 Nano Express
 Open Access
 Published:
Numerical evaluation of laminar heat transfer enhancement in nanofluid flow in coiled square tubes
Nanoscale Research Letters volume 6, Article number: 376 (2011)
Abstract
Convective heat transfer can be enhanced by changing flow geometry and/or by enhancing thermal conductivity of the fluid. This study proposes simultaneous passive heat transfer enhancement by combining the geometry effect utilizing nanofluids inflow in coils. The two nanofluid suspensions examined in this study are: waterAl_{2}O_{3} and waterCuO. The flow behavior and heat transfer performance of these nanofluid suspensions in various configurations of coiled square tubes, e.g., conical spiral, inplane spiral, and helical spiral, are investigated and compared with those for water flowing in a straight tube. Laminar flow of a Newtonian nanofluid in coils made of square cross section tubes is simulated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD)approach, where the nanofluid properties are treated as functions of particle volumetric concentration and temperature. The results indicate that addition of small amounts of nanoparticles up to 1% improves significantly the heat transfer performance; however, further addition tends to deteriorate heat transfer performance.
Introduction
Convective heat transfer can be enhanced by active as well as passive methods. While the former usually provide better enhancement, it requires additional external forces and/or equipment which can increase the complexity, capital, and operating costs of the system. In contrast, passive heat transfer enhancement can be achieved by changing flow geometry or modifying thermophysical properties of working fluid. Hence, it is generally a more desirable approach when compared to an active method. In our previous study [1–3] (Sasmito AP, Kurnia JC, Mujumdar AS: Numerical evaluation of transport phenomena in a Tjunction microreactor with coils of square cross section tubes, submitted), we have shown that coiled tubes provide better heat transfer performance relative to straight tubes under certain conditions. In this study, the potential application of coiled tubes using nanofluids to improve heat transfer performance is investigated.
Coiled tubes have been known as one of the passive heat transfer enhancement techniques in heat and mass transfer applications due to the presence of secondary flows which improve heat and mass transfer rates. They have been widely used in process industries, e.g., heat exchangers and chemical reactors, due to their compact design, high heat transfer rate, and ease of manufacture. Aside from their industrial applications, studies of the transport phenomena in coiled duct have also attracted many attention from engineering researchers. The presence of secondary flows induced by coil curvature and the complex temperature profiles caused by curvatureinduced torsion are among significant phenomena which can be observed in coiled tubes. Numerous experimental [4–8] and numerical [1–3, 9–13] investigations on heat transfer and flow characteristics inside coiled tubes have already been reported. Furthermore, reviews on the flow and heat transfer characteristics and potential application of coiled tubes in process industries and heat transfer application can be found in [14, 15].
It is well known that conventional heat transfer fluids including water, oil, and ethylene glycol mixtures have poor heat transfer rate due to their low thermal conductivity. Therefore, over the past decade, extensive research have been conducted to improve thermal conductivity of these fluids by suspending nanoparticles of diverse materials in heat transfer fluids, called nanofluids [16]. Modern technology provides opportunities to process and produce particles below 50 nm. It is also expected that nanofluids should provide not only higher heat transfer rate, but also good stability of the suspension by eliminating possible agglomeration and sedimentation to permit longterm application [17]. To date, several experimental (see for example [18–23]) and numerical (see for example [24–28]) investigations to characterize heat transfer performance of nanofluids have been already reported. Choi et al. [18] showed that addition of small amounts of less than 1% nanoparticles can double the thermal conductivity of working fluids. Vajjha et al. [24] showed that heat transfer rate increases up to 94% by adding 10% Al_{2}O_{3} nanofluid and increase up to around 89% by adding 6% CuO nanofluid. In addition, the comprehensive reference on nanofluids can be found in the book of Das et al. [29], while several reviews of nanofluids are available in the literature [30–42].
It has been shown that coiled tubes geometry and nanofluids can passively enhanced heat transfer performance. Now, to maximize the advantages of the heat transfer enhancement, we propose to combine both techniques simultaneously; i.e., employing the combination of coiled tubes filled with nanofluids. Therefore, the aim of the study presented here is threefold: (i) to investigate the heat transfer performance of various configurations of coils of square tubes, e.g., conical spiral, inplane spiral, and helical spiral, relative to the straight pipe; (ii) to evaluate simultaneous passive heat transfer enhancementchannel geometry and fluid thermophysical propertiesin coiled tubes filled with nanofluids; (iii) to study the heat performance of two different nanofluids, waterAl_{2}O_{3} and waterCuO, in coiled tubes at various nanoparticle concentrations. The most significant aspect of this study is to determine the potential advantages and limitations of heat transfer enhancement of coiled of square tubes filled with nanofluids and provide design guidelines for their applications through mathematical modeling.
The layout of the article is as follows. First, the mathematical model is introduced; it comprises conservation equations for mass, momentum, and energy. The nanofluid thermophysical properties are treated as functions of particle volumetric concentration and temperature. The mathematical model is then solved numerically utilizing finitevolumebased CFD software Fluent 6.3.26, the UserDefined Function written in C language is used extensively to capture the nanofluid properties. The model is further validated against experimental data by Anoop et al. [19] in terms of heat transfer performance for both basefluid and nanofluid. Fluid flow and heat transfer performance of various coiled tube designs filled with nanofluids is evaluated in terms of a figure of Merit Defined later. Parametric studies for particle concentration and nanofluid type are then carried out. Finally, conclusions are drawn and possible extensions of the study are highlighted.
Mathematical model
The physical model (see Figure 1) comprises four tube designs, e.g., straight pipe, conical spiral, inplane spiral, and helical spiral, filled with two different nanofluids (waterAl_{2}O_{3} and waterCuO). We assume that the low particle volumetric concentration of nanoparticles (less than 3%) in the basefluid makes it behave like a singlephase fluid and there is no agglomeration or sedimentation which occurs inside the tubes. A constant wall temperature is prescribed along all sides of the channel wall; the nanofluid is assumed incompressible and Newtonian. Furthermore, to ensure fidelity of the comparison of heat transfer performance for each tube design, the total length of each tube design is kept constant. Since this study relates only to laminar flow, a precise numerical solution is adequate to simulate reality very closely.
Governing equations
In the tube, fluid flow and convective heat transfer are taken into consideration. The conservation equations of mass, momentum, and energy are given by [24]
In the above equations, ?_{nf} is the nanofluid fluid density, u is the fluid velocity, p is the pressure, µ_{nf} is the dynamic viscosity of the nanofluid, c_{p,nf} is the specific heat of the nanofluid and k_{nf} is thermal conductivity of the nanofluid.
Constitutive relations
Thermophysical properties of nanofluids
The thermophysical properties of nanofluid are functions of particle volumetric concentration and temperature. The nanofluid density is given by [24, 29]
where ?_{np} and ?_{w} is the nanoparticle density and water density, respectively, while ? is the particle volumetric concentration. The nanofluid viscosity is estimated by [24]
where and are constants (summarized in Table 1), and µ_{w} is the viscosity of basefluid.
The specific heat of nanofluid is assumed to be a weighted average of the basefluid and the nanoparticles, e.g.,
where c_{p,np} and c_{p,w} are the specific heats of nanoparticle and water, respectively. In this model, the thermal conductivity considers a combination of the static part of Maxwell's theory and the dynamic part taking the contribution of the Brownian motion of nanoparticles, defined as [24]
where d_{np} is the nanoparticle diameter, is the Brownian motion constant, k_{np} and k_{w} are thermal conductivity of nanoparticle and water, respectively. Here, the effect of temperature and particle volumetric concentration is taken into account in the Brownian motion from empirical data given by [24]
where ß_{1}, ß_{2}, , , and , are constants (see Table 1).
Thermophysical properties of basefluids
The basefluid considered in this article is water. Thermophysical properties of water were obtained as polynomial functions of temperature [43]; the water density is defined by
while the water viscosity is given by
and the thermal conductivity of water is calculated from
The specific heat of water is considered constant at
Properties of nanoparticles are given in Table 1.
Heat transfer performance
The heat transfer performance of the cooling channel is discussed in terms of the figure of merit, FoM, which is defined as
where W_{pump} is the pumping power required to drive the fluid flow through the channel. It is given by
Here, ?_{pump} is the pump efficiency (assumed to be 70%), W is the total heat transfer rate, and ?p is the pressure drop in the cooling channel. The total heat transfer rate is given as
where is the mass flow rate and T_{m,in} and T_{m,out} are mixed mean temperature at the inlet and outlet, respectively. The mixed mean temperatures is calculated as
where A_{c} is the cross section area of the channel and V is the mean velocity given by
Boundary conditions
The boundary conditions for the flow inside the channel are prescribed as follows

Inlet At the inlet, we prescribe inlet mass flow rate and inlet temperature.
(19) 
Outlet At the outlet, we specify the pressure and streamwise gradient of the temperature is set to zero; the outlet velocity is not known a priori but needs to be iterated from the neighboring computational cells.
(20) 
Walls At walls, we set no slip condition for velocities and constant wall temperature.
(21)
In this article, a constant mass flow rate at a Reynolds number (Re = ?UD_{h}/µ) of approximately 1000 is prescribed at the inlet for comparison purposes.
Numerics
The computational domains (see Figure 2) were created in AutoCAD 2010; the commercial preprocessor software GAMBIT 2.3.16 was used for meshing, labeling boundary conditions and determines the computational domain. Three different meshes, 1 × 10^{5}, 2 × 10^{5}, and 4 ×10^{5}, were tested and compared in terms of the local pressure, velocities, and temperature to ensure a mesh independent solution. It is found that mesh number of around 2 × 10^{5} gives about 1% deviation compared to mesh size of 4 × 10^{5}; whereas the results from mesh number of 1 × 10^{5} deviate by up to 8% compared to those from the finest one. Therefore, a mesh of around 2 × 10^{5} (20 × 20 × 500) elements was considered sufficient for the numerical investigation purposes; a fine structured mesh near the wall to resolve the boundary layer and an increasingly coarser mesh in the middle of the channel to reduce the computational cost.
Equations 13 together with appropriate boundary conditions and constitutive relations comprising of five dependent variables, u, v, w, p, and T, were solved using the finite volume solver Fluent 6.3.26. UserDefined functions (UDF) were written in C language to account for particle volumetric concentration and temperaturedependence of the thermophysical properties of the nanofluids.
The equations were solved with the wellknown SemiImplicit PressureLinked Equation (SIMPLE) algorithm, firstorder upwind discretization and Algebraic Multigrid (AMG) method. As an indication of the computational cost, it is noted that on average, around 200500 iterations and 500 MB of Random Access Memory (RAM) are needed for convergence criteria for all relative residuals of 10^{6}, this takes 530 min on a workstation with a quadcore processor (1.83 GHz) and 8 GB of RAM.
Results and discussion
The numerical simulations were carried out for four different tube geometries, four different nanofluid concentrations, and two different nanofluid suspensions. The basecase conditions together with the physical parameters are listed in Table 1, while the geometric details can be found in Table 2.
Validation
When developing and implementing mathematical model to predict the behavior of nanofluid heat transfer, one needs to pay special attention to validation of the model due to inherent complexity of coupled physical phenomena and interaction between basefluid and nanoparticle. In this study, we aim to validate our model with an experimental nanofluid heat transfer by Anoop et al. [19], which has error of approximately 4%. The heat transfer performance of nanofluid flows in circular tube with diameter 4.75 × 10^{3} m and length of 1.2 m is approximated with 2D axisymmetric model, see Anoop et al. [19] for details of the experimental setup.
The validation is initiated with heat transfer performance of water flowing at a constant Reynolds approximately 1580; after which, the heat transfer performance of 4 wt% of waterAl_{2}O_{3} nanofluid with nanoparticle size 45 nm flows at Reynolds approximately 1588 is compared, as depicted in Figure 3. It is found that the model predictions agree well with the heat transfer performance from experimental counterpart for both water and nanofluid. This implies that the model correctly accounts for the fundamental physics associated with nanofluid heat transfer.
Effect of geometry
Basefluid
One of the key factors that determine the heat transfer performance is the crosssectional tube geometry. This study examines four different square cross section tubes geometries: straight, conical spiral, inplane spiral, and helical spiral with water as the base working fluid. Since the convective heat transfer inside the tube is directly linked to flow behavior, it is of interest to investigate the flow patterns inside the tubes. In our previous studies [1–3], albeit using air as working fluid, showed that the presence of centrifugal force due to curvature leads to significant radial pressure gradients in flow core region. In the proximity the inner and outer walls of the coils, however, the axial velocity and the centrifugal force will approach zero. Hence, to balance the momentum transport, secondary flow should develop along the outer wall. This is indeed the case, as can be seen in Figure 4, where the secondary flow with higher velocities is generated in the outer wall region of coiled tubes (see Figure 4b,c,d). However, this is not the case for the straight tube (Figure 4a) as a fully developed flow exists inside the tube. It is noted that at this particular Reynolds number (approximately 1000), the secondary flows appear as onepair for conical spiral and helical spiral tubes; whereas in the inplane spiral tube, the secondary flows appeared as twopairs.
The presence of secondary flow with high velocities is expected to have direct impact on the heat transfer rate. This can be inferred from Figure 5 which presents temperature distribution over the cross sections of various tube designs. As can be seen from Figure 5, temperatures in coiled tubes are higher than in straight tube at the same axial distance which indicates that coiled tubes have higher heat transfer rate when compared to that of the straight tube due to the presence of secondary flows. It is also worth noting that the higher intensity of secondary flow will tend to lead to higher heat transfer rate.
Now looking at the mixed mean temperature and total heat transfer variation along the tube length (see dotted line in Figure 6), it is noted that coiled tubes have superior heat transfer performance when compared to that of the straight tube; the total heat transfer rate can be up to almost three times higher than that for the straight tube. In the nearinlet region, the heat transfer performance of inplane spiral yields the best result among others, followed by conical spiral and helical spiral; whereas, in the nearoutlet region, the helical coil performs the best followed by inplane spiral and conical spiral. This indicates that, for water as working fluid, inplane spiral is more effective to be used in short tube applications, while the helical spiral is more effective for long tube applications in terms of amount of heat transferred.
Nanofluids
Four square cross section tube geometries were examined for flow of nanofluid suspensions of waterAl_{2}O_{3} with nanoparticle concentration of 1%. The results are depicted in Figure 6 where the mixed mean temperature and total heat transfer of basefluid and nanofluids are shown. It is noted that adding 1% concentration of Al_{2}O_{3} in water improves the heat transfer performance. The total heat transfer for straight tube increases up to 50% as compared to that for water, whereas for coiled tubes, the heat transfer improves by about 50% in the nearinlet region and then decreases toward the outlet. Furthermore, among the coiled tube geometries, inplane spiral gives the highest heat transfer improvement, followed by helical spiral and conical spiral tubes. This implies that inplane spiral tube may have potential application to be used along with nanofluid due to its higher heat transfer performance. Therefore, the most of the following results refer to inplane spiral coils.
Effect of nanoparticle concentration
The amount of nanoparticles suspended in the basefluid plays a significant role in determining heat transfer performance. Intuitively, adding larger amount of nanoparticles in the basefluid increases thermal conductivity of the nanofluid; however, care has to be taken as it also increases the friction factor and may reduce the stability of nanofluids due to agglomeration and sedimentation. To study the impact of these factors, we investigated four different nanoparticle concentrations: 0, 1, 2, and 3% of Al_{2}O_{3} in the basefluid (water). Figure 7 displays the velocity profiles for the inplane spiral tube for various nanoparticle concentrations. Interestingly, the velocity profiles are not strongly affected by the additional nanoparticle suspension, especially at low concentrations. We note that at 1 and 2% of Al_{2}O_{3} concentration, there is no significant difference on the secondary flow development inside the tube; whereas, at 3% Al_{2}O_{3} concentration, the effect of nanofluid suspension becomes stronger: the secondary flow appears in twopairs as compared to that in onepair at lower nanoparticle concentrations. A plausible explanation is the fact that nanofluid suspension does not significantly change viscosity of the fluid. Conversely, this is not the case for thermal conductivity of the nanofluid, as mirrored in Figure 8, where the addition of small amount of nanoparticle (1%) drastically changes the temperature profiles inside the tube. Furthermore, the temperature profiles for higher amount of nanoparticle concentration (2 and 3%) also slightly change, but they are mainly affected by the hydrodynamics (secondary flows).
Proceeding to the local mixed mean temperature and total heat transfer along the tube, as illustrated in Figure 9, it is clearly seen that additional small amounts of nanoparticles improves the heat transfer performance significantly, especially in the nearinlet area. However, increase in nanoparticle concentration leads to a reduction of total heat transfer along the tube by approximately 5%. It is noteworthy that adding large amounts of nanoparticles in the suspension is not effective in enhancing heat transfer. Moreover, low nanoparticle concentration also has advantages of better stability of the suspension as it minimizes agglomeration and sedimentation.
Effect of nanofluid type
So far, the simulated nanofluid type chosen was waterAl_{2}O_{3}; it is, therefore, of interest to see the heat transfer performance for a different nanofluid. In this study, we compare the performance of waterAl_{2}O_{3} and waterCuO nanofluids. Note that other types of nanofluid suspensions can be easily simulated within the framework of this model once their properties are known. Figure 10 shows temperature profiles for an inplane spiral tube flowing through with water (Figure 10a), 1% of Al_{2}O_{3} nanofluid (Figure 10b) and 1% of CuO nanofluid (Figure 10c). We note that the temperature profiles for both nanofluids (Figure 10b,c) are much higher than that of water (Figure 10a). Closer inspection reveals that a slightly larger area of higher temperature exists for the Al_{2}O_{3} suspension (Figure 10b) as compared to that for CuO suspension (Figure 10c). This is attributed to the stronger secondary flow observed in Al_{2}O_{3} nanofluid when compared to that of the CuO nanofluid (not shown here due to page limitation).
The heat transfer performance of two different nanofluid types is further evaluated in terms of the local mixed mean temperature and total heat transfer. As seen in Figure 11, the mixed mean temperature for the nanofluid is around 15% higher than that of water. There is no discernible difference between Al_{2}O_{3} and CuO suspensions in terms of the mixed mean temperature. For total heat transfer, Al_{2}O_{3} gives somewhat higher heat transfer (approximately 5%) when compared to the CuO nanofluid. Therefore, it can be deduced that Al_{2}O_{3} nanofluid performs better heat transfer performance than that of CuO nanofluid, but not significantly. The stability and cost would decide the selection between these two nanofluids.
Overall heat transfer performance
A summary of heat transfer performance for all cases considered in this article is presented in Figure 12. Here several features are apparent; foremost among them is that the coiled tubes provide significantly higher heat transfer than that of straight tube, and addition of a small amount of nanoparticles in the basefluid enhances heat transfer further (see Figure 12a). It is noted that the maximum heat transfer performance is achieved at 1% nanoparticle concentration, decreasing with higher amounts of nanoparticles.
Aside from higher heat transfer performance, keeping pressure drop at a minimum is of interest for reducing the operating cost and saving energy. Figure 12b shows a summary of the pressure drop required for all cases studied. Note that the mass flow rate is kept constant in all cases; hence, it can be used directly to represent the pumping power required. The straight channel requires the lowest pressure drop among all cases; whereas the coiled tube designs require more than double the pressure drop of the straight channel. Among the coiled tubes, helical spiral tube needs the highest pressure drop, followed by inplane spiral and conical spiral tubes. An interesting phenomenon is observed at a nanofluid concentration of 1% when the pressure drop for coiled tubes is slightly lower than that for water. This is due to the fact that at low particle concentrations, the particle volumetric concentration affects the nanofluid viscosity negligibly while the effect of temperature increases in the nanofluid thermophysical properties.
With respect to the heat transfer performance and pressure drop required in the system, the "Figure of Merit" concept is introduced as a measure of the heat transferred per unit pumping power (see Equation 14 for details). Figure 12c presents the computed figures of merit for various tube geometries, nanofluid concentrations and nanofluid types. It is found that apart from the higher heat transfer rate, the coiled tubes have lower figures of merit than those of the straight tube. This can be explained by the higher pressure drops required in the coiled systems (see Figure 12b). Among all coiled tubes tested, the conical spiral tube gives the highest figure of merit, followed by inplane spiral and conical spiral tubes. Furthermore, for the straight tube, the addition of nanoparticles improves the figure of merit significantly, albeit it decreases with increasing concentration. For coiled tubes filled with nanofluids, on the other hand, the improvement of figure of merit is only shown at low particle concentration of 1% and then it drops lower than that of water when more nanoparticles are added. Clearly, these results suggest that one can add nanoparticle up to 1% volumetric concentration to water to enhance heat transfer performance in coiled tubes; higher nanoparticle concentrations are not recommended.
Concluding remarks
A computational study was conducted to investigate the laminar flow heat transfer performance of square cross section tubes, i.e., straight, conical spiral, inplane spiral, and helical spiral, with water and two nanofluids. It is found that adding 1% nanoparticle volumetric concentration improves heat transfer performance and the figure of merit for all tubes. However, higher amounts of nanoparticles is not recommended. Inplane spiral tubes give better performance than other coiled tubes for nanofluids. Furthermore, Al_{2}O_{3} nanofluid gives slightly better heat transfer performance than CuO nanofluid in coiled tubes. Future study will evaluate various modeling approaches for nanofluid heat transfer, e.g., singlephase, twophase mixture, EulerEuler, and EulerLagrange models, in coils with respect to the effect of secondary flow to the nanoparticle concentration.
Abbreviations
 AMG:

algebraic multigrid
 CFD:

computational fluid dynamics
 RAM:

random access memory
 SIMPLE:

semiimplicit pressurelinked equation
 UDF:

userdefined functions. List of symbols: A_{c}: Cross section area (m^{2})
 c _{p} :

Specific heat (J · kg^{1} · K^{1})
 :

Viscosity parameter
 d _{p} :

Particle diameter (m)
 D _{h} :

Hydraulic diameter (= 4A_{c}/P_{c}) (m)
 FoM:

Figure of merit
 h :

Heat transfer coefficient (W · m^{2} · K^{1})
 k :

Thermal conductivity (W · m^{1} · K^{1})
 ? :

Boltzmann constant (J · K^{1})
 :

Brownian motion constant
 L :

Total length channel (m)
 :

Mass flow rate (kg · s^{1})
 p :

Pressure (Pa)
 P _{ c } :

Cross section perimeter (m)
 R :

Radius of coil (m)
 Re Reynolds number (= ?U D:

_{h}/µ)
 s :

Spacing (m)
 T :

Temperature (K)
 u :

u, v, w, U: Velocity (m · s^{1})
 V :

Mean velocity (m · s^{1})
 w :

Channel width
 W :

Total heat transfer (J · s^{1})
 W _{pump} :

Pumping power (W). Greek: ß: Brownian motion parameter
 ? :

Fluid density (kg · m^{3})
 ? :

Particle volumetric concentration (%)
 ? :

Efficiency (%)
 µ :

Dynamic viscosity (Pa · s). Subscripts: c: Conical spiral
 h:

Helical spiral
 i:

Inner
 in:

Inlet
 L:

Length
 mean:

Mean value
 norm:

Normalized value
 nf:

Nanofluids
 np:

Nanoparticle
 o:

Outer
 out:

Outlet
 p:

Inplane spiral
 pump:

Pump
 w:

Water
 wall:

Wall.
References
 1.
Kurnia JC, Sasmito AP, Mujumdar AS: Evaluation of heat transfer performance of helical coils of noncircular tubes. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 2011, 12: 63–70. 10.1631/jzus.A1000296
 2.
Kurnia JC, Sasmito AP, Mujumdar AS: Numerical investigation of laminar heat transfer performance of various cooling channel designs. Appl Therm Eng 2011, 31: 1293–1304. 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2010.12.036
 3.
Kurnia JC, Sasmito AP, Mujumdar AS: Laminar convective heat transfer for inplane spiral coils of noncircular cross sections ducts: a computational fluid dynamics study. Therm Sci 2011, in press.
 4.
Naphon P: Thermal performance and pressure drop of the helicalcoil heat exchangers with and without helically crimped fins. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2007, 34: 321–330. 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2006.11.009
 5.
Auteri F, Belan M, Ceccon S, Gibertini G, Quadrio M: Endoscopic PIV in a helical pipe coil. XIV AIVELA Conference, Rome, 6–7 September 2006
 6.
Mandal MM, Kumar V, Nigam KDP: Augmentattion of heat transfer performance in coiled flow inverter visavis conventional heat exchanger. Chem Eng Sci 2010, 65: 999–1007. 10.1016/j.ces.2009.09.053
 7.
Liou TM: Flow visualization and LDV measurement of fully developed laminar flow in helically coiled tubes. Exp Fluids 1992, 12: 332–338.
 8.
Mandal MM, Nigam KDP: Experimental study of pressure drop and heat transfer of turbulent flow in tube helical heat exchanger. Ind Eng Chem Res 2009, 48: 9318–9324. 10.1021/ie9002393
 9.
Agrawal S, Nigam KDP: Modeling of coiled tubular chemical reactor. Chem Eng J 2001, 84: 437–444. 10.1016/S13858947(00)003703
 10.
Norouzi M, Kahyani MH, Nobari MRH, Demneh MK: Convective heat transfer of viscoelastic flow in curved duct. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 2009, 56: 327–333.
 11.
Kaya O, Teke I: Turbulent forced convection in helically coiled square duct with one uniform temperature and three adiabatic walls. Heat Mass Transf 2005, 42: 129–137. 10.1007/s0023100506563
 12.
Kumar V, Faizee B, Mridha M, Nigam KDP: Numerical studies of a tubeintube helically coiled heat exchanger. Chem Eng Process 2008, 47: 2287–2295.
 13.
Kumar V, Gupta P, Nigam KDP: Fluid flow and heat transfer in curved tubes with temperature dependent properties. Ind Eng Chem Res 2007, 46: 3226–3236. 10.1021/ie0608399
 14.
Vashisth S, Kumar V, Nigam KDP: A review on the potential application of curved geometries in process industry. Ind Eng Chem Res 2008, 47: 3291–3337. 10.1021/ie701760h
 15.
Naphon P, Wongwises S: A review of flow and heat transfer characteristics in curved tubes. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2006, 10: 463–490. 10.1016/j.rser.2004.09.014
 16.
Choi SUS: Enhancing Thermal Conductivity of Fluids with Nanoparticles, Developments and Applications of NonNewtonian Flows. New York: ASME; 1995:99–105.
 17.
Wang XQ, Mujumdar AS: Heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids: a review. Int J Therm Sci 2007, 46: 1–19. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2006.06.010
 18.
Choi SUS, Zhang ZG, Yu W, Lockwood FE, Grulke EA: Anomalously thermal conductivity enhancement in nanotube suspensions. Appl Phys Lett 2001, 79: 2252–2254. 10.1063/1.1408272
 19.
Anoop KB, Sundararajan T, Das SK: Effect of particle size on the convective heat transfer in nanofluid in the developing region. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2009, 52: 2189–2195. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2007.11.063
 20.
Hamed Mosavian MT, Heris SZ, Etemad SG, Esfahany MN: Heat transfer enhancement by application of nanopowder. J Nanopart Res 2010, 12: 2611–2619. 10.1007/s1105100998406
 21.
Liao L, Liu Z, Bao R: Forced convective flow drag and heat transfer characteristics of CuO nanoparticle suspensions and nanofluids in a small tube. J Enhanced Heat Transf 2010, 17: 45–57. 10.1615/JEnhHeatTransf.v17.i1.30
 22.
Lai WY, Vinod S, Phelan PE, Phraser R: Convective heat transfer for waterbased alumina nanofluids in a single 1.02mm tube. J Heat Transf 2009, 131: 1–9.
 23.
Rea U, McKrell T, Hu L, Buongiorno J: Laminar convective heat transfer and viscous pressure loss of aluminawater and zirconiawater nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2009, 52: 2042–2048. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2008.10.025
 24.
Vajjha RS, Das DK, Namburu PK: Numerical study of fluid dynamic and heat transfer performance of Al_{2}O_{3}and CuO nanofluids in the flat tubes of a radiator. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2010, 31: 613–621. 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2010.02.016
 25.
Mokmeli A, SaffarAvval M: Prediction of nanofluid convective heat transfer using dispersion model. Int J Therm Sci 2010, 49: 471–478. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2009.09.005
 26.
Haghshenas MF, Esfahany MN, Talaie MR: Numerical study of convective heat transfer of nanofluids in a circular tube twophase model versus singlephase model. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2010, 37: 91–97. 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2009.08.003
 27.
Bianco V, Chiacchio F, Manca O, Nardini S: Numerical investigation of nanofluids forced convection in circular tubes. Appl Therm Eng 2009, 29: 3632–3642. 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.06.019
 28.
Akbarnia A, Laur R: Investigating the diameter of solid particles effect on a laminar nanofluid flow in a curved tube using two phase approach. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2009, 30: 706–714. 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2009.03.002
 29.
Das SK, Choi SU, Yu W, Pradeep T: Nanofluids: Science and Technology. Hoboken: Wiley; 2007.
 30.
Wang XQ, Mujumdar AS: A review on nanofluidsPart I: theoretical and numerical investigations. Braz J Chem Eng 2008, 25: 613–630.
 31.
Wang XQ, Mujumdar AS: A review on nanofluidsPart II: experiments and applications. Braz J Chem Eng 2008, 25: 631–648. 10.1590/S010466322008000400002
 32.
Chandrasekar M, Suresh S: A review on the mechanisms of heat transport in nanofluids. Heat Transf Eng 2009, 30: 1136–1150. 10.1080/01457630902972744
 33.
Daungthongsuk W, Wongwises S: A critical review of convective heat transfer nanofluids. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2007, 11: 797–817. 10.1016/j.rser.2005.06.005
 34.
Trisaksri V, Wongwises S: Critical review of heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007, 11: 512–523. 10.1016/j.rser.2005.01.010
 35.
Kakác S, Pramuanjaroenkij A: Review of convective heat transfer enhancement with nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2009, 52: 3187–3196. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2009.02.006
 36.
Wang LQ, Fan J: Nanofluids research: Key issues. Nanoscale Res Lett 2010, 5: 1241–1252. 10.1007/s1167101096386
 37.
Godson L, Raja B, Lai DM, Wongwises S: Enhancement of heat transfer using nanofluids: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010, 14: 629–641. 10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.004
 38.
Murshed SMS, Leong KC, Yang C: Thermophysical and electrokinetic properties of nanofluidsa critical review. Appl Therm Eng 2008, 28: 2109–2125. 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2008.01.005
 39.
Das SK, Choi SUS, Patel HE: Heat transfer in nanofluidsa review. Heat Transf Eng 2006, 27: 3–19.
 40.
Wen D, Lin G, Vafaei S, Zhang K: Review of nanofluids for heat transfer applications. Particuology 2009, 7: 141–150. 10.1016/j.partic.2009.01.007
 41.
Li Y, Zhou J, Tung S, Schneider E, Xi S: A review on development of nanofluid preparation and characterization. Powder Technol 2009, 196: 89–101. 10.1016/j.powtec.2009.07.025
 42.
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. 10.1080/01457630701850851
 43.
Kays W, Crawford M, Weigand B: Convective Heat and Mass Transport. 4th edition. Singapore: MacGraw Hill; 2005.
Author information
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
APS developed the mathematical model together with JCK, built computational code, carried out the numerical simulation and writing the manuscript. JCK prepared created the computational domain, conducted postprocessing and participated in preparing manuscript. Both APS and JCK performed the analysis. ASM supervised the whole work and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sasmito, A.P., Kurnia, J.C. & Mujumdar, A.S. Numerical evaluation of laminar heat transfer enhancement in nanofluid flow in coiled square tubes. Nanoscale Res Lett 6, 376 (2011) doi:10.1186/1556276X6376
Received
Accepted
Published
DOI
Keywords
 Secondary Flow
 Nanoparticle Concentration
 Heat Transfer Performance
 Straight Tube
 Total Heat Transfer