Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 36 (2012) 6571

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/etfs

Viscosity of water based SWCNH and TiO2 nanouids

Sergio Bobbo a,, Laura Fedele a, Anna Benetti a, Laura Colla a, Monica Fabrizio b, Cesare Pagura b, Simona Barison b
a b

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto per le Tecnologie della Costruzione, Corso Stati Uniti, 4, 35127 Padova, Italy Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto per lEnergetica e le Interfasi, Corso Stati Uniti, 4, 35127 Padova, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
At present, literature data on viscosity of nanouids are still scarce and controversial. The possible nonNewtonian behaviour of these uids is frequently neglected and the problems related to the nanouids stability and the actual composition are often not considered. In this paper, viscosity data for nanouids formed by water, as base uid, and solid nanoparticles of two different materials single wall carbon nanohorn (SWCNH) or titanium dioxide (TiO2) are presented. Viscosity was measured by using a rheometer and obtained as a function of the nanoparticles mass fraction and the shear rate, thus allowing evaluation of the possible non-Newtonian behaviour for the nanouid. Both the studied nanouids showed a Newtonian behaviour. The viscosity data were correlated by different equations and here an empirical correlation is proposed. 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 13 January 2011 Received in revised form 10 June 2011 Accepted 19 August 2011 Available online 12 September 2011 Keywords: Nanouid Viscosity Titanium dioxide (TiO2) Single wall carbon nanohorn (SWCNH)

1. Introduction In the last years, huge attention has been given to technologies aimed at increasing the energy efciency of plants, machines and processes. A critical point in systems employing secondary uids for the energy transportation (e.g. chillers for air conditioning, supermarket refrigeration plants, thermal solar plants) is the low thermal conductivity of the traditionally used thermal vectors, i.e. water, oils and ethylene glycol. Nanotechnologies can give new opportunities in solving this problem by means of nanouids, a new family of uids obtained by dispersing solid nanoparticles in liquids. The transport properties, mainly thermal conductivity and heat transfer coefcient, promise to be much higher when these uids are used instead of the base uids, as suggested by the wide available literature. Among others, Keblinski et al. [1] compared the enhancement in thermal conductivity of water-based nanouids taken from several works, nding improvement till 60%, while Yu et al. [2] observed various nanouids that pointed out heat transfer enhancement in the range of 1540%, with readily available oxide nanoparticles in a variety of base uids. However, the presence of nanoparticles could increase the viscosity of nanouid in respect to the base uid, thus increasing the energy required to pump the uid in the circuits and reducing or nullifying the gain in heat transfer efciency. In order to understand the nanouid effectiveness, the knowledge of thermal conductivity and viscosity is essential. In particular, in the case of laminar ow, Timofeeva et al. [3] observed that a
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 049 8295736; fax: +39 049 8295728.
E-mail address: sergio.bobbo@itc.cnr.it (S. Bobbo). 0894-1777/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.expthermusci.2011.08.004

nanouid can be useful when the increase in viscosity is less than four times the increase in thermal conductivity. Alternatively, in case of turbulent ow, the Mouromtseff num  ka qb cd ber Mo le p was proposed as a gure of merit for the comparison of the heat transfer capability of alternative thermal uids [4]. Here, k, q, cp and l are the thermal conductivity, density, specic heat and dynamic viscosity of the uid, respectively. The exponents a, b, d, and e assume proper values corresponding to the heat transfer mode. Referring to uids owing in turbulent ow inside a specied geometry at a given velocity, the highest heat transfer rate is presented by the secondary uid with the highest Mouromtseff number [5]. For a nanouid, it is well known that q and cp can be calculated by means of standard linear equations, while k and l have to be measured. For this reason, extensive experimental measurements on thermal conductivity and viscosity are necessary. At present, viscosity data for nanouids are still scarce in literature and frequently discordant and controversial. Various papers have detected signicant differences from the base uids only for nanouids at nanoparticle concentration higher than 1% by mass [6,7]. A systematic investigation on nanouids viscosity turned out to be fundamental in order to understand the main parameters inuencing nanouids rheological behaviour and optimise them also in relation to the thermal properties. Considering the high potentiality of nanouids as energy vectors in different application, as solar panels [8], air conditioning machines and refrigeration plants [9,10], a research project on their thermal and rheological properties has begun in our institute.

66

S. Bobbo et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 36 (2012) 6571

Nomenclature a aa D T / prime nanoparticles radius aggregates nanoparticles radius fractal index temperature (K) particle volume fraction dynamic viscosity (Pa s) particle mass fraction Subscripts exp experimental f base uid nf nanouid SWCNH related to single wall carbon nanohorns TiO2 related to titanium oxide

l x

In this paper, two different water-based nanouids are studied. They were prepared dispersing two different kinds of nanoparticles, specically single wall carbon nanohorns (SWCNH) and titanium dioxide (TiO2), in water. TiO2 is a stable, inexpensive and durable oxide, that already showed some enhancements in the thermal conductivity of water-based uids [2]. The SWCNHs are roughly spherical aggregates of nanohorns, consisting in a single layer of a graphene sheet wrapped into an irregular tubule with a variable diameter of generally 25 nm and a length of 30 50 nm, with their tips cone-shaped. The SWCNHs are mainly of three types: dahlias, buds and seeds [11,12]. The critical point that differentiates SWCNHs from carbon nanotubes (CNTs), that showed important thermal conductivity increase [12], is their much lower toxicity [13], due to both the lack of bril-like structure and the absence of any metal nanoparticles used to catalyse nanotube growth during their production. Moreover, their heterogeneous surface structure favours their dispersion in water. The use of dispersants was necessary to stabilize the nanoparticle dispersions. After careful analysis of the average size distribution of the nanoparticles in solution, long time, by means of a nanosizer apparatus [14], sodium n-dodecyl sulphate (SDS) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) were used as dispersants for the nanouids based on SWCNH and TiO2, respectively. The viscosity for these uids was measured at ambient pressure and in the temperature range between 283.2 K and 353.2 K by means of a rheometer, in order to evaluate their Newtonian behaviour, too. The data were regressed by viscosity correlations. 2. Experimental section 2.1. Materials Deionised water (Millipore, Billerica MA, USA, 18.2 X) was used as base uid. The TiO2 nanoparticles used for the dispersions were purchased from Degussa (TiO2, P25). They had a spherical shape with a declared 21 nm diameter. The SWCNHs used in this work were produced and provided by Carbonium Srl (info@carbonium.it). The morphological characterisation of nanoparticles was performed by eld emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) with a SIGMA Zeiss instrument (Carl Zeiss SMT Ltd., UK). SEM pictures of TiO2 and SWCNHs are shown in Fig. 1, where the actual dimensions of nanoparticles can be deduced to be 2030 nm and 60 nm for TiO2 and SWCNH, respectively. As dispersant, sodium n-dodecyl sulphate (SDS, 99%, Alfa Aesar) and polyethylene glycol 600 (PEG, Alfa Aesar) were used. 2.2. Nanouids preparation The nanouids were prepared by dispersing the nanoparticles in water by a two-step method. Different preparation methods (ultrasonic agitation, ball milling and homogenisation) and

different dispersants were proven [14]. The high pressure homogenisation method turned out to be the best process to improve the suspension stability and then it was used to prepare both SWCNH and TiO2 nanouids. The nanoparticles were mechanically dispersed in water at different concentrations, i.e. 0.01%, 0.1%, 1% by mass. Then, a high pressure homogenizer (up to 1000 bar) was employed to optimise the dispersion. Different dispersants were added to stabilize the solutions. After some trials, SDS and PEG were identied as the best dispersants for the nanouids based on SWCNH and TiO2, respectively. For the nanouids based on SWCNH at concentrations of 0.1% and 1% by mass, the ratio between nanoparticles and dispersant mass was 1:1. For the lowest concentration (0.01% by mass), the ratio was 1:3. For the waterTiO2 nanouid, the ratio between nanoparticles and dispersant mass was 1:2 for each concentration. 2.3. Nanouids stability characterisation A Zetasizer Nano ZS (Malvern) was used to analyse the average dimension of the nanoparticles in solution. The Zetasizer works

Fig. 1. SEM (scanning electron microscope) images of (a) SWCNH and (b) TiO2 nanoparticles.

S. Bobbo et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 36 (2012) 6571

67

(a)

16 14 12

Intensity %

10 8 6 4 2 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

tions in behaviour around one revolution of the shaft, monitoring the torque required to maintain this speed through a full 360 of rotation. All the measurements were performed at constant temperature and variable shear rate, starting from 200 s1 to 1600 s1and vice versa, at constant step of about 150 s1 (except for temperatures higher than 333.2 K, at which faster measurements had to be performed, due to water evaporation). A conditioning step of 10 s was carried out and a pre-shear rate at 200 s1 was applied before the measurements to remove any possible uid memory, due to the sample preparation, storage and loading. Each experimental point is the average of three values of viscosity, sampled under constant shear rate.

Size / nm

2.5. Viscosity measurement validation To evaluate the rheometer uncertainty, a well known uid as water was analysed at each temperature and the viscosity data were compared with Refprop 8.0 database [15]. As shown by Fig. 3 (and in Table 2), all the measured data for water are quite close to the literature data in the shear rate range between 400 s1 and 1400 s1, being the percentage absolute average deviation (AAD%) about 1.5%. The deviations at low shear rates should be due to difculties in the torque control by the rheometer, while at high shear rate to changes in the uid laminar ow. The estimated uncertainty in the viscosity measurements is less than 2%. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Experimental data The selections of the most suitable preparation method and dispersant type and concentration have been done trying to optimise the stability of the nanouids by analysing the average size distribution of the particles along the time. In fact, nanoparticles can aggregate and settle down after dispersing in the base uid, yielding to a loss in the stability of the nanouid and thus hindering their application. In particular, the dispersants can act in different ways, being different the interactions between these uids and the nanoparticles. The SDS, an anionic surfactant, gives a negative charge to the SWCNH through the sulphate group, leading to electrostatic repulsions between the particles and stabilizing the suspension [16]. On the contrary, the PEG molecules are adsorbed by the sur-

(b)

16 14 12

Intensity %

10 8 6 4 2 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Size / nm
Fig. 2. Particle diameter size distribution, according to the intensity, for (a) the waterSWCNH and (b) the waterTiO2 at 0.1% nanouids (with dispersants), (d) just after preparation and (s) after 18 days.

measuring the Brownian motion of the particles in the sample by means of the Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) and then calculating the size from this, basing on theory. Fig. 2 shows the particle size distribution, according to the intensity detected by the Zetasizer, for the waterSWCNH and the waterTiO2 nanouids, respectively, just after preparation and after 18 days.

2.4. Viscosity measurements The dynamic viscosity data were measured at ambient pressure and in a temperature range between 283.2 K and 353.2 K by means of an AR-G2 rheometer (TA Instruments). It is a rotational rheometer, with a plate-cone geometry. A 1 cone, with a diameter of 40 mm, was employed. The rotational speed range is between 0 and 300 rad s1. In order to stabilize the measurement temperature at 0.1 K, an upper heated plate (UHP) was used. Temperature was measured by a Pt100 X thermo-resistance inside the Peltier plate of the rheometer, with a resolution of 0.01 K and a declared accuracy of 0.1 K. A critical point in this measurement is the sample loading. After some trials with water, a constant quantity of about 0.33 ml was considered optimal for the analysis. The sample was deposited using a pipette, taking care no air bubbles were inside. Before the measurements, the rheometer was carefully calibrated at each temperature, i.e. the non-zero moment of inertia of the rheometer spindle, the non-zero moment of inertia of the measurement geometry and the instrument friction were calibrated. Then, due to thermal expansion, zero reference point at the experimental temperature had to be found. Finally, the rotational mapping of the instrument allowed nding the small varia-

Fig. 3. Dynamic viscosity of water at (s) 283.2, (d) 293.2, (h) 303.2, (j) 313.2, (D) 323.2, (N) 333.2, (e) 343.2 and () 353.2 K compared to () Refprop 8.0.

68

S. Bobbo et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 36 (2012) 6571

face of TiO2 nanoparticles, forming a dense layer around the particles, producing stabilization by steric effects and leading to the formation of more compact aggregates [17]. The nanouids formed by water, SDS and SWCNH are very stable even after several days. The measured nanoparticle average diameter was around 140 nm, 188 nm and 120 nm for the 0.01%, 0.1% and 1% mass concentrations, respectively. Solutions of water, PEG and TiO2 tend to be less stable, since, in rest condition, part of nanoparticles slowly sediments under gravity. However, these solutions can easily recover the initial size distribution by simple mechanical agitation. Considering the possible use of these uids in plants with forced circulation and then a continuous mixing condition, nanoparticles settling effects are practically negligible. All the measurements provide much higher values than the 21 nm correspondent to the nominal diameter of the nanoparticles: at 0.01%, 0.1% and 1% mass concentrations the measured average diameter is actually around 180 nm, 121 nm and 132 nm, respectively, indicating a tendency of titania particles to rearrange in liquid media forming aggregates, but maintaining dimensions that can still be dened as nanometric. The Zeta potential of nanouids was also measured by Zetasizer Nano and in Table 1 the values for SWCNH and TiO2 nanouids with dispersants are shown. All the measured nanouids show a Zeta potential higher than |30| mV. Dynamic viscosity data of the water-dispersants mixtures and water based nanouids were measured from 283.2 K to 353.2 K by increments of 10 K per step. The investigated uids, apart from bidistilled water, were water + SDS at 0.03%, 0.1% and 1% by mass; water + PEG 600 at 0.02%, 0.2% and 2% by mass; water + SWCNH at 0.01%, 0.1%, 1% by mass + SDS at 0.03%, 0.1% and 1% by mass, respectively; water + TiO2 at 0.01%, 0.1%, 1% by mass + PEG 600 at 0.02%, 0.2% and 2% by mass, respectively. The nanouid compositions are indicated both in mass and volume percentage in Table 2. In Figs. 4 and 5, viscosity data of the measured uids at 283.2 K are represented. As shown in Fig. 4, base uids formed by water and SDS, both at the 0.03% and 0.1% by mass, have viscosities very similar to water. SDS shows its inuence at concentration of 1% by mass, with a viscosity enhancement of about 7%. Even viscosities of nanouids

Fig. 4. Dynamic viscosity at 283.2 K of (d) water, water and SDS at (D) 0.03%, (e) 0.1% and (h) 1% in mass, (N) water0.03% SDS and 0.01% SWCNH, () water0.1% SDS and 0.1% SWCNH and (j) water1% SDS and 1% SWCNH; () water calculated by Refprop 8.0.

Fig. 5. Dynamic viscosity at 283.2 K of (d) water, water and PEG 600 at (D) 0.02%, (e) 0.2% and (h) 2% in mass, (N) water0.02% PEG 600 and 0.01% TiO2, () water 0.2% PEG 600 and 0.1% TiO2 and (j) water2% PEG 600 and 1% TiO2. () water calculated by Refprop 8.0.

Table 1 Zeta potential for SWCNH and TiO2 nanouids with dispersants. Nanouid SWCNH 1 wt.%, SDS 1 wt.% SWCNH 0.1 wt.%, SDS 0.1 wt.% SWCNH 0.01 wt.%, SDS 0.03 wt.% TiO2 1 wt.%, PEG 2 wt.% TiO2 0.1 wt.%, PEG 0.2 wt.% TiO2 0.01 wt.%, PEG 0.02 wt.% Zeta potential/|mV| 56 57 50 40 43 37

Table 2 Nanouids particle concentrations. Nanouid WaterSWCNH wt.% 0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1 vol.% 0.00476 0.0476 0.4787 0.00256 0.0257 0.2583

WaterTiO2

with SWCNH at 0.01% and 0.1% are similar or lower than those of water. On the contrary, the viscosity of waterSDSSWCNH at 1% nanouid increases of about 13%. In Fig. 5, it is shown that base uids of water and PEG at 0.02% and 0.2% have viscosity slightly lower than water. Larger differences are given by solution of water and PEG at 2%, with viscosity 5% higher than water. Also the nanouids with TiO2 at 0.01% and at 0.1% have viscosities similar to the base uids, while the solution of water, PEG and TiO2 at 1% shows a viscosity higher than 7% in respect to water. These behaviours are analogous at each temperature. In Fig. 6, the relative viscosity at 293.2 K is given as a function of nanouid volume composition. The viscosity enhancement is evident only at the highest composition for both uids. This behaviour could be due also to nanoparticles aggregation, together with concentration, since a high relative viscosity could be observed when agglomerations are formed inside the nanouid, as already suggested by [18,19]. However, this phenomenon is observed only at the highest composition. Table 3 summarises the viscosity measurements for all the SWCNHnanouids and the TiO2nanouids at the different compositions at constant shear rate (about 800 s1). It should be noted

S. Bobbo et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 36 (2012) 6571

69

nian behaviour for the TiO2-based nanouids, with viscosity enhancement till 7% for composition of 0.3% by volume (around 1% by mass). Finally, Alphonse et al. studied rheology and stability of TiO2 water nanouids at compositions ranging between 3.4% and 12.5% by mass at 293.2 K, using a rheometer with shear rate varying over the range of 11000 s1. They found a Newtonian behaviour in the shear rate range of 1100 s1 and a shear thinning behaviour for higher shear rate. After the addition of low amount of PEG 2000 (less than 20 g L1), they observed a marked decrease of viscosity with respect to the nanouids without dispersant, until a minimum of about 5060%. 3.3. Theoretical models In literature, several theoretical models have been proposed to correlate viscosity data of nanouids and few of them were applied to these experimental data. In general, they derived from the Einstein model [22],

Fig. 6. Relative viscosity as a function of volumetric composition at 293.2 K for () SWCNH and (s) TiO2 water-based nanouids.

lnf lf 1 2:5/
that measurements at 353.2 K are difcult to perform, since water begins to vapourize and nanoparticles, especially TiO2, begin to aggregate. In Figs. 7 and 8, the trend of the shear stress as a function of the shear rate is shown for the two studied nanouids, at each composition, at 283.2 K, evidencing a Newtonian behaviour of both nanouids. 3.2. Literature analysis Up today, no literature data are available for the same nanouids here considered, i.e. uids formed by the same nanoparticles, base uids, dispersants, at the same compositions and with the same preparation methods. However, Tseng and Lin [20], Chen et al. [21] and Alphonse et al. [17] published viscosity data of different TiO2-based nanouids. In the rst paper, TiO2 suspensions in water, without any dispersant and prepared by ball milling, were considered at compositions ranging between 5% and 12% by volume. They found pseudoplastic ow behaviour, deducing the presence of aggregates in the suspension. At shear rate 100 s1, they found viscosity from 100% to 1200% higher than that of water for composition from 5% to 12%, respectively. Chen et al. studied a waterTiO2 nanouid (without any dispersant) prepared by ultrasonication, followed by high shear homogenisation, with compositions roughly ranging between 0.1% and 1.2% by volume. They used a rheometer at ambient temperature, nding viscosity enhancement till roughly 10%, for the highest composition. Their nanouids were stable for at least 1 month and showed a Newtonian behaviour. These results can be considered in good agreement with ours, since we also found a Newto-

based on the assumption of a viscous uid containing spherical particles. Here, / is the particle volume fraction and lnf and lf are the dynamic viscosity of the nanouid and the based uid, respectively. In general, this formula is applicable when / is lower than 1% and there are not nanoparticle interactions. Starting from the Einsteins formula, Brinkman suggested an equation applicable to moderate particle volume concentration, roughly 4% [23], in the form

lnf lf

1 1 /2:5

In [24], Batchelor considered the nanoparticle Brownian motion and their interaction, proposing the formula

lnf lf 1 2:5/ 6:5/2

All these equations base on the assumptions that the viscosity of the nanouid is only a function of the base uid viscosity and the particle concentration and that the nanoparticles can be modelled as rigid spherical particles. As shown in Fig. 9, Eqs. (1)(3) are able to estimate nanouids viscosity for the lowest compositions, but overestimate the suspensions at 1 wt.%. These results are in contrast with literature, e.g. [25], where these equations underestimated nanouids viscosity for concentrations higher than 1 vol.%. It could be due to different employed preparation methods, dispersants and nanoparticle dimensions. Recent studies suggested correlations between the nanouids high viscosity and the nanoparticles aggregation [18,2628]. Different models have been proposed taking into account this phenomenon, as the KriegerDougherty equation [25]

Table 3 Experimental viscosity data for water-based nanouids with SWCNH and TiO2 and water, at constant shear rate (about 800 s1). T/K 283.2 293.2 303.2 313.2 323.2 333.2 343.2 353.2 SWCNH (0.01 wt.%/ mPa s) 1.29 1.04 0.80 0.65 0.55 0.47 0.41 0.36 SWCNH (0.1 wt.%/ mPa s) 1.31 1.00 0.76 0.64 0.55 0.49 0.40 0.32 SWCNH (1 wt.%/ mPa s) 1.48 1.19 0.92 0.76 0.65 0.53 0.46 0.43 TiO2 (0.01 wt.%/ mPa s) 1.28 1.02 0.76 0.64 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.37 TiO2 (0.1 wt.%/ mPa s) 1.32 1.01 0.80 0.65 0.56 0.50 0.41 0.35 TiO2 (1 wt.%/ mPa s) 1.40 1.13 0.84 0.72 0.58 0.52 0.48 0.45 Waterexp (mPa s) 1.31 1.02 0.81 0.66 0.55 0.47 0.41 0.34 Watercalc11 (mPa s) 1.31 1.00 0.80 0.65 0.55 0.47 0.40 0.35

70

S. Bobbo et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 36 (2012) 6571

Fig. 7. Shear stress as a function of shear rate for waterSWCNHSDS nanouid at 283.2 K. (D) 0.01% SWCNH, () 0.1% SWCNH and (h) 1% SWCNH.

Fig. 10. Viscosity as a function of temperature for waterTiO2PEG nanouid. () Experimental data; () Eq. (1); (- -) Eq. (2); ( ) Eq. (3); (-e-) Eq. (4), (-s-) Eq. (6), (h-) Eq. (7), (--) Eq. (8).

Table 4 Regressed parameters of Eq. (8). Nanouid WaterSWCNH WaterTiO2 a 0.50437 0.36838 b 1.74486 0.25271

sidered as /) and [g] is the intrinsic viscosity (for non-interacting, rigid spherical particles, 2.5). Afterwards, Chen et al. [18] assumed that the aggregates density change with the radial position and then it is not uniform in the nanouid, by means of the equation

a 3D a /a / a
Fig. 8. Shear stress as a function of shear rate for waterTiO2PEG nanouid at 283.2 K. (D) 0.01% TiO2, () 0.1% TiO2 and (h) 1% TiO2.

where aa and a are the aggregates and prime nanoparticles radii, respectively. D is the fractal index, that is 1.8 for nanoparticles [2729]. So, Eq. (4) becomes

lnf lf 1


/ aa 1:2 /m a 2

g/m 6

Then, a simplied equation was proposed [30] as

lnf lf 1

/ /m

Fig. 9. Viscosity as a function of temperature for waterSWCNHSDS nanouid. () Experimental data; () Eq. (1); (- -) Eq. (2); ( ) Eq. (3); (-e-) Eq. (4); (-s-) Eq. (6); (-h-) Eq. (7); (--) Eq. (8).

lnf lf 1

/a /m

g/m

In order to apply Eqs. (4)(7), /m should be calculated. Although the present experimental data are only at three different concentrations, restricting the validity range of the models, /m was calculated, basing on [31], on all the experimental data, being 6.85% and 5.00% for SWCNH and TiO2 nanouids, respectively. The correlation results are added in Figs. 9 and 10. In Table 5, all the deviations of the viscosity data from the regressed models are summarised at three different temperatures. It is evident that also Eqs. (4) and (6) can estimate nanouids viscosity only for the lowest compositions, overestimating the suspensions at 1 wt.% Eq. (8) better represents the experimental data, showing higher deviations, although not always acceptable. Nevertheless, the applicability of theoretical models to nanouids is a still unsolved problem. Here, a simple equation, with similar form to Eq. (3), is proposed to correlate these experimental data

where /m is the maximum concentration at which nanouid can ow, /a the effective aggregates volume fraction (and here it is con-

lnf lf 1 a/ b/2

S. Bobbo et al. / Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 36 (2012) 6571 Table 5 Percentage deviation of the viscosity experimental data (from Table 3) from Eqs. ((1)(4), (6), (7), (and) (8)) at 283.2 K, 313.2 K and 353.2 K. SWCNH (0.01 wt.%) 283.2 K Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8) 313.2 K Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8) 353.2 K Eq. (1) Eq. (2) Eq. (3) Eq. (4) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8) 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.3 2.7 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 4.4 4.4 4.4 2.8 2.7 2.6 5.8 SWCNH (0.1 wt.%) 11.9 13.0 13.4 0.1 0.3 1.4 2.0 15.4 16.5 16.9 1.7 1.8 3.0 1.1 18.9 20.0 20.5 9.5 9.7 10.9 4.1 SWCNH (1 wt.%) 94.4 351.1 226.3 10.4 8.2 2.3 2.5 90.8 342.6 220.1 13.4 11.3 1.1 0.6 73.7 303.0 191.5 17.6 15.6 5.9 8.4 TiO2 (0.01 wt.%) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 3.8 3.8 3.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 3.2 7.5 7.5 7.5 5.4 5.3 5.3 8.0 TiO2 (0.1 wt.%) 5.6 5.9 6.0 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.2 8.1 8.4 8.5 0.1 0.6 1.0 2.5 3.4 3.7 3.8 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.9 TiO2 (1 wt.%) 54.2 97.8 94.9 5.4 9.9 4.2 4.2 50.4 92.9 90.0 9.2 5.6 0.1 1.6 25.7 61.3 58.9 20.6 7.7 12.6 15.0

71

For the same base uid and nanoparticle, this equation was regressed on the viscosity data at different temperatures (taken into account by means of the base uid viscosity at that temperature) and nanouid concentrations. The regressed parameters are summarised in Table 4. As shown in Figs. 9 and 10, and in Table 5, this equation well represents the experimental data. 4. Conclusions The knowledge of viscosity is important for its inuence on both the heat transfer and the energy required to pump the nanouid in the circuits where they are used as secondary uids. In this paper, viscosity data of two nanouids based on water and SWCNH and TiO2, respectively, are presented. These two uids, stabilized by addition of proper dispersants, were selected after careful analysis of the average nanoparticle dimensions in solution [14]. The experimental measurements were performed at atmospheric pressure and temperatures ranging between 283.2 K and 353.2 K. Both uids showed a Newtonian behaviour at each composition. Negligible variations on the viscosity of the nanouids in relation to water are observed at nanoparticles concentrations up to 0.1% in mass fraction. On the contrary, a signicant increase is measured for nanoparticles concentration of 1% in mass fraction. Part of this increment is due to the addition of the dispersants. Few theoretical models were applied to regress the experimental data, but they were found able to represent only nanouids with nanoparticle concentrations lower than 1 wt.%. Then, a new correlation was proposed to represent the experimental data for the SWCNH/water and TiO2/water nanouids. However, the opportunity to use these nanouids in practical applications is linked to their thermal and ow properties. In the near future, measurements of these properties will be performed to assess the overall gain in energy efciency achievable by using these nanouids instead of simple water as secondary uid. Acknowledgement The authors thank Mauro Scattolini for his fundamental help.

This work has been performed under the Industria 2015 funding of the Italian Ministry of Economic Development. References
[1] P. Keblinski, R. Prasher, J. Eapen, Nanopart Res. 10 (2008) 10891097. [2] W. Yu, D.M. France, J.L. Routbort, S.U.S. Choi, Heat Trans. Eng. 29 (2008) 432 460. [3] E.V. Timofeeva, J.L. Routbort, D. Singh, J. Appl. Phys. 106 (2009) 014304-1 014304-10. [4] R.E. Simons, Electron. Cooling 12 (2006) 2. [5] E.V. Timofeeva, W. Yu, D.M. France, D. Singh, J.L. Routbort, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 6 (2011) 182. [6] H. Chen, Y. Ding, A. Lapkin, Powder Tech. 194 (2009) 132141. [7] T.W. Phuoc, M. Massoudi, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 48 (2009) 12941301. [8] E. Natarajan, R. Sathish, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2009), doi:10.1007/ s00170-008-1876-8. [9] W. Jiang, G. Ding, H. Peng, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 48 (2009) 11081115. [10] M.N. Pantzali, A.A. Mouza, S.V. Paras, Chem. Eng. Sci. 64 (2009) 32903300. [11] M. Yudasaka, S. Iijima, V.H. Crespi, Top. Appl. Phys. 111 (2008) 605629. [12] S.U.S. Choi, Z.G. Zhang, W. Yu, F.E. Lockwood, E.A. Grulke, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79 (2001) 22522254. [13] J. Miyawaki, M. Yudasaka, T. Azami, Y. Kubo, S. Iijima, ACS Nano 2 (2008) 213 226. [14] L. Fedele, L. Colla, S. Bobbo, S. Barison, F. Agresti, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 6 (2011). [15] E.W. Lemmon, M.L. Huber, M.O. McLinden, Refprop, NIST Standard Reference Database 23, Version 8.0, Physical and Chemical Properties Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, CO., USA, 2007. [16] S. Sun, V. Nicolosi, D. Rickard, S.D. Bergin, D. Aherne, J.N. Coleman, J. Phys. Chem. C 112 (2008) 1069210699. [17] P. Alphonse, R. Bleta, R. Soules, J. Colloid. Interface Sci. 337 (2009) 8187. [18] H. Chen, Y. Ding, Y. He, C. Tan, Chem. Phys. Lett. 444 (2007) 333337. [19] F. Duan, D. Kwek, A. Crivoi, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 6 (2011) 248. [20] W. Tseng, K.-C. Lin, Mater. Sci. Eng. A335 (2003) 186192. [21] H. Chen, S. Witharana, Y. Jin, C. Kim, Y. Ding, Particuology 7 (2009) 151157. [22] A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 19 (1906) 289306. [23] H.C. Brinkman, J. Chem. Phys. 20 (1952) 571581. [24] G.K. Batchelor, J. Fluid Mech. 83 (1) (1977) 97117. [25] C.T. Nguyen, F. Desgranges, N. Galanis, G. Roy, T. Mar, S. Boucher, H. Angue Mintsa, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 47 (2008) 103111. [26] I.M. Krieger, T.-J. Dougherty, Trans. Soc. Rheol. 3 (1959) 137152. [27] B.X. Wang, L.P. Zhou, X.P. Peng, Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 46 (2003) 26652672. [28] C.W. Nam, R. Birringer, D.R. Clarke, H. Gleiter, J. Appl. Phys. 81 (1977) 6692 6699. [29] R. Prasher, P.E. Phelan, P. Bhattacharya, Nano Lett. 6 (2006) 15291534. [30] T. Kitano, T. Kataoka, T. Shirota, Rheol. Acta 20 (1981) 207209. [31] D.M. Liu, J. Mater. Sci. 35 (2000) 55035507.