., Pulsed
[145] Zhu, J., Aruna, S.T., Koltypin, Y., and Gedanken, A., A Novel Method for the preparation of
[146] Zin, V., Pollet, B.G., and Dabalà, M., Sonoelectrochemical (20kHz) production of platinum
nanoparticles from aqueous solutions, Electrochimica Acta, vol. 54, no. 28, pp. 7201–7206,
2009.
[147] Lei, H., Tang, Y.-J., Wei, J.-J., Li, J., Li, X.-B., and Shi, H.-L., Synthesis of tungsten
2007.
[148] Sáez, V., and Mason, T.J., Sonoelectrochemical Synthesis of Nanoparticles, molecules, vol.
[149] Mueller, R., Mädler, L., and Pratsinis, S.E., Nanoparticle synthesis at high production rates
by flame pyrolysis, Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 58, pp. 1969–1976, 2003.
[150] Sahm, T., Mädler, L., Gurlo, A., Barsan, N., Pratsinis, S.E., and Weimar, U., Flame spray
synthesis of tin dioxide nanoparticles for gas sensing, Sensors and Actuators B, vol. 98, pp.
148–153, 2004.
67
[151] Kong, J., Cassell, A., and Dai, H., Chemical vapor deposition of methane for single-walled
carbon nanotubes, Chemical Physics Letters, no. august, pp. 567–574, 1998.
[152] Colomer, J.-F., Stephan, C., Lefrant, S., Tendeloo, G. V, Willems, I., Kónya, Z., Fonseca,
A., Laurent, C., and Nagy, J.B., Large-scale synthesis of single-wall carbon nanotubes by
catalytic chemical vapor deposition (CCVD) method, Chemical Physics Letters, vol. 317,
[153] Nakaso, K., Han, B., Ahn, K.H., Choi, M., and Okuyama, K., Synthesis of non-
[154] Sahoo, P.K., Kamal, S.S.K., Premkumar, M., Kumar, T.J., Sreedhar, B., Singh, A.K.,
[155] Rao, J.P., and Geckeler, K.E., Polymer nanoparticles: Preparation techniwues and size-
control parameters, Progress in Polymer Science, vol. 36, pp. 887–913, 2011.
[156] Koch, C.C., The synthesis and structure of nanocrystalline materials produced by
[157] Fedele, L., Colla, L., Bobbo, S., Barison, S., and Agresti, F., Experimental stability analysis
of different water-based nanofluids., Nanoscale research letters, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 300, 2011.
[158] Zamzamian, A., Oskouie, S.N., Doosthoseini, A., Joneidi, A., and Pazouki, M.,
Al2O3/EG and CuO/EG in a double pipe and plate heat exchangers under turbulent flow,
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 495–502, 2011.
[159] Singh, A.K., and Raykar, V.S., Microwave synthesis of silver nanofluids with
polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) and their transport properties, Colloid and Polymer Science,
68
[160] Kim, D., Hwang, Y., Cheong, S.I., Lee, J.K., Hong, D., Moon, S., Lee, J.E., and Kim, S.H.,
Production and characterization of carbon nano colloid via one-step electrochemical method,
[161] Singaravelu, G., Arockiamary, J., Ganesh, K., and Govindaraju, K., A novel extracellular
synthesis of monodispersed gold nanoparticles using marine alga, Sargassum wightii grevile,
[162] Ahmad, A., Mukherjee, P., Senapati, S., Mandal, D., Khan, M.I., Kumar, R., and Sastry, M.,
[163] Bhainsa, K.C., and D\rqSouza, S.F., Extracellular biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using
the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus, Colloids Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 47, pp. 160–164,
2006.
[164] Elumalai, E.K., Prasad, T.N.V.K. V, Hemachandran, J., and Therasa, S. V, Extracellular
synthesis of silver nanoparticles using leaves of Euphorbia hirta and their antibacterial
activities, Jorunal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 549–554,
2010.
[165] Krishnaraj, C., Jagan, E.G., Rajasekar, S., Selvakumar, P., Kalaichelvan, P.T., and Mohan,
N., Synthesis of silver nanoparticles using Acalypha indica leaf extracts and its antibacterial
activity against water borne pathogens, Colloids and Surface B: Biointerfaces, vol. 76, pp.
50–56, 2010.
[166] Huang, J., Li, Q., Sun, D., Lu, Y., Su, Y., Yang, X., Wang, H., Wang, Y., Shao, W., He, N.,
Hong, J., and Chen, C., Biosynthesis of silver and gold nanoparticles by novel sundried
Cinnamomum camphora leaf, Nanotechnology, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 105104, 2007.
[167] Narayanan, K.B., and Sakthivel, N., Coriander leaf mediated biosynthesis of gold
nanoparticles, Materials Letters, vol. 62, no. 30, pp. 4588–4590, 2008.
69
[168] Song, J.Y., Jang, H., and Kim, B.S., Biological synthesis of gold nanoparticles using
Magnolia kobus and Diopyros kaki leaf extracts, Process Biochemistry, vol. 44, pp. 1133–
1138, 2009.
[169] Shivaji, S., Madhu, S., and Singh, S., Extracellular synthesis of antibacterial silver
nanoparticle using psychrophilic bacteria, Process Biochemistry, vol. 46, pp. 1800–1807,
2011.
[170] He, S., Guo, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, S., Wang, J., and Gu, N., Biosynthesis of gold
nanoparticles using the bacteria Rhodopseudomonas capsulata, Materials Letters, vol. 61,
[171] Husseiny, M.I., El-Aziz, M.A., Badr, Y., and Mahmoud, M.A., Biosynthesis of gold
nanoparticles using Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Spectrochimica Acta Part A, vol. 67, pp.
1003–1006, 2007.
[172] Agnihotri, M., Joshi, S., Kumar, A.R., Zinjarde, S., and Kulkarni, S., Biosynthesis of gold
nanoparticles by the tropical marine yeast Yarrowia lipolytica NCIM 3589, Materials
[173] Apte, M., Girme, G., Nair, R., Bankar, A., Kumar, A.R., and Zinjarde, S., Melanin mediated
synthesis of gold nanoparticles by Yarrowia lipolytica, Materials Letters, vol. 95, pp. 149–
152, 2013.
[174] Krumov, N., Oder, S., Perner-Nochta, I., Angelov, A., and Posten, C., Accumulation of CdS
481–486, 2007.
[175] Jha, A.K., and Prasad, K., A green low-cost biosynthesis of Sb2O3 nanoparticles,
[176] Inbakandan, D., Sivaleela, G., Magesh Peter, D., Kiurbagaran, R., Venkatesan, R., and
Ajmal Khan, S., Marine sponge extract assisted biosynthesis of silver nanoparticles,
70
[177] Thakkar, K.N., Mhatre, S.S., and Parikh, R.Y., Biological synthesis of metallic
2010.
[178] Prasher, R., Phelan, P.E., and Bhattacharya, P., Effect of aggregation kinetics on the thermal
conductivity of nanoscale colloidal solutions (nanofluid)., Nano letters, vol. 6, no. 7, pp.
1529–34, 2006.
[179] Samal, S., Satpati, B., and Chaira, D., Production and dispersion stability of ultrafine Al–Cu
alloy powder in base fluid, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, vol. 504, pp. S389–S394,
2010.
[180] Wang, X., Li, X., and Yang, S., Influence of pH and SDBS on the stability and thermal
conductivity of nanofluids, Energy & Fuels, vol. 23, no. 16, pp. 2684–2689, 2009.
[181] Shima, P.D., Philip, J., and Raj, B., Magnetically controllable nanofluid with tunable
thermal conductivity and viscosity, Applied Physics Letters, vol. 95, no. 13, pp. 133112,
2009.
[182] Lee, S.W., Park, S.D., Kang, S., Bang, I.C., and Kim, J.H., Investigation of viscosity and
thermal conductivity of SiC nanofluids for heat transfer applications, International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 54, no. 1-3, pp. 433–438, 2011.
[183] Phuoc, T.X., Massoudi, M., and Chen, R.-H., Viscosity and thermal conductivity of
[184] Utomo, A.T., Poth, H., Robbins, P.T., and Pacek, A.W., Experimental and theoretical
studies of thermal conductivity, viscosity and heat transfer coefficient of titania and alumina
nanofluids, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 55, no. 25-26, pp. 7772–
7781, 2012.
71
[185] Kumaresan, V., and Velraj, R., Experimental investigation of the thermo-physical properties
of water–ethylene glycol mixture based CNT nanofluids, Thermochimica Acta, vol. 545, pp.
180–186, 2012.
[186] Chen, H., Ding, Y., and Lapkin, A., Rheological behaviour of nanofluids containing tube /
[187] Yang, J.-C., Li, F.-C., Zhou, W.-W., He, Y.-R., and Jiang, B.-C., Experimental investigation
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 55, no. 11-12, pp. 3160–3166, 2012.
[188] Syam Sundar, L., Venkata Ramana, E., Singh, M.K., and De Sousa, a. C.M., Viscosity of
and water mixture, Chemical Physics Letters, vol. 554, pp. 236–242, 2012.
[189] Adio, S.A., Sharifpur, M., and Meyer, J.P., Investigation into Effective Viscosity and
[190] Murshed, S.M.S., Leong, K.C., and Yang, C., Investigations of thermal conductivity and
viscosity of nanofluids, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 560–
568, 2008.
[191] Prasher, R., Song, D., and Wang, J., Measurements of nanofluid viscosity and its implication
for thermal application, Applied Physics Letters, vol. 89, pp. 133108–1–3, 2006.
[192] Das, S.K., Putra, N., and Roetzel, W., Pool boiling characteristics of nano-fluids,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 851–862, 2003.
[193] Wang, X., Xu, X., and Choi, S.U.., Thermal Conductivity of Nanoparticle - Fluid Mixture,
Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 474–480, 1999.
[194] Hosseini, M., and Ghader, S., A model for temperature and particle volume fraction effect
on nanofluid viscosity, Journal of Molecular Liquids, vol. 153, pp. 139–145, 2010.
72
[195] Suresh, S., Venkitaraj, K.P., Selvakumar, P., and Chandrasekar, M., Synthesis of Al2O3-
Cu/water hybrid nanofluids using two step method and its thermo physical properties,
Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochem. Eng. Aspects, vol. 388, pp. 41–48, 2011.
[196] Larson, R.G., The structure and rheology of complex fluids, Oxford University Press, Inc.,
[197] Chen, H., Witharana, S., Jin, Y., Kim, C., and Ding, Y., Predicting thermal conductivity of
[198] Moradpour, H., Chapoy, A., and Tohidi, B., Bimodal model for predicting the emulsion-
hydrate mixture viscosity in high water cut systems, Fuel, vol. 90, no. 11, pp. 3343–3351,
2011.
[199] Rensing, P.J., Liberatore, M.W., Sum, A.K., Koh, C. a., and Dendy Sloan, E., Viscosity and
[200] Singh, N., Chand, G., and Kanagaraj, S., Investigation of Thermal Conductivity and
Viscosity of Carbon Nanotubes –, Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 821–827,
2012.
[201] Mahbubul, I.M., Khaleduzzaman, S.S., Saidur, R., and Amalina, M. a., Rheological behavior
of Al2O3/R141b nanorefrigerant, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 73,
[202] Yang, Y., Oztekin, A., Neti, S., and Mohapatra, S., Particle agglomeration and properties of
nanofluids, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 852, 2012.
[203] Keblinski, P., Prasher, R., and Eapen, J., Thermal conductance of nanofluids: is the
[204] Tseng, W.J., and Lin, C.L., Effect of dispersant on rheological behaviour of BaTiO3
poweders in ethano-isopropanol mixtures, Mater. Chem. Phys., vol. 80, pp. 232–238, 2003.
73
[205] Nguyen, C.T., Desgranges, F., Roy, G., Galanis, N., Maré, T., Boucher, S., and Angue
Mintsa, H., Temperature and particle-size dependent viscosity data for water-based
nanofluids – Hysteresis phenomenon, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 28,
[206] He, Y., Jin, Y., Chen, H., Ding, Y., Cang, D., and Lu, H., Heat transfer and flow behaviour
vertical pipe, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 50, no. 11-12, pp.
2272–2281, 2007.
[207] Namburu, P., and Kulkarni, D., Experimental investigation of viscosity and specific heat of
silicon dioxide nanofluids, Micro & Nano Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 67–71, 2007.
[208] Pastoriza-Gallego, M.J., Casanova, C., Legido, J.L., and Piñeiro, M.M., CuO in water
viscosity, Fluid Phase Equilibria, vol. 300, no. 1-2, pp. 188–196, 2011.
[209] Anoop, K.B., Sundararajan, T., and Das, S.K., Effect of particle size on the convective heat
transfer in nanofluid in the developing region, International Journal of Heat and Mass
[210] Timofeeva, E. V, Smith, D.S., Yu, W., France, D.M., Singh, D., and Routbort, J.L., Particle
size and interfacial effects on thermo-physical and heat transfer characteristics of water-
based alpha-SiC nanofluids., Nanotechnology, vol. 21, no. 21, pp. 215703, 2010.
[211] Jia-Fei, Z., and Zhong-Yang, L., Dependence of nanofluid viscosity on particle size and pH
value, Chinese Physics Lett., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 10–13, 2009.
F.J., Intrinsic viscosity of SiO2, Al2O3and TiO2 aqueous suspensions, Journal of Colloid and
74
[213] Boluk, Y., Lahiji, R., Zhao, L., and McDermott, M.T., Suspension viscosities and shape
[214] Wierenga, A.M., and Philipse, A.P., Low-shear viscosities of (semi-)dilute, aqueous
dispersions of charged boehmite rods: dynamic scaling of double layer effects, Langmuir,
[215] Wierenga, A.M., and Philipse, A.P., Low-shear viscosities of dilute dispersions of colloidal
rodlike silica particles in cyclohexane, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 180,
[216] Hwang, Y., Park, H.S., Lee, J.K., and Jung, W.H., Thermal conductivity and lubrication
[217] Vékás, L., Bica, D., and Avdeev, M., Magnetic nanoparticles and concentrated magnetic
nanofluids: synthesis, properties and some applications, China Particuology, vol. 5, pp. 43–
49, 2007.
[218] Sharifpur, M., Meyer, J.P., and Africa, S., Opportunities in Nanofluid Composites, The 3rd
[219] Charles, S., The preparation of magnetic fluids, Ferrofluids, pp. 3–18, 2003.
[220] Shima, P., and Philip, J., Tuning of thermal conductivity and rheology of nanofluids using
[221] Andablo-Reyes, E., Hidalgo-Álvarez, R., and Vicente, J., Controlling friction using
[222] S S Papell, Low viscosity magnetic fluid obtained by the colloidal suspension of magnetic
particles, 1965.
[223] Vekas, L., Magnetic nanofluids properties and some applications, Romanian Journal of
75
[224] Vekas, L., Bica, D., and Marinica, O., Magnetic nanofluids stabilized with various chain
length surfactants, Romanian Reports in Physics, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 257–267, 2006.
[225] Shima, P., Philip, J., and Raj, B., Synthesis of aqueous and nonaqueous iron oxide
nanofluids and study of temperature dependence on thermal conductivity and viscosity, The
[226] Wonterghem, J., Mørup, S., Charles, S., Wells, S., and Villadsen, J., Formation of a metallic
glass by thermal decomposition of Fe(CO)5, Physical review Letters, vol. 55, no. 4, 1985.
[227] Jolly, M., Bender, J.W., and Carlson, D.J., Properties and applications of commercial
magnetorheological fluids, SPIE 5th Annual Int. Symposium on Smart Structures and
[228] Rudyak, V.Y., and Krasnolutskii, S.L., Dependence of the viscosity of nanofluids on
nanoparticle size and material, Physics Letters A, vol. 378, no. 26-27, pp. 1845–1849, 2014.
[229] Huseyin, K., and Muhammet, K., Prediction of thermal conductivity of ethylene glycol -
water solutions by using artificial neural networks, Applied Energy, vol. 86, pp. 2244–2248,
2009.
[230] Hojjat, M., Etemad, S.G., Bagheri, R., and Thibault, J., Thermal conductivity of non-
Newtonian nanofluids: Experimental data and modeling using neural network, International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 54, pp. 1017–1023, 2011.
[231] Papari, M.M., Yousefi, F., Moghadasi, J., Karimi, J., and Campo, A., Modeling thermal
[232] Mehrabi, M., Sharifpur, M., and Meyer, J.P., Application of the FCM-based neuro-fuzzy
76
[233] Yousefi, F., Karimi, H., and Papari, M.M., Modeling viscosity of nanofluids using
diffusional neural networks, Journal of Molecular Liquids, vol. 175, pp. 85–90, 2012.
[234] Bahiraei, M., Hosseinalipour, S., Zabihi, K., and Taheran, E., Using Neural Network for
[235] Karimi, H., and Yousefi, F., Application of artificial neural network–genetic algorithm
(ANN–GA) to correlation of density in nanofluids, Fluid Phase Equilibria, vol. 336, pp. 79–
83, 2012.
[236] Mehrabi, M., Sharifpur, M., and Meyer, J.P., Viscosity of nanofluids based on an artificial
intelligence model, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 43, pp.
6–11, 2013.
[237] Atashrouz, S., Pazuki, G., and Alimoradi, Y., Estimation of the viscosity of nine nanofluids
using a hybrid GMDH-type neural network system, Fluid Phase Equilibria, vol. 372, pp.
43–48, 2014.
[238] Wong, K. V., and De Leon, O., Applications of Nanofluids: Current and Future, Advances in
[239] Yu, W., and Xie, H., A Review on Nanofluids: Preparation, Stability Mechanisms, and
[240] Huminic, G., and Huminic, A., Application of nanofluids in heat exchangers: A review,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 5625–5638, 2012.
[241] Weinberger, H., The Physics of the Solar Pond, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 45–56, 1963.
[242] Al-Nimr, M. a., and Al-Dafaie, A.M.A., Using nanofluids in enhancing the performance of a
novel two-layer solar pond, Energy, vol. 68, pp. 318–326, 2014.
[243] Konakanchi, H., Vajjha, R.S., Chukwu, G., and Das, D.K., Measurements of pH of Three
Nanofluids and Development of New Correlations, Heat Transfer Engineering, no. june, pp.
81–90, 2014.
77
Table 1 Summarised list of the available classical models
Investigators Classical Models Remarks
Einstein [47] eff o 1 2.5 Established on extremely dilute suspension of rigid solid spheres and
non-interacting medium. Volume fraction of ≤ 0.02. From the model,
it is clear that viscosity is a linear function of volume fraction.
Taylor [50] 2 An extension of model [47], for liquid containing drops of another liquid
' 3 o
in suspension. The liquid drops have been assumed spherical and, for
eff o 1 2.5 sphericity to be maintained, there must be high surface tension.
' o Therefore, this model is only valid when the condition above is met.
Brinkman [51] eff o 1 2.5 This is an extension of [47] and for a volume fraction, ≤ 0.04.
Batchelor [55] eff o 1 2.5 6.5 2 Effect of interactions between particles was considered in the
development of this model. Within the limits of a very low particle
volume concentration, this model approaches model [47].
78
Table 1 Continued
eff o 1 2.5 2 f 3
Lundgren [57] 25 This model was proposed considering Brownian motion of isotropic
4 suspension of rigid spherical particles. The resulting bulk stress on the
particles was taken into account.
Within the limits of a very low particle volume concentration, this model
approaches model [47].
Graham [58] This model approaches [47] and [62] as the lower and upper limit of solid
1
eff o 1 2.5 4.5
hs d p 2 hs d p 1 hs d p
2
volume fraction tends to zero and infinity respectively. Cell-based theory
was used where spheres were arranged in equidistance to a central sphere.
The diameters of the spheres were assumed uniform and zero inertial,
Brownian motion, Van der Waals, and electroviscous forces were
considered.
Saito [59] eff o 2.5 14.1 2
Hatchek [60] eff o 1 4.5 It is applicable for up to 40% solid concentration.
Thomas and eff o 1 2.5 4.83 2 6.4 3
Muthukumar [61]
Frankel and Acrivos 1
Developed using asymptotic technique to describe the viscosity of
9 m 3
[62] eff o suspension within the concentrated limit where maximum volume fraction
8 1 13
m
is obtainable. Assume uniform solid sphere to complement Einstein’s work
from dilute to concentrated regime.
79
Table 2 New theoretical models
Hosseini et al. [33] T d p This model was formulated using dimensionless groups considering the
nf o .exp m h viscosity of the base fluid, hydrodynamic volume fraction of nanoparticles,
T0 1 r
diameter of nanoparticles, thickness of capping layer of the nanoparticles
and temperature as 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 respectively.
The dimensionless group is defined as
nf d T
1 , 2 h , 3 , and 4 , m is a system property constant,
bf 1 r T0
, , are empirical constants obtainable from the experimental data.
Chen et al. [68] m Modified [56], considering the effect of agglomeration, therefore proposed
nf o 1 a a as the effective volume fraction of agglomerates. The power in the
m
model was evaluated to be -1.5125, a (aa / a)3D where D is the
m
fractal index and the duo of a a and a are the radii of the agglomerates and
primary particles.
80
Table 3 Summary of available empirical models
81
Table 3 Continued
82
Table 3 Continued
2
Chevalier et (d ) SiO2-ethanol nanofluid.
al. [94] nf o 1 a p 0-7 35 and 25 Correlated based on Krieger and Dougherty model.
m 94 Fitted for the particle sizes with Da as the aggregated
Da
1.2
diameter (195 and 352 nm) corresponding to the
a (d p ) nanoparticle diameters.
dp
m is crowding factor as detailed by Prasher et al. [191].
Da is the aggregate diameter.
1
In nf A B
Kulkarni et 5-15 29 5-50 CuO-water nanofluid.
al. [101] T Non-Newtonian nanofluid showing pseudoplastic and
shear-thinning behaviour.
T is the absolute temperature in Kelvin.
A and B are empirical constants and are dependent on the
particle volume fraction.
83
Table 3 Continued
constant for packing geometry.
is related to packing geometry of various inorganic
materials that fill the polymer melts; 0.54 0.0125 p ,
where p is the average aspect ratio.
The equation is only applicable above the shear) stress of 104
dyne/cm2.
Bobbo et al. nf o 1 A B 2 0.01-1% 21-60 10-80 TiO2-water nanofluids (21 nm).
[114] SWCNT-water nanofluids (60 nm).
Newtonian nanofluids.
A and B are empirical parameters based on present
experimental data.
Dispersant used (SDS and PEG).
84
Table 4 Overview of classification of methods of preparation of nanoparticles
85
Table 5 Summary of equipment for nanoviscosity and their measurement bases
DI-water nanofluids prediction at 20 oC. Insets at points (1) and (2) depict the level of discordance
in the predicted relative viscosity values even for models built around particle volume
concentration.
Figure 4 Instability sequence in nanofluids. At time to, the nanofluid is stable just after
at t2, which finally sediments at time t3. As also increases, the tendency of the instability
sequence is high.
Figure 6 Effect of shear rate on the rheology of suspension: (a) the stress ( )-shear rate ( ) curve
of TiO2-water nanofluid at different particle volume fractions; (b) the suspension viscosity ( nf )-
shear rate ( ) curve of TiO2-water nanofluid at different particle volume fractions [83].
Figure 7 Effect of shearing time water-based nanofluids of CNT and Al2O3 at 5 oC: (a) CNT –
water nanofluid showing shear thinning, thixotropic; (b) Al2O3-water nanofluid showing shear
Figure 8. Effect of nanoparticle size on the relative viscosity of SiO2-DI water nanofluid [211].
Figure 9 Criteria and selection flow chart for the implementation of search and sort algorithm.
87
Figure 10 Generic algorithms for selection of appropriate nanofluid viscosity models. R, S,…V
are available nanofluid viscosity models with attributes R1, R2, …V5, V6 and sub-array attributes
88
Figure 1 Inconsistency in suspension viscosity predictions by different available models. Al2O3-
DI-water nanofluids prediction at 20 oC. Insets at points (1) and (2) depict the level of discordance
in the predicted relative viscosity values even for models built around particle volume
concentration.
89
Figure 2 Underprediction of Al2O3-DI-water nanofluids by classical models.
90
Figure 3 Underprediction of TiO2-DI-water nanofluids by classical models.
91
% Volume Concentration ()
Stable nanofluids
Stability marker
Time
to t1 t2 t3
Figure 4 Instability sequence in nanofluids. At time to, the nanofluid is stable just after
at t3, which finally sediments at time t3. As also increases, the tendency of the instability
sequence is high.
92
Figure 5 Effect of temperature on the viscosity of Al2O3-glycerol nanofluid [189].
93
(a)
(b)
Newtonian
bed
Figure 6 Effect of shear rate on the rheology of suspension: (a) the shear stress ( )-shear rate ( )
curve of TiO2-water nanofluid at different particle volume fractions; (b) the nanofluid viscosity (
nf )-shear rate ( ) curve of TiO2-water nanofluid at different particle volume fractions [83].
94
(a)
(b
)
Figure 7 Effect of shearing time water-based nanofluids of CNT and Al2O3 at 5 oC: (a) CNT-
water nanofluid showing shear thinning, thixotropic; (b) Al2O3-water nanofluid showing shear
95
Figure 8. Effect of nanoparticle size on the relative viscosity of SiO2-DI-water nanofluid [211].
96
List relevant models
No Yes
Does it meet the
Model okay
performance criteria ?
Figure 9 Criteria and selection flow chart for the implementation of search and sort algorithm.
97
Model Attribute Definition Criteria Definition Sort Operation for Model Model Adaptation to Physical
Preference Problem
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
r5 r6
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
R S V Physical Problem
s1 s2 s3 s4
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6
v1 v2
Priority Indices 1 R1 Priority Indices 2 R1
R1 R1
Selection Criteria R2 R2
R3 R3
R1: Error Margin Model
R2: Imposed Constraint R4 R4
R3: Specific use of Model R5 R1 R1 R5 R1 R1
R4: Base Mechanism R6 R6
R5: Range of Embodied R7 R7
Parameters
R6: Ease of Use R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1
R7: Dispersion Energy
Components Criterion-based Attribute Criterion-based Attribute
Ranking 1 Ranking 2
Figure 10 Generic algorithm for selection of appropriate nanofluid viscosity models. R, S,…V are
available nanofluid viscosity models with attributes R1, R2,…V5, V6 and sub-array attributes r1,
r2,…v5, v6.
98
Josua Meyer obtained his BEng (cum laude) in 1984, MEng (cum laude) in
1986, and his PhD in 1988, all in mechanical engineering from the University of
Acting Head and Professor in Mechanical Engineering before accepting a position as Professor in
the Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering at the Rand Afrikaans University
in 1994. He was Chairman of Mechanical Engineering from 1999 until the end of June 2002, after
which he was appointed Professor and Head of the Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical
Engineering at the University of Pretoria from 1 July 2002. At present, he is the Chair of the
aspects of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning. He is the author and co-author of more than
450 articles, conference papers and patents and has received various prestigious awards for his
research. He is also a fellow or member of various professional institutes and societies such as the
South African Institute for Mechanical Engineers, South African Institute for Refrigeration and
Air-Conditioning, American Society for Mechanical Engineers, American Society for Air-
local and international conferences. He has also received various teaching and exceptional
achiever awards. He is an associate editor of Heat Transfer Engineering and Editor of the Journal
of Porous Media.
University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria in 2005 with a second class upper mark and after a few
99
years of working, he obtained his MSc in 2010 with distinction from the same university. He is
currently working on the mathematical modelling and experimental investigation into the effective
viscosity of nanofluids under the supervision of Dr M. Sharifpur and Professor J.P. Meyer.
Mohsen Sharifpur is a senior lecturer and also responsible for the nanofluids
engineering, and then received a full scholarship for PhD study in mechanical engineering
(thermal fluid) from Eastern Mediterranean University. He was the only postgraduate student who
received four out of four for the CGPA when he received his PhD. He is the author and co-author
of more than 40 articles and conference papers. His research interests include convective
multiphase flow, thermal fluid behaviour of nanofluids, porous media, CFD and waste heat to
Finland. His research interests are in renewable energy systems, nanofluids, mechatronics (with
100