0
Technical Brief

An Analysis of the Quenching Performance of a Copper Nanofluid Prepared Using Laser Ablation

[+] Author and Article Information
M. P. Howson

EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in
Advanced Metallic Systems,
Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
The University of Sheffield,
Mappin Street,
Sheffield S1 3JD, UK
e-mail: mhowson1@sheffield.ac.uk

B. P. Wynne

Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
The University of Sheffield,
Mappin Street,
Sheffield S1 3JD, UK

R. D. Mercado-Solis, L. A. Leduc-Lezama, J. Jonny, S. Shaji

Facultad de Ingeniería Mecánica y Eléctrica,
Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon,
San Nicolas de los Garza C. P 66455, Mexico

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS. Manuscript received February 24, 2016; final manuscript received May 4, 2016; published online June 14, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Hongbin Ma.

J. Thermal Sci. Eng. Appl 8(4), 044501 (Jun 14, 2016) (5 pages) Paper No: TSEA-16-1048; doi: 10.1115/1.4033619 History: Received February 24, 2016; Revised May 04, 2016

The quenching performance of a copper nanofluid (copper nanoparticles in de-ionized water), prepared using laser ablation, is compared to de-ionized water in both the still and agitated state. The nanoparticles significantly enhanced heat extraction in the still condition, increasing the average cooling rate within the critical temperature range for low alloy steel phase transformations (850–300 °C) from 152 °C/s to 180 °C/s, approximately the same rate as highly agitated de-ionized water. The nanofluid under low levels of agitation saw a decrease in quenching performance relative to the still condition, while higher levels of agitation showed similar levels of heat extraction to that of agitated de-ionized water. The losses of Brownian motion and microlayering mechanisms are suggested as potential causes for the reduction in the performance of agitated nanofluids.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A comparison between cooling data recorded for highly agitated de-ionized water and still nanofluid

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

A comparison of cooling data recorded for nanofluid at low, moderate, and high levels of agitation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Temperature versus time and cooling rate versus temperature plots comparing the cooling performance of still de-ionized water and still nanofluid

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Temperature versus time and cooling rate versus temperature plots for quenching tests performed using still de-ionized water

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Photograph of the IVF Smart Quench system used to perform all the quench tests: (a) 12.5 mm diameter Inconel 600probe containing a k-type thermocouple at its center, (b) furnace, (c) quench tank, and (d) agitator

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