FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2007842893> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2007842893 abstract "In a series of articles, Jang and Choi (123) listed and explained their effective thermal conductivity (keff) model for nanofluids. For example, in the 2004 article (1), they constructed a keff correlation for dilute liquid suspensions interestingly, based on kinetic gas theory as well as nanosize boundary-layer theory, the Kapitza resistance, and nanoparticle-induced convection. Three mechanisms contributing to keff were summed up, i.e., base-fluid and nanoparticle conductions as well as convection due to random motion of the liquid molecules. Thus, after an order-of-magnitude analysis, their effective thermal conductivity model of nanofluids reads1keff=kf(1−φ)+knanoφ+3C1dfdpkfRedp2Prφwhere kf is the thermal conductivity of the base fluid, φ is the particle volume fraction, knano=kpβ is the thermal conductivity of suspended nanoparticles involving the Kapitza resistance, C1=6×106 is a constant (never explained or justified), df and dp are the diameters of the base-fluid molecules and nanoparticles, respectively, Redp is a “random” Reynolds number, and Pr is the Prandtl number. Specifically,2Redp=C¯RMdpνwhere C¯RM is a random motion velocity and ν is the kinematic viscosity of the base fluid.Jang and Choi (3) claimed that they were the first to propose Brownian motion induced nanoconvection as a key nanoscale mechanism governing the thermal behavior of nanofluids. However, they just added a random term to Eq. 1, actually quite small in magnitude for certain base liquids, although enhanced by the large factor 3 C1=18×106, while, independently, in the same year, Koo and Kleinstreuer (4) proposed their effective thermal conductivity model, based on micromixing induced by Brownian motion, followed by Prasher et. al. (5) and others (see review by Jang and Choi (3)).However, it should be noted that the validity of the different origins for the unusual thermal effect of nanofluids has been questioned (see Evans et. al. (6) and Vladkov and Barrat (7), among others) as well as the actual keff increase as reported in experimental papers (see Venerus et. al. (8) and Putnam et. al. (9), among others). Controversies arose from using different experimental techniques (e.g., transient hot wire versus optical methods) and from phenomenological models relying more on empirical correlations rather than sound physics and benchmark experimental data.In 2006, Jang and Choi (2) changed the thermal conductivity correlation slightly to3keff=kf(1−φ)+kpβφ+3C1dfdpkfRedp2Prwhere the volume fraction term φ is now missing in the last term. Most recently, Jang and Choi (3) tried to explain more clearly the modeling terms they had proposed. Their present thermal conductivity model reads4keff=kf(1−φ)+kpβφ+3C1dfdpkfRedp2PrφIn the 2006 article (2), the random motion velocity, which is used to define the Reynolds number (see Eq. 2), was defined as5aC¯RM=2D0lfwhile in the 2007 article (3), the authors changed the random motion velocity to5bC¯RM=D0lfwhere D0=κbT∕3πμdp is the diffusion coefficient given by Einstein (10), and lf is the mean free path of the (liquid) base fluid. The mean free path of the base fluid is calculated from Kittel and Kroemer (11), which deals only with transport properties of ideal gases (see their Chap. 14):6alf=3kfc¯ĈVwhere c¯ is the mean molecular velocity, and ĈV is the heat capacity per unit volume. Although Eq. 6a is certainly not applicable to liquids, the mean free path for (ideal) gases can also be written as6blf=3kfρcvc¯with cv being the thermal capacity at constant volume, where ρcv≡ĈV.According to the parameters Jang and Choi (3) provided and the terms they explained, the effective thermal conductivities of CuO-water and Al2O3-water nanofluids were calculated and compared. Figures12 provide comparisons of Jang and Choi’s 2007 model (3) with the experimental data sets of Lee et. al. (12) for CuO-water and Al2O3-water nanofluids, respectively. Two random motion velocities C¯RM were compared, where the dashed line relates to Eq. 5a while the solid line is based on Eq. 5b. Clearly, these comparisons do not match the results given by Jang and Choi (3) in their Fig. 2, unless new matching coefficients in the third term of Eq. 4 are applied. Specifically, the first two terms contribute very little, i.e., ∑i=12termi∕kf≈0.99. Is the contribution of the particle’s thermal conductivity really that small? Many researchers indicated that the higher thermal conductivity of the nanoparticles is a factor in enhancing the effective thermal conductivity (Hong et. al. (13), Hwang et. al. (14)). It has to be stressed that all the data comparisons are based on the thermal properties provided by Jang and Choi (3) in Table 1. However, thermal conductivity values found in the literature indicated 32.9W∕mK for CuO (Wang et. al. (15)) and, for Al2O3, a range of 18–35W∕mK depending on the purity, i.e., 94–99.5%.1 When using the more reasonable particle thermal conductivity values in the model of Jang and Choi (3), only small differences were observed.Now, in contrast to water, if the base fluid is changed to ethylene glycol (EG), the third term in Eq. 4 is suddenly of the order of 10−6, i.e., it does not contribute to the effective thermal conductivity when compared to the first two terms (10−1 and 10−3). The nondimensionalized effective thermal conductivity of CuO-EG nanofluids is about 0.99 for all volume fraction cases, while for Al2O3-EG nanofluids, keff∕kf is slightly higher at approximately 1.015. Both graphs are well below the experimental data of Lee et. al. (12), as shown in Fig.3. The larger EG viscosity provided a much smaller Reynolds number, which almost eliminates the third term.For the experimental result of Das et. al. (16), Jang and Choi (3) compared their model for Al2O3 particles with a volume fraction of 1% in their Fig. 7. Considering the temperature influence on the thermal characteristics of base fluid (water), Fig.4 provides again an updated comparison. If we consider C¯RM=2D0∕lf, indicated with the dashed curve, the model shows a good agreement in the lower temperature range; however, the model prediction fails when the temperature is higher than 40°C. Figure5 shows the comparison of Jang and Choi’s model with the experimental data of Das et. al. (16) when the volume fraction is 4%. Clearly, their model does not match the experimental results well.On June 14, 2007, Choi responded to the analysis presented so far. Specifically, he provided the following new information: Number-weighted diameters (24.4nm for Al2O3 and 18.6nm for CuO) were replaced with the area-weighted diameters (38.4nm for Al2O3 and 23.6nm for CuO),the random motion velocity C¯RM=D0∕lf was selected, andnew proportionality constants, i.e., C1=7.2×107 for water and C1=3.2×1011 for EG, were recommended.Thus, employing the new information, Figs.67 now replace Figs. 345, respectively. The Jang and Choi (3) model achieved a good match with the new numerical values for CuO-water nanofluids and Al2O3-water nanofluids (not shown). However, when using EG-based nanofluids, the model still cannot provide a good match even for the very large proportionality constant of C1=3.2×1011 (see Fig. 6). When compared with the experimental data of Das et. al. (16), as shown in Fig. 7 for a volume fraction of 1%, the model generates a decent data match, which is not the case when the volume fraction reaches 4%." @default.
• W2007842893 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2007842893 creator A5000558403 @default.
• W2007842893 creator A5089403906 @default.
• W2007842893 date "2008-02-01" @default.
• W2007842893 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2007842893 title "Discussion: “Effects of Various Parameters on Nanofluid Thermal Conductivity” (Jang, S. P., and Choi, S. D. S., 2007, ASME J. Heat Transfer, 129, pp. 617–623)" @default.
• W2007842893 cites W1969596863 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W1984754981 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W1986992149 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W2004073834 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W2008418804 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W2016213857 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W2020256916 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W2036706274 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W2045937144 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W2046264851 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W2071006958 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W2120966911 @default.
• W2007842893 cites W2146223377 @default.
• W2007842893 doi "https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2812307" @default.
• W2007842893 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2007842893 type Work @default.
• W2007842893 sameAs 2007842893 @default.
• W2007842893 citedByCount "12" @default.
• W2007842893 countsByYear W20078428932012 @default.
• W2007842893 countsByYear W20078428932013 @default.
• W2007842893 countsByYear W20078428932014 @default.
• W2007842893 countsByYear W20078428932016 @default.
• W2007842893 countsByYear W20078428932022 @default.
• W2007842893 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2007842893 hasAuthorship W2007842893A5000558403 @default.
• W2007842893 hasAuthorship W2007842893A5089403906 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConcept C21946209 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConcept C50517652 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConcept C97346530 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConcept C97355855 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConceptScore W2007842893C121332964 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConceptScore W2007842893C159985019 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConceptScore W2007842893C192562407 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConceptScore W2007842893C21946209 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConceptScore W2007842893C50517652 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConceptScore W2007842893C97346530 @default.
• W2007842893 hasConceptScore W2007842893C97355855 @default.
• W2007842893 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2007842893 hasLocation W20078428931 @default.
• W2007842893 hasOpenAccess W2007842893 @default.
• W2007842893 hasPrimaryLocation W20078428931 @default.
• W2007842893 hasRelatedWork W1986722403 @default.
• W2007842893 hasRelatedWork W2055059283 @default.
• W2007842893 hasRelatedWork W2066397082 @default.
• W2007842893 hasRelatedWork W2519775309 @default.
• W2007842893 hasRelatedWork W2595976584 @default.
• W2007842893 hasRelatedWork W2981314753 @default.
• W2007842893 hasRelatedWork W3048789939 @default.
• W2007842893 hasRelatedWork W3125613435 @default.
• W2007842893 hasRelatedWork W3182238988 @default.
• W2007842893 hasRelatedWork W4235035644 @default.
• W2007842893 hasVolume "130" @default.
• W2007842893 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2007842893 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2007842893 magId "2007842893" @default.
• W2007842893 workType "article" @default.