0
Research Papers

Hydronic Coil Performance Evaluation With Nanofluids and Conventional Heat Transfer Fluids

[+] Author and Article Information
Roy Strandberg

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, P.O. Box 755905, Fairbanks, AK 99775-5905

Debendra K. Das1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, P.O. Box 755905, Fairbanks, AK 99775-5905ffdkd@uaf.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Thermal Sci. Eng. Appl 1(1), 011001 (Jul 21, 2009) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3159482 History: Received September 26, 2008; Revised April 24, 2009; Published July 21, 2009

The performance of hydronic heating coils with nanoparticle enhanced heat transfer fluids (nanofluids) is evaluated and compared with their performance with a conventional heat transfer fluid comprised of 60% ethylene glycol (EG) and 40% water, by mass (60% EG). The nanofluids analyzed are comprised of either CuO or Al2O3 nanoparticles dispersed in the 60% EG solution. The heating coil has a finned tube configuration commonly used in commercial air handling and ventilating systems. Coil performance is modeled using methods that have been previously developed and validated. The methods are modified by incorporating Nusselt number correlations for nanofluids that have been previously documented in the literature. Similarly, correlations for nanoparticle thermophysical properties that have been documented in the literature are employed. The analyses show that heating coil performance may be enhanced considerably by employing these nanofluid solutions as a heat transfer medium. The model predicts a 16.6% increase in coil heating capacity under certain conditions with the 4% Al2O3/60% EG nanofluid, and a 7.4% increase with the 2% CuO/60% EG nanofluid compared with heating capacity with the base fluid. The model predicts that, for a coil with the Al2O3/60% EG nanofluid, liquid pumping power at a given heating output is reduced when compared with a coil with the base fluid.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Finned heating coil configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Actual capacity versus model predicted capacity for two-row heating coil, with constant air velocity and variable liquid velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Actual capacity versus model predicted capacity for two-row heating coil, with constant liquid velocity and variable air velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Heating coil capacity with high temperature CuO nanofluid at constant air velocity and variable liquid velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Heating coil capacity with the Al2O3 nanofluid at constant air velocity and variable liquid velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Heating coil capacity versus liquid friction loss (on a unit length basis) for a coil with nanofluids and 60% EG

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Liquid pumping power required for a given heating coil capacity (on a unit length basis) for a coil with nanofluids and 60% EG

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of total heat transfer area required for the heating coil for given heating capacities and different fluids

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In