PARAMETERS AFFECTING CRITICAL HEAT FLUX OF NANOFLUIDS:

HEATER SIZE, PRESSURE ORIENTATION

AND ANTI-FREEZE ADDITION

by

MADHAV RAO KASHINATH

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON

AUGUST 2006
Copyright © by Madhav Rao Kashinath 2006

All Rights Reserved

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my supervising professor Dr. Seung Mun You, for giving

me the opportunity to work at the Microscale Heat Transfer Laboratory and be a part of

his research activities. I would also like to thank my fellow laboratory members for

having extended their support and for sharing their knowledge and helping me complete

my study. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends without whose support

and encouragement I could not have accomplished this study.

AUGUST 1, 2006

iii
 ABSTRACT

PARAMETERS AFFECTING CRITICAL HEAT FLUX OF NANOFLUIDS:

HEATER SIZE, PRESSURE ORIENTATION

AND ANTI-FREEZE ADDITION

Publication No. ______

Madhav Rao Kashinath, MS

The University of Texas at Arlington, 2006

Supervising Professor: Seung Mun You

This research aims at investigating the effect of heater size, pressure, heater

orientation and effect of anti-freeze addition on critical heat flux of nanofluids which

have shown large potentials as coolants for high power generating uses. Nanofluids

have shown about ~ 180 - 200% enhancement in critical heat flux values. The effect of

heater was carried out using three different sized heaters. Maximum enhancement of

~190% was achieved for a 1 × 1 cm2 heater. The effect of pressure on critical heat flux

was investigated by testing nanofluids at three pressures. Maximum enhancement of

~ 240% increase in critical heat flux was observed at the lowest pressure tested. Surface
iv
orientation effect on critical heat flux carried out for a 2 × 2 cm2 heater at five

orientations revealed about ~120% enhancement over the critical heat flux obtained

using Zuber’s correlation at an orientation of 150°. Two commercially used antifreezes,

ethylene glycol and propylene glycol, were used to study the effect of anti-freeze

addition to nanofluids. Alumina-water nanofluid of 0.025 g/L concentration mixed with

the antifreezes at five compositions by volume showed a maximum enhancement of

~120% for ethylene glycol and ~70% for propylene glycol.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................... viii

NOMENCLATURE.............................................................................................. x

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION …….. .......................................................................... 1

1.1 Literature Review…............................................................................. 2

1.1.1 Nanofluid Related Review .................................................... 2

1.1.2 Effect of Heater Size on Critical Heat Flux ........................... 4

1.1.3 Effect of Pressure on Critical Heat Flux................................. 5

1.1.4 Effect of Orientation on Critical Heat Flux ............................ 6

1.1.5 Effect of Anti-Freeze Addition on Critical Heat Flux............. 7

1.2 Aim of Current Research ..................................................................... 8

2. EXPERIMENATL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE............................ 10

2.1 Boiling Section and Test Heater........................................................... 10

2.1.1 Test Section........................................................................... 10

2.1.2 Test Heater Preparation ......................................................... 11

2.2 Experimental Procedures ..................................................................... 12

vi
 2.2.1 Nanofluid Preparation Procedures ......................................... 12

2.2.2 Test Procedures ..................................................................... 12

2.3 Experimental Uncertainty ................................................................... 13

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .............................................................. 15

3.1 Effect of Heater Size on q"CHF of Nanofluids ....................................... 15

3.2 Effect of Pressure on q"CHF of Nanofluids ............................................ 20

3.3 Effect of Orientation on q"CHF of Nanofluids ....................................... 23

3.4 Effect of Anti-Freeze Addition on q"CHF of Nanofluids ........................ 26

3.4.1 Effect of Addition of Ethylene Glycol ................................... 27

3.4.2 Effect of Addition of Propylene Glycol ................................. 29

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................... 31

4.1 Conclusions………….. ........................................................................ 31

4.2 Recommendations…............................................................................ 32

Appendix

A. ILLUSTRATIONS…………………………………………………………. 34

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 54

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ..................................................................... 61

vii
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

A.1 Schematics of (a) Test Facility (b) General Heater..................................... 35

A.2 Pool boiling curves of 1 × 1cm, 1.5 × 1.5cm, 2 × 2cm

tested with water and (0.025g/L) alumina-water
nanofluid at Tsat=60°C and P=19.94 kPa.................................................... 36

A.3 Critical heat flux ratio of q"CHF obtained for three sizes
to q"CHF calculated by Zuber’s correlation,
plotted for dimensionless L' ...................................................................... 37

A.4 Boiling curves at 7.38, 19.94 and 47.39kPa for water and
(0.025g/L) alumina-water nanofluid .......................................................... 38

A.5 Normalized q"CHF for tested pressures, showing enhancement

of nanofluid over water ............................................................................. 39

A.6 Increase in heat transfer coefficient ‘h’ with increase in

Pressure at various heat fluxes for both fluids
(water and nanofluid) ................................................................................ 40

A.7 Plot of q"CHF obtained at various pressures normalized with

q"CHF obtained from Zuber’s correlation,
plotted for dimensionless L'...................................................................... 41

A.8 Boiling curves for water at Tsat=60°C, P=19.94 kPa

for effect of orientation .............................................................................. 42

A.9 Pool Boiling curves of nanofluid (current study)

at various orientations tested at Tsat=60°C, P=19.94 kPa
with 0.025g/L of alumina nanoparticles ..................................................... 43

A.10 Pool boiling curves for nanofluids at various orientations

Obtained by Kim et al. [10] ....................................................................... 44

A.11 q"CHF obtained normalized by q"CHF from Zuber’s correlation

various orientations tested ........................................................................ 45

viii
A.12 Comparison of enhancement with Kim et al [10]........................................ 46

A.13 Log-scale curves at various orientations (a) Water (b) Nanofluid ............... 47

A.14 Boiling curves at various concentrations of aqueous

ethylene glycol solution and respective nanofluid ...................................... 48

A.15 Normalized q"CHF obtained for both heaters at various

concentrations of ethylene glycol .............................................................. 49

A.16 Boiling curves obtained by two different methods of mixing

ethylene glycol and nanofluid at Tsat=60°C................................................ 50

A.17 Boiling curves of aqueous mixture of propylene

glycol and respective nanofluid tested at Tsat=60°C ................................. 51

A.18 q"CHF obtained, normalized with q"CHF calculated

using Zuber’s correlation for water at various
concentrations of propylene glycol for both heaters tested.......................... 52

A.19 Comparison of obtained q"CHF of aqueous solutions

of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol and their
respective nanofluids at concentrations tested............................................ 53

ix
 NOMENCLATURE

AH area of the heater surface, [m2]

Cpl specific heat, [J/kg.K]

hfg latent heat of vaporization, [J/kg]

L' dimensionless length

L length, [m]

Nj number of vapor jets on the surface of heater

q"CHF critical heat flux, [kW/m2]

r, s constants bearing values 0.33, 1.0 respectively for water

Twall temperature of the heater surface, [°C]

Tsat saturation temperature, [°C]

Greek symbols

∆ difference

λ wavelength of vapor jets, [m]

µ dynamic viscosity, [N.s/m2]

σ surface tension, [N/m]

ρ density, [kg/m3]

x
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Progress of technology towards smaller sizes in the field of electronics is being

confronted by the problem of heat dissipation due to the limitations of current

techniques to dissipate high powers from the areas much smaller than the previous

decade. Extensive research is being done to provide solutions to the problem of heat

dissipation from small areas such as chips. Two-phase boiling heat transfer is one such

area which is being studied for solutions to the problems being faced in today’s

electronic cooling industry. Delaying the occurrence of critical heat flux (CHF), which

is one of the important phenomena of boiling, is being researched. Surface roughness

techniques to enhance the nucleate boiling heat transfer have been developed and shown

to provide ~300% enhancement over plain surfaces by Chang and You [1]. Moreover,

conventional working fluids for boiling are being replaced with newer liquids

developed for the purposes of electronic cooling. In the recent past, nanofluids have

shown promise of cooling high powers due to higher critical heat fluxes compared to

water.

Critical heat flux is known to be a limiting factor for heat dissipation in two-

phase boiling heat transfer. During the process of boiling; after bubble incipience,

nucleate boiling occurs, during which fresh liquid reaches the surface of the heater

without much resistance from the vapor formed at the surface of the heater. This

process continues and transforms into fully-developed boiling wherein the bubbles
1
formed are larger than the preceding stage. After a certain heat flux is reached, the

vapor forming at the surface of the heater envelops the entire surface of the heater. This

blanketing of the surface causes the temperature of the surface to drastically increase

from the previous states; moreover the bulk liquid faces a much greater thermal

resistance from the vapor in reaching the surface of the heater. This point or heat flux at

which the temperature of the surface sees a sudden rise in temperature is called as

critical heat flux.

One of the problems being faced in boiling heat transfer cooling applications is

the occurrence of critical heat flux. Temperatures at the point of occurrence of critical

heat flux are high enough to damage the devices and therefore, methods to increase

CHF are being investigated. Nanofluids, consisting of nano-sized particles dispersed in

solutions, have shown to have great potential due to their ability to reach higher critical

heat fluxes than water or most of the other liquids. The ability of nanofluids to delay the

occurrence of critical heat flux is the main motivation for this study, which aims at

further understanding behavior of nanofluids for parameters of heater size, pressure,

orientation and addition of anti-freeze.

1.1 Literature Review

1.1.1 Nanofluids Related Review

Nanofluids have recently shown promise in enhancing heat transfer properties.

Lee et al. [2] conducted tests of dispersing copper oxide and aluminum oxide in water
2
and ethylene glycol and found enhancement in the thermal conductivity compared to

pure liquids, they obtained maximum enhancement at 4% by volume concentration of

copper oxide nanoparticles in ethylene glycol. Eastman et al. [3] further reported 40%

enhancement in thermal conductivity on dispersing 0.3 % by volume of copper

nanoparticles in ethylene glycol. Choi et al. [4] conducted test for thermal conductivity

of nanofluid with carbon nanotubes dispersed in oil and found a great increase in the

thermal conductivity compared to the theoretical predictions, leading to the hypothesis

that not only spherical shaped particles (as used by earlier researchers) but particles of

other geometries also enhance the thermal conductivity. More recently Liu et al. [5]

have reported similar results of increase in thermal conductivity by about 24 % using

copper nanoparticles dispersed in water. However, they have also reported that the

increase in thermal conductivity reduced with time.

Das et al. [6] were among the first researchers to report on the behavior of

nanofluids when used as working fluids for boiling. Das et al. [6] found that the boiling

heat transfer coefficient degraded with increase in alumina nanoparticle concentrations

in water ranging from 0.1% to 4% by volume. They tested alumina (Al2O3)

nanoparticles dispersed in water using a 20 mm diameter cartridge heater. To better

understand the behavior of decrease in heat transfer Das et al. [7] tested the same

composition of nanofluids with smaller sized heaters, Das et al. [7] again reported a

decrease in the boiling heat transfer coefficient with increase in concentration of

nanoparticles. They attributed the decrease in heat transfer to the “smoothening” of the

heater surface due to deposition on nanoparticles into surface cavities.

3
 You et al. [8], reported up to 200% enhancement in q"CHF on dispersing

0.025g/L of alumina nanoparticles in water, without any change in the heat transfer

coefficient. Similar results as those obtained by You et al. [8] were obtained by Vassallo

et al. [9] who tested with silica nanoparticles dispersed in water. Pioneering work on

bubble size, departure frequency and effect of heater surface orientation of nanofluids

was reported by Kim et al. [10] for small square copper heater. Recently Moreno et al.

[11] reported similar trends in higher q"CHF due to the addition of zinc oxide (ZnO)

nanoparticles to water. They also reported a 120% increase in the q"CHF of aqueous

ethylene glycol based nanofluid at 0.025g/L concentration of alumina nanoparticles.

1.1.2 Effect of Heater Size on Critical Heat Flux

Critical heat flux of fluids as a function of heater size has been investigated

extensively. Kutateladze and Gogonin [12] conducted experimentation by varying the

heater size to estimate the effect on q"CHF of ethyl alcohol at an orientation of 0°

(horizontal, facing upwards) and did not observe any change in q"CHF. Ishigai et al. [13]

reported a reduction in q"CHF with increase in heater size for a cylindrical heater when

tested with water as the test fluid. Similar results of reduction in q"CHF with increase in

heater size were reported by Kutateladze and Gogonin [12]. Lienhard et al. [14]

experimented with various fluids for cases of submerged circular heaters and small size

heaters forming the base of a fluids tank and observed that q"CHF decreases with

increase in heater size up to a point after which the reduction in q"CHF would be less

affected by the size of heater. Lienhard et al. [14] attributed this phenomenon of
4
decrease in q"CHF to the number of “vapor jets” that can be present on the heater’s

surface area. Lienhard and Dhir [15] investigated effect of heater size by using ribbon

heaters by making the long dimension as the horizontal and short as the vertical side

and they reported a reduction in the q"CHF with an increase in heater size. On testing for

the effect of heater size on q"CHF with FC-72 as working fluid, Saylor et al. [16] found

that q"CHF decreases rapidly with increase in size for smaller size heaters and remains

relatively constant for larger sized heaters. The dimensionless L' after which the size of

the heater does not seem to cause large changes in the q"CHF is known as ‘transition L'’.

McNeil and Bar-Cohen [17] determined that the transition point for FC-72 was L'trans =

20 while testing for effect of heater size on the q"CHF. McNeil and Bar-Cohen’s claim

was supported by Rainey and You [18] when they tested heaters up to the size of 25

cm2 in saturated FC-72. Recently, Kim et al. [19] in their investigation on the effect of

heater size on the q"CHF using wire heaters of 25, 75, and 390 µm diameters observed

the same effect of reduction in q"CHF with increase in wire diameters. Kim et al. [19]

concluded that this is due to the higher latent heat contribution by the wire of 390 µm

diameter compared to 25 µm wire leading to a reduction in the micro-convection.

1.1.3 Effect of Pressure on Critical Heat Flux

The effect of variations in pressure on q"CHF has been well documented for

various kinds of fluids and flat surface heaters in the literature. Cichelli and Bonilla [20]

studied the effect of pressure on the nucleate boiling of liquids such as water, ethanol,

benzene and propane. They concluded that with an increase in pressure, the critical heat
5
flux increases up to a certain pressure (mostly up to one third of the critical pressure)

and then starts to reduce. Abuf et al. [22] observed that at low pressures their plain

heater did not match the q"CHF predicted using Zuber’s correlation [37] instead it

“leveled off”, when they tested for the effect of pressure on the q"CHF with finned

surfaces and plain copper tubes. Nishikawa et al. [23] studied for the effect of pressure

on the heat transfer coefficient during boiling. Their testing using Freon, R11, R113,

R21 and R114 showed mostly the same results of increasing heat transfer coefficient

with increase in pressure. Mudawar and Anderson [24] observed similar results as other

researchers that, with increase in pressure, the nucleate boiling heat transfer would

increase and so would the q"CHF. Luke [25] showed a similar trend of increase in the

nucleate boiling heat transfer and increase in q"CHF with increase in pressure. Recently,

Rainey et al. [26] observed the same trends of an increase in q"CHF with increase in

pressure for their tests with FC-72 and microporous coated pin-finned surfaces.

1.1.4 Effect of Orientation on Critical Heat Flux

The heater surface configuration has been shown to be an important parameter

affecting q"CHF. Githinji and Sabersky [27] were among the first to study the effect of

heater surface orientation on q"CHF using a thin heating surface of 102 mm × 3.2 mm in

water. They observed that q"CHF increase with increase in orientation from 0° to 90°.

Marcus and Dropkin [28] observed the same results on increase in heat transfer

coefficient with increase in orientation from 0° to 90°. They attributed this behavior to

the increase in agitation of the superheated boundary region due to the growth and
6
departure path length of the bubbles on the surface. They hypothesized that after a

certain heat flux the heat transfer coefficient would not be affected by the orientation.

Nishikawa et al. [29] confirmed the existence of this transition point after which the

heat transfer coefficient would not be affected by the surface orientation. Chang and

You [33] tested for the effect of orientation on q"CHF using a small copper heater for FC-

72 and observed trends similar to that of Githinji and Sabersky [27] of increase in q"CHF

as the surface orientation increases from 0° to 90° but saw a reduction in the q"CHF on

further increasing the orientation angle from 90° to 180°. Rainey and You [18] reported

similar trends as Chang and You [33] for tests with FC-72.

Recently Kim et al. [10] tested the effect of orientation in nanofluids with a

small copper heater of 1 × 1 cm2 size and observed mostly the same behavior of

increase in heat transfer coefficient due to increase in orientation angle from 0° to 90°

and on further incrementing the orientation they observed reduction in q"CHF and

variations in the heat transfer coefficient.

1.1.5 Effect of Anti-Freeze Addition on Critical Heat Flux

Ethylene glycol (EG) is extensively used in heat transfer applications. Frea et al.

[34] showed at 50% and 75% concentration by weight of ethylene glycol observed

reduction in q"CHF compared to pure ethylene glycol and pure water. Similar results of

reduction in q"CHF due to addition of ethylene glycol to water were observed McGillis

and Carey [35]. In both the studies a reduction in the q"CHF and deterioration of nucleate

boiling heat transfer was observed. Investigations of Van Wijk et al. [36] with ethylene
7
glycol and water showed negligible or no change in q"CHF of the mixture up to

concentrations of 80% by weight. Similar results of negligible change in q"CHF of a

mixture of ethylene glycol and water up to 30% concentration by volume were reported

by Moreno et al. [11]. In their study, Moreno et al. [11] saw that, with increase in

ethylene glycol concentration up to 30 % by volume the q"CHF of ethylene glycol based

nanofluids reduced. However, although there is a reduction in the q"CHF of ethylene

glycol based nanofluids there is enhancement in q"CHF of the mixture when compared to

a mixture of ethylene glycol and water. Moreno et al. [11] reported that nanofluid +

ethylene glycol mixture showed enhancement of about 130% over the q"CHF calculated

by Zuber’s equation for q"CHF.

1.2 Aim of Current Research

Previous research on nanofluids in boiling heat transfer has found that

nanofluids provide enhancement in critical heat flux compared to that of water. This

study aims at investigating some of the parameters that have shown to have influence on

the critical heat flux. Experimental investigations on the effect of heater size, the effect

of variations in pressure, the effect of orientation and the effect of adding anti-freezes

(ethylene glycol and propylene glycol) on the q"CHF of nanofluids will be carried out.

The research aims to test the above mentioned parameters and compare the behavior of

nanofluid to the behavior of other fluids used in boiling heat transfer, in the hope of

finding reasons for enhancement in q"CHF observed due to addition of nanoparticles to

8
water and water based fluids.

This research also aims at further broadening the scope of research conducted by

Moreno et al. [11] by conducting experiments with nanofluids and ethylene glycol

mixtures up to concentrations of 50% by volume, in similar methods to that reported by

Moreno et al. [11]. As a further study this research also aim at testing the effect of

adding propylene glycol to water and water based nanofluid to the study the effect of

additives on the q"CHF of alumina-water nanofluid.

9
 CHAPTER 2

EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE

2.1 Boiling Section and Test Heater

2.1.1 Test Section

The test apparatus is similar to that used by Moreno et al. [11] for all present

tests. The apparatus is 20 cm (wide) × 20 cm (high) × 12.5 cm (depth), having 1.27 cm

thick glass windows on the front and back to provide for viewing of boiling on the

heater surface. Test vessel was made air tight to avoid inflow of non condensable gases

after the degassing process and to prevent loss of pressure during tests. Two 12.7 mm

diameter cartridge heaters were provided, within the vessel, for heating of the test fluid

to saturation temperature. A heater stand made of aluminum had the provision to rotate

the base at 15° increments from 0° to 90°, on which the heater is mounted, for testing at

various orientations. Band heaters were externally attached to the test section to

maintain the saturation temperature of the fluid during tests. The test section was

provided with two valves, one on the top and one at the bottom. The bottom valve was

used to drain the fluid after testing, whereas, the top valve was used to vent the non

condensable gases dissolved in the fluid to an external condenser, which was connected

to a chiller. Test liquid and vapor temperatures were measured using T-type

thermocouples attached to the top plate of the vessel. Pressure in the vessel was

10
recorded using a pressure transducer. A schematic of the test vessel that was used for

the pool boiling tests is shown in Figure A.1 (a).

2.1.2 Test Heater Preparation

The test heater is a copper block of 1 cm × 1 cm having 0.3 cm thickness. The

copper block has provision to embed the thermocouple, at 0.15 cm from the top surface,

to measure the temperature of the copper block. A square resistor of 1 × 1 cm2 size

having 20 Ω resistance is used as a heating element. The resistor is soldered to the

bottom of the copper block. The heating element has two leads, which are soldered to

copper wires to pass current to the element to provide heating. The copper block is then

placed in a polycarbonate substrate and covered by 3M® 1838 Scotch-Weld epoxy on all

sides except for the top surface. The epoxy is used to prevent heat loss from sides and

bottom of the heater. Epoxy was cured as per the manufacturer’s specification. The

heater surface temperature is calculated assuming one-dimensional steady-state

conduction. To test for the effect of heater size, and orientation, the 1 × 1 × 0.3 cm3

copper block is replaced with 1.5 × 1.5 × 0.6 cm3 and 2 cm × 2 cm × 0.8 cm3 copper

blocks. The 1 cm2, 20 Ω heating element is replaced by a 1.3 cm square, 25 Ω heating

element to test for the effect of heater size. All the other steps to prepare the heater

remained same. Schematic of the heater assembly used for the pool boiling tests is

shown in Figure A.1 (b)

11
 2.2 Experimental Procedures

2.2.1 Nanofluid Preparation Procedures

Previous research by Moreno et al. [11] conducted characterization of

nanoparticles using TEM photographing technique and found the average size of

nanoparticles to be 27 ± 17 nm. Similar nanoparticles as those used by Moreno et al.

[11] were used to prepare nanofluid for all the tests. 0.05 ± 0.004 grams of alumina

nanoparticles were weighed using an Acculab VI-1mg balance. All the tests carried out

for nanofluid were of 0.025g/L concentration. Base fluid for ethylene glycol and

propylene glycol tests were prepared by mixing 400, 600, 800 and 1000 ± 5 ml of

ethylene glycol or propylene glycol in water to form two liters of base fluid.

Nanoparticles were dispersed in 300 ml of base fluid (water or aqueous solutions of

ethylene glycol and propylene glycol of respective concentrations) by mixing the

particles in the base fluid and then subjecting the mixture to ultrasonic bath for two

hours as mentioned by Moreno et al. [11]. A Cole Palmer Ultrasonic Cleaner Model

08849-00 was used to accomplish this process. After this the 300 ml of nanoparticles +

base fluid mixture was added to 1.7 liters of the base fluid to make a total of two liters.

2.2.2 Test Procedures

The test vessel described in section 2.1.1 was thoroughly washed using water

before each test. The heater was mounted on the mounting base in the test section and

held in place by bolting it to the mounting base. The nanofluid prepared as described in

section 2.2.1 was poured into the test vessel described in 2.1.1. The top plate of the test
12
section was bolted to the body of the vessel using six bolts. Once the vessel was tightly

sealed, the two cartridge heaters were turned on and the valve on the top of the vessel

was opened to release the dissolved non-condensable gasses from the liquid.

Temperature was increased till the liquid reached its saturation temperature and was

maintained in the saturated condition for an hour, to avoid presence of any non-

condensable gasses in the test liquid. The top valve was then closed and cartridge

heaters were turned off. The saturated test liquid was cooled to the required temperature

and corresponding saturation pressure using a commercially available fan. Tests were

started after allowing the entire mixture to stabilize. An HP6032 power supply was used

to supply power to the heater and an HP 3852A data acquisition system was used to

record pressure, temperature and power. The power supply and data acquisition system

were controlled using a program written in LabView. Tests were conducted till Critical

Heat Flux (q"CHF) was reached. The program would check for steady state at each

applied heat flux before increasing the heat flux to the next programmed increment.

Critical heat flux was determined by the program when the temperature of the heater

increases by about 20°C compared to the previous recorded temperature.

2.3 Experimental Uncertainty

Methods described in Kline and McClintock [41] were used to estimate

uncertainty. Considering errors due to voltage, surface area of the heater and the current

applied, nucleate boiling heat flux uncertainty was estimated to be less than 5%.

Temperature measurements were estimated to have less than ± 0.5°C error considering
13
calibration error. Weight measurements of alumina nanoparticles were estimated to

have less than ± 0.004 g error. Uncertainty in liquid volume measurements was

estimated be less than ± 5 ml. The net uncertainty in concentration of nanoparticles in

base fluid was estimated to be less than ± 0.002g/L.

14
 CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

You et al. [8] reported that 0.025g/L concentration of alumina-water nanofluid

at Tsat= 60°C, yielded an enhancement of about 200% in the critical heat flux. To test

the effects of parameters chosen, on the q"CHF of alumina-water nanofluid, this

concentration of 0.025g/L was considered.

Since the aim of this research is to study the variations in q"CHF, the

experimentally obtained q"CHF is compared with q"CHF calculated using Zuber’s

correlation [37] for flat plate heater, which is of the form:

hfg [σ g (ρl -ρ v )]
0 .5 0 .25
q" CHF = 0.131 ρ g eq. (1)

Zuber’s correlation is used to predict the q"CHF value for a liquid at saturated conditions,

eq (1) yields 561 kW/m2 as the q"CHF for water at Tsat=60° C.

3.1 Effect of Heater Size on q"CHF of Nanofluids

The heater size, pressure, orientation and surface roughness, have shown to

effect q"CHF. The following section will discuss the first parameter, followed by the

effect of pressure and orientation. However the effect of surface roughness is beyond

the scope of this study. Previous research has indicated that an increase in heater size

results in a q"CHF decrease for various fluids. To study the effect of heater size on q"CHF

of nanofluids, heaters of 1 × 1 cm2, 1.5 × 1.5 cm2 and 2 × 2 cm2 sizes were tested with

15
water and alumina-water nanofluid of 0.025g/L of alumina nanoparticles concentration

at Tsat=60°C. The pool boiling curves obtained for the effect of heater size on q"CHF was

checked for repeatability with another set of heaters of the same sizes.

Figure A.2 shows boiling curves obtained by testing the three heater sizes. The

heater of 1 × 1 cm2 size showed the maximum q"CHF of the three sizes tested, this was

the case not only for pure water but for nanofluids as well. The lowest q"CHF was

observed with the 2 × 2 cm2 size heater. It can be seen from the figure that there is a

match between water and nanofluid curves for each size, till the critical heat flux of

water, in terms of heat transfer coefficient. In other words addition of nanoparticles

does not seem to affect the heat transfer coefficient. From Figure A.2, it can be

observed that with increase in heater surface area not only does the q"CHF decrease but

the heat transfer coefficient also decreases. In heaters of larger surface area, more

number of smaller bubbles collapse into one single bubble before departure. Due to this

coalescing of bubbles, the total number of bubbles departing the surface of the heater is

reduced. A reduction in the number of bubbles departing the surface means that there is

a reduction in the heat transfer from the heater. This coalescing of smaller bubbles into

a larger bubble before departure might be the cause for the reduction in the nucleate

boiling heat transfer with increase in the size of the heater.

The q"CHF obtained for both water and nanofluid was normalized with respect

to Zuber’s CHF provided by eq (1) and plotted against L', which is the length of heater

surface normalized by the surface tension give by the equation

16
 L
L' = eq (2)
σ / g(ρl − ρv )

Calculation for L' were done by considering the properties of water. Surface tension of

alumina-water nanofluid was not measured, and since the amount of nanoparticles

added to water is very small, for calculating the L' for nanofluids, the properties of

water were used.

Figure A.3 shows the plot of q"CHF/q"Zuber at the L' calculated using eq (2) for

the three heater sizes tested. The results show that with increase in L' the q"CHF

decreases for both fluids tested (water and nanofluid). In Figure A.3 the data obtained

for both the fluids is compared with observations of Saylor et al. [16] and Bar-Cohen

and McNeil [17]. It can be observed that the data points obtained with water as the

working fluid show a similar trend as observed by other studies. However, the alumina-

water nanofluid does not match the correlation due to the fact that there is a drastic

reduction in the q"CHF of the 2 × 2 cm2 heater unlike water where there is a gradual

decrease in the q"CHF. The author speculates that as suggested by Kim et al. [10] there

might be an increase in the surface tension due to addition of nanoparticles to water.

However, verification for the increase in surface tension cannot be provided as surface

tension measurements were not carried out.

Lienhard et al. [14]’s work for the effect of heater size on q"CHF also shows the

same trends of decrease in q"CHF with increase in L'. They attribute this reduction in the

q"CHF to the number of “vapor jets” present on the surface of the heater. Vapor jets are

the columns of vapor formed on the surface of the heater due to the coalescing of
17
bubbles departing the surface of the heater. Lienhard et al. [14] experimentally proved

that the actual number of vapor jets present on the heater can be calculated using

q"CHF 1.14 Nj
= eq (3)
q"CHF Zuber AH / λd2

where Nj is the number of jets and λd is the wavelength of the vapor jets which can be

calculated using

3σ
λ d = 2π eq (4)
g(ρl − ρv)

Lienhard et al. [14] suggested the use of eq (3) for calculating effect of heat size on the

q"CHF for finite plates. They observed that, for heaters which could only accommodate

one vapor jet, eq (3) would hold good, but as the value of L' starts getting larger and

larger such that the surface can be considered to be infinitely large the equation

proposed by Zuber [37] would hold good. Furthermore, Lienhard et al. [14] suggested

that for transition from 1 to 4 jets, 4 to 5 jets and from 5 to 9 jets to take place the area

of the heater, AH, should vary as a function of λd. Area of the heater to observe

transitions mentioned above can be calculated by the correlations as AH = (2λd ) 2 ,

AH = (1 + 2 ) 2 λ 2d and AH = (3λd ) 2 , for transitions from 1 to 4, 4 to 5 and 5 to 9 vapor

jets respectively.

Calculations for the number of vapor jets on the surface of the heater were done

for the three sizes tested in the present study. Calculations revealed that all the heaters

tested have only one vapor jet on the surface. It was estimated that for the transition

18
from 1 to 4 jets to take place, a heater of 31.36 cm2 needs to be tested. This particular

case of 31.36 cm2 is beyond the scope of this investigation due to power supply

limitations.

Rainey and You [18] tested the effect of increase in heater size with

microporous coated heaters and observed the same behavior of decrease in q"CHF with

increase in heater size. They attributed this reduction of q"CHF to the fact that with

increase in the size of the heater, the fresh liquid that wets the surface of the heater faces

a higher thermal resistance from the vapor leaving the surface than in a smaller sized

heater. As the heat flux increases the resistance would increase leading to earlier onset

of critical heat flux. In heaters of smaller surface area the wetting fluid can reach the

center of the heater from sides, whereas in the heater of larger surface area the surface

of the heater would have to receive the wetting fluid from the top of the heater due to

the fact that the resistance to rewetting flow for a heater is a function of the flow path

parallel to the surface of the heater. This being the case the fluid has to cross a higher

resistance barrier before making contact with the surface thereby delaying the rewetting

time and leading to increase in temperature of the heater giving rise to CHF.

The effect of heater size on q"CHF carried out using three different sizes revealed

similar results as observed by other researches for the effect of heater size that: with

increase in L' the q"CHF decreases. The author agrees that the reason provided for the

decrease in the q"CHF of both water and nanofluids with increase in the size of the heater

is due to the reasons provided by Rainey and You [18]. However it can be noticed from

the Figure A.2 and Figure A.3 that nanofluids show a higher q"CHF compared to its
19
counterpart water. Heater of size 1 × 1 cm2 shows an enhancement of about 190% in the

q"CHF over that obtained by Zuber’s correlation eq (1), which is close limits of q"CHF

enhancement obtained by You et al. [8] and Moreno et al. [11]. Enhancements of

~170% and ~70% were obtained for heaters of 1.5 × 1.5 cm2 and 2 × 2 cm2 sizes

respectively when compared to q"CHF obtained by eq (1). As mentioned in study by Kim

et al. [19] it is still evident that Zuber’s correlation to determine critical heat flux, does

not predict the critical heat flux of nanofluids correctly.

3.2 Effect of Pressure on q"CHF of Nanofluids

To study the effect of pressure on the q"CHF of nanofluids, tests were conducted

at three different saturation pressures, 7.38kPa, 19.94 and 47.39 kPa, on a 1 × 1 cm2

sized heater. Three different saturation pressures were obtained by varying the cooling

time after degassing the test fluid as mentioned in section 2.2.2.

Pool boiling curves obtained for water and alumina-water nanofluid were

compared with nucleate boiling curves obtained using Rohsenow’s correlation:

Cpl[Twall − Tsat ] q" σ r

= Csf [ ] eq(5)
hfg Prls
µl hfg g ( ρl − ρv )

where Csf is the combined surface factor, which is different for different liquid-solid

interface and for the case of water on emery polished copper is 0.0128; r and s are

constants whose values are 0.33 and 1.0 respectively, as suggested by Rohsenow [40].

Results obtained and compared with Rohsenow’s correlation are plotted in

Figure A.4. From Figure A.4 it can be seen that with increase in pressure both q"CHF and
20
nucleate boiling heat transfer increase. Similar results of increase in q"CHF and nucleate

boiling heat transfer with increase in pressure can be observed in literature. From Figure

A.4 it can be seen that nanofluids yield greater q"CHF than water for all the pressures

tested. Another interesting observation about the results is the percentage enhancement

in q"CHF due to addition of alumina nanoparticles to water to form nanofluid. Maximum

enhancement observed was at the lowest pressure (7.38 kPa) tested. Enhancement of

about ~230% was observed over q"CHF obtained by Zuber’s correlation. Enhancements

for higher pressures of 19.94 and 47.39 kPa were about 190% and about 120%,

respectively.

Another interesting observation that the author would like to note in Figure A.4

is that, at 7.38 kPa saturation pressure, Tsat = 40°C, boiling started at higher heat fluxes

compared to the other two pressures tested. The author observed that the bubble

departure frequency at 7.38 kPa was lesser compared to departure frequency at 47.39

kPa. Also the shape of bubbles departing the surface at 7.38 kPa was competitively

hemispherical compared to the shape of the bubbles at 47.39 kPa. However, these

observations cannot be quantified as techniques to measure the bubble departure

frequency and bubble size were not employed. The bubble departure takes place from

the surface of the heater when the buoyant force of the bubble is capable of exceeding

the balanced surface tension around the perimeter of the bubble at the heater surface.

The surface tension of water tends to increase with decrease in pressure. The author

thinks that this increase in surface tension might be the cause for the bubble to dwell

longer on the surface of the heater leading to a decrease in bubble departure frequency
21
and thereby decreasing the heat transfer rate. Also, the author considers the increase in

surface tension and the decrease in bubble departure frequency might be the cause for

deviation of the experimentally obtained curve, at 7.38 kPa, from the curve obtained

from Rohsenow’s correlation in lower heat flux region.

The enhancement in q"CHF due to addition of 0.025g/L of alumina nanoparticles

to water, to form nanofluid, can be observed in Figure A.5 where q"CHF obtained

experimentally is plotted after normalizing it with q"CHF calculated using Zuber’s

correlation and plotted for the pressures tested. The author observed that with increase

in pressure, the size of bubbles departing the surface of the heater reduced. Moreover,

the density of bubbles per unit area increased, which means that there are more

nucleation sites per unit area at higher pressure than at lower pressure. This increase in

the number of bubbles per unit area and reduction in the size of the bubbles at higher

pressure might be the cause for increase in q"CHF and better nucleate boiling heat

transfer. However, the above mentioned observations of increase in bubble density, and

bubble departure frequency cannot be quantified as techniques to measure the bubble

size and bubble departure frequency were not employed. Similar observations of

increase in bubble departure frequency and decrease in bubble size were reported by

Luke [25] when he tested for the effect of pressure on the q"CHF of propane with copper

and steel tubes.

Figure A.6 shows increase in heat transfer coefficient with increase in pressure

at various heat flux tested. As mentioned earlier in the discussion, it is evidently seen

that with increase in pressure the heat transfer coefficient increases. Similar charts for
22
increase in heat transfer coefficient with increase in pressure can be seen in study

conducted by Nishikawa et al. [23].

The data obtained for the effect of pressure on q"CHF, was used to check for the

change in L' due to the fact that L' calculation considers properties such as surface

tension, density of the liquid and density of the vapor, which are temperature dependent.

Calculations revealed that with change in pressure there is small change in the value of

L'. The values obtained for water and nanofluid are plotted in Figure A.7, from the

figure it can be seen that there is a change in L' which means that as mentioned by

Lienhard et al. [15] eq (2) cannot be used as a “general equation” when attempting to

study the combined effect of pressure and heater size on the q"CHF.

3.3 Effect of Orientation on q"CHF of Nanofluids

Earlier work about effect on orientation on q"CHF in saturated nanofluids by Kim

et al. [10] was carried out with heater of size 1 × 1 cm2. In order to study the effect of

orientation on q"CHF with heater of larger size a 2 × 2 cm2 heater was used. The heater

inclinations were measured with respect to the horizontal. Tests were conducted for

water and 0.025g/L concentration alumina-water nanofluid at Tsat= 60°C.

As mentioned by Kim et al. [10] the orientation can be divided into three

regions; (i) upward facing (0° to 60°) where the bubble departing the surface of the

heater departs in a vertical direction into the ambience; (ii) near vertical (60° to 120°)

where the bubbles travel a certain distance over the surface before being lodged into the

23
surrounding and (iii) downwards facing ( 120° to 180°) where the bubble dwells on the

surface for a longer period before departing from the heater surface.

The boiling curves for water at various orientations are shown in Figure A.8.

From the figure it can be seen, that as the orientation increases from 0° to 90° the

nucleate boiling heat transfer increases and so does q"CHF. A further increase in the

orientation from 90° to 135° and 150° shows a reduction in the nucleate boiling heat

transfer compared to 90°. Also, the q"CHF is seen to be lower than that for 0°, 45° and

90°. The author observed that with increase in the surface orientation (θ>90°), the size

of bubbles increased. However this observation cannot be quantifies as photographic

techniques were not applied to measure the size of the bubbles. Similar observations of

increase in heat transfer rater with increase in orientation from 0° to 90° were reported

by Rainey and You [18]. Rainey and You [18] attributed the increase in heat transfer

rate to the fact that with near vertical and vertical heaters, the bubbles formed on the

surface of the heater travel a certain distance on the surface of the heater before being

discharged into the surrounding. During the travel on the surface, the bubbles tend to

drag the entrapped vapor from the surface cavities, thereby causing an increase in the

nucleate boiling heat transfer rate. At orientations larger than 90°, the bubble size

increase and the bubble departure frequency decreases, this longer dwelling of the

bubble and larger size causes higher thermal resistance contributing to lower q"CHF.

Boiling curves obtained at different orientations tested for nanofluids are shown

in Figure A.9. A similar trend of variation in the nucleate boiling heat transfer is

observed in the lower heat flux region; however after a heat flux of about 600 kW/m2
24
the curves seem to collapse. Similar trend of collapsing of the pool boiling curves at

different orientations for nano fluid can be seen in earlier work on effect of orientation

on q"CHF with nanofluids by Kim et al. [10]; curves obtained by Kim et al. [10] are

shown in Figure A.10. Figure A.11 shows the comparison of the obtained data to that of

Kim et al. [10]. After normalizing the obtained q"CHF with q"CHF calculated from

Zuber’s correlation described in eq (1), the enhancement obtained by nanofluids over

water is compared. The lower q"CHF of the present study compared to Kim et al. [10]

might be due to the increase in heater size. Highest q"CHF was observed at 90°

orientation for both water and nanofluid in the current test. However, q"CHF obtained for

nanofluid was almost twice of water for the same size heater at 90° orientation. About

80%, 95%, 105% and 120 % enhancement in q"CHF was observed at 0°, 45°, 135°, and

150°, respectively. Maximum enhancement of about 120% in q"CHF over the critical

heat flux obtained using Zuber’s correlation was observed at an orientation of 150°,

similar trends on enhancement was observed in study by Kim et al. [10].

Figure A.12 shows the trend of effect of orientation on enhancements of q"CHF

using nanofluid, obtained in earlier work and current study. It is clearly seen that both

studies indicate similar trend in enhancement of q"CHF due to addition of alumina

nanoparticles to water.

Log scale curves for both water and nanofluid were plotted to understand the

behavior at lower heat fluxes. Figure A.13 shows the log scale curves plotted for curves

of water and nanofluid obtained at various orientations. From Figure A.13, it can be

noticed that, for water case Figure A.13 (a), change in orientation affects the nucleate
25
boiling heat transfer. Increase in heat transfer coefficient is observed in both upward

facing and nearly vertical cases. Similar trends were observed in previous works for the

effect of orientation on nucleate boiling heat transfer. However, a slight reduction or no

change in heat transfer coefficient is observed in downward facing orientations. Similar

results were obtained for nanofluids in Figure A.13 (b). Change in nucleate boiling heat

transfer of nanofluids due to orientation is seen only up to a heat flux of ~ 600 kW/m2.

After a heat flux of 600 kW/m2 all the curves seem to collapse, in other words the

orientation seems to have little effect on the nucleate boiling heat transfer. Similar

observations for water were obtained by Nishikawa et al. [29], Marcus and Dropkin

[28], El-Genk and Guo [39].

3.4 Effect of Anti-Freeze addition on q"CHF of Nanofluids

In many practical applications, the addition of anti-freeze to water is required to

prevent freezing. However, addition of anti freeze such as ethylene glycol to water is

known to deteriorate the critical heat flux and the nucleate boiling heat transfer [34],

[35]. Previous studies on water + ethylene glycol based nanofluids have shown about

130% enhancement in critical heat flux, [11]. This research aims to better understand

the behavior of nanofluids with anti-freezes. Two commercially available anti-freezes,

ethylene glycol and propylene glycol, are used to study the effect of anti-freeze addition

on q"CHF of nanofluids. Tests were conducted on a 1 × 1 cm2 heater at 60°C. To study

the effect of anti-freeze on critical heat flux of nanofluid, 0.025g/L concentration of

alumina-water nanofluids was used.

26
3.4.1 Effect of Addition of Ethylene Glycol

Aqueous solutions of ethylene glycol are used for various heat transfer

application, the most common being in automotive radiators as anti-freeze. Moreno et

al. [11] investigated the effect of addition of nanoparticles to water and ethylene glycol

mixture and observed that with increase in concentration of ethylene glycol up to 30 %

by volume the q"CHF reduced. The present investigation broadens the range of the effect

of anti-freeze addition on the q"CHF of water + ethylene glycol mixture based nanofluid

by testing further concentrations of 40% and 50% by volume concentrations of ethylene

glycol compared. Tests were conducted with 1 × 1 cm2 size heater at Tsat=60°C.

Fig A.14 shows the plot of boiling curves obtained for water + ethylene glycol

and water + ethylene glycol based nanofluid of 0.025g/L concentration. It can be clearly

noted that as stated by Moreno et al. [11] increase in concentrations of ethylene glycol

by volume in water + ethylene glycol mixture does not show significant variations in

the q"CHF. The results show behavior similar to that obtained by Van Wijk et al. [36]

where negligible or no change was observed with change in the ethylene glycol

concentration of the solution. However, deterioration in the nucleate heat transfer rate

was clearly seen with increase in concentration of ethylene glycol by volume.

Tests to study the effect of anti-freeze addition on the critical heat flux of water

+ ethylene glycol based nanofluids have shown enhancements in q"CHF over the

estimation provided by Zuber’s correlation for water. However, the q"CHF was found to

decrease with increase in the concentration of ethylene glycol by volume. About 130%

enhancement was observed at 10% by volume concentration of ethylene glycol by

27
Moreno et al. [11]. The current study saw ~120% and ~80% enhancements in q"CHF at

20% and 30% by volume concentration, respectively. In addition, it can be seen from

Figure A.14 that adding nanoparticles to ethylene glycol + water solution did not affect

the nucleate boiling heat transfer. However, a reduction in q"CHF was noted with an

increase in ethylene glycol concentrations by volume. The enhancement in q"CHF, of the

ethylene glycol based nanofluid mixture over aqueous solution of ethylene glycol,

observed was about 50% at 40% volume concentration of ethylene glycol. At 50%

concentration by volume, enhancement observed was negligible. Figure A.15 shows

plot of experimental q"CHF normalized with q"CHF from Zuber’s correlation against

percentage concentration of ethylene glycol. From Figure A.15 it is clear that an

increase in ethylene glycol concentration results in a reduction of q"CHF. During

experimentation the author observed that with increase in the concentration of ethylene

glycol, precipitation of nanoparticles to the bottom of the test vessel increased.

Such an observation of increase in precipitation with increase in ethylene glycol

concentration forced trying of an alternative method to mix the fluids. For the curves

shown in Figure A.14, first water + ethylene glycol mixture was prepared.

Nanoparticles were dispersed in 300 ml of the water + ethylene glycol mixture. This

300 ml of nanofluid was added to remaining 1700 ml of water + ethylene glycol

mixture. The second method of test fluid preparation comprised of first preparing 300

ml of nanofluid by dispersing nanoparticles into 300 ml of pure water and then adding

this 300 ml of nanofluid prepared to 700 ml of pure water so as to form one liter of

nanofluid. One liter of ethylene glycol was added to one liter of nanofluid and stirred
28
using a metal stirrer. Only 50% by volume concentration of ethylene glycol was tested.

The results obtained by both the methods are plotted in Figure A.16. It can be noted that

the second method gave about 30% lower q"CHF than the first method.

3.4.2 Effect of Addition of Propylene Glycol

Figure A.17 shows boiling curves for aqueous solution of propylene glycol

based nanofluids at various concentrations. It can be noted that compared to ethylene

glycol cases, there is a change in the q"CHF of water + propylene glycol solution with

increase in volume concentration of propylene glycol. However, overall trends of

change in q"CHF appear to be the same as seen in ethylene glycol tests. Also, there is a

clear decrease in the nucleate boiling heat transfer rate with increase in propylene glycol

concentration. From the figure it can be seen that water + propylene glycol based

nanofluids provide an enhancement in the q"CHF till about 40% by volume

concentration. Similar to water + propylene glycol, nucleate boiling heat transfer rate of

water + propylene glycol based nanofluids also tends to decrease with increase in

propylene glycol concentration. Overall trends observed in water + propylene glycol

and water + propylene glycol based nanofluid tests are similar to the trends observed in

case of ethylene glycol as the additive. Another interesting fact to be observed is the

enhancement in q"CHF due to addition of nanoparticles over that obtained using Zuber’s

correlation described in eq (1). The maximum enhancement observed was about ~70%

at 20% concentration of propylene glycol. Enhancements of about ~ 40% and 25% were

observed for 30% and 40% volume concentrations, respectively. Concentration of 50%
29
by volume showed negligible enhancement in the q"CHF. Irrespective of the

concentration, all the mixtures show lower q"CHF values compared to pure water based

nanofluid cases, where 190% enhancement over q"CHF obtained from eq (1) was

observed on testing alumina- water nanofluid at the same conditions as the other tests.

Degradation in the nucleate heat transfer was observed in aqueous solutions of

propylene glycol as well as aqueous solution based nanofluid mixture. Clearer

understanding of the q"CHF enhancement can be obtained from FigureA.18 where q"CHF

obtained is shown after normalizing it with q"CHF from Zuber’s correlation eq (1). Figure

A.19 has been plotted to compare the trends of both ethylene glycol and propylene

glycol.

30
 CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions

Pool boiling tests were conducted to study the effect of heater size, pressure,

orientation and anti-freeze addition on q"CHF of nanofluids. Nanofluids show higher

q"CHF over pure water and q"CHF predicted using Zuber’s correlation for water for the

parameters tested. As nanofluids show same trends of change in q"CHF and nucleate

boiling heat transfer rate as water in most of the cases tested, it is still not clear as to

what causes the enhancement of q"CHF due to addition of small quantities of alumina

nanoparticles to water and other base fluids tested. The various conclusions that can be

drawn from the study conducted are listed below:

(a) When alumina-water nanofluid having 0.025g/L of alumina nanoparticles

was tested at Tsat= 60°C, the effect of heater size on q"CHF shows a reduction in q"CHF

with increase in the size of heater. However, irrespective of the size tested in this study,

nanofluids show enhancement. Nanofluids yielded enhancements of ~ 190%, 170% and

70% over q"CHF obtained from Zuber’s correlation for water, for heater sizes of 1 × 1,

1.5 × 1.5, 2 × 2 cm2 respectively.

(b) In the investigation carried out on the effect of pressure on critical heat flux,

nanofluids showed behavior similar to the other fluids tested in the past for the effect of

pressure on critical heat flux. Critical heat flux (q"CHF) as well as heat transfer

31
coefficient was found to increase with increase in pressure in the pressure ranges tested.

Highest q"CHF obtained was at 47.39 kPa, however, enhancement in q"CHF due to

addition of alumina nanoparticles reduced with increase of pressure. Maximum

enhancement of ~ 230% was obtained at 7.38 kPa.

(c) The effect of heater surface orientation on q"CHF of nanofluids was tested at

five different orientations. It was found that with increase in orientation angle from 0°

to 90°, the q"CHF and heat transfer coefficient increase. However, slight changes in both

q"CHF and nucleate boiling heat transfer were observed at orientation angles of 135° and

150°. Enhancement due to addition of nanoparticles was found to vary with orientation.

Maximum enhancement in q"CHF of ~120% over q"CHF obtained by Zuber’s correlation

for water was observed at 150° orientation.

(d) Addition of anti-freeze to water has been known to reduce the q"CHF and

deteriorate nucleate boiling heat transfer with increase in anti-freeze concentration by

volume. Addition of nanoparticles to water + anti-freeze based solution showed an

increase in the q"CHF over the q"CHF obtained using Zuber’s correlation for water.

Enhancements of ~ 120% and 70% were obtained at 20% concentration by volume of

ethylene glycol and propylene glycol, respectively.

4.2 Recommendations

This research was conducted to study the parameters affecting the critical heat

flux of nanofluids. The parameters tested, heater size, pressure, heater orientation and

anti-freeze addition, have shown to affect the critical heat flux in similar ways as they
32
affect the critical heat flux of water. The author thinks that the following investigations

could be carried out to better understand the behavior of nanofluids:

(1) Heater sizes above 32 cm2 needs to be tested in order to study the transition

from one vapor jet to four jets and larger sizes need to be tested to determine the

transition length (L'trans).

(2) Temperature limitations of the currently used heating elements did not

facilitate testing for q"CHF at higher pressures. Investigations need to be carried out at a

pressure of 1 atm and higher to better understand the effect of pressure on nanofluids.

(3) Surface roughness is another key parameter that affects q"CHF and nucleate

boiling heat transfer, investigations to study the effect of surface roughness on q"CHF of

nanofluids need to be carried out.

(4) This research has tested the effect of only adding anti-freeze, where as

investigations to observe the variation in q"CHF due to addition of surfactants could be

carried out.

33
 APPENDIX A

ILLUSTRATIONS

34
 (a)

Note: Heaters of size 1.5 × 1.5 cm and 2 × 2 cm had heating element of 25Ω
resistor.
(b)

Figure A.1. Schematics of (a) Test Facility (b) General heater

35
 1800
1X1cm Water
1X1cm Nanofluid
1600 CHF
1.5X1.5cm Water
1.5X1.5cm Nanofluid
1400 2X2cm Water
2X2cm Nanofluid
1200
q" (kW/m )
2

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

∆ Tsat (K)
Figure A.2. Pool boiling curves of 1 × 1 cm, 1.5 × 1.5 cm and 2 × 2 cm tested
with water and (0.025g/L) alumina-water nanofluid at Tsat=60°C and P=kPa.

36
 3.5
Water
Nano Fluids
3 Saylor etal;FC-72
Bar-Cohen and McNeil
CHF Experimental/ CHF Zuber

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
Calculations at Tsat= 60 C
0
0 5 10 15 20

L', Dimensionless
Figure A.3. Critical heat flux ratio of q"CHF obtained with the three sizes to the
q"CHF calculated by Zuber’s correlation plotted for dimensionless L'.

37
 2000
Rohsenow's, P=7.38kPa
Rohsenow's,P=19.94kPa
1800 Rohsenow's, P=47.39kPa
Water, P=7.38kPa CHF
Water, P=19.94kPa
1600 Water, P=47.39kPa
Nanofluid, P=7.38kPa
1400 Nanofluid, P=19.94kPa
Nanofluid, P=47.39kPa

1200
q" (kW/m2)

1000

800

600

400
0
P=7.38 kPa, Tsat= 40 C
0
200 P=19.94 kPa, Tsat= 60 C
0
P=47.39 kPa, Tsat= 80 C
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

∆ Tsat (K)
Figure A.4. Boiling curves at 7.38, 19.94 and 47.39 kPa, for water and alumina
(0.025g/L)-water nanofluid.

38
 4
Water
Nanofluid
CHFExperimental/CHFZuber

0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Pressure (kPa)
Figure A.5. Normalized q"CHF for tested pressures, showing enhancement of
nanofluid over water.

39
 60
Water, P=7.38kPa
Nanofluid, P=7.38kPa
Water, P=19.94kPa
50
Nanofluid, P=19.94kPa
Water, P=47.39kPa P
Nanofluid, P=47.39kPa R
40 E
S
h(kW/m K)

S
2

U
30 R
E

20
0
P=7.38 kPa, Tsat= 40 C
0
10 P=19.94 kPa, Tsat= 60 C
0
P=47.39 kPa, Tsat= 80 C

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
2
q" (kW/m )
Figure A.6. Increase in heat transfer coefficient ‘h’ with increase in pressures at
various heat fluxes for both fluids (water and nanofluid).

40
 3.5
Heater 1 (Water)
3.74
Heater 1 (Nano Fluids)
3 Heater 2 (Water)
3.82 Heater 2 (Nanofluid)
CHF Experimental/ CHF Zuber

Pressure Effect (Water)

2.5 Pressure Effect (Nanofluid)
Saylor et al., FC-72
3.90 Bar-Cohen and McNeil
2

3.74
1.5

3.82
1
3.90

0.5 P=7.38kPa, L'=3.74

P=19.94kPa, L'=3.82
P=47.39kPa, L'=3.90
0
0 5 10 15 20

L', Dimensionless
Figure A.7. Plot of q"CHF obtained at various pressures normalized with q"CHF
obtained from Zuber’s correlation and plotted for dimensionless L'.

41
 1400
0
45 ө
1200 90 90

135

1000 150
q"(kW/m2)

800

CHF
600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

∆Tsat(K)
Figure A.8. Boiling curves for water at Tsat=60°C, P=19.94kPa, for effect of
orientations.

42
 1400
0
45 ө
1200 90 90 CHF
135
150
1000
q"(kW/m )
2

800

600

Range of ∆ Τ for
400 curves of water

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

∆Tsat(K)
Figure A.9. Pool boiling curves of nanofluids (current study) at various
orientations tested at Tsat=60°C, P=19.94kPa, with 0.025g/L concentration of
alumina nanoparticles.

43
 2000
0 degree
45 degree
90 degree
135 degree 0o = 1540
1500 150 degree 90o = 1500
45o= 1470

135o = 1140
q" (kW/m2)

1000 150o = 970

500

0
0 20 40 60 80

∆Tsat (C)

Figure A.10. Pool boiling curves for nanofluids at various orientations obtained
by Kim et al. [10]

44
 3
CHF Experimental/ CHF Zuber

Kim et.al (2004) 1 x 1 cm

Water (current study) 2 x 2 cm
Nanofluid (current study) 2 x 2 cm
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Orientation (Degrees)
Figure A.11. q"CHF obtained normalized by q"CHF from Zuber’s correlation at
orientations tested.

45
 5
Kim et al.(2004) 1 x 1 cm heater
Current Study 2 x 2 cm heater
CHF Experimental/ CHF Water

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Orientation (Degrees)
Figure A.12. Comparison of data with Kim et al. [10]

46
 10000
Curves for water at 0
P=7.38kPa, Tsat=60°C 45
90
135
150
1000
q"(kW/m )
2

100

10
1 ( 10 100

a sat(K)
∆T
)

(a)
10000
Curves for nanofluids of 0
0.025g/L concentration 45
90
135
150

1000
q"(kW/m )
2

100

10
1 10 100

∆Tsat(K)

(b)
Figure A.13. Log scale curves for various orientations (a) Water and
(b) Nanofluid

47
 1800
Water
Nanofluid
EG (10%)
1600 EG-Nanofluid (10%)
EG (20%)
EG-Nanofluid (20%)
1400 EG (30%)
EG-Nanofluid (30%)
EG (40%)
EG-Nanofluid (40%)
1200 EG (50%)
EG-Nanofluid (50%)
q"(kW/m )
2

1000

800

600

400

200
Final Point indicates
onset of CHF

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

∆Tsat(K)
Figure A.14. Boiling curves at various concentrations of aqueous ethylene glycol
solution and respective nanofluid.

48
 3
Moreno et.al(2005)
Heater 1 (Current Study EG-Nanofluid)
CHF Ethylene Glycol + Nanofluid/CHF Zuber

Heater 1 (Ethylene Glycol)

2.5
Heater 2 (Current Study EG-Nanofluid)
Heater 2 (Ethyele Glycol)

1.5

0.5

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Concentration of Etylene Glycol by%Volume

Figure A.15. Normalized q"CHF obtained for both the heaters at various
concentrations of ethylene glycol

49
 1000
Water
900
Method 1
800
Method 2
CHF
700

600
q"(kW/m )
2

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80

∆Tsat(K)
Figure A.16. Boiling curves obtained by different methods of mixing ethylene
glycol and nanofluid at Tsat=60°C.

50
 1800
Water
Nanofluid
PG (20%)
1600 PG-Nanofluid (20%)
PG (30%)
PG-Nanofluid (30%)
1400 PG (40%)
PG-Nanofluid (40%)
PG (50%)
PG-Nanofluid (50%)
1200
q" (kW/m2)

1000

800

600

400

200
Final Points Indicate onset
of CHF
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

∆ Tsat (K)
Figure A.17. Boiling curves of aqueous mixtures of propylene glycol and
respective nanofluid tested at Tsat=60°C.

51
 3
Heater 1 (Propylene Glycol)
CHF Propylene Glycol+Nanofluid/CHF Zuber

Heater 1 (PG-Nanofluid)
2.5 Heater 2 (Propylene Glycol)
Heater 2 (PG-Nanofluid)

1.5

0.5

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Concentration of Propylene Glycol in %Volume

Figure A.18. q"CHF obtained, normalized with q"CHF calculated using Zuber’s
correlation for water at various concentrations of propylene glycol, for both the
heaters tested.

52
 3
Heater 1 (EG-Nanofluid)
Heater 1 (PG-Nanofluid)
2.5 Heater 2 (EG-Nanofluid)
CHF Experimental/ CHF Zuber

Heater 2 (PG-Nanofluid)
2

1.5

0.5

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Concentration by %Volume
Figure A.19. Comparison of obtained q"CHF of aqueous solutions of ethylene
glycol and propylene glycol and their respective nanofluids at concentrations
tested.

53
 REFERENCES

[1] Chang, J. Y. and You, S. M. (1997). "Boiling Heat Transfer Phenomena

from Micro-Porous and Porous Surfaces in Saturated FC-72," International Journal of

Heat and Mass Transfer, 40(18), 4437-4447.

[2] Lee, S., Choi, S. U. S., and Li, S. (1999), "Measuring Thermal Conductivity

of Fluids Containing Oxide Nanoparticles." Journal of Heat Transfer, 121(2), 280-288.

[3] Eastman, J. A., Choi, S. U. S., and Li, S. (2001), "Anomalously Increased

Effective Thermal Conductivity of Ethylene Glycol-Based Nanofluid Containing

Copper Nanoparticles," Applied Physics Letters, 78(6), 718-720.

[4] Choi, S. U. S., Zhang, Z. G., and Yu, W. (2001), "Anomalous Thermal

Conductivity Enhancement in Nanotube Suspension," Applied Physics Letters, 79(14),

2252-2254.

[5] Liu, M., Lin, M. C. C., and Tsai, C. Y. (2006), "Enhancement of Thermal

Conductivity with Cu for Nanofluids using Chemical Reduction Method (Article in

Press)," International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, .

[6] Das, S. K., Putra, N., and Roetzel, W. (2003), "Pool Boiling Characteristics

of Nano-Fluids." International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 46, 851-862.

54
 [7] Das, S. K., Putra, N., and Roetzel, W. (2003), "Pool Boiling of Nano-Fluids

on Horizontal Narrow Tubes," International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 29(8), 1237-

1247.

[8] You, S. M., Kim, J. H., and Kim, K. H. (2003), "Effect of Nanoparticles on

Critical Eat Flux of Water in Pool Boiling Heat Transfer," Applied Physics Letters,

83(16), 3374-3376.

[9] Vassallo, P., Kumar, R., and D'Amico, S. (2003), "Pool Boiling Heat

Transfer Experiments in Silica-Water Nano-Fluids," International Journal of Heat and

Mass Transfer, 47, 407-411.

[10] Kim, J. H., You, S. M., and Kim, K. H. (2004), "Pool Boiling Heat

Transfer in Saturated Nanofluids," Proceedings of IMECE Conference, Anaheim,

California.

[11] Moreno, G., Oldenberg, S. J., and You, S. M., Kim, J.H. (2005), "Pool

Boiling Heat Transfer of Alumina-Water, Zinc Oxide-Water and Alumina-Water +

Ethylene Glycol Nanofluid," Proceedings of Heat Transfer Conference, San Francisco

[12] Kutateladze, S. S., and Gogonin, I. I. (1977), "Critical Heat Flux as a

Function of Heater Size for Liquid Boiling in Large Enclosure," Journal of Engineering

Physics, 33, 1286-1289.

55
 [13] Ishigai, S., Inoue, K., and Kiwaki, Z. (1961), "Boiling Heat Transfer from

a Flat Surface Facing Downwards," Proceedings of International Heat Transfer

Conference, 224-229.

[14] Lienhard, J. H., Dhir, V. K., and Riherd, D. M. (1973), "Peak Pool Boiling

Heat Flux Measurement on Finite Horizontal Flat Plates," Journal of Heat Transfer,

95(4), 477-482.

[15] Lienhard, J.H and Dhir, V.K. (1973), "Hydrodynamic Prediction of Peak

Boiling Heat Transfer Fluxes from Finite Bodies," Journal of Heat Transfer, 95, 477-

482.

[16] Saylor, J. R., Simon, T. W., and Bar-Cohen, A. (1989), "The Effect of a

Dimensionless Length Scale on the Critical Heat Flux in Saturated, Pool Boiling."

ASME Publication HTD-108, 71-80.

[17] Bar-Cohen, A., and McNeil, A. (1992), "Parametric Effects of Pool

Boiling Critical Heat Flux in Dielectric Liquids," ASME Pool and External Flow

Boiling, 171-175.

[18] Rainey, K. N., and You, S. M. (2001), "Effect of Heater Size and

Orientation on Pool Boiling Heat Transfer from Microporous Coated Surfaces,"

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 44, 2589-2599.

56
 [19] Kim, J. H., You, S. M., and Pak, J. Y. (2006), "Effect of Heater Size and

Working Fluid on Nucleate Boiling Heat Transfer," International Journal of Heat and

Mass Transfer, 49, 122-131.

[20] Cichelli, M. T. and Bonilla,C.F (1945), "Heat Transfer to Liquids Boiling

Under Pressure," AIChE, 755-787.

[21] Lienhard, J. H., and Schrock, V. E. (1963), "The Effect of Pressure,

Geometry, and the Equation of State upon The Peak and Minimum Boiling Heat Flux,"

Journal of Heat Transfer, 85(2), 261-272.

[22] Abuaf, N., Balck, S. H., and Staub, F. W. (1985), "Pool Boiling

Performance of Finned Surfaces in R-113," International Journal of Heat and Fluid

Flow, 6(1), 23-30.

[23] Nishikawa, K., Fujita, Y., and Ohta, H. (1982), "Effect of System Pressure

and Surface Roughness on Nucleate Boiling Heat Transfer," Memoirs of the Faculty of

Engineering Kyushu University, 42(2), 95-111.

[24] Mudawar, I., and Anderson, T. M. (1990), "Parametric Investigation into

the Effect of Pressure, Subcooling, Surface Augmentation and Choice of Coolant on

Pool Boiling in the Design of Cooling Systems for High-Power-Density Electronic

Chips." Journal of Electronic Packaging, 112, 375-382.

57
 [25] Luke, A. (1997), "Pool Boiling Heat Transfer from Horizontal Tubes with

Different Surface Roughness." International Journal of Refrigeration, 20(8), 561-574.

[26] Rainey, K. N., You, S. M., and Lee, S. (2003), "Effect of Pressure,

Subcooling, and Dissolved Gas on Pool Boiling Heat Transfer from Microporous,

Square Pin-Finned Surfaces in FC-72," International Journal of Heat and Mass

Transfer, 46, 23-35.

[27] Githinji, P. M., and Sabersky, R. H. (1963), "Some Effect of the

Orientation of the Heating Surface in Nucleate Boiling," ASME Journal of Heat

Transfer, 85,(379) .

[28] Marcus, B. D., and Dropkin, D. (1963), "The Effect of Surface

Configuration on Nucleate Boiling Heat Transfer," International Journal of Heat and

Mass Transfer, 6, 863-867.

[29] Nishikawa, K., Fujita, Y., and Uchida, S. (1984), "Effect of Surface

Configuration on Nucleate Boiling Heat Transfer," International Journal of Heat and

Mass Transfer, 27, 1559-1571.

[30] Lienhard, J. H. (1985), "On the Two Regimes of Nucleate Boiling." ASME

Journal of Heat Transfer, 107, 262-264.

58
 [31] Zuber, N. (1963), "Nucleate Boiling the Region of Isolated Bubbles and

Similarity with Natural Convection." International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,

6, 53-78.

[32] Moissis, R., and Berenson, P. J. (1963), "On Hydrodynamic Transition in

Nucleate Boiling," ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, 85, 221-229.

[33] Chang, J. Y., and You, S. M. (1996), "Heater Orientation Effect on Pool

Boiling of Micro-Porous-Enhanced Surfaces in Saturated FC-72," ASME Journal of

Heat Transfer, 118, 937-943.

[34] Frea, W. J., Knapp, R., and Taggart, T. D. (1977), "Flow Boiling and Pool

Boiling Critical Heat Flux in Water and Ethylene Glycol Mixtures." Canadian Journal

of Chemical Engineering, 55(1), 37-42.

[35] McGillis, W. R., and Carey, V. P. (1996), "On the Role of Marangoni

Effect on the Critical Heat Flux for Pool Boiling of Binary Mixtures," Journal of Heat

Transfer, 118, 103-109.

[36] Van Wijk, W. R., Vos, A. S., and Van Stralen, S. J. D. (1956), " Heat

transfer to boiling binary liquids," Chemical Engineering Science, 66(5) .

[37] Zuber, N. (1959), "Hydrodynamic Aspects of Boiling Heat Transfer," AEC

Report No. AECU-4459, Physics and Mathematics.

59
 [38] Carey, V.P.(1992), "Liquid-vapor Phase-Change Phenomena,"

[39] Guo, Z., and El-Genk, M. S., 1992, "An Experimental Study of Saturated

Pool Boiling from Downward Facing and Inclined Surfaces," International Journal of

Heat and Mass Transfer, 35(9) pp. 2109-2117.

[40] Rohsenow, W.M. (1962), “A method of correlating heat transfer data for

surface boiling of liquids,” ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, 84, 969-975.

[41] Kline, S.J. and McClintock, F.A., 1953 “Describing Uncertainties in

Single Sample Experiments,” Mechanical Engineering, 75(1), pp. 3-8.

60
 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Madhav Rao Kashinath obtained his Bachelor of Engineering degree at

S.J.C.Institure of Technology, Chickabalapura, affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological

University, Belgaum, Karnataka, India. After graduation he came to United States of

America to pursue his Master’s in Mechanical Engineering and joined the Microscale

Heat Transfer Lab under the supervision of Dr. S.M.You.

61