Review of thermophysical properties, wetting and heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids and their applicability in industrial quench heat treatment
 Gopalan Ramesh^{1} and
 Narayan Kotekar Prabhu^{1}Email author
DOI: 10.1186/1556276X6334
© Ramesh and Prabhu; licensee Springer. 2011
Received: 4 November 2010
Accepted: 14 April 2011
Published: 14 April 2011
Abstract
The success of quenching process during industrial heat treatment mainly depends on the heat transfer characteristics of the quenching medium. In the case of quenching, the scope for redesigning the system or operational parameters for enhancing the heat transfer is very much limited and the emphasis should be on designing quench media with enhanced heat transfer characteristics. Recent studies on nanofluids have shown that these fluids offer improved wetting and heat transfer characteristics. Further waterbased nanofluids are environment friendly as compared to mineral oil quench media. These potential advantages have led to the development of nanofluidbased quench media for heat treatment practices. In this article, thermophysical properties, wetting and boiling heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids are reviewed and discussed. The unique thermal and heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids would be extremely useful for exploiting them as quench media for industrial heat treatment.
Introduction
Water, brine solution, oil, polymer etc. are used as conventional quenching media. Water and brine solution are restricted to quenching simple shapes and steels of comparatively low hardenability because of the occurrence of intolerable distortion, warpage and quench cracks [6]. On the other hand, convective cooling in oil is less intensive due to relatively high viscosity and lower heat capacity. A variety of different quenching oils tend to show a prolonged vapour blanket stage, a short nucleate boiling stage with a much lower cooling rate, and finally a prolonged convective cooling stage with a very modest cooling rate [1]. Polymer quenchants show low cooling rate and it cannot be used with some common additives and anti oxidants. Continuous monitoring of polymer quenchant is required for optimal performance and it is not suitable for steels requiring high temperature quenching [7]. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new type of quenchants capable of producing desired property distribution, acceptable microstructure and residual stress distribution in section thicknesses of interest with avoidance of cracking and reduced distortion.
Modern nanotechnology provides new opportunities to process and produce materials with average crystallite sizes below 50 nm [8]. The unique properties of these nanoparticles are (i) size dependent physical properties, (ii) large surface area, (iii) large number density and (iv) surface structure [9]. Fluids with nanoparticles suspended in them are called nanofluids [8]. Commonly used materials for nanoparticles are oxide ceramics (Al_{2}O_{3}, CuO), metal carbides (SiC), nitrides (AlN, SiN), metals (Al, Cu), nonmetals (graphite, carbon nanotubes), layered (Al+Al_{2}O_{3}, Cu+C), PCM and functionalized nanoparticles and the base fluids includes are water, Ethylene or triethylene glycols, oil, polymer solutions, biofluids and other common fluids [10]. There are mainly two techniques used to produce nanofluid: the singlestep and twostep method. Latter method is extensively used in the synthesis of nanofluids in which nanoparticles was first produced and then dispersed in the base fluids [8]. The properly prepared nanofluids are expected to give the benefits of (i) higher heat conduction, (ii) more stability, (iii) microchannel cooling without clogging, (iv) reduced chances of erosion and (v) reduction in pumping power [11]. The addition nanoparticles to the conventional fluids result in anomalous change in thermophysical properties of the fluid. Apart from that, the addition of nanoparticles affect the boiling behaviour at the surfaces as they fill up the discontinuity at the surfaces and probably affect the critical heat flux. Nanofluids can be considered to be the next generation heat transfer fluids as they offer exciting new possibilities to enhance heat transfer performance compared to pure liquids. They are expected to have different properties related to heat transfer as compared to conventional fluids [8]. Nanofluids offer completely different behaviour of wetting kinetics and heat removal characteristics and these characteristics could be exploited in industrial heat treatment for quenching. The present article reviews important thermophysical properties, wetting and boiling heat transfer characteristics of the nanofluids. The importance of using nanofluids as effective quench media for hardening process during heat treatment is highlighted.
Discussion
Thermophysical properties of nanofluids
Thermal conductivity
Particle material  Particle size (nm)  Concentration (vol.%)  Thermal conductivity ratio (K_{eff}/K_{f})  Remarks  Reference 

Cu  100  2.507.50  1.241.78  Laurate salt Surfactant  [18] 
100200  0.05  1.116  Spherical and square  [19]  
Not available  0.05  1.036    
130200  0.05  1.085  Spherical and square  
75100  0.1  1.238  Spherical and square  
50100  0.1  1.238  Spherical and square  
100300  0.1  1.110  Spherical, square, and needle  
130300  0.2  1.097  Spherical  
200 × 500  0.2  1.132  Needle  
250  0.2  1.036  Spherical, square, and needle  
Ag  6070  0.001  1.30  30°C  [20] 
1.04  40°C  
815  0.100.39  1.031.11    [21]  
Au  1020  0.00013  1.03  30°C (citerate reduced)  [20] 
1.05  40°C (citerate reduced)  
0.00026  1.05  30°C (citerate reduced)  
1.08  60°C (citerate reduced)  
Fe  10  0.20.55  1.141.18    [22] 
Al_{2}Cu  30  1.02.0  1.481.98    [23] 
65  1.41.78    
104  1.351.60    
Ag_{2}Al  30  1.02.0  1.52.1    [23] 
80  1.41.9    
120  1.31.75    
CuO  36  5  1.6    [13] 
23.6  1.003.41  1.031.12    [24]  
23  4.509.70  1.181.36    [17]  
28.6  1.004.00  1.071.14  21°C  [25]  
1.221.26  36°C  
1.291.36  51°C  
  1.00  1.05    [26]  
25  0.030.30  1.041.12  pH = 3  [27]  
1.021.07  pH = 6  
29  2.006.00  1.351.36  28.9°C  [28]  
1.351.50  31.3°C  
1.381.51  33.4°C  
29  016  1.001.24    [29]  
Al_{2}O_{3}  13  1.304.30  1.1091.324  31.85°C  [30] 
1.1001.296  46.85°C  
1.0921.262  66.85°C  
38.4  1.004.30  1.031.10    [24]  
28  3.005.00  1.121.16    [17]  
60.4  1.805.00  1.071.21    [31]  
60.4  5.00  1.23    [32]  
38.4  1.004.00  1.021.09  21°C  [25]  
1.071.16  36°C  
1.101.24  51°C  
2756  1.6  1.10  Sodium dodeculbenzene sulfonate  [33]  
11  1.00  1.09  21°C  [34]  
1.15  71°C  
47  1.03  21°C  
1.10  71°C  
150  1.004  21°C  
1.09  71°C  
47  4.00  1.08  21°C  
1.29  71°C  
36  2.010.0  1.081.11  27.5°C  [28]  
1.151.22  32.5°C  
1.181.29  34.7°C  
3647  018  1.001.31    [29]  
SiO_{2}  12  1.102.30  1.0101.011  31.85°C  [30] 
1.0091.010  46.85°C  
1.102.40  1.0051.007  66.85°C  
  1.00  1.03    [26]  
1520  1.004.00  1.021.05    [21]  
TiO_{2}  27  3.254.30  1.0801.105  31.85°C  [30] 
1.0841.108  46.85°C  
1.0751.099  86.85°C  
15  0.505.00  1.051.30  Sphere (CTAB)  [35]  
10 × 40  1.081.33  Rod (CTAB)  
SiC  26  4.2  1.158  Sphere  [36] 
600  4.00  1.229  Cylinder  
MWCNT  15 × 30000  0.401.00  1.031.07    [37] 
100 × >50000  0.60  1.38  Sodium dodecyl sulfate  [38]  
2060 dia  0.040.84  1.041.24  Sodium dodecyl benzene 20°C  [39]  
1.051.31  Sodium dodecyl benzene 45°C  
130 × >10000  0.60  1.34  CATB  [40]  
  01 wt%  1.001.10  Gum Arabic 20°C  [41]  
1.001.30  Gum Arabic 25°C  
1.001.80  Gum Arabic 30°C  
  1.00  1.07    [26]  
  0.6  1.39  SDS 0.1 mass%  [42]  
1.23  SDS 0.5 m ass%  
1.30  SDS 2 mass%  
1.28  SDS 3 mass%  
1.19  CTAB 0.1 mass%  
1.34  CTAB 1 mass%  
1.34  CTAB 3 mass%  
1.28  CTAB 6 mass%  
1.11  Triton 0.17 mass%  
1.12  Triton 0.35 mass%  
1.13  Triton 0.5 mass%  
1.11  Triton 1 mass%  
1.28  Nanosperse 0.7 mass%  
0.75  1.03  CTAB 1 mass%  
1.02  CTAB 3 mass%  
1  1.08  CTAB 5.5 mass% 
 I.
Brownian motion of nanoparticles: The Brownian motion of nanoparticles at the molecular and nanoscale level was a key mechanism governing the thermal behaviour of nanoparticlefluid suspensions [45]. The random motion of nanoparticles suspended in the fluid results in continuous collisions between the particles and molecules of bulk liquid thereby transport energy directly by nanoparticles. The impact of Brownian motion was more effective at higher temperatures [46]. The micro convection/mixing effect of the base fluid in the immediate vicinity of the nanoparticles caused by the Brownian motion was an important reason for the large thermal conductivity enhancement of nanofluids [47]. However, the Brownian motion contribution to the thermal conductivity of nanofluid was very small and cannot be responsible for extraordinary thermal transport properties of nanofluids [43, 48–50].
 II.
Liquid layering around nanoparticles: The ordered layering of liquid molecules at the solid particle surface forms solidlike nanolayer. This layer acts as a thermal bridge between the solid nanoparticles and the base liquid and plays an important role in the enhanced thermal conductivity of nanofluids [51–54]. The effective thermal conductivity increases with increase in nanolayer thickness. Especially in small particle size range, the effects of particle size and nanolayer thickness become much more obvious, which implies that manipulating nanolayer structure might be an effective method to produce highly thermally conductive nanofluids [55]. Although the presence of an interfacial layer may play a role in heat transport, it is not likely to be solely responsible for enhancement of thermal conductivity [43]. By using molecular dynamics simulations, Xue et al. demonstrated that the layering of the liquid atoms at the liquidsolid interface does not have any significant effect on thermal transport properties [58].
 III.
Nature of the heat transport in the nanoparticles: When the nanoparticle size becomes very small, the mean free path of phonon is comparable to the size of the particle. In that case diffusive thermal transport in nanoparticles is not valid and ballistic transport is more realistic. Keblinski et al. indicated that inside the solid particles, heat moves in a ballistic manner that involves multiple scattering from the solid/liquid interface, which plays a key role in translating fast thermal transport in particles into high overall conductivity of the nanofluids. They also suggested that particles may be much closer due to Brownian motion and thus enhance coherent phonon heat flow among the particles [43]. The estimated mean free path and the transition speed of phonons in nanofluids through density functional theory indicated that the speed of phonon transport will not be affected due to the existence of nanoparticles in the low volume fraction limit [59].
 IV.
Clustering of nanoparticles: Since nanoparticles in the fluid are in Brownian motion and the Van der Waals force against gravity results in clustering of nanoparticles into percolating patterns with lower thermal resistance paths. With decreasing packing fraction, the effective volume of the cluster increases thus enhancing the thermal conductivity. Clustering may also exert a negative effect on the heat transfer enhancement particularly at low volume fraction, by settling small particles out of the liquid and creating large regions of particle free liquid with high thermal resistance [43]. Using nonequilibrium molecular dynamics simulations, Eapen et al. showed that the thermal conductivity of a welldispersed nanofluid was enhanced beyond the 3φ Maxwell limit through a percolating amorphouslike fluid structure at the cluster interface [60]. Studies on clustering of nanoparticles in the fluids suggest varying values of thermal conductivities, i.e. enhanced, reduce and unchanged thermal conductivity of nanofluids [61–63]. Ozerinc et al. mentioned that there should be an optimum level of clustering for maximum thermal conductivity enhancement [44].
The experimentally measured thermal conductivities of nanofluids deviate from conventional models such as Maxwell, HamiltonCrosser, Jeffery, Davis, Bruggeman, Lu and Lin model. The important factors, which control the thermal conductivity of nanofluids, are particle volume concentration, particle material, particle size, particle shape, base fluid material, temperature, additive and acidity [17, 44]. Due to these complex variables and different mechanisms, the exact model for effective thermal conductivity of nanofluid is difficult. Yu and Choi have modified the Maxwell equation for the effective thermal conductivity of solid/liquid suspensions to include the effect of this ordered nanolayer [51]. Wang et al. proposed fractal model for liquid with dilute suspensions of nonmetallic nanoparticles, which involves the effective medium theory. The proposed model describes the nanoparticle clusters and their size distribution [64]. Xue presented a novel model considering the interface effect between the solid particles and the base fluid in nanofluids based on Maxwell theory and average polarization theory [65]. Jang and Choi devised a theoretical model that accounts for the role of Brownian motion of nanoparticles in nanofluid. This model also includes the concentration, temperature and size dependent conductivity [45]. By considering the particle dynamics (Brownian motion), Koo and Kleinstreuer expressed a model which consists of particle volume fraction, particle size, particle material and temperature dependence as well as properties of base liquid [46]. A comprehensive theoretical model has been developed by Kumar et al. which explains the enhancement in thermal conductivity of a nanofluid with respect to variation in particle size, particle volume fraction, and temperature [66]. Xue and Xu derived a model which consists of the thermal conductivity of the solid and liquid, their relative volume fraction, the particle size and interfacial properties [67]. Patel et al. introduced a concept of microconvection into Kumar et al. model for predicting the thermal conductivity accurately over a wide range of particle sizes (10 to 100 nm), particle concentrations (1 to 8%), particle materials (metal particles as well as metal oxides), different base fluids (water, ethylene glycol) and temperature (20 to 50°C) [68]. By considering the effect of the interfacial layer at the solid particle/liquid interface, Leong et al. proposed a model which accounts for the effects of particle size, interfacial layer thickness, volume fraction and thermal conductivity [54]. For carbon nanotube (CNT) nanofluids, Patel et al. presented a simple model which shows linear variation of the thermal conductivity of CNT nanofluid with volume concentration [69]. Feng et al. expressed a model as a function of the thermal conductivities of the base fluid and the nanoparticles, the volume fraction, fractal dimension for particles, the size of nanoparticles, and the temperature, as well as random number. Monte Carlo technique combined with fractal geometry theory is applied to predict the thermal conductivity of nanofluids [70]. Shukla and Dhir developed a microscopic model based on the theory of Brownian motion of nanoparticles in a fluid which account size of the particle and temperature [71]. Moghadassi et al. presented a novel model based on dimensionless groups which included the thermal conductivity of the solid and liquid, their volume fractions, particle size and interfacial shell properties. The proposed model creates a nonlinear relation between the effective thermal conductivity and nanoparticle volume fraction [72]. Wang et al. proposed a Novel Statistical Clustering Model to determine the macroscopic characteristics of clusters, and then, the thermal conductivity of a nanofluid [73]. Sitprasert et al. modified the Leong model inorder to predict both the temperature and the volume fraction dependence of the thermal conductivity of nanofluids for both nonflowing and flowing fluids [57]. Murugesan and Sivan developed lower and upper limits for thermal conductivity of nanofluids. The upper limit is estimated by coupling heat transfer mechanisms like particle shape, Brownian motion and nanolayer while the lower limit is based on Maxwell's equation [74]. Teng et al. proposed an empirical equation incorporating the nanoparticle size, temperature and lower weight fraction of Al_{2}O_{3}/water nanofluid [75]. By considering nanoparticles as liquidlike particles, Meibodi et al. expressed a model for estimation of upper and lower limits of nanofluid thermal conductivity [76].
Viscosity
Viscosity is an intrinsic property of a fluid that influences flow and heat transfer phenomena. The addition of nanoparticles to the base fluid shows Newtonian and/or NonNewtonian behaviour depending on the volume percentage of particles, temperature and methods used to disperse and stabilize the nanoparticle suspension [41, 77–79]. The effective viscosity of nanofluid increases by increasing concentration of particles and decreases with increase in temperature [14, 41, 78, 80–82]. The effective viscosity of fluid containing a dilute suspension of small particles is given by Einstein's equation. Mooney extended Einstein equation to apply to a suspension of finite concentration [83]. Later Brinkman modified the Einstein equation to more generalized form [84]. However, the experimentally measured nanofluids viscosities deviate from the classical model because these models relate viscosity as a function of volume concentration only and there is no consideration of temperature dependence and particle aggregation [77]. Pak and Cho measured viscosities of the dispersed fluids with γAl_{2}O_{3} and TiO_{2} particles at a 10% volume concentration and were approximately 200 and 3 times greater than that of water [81]. Wang et al. observed 20 to 30% increase in viscosity of water when 3 vol.% Al_{2}O_{3} nanoparticles is added to water [14]. Das et al. measured the viscosity of waterbased Al_{2}O_{3} nanofluids at 1 and 4 vol.%. They found that the increase of viscosity with particles concentration but the fluid remains Newtonian in nature [78]. Experimental studies on CNT nanofluid by Ding et al. [41] found the shear thinning behaviour at low shear rates but slight shear thickening at shear rates greater than 200s^{1}. Kulkarni et al. investigated the rheological behaviour of copper oxide (CuO) nanoparticles of 29 nm average diameter dispersed in deionized (DI) water over a range of volumetric solids concentrations of 5 to 15% and temperatures varying from 278 to 323 K. These experiments showed that nanofluids exhibited timeindependent pseudoplastic and shearthinning behaviour. The suspension viscosities of nanofluids decrease exponentially with respect to the shear rate [79]. Similarly Namburu et al. showed the nonNewtonian behaviour at subzero temperatures below 10°C and Newtonian behaviour above 10°C in SiO_{2} nanofluid [77]. Chen et al. categorized the rheological behaviour of nanofluids into four groups as dilute nanofluids, semidilute nanofluids, semiconcentrated nanofluids, concentrated nanofluids [85]. Xinfang et al. measured the viscosity of CuH_{2}O nanofluid by using capillary viscometers and results showed that the temperature and sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS) concentration are the major factors affecting the viscosity of the nanocopper suspensions, while the effect of the mass fraction of Cu on the viscosity is not as obvious as that of the temperature and SDBS dispersant for the mass fraction chosen in the experiment [86]. Recently Masoumi et al. introduces a new theoretical model for the prediction of the effective viscosity of nanofluids based on Brownian motion. This model could calculate the effective viscosity as a function of the temperature, the mean particle diameter, the nanoparticle volume fraction, the nanoparticle density and the base fluid physical properties [87].
Specific heat
Research work on the specific heat of nanofluids is limited compared to that on thermal conductivity and viscosity. The specific heat of nanofluid depends on the specific heat of base fluid and nanoparticle, volume concentration of nanoparticles, temperature of the fluids and the literature suggests that the specific heat of nanofluid decreases with an increase in the volume concentration and increases with temperature [88–90].
Density
where ϕ is the volume fraction of the nanoparticles, ρ_{p} is the density of the nanoparticles and ρ_{w} is the density of the base fluid. Sundar et al. estimated the densities of nanofluids at different temperatures. The density was found to decrease with increase in temperature [92]. Similarly Harkirat measured the density of Al_{2}O_{3} nanoparticles dispersed in water using specific gravity bottles at different ranges of temperature (30 to 90°C) and different concentrations of nanofluids (1 to 4%). He observed that density of nanofluids is higher than the base fluids and increase with increase in volume fraction of nanoparticles from 1 to 4%. The density of nanofluids decreases with increase in temperature upto about 80°C. Beyond this value, densities of 1 to 4% nanofluids remained nearly constant but still were more than that of water [93].
Surface tension
Surface tension is defined as the force acting over the surface of the liquid per unit length of the surface perpendicular to the force. Surface tension has a significant influence on the boiling process since bubble departure and interfacial equilibrium depends on it [94]. Surface tension of nanofluids prepared by without addition of any surfactant was found to differ minimally whereas addition of surfactant during preparation of nanofluids affect significantly [78, 95, 96]. The surfactant behaves like an interfacial shell between the nanoparticles and base fluids and modifies the surface tension of nanofluids [97]. Surface tension decreases with increases in concentration of nanoparticle and temperature [98–100].
Wetting characteristics of Nanofluids
The presence of nanoparticles affects the spreading and wettability of base fluids because of additional particleparticle, particlesolid and particlefluid interactions [106]. Two important phenomena for the enhancement of wetting behaviour of nanofluid are (i) solid like ordering of nanoparticles in the vicinity of threephase contact region and (ii) deposition of nanoparticles during boiling. Simulations study by Boda et al. on hard spheres in a wedgeshaped cell reported formation of new layers of hard spheres between the walls of the wedge [107]. Wasan and Nikolov directly observed the particlestructuring phenomenon in the liquid filmmeniscus region by using reflectedlight digital video microscopy [108]. The layering arrangement of the particles gives rise to an excess pressure in the film, the structural disjoining pressure which has an oscillatory decay profile with the film thickness. A result of such a structure force is that nanodispersions could exhibit improved spreading/wetting capabilities at a confined space [109]. The pool boiling studies on nanofluid shows deposition of porous layer of nanoparticle on the heater surface. The reason for this porous layer formation could be microlayer evaporation with subsequent settlement of the nanoparticles initially contained in it. The nanoparticles deposition improves the wettability of the surface considerably [95].
Boiling heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids
The alteration of thermophysical properties, especially the enhancement of the thermal conductivity, of the nanofluid and different heat transfer mechanisms are expected to have a significant effect on heat transfer characteristics. Xuan and Li [18] listed the following five reasons for improved heat transfer performance of the fluid by suspending nanophase particles in heating or cooling fluids: (i) the suspended nanoparticles increase the surface area and the heat capacity of the fluid, (ii) the suspended nanoparticles increase the effective (or apparent) thermal conductivity of the fluid, (iii) the interaction and collision among particles, fluid and the flow passage surface are intensified, (iv) the mixing fluctuation and turbulence of the fluid are intensified and (v) the dispersion of nanoparticles flattens the transverse temperature gradient of the fluid. Experiments on two phase (boiling) heat transfer of nanofluid shows different behaviour. Das et al. conducted experiments to study the pool boiling in waterAl_{2}O_{3} nanofluid with different particle concentration, heater diameter and surface roughness. The results indicate that the nanoparticles have pronounced and significant influence on the boiling process deteriorating the boiling characteristics of the fluid. The deterioration in boiling performance was observed to be more drastic at a higher surface roughness. It has been observed that the shift of the curve to the right is not proportional to the particle concentration and it is strongly dependent on the tube diameter even for the similar values of surface roughness [78, 113]. Zhou observed a reduction in pool boiling heat transfer of nanofluids [114]. Similarly Bang and Chang also observed that the addition of alumina nanoparticles caused a decrease of the pool nucleate boiling heat transfer. The heat transfer coefficient was decreased by increasing the particle concentration. On the other hand, CHF performance has been enhanced to 32 and 13%, respectively, for both horizontal flat surface and vertical flat surface in the pool [115]. You et al. observed the addition of nanoparticles to the water have no significant effect on nucleate pool boiling heat transfer. However, the measured pool boiling curves of nanofluids saturated at 60°C have demonstrated that the CHF increases dramatically (approx. 200% increase) compared to pure water [116]. Similarly pool boiling experiment on watersilica nanofluids by Vassallo et al. observed that no improvement in pool boiling heat transfer but the CHF increased by about three times. They observed the formation of a silica coating over the heater surface [117]. Wen and Ding observed a significant enhancement in the pool boiling heat transfer of alumina nanofluids. The enhancement increases with increasing particle concentration and reaches approximately 40% at a particle loading of 1.25% by weight [118]. Kim et al. showed 200% enhancement of CHF of nanofluids on a bare heater compared to that of pure water by increasing nanoparticle concentration. SEM images of the heater surface taken after pool boiling CHF tests revealed that CHF enhancement of nanofluids was closely related to the surface microstructure and enhanced topography resulting from the deposition of nanoparticles [119]. Kim et al. reported that the formation of the porous nanoparticle layer during the nucleate boiling is a plausible mechanism for enhancement of CHF [95]. The nucleate boiling heat transfer experiments of waterCuO nanoparticles by Liu et al. showed that the both boiling heat transfer coefficient and CHF of the nanofluids increase with the increase of the mass concentration. However, when the concentration (optimum mass concentration) is over 1 wt%, the CHF is basically close to a constant value, and the heat transfer deteriorates gradually. They also found that the boiling heat transfer of the nanofluid on the smooth surface is almost the same with that of water on the smooth surface at atmospheric pressure whereas boiling heat transfer of the nanofluids on the grooved surface increases remarkably [120]. Kathiravan et al. observed the enhancement of heat transfer coefficient during the pool boiling of waterCNT nanofluids of 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0% concentration by volume of CNT by 1.76, 1.203 and 1.20 times greater than that of heat transfer coefficient of water, respectively, at the critical heat flux. They also observed that there is no fouling over the testsection [121]. Another study by Park et al. shows that the pool boiling heat transfer coefficients of the aqueous solutions with CNTs are lower than those of pure water in the entire nucleate boiling regime but the CHF increased up to 200% as compared to that of pure water. They observed the deposition of a thin film of CNTs on the surface and decrease in the contact angle [122]. So, it is clear that the CHF during pool boiling of nanofluids increased even when the pool boiling heat transfer of nanofluid may decrease or remain unchanged.
During quench hardening process, the surface heat transfer conditions between the steel part and the quenchant are the most important factors controlling the microstructural evolution, generation of stresses and distortion [1]. Kobasko showed that very fast and uniform part cooling within the martensitic range actually reduces the probability of part cracking and distortion, while improving the surface hardness and durability of steel parts [123]. The enhanced CHF of the nanofluids during pool boiling revealed that nanofluids may be suitable for cooling at high heat flux applications [124]. According to Kim et al. the use of nanofluids can afford a significant acceleration of quenching by means of premature destabilization of film boiling due to nanoparticle deposition [125]. The quenching of 304 stainless steel probe into different concentration of nanofluids yielded varying peak heat transfer coefficient (HTC) and Grossmann severity of quenching [126]. Jagannath and Prabhu measured the interfacial peak HTC of water was 1280 W/m^{2} K and the peak HTC decreased from 1400 to 965 W/m^{2} K with increases in Al_{2}O_{3} nanoparticle concentration from 0.01 to 4 wt% when copper is quenched [103]. Similarly Babu and Kumar observed that the peak heat flux during quenching in CNT nanofluids increases with an increase in the CNT concentration until 0.50 wt.% and starts decreasing with further increase in the CNT concentration [105]. These results suggest that for the same base fluid there is an optimum level of nanoparticle concentration to enhance/decrease the heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids. The enhancement and deterioration of pool boiling heat transfer of nanofluids could be utilized in quenching heat treatment in two ways either to promote or decrease the rate of heat transfer depending upon the section thickness of the part to be heat treated and the desired microstructure. Hence there is a need for development of nanofluids having (i) high quench severity for enhancement of heat transfer for thick sections with low quench sensitivity and (ii) low cooling severity for thin sections with high quench sensitivity [127].
Effect of addition of nanoparticles on microstructure and mechanical properties of components
Summary
Heat transfer and wetting kinematics are the two important phenomena during quenching that controls the final metallurgical and mechanical properties of the components. Judicious selection of quench medium is critical for obtaining optimum mechanical properties, avoiding quench cracks, minimizing distortion and improving reproducibility in hardening. The addition of nanoparticles to the conventional quenching fluid results in anomalous change in thermophysical properties of the fluid, enhanced critical heat flux during boiling heat transfer, improved wetting characteristics and improved metallurgical and mechanical properties. By exploiting these potential advantages of nanofluids, preparation of a spectrum of quench media, known as nanoquenchants, with varying cooling severity would be extremely useful for industrial heat treatment.
Abbreviations
 CuO:

copper oxide
 DI:

deionized
 HTC:

heat transfer coefficient
 SDBS:

sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate.
Declarations
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Gur CH, Pan J: Handbook of Thermal Process Modeling of Steels. New York: CRC Press Publication; 2008.Google Scholar
 Liscic B, Tensi HM, Luty W: Theory and Technology of Quenching. A Handbook. Berlin; SpringerVerlag Publication; 1992.Google Scholar
 Hall DD, Mudawar I: Experimental and numerical study of quenching complexshaped metallic alloys with multiple, overlapping sprays. Int J Heat Mass Transf 1995, 38: 1201–1216. 10.1016/00179310(94)00244PGoogle Scholar
 Hernandez HJV, Morales BH: A novel probe design to study wetting front kinematics during forced convective quenching. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2009, 33: 797–807. 10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2009.02.007Google Scholar
 Liscic B: State of the art in quenching. In Quenching and Carburizing. Proceedings of the Third International Seminar of the International Federation for Heat Treatment and Surface Engineering. Edited by: Hodgson P. Melbourne: The Institute of Materials; 1993.Google Scholar
 ASM Handbook: Heat Treating. Volume 4. Materials Park: ASM International Handbook Committee; 1991.Google Scholar
 Edens M: Understanding quenchants and their effects.2006. (March 15, 2010) [http://www.industrialheating.com/Articles/Feature_Article/f2f07ea381d1a010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0] (March 15, 2010)Google Scholar
 Wang XQ, Mujumdar AS: Heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids: a review. Int J Therm Sci 2007, 46: 1–19. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2006.06.010Google Scholar
 Choi SUS: Two are better than one in nanofluids.2001. [http://microtherm.snu.ac.kr/workshop/workshop/Colloquium_2002/Colloquium_2002_12.pdf] (January 05, 2010)Google Scholar
 Kostic M: Nanofluids: advanced flow and heat transfer fluids.2006. [http://www.kostic.niu.edu/DRnanofluids/nanofluidsKostic.ppt] (February 10,2010)Google Scholar
 Das SR, Choi SUS, Patel HE: Heat transfer in nanofluidsa review. Heat Transf Eng 2006, 27: 3–19. 10.1080/01457630600904593Google Scholar
 Choi SUS: Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles. In Developments and Applications of NonNewtonian Flows. FEDvol.231/MDvol. 66. Washington: ASME; 1995:99–105.Google Scholar
 Eastman JA, Choi SUS, Li S, Thompson LJ, Lee S: Enhanced thermal conductivity through the development of nanofluids. In Materials Research Society Symposium  Proceedings, Materials Research Society. Volume 457. Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Boston, MA, USA; 1997:3–11. 10.1557/PROC4573Google Scholar
 Wang X, Xu X, Choi SUS: Thermal conductivity of nanoparticlefluid mixture. J Thermophys Heat Transf 1999, 13: 474–480. 10.2514/2.6486Google Scholar
 Choi SUS, Zhang ZG, Yu W, Lockwood FE, Grulke EA: Anomalous thermal conductivity enhancement in nanotube suspensions. Appl Phys Lett 2001, 79: 2252–2254. 10.1063/1.1408272Google Scholar
 Marquis FDS, Chibante LPF: Improving the heat transfer of nanofluids and nanolubricants with carbon nanotubes. J Miner Met Mater Soc 2005, 57: 32–43.Google Scholar
 Yu W, France DM, Routbort JL, Choi SUS: Review and comparison of nanofluid thermal conductivity and heat transfer enhancements. Heat Transf Eng 2008, 29: 432–460. 10.1080/01457630701850851Google Scholar
 Xuan Y, Li Q: Heat transfer enhancement of nanofluids. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2000, 21: 58–64. 10.1016/S0142727X(99)000673Google Scholar
 Liu MS, Lin MCC, Tsai CY, Wang CC: Enhancement of thermal conductivity with Cu for nanofluids using chemical reduction method. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2006, 49: 3028–3033. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2006.02.012Google Scholar
 Patel HE, Das SK, Sundararajan T, Nair AS, George B, Pradeep T: Thermal conductivity of naked and monolayer protected metal nanoparticle based nanofluids: manifestation of anomalous enhancement and chemical effects. Appl Phys Lett 2003, 83: 2931–2933. 10.1063/1.1602578Google Scholar
 Kang HU, Kim SH, Oh JM: Estimation of thermal conductivity of nanofluid using experimental effective particle volume. Exp Heat Transf 2006, 19: 181–191. 10.1080/08916150600619281Google Scholar
 Hong TK, Yang HS: Nanoparticledispersiondependent thermal conductivity in nanofluids. J Korean Phys Soc 2005, 47: S321S324.Google Scholar
 Chopkar M, Sudarshan S, Das PK, Manna I: Effect of particle size on thermal conductivity of nanofluid. Metall Mater Trans A 2008, 39: 1535–1542. 10.1007/s1166100794447Google Scholar
 Lee S, Choi SUS, Li S, Eastman JA: Measuring thermal conductivity of fluids containing oxide nanoparticles. Trans ASME J Heat Transf 1999, 121: 280–289. 10.1115/1.2825978Google Scholar
 Das SK, Putra N, Thiesen P, Roetzel W: Temperature dependence of thermal conductivity enhancement for nanofluids. Trans ASME J Heat Transf 2003, 125: 567–574. 10.1115/1.1571080Google Scholar
 Hwang Y, Park HS, Lee JK, Jung WH: Thermal conductivity and lubrication characteristics of nanofluids. Curr Appl Phys 2006, 6: e67e71. 10.1016/j.cap.2005.07.021Google Scholar
 Lee D, Kim JW, Kim BG: A new parameter to. control heat transport in nanofluids: surface charge state of the particle in suspension. J Phys Chem B 2006, 110: 4323–4328. 10.1021/jp057225mGoogle Scholar
 Li CH, Peterson GP: Experimental investigation of temperature and volume fraction variations on the effective thermal conductivity of nanoparticle suspensions (nanofluids). J Appl Phys 2006, 99: 1–8.Google Scholar
 Mintsa HA, Roy G, Nguyen CT, Doucet D: New temperature dependent thermal conductivity data for water based nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci 2009, 48: 363–371. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2008.03.009Google Scholar
 Masuda H, Ebata A, Teramae K, Hishinuma N: Alternation of thermal conductivity and viscosity of liquid by dispersing ultrafine particles (dispersion of γAl_{2}O_{3}, SiO_{2}and TiO_{2}ultrafine particles). Netsu Bussei 1993, 4: 227–233.Google Scholar
 Xie H, Wang J, Xi T, Liu Y, Ai F, Wu Q: Thermal conductivity enhancement of. suspensions containing nanosized alumina particles. J Appl Phys 2002, 91: 4568–4572. 10.1063/1.1454184Google Scholar
 Xie H, Wang J, Xi T, Liu Y, Ai F: Dependence of the thermal conductivity of nanoparticlefluid mixture on the base fluid. J Mater Sci Lett 2002, 21: 1469–1471. 10.1023/A:1020060324472Google Scholar
 Wen D, Ding Y: Experimental investigation into convective heat transfer of nanofluids at the entrance. Region under laminar flow conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2004, 47: 5181–5188. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2004.07.012Google Scholar
 Chon CH, Kihm KD, Lee SP, Choi SUS: Empirical correlation finding the role of temperature and particle size for nanofluids (Al_{2}O_{3}) thermal conductivity enhancement. Appl Phys Lett 2005, 87: 1–3. 10.1063/1.2093936Google Scholar
 Murshed SMS, Leong KC, Yang C: Enhanced thermal conductivity of TiO2water based nanofluids. Int J Thermal Sci 2005, 44: 367–373. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2004.12.005Google Scholar
 Xie H, Wang J, Xi T, Liu Y: Thermal conductivity of suspensions containing conductivity of suspensions containing nanosized SiC particles. Int J Thermophys 2002, 23: 571–580. 10.1023/A:1015121805842Google Scholar
 Xie H, Lee H, Youn W, Choi M: Nanofluids containing multiwalled carbon nanotubes and their enhanced thermal conductivities. J ApplPhys 2003, 94: 4967–4971. 10.1063/1.1613374Google Scholar
 Assael MJ, Chen CF, Metaxa I, Wakeham WA: Thermal conductivity of suspensions of carbon nanotubes in water. Int J Thermophys 2004, 25: 971–985. 10.1023/B:IJOT.0000038494.22494.04Google Scholar
 Wen D, Ding Y: Effective thermal conductivity of aqueous suspensions of carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotube nanofluids). J Thermophys Heat Transf 2004, 18: 481–485. 10.2514/1.9934Google Scholar
 Assael MJ, Metaxa IN, Arvanitidis J, Christofilos D, Lioutas C: Thermal conductivity enhancement in aqueous suspensions of carbon multiwalled and doublewalled nanotubes in the presence of two different dispersants. Int J Thermophys 2005, 26: 647–664. 10.1007/s1076500555693Google Scholar
 Ding Y, Alias H, Wen D, Williams RA: Heat transfer of aqueous suspensions of carbon nanotubes (CNT nanofluids). Int J Heat Mass Transf 2006, 49: 240–250. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2005.07.009Google Scholar
 Assael MJ, Metaxa IN, Kakosimos K, Constantinou D: Thermal conductivity of nanofluidsexperimental and theoretical. Int J Thermophys 2006, 27: 999–1017. 10.1007/s1076500600786Google Scholar
 Keblinski P, Phillpot SR, Choi SUS, Eastman JA: Mechanisms of heat flow in suspensions of nanosized particles (nanofluids). Int J Heat Mass Transf 2002, 45: 855–863. 10.1016/S00179310(01)001752Google Scholar
 Ozerinc S, Kakac S, Yazıcıoglu AG: Enhanced thermal conductivity of nanofluids: a stateoftheart review. Microfluid Nanofluid 2010, 8: 145–170. 10.1007/s1040400905244Google Scholar
 Jang SP, Choi SUS: Role of Brownian motion in the enhanced thermal conductivity of nanofluids. Applied Physics Letters 2004, 84: 4316–4318. 10.1063/1.1756684Google Scholar
 Koo J, Kleinstreuer C: A new thermal conductivity model for nanofluids. J Nanopart Res 2004, 6: 577–588. 10.1007/s1105100431705Google Scholar
 Li CH, Peterson GP: Mixing effect on the enhancement of the effective thermal conductivity of nanoparticle suspensions (nanofluids). Int J Heat Mass Transf 2007, 50: 4668–4677. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.03.015Google Scholar
 Gupta A, Wu X, Kumar R: Possible mechanisms for thermal conductivity enhancement in nanofluids. In Fourth International Conference on Nanochannels, Microchannels and Minichannels. Limerick, Ireland; 2006.Google Scholar
 Vladkov M, Barrat JL: Modeling transient absorption and thermal conductivity in a simple nanofluid. Nano Lett 2006, 6: 1224–1228. 10.1021/nl060670oGoogle Scholar
 Evans W, Fish J, Keblinski P: Role of Brownian motion hydrodynamics on nanofluid thermal conductivity. Appl Phys Lett 2006, 88: 093116. (3 Pages) (3 Pages) 10.1063/1.2179118Google Scholar
 Yu W, Choi SUS: The role of interfacial layers in the enhanced thermal conductivity of nanofluids: a renovated Maxwell model. J Nanopart Res 2003, 5: 167–171. 10.1023/A:1024438603801Google Scholar
 Yu W, Choi SUS: The role of interfacial layers in the enhanced thermal conductivity of nanofluids: a renovated HamiltonCrosser model. J Nanopart Res 2004, 6: 355–361. 10.1007/s1105100426017Google Scholar
 Shukla RK, Dhir VK: Numerical study of the effective thermal conductivity of nanofluids. In Proceedings of the ASME Summer Heat Transfer, July 17–22. San Francisco, California, USA; 2005.Google Scholar
 Leong KC, Yang C, Murshed SMS: A model for the thermal conductivity of nanofluids  the effect of interfacial layer. J Nanopart Res 2006, 8: 245–254. 10.1007/s1105100590189Google Scholar
 Xie H, Fujii M, Zhang X: Effect of interfacial nanolayer on the effective thermal conductivity of nanoparticlefluid mixture. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2005, 48: 2926–2932. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2004.10.040Google Scholar
 Tillman P, Hill JM: Determination of nanolayer thickness for a nanofluid. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2007, 34: 399–407. 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2007.01.011Google Scholar
 Sitprasert C, Dechaumphai P, Juntasaro V: A thermal conductivity model for nanofluids including effect of the temperaturedependent interfacial layer. J Nanopart Res 2009, 11: 1465–1476. 10.1007/s1105100895354Google Scholar
 Xue L, Keblinski , Phillpot SR, Choi SUS, Eastman JA: Effect of liquid layering at the liquidsolid interface on thermal transport. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2004, 47: 4277–4284. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2004.05.016Google Scholar
 Nie C, Marlow WH, Hassan YA: Discussion of proposed mechanisms of thermal conductivity enhancement in nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2008, 51: 1342–1348. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.11.034Google Scholar
 Eapen J, Li J, Yip S: Beyond the Maxwell limit: thermal conduction in nanofluids with percolating fluid structures. Phys Rev E 2007, 76: 062501. (4 pages) (4 pages) 10.1103/PhysRevE.76.062501Google Scholar
 Evans W, Prasher R, Fish J, Meakin P, Phelan P: Effect of aggregation and interfacial thermal resistance on thermal conductivity of nanocomposites and colloidal nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2008, 51: 1431–1438. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.10.017Google Scholar
 Wu C, Cho TJ, Xu J, Lee D, Yang B, Zachariah MR: Effect of nanoparticle clustering on the effective thermal conductivity of concentrated silica colloids. Phys Rev E 2010, 81: 011406. (7 pages) (7 pages) 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.011406Google Scholar
 Wong KV, Castillo MJ: Heat transfer mechanisms and clustering in nanofluids. Adv Mech Eng 2010, 2010: 1–9.Google Scholar
 Wang BX, Zhou LP, Peng XP: A fractal model for predicting the effective thermal conductivity of liquid with suspension of nanoparticles. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2003, 46: 2665–2672. 10.1016/S00179310(03)000164Google Scholar
 Xue QZ: Model for effective thermal conductivity of nanofluids. Phys Lett A 2003, 307: 313–317. 10.1016/S03759601(02)017280Google Scholar
 Kumar DH, Patel HE, Kumar VRR, Sundararajan T, Pradeep T, Das SK: Model for heat conduction in nanofluids. Phys Rev Lett 2004, 93: 1–4. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.144301Google Scholar
 Xue Q, Xu WM: A model of thermal conductivity of nanofluids with interfacial shells. Mater Chem Phys 2005, 90: 298–301. 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2004.05.029Google Scholar
 Patel HE, Sundararajan T, Pradeep T, Dasgupta A, Dasgupta N, Das SK: A microconvection model for thermal conductivity of nanofluids. Pramana J Phys 2005, 65: 863–869. 10.1007/BF02704086Google Scholar
 Patel HE, Anoop KB, Sundararajan T, Das SK: Model for thermal conductivity of CNTnanofluids. Bull Mater Sci 2008, 31: 387–390. 10.1007/s120340080060yGoogle Scholar
 Feng Y, Yu B, Fen K, Xu P, Zou M: Thermal conductivity of nanofluids and size distribution of nanoparticles by Monte Carlo simulations. J Nanopart Res 2008, 10: 1319–1328. 10.1007/s1105100893636Google Scholar
 Shukla RK, Dhir VK: Effect of Brownian motion on thermal conductivity of nanofluids. J Heat Transf 2008, 130: 1–13. 10.1115/1.2818768Google Scholar
 Moghadassi AR, Hosseini SM, Henneke D, Elkamel A: A model of nanofluids effective thermal conductivity based on dimensionless groups. J Therm Anal Calorim 2009, 96: 81–84. 10.1007/s109730089843zGoogle Scholar
 Wang BX, Sheng WY, Peng XF: A novel statistical clustering model for predicting thermal conductivity of nanofluid. Int J Thermophys 2009, 30: 1992–1998. 10.1007/s1076500906734Google Scholar
 Murugesan C, Sivan S: Limits for thermal conductivity of nanofluids. Therm Sci 2010, 14: 65–71. 10.2298/TSCI1001065MGoogle Scholar
 Teng TP, Hunga YH, Tengb TC, Moa HE, Hsua HG: The effect of alumina/water nanofluid particle size on thermal conductivity. Appl Therm Eng 2010, 30: 2213–2218. 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.05.036Google Scholar
 Meibodi ME, Sefti MV, Rashidi AM, Amrollahi A, Tabasi M, Kalal HS: Simple model for thermal conductivity of nanofluids using resistance model approach. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2010, 37: 555–559. 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2009.12.010Google Scholar
 Namburu PK, Kulkarni DP, Dandekar A, Das DK: Experimental investigation of viscosity and specific heat of silicon dioxide nanofluids. Micro & Nano Lett 2007, 2: 67–71. 10.1049/mnl:20070037Google Scholar
 Das SK, Putra N, Roetzel W: Pool boiling characteristics of nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2003, 46: 851–862. 10.1016/S00179310(02)003484Google Scholar
 Kulkarni DP, Das DK, Chukwu GA: Temperature dependent rheological property of copper oxide nanoparticles suspension (nanofluid). J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2006, 6: 1150–1154. 10.1166/jnn.2006.187Google Scholar
 Turgut A, Tavman I, Chirtoc M, Schuchmann HP, Sauter C, Tavman S: Thermal conductivity and viscosity measurements of waterbased TiO_{2}nanofluids. Int J Thermophys 2009, 30: 1213–1226. 10.1007/s1076500905942Google Scholar
 Pak BC, Cho YI: Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed fluids with submicron metallic oxide particles. Exp Heat Transf 1998, 11: 151–170. 10.1080/08916159808946559Google Scholar
 Tavman I, Turgut A, Chirtoc M, Schuchmann HP, Tavman S: Experimental investigation of viscosity and thermal conductivity of suspensions containing nanosized ceramic particles. Arch Mater Sci Eng 2008, 34: 99–104.Google Scholar
 Mooney M: The viscosity of a concentrated suspension of spherical particles. J Colloid Sci 1951, 6: 162–170. 10.1016/00958522(51)900360Google Scholar
 Brinkman HC: The viscosity of concentrated suspensions and solutions. J Chem Phys 1952, 20: 571. 10.1063/1.1700493Google Scholar
 Chen H, Ding Y, Tan C: Rheological behaviour of nanofluids. New J Phys 2007, 9: 1–24. 10.1088/13672630/9/1/001Google Scholar
 Xinfang L, Dongsheng Z, Xianju W: Experimental investigation on viscosity of CuH_{2}O nanofluids. J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed 2009, 24: 48–52. 10.1007/s1159500910481Google Scholar
 Masoumi N, Sohrabi N, Behzadmehr A: A new model for calculating the effective viscosity of nanofluids. J Phys D Appl Phys 2009, 42: 1–6. 10.1088/00223727/42/5/055501Google Scholar
 Nelson IC, Banerjee D: Flow loop experiments using polyalphaolefin nanofluids. J Thermophys Heat Transf 2009, 23: 752–761. 10.2514/1.31033Google Scholar
 Zhou LP, Wang BX, Peng XF, Du XZ, Yang YP: On the specific heat capacity of CuO nanofluid. Adv Mech Eng 2010, 2010: 1–4.Google Scholar
 Vajjha RS, Das DK: Specific heat measurement of three nanofluids and development of new correlations. J Heat Transf 2009, 131: 1–7. 10.1115/1.3090813Google Scholar
 Xuan Y, Roetzel W: Conceptions for heat transfer correlation of nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2000, 43: 3701–3707. 10.1016/S00179310(99)003695Google Scholar
 Sundar LS, Ramanathan S, Sharma KV, Babu PS: Temperature dependent flow characteristics of Al_{2}O_{3}nanofluid. Int J Nanotechnol Appl 2007, 1: 35–44.Google Scholar
 Harkirat: Preparation and characterization of nanofluids and some investigation in biological applications. In Master of Technology in Chemical Engineering, Thesis Report. Thapar University, Patiala; 2010.Google Scholar
 Das SK, Narayan GP, Baby AK: Survey on nucleate pool boiling of nanofluids: the effect of particle size relative to roughness. J Nanopart Res 2008, 10: 1099–1108. 10.1007/s110510079348xGoogle Scholar
 Kim SJ, Bang IC, Buongiorno J, Hu LW: Surface wettability change during pool boiling of nanofluids and its effect on critical heat flux. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2007, 50: 4105–4116. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.02.002Google Scholar
 Pantzali MN, Kanaris AG, Antoniadis KD, Mouza AA, Paras SV: Effect of nanofluids on the performance of a miniature plate heat exchanger with modulated surface. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2009, 30: 691–699. 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2009.02.005Google Scholar
 Kathiravan R, Kumar R, Gupta A: Characterization and pool boiling heat transfer studies of nanofluids. J Heat Transf 2009, 131: 1–8. 10.1115/1.3111260Google Scholar
 Murshed SM, Tan SH, Nguyen NT: Temperature dependence of interfacial properties and viscosity of nanofluids for dropletbased microfluidics. J Phys D Appl Phys 2008, 41: 1–5.Google Scholar
 Jeong YH, Chang WJ, Chang SH: Wettability of heated surfaces under pool boiling using surfactant solutions and nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2008, 51: 3025–3031. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.09.023Google Scholar
 Peng H, Ding G, Hu H, Jiang W: Influence of carbon nanotubes on nucleate pool boiling heat transfer characteristics of refrigerantoil mixture. Int J Therm Sci 2010, 49: 2428–2438. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2010.06.025Google Scholar
 Avner SH: Introduction to Physical Metallurgy. New Delhi: Tata McGrawHill; 1997:271.Google Scholar
 Bolton W, Philip M: Technology of Engineering Materials. Oxford: ButtterworthHeinemann Publication; 2002:216.Google Scholar
 Jagannath V, Prabhu KN: Severity of quenching and kinetics of wetting of nanofluids. J ASTM Int 2009, 6: 1–9.Google Scholar
 Gestwa W, Przylecka M: The modification of sodium polyacrylate water solution cooling properties by Al_{2}O_{3}. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2010, 2010: 1–5. 10.1155/2010/949853Google Scholar
 Babua K, Prasanna Kumar TS: Effect of CNT concentration and agitation on surface heat flux during quenching in CNT nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2011, 54: 106–117. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2010.10.003Google Scholar
 Sefiane K, Skilling J, MacGillivray J: Contact line motion and dynamic wetting of nanofluid solutions. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2008, 138: 101–120. 10.1016/j.cis.2007.12.003Google Scholar
 Boda D, .Chan GKY, Henderson DJ, Wasan DT, Nikolov AD: Structure and pressure of a hard sphere fluid in a wedgeshaped cell or meniscus. Langmuir 1999, 15: 4311–4313. 10.1021/la981013hGoogle Scholar
 Wasan DT, Nikolov AD: Spreading of nanofluids on solids. Nature 2003, 423: 156–159. 10.1038/nature01591Google Scholar
 Wen D: Mechanisms of thermal nanofluids on enhanced critical heat flux (CHF). Int J Heat Mass Transf 2008, 51: 4958–4965. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2008.01.034Google Scholar
 Vafaei S, Tasciuc TB, Podowski MZ, Purkayastha A, Ramanath G, Ajayan PM: Effect of nanoparticles on sessile droplet contact angle. Nanotechnology 2006, 17: 2523–2527. 10.1088/09574484/17/10/014Google Scholar
 Kim SJ, Bang IC, Buongiorno J, Hu LW: Effects of nanoparticle deposition on surface wettability influencing boiling heat transfer in nanofluids. Appl Phys Lett 2006, 89: 1–3.Google Scholar
 Mehta B, Khandekar S: Twophase closed thermosyphon with nanofluids. 14th International Heat Pipe Conference, April 22–27, 2007, Florianopolis, Brazil 2007.Google Scholar
 Das SK, Putra N, Roetzel W: Pool boiling of nanofluids on horizontal narrow tubes. Int J Multiphase Flow 2003, 29: 1237–1247. 10.1016/S03019322(03)001058Google Scholar
 Zhou DW: Heat transfer enhancement of copper nanofluid with acoustic cavitation. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2004, 47: 3109–3117. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2004.02.018Google Scholar
 Bang IC, Chang SH: Boiling heat transfer performance and phenomena of Al_{2}O_{3}water nanofluids from a plain surface in a pool. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2005, 48: 2407–2419. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2004.12.047Google Scholar
 You SM, Kim JH, Kim KH: Effect of nanoparticles on critical heat flux of water in pool boiling heat transfer. Appl Phys Lett 2003, 83: 3374–3376. 10.1063/1.1619206Google Scholar
 Vassallo P, Kumar R, Amico SD: Pool boiling heat transfer experiments in silicawater nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2004, 47: 407–411. 10.1016/S00179310(03)003612Google Scholar
 Wen D, Ding Y: Experimental investigation into the pool boiling heat transfer of aqueous based γalumina nanofluids. J Nanopart Res 2005, 7: 265–274. 10.1007/s1105100534789Google Scholar
 Kim H, Kim J, Kim M: Experimental study on CHF characteristics of waterTiO_{2}nanofluids. Nuclear Eng Technol 2006, 38: 61–68.Google Scholar
 Liu Z, Xiong J, Bao R: Boiling heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids in a flat heat pipe evaporator with microgrooved heating surface. Int J Multiphase Flow 2007, 33: 1284–1295. 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2007.06.009Google Scholar
 Kathiravan R, Kumar R, Gupta A, Chandra R, Jain PK: Pool boiling characteristics of carbon nanotube based nanofluids over a horizontal tube. J Therm Sci Eng Appl 2009, 1: 1–7.Google Scholar
 Park KJ, Jung D, Shim SE: Nucleate boiling heat transfer in aqueous solutions with carbon nanotubes up to critical heat fluxes. Int J Multiphase Flow 2009, 35: 525–532. 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2009.02.015Google Scholar
 Freborg AM, Ferguson BL, Aronov MA, Kobasko NI, Powell JA: Intensive quenching theory and application for imparting high residual surface compressive stresses in pressure vessel components. J Press Vessel Technol 2003, 125: 188–194. 10.1115/1.1556858Google Scholar
 Trisaksri V, Wongwises S: Critical review of heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007, 11: 512–523. 10.1016/j.rser.2005.01.010Google Scholar
 Kim H, Buongiorno J, Hu LW, McKrell T: Nanoparticle deposition effects on the minimum heat flux point and quench front speed during quenching in waterbased alumina nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2010, 53: 1542–1553. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2009.11.029Google Scholar
 Prabhu KN, Ali I: Comparison of Grossmann and lumped heat capacitance methods for estimation of heat transfer characteristics of quench media for heat treatment of steels. Int J Heat Treatment Surf Eng 2011, 5: 1–6. 10.1179/174951411X12956207750508Google Scholar
 Prabhu KN, Fernades P: Nanoquenchants for industrial heat treatment. J Mater Eng Perform 2008, 17: 101–103. 10.1007/s1166500791241Google Scholar
 Jagannath V: Heat transfer and wetting behaviour of ecofriendly quenchants for industrial heat treatmenta study. In Master of Technology in Materials Engineering, Thesis report. NITK Surathkal, India; 2008.Google Scholar
 Chakrabority S, Chakrabority A, Das S, Mukherjee T, Bhattacharjee D, Ray RK: Application of water basedTiO_{2}nanofluid for cooling of hot steel plate. ISIJ Int 2010, 50: 124–127. 10.2355/isijinternational.50.124Google Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.