Analyzing nanofluids suspension using the porous media interface heat transfer model

Peter Vadasz, Peter Vadasz

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

The impressive heat transfer enhancement revealed experimentally in nanofluid suspensions by Eastman et al. (2001), Lee et al. (1999), and Choi et al. (2001) conflicts apparently with Maxwell’s (1891) classical theory of estimating the effective thermal conductivity of suspensions, including higher-order corrections and other spherical particle geometries developed by Hamilton and Crosser (1962), Jeffrey (1973), Davis (1986), Lu and Lin (1996), and Bonnecaze and Brady (1990, 1991). Further attempts for independent confirmation of the experimental results showed conflicting outcomes with some experiments such as Das et al. (2003) and Li and Peterson (2006) confirming at least partially the results presented by Eastman et al. (2001), Lee et al. (1999), and Choi et al. (2001), while others such as Buongiorno and Venerus (2010) and Buongiorno et al. (2009) show in contrast results that are in agreement with Maxwell’s (1891) effective medium theory. All these experiments were performed by using the transient hot wire (THW) experimental method. On the other hand, most experimental results that used optical methods, such as the optical beam deflection (Putnam et al., 2006), all-optical thermal-lensing method (Rusconi et al., 2006), and forced Rayleigh scattering (Venerus et al., 2006), did not reveal any thermal conductivity enhancement beyond what is predicted by the effective medium theory. A variety of possible reasons for the excessive values of the effective thermal conductivity obtained in some experiments have been investigated, but only few succeeded to show a viable explanation. Jang and Choi (2004) and Prasher et al. (2005) show that convection due to Brownian motion may explain the enhancement of the effective thermal conductivity. However, if indeed this is the case, it is difficult to explain why this enhancement of the effective thermal conductivity is selective and is not obtained in all nanofluid experiments. Alternatively, Vadasz et al. (2005) showed that hyperbolic heat conduction also provides a viable explanation for the latter, although their further research and comparison to later published experimental data presented by Vadasz and Govender (2010) lead them to discard this possibility.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationHandbook of Porous Media, Third Edition
PublisherCRC Press
Pages513-532
Number of pages20
ISBN (Electronic)9781439885574
ISBN (Print)9781439885543
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Porous materials
Thermal conductivity
Suspensions
Heat transfer
Experiments
Rayleigh scattering
Brownian movement
Heat conduction
Wire
Geometry

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Chemistry(all)
  • Chemical Engineering(all)
  • Engineering(all)
  • Materials Science(all)

Cite this

Vadasz, P., & Vadasz, P. (2015). Analyzing nanofluids suspension using the porous media interface heat transfer model. In Handbook of Porous Media, Third Edition (pp. 513-532). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18614

Analyzing nanofluids suspension using the porous media interface heat transfer model. / Vadasz, Peter; Vadasz, Peter.

Handbook of Porous Media, Third Edition. CRC Press, 2015. p. 513-532.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Vadasz, P & Vadasz, P 2015, Analyzing nanofluids suspension using the porous media interface heat transfer model. in Handbook of Porous Media, Third Edition. CRC Press, pp. 513-532. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18614
Vadasz P, Vadasz P. Analyzing nanofluids suspension using the porous media interface heat transfer model. In Handbook of Porous Media, Third Edition. CRC Press. 2015. p. 513-532 https://doi.org/10.1201/b18614
Vadasz, Peter ; Vadasz, Peter. / Analyzing nanofluids suspension using the porous media interface heat transfer model. Handbook of Porous Media, Third Edition. CRC Press, 2015. pp. 513-532
@inbook{7a1cea5e08dc425899a496058dfb81e8,
title = "Analyzing nanofluids suspension using the porous media interface heat transfer model",
abstract = "The impressive heat transfer enhancement revealed experimentally in nanofluid suspensions by Eastman et al. (2001), Lee et al. (1999), and Choi et al. (2001) conflicts apparently with Maxwell’s (1891) classical theory of estimating the effective thermal conductivity of suspensions, including higher-order corrections and other spherical particle geometries developed by Hamilton and Crosser (1962), Jeffrey (1973), Davis (1986), Lu and Lin (1996), and Bonnecaze and Brady (1990, 1991). Further attempts for independent confirmation of the experimental results showed conflicting outcomes with some experiments such as Das et al. (2003) and Li and Peterson (2006) confirming at least partially the results presented by Eastman et al. (2001), Lee et al. (1999), and Choi et al. (2001), while others such as Buongiorno and Venerus (2010) and Buongiorno et al. (2009) show in contrast results that are in agreement with Maxwell’s (1891) effective medium theory. All these experiments were performed by using the transient hot wire (THW) experimental method. On the other hand, most experimental results that used optical methods, such as the optical beam deflection (Putnam et al., 2006), all-optical thermal-lensing method (Rusconi et al., 2006), and forced Rayleigh scattering (Venerus et al., 2006), did not reveal any thermal conductivity enhancement beyond what is predicted by the effective medium theory. A variety of possible reasons for the excessive values of the effective thermal conductivity obtained in some experiments have been investigated, but only few succeeded to show a viable explanation. Jang and Choi (2004) and Prasher et al. (2005) show that convection due to Brownian motion may explain the enhancement of the effective thermal conductivity. However, if indeed this is the case, it is difficult to explain why this enhancement of the effective thermal conductivity is selective and is not obtained in all nanofluid experiments. Alternatively, Vadasz et al. (2005) showed that hyperbolic heat conduction also provides a viable explanation for the latter, although their further research and comparison to later published experimental data presented by Vadasz and Govender (2010) lead them to discard this possibility.",
author = "Peter Vadasz and Peter Vadasz",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1201/b18614",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781439885543",
pages = "513--532",
booktitle = "Handbook of Porous Media, Third Edition",
publisher = "CRC Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Analyzing nanofluids suspension using the porous media interface heat transfer model

AU - Vadasz, Peter

AU - Vadasz, Peter

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - The impressive heat transfer enhancement revealed experimentally in nanofluid suspensions by Eastman et al. (2001), Lee et al. (1999), and Choi et al. (2001) conflicts apparently with Maxwell’s (1891) classical theory of estimating the effective thermal conductivity of suspensions, including higher-order corrections and other spherical particle geometries developed by Hamilton and Crosser (1962), Jeffrey (1973), Davis (1986), Lu and Lin (1996), and Bonnecaze and Brady (1990, 1991). Further attempts for independent confirmation of the experimental results showed conflicting outcomes with some experiments such as Das et al. (2003) and Li and Peterson (2006) confirming at least partially the results presented by Eastman et al. (2001), Lee et al. (1999), and Choi et al. (2001), while others such as Buongiorno and Venerus (2010) and Buongiorno et al. (2009) show in contrast results that are in agreement with Maxwell’s (1891) effective medium theory. All these experiments were performed by using the transient hot wire (THW) experimental method. On the other hand, most experimental results that used optical methods, such as the optical beam deflection (Putnam et al., 2006), all-optical thermal-lensing method (Rusconi et al., 2006), and forced Rayleigh scattering (Venerus et al., 2006), did not reveal any thermal conductivity enhancement beyond what is predicted by the effective medium theory. A variety of possible reasons for the excessive values of the effective thermal conductivity obtained in some experiments have been investigated, but only few succeeded to show a viable explanation. Jang and Choi (2004) and Prasher et al. (2005) show that convection due to Brownian motion may explain the enhancement of the effective thermal conductivity. However, if indeed this is the case, it is difficult to explain why this enhancement of the effective thermal conductivity is selective and is not obtained in all nanofluid experiments. Alternatively, Vadasz et al. (2005) showed that hyperbolic heat conduction also provides a viable explanation for the latter, although their further research and comparison to later published experimental data presented by Vadasz and Govender (2010) lead them to discard this possibility.

AB - The impressive heat transfer enhancement revealed experimentally in nanofluid suspensions by Eastman et al. (2001), Lee et al. (1999), and Choi et al. (2001) conflicts apparently with Maxwell’s (1891) classical theory of estimating the effective thermal conductivity of suspensions, including higher-order corrections and other spherical particle geometries developed by Hamilton and Crosser (1962), Jeffrey (1973), Davis (1986), Lu and Lin (1996), and Bonnecaze and Brady (1990, 1991). Further attempts for independent confirmation of the experimental results showed conflicting outcomes with some experiments such as Das et al. (2003) and Li and Peterson (2006) confirming at least partially the results presented by Eastman et al. (2001), Lee et al. (1999), and Choi et al. (2001), while others such as Buongiorno and Venerus (2010) and Buongiorno et al. (2009) show in contrast results that are in agreement with Maxwell’s (1891) effective medium theory. All these experiments were performed by using the transient hot wire (THW) experimental method. On the other hand, most experimental results that used optical methods, such as the optical beam deflection (Putnam et al., 2006), all-optical thermal-lensing method (Rusconi et al., 2006), and forced Rayleigh scattering (Venerus et al., 2006), did not reveal any thermal conductivity enhancement beyond what is predicted by the effective medium theory. A variety of possible reasons for the excessive values of the effective thermal conductivity obtained in some experiments have been investigated, but only few succeeded to show a viable explanation. Jang and Choi (2004) and Prasher et al. (2005) show that convection due to Brownian motion may explain the enhancement of the effective thermal conductivity. However, if indeed this is the case, it is difficult to explain why this enhancement of the effective thermal conductivity is selective and is not obtained in all nanofluid experiments. Alternatively, Vadasz et al. (2005) showed that hyperbolic heat conduction also provides a viable explanation for the latter, although their further research and comparison to later published experimental data presented by Vadasz and Govender (2010) lead them to discard this possibility.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053968492&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053968492&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1201/b18614

DO - 10.1201/b18614

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85053968492

SN - 9781439885543

SP - 513

EP - 532

BT - Handbook of Porous Media, Third Edition

PB - CRC Press

ER -