P 8

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 654–678
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
A review of thermophysical properties of water based composite

nanofluids
Suleiman Akilu a, K.V. Sharma b,n, Aklilu Tesfamichael Baheta a, Rizalman Mamat c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 32610 Perak, Malaysia
b
Centre for Energy Studies, Department of Mechanical Engineering, JNTUH College of Engineering, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500085, India
c
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang State, Malaysia
art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The limitation of the conventional fluids to facilitate cooling/heating rates remains the primary basis for
Received 8 January 2016 exploring alternative heat transfer nanofluids. Research efforts on nanofluids have evolved over the past
Received in revised form two decades in establishing extensive literature. Several models for thermophysical properties were
10 March 2016
made available to characterize the behaviors of diverse individual nanofluids. However, lack of reason-
Accepted 15 August 2016
able agreement between theory and experimental results has been a limiting factor for the development
Available online 27 August 2016
of a unified nanofluid model for thermal conductivity. Existing models for thermo-physical properties of
Keywords: nanofluids such as density, specific heat, thermal conductivity, and viscosity are critically surveyed and
Composite Nanoparticles appropriate equations are extended for composite nanofluids. Consequently, based on reliable models
Nanofluids
identified predictions for thermal conductivity and viscosity for composite nanofluids are presented.
Properties
Overall results show that existing thermophysical models for density and specific heat are valid for all
Influencing parameters
water based oxide nanofluids for both single material and composites whereas models for thermal
conductivity and viscosity show selective response but have the versatility for predicting the behavior of
single and composite nanofluids within acceptable deviation.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655
2. Properties of single material nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655
2.1. Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656
2.2. Specific heat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656
2.3. Thermal conductivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
2.3.1. Effect of particle volume concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
2.3.2. Effect of temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
2.3.3. Effect of particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
2.3.4. Effect of particle shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
2.3.5. Influence of base fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
2.3.6. Influence of material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660
2.3.7. Effect of pH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660
2.3.8. Modeling of thermal conductivity in nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660
2.3.9. Validation of the thermal conductivity models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660
2.4. Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661
2.4.1. Effect of particle volume concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663
2.4.2. Effect of temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663
2.4.3. Effect of particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663
2.4.4. Effect of particle shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663
2.4.5. Effect of pH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665
2.4.6. Modeling of viscosity in nanofluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665
n
Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.036
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Akilu et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 654–678 655
2.4.7. Validation for the viscosity models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666

3. Properties of composite nanofluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666
3.1. Density of composite nanofluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666
3.2. Specific heat of composite nanofluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667
3.3. Thermal conductivity and Viscosity of composite nanofluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667
4. Discussion of results of CNf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674
1. Introduction as a base fluid in cold climatic conditions [20,21]. Studies on na-

nofluids for various engineering application have been docu-
Modern advances in science and technology have invariably mented in review-papers [22–25].
stimulated the emergence of various sophisticated equipment So far nanofluids have demonstrated unbounded thermal
across various fields of human endeavor. For instance, in the management advantages with their unique and distinctive char-
electronic and automotive industries the demand for new thermal acteristics. Pertinent properties essential for fluid flow and heat
devices in tune with 21st century is characterized by their com- transfer include the density, specific heat, surface tension, thermal
pactness with enhanced functionality. The design of devices is not conductivity, thermal expansion, and viscosity. However, the
devoid of challenges; a common aspect is the ability to remove evaluation of these properties depends on underlying states of
high level of flux generated in the components. In order to im- temperature, volume fraction, base fluid, pH, particle material,
prove the overall system performance, a number of salient con- shape and size of the particles. Moreover, researchers have tried to
cepts have been introduced. The use of extended surfaces and establish theoretical and empirical property relationship in terms
employment of solid additives in liquids are common methods for of these distinct parameters. A large number of investigators de-
heat transfer augmentation. Regardless of all these practices, prior veloped theoretical models for the estimation of viscosity and
experiments to enhance the heat transfer with traditional liquids thermal conductivity of nanofluids. The models failed to validate
such as water, oil, and ethylene glycol are never materialized be- the properties obtained through experiments. In contrast to the
cause of low thermal conductivity. Further experimental attempts existing number of theoretical models for thermo-physical prop-
with solid-liquid systems containing micro-sized particles also erties, empirical models are relatively few due to limited experi-
failed due to undesirable abrasion and clogging related problems mental data. It is noteworthy that a few attempts have been made
[1–4]. With research efforts reinvigorated toward resolving the to provide general empirical models applicable to nanofluids dis-
issue, Choi and Eastman [5] of the Argonne National Laboratory persed with spherical particles using experimental data [26,27].
presented a new approach to improve the thermal conductivity of Notwithstanding, engineers are far from achieving a versatile
conventional fluids by dispersing particles of size smaller than thermo-physical property model, one that is capable of accom-
100 nm. The fluid/coolant prepared in this manner is termed as modating all the fitting influential factors for the prediction of
nanofluids. The nanofluids evolution now make development of nanofluid properties precisely.
efficient mechanical engines seem possible. Such machinery Nonetheless, several experimental works reported in the lit-
would be smaller, lighter, and cheaper as well as fuel efficient. erature focused on thermophysical properties of nanofluids [28–
Accordingly, the reduced tendency of nanofluids to sediment or 36]. Extensive data relating to such properties have been pre-
clog flow channels and their ability to transport energy with sented through comprehensive reviews [37–44]. Mechanisms and
limited penalty of pressure drop as compared to larger-sized par- models for thermo-physical properties are mainly elaborated in
ticle suspensions is reported by various researchers. In fact, the the reviews but less attention has been paid to carefully analyze
plethora of literature presented over the past decade concerning the relevance of individual property models across various types of
the preparation, characterization [6–9] and thermo-physical nanofluids. It is felt that in-depth literature sampling on property
properties [10–13] alone signifies the huge impact of nanofluids in models could provide valuable information on the reliability of
changing various engineering processes. various equations for Single material Nano fluid (SmNf).
One of the primary reasons for the escalating interest in na- It is worth noting that certain thermo-physical properties
nofluid research can be ascribed to the development of innovative models can be applied to validate experimental data which could
technologies for the manufacture of materials of nanometer size. eliminate the need to develop new individual models. Though,
This development has afforded scientists and engineers with uncertainty is unavoidable in the measurements of nanofluid
powerful tools to produce materials with exceptional properties, properties, the existing generalized models are developed from
superior than their bulk counterparts. Several materials are con- reliable data sources; hence, they would be expected to harmonize
sidered as possible options for heat transfer augmentation [14–17]. with relevant data for SmNf. Therefore, the present review seeks
For example, metals (aluminum, copper, gold, iron, silver, etc), to present the state of knowledge based on several mechanisms
metal oxides (alumina, ceria, copper, magnetite, zinc, etc), semi- affecting nanofluids and the thermo-physical models presented by
conductors materials (silica, titania, tin, etc), metal nitride (alu- the researchers over the three decades of intensive research con-
minum nitride), metal carbide (silicon), carbon nanotubes (single- tributions. Herein, the existing thermo-physical models are
walled and multi-walled), graphene (multi-layer and oxide), etc. streamlined and compared with experimental data for water
are used to enhance the thermal transport properties of working based SmNf.
fluids. As highlighted in the literature [18,19], the choice of na-
nofluid for engineering application depends on their thermo-
physical properties. For example, ethylene glycol tends to be a 2. Properties of single material nanofluids
preferred base fluid in polar region due to its antifreeze properties.
Thus ethylene glycol-water (EG-water) mixture is commonly used The overall effectiveness of a heat transfer process depends on
656 S. Akilu et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 654–678
Nomenclature TL low temperature of particle at equilibrium, (°C)

v̄ Translational time-averaged speed Brownian motion,
Symbols
(m/s)
W Water
A Area, (m)
a short axis of spheroidal body of fluid
Greek symbols
b long axis of spheroidal body of fluid
cp specific heat, (J/kg K)
α thermal diffusivity, (m2/s)
d diameter, (nm)
μ dynamic viscosity, (cP)
D particle diameter, (nm)
ρ density, (kg/m3)
h interfacial layer thickness, (nm)
ϕ particle volume concentration, (%)
k thermal conductivity, (W/mK)
θ Angular position in spherical coordinates
Kr Thermal conductvity enhancement ratio, k nf /kbf
l Average particle travel distance, (nm)
pH potential hydrogen Subscripts
Q rate of heat energy transferred, (W)
r radial position in spherical coordinates, (m) bf base fluid
t time, (s) eff effective
T temperature, (°C) nf nanofluid
T∞ external temperature field, (°C) p particle
TH high temperature of particle at equilibrium, (°C) r ratio
the convective heat transfer coefficients [28]. The thermo-physical that the experimental data is consistent with the values estimated
properties of nanofluids such as density, specific heat, thermal with Eq. (1). Khanafer and Vafai [38] presented an equation for the
conductivity, and viscosity are essential and must be known in estimation of Al2O3 nanofluid density as a function of particle
advance. A number of models for the evaluation of SmNf proper- volume concentration and temperature given by:
ties have been developed. However, the development of general-
ρnf , T = 1001.064 + 2738.6191 ϕp − 0.2095 Tnf (2)
ized equations applicable for a wide range of parameters can be a
challenging task. Equations for the estimation of nanofluid density, where, Tnf is the nanofluid temperature and ϕp is particle volume
specific heat, thermal conductivity and viscosity presented in the
concentration. Eq. (2) is developed for Al2O3 nanofluid valid in the
literature are discussed with the exception of thermal diffusivity
range of volume concentration of 0–4.0% and temperature 5–40 °C.
and surface tension.
Eq. (2) is in good agreement with the experimental data when
compared to values evaluated with Eq. (1) with a maximum de-
2.1. Density
viation of 0.6%. Hence, Eq. (1) can be used to evaluate the effective
density of various nanofluids.
Addition of a small fraction of solid nanoparticles to a base li-
quid would systematically enhance the density of the mixture [12].
This is because the density of solids is greater than liquids. Mod- 2.2. Specific heat
eling density in nanofluids requires the estimation of the con-
stituent’s material densities and volume concentrations. Studies Nanofluid specific heat can be expressed as a blend of heat
have been undertaken to determine the density of nanofluids for capacities of solid and liquid phases when the phases are in
different particle sizes (1–100 nm), temperatures (5–60 °C), and thermal equilibrium. Xuan and Roetzel [49] presented an equation
volume concentrations (0–5.0%). For example, Ho et al. [45] ob-
served approximately a 10% increase in the density of
Al2O3(33 nm)/water nanofluid at 4.0% vol. when the density of the
nanofluid decreased by 5% and temperature increased from 25 to
40 °C. Heyhat et al. [46] reported the density of Al2O3(40 nm)/
water nanofluid to increase by a maximum of 3% for 2.0 vol.%
concentration. However, a maximum decrease of 3.8% in density at
a temperature of 60 °C was observed. Teng and Hung [47] reported
similar observations of decrease in density with concentration.
The effective density of nanofluid ρnf can be expressed analy-
tically based on mass balance using the conventional mixing
theory as:
( )
ρnf = 1 − ϕp ρbf + ϕpρp (1)
where, ρnf is the effective density of the nanofluid with the addi-
tion of ϕp volume fraction of nanoparticles. The density of SmNf at
different particle volume concentrations is depicted in Fig. 1. The
densities of Al2O3 and TiO2 nanofluids enhanced by 14% and 16%
respectively when dispersed in water for 5% volume concentration
at 25°C. This observation is consistent with the experimental data Fig. 1. Comparison of single material nanofluid density with Eq. (1) for different
reported by Pak and Choi [48]. It can also be observed from Fig. 1 particle volume concentrations.
Table 1
Specific heat models.
Eq. No. Author Empirical Model Nanofluid dp ϕp T
1
4. Vajjha [52] ⎡ ⎛ c
p, p ⎟
⎞⎤ Al2O3, 2SiO2, 3ZnO/ Water 1
44, 220, 377 1,2
0–10 20–7 42–90
⎢ ( A × T ) + B⎜⎜ ⎟⎥
⎢ ⎝ cp, bf ⎠ ⎥
cp, eff =⎢ ⎥cp, bf
⎢ (
C + ϕp ) ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
1 1 1
A = 0.0008911, B = 0.5179 C = 0.4250
2 2 2
A = 0.001769, B = 1.1937 C = 0.8021
3 3 3
A = 0.0004604, B = 0.9855 C = 0.2990
1
5. Yiamsawasd et al. [51] ⎡ ⎛ Cp, p ⎞⎤
D Al2O3, 2TiO2–/Water 1
120, 221 0–8 15–65
cp, eff = ⎢ A ϕpBT C ⎜ ⎟⎥ cp, bf
⎣ ⎝ Cp, bf ⎠⎦
1 1
A = 1.249458, B = − 0.05846
1 1
C = 0.006467, D = − 0.17236
2 2
A = 1.387402, B = − 0.06425
2 2
C = 0.001124, D = − 0.21159
6. Sekhar and Sharma [50] ⎛ Tnf ⎞
−0.3037
⎛ dp ⎞
0.4167
⎛ ϕp ⎞2.272 Al2O3, CuO, TiO2, SiO2/–Water 15–50 0–4 20–50
Cp, eff = 0.8429 ⎜ 1 + ⎟ ⎜1 + ⎟ ⎜1 + ⎟
⎝ 50 ⎠ ⎝ 50 ⎠ ⎝ 100 ⎠
for the estimation of specific heat of nanofluid given by:
cp, nf
(1 − ϕ ) ρ
p
c
bf bf
+ ϕpρp cp
ρnf (3)
where, cp is the specific heat, ρp is the density, ϕp is the volume

fraction of the nanoparticle and ρnf is nanofluid density estimated
with Eq. (1). Empirical models for specific heat of SmNf presented
by Sekhar and Sharma [50], Yiamsawasd et al. [51], and Vajjha
et al. [52] are given in Table 1.
Zhou and Ni [53] have observed up to 45% reduction in specific
heat of Al2O3(40 nm)/water with the increase in alumina particles
concentration from 0% to 21.7% vol. at 33 °C. Barbés et al. [54]
noted 14% decrease in specific heat of Al2O3(45 nm)/water at a
temperature of 25 °C, between concentrations of 0–3.6% vol. con-
centration. As reported by O′Hanley et al. [55], the specific heats of
oxide based nanofluids of Al2O3(50 nm)/water, CuO(30 nm)/water
and SiO2(32 nm)/water increased with temperature but decreased
with concentration of the nanofluid.
On the other hand, certain contradicting reports revealed that
nanofluid specific heat is unaffected by the change in temperature Fig. 2. Comparison of single material nanofluid specific heat with Eq. (3) for dif-
ferent particle volume concentrations.
but would decrease with the increase concentration [56,57]. For a
more detailed information pertaining to specific heat of nano-
fluids, one may alternatively seek for the comprehensive review Q = k⋅A( ΔT /Δx) (7a)
[34]. As shown in Fig. 2, the effective specific heat of SmNf is en-
where Q is the rate of heat energy transferred (W), k is the
hanced by 0.3% and 0.8% at 3.0% and 9.3% volume concentrations
coefficient of thermal conductivity (W/m K), A is the surface area
in the temperature range of 20–60 °C. The deviation between the
(m2) of the heater, ΔT and Δx are the temperature difference in
predictions with Eq. (3) and the experimental data are 0.25% and
(K) and distance in (m). With recent advances in sensor technol-
0.53% at 3.7% and 9.3% volume concentrations respectively. It can
ogy, faster and accurate measurement of thermal conductivity is
be observed from Fig. 2 that Eq. (3) is in good agreement with the
experimental results. Hence Eq. (3) is valid for the estimation of made possible using the principle of transient heat conduction
specific heat in SmNf at various temperatures and concentrations. given by:
The regression Eq. (6) developed using 81 data points of water Q = − k⋅A( dT /Δt ) (7b)
based Al2O3, CuO, SiO2, and TiO2 nanofluids is consistent with the
experimental data within a maximum deviation of 10% [50] as Thus experimental assessments of k for various fluids are un-
given in Table 1. dertaken to ascertain their potential for heat transfer application.
Such investigations entail the influence of parameters such as
2.3. Thermal conductivity particle concentration, particle shape/size, temperature, material
type, pH, etc. Common metal and metal oxides used in the pre-
As one of the fundamental thermo-physical properties, the paration of nanofluids given by Sharma et al. [26], Sattler [58] and
thermal conductivity denotes the ability of any material to conduct Kamyar et al. [59] are listed in Table 2. The influence of certain
heat. For liquids, the value can be evaluated based on Fourier parameters on knf, as presented by various investigators, is sum-
steady state principle of heat conduction given by: marized in the following sub-sections.
Table 2
Thermophysical properties of some selected nanoparticle materials at 300 K.
Nanoparticle Thermal conductivity Density Specific heat Thermal diffusivity 10 6 Reference
Alumina 39 3970 775 11.9 Sattler [58]

Copper 0.385 8940 401 0.107 Kamyar et al. [59]
Copper oxide 17.65 6500 525 5.17 Sattler [58]
Silica 1.4 2200 745 0.854 Sharma et al. [26]
Silver 0.235 10,490 429 0.031 Kamyar et al. [59]
Titania 8.4 4000 711 2.9 Sattler [58]
2.3.1. Effect of particle volume concentration TiO2(33 nm)/water nanofluid increased by approximately 15% for a
Regardless of the type of base fluid, addition of solid nano- volume concentration of 5.0% compared to water. In addition to
particles to a fluid is expected to affect the thermal conductivity of the observations of these investigators, several experimental stu-
the mixture [60–70]. Pioneering work of Masuda et al. [60] with dies [45,54,76,80–92] for water based oxide nanofluids have re-
Al2O3(13 nm)/water nanofluid obtained a maximum enhancement ported knf enhancements with increase in concentration. The re-
of 32% in knf as particle volume concentration is increased from sults presented demonstrate a linear increase in knf with particle
1.0 to 4.3%. Lee et al. [61] reported a 10% increase in knf of concentration.
Al2O3(38 nm)/water nanofluid with increase in particle con- Evidently, the addition of nanoparticles to base liquid enhanced
centration from 0 to 4.3% vol. Wang et al. [62] dispersed Al2O3 the thermal conductivity of the suspension and the degree of the
nanoparticles in water and observed enhancement in knf of the enhancement depended on the volume fraction of the particles
suspension. For a particle concentration of 3% vol. knf was observed added. The reasons for the enhancement is attributed to several
to increase by 12% as compared to base liquid. Zhang et al. [63] microscopic phenomena such as particle dynamic effect, liquid
reported that knf of Al2O3(20 nm)/water enhanced by 11.7% when layering on the surface of nanoparticles, and particle clustering
the concentration was increased to 4.3% vol. Chandrasekar et al. [58].
[64] observed enhancement in knf with increasing particle con-
centration of Al2O3(43 nm)/water nanofluid. The increase in knf of 2.3.2. Effect of temperature
about 3.43%, 7.52%, and 9.7% was observed with concentrations of Studies on the effect of temperature variation on knf are limited
1%, 2% and 3% respectively. The knf enhancement of 8% was re- in the literature despite the considerable interest to utilize nano-
ported by Kim et al. [65] for Al2O3(38 nm)/water nanofluid in the fluid for higher temperature applications [28]. Das et al. [83] were
concentration range from 0 to 3.0% vol. A comparable value of the early investigators to report the dependence of temperature on
enhancement was also reported by Patel et al. [66] with thermal conductivity of nanofluids. They observed 3–4 fold en-
Al2O3(45 nm)/water nanofluid. hancement of knf with Al2O3 (38 nm)/water in the range of tem-
Jahanshahi et al. [69] demonstrated a 32% increase in knf with perature of 21–51 °C. Chon et al. [81] observed 8.2% increase in knf
SiO2(12 nm)/water as the concentration increased from 1 to 4.0 % with Al2O3(150 nm)/water at 1.0 vol%. However, Murshed et al.
vol. concentration. The knf measurements for SiO2(12 nm)/water in [93] reported relatively higher knf values of about 10.6% under
different particle concentrations have been carried out by Tavman similar conditions. Li and Peterson et al. [68] reported up to 2 fold
et al. [71]. The maximum knf enhancement of 2.4% was realized at increase of knf with Al2O3(36 nm)/water in the temperature range
the highest concentration of 4.0% vol. concentration. Kang et al. of 20 °C to 60 °C. The enhancement in knf at 2% and 4.0% vol.
[72] noticed that the knf of SiO2 of water based nanofluids in- concentrations respectively was reported as 11%, 23% at 30 °C and
creased by 5% with particle loading from 0 to 6.0% vol. con- 16, 28% at 35 °C respectively. Patel et al. [66] measured the knf of
centration. Many other researchers also observed an increase in knf 3.0% vol. concentration of Al2O3 (45 nm)/water using temperature
of SiO2/water nanofluid with increase in concentration at room oscillation technique. They reported knf enhancement of 8–13%
temperature [73–75]. when the temperature was enhanced from 30 °C to 40 °C. How-
Experimental studies with CuO/water show a considerable ever, Barbés [54] reported 5–7.0% knf enhancement in the same
enhancement in knf with increase in volume concentration range of temperatures.
[68,62,66]. The knf of dilute suspension containing CuO(23 nm)/ Ferrouillat et al. [74] have estimated the knf of SiO2(22 nm)/
water nanofluid improved by approximately 12% with increasing water nanofluid using steady state principle. They noticed knf of
concentration from 0 to 3.4 vol% [61]. However, higher enhance- the suspension to increase from 1.6% to 1.8% with temperature
ment of up to 16% with CuO(47 nm)/water nanofluid was achieved from 25 to 50°C at a volume concentration of 2.3% in comparison
at a lower concentration of 0.8 vol% by Sundar and Sharma [76]. to water. Hussein et al. [73] reported 11.7–13.3% greater knf en-
Khedkar et al. [77] obtained a maximum enhancement of 17.7% for hancement at 1.5% vol. concentration of SiO2(30 nm)/water in the
knf at 5% concentration with CuO(25 nm)/water. In a recent work same temperature interval.
reported by Minakov et al. [78], CuO(55 nm)/water nanofluid ex- Temperature dependent thermal conductivity for CuO/water
hibited significant knf enhancement of 40% at 2.0% vol. nanofluid has been reported by Das et al. [83]. They observed a
concentration. considerable increase in the nanofluid knf particularly at higher
Duangthongsuk and Wongwises [67] reported a maximum knf temperatures. At 1.0 vol%, the knf of CuO(28 nm)/water increased
enhancement of 3% and 7% with TiO2 (21 nm)/water nanofluid for by 6.5% and 36% with the increase of temperature from 21 to 51 °C.
0.2 and 2.0% vol. concentration respectively. The results demon- Brownian motion of the nanoparticles was suggested to be the sole
strated higher enhancement of 6% and 5% in knf for the low and reason for the enhancement. Mintsa et al. [94] observed a 22.7%
high concentrations compared to values obtained by Masuda et al. enhancement in knf for 3.3% vol. concentration of CuO(36 nm)/
[60] and Zhang et al. [63] with particle size of 27 and 33 nm re- water nanofluid with an increase in temperature from 21 °C to
spectively Yiamswasd et al. [70] measured the knf of TiO2(21 nm)/ 40 °C. The knf enhancement of 34% and 44% was observed by Li and
water suspension for particle concentrations of 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0. It Peterson [68] in their experimental investigation with CuO
was observed that knf of the nanofluid enhanced by 2%, 5%, 10% (29 nm)/water for temperatures of 30 °C and 35 °C respectively for
respectively. Further, Saleh et al. [79] showed that knf of 4% vol. concentration. The knf enhancement of 8.5–16.5% with CuO
(31 nm)/water was reported by Patel et al. [66] in temperature 10 nm in diameter has been documented by Shima et al. [102],
range of 20–60 °C. which is in deep contrast with the observations of Jang and Choi
Variation of knf with temperature for TiO2 nanoparticles in [101] as well as Feng et al. [100]. However, Shima et al. [102] noted
water with temperature has been investigated by Duangthongsuk that the growth of small particles into fractal-like aggregate
and Wongwises [67] using transient hot-wire (THW) principle. structure in the base fluid may be the reason for the increase in the
Zhang et al. [63] however employed a modified THW system to knf , when the particle size was increased from 2.8 to 9.5 nm.
measure the knf of TiO2(33 nm)/water nanofluid. Their results The effect of particle size on the knf enhancement in nanofluids
show a knf enhancement of about 5.6% and 6.4% at temperatures of can be explained by two factors: the increase in surface-area-to-
20°C and 60°C respectively for 2.55% vol. concentration. Further, volume-ratio and phonon effect. As the particle size decreases, the
Saleh et al. [79] reported the knf enhancement of 11% and 17% with surface area of the nanoparticles become enlarged and thereby
TiO2(33 nm)/water when the temperature increased from 15 to leading to enhanced thermal conductivity. Likewise, the kp will
50 °C for 3.0% vol. concentration. decrease when the phonon mean free path is of the same order as
From the experiments undertaken, it can be seen that knf of the particle size. This is due to the decrease in intensity of the
nanofluids increase with temperature. This can be due to Brow- main carrier (phonon) at the particle interfacial locations [88].
nian motion of the nanoparticles which is a strong function of
temperature resulting in the lowering of viscosity. The stronger 2.3.4. Effect of particle shape
the Brownian motion, the greater is the contribution to micro- In the literature, a limited number of studies are reported re-
convection with consequent enhancement in effective con- lating to the effect of particle morphology or aspect ratio on the
ductivity of the nanofluid [93]. nanofluid thermal conductivity [87,103,104]. Timofeeva et al. [87]
reported the knf enhancement of Al2O3/50:50 EG-water mixture as
2.3.3. Effect of particle size a function of particle shape. Higher thermal conductivity of ap-
According to Wang and Mujumdar [95] the value of knf can be proximately 5% of the nanofluid was observed when dispersed
altered by varying the particle size. By decreasing the particle size, with particles having the shape of cylinders as compared to 2.9%
the surface area to volume ratio increases, and consequently the obtained with platelets. Murshed et al. [103] revealed that rod-
knf of the nanofluid would increase. Studies show a direct corre- shaped TiO2 nanoparticles of dimension (Ø10 nm 40 nm) exhibit
lation between particle size and knf enhancement of nanofluids. greater increase in knf compared to spherical-shaped (15 nm) na-
The water based oxide nanofluids mostly indicate a decrease in knf noparticles dispersed in aqueous medium. They observed the en-
with increase in particle size. Teng et al. [96] reported Al2O3 knf hancement for the rod and spherical shaped particles as 33% and
enhancement of approximately 12.8% and 5.3% respectively with 30% respectively. It can be concluded from the experimental data
nanoparticles of 20 and 100 nm size at room temperature. Chon that nanofluids dispersed with particles of large length to dia-
et al. [81] observed a knf enhancement of 4.8% and 15.8% with meter ratio can have greater knf enhancements owing to large
particle size of 150 and 11 nm respectively for Al2O3/water nano- surface area facilitating heat conduction through the fluid.
fluid. Similar conclusions have been reported by Mintsa et al. [94]
with (36, 47 nm) and He et al. [97] with (95, 145 and 210 nm) set of 2.3.5. Influence of base fluid
particle sizes respectively, including a recent study by Kazemi- A number of investigators have reported the dependence of knf
Beydokhti et al. [98] with Al2O3 (12, 26, 48, 36, and 47)/water on the inherent conductivity of the base fluid kbf [54,89,98,104].
nanofluid. The reference value of kbf for common heat transfer fluids at 300 K
In contrast, there are also a few reports on the increase in knf are given in Table 3. Hwang et al. [105] observed knf enhancement
with increase in particle size. Beck et al. [88] observed a decrease of 3% and 9% with CuO(35 nm) dispersed in deionized water (DIW)
in k enhancement with increase in Al2O3 particle size from 2 to and ethylene glycol (EG) respectively. The value of knf obtained
282 nm. The rate of knf enhancement was pronounced for particles with CuO(33 nm)/EG nanofluid are greater than those presented
between 10–50 nm. This behavior was attributed to increase in by Eastman et al. [106], which corresponds to 4.8% in DIW and
phonon scattering with decrease in particle size. Moreover, mo- 9.0% in EG base liquids respectively. Patel et al. [66] reported knf
lecular dynamics simulation based on Stilling–Weber (SW) po- enhancement of 6% and 8% in DIW and EG respectively with
tential model for SiO2 nanoparticles of size between 2 and 12 nm Al2O3(23.6 nm) at 1.0% volume concentration determined at 20°C.
predicted a linear increase in k ratio. However, such an increase However, the enhancement in knf dispersed with SiO2(12 nm) in
was considered anomalous, which is attributed to proliferation in water are observed to be 1.0% greater than with EG based ex-
the phonon mean path [99]. perimental data of Kazemi et al. [98]. This enhancement is at-
The fractal theorem and analytical modeling has been em- tributed to hydrophilic affinity of SiO2(12 nm) nanoparticles to
ployed by Feng et al. [100] and Jang and Choi [101] respectively to water molecules resulting in a stable dispersion.
study the influence of particle agglomeration on knf enhancement The investigators observed greater enhancements with EG as
in nanofluids. Results show an exponential decrease in knf ratio compared to DIW. Therefore, it can be deduced that base liquid
with increase of particle size above 10 nm, which suggest that at a with higher thermal conductivity need not be the deciding factor
certain critical diameter of 10 nm the nanoparticles are not effi- for obtaining higher enhancement in thermal conductivity as the
cient enough probably due to the reduced particle conductivity enhancement is related to the dispersed nanoparticle. Hence, a
and increased solid-liquid interfacial thermal resistance. Never- stable nanofluid of certain net electric charge reflected through
theless, an increase in the knf ratio with particles of less than zeta potential in the range between 740 and 760 mV may offer
Table 3
Thermo-physical properties of some selected conventional cooling fluids at 300 K.
Base fluid Thermal conductivity Density Specific heat Thermal diffusivity 10 8 Reference
Deionized water (DIW) 0.607 998 4200 14.55 Sattler et al. [58]
Ethylene glycol (EG) 0.255 1111 2400 9.385 Sattler et al. [58]
Engine oil (EO) 0.145 884 1900 8.740 Sattler et al. [58]
better thermal transport capabilities. This means that a nanofluid used by various investigators for characterization of the nanofluids
at optimized state of pH or surface would be likely to facilitate is given in Table 4.
phonon transport through increase in effective charged sites re-
sulting in enhanced thermal conductivity. 2.3.8. Modeling of thermal conductivity in nanofluids
A considerable number of mechanisms have been suggested to
2.3.6. Influence of material explain the observed enhancement of nanofluid thermal con-
The thermal conductivity of material can exert significant in- ductivity. The mechanisms for enhanced thermal conductivity can
fluence over knf of nanofluid. As such, a bulk material of higher k be classified into two main groups viz., the static mechanism
would be expected to exhibit greater knf enhancement when dis- which assumes the particles to be stationary while suspended in
persed in base fluid as compared to one with lower conductivity base liquid. Thus, microscopic phenomenon of nanolayer [114],
under similar conditions. A comparison of k of typical oxide nano interfacial resistance [115], aggregation and percolation [116] may
materials used in nanofluid preparation are given in Table 3. be responsible for the enhanced conductivity. The dynamic me-
The influence of material properties on nanofluid knf en- chanism which considers the particles to be in random motion as
hancement have been investigated by several researchers in the case of the Brownian motion and micro convection to be
[61,62,66,89]. Murshed et al. [93] observed about 6.2% increase in responsible for knf enhancement based on the works of Lee et al.
knf at 1.0% vol. concentration of Al2O3(80 nm)/water at 30°C. [117], Keblinski et al. [118], Michaelides [119].
However, at the same particle concentration and temperature, The evaluation of knf of nanofluids can be a complex process
Patel et al. [66] reported two-fold enhancement in knf with Cu due to number of parameters involved in the analysis. Never-
(80 nm)/water nanofluid. Kim et al. [65] reported 14.2% and 11.4% theless, the thermal conductivity of nanofluid knf can be modeled
enhancements in knf with ZnO(10 nm)/water and TiO2(10 nm)/ based on two known approaches viz., the mathematical methods,
water at 20°C for a nanofluid concentration of 3.0%. In contrast, which is based on hypothesis and semi-empirical methods which
others [107,108] maintain that kp is not an indicator for enhanced inherently blends theory with experimental data.
fluid conductivity as in the case of Zhu et al. [107] who demon- Mathematical models [21,26,27,38,45,46,66,68,81,93,101,106,
strated 34.8% enhancement with Fe3O4(10 nm)/water nanofluid 114,120–144] for the estimation of nanofluid thermal conductivity
for a particle concentration of 3.0% vol. concentration, while given in Table 5 through Eqs. (7)–(30) have limited applicability
Al2O3(13 nm) with 22% despite the fact that k of bulk Al2O3 is ty- with respect to the effects of particle size, temperature, particle
pically higher than that of Fe3O4. Shima et al. [108] observed knf distribution, and pH. As a result, these models are unable to pre-
enhancements of hexadecane based Ag(7 nm) and Fe2O3(7.5 nm) dict the experimental data of within acceptable limits. However,
nanofluids are approximately the same at 2% concentration. It can semi empirical models [48,94,145–148] listed in Table 6 through
be summarized based on the investigations undertaken by various Eqs. (31)–(50) are derived using experimental data. Most of the
investigators that material properties of the particles can have a models developed are functions of temperature, particle con-
significant influence on nanofluid knf. The enhancements can be centration, clearly a majority of equations proposed are valid for a
sustained over a period of time, if the nanofluid remains in a specific nanofluid and particle size and could not be used for
uniformly dispersed state and free from distorted aggregation. comparison with other equations. The models can be categorized
to reflect this nature with the exception of the model presented by
2.3.7. Effect of pH Corcione [27] and Sharma et al. [26] in Eqs. (49) and (50) applic-
The observed variation in nanofluid knf by various investigators able for spherical particles dispersed in water. The models de-
may be due to the presence of temperature gradient at different scribing the mechanism of thermal conductivity enhancement are
values of pH [109–113]. Yoo et al. [109] observed that knf en- presented through Figs. 3–5.
hancement can be achieved with pH adjustment of the nanofluid.
The researchers found 2.7% higher knf increase with Al2O3(50 nm)/ 2.3.9. Validation of the thermal conductivity models
water at pH 10.94 compared to Al2O3(50 nm) dispersed in buffered Comparison of knf for SmNf with Eqs. (49) and (50) for various
neutral solution of pH 7 for concentration of 1.5% vol. Wang and particle concentration, temperature, and particle sizes is presented
Fang [113] observed a maximum value of knf Al2O3(25–60 nm) through Figs. 6–9. It can be observed from Fig. 6 that Eqs. (49) and
when the surface charge on a particle is far away from the iso- (50) predict the thermal conductivity data of Patel et al. [66], Kim
electric point (IEP). A maximum enhancement in knf of 9% and 10% et al. [65], Yoo et al. [109] with Al2O3/water nanofluids for volume
were observed at an optimum value of pH ≈8.0 for 0.1 wt% and concentration less than 5.0%. Eq. (50) is observed to over predict
0.2 wt% respectively. It was further explained that the repulsive the experimental data of Al2O3 nanofluids to a maximum of 20% as
forces between the particles or rather high zeta (ζ) potential sus- compared to Eq. (49) which exhibited a marginal deviation of 7.4%
tain the fluid in a highly dispersed state. Xie et al. [112] discussed at higher particle concentrations.
about the dependence of knf enhancements with pH based on the Thermal conductivity data for water based CuO nanofluid of
experimental observations with Al2O3(35 nm)/water and Diamond Zhu et al. [149], Lee et al. [61], Khedkar et al. [77], Sahooli et al.
(5–10 nm)/EG nanofluids. The repulsive forces on the surface of [150] is depicted in Fig. 7 for concentration o5.0% vol. The ex-
nanoparticles increase with pH value of a suspension from the IEP, perimental data is in good agreement with the predicted values
which give rise for enhanced particle mobility in the suspension. from Eqs. (49) and (50) especially at concentrations between 0 and
This phenomenon trigger micro-convection and result in transport 2.0% vol. However, the average deviation based on the Eqs. (49)
efficiency. and (50) from the experimental data is greater by 1.9% and 3.1%
The results from the investigation support the relationship respectively for concentrations 42.0%.
between pH and stability of the nanofluids. Large aggregation re- The thermal conductivity experimental data of Ferrouillat et al.
sults when particle-particle repulsion force is weak. As pH shifts [74] for SiO2(22 nm)/water nanofluid shown in Fig. 8 deviated
towards the acidic region, surface charge density increases and from the predicted values of Eqs. (49) and (50) by approximately
thus particle aggregation is inhibited. Once dispersion stability is (8.0%, 9.2%) and (0.3%, 0.5%) respectively at volume concentrations
attained, higher values of thermal conductivity can be ensured of 2.3% and 4.0% respectively.
[112,80]. However, according to Timofeeva et al. [87] a change in Fig. 9 display a comparison of knf data of Yiamswasd et al. [70]
pH can possibly affect the viscosity without negative consequences and Kim et al. [65] with predicted values estimated with Eq. (49)
to the knf enhancement of the nanofluids. Summary of equipments and (50) for TiO2/water at different concentrations. Eq. (49) exhibit
Table 4
Materials and characterization equipments.
Thermophysical Equipment type Dispersed nanopowder Reference

property
Density DA-505 ( KEM, Japan) Al2O3 [45],

DA-130 N (KEM, Japan) Al2O3 [47]
Stabinger Viscometer (SVM 3000, Anton Paar Al2O3 [46]
GmbH)
vibrating tube densimeter, (DMA512 P/60, An- [161]
ton Paar)
Specific heat DSC (200F3-Maia, NETZSCH GmbH) CuO [46]
DSC (Q20, TA Instruments, USA) Al2O3 [47]
DSC (DSC 7, PerkinElmer Inc, USA) Al2O3 [53]
DSC (C80D, Setaram, France) Al2O3 [54]
DSC (Q2000, TA Instruments, USA) Al2O3, CuO, TiO2 [55]
DSC (Setaram, France) SiO2, ZnO [164]
Thermal conductivity KD2 Pro (Decagon devices, Inc., USA) Al2O3; Ag/MgO; Al2O3/Cu; CuO; [45,46,64,73,74,77,79,87,91,94,96,108,149,155,211,219–221]
Fe2O3; ND/CO3O; SiO2; TiO2
Lambda system, (1, F5 Technology GmbH) SiO2 [164]
Transient plane-source (2500 s, Hot Disk Fe2O3; SiO2; TiO2 [108;[156,198]
Sweden)
Steady state Cut-bar Apparatus Al2O3, CuO [68]
Transient Hot-wire Apparatus Al2O3; CuO; Fe3O4; Fe2O3; SiC; [61,65–67,69,70,73–76,80,82,84,86,93,104–110,153],
SiO2; TiO2
Transient Short-wire Apparatus Al2O3; CuO, SiO2, TiO2 [63,98]
1D Steady-state parallel-plate Apparatus Al2O3 [62]
3ω Hot-wire [92]
Viscosity Concentric viscometer (VT550, Gebruder TiO2 [193]
HAAKE Gmbh, Germany)
Oscillation-type viscometer (VM-10A CBC Co. Al2O3 [154]
Ltd.)
Piston-Type Couette flo viscometer (Visco- Al2O3 [153]
Lab450, Cambridge Applied Sys-tems, Massa-
chusetts, USA)
Rolling ball viscometer, (AMV 200, Anton Paar) CuO [161]
Rotational rheometer (AR-G2, TA Instruments TiO2 [198]
Inc., USA)
Rotational viscometer (DV Iþ PRIME C/P, Ag/MgO; Al2O3/Cu [219,220]
Brookfield, Inc., USA)
Rotational viscometer (DV II þLV, Brookfield, Al2O3; CuO; SiO; TiO2 [45,72,79,87,166,211]
Inc., USA)
Rotational rheometer (DV III þLV Ultra, Brook- TiO2 [155]
field, Inc., USA)
Rotational rheometer( cone-and-plate), (Paar Al2O3 [158]
Physica UDS 200, Anton Paar)
Rotational rheometer (MCR 301, Anton Paar Ag, Fe2O3 [108]
GmbH)
Rotational rheometer (parallel-plate), (MCR Al2O3 [92]
101, Anton Paar GmbH)
Rotational viscometer (coaxial cylinder), CuO [78]
(OFITE-900, OFI Testing Equipment Inc., USA)
Rotational rheometer (MCR 3000, Anton Paar SiO2 [74]
GmbH)
Rotational rheometer (Parallel-plate), (Gemini TiO2 [67]
200HR Nano, Malvern–Bohlin Instruments, UK)
Ubbelohde capillary viscometer ZnO; SiO2 [163,164]
U-tube (reverse-flow) capillary viscometer Al2O3 [46]
(Petrotest Instruments GmbH & Co. KG)
Vibro-viscometer (SV-10, A&D, Japan) ND/CO3O [221]
close agreement with the experimental data of TiO2 (21 nm) and 2.4. Viscosity
(71 nm) nanofluids while Eq. (50) under predicted the data by a
maximum deviation of 3.5% and 2.5% respectively. It is also ap- Fluids encounter internal resistance to flow through pipes due
parent from Fig. 9 that, in the concentration range between 0 and to viscosity. The magnitude of heat transfer depends on the vis-
5.0% vol., the deviation of the data increased with concentration. cous state of the fluid rather than on thermal conductivity [151]. It
Since the difference between the predicted values and the ex- is important in nanofluid flow to attain a compromise between
perimental data of various single material nanofluids is low, Eqs. thermal conductivity and viscosity enhancement. For example, a
(49) and (50) can be extended to predict the thermal conductivity viscous base fluid can offset the thermal conductivity since its heat
of composite nanofluids. Summary of the comparisons of the transfer capabilities hinged upon the contributions due to Brow-
thermal conductvity predictions with regression Equations (49) nian and micro-convection effects, which are important mechan-
and (50) has also been given in Table 7. isms for enhanced thermal performance [152].
Table 5
Theoretical thermal conductivity models.
Eq.No. Author Theoretical Model Validity (Maximum)
ϕp Particle Shape
7. Maxwell [120] ⎡ k + 2k + 2 k − k ϕ ⎤ 1.0 Spherical

keff = ⎢
p bf p (
bf p ⎥
k
)
⎢⎣ kp + 2kbf − kp − kbf ϕp ⎥⎦ bf
( )
8. Bruggeman [121] ⎡ kp − keff ⎤ ⎡ kbf − keff ⎤ – Spherical
ϕp⎢ ⎥ + 1 − ϕp ⎢
⎣ kp + 2keff ⎦ ( ⎥=0
⎣ kbf + 2keff ⎦ )
⎡ k + ( n − 1)k − ( n − 1) k − k
9. Hamilton-Crosser [122]
keff = ⎢
p bf bf p ( )ϕp ⎤⎥k n = 3/ψ
4.0 Spherical
bf , Non-spherical
⎢⎣ kp + ( n − 1)kbf + kbf − kp ϕp
( ) ⎥⎦
10. Wasp [124] (
kp + 2kbf + 2 kp − kbf ϕp) k – –
keff = bf
kp + 2kbf − ( kp − kbf )ϕp
11. Jeffery [123] ⎡ ⎛ ϖ3 ϖ3 η + 2 ⎞

⎤ kp ϖ−1
– Spherical
keff = ⎢ 1 + 3ϖϕp + ϕp2⎜ 3ϖ 2 + 3 +9 ⎟ + ⋯⎥ kbf , ϖ = , η=
⎣ ⎝ 4 16 η + 3 ⎠ ⎦ kbf ϖ+2
12. Davis [125] ⎡ 3 ( κ − 1) ⎤ – Spherical

keff = ⎢ 1 +
⎣
φ + f ( κ ) φ/2p + O φp3 ⎥ kbf
( κ + 2) − φp( κ − 1) p ⎦
( )
f ( κ ) = ∑∞ ⎡ P − 3⎤
P = 6 ⎣ ( BP − 3AP )/ ( j − 3) 2 ⎦
⎡ k + ( 1 + 2χ ) + 2k + 2 –
13. Hasselman and Johnson [126]
keff = ⎢
p bf ( kp( 1 − χ ) − kbf )ϕp ⎤⎥k , χ=
kbf
R
Spherical
Non-spherical
⎢⎣ kp + ( 1 + 2χ ) + 2kbf − ( kp( 1 − χ ) − kbf )ϕp ⎥⎦ bf ap T
Flat-plate
14. Lu and Lin [127] – Spherical
(
keff = 1 + aϕp + bϕp2 kbf ) Non-spherical
⎡ k + 2k + 2 –
15. Yu and Choi [128]
keff = ⎢⎢
pe bf ( kpe − kbf ) ( 1 + β)3φp ⎤⎥ kbf
Spherical
⎣ k pe + 2k bf − ( kpe − kbf ) ( 1 + β)3φp ⎥⎦

⎧ ⎡ 3 ⎤⎫
⎪ γ ⎢⎣ 2 ( 1 − γ ) + ( 1 + β ) ( 1 + γ )⎥⎦ ⎪ klayer
kpe = ⎨ ⎬, β = δ , γ =
⎪ −( 1 − γ ) + ( 1 + β ) + ( 1 + 2γ )3 ⎪
3 ap kp
⎩ ⎭
16. Xue [129] φp keff − kbf φp ⎡ keff − kc, x
– Spherical
(
9 1−
α )
2keff + kbf
+ ⎢
α ⎢ k +B
(
⎣ eff 2, x kc, x − keff )( )
keff − kc, y ⎤
+4 ⎥=0
(
2keff + 1 − B2, x ) ( kc, y − keff ) ⎥⎦
17. Yu and Choi [132] – Non-spherical
keff =
⎛ 1 + hAϕe ⎞
⎜ ⎟k , A=
1
∑j = a, b, c
( kp,j − kbf ) , ϕe =
f ( a2 + δ)( b2 + δ)( c2 + δ)
⎝ 1 − Aϕe ⎠ bf 3 kp, j + ( n − 1)kbf abc
18. Xie et al.[134] ⎛ 3Θ2ϕ 2 ⎞ – Spherical

3
keff = ⎜⎜ 1 + 3ΘϕT + T ⎟ δ
k , ϕ T = ϕp( 1 + β ) , β=
1 − ΘϕT ⎟ bf ap
⎝ ⎠
19. Xue and Xu [137] φp keff − kf φp – Spherical
(1 − ) λ 2keff + kf
+
λ
⋅k¯
⎡
k¯ = ⎢
( keff − kshell) ( 2kshell + kp) − ( kp − kshell) ( 2kshell + keff ) λ ⎤⎥
⎢⎣ ( 2keff + kshell) ( 2kshell + kp) + 2 ( kp − kshell) ( kshell − keff ) λ ⎥⎦
–
20. Leong et al. [114]
( kp − klr ) ϕpklr⎡⎢⎣ 2β13 − β 3 + 1⎤⎥⎦ + ( kp + 2klr ) β13⎡⎢⎣ ϕpβ 3( klr − kbf ) + klr ⎤⎥⎦ ⎛ δ ⎞
Spherical
keff = ⎡ ⎤
, β = ⎜1 + ⎟
β 3 kp + 2klr − kp − klr ϕp ⎢⎣ β 3 + β 3 − 1⎥⎦
( ) ( ) ⎝ ap ⎠
1 1
–
21. Murshed et al. [93]
( kp − klr ) ϕpklr⎡⎣⎢ β12 − β2 + 1⎤⎦⎥ + ( kp + klr ) β12⎡⎣⎢ β2ϕp( klr − kbf ) + kbf ⎤⎦⎥ ⎛ δ ⎞
Cylindrical
keff = ⎛ 2
, β1 = ⎜ 1 + ⎟
⎡ ⎤⎞ ⎝ 2ap ⎠
β k + klr ) − ( kp − klr ) ϕp ⎣⎢ β 2 + β 2 − 1⎦⎥
⎝ 1( p
⎜ ⎟
1 ⎠
22. Jang and Choi [101] dbf C¯ R.M.dp – Spherical
( )
keff = 1 − ϕp kbf + kpϕp + C1 kbf Re2dpPrϕp,
dp
C1 = 18 × 106 , Re =
v
,
Do
C¯ R.M. =
λbf
23. Kumar et al. [133] ⎡ ϕp abf

⎤ – –
keff = ⎢ 1 + upC ⎥k , KBT
bf up = 2
⎢⎣ kbf ( 1 − ϕp) ap ⎥⎦ 2
πμ dp
24. Koo and Kleinstreuer [135] keff = kstatic + μBrownian – –

⎡ k + 2k + 2 kp − kbf φp ⎤
⎡ ⎤
=⎢
p bf ( ) ⎥ + ⎢ 5 × 104 β φpρbf Cv, p ⋯ ×
KBT
f T , φp ⎥
kpe
⎢⎣ kp + 2kbf − ( kp − kbf ) φp ⎥⎦
kbf
⎢
⎣
( ) ρp dp ( )
⎥
⎦
( ) (
f T , φp = −6.04 φp + 0.4705 T + 1722.3 φp − 134.63 ) ( )
⎡ k + 2k + 2 – –
25. Prasher et al. [136]
keff = ( 1 + ARemPr0.3ϕp)
( kp − kbf ) ϕp ⎤⎥ k
⎢ p bf
( kp − kbf ) ϕp ⎥⎦ bf
⎢⎣ kp + 2kbf −
26. Yang [139] ⎡ k + 2k + 2 k − k ϕ ⎤ – –
keff = 157.5 ϕpC up2τ + ⎢
p bf ( p bf ) p ⎥ k , up =
3KBT
,τ=
mp
⎢⎣ kp + 2kbf − ( kp − kbf ) ϕp ⎥⎦ bf mp 6πμbf rp
Table 5 (continued )
Eq.No. Author Theoretical Model Validity (Maximum)
ϕp Particle Shape
⎡ – –
27. Wang et al. [130]
( ) ( ) ⎤⎥
∞
kcl rcl n rcl
⎢
⎢
( 1 − ϕp) + 3ϕp ∫ ( ) ⎥
kcl rcl + 2kbf ⎧ 2⎫
⎪ ⎡ ln( r / r¯ ) ⎤ ⎪
0 1 cl cl
keff =⎢ ⎥ kbf , n( rcl ) = exp⎨ −⎢ ⎥ ⎬
kbf n ( rcl) ⎪ ⎣ 2π ln σ ⎦ ⎪
⎢
( 1 − ϕp) + 3ϕp kcl( rcl) + 2kbf ⎥⎥
r 2π ln σ
⎩ ⎭
⎢
⎣ ⎦
⎡ k + 2k + 2 – –
28. Xuan et al. [131]
keff = ⎢
p bf ( kp − kbf ) ϕp ⎤⎥ k + ρpϕpcv,p KBT
⎢⎣ kp + 2kbf − ( kp − kbf ) ϕp ⎥⎦ bf 2 3π aclμ
29. Sabbaghdazeh and Ebrahimi [138] keff = kbf ⎡⎣ 1 − ϕp( 1 + M′)⎤⎦ + ϕp kp + klr M′ + ϕp ( 1 + M′) ⋯ – –
( )
abf
)( )
× 0.35 + 0.56Re0.3
bf
0.3k
Prbf bf
(
Pr 2ap + δ
⎡⎛ ⎞2 ⎤
M′ = ⎢ ⎜ + 1⎟ − 1⎥
δ
⎢ ⎝ ap ⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
30. Pang et al. [140] ⎧ 0.1 Spherical
⎪ (
φp kp − kbf )
⎨1 +
⎪
⎩ ( ) ( )
1 − φp / n kp − kbf + kbf
(
+ A1 ln A2 φpRem
a Pr
0.3
⋯ ) Non-spherical
⎡ 1 + 2φ + 2
A3 ⎢
p ( 1 − φp) λ ⎤⎥⎫⎬ k
⎪
⎢⎣ 1 − φp + ( 2 + φp)λ ⎥⎦⎭ b ⎪
In the last few decades, research on nanofluids focused pri- 2.4.3. Effect of particle size
marily on thermal conductivity measurements alone, yet viscosity Observed fluctuation in viscosity of nanofluids has been at-
of the fluid is equally important and needs to be investigated tributed by researchers to particle size effect or magnitude of ag-
thoroughly [35,31]. Studies show the dependence of viscosity on gregates in the system [97,153,159–162]. However, quite a number
several system parameters such as temperature, volume con- of reports on particle size effects are conflicting. He et al. [97] in-
centration, particle shape, particle size, and pH among others. vestigated the rheological characteristics of Al2O3/water nanofluid
with particle sizes of 95, 145, and 210 nm. They concluded that the
2.4.1. Effect of particle volume concentration viscosity of nanofluids increases with particle size. Nguyen et al.
Most research works presented the variation of nanofluid [153] observed greater viscosities with 47 nm Al2O3 particles
viscosity with particle volume concentration [62,72,79,86,93,153– compared to values with 36 nm, especially at higher concentra-
157]. Nguyen et al. [153] observed the viscosity enhancement of tions. No significant effect on the size of the particles was observed
Al2O3(47 and 36 nm)/water at 23 °C to be 27% and 44% respec- by them at low concentrations. In contrast, Namburu et al. [159]
tively at 3% volume concentration. Williams et al. [86] showed that demonstrated that the viscosity of SiO2/60:40 ethylene glycol-
the viscosity of Al2O3(46 nm)/water increased by 14.7% at 3.0% vol. water decreases with the increase in the particle sizes of 20, 50
concentration. A similar observation on the viscosity increase with and 100 nm. Similar observation has been made by Lu and Fan
concentration has been made by Wang et al. [62], Lee et al. [154], [160] with Al2O3 (35, 45, and 90 nm) and Pastoriza-Gallego et al.
[161] with CuO (11 and 33 nm) water based nanofluids. However,
and Murshed et al. [93], etc. with of Al2O3/water, Kang et al. [72],
based on experiments with Al2O3 (27 and 40 nm) in propylene
Ferrouillat et al. [74], and Nikkam et al. [156], etc. with SiO2/water,
glycol (PG), Prasher et al. [162] observed the nanofluid viscosity to
Azmi et al. [155], Saleh et al. [79], and Jalal et al. [157], etc. with
be independent of particle size. It is apparent that contradictions
TiO2/water nanofluids respectively.
exist amongst the investigators regarding the effects of particle
size on the nanofluid effective viscosity . Such discrepancies
2.4.2. Effect of temperature
emanate mostly from experimental procedures and complexities
Temperature dependence of viscosity is a critical feature for the
in instrument calibration. Hence repeatability of experimental
effective utilization of nanofluids. The viscosity is expected to
measurements of nanofluids with viscosity values of other in-
decrease on exposure to high temperature fields due to weak in-
vestigators need to be ensured along with careful monitoring of
termolecular forces of attraction between the nanoparticles and
the size distributions at all volume fractions [32].
base fluid interface. Thus, the use of nanofluids at moderate par-
ticle loadings would be advantageous in applications involving
2.4.4. Effect of particle shape
high temperature build up [35]. The shape of the nanoparticles significantly influence the na-
Rheological studies undertaken by Anoop et al. [158] with nofluid viscosity which directly affect the heat exchanger pumping
Al2O3(50 nm)/water nanofluids for volume concentration o6.0% power requirement. Hence studies with different particle shapes
showed a decrease in viscosity with temperature in the range of on viscosity have been undertaken to achieve efficient and cost-
20–50 °C. Tavman et al. [71] observed the viscosity of SiO2(12 nm)/ effective cooling media. Jeong et al. [163] observed 77% viscosity
water at 4.0% vol. to decrease by 40% when the temperature in- enhancement with rectangular shaped ZnO/water particles of ag-
creased from 20 to 50 °C. Nguyen et al. [153] observed a reduction gregate size distribution of 150–370 nm compared to that of
in viscosity of CuO(36 nm)/water at 1.0% vol. concentration by 50% spherical particles in the size distribution of 57–150 nm at 5.0%
in the temperature range of 22–60°C. Namburu et al. [159] ob- volume concentration. Ferrouillat et al. [164] observed the visc-
served a similar trend with ethylene glycol water mixtures, where osity of rod-shaped ZnO/water nanofluid to be lower than with
the effective viscosity of CuO(29 nm)/60:40 EG-water nanofluid, polygonal shape particles. According to Timofeeva and co-workers
decreased significantly when subjected to heating in the tem- [87], the viscosity of nanofluid was greater with elongated
perature range of 35–50°C. Al2O3(80 10 nm)/50:50 ethylene glycol-water nanofluid as
Table 6
Empirical models for thermal conductivity.
Eq.No. Author Empirical Model Nanofluid dp ϕp T
31. Pak and Cho [48] Al2O3–W 13 – 25

(
keff = 1 + 7.47 ϕp kbf )
32. Garg et al. [145] keff = (1 + 6 ϕ ) k Cu/EG 200 0–2 25
p bf
1 1
33. Mintsa et al. [94] 1
keff = ( 1.0 + 1.72 ϕ ) k Al2O3–W 36, 146, 0–18 20–50
p bf 2
2
47
2
keff = ( 0.99 + 1.74 φ ) k CuO–W
p bf
34. Ghazvini et al. keff = 0.129 + 0.046 ϕp − 0.013 ϕp2 ND–EO – 0–2 29
[146]
1 1
35. Branson et al. ND–EG 11, 218 0–1.9 20–100
[147]
1
(
keff = 1.0 + 14φp kbf )
2
2
keff = ( 1.0 + 6 φ ) k ND–MO
p bf
1
36. Godson et al. keff = ( 0.9692 ϕ + 0.9508) k Ag–W 131 1, 44 20–50
p bf
[148]
37. Palm et al. [141] 1
keff = 3.352 × 10−3T − 0.3708, 2keff = 4.961 × 10−3T − 0.8078 Al2O3–W 60 0–0.9 50–90
38. Ho et al. [45] Al2O3–W 33 0–4 14–40
(
keff = 1 + 2.944 ϕp + 19.672 ϕp2)k bf
39. Heyhat et al. [46] keff = ⎡⎣ ( 1 + 8.733 ) T ⎤⎦ kbf Al2O3–W 40 0–2 20–60
40. Sahoo et al. [20] ⎡ ⎛ T ⎞2 ⎛T⎞ ⎤ SiO2–EG/W (60:40) 20 0–6 20–90
keff = ⎢ −0.45577⎜ ⎟ + 1.72837⎜ ⎟ − 0.18589⎥ kbf , To = 20oC
⎢⎣ ⎝ To ⎠ ⎝ To ⎠ ⎥⎦
41. Mojarrad et al. ⎡ ⎤ Al2O3–EG/W (50:50) 25 0–0.7 20–50
[142]
1
(
keff = ⎢⎣ 9.9 × 10−3 + exp 3.8 × 10−4T + 4.56 × 10−2ϕ ⎦⎥ kbf )
1 2 1 2
42. Li and Peterson Al2O3–W, CuO–W 36, 29 2–6, 27–36,
[68]
1
(
keff = 1 + 0.7645 φp + 0.0187T − 0.4621 kbf ) 2–6 29–36
2
keff = ( 1 + 3.7611 φ p + 0.0179T − 0.3073) k bf
43. Khanafer and Va- ⎡ ⎛ 47 ⎞ ⎛ k p ⎞⎤ Al2O3–W, CuO–W – 4.0 25
keff = ⎢ 1.0 + 1.0112 ϕp + 2.4375 ϕp⎜ ⎟ − 0.0248 ϕp ⎜ ⎟⎥ k
fai [38] ⎣ ⎝ dP ⎠ ⎝ 0.613 ⎠⎦ bf
1
44. Vasu et al. [143] ⎡ ⎛ kp ⎞0.2324 ⎤⎥ ⎡ ⎛ kp ⎞0.2324 ⎤⎥ Al2O3–W, 2Cu–W 1
38.4 0–5 20–50
1
keff = ⎢ Rem ϕp0.05 ⎜ ⎟ kbf , 2keff = ⎢ 0.74 Rem ϕp0.05 ⎜ ⎟ k , 2
0–10
⎢ ⎝ bf ⎠
k ⎥ ⎢ ⎝ kbf ⎠ ⎥ bf
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
1 18Kb T
Re =
ν πρp dp
45. Chon et al. [81] ⎡ ⎤ Al2O3–W 11–150 1.0 20–70

⎛ dbf ⎞0.3690⎛ kp ⎞0.7476
= ⎢ 1 + 64.7ϕp0.7460 ⎜ ⎟ Re1.2321⎥ kbf , Pr =
μ
keff ⎜k ⎟ Pr0.9955 ,
⎢ ⎝ dp ⎠ ⎝ bf ⎠ bf ⎥ ρbf α
⎣ ⎦
ρbf VBrdp Kb T
Re = , VBr = , μbf = A⋅10 B / (T − C ) , A = 2.414 × 10−5,
μ 3πμ dplbf
B = 247.8, C = 140
μ ρbf VBrdp Kb T
Pr = , Re = , VBr = , μbf = A⋅10 B / (T − C ) , A = 2.414 × 10−5,
ρbf α μ 3πμ dplbf
B = 247.8, C = 140, Kb = 1.380 × 10−23, lbf = 0.17

46. Fakoor Pakdaman ⎡ 0.369 MWCNT–HTO – 0–0.4 40–70
136.35 10⎛ 1 ⎞
[144] keff = ⎢ 1 + 304.47 1 + ϕp ( ) exp ( −0.021 T ) ⎜ ⎟ ⋯
⎢ ⎝ dp ⎠
⎣
⎛ T ⎞⎤
×⎜ ⎟⎥ k
⎝ 10 2.4642 B / T − C ⎠⎦ bf
B = 247.8, C = 140
47. Khanafer and Va- ⎡ 0.0235 Al2O3–W, CuO–W 11–150 0–10 20–70
⎛ 1 ⎞0.2246⎛ μeff ( T ) ⎞ ϕp2
keff = ⎢⎢ 0.9843 + 0.398 ϕp0.7383 ⎜ ⎟
ϕp
fai [38] ⎜ ⎟ ⋯× 3.9517 + 34.0341
⎝ dp ⎠ ⎝ μf ( T ) ⎠ T T3
⎣
ϕp ⎤
+ 32.509 ⎥ kbf
T2 ⎥
⎦
μf (T ) = 2.414 × 10−5 × 10247.8/ ( T − 140)
48. Patel et al. [66] ⎡ ⎛ k ⎞0.273 0.467 0.547 ⎛ 100 ⎞0.234 ⎤⎥ Al, Al2O3, Cu, CuO, TiO2/– 11–150 0–10 20–70
keff = ⎢ 1 + 0.135 ⎜ b ⎟ ( )T
ϕ ⎜ ⎟ k W, EG
⎢ ⎝ kp ⎠ 20 ⎝ dp ⎠ ⎥ bf
⎣ ⎦
49. Corcione [27] ⎡ ⎛ T ⎞10⎛ kp ⎞0.03 0.66⎤⎥ 2ρbf KbT
Al2O3, CuO, Cu, TiO2/–W, 10–150 0–9 20–50
keff = ⎢ 1 + 4.4 Re0.4Pr0.66 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
( ϕp )
k , Re = EG
⎢ ⎝ T fr ⎠ ⎝ kbf ⎠ ⎥ bf πμ 2 dp
⎣ ⎦ bf
50. Sharma et al. [26] ⎡ 1.37 0.2777 ⎛ dp ⎞
−0.0.336 ⎛ αp ⎞0.01737⎤⎥ Al2O3, CuO, TiO2, SiO2, 20–150 0–4 20–70
keff = ⎢ 0.8938 (1 + ϕ ) (1 + ) T
⎜1 + ⎟ ⋯× ⎜ ⎟ k Fe2O3, ZrO2, ZnO/–
⎢⎣ p 70 ⎝ 150 ⎠ ⎝ αbf ⎠ ⎥ bf
⎦
MWCNT– Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotube, EO–Engine Oil, EG–Ethylene Glycol, W–water, ND–Nanodiamond, HTO–Heat Transfer Oil, MO–Mineral Oil
compared to similar nanofluid system containing spherical shaped the particles incur additional stress on the nanofluid system. As a
particles of 9 nm diameter, for the same volume concentration. result, particles of large aspect ratio become dominant within the
In view of the observations made by the investigators, ag- fluid because of their greater surface area resulting in viscosity
gregate structures formed due to asymmetric bonding between increase.
Fig. 3. Single spherical particle with interfacial layer in a fluid medium. Leong et al. Fig. 5. Modes of energy transport in nanofluids (particle dynamic effect). Jang and
[114]. Choi [101].
Fig. 6. Comparison of thermal conductivity ratio of single material Al2O3 nanofluid

with Eqs. (49) and (50) at different particle volume concentrations.
Fig. 4. Schematic illustrating the particles' Brownian-motion effect on micro-
mixing. Koo and Kleinstreuer [135].
6 and 8 than at pH 4 and 10 with 20% relative increase.
2.4.5. Effect of pH The results highlight that pH significantly affects the nanofluid
The values of pH can alter the stability and dispersion of na- viscosity. The effective fluid viscosity can decrease or increase
nofluid leading to variation in viscosity. Zhao et al. [165] have depending on the pH, isoelectric point (IEP) and temperature. The
conducted experiments with SiO2 particles of different sizes IEP is temperature dependent and normally diverges to lower pH
as temperature increases. Hence for a given pH value, the density
(7 nm,12 nm, 16 nm, 20 nm and 40 nm)/water in the range of 0.1–
of the surface charge lessens with increase in temperature re-
2.0% vol. concentration and pH 2–7 at 25 °C. They observed greater
sulting in particle agglomeration and consequent influence in
viscosity at pH values between 5 and 7 for particle diameter less
viscosity.
than 20 nm, while viscosity of the nanofluid was found to remain
almost constant with pH for particle diameter greater than 20 nm.
2.4.6. Modeling of viscosity in nanofluids
It was reasoned that the alteration in fractal dimension of ag- The equations based on modeling for the estimation of nano-
gregates and the presence of electrical double layer over the par- fluid viscosity exhibiting Newtonian flow characteristics are given
ticles was responsible for the observed viscosity enhancements. by Eqs. (51)–(76) presented in Table 8. However, none of the
Timofeeva et al. [87] observed a 25% decrease in the viscosity of models [167–192] could effectively depict the dependence on
cylindrical shaped Al2O3(80 10 nm)/50:50 EG-water with pH particle diameter ( dp ), temperature ( T ), particle volume con-
modification of 4.1 at 5 vol%. The viscosity decreased to 31% when centration ( ϕ ). For this reason, a number of empirical models
the pH of the nanofluid was adjusted to 2.5 at same concentration [20,38,45,46,67,86,141,142,148,153,159,162,191,193–213] have
and temperature. Wankam et al. [166] showed that effective been developed by various investigators as summarized in Table 9
viscosity of 3 wt% ZrO2(25 nm)/water was greater at pH value of for Eqs. (77)–(121). It is well known that nanofluid viscosity is a
Fig. 7. Comparison of thermal conductivity ratio of single material CuO nanofluid Fig. 9. Comparison of thermal conductivity ratio of single material TiO2 nanofluid
Eqs. (49) and (50) at different particle volume concentrations. with Eqs. (49) and (50) at different particle volume concentrations.
(120) and experimental data of Kang et al. [72] and Azmi et al.
[155] for SiO2(17 and 22 nm)/water respectively is shown in Fig. 11.
The experimental data of SiO2/(17 nm) deviate from the predicted
values of Eqs. (119) and (120) by 8.8% and 6.4% respectively, while
the deviation is 3.2% and 1.7% with SiO2 (22 nm) in the con-
centration range of 0–5% vol. concentration. Summary of the
comparisons of the viscosity predictions with regression Equations
(119) and (120) has also been given in Table 10.
It is observed that the values of viscosity estimated with Eqs.
(199) and (120) do not deviate by more than 20% for most of the
nanofluids reported in the literature. Therefore, Eqs. (119) and
(120) are further extended to the estimation of composite nano-
fluid viscosity.
3. Properties of composite nanofluid
A composite nanofluid (CNf) is referred to a base fluid dis-

persed with more than one nano material to obtain a stable
Fig. 8. Comparison of thermal conductivity ratio of single material SiO2 nanofluid homogeneous mixture. The preparation of composite material can
with Eqs. (49) and (50) at different temperatures. be through physical or chemical processes [214,215]. The proper-
ties of composite nanofluid can lie in between those of the con-
stituent nanofluids. Composite nanofluids can be used for specific
strong function of (ϕ ), (T ), and (dp ) [31], but apparently most of the engineering application, as the thermo-physical properties can be
listed models developed are valid for a particle size and tem- tailored to meet the desired heat transfer requirements [216]. A
perature range. Nevertheless, generalized models by Corcione [27] comprehensive review of composite/hybrid nanofluids is pre-
and Sharma et al. [26] are presented as Eqs. (119) and (120) de- sented by Sarkar et al. [217].
veloped for the prediction of nanofluid viscosity. The preparation/synthesis of composite materials can be un-
dertaken for various engineering applications [218]. However,
2.4.7. Validation for the viscosity models dispersion stability in various base liquids has not progressed until
The variation of viscosity with temperature estimated with Eqs. recently. A few experimental investigations have been reported in
(119) and (120) is shown in Fig. 10 with the data of Nguyen et al. the literature using CNf in base liquid water [17,219,220].
[153] for CuO(29 nm)/water. The experimental data deviated from
the predicted values estimated with Eqs. (119) and (120) with an 3.1. Density of composite nanofluid
average deviation of 5.2% and 2.6% respectively between 1 and
4.5% vol. concentrations in the experimental range of tempera- The Eq. (1) for the estimation of density of single material na-
tures. The deviation is over 20% at lower temperatures, which nofluid (SmNf) presented in Section 2.1 is observed to be in good
decreased from 20% to 10% when the temperature was enhanced agreement with the experimental data as shown in Fig. 4. Hence,
from 20 °C to 60 °C at 4.5% vol. concentration. based on the law of mixtures, Eq. (1) is made applicable by [221]
The comparison of the values estimated with Eqs. (119) and for composite nanofluids given by
Table 7
Summary of thermal conductivity validation for single material nanofluid.
S. No. Nanofluid Reference ϕ T dp Kr (Exp.) Kr Eq. (49) (Corcione)[27] Kr Eq. (50) Sharma)[26]
1 Al2O3 þW Patel et al. [66] 0.5 20 11 1.060 1.04 1.041

1.0 20 11 1.070 1.061 1.048
2.0 20 11 1.850 1.097 1.062
3.0 20 11 1.110 1.126 1.077
Kim et al. [65] 0.3 20 38 1.010 1.033 1.017
0.5 20 38 1.013 1.036 1.024
0.8 20 38 1.019 1.039 1.032
1.5 20 38 1.038 1.049 1.049
2.0 20 38 1.054 1.057 1.059
3.0 20 38 1.081 1.071 1.077
Yoo et al. [109] 0.3 20 50 1.008 1.015 1.031
0.5 20 50 1.015 1.021 1.034
0.7 20 50 1.018 1.026 1.036
1.0 20 50 1.040 1.034 1.041
1.5 20 50 1.045 1.047 1.044
Patel et al. [66] 0.5 20 150 1.015 1.019 1.014
1.0 20 150 1.025 1.026 1.021
2.0 20 150 1.050 1.040 1.034
3.0 20 150 1.080 1.054 1.044
2 CuO þ W Zhu et al. [149] 0.15 25 10 1.012 1.046 1.022
0.3 25 10 1.017 1.049 1.035
0.47 25 10 1.026 1.051 1.046
0.63 25 10 1.025 1.053 1.056
0.79 25 10 1.033 1.056 1.065
0.96 25 10 1.041 1.058 1.074
1.17 25 10 1.045 1.061 1.084
*Lee et al. [61] 1.0 25 23 1.037 1.056 1.054
1.5 25 23 1.057 1.063 1.071
2.0 25 23 1.071 1.070 1.086
2.5 25 23 1.094 1.078 1.099
3.4 25 23 1.120 1.091 1.122
Khedkar et al. [77] 1.0 26 25 1.058 1.058 1.054
2.0 26 25 1.109 1.072 1.083
3.0 26 25 1.126 1.086 1.107
4.0 26 25 1.152 1.100 1.127
5.0 26 25 1.177 1.114 1.145
Sahooli et al. [150] 1.0 25 63 1.009 1.049 1.036
1.5 25 63 1.014 1.056 1.047
2.0 25 63 1.025 1.063 1.057
3.0 25 63 1.030 1.077 1.075
3.5 25 63 1.069 1.084 1.083
4.0 25 63 1.100 1.091 1.091
5.0 25 63 1.120 1.106 1.105
3 SiO2 þ W Ferrouillat et al. [74] 2.3 20 22 1.006 1.014 1.072
2.3 25 22 1.017 1.029 1.087
2.3 30 22 1.016 1.044 1.104
2.3 35 22 1.019 1.058 1.124
2.3 40 22 1.020 1.072 1.148
2.3 45 22 1.019 1.085 1.175
2.3 50 22 1.019 1.097 1.207
2.3 55 22 1.016 1.110 1.245
2.3 60 22 1.016 1.122 1.288
4 TiO2 Yiamswasd et al. [70] 1.0 20 21 1.049 1.021 1.046
2.0 20 21 1.054 1.032 1.070
4.0 20 21 1.114 1.059 1.111
Kim et al. [65] 1.0 20 70 1.033 1.010 1.028
2.0 20 70 1.043 1.024 1.044
3.0 20 70 1.064 1.038 1.058
( )
ρnf = 1 − ϕp ρnf + ϕp, 1
ρ1 + ϕp, 2
ρ2 (122)
cnf =
(1 − ϕ ) ρ
p
c
nf bf
+ ϕp,1 ρ1cp,1 + ϕp, 2
ρ2 cp,2
ρnf (123)
where ρ1 and ρ2 are the densities of individual nanoparticles
3.2. Specific heat of composite nanofluid 3.3. Thermal conductivity and Viscosity of composite nanofluid
The nanofluid specific heat given by Eq. (3) applicable for SmNf Two models for the estimation of thermal conductivity (49),
is in good agreement with the experimental data as shown in (50) and viscosity (119), (120) of SmNf have been presented. It can
Fig. 5. Hence the equation for the specific heat of SmNf is reported be observed that thermal conductivity and viscosity of SmNf is
to be applicable by Takabi et al. [221] based on the law of mixtures dependent on concentration, particle size and temperature. In
given by: addition, the thermal conductivity is dependent on the material
Table 8
Theoretical viscosity models.
Eq. No. Author Theoretical models for Viscosity Validity (Max.)
ϕ (%) Particle Shape
51. Einstein [167] r 2.0 Spherical

μeff = ( 1 + 2.5 ϕ )μ p bf
52. Eilers [168] ⎡ ⎤ – Spherical
μeff = ⎣⎢ ( 1 + 2.5 ϕ + 4.75 ϕ p
2
p )
+ ⋯ ⎦⎥ μbf
53. de Bruijin [169] ⎛ ⎞ – Spherical
μeff = ⎜⎜ ⎟
1
⎟ μbf
1 − 2.5 ϕp + 1.552 ϕp2 ⎠
⎝
54. Vand [170] – Spherical
μeff = ( 1 + 2.5 ϕ + 7.349 ϕ + ⋯) μ
p
2
p bf
55. Saito [171] ⎡ ⎤ – Spherical
μeff = ⎣⎢ ( 1 + 2.5 ϕ + 2.5 ϕ + ⋯) ⎦⎥ μ
p
2
p bf
56. Mooney [172] ⎡ ⎛ 2.5 ϕp ⎞⎤ – Spherical
μeff = ⎢ exp ⎜ ⎟⎥ μ
⎢⎣ ⎝ 1 − kϕp ⎠⎥⎦ bf
57. Brinkman [173] ⎡ ⎤ o 5.0 Spherical
⎢ 1 ⎥
μeff = ⎢ 2.5 ⎥ bf
μ
⎢⎣ ( 1 − ϕp ) ⎥⎦
58. Simha [174] ⎡ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎞⎤ – Spherical
125
μeff = ⎢ ⎜⎜ 1 + 2.5 ϕp + ⎜ ⎟ ϕ + ⋯⎟⎟ ⎥ μbf
⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎝ 64 ϕp, max ⎠ p ⎠ ⎥⎦
59. Roscoe [175] ⎡ −b ⎤ – –
μeff = ⎢
⎣ (1 − k ϕ ) p ⎥ μbf
⎦
60. Kreigher-Doherty [176] ⎡ ⎛ −[ η] ϕp, max ⎤ 0.495–0.605 Spherical
ϕa ⎞
μeff = ⎢ ⎜ 1 − ⎟ ⎥μ Non- spherical
⎢ ⎝ ϕp, max ⎠ ⎥ bf
⎣ ⎦
61. Frankel and Acrivos [177] ⎡ 1/3 ⎤ – Spherical
9 ⎢ (ϕp / ϕp, max ⎥ )
μeff =
8 ⎢ 1/3 ⎥ bf
μ
⎢⎣ 1 − ϕp / ϕp, max
( ⎥⎦ )
62. Chong et al. [178] ⎡ ⎛ ϕp / ϕp, max ⎞⎤
2 – –
μeff =⎢ 1+k⎜ ⎟⎥ μbf
⎢⎣ ⎝ 1 − ϕp / ϕp, max ⎠⎥⎦
63. Lundgren [179] – Spherical
μeff = ( 1 + 2.5 ϕ p + 6.25 ϕ2 + O ϕp3 μbf )
64. Batchelor [180] = ( 1 + 2.5 ϕ – Spherical
μnf p + 6.2 ϕp2 μbf )
65. Graham [181] ⎡ ⎤ – Spherical
⎢ 1 ⎥
μeff = ( 1 + 2.5 ϕ p + 4.5 ⎢ ) μ
2 ⎥ bf
⎣ ( hi / rp) ( 2 + hi / rp) ( 1 + hi / rp) ⎦
66. Kitano et al. [182] ⎡ ⎛ −2⎤ – Non-spherical
ϕp ⎞
μeff = ⎢ ⎜ 1 − ⎟ ⎥μ
⎢ ⎝ ϕp, max ⎠ ⎥ bf
⎣ ⎦
67. Metzner [183] ⎡ ⎛ −2⎤ – –
ϕp ⎞
μeff = ⎢ ⎜ 1 − ⎟ ⎥μ
⎢ ⎝ ϕp, max ⎠ ⎥ bf
⎣ ⎦
68. Leighton and Acrivos [184] ⎡ ⎛ −2⎤ r 0.58 Spherical
1 / 2 μin ϕp ⎞
μeff = ⎢ ⎜ 1 + ⎟ ⎥μ
⎢ ⎝ 1 − ϕp / ϕp, max ⎠ ⎥ bf
⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎛ –
⎞−μin / ϕp, max ⎤⎥
69. Barnes et al. [185] 0.63–0.71
= ⎢⎢ ⎜ 1 −
ϕp
μeff ⎟ ⎥ μbf
⎣ ⎝
1 − ϕp, max ⎠
⎦
70. Thomas and Muthukumar [186] ⎡ ⎤ 25 Spherical
μeff = ⎣⎢ ( 1 + 2.5 ϕ p + 4.8292 ϕp2 ) + 6.4028 ϕ 3
p + ⋯ ⎦⎥ μbf
71. De Noni Jr. et al. [187] ⎡ ⎛ ϕp ⎞ n⎤ 2–24 –
μeff = ⎢ 1 + b ⎜ ⎟ ⎥μ
⎢⎣ ⎝ 1 − ϕp, max ⎠ ⎥⎦ bf
72. Rodrigues Neto [188] ⎡ 1 ⎤ 2 ⎛ 1 − ϕp ⎞ – –
μeff = a ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥μbf , λ= r⎜ ⎟
λn 3 p⎝ ϕp ⎠
73. Nielson [189] ⎡ ⎤ Z 2 Spherical

μeff = ⎢⎣ ( 1 + 1.5 ϕ a ) (
+ 6.5 ϕ2 exp ϕa /1 − ϕp, max ⎥⎦ μbf )
74. Cheng et al. [190] ⎡ – –
μeff = ⎢⎣ 1 + ( 5
ϕ
2 p ) +( 35
8
+
5
4 )ϕ + (
β 2
p
105
16
+
35
8
β +
12 )ϕ
5 2
β 3
p
+( 1155
128
+
935
96
β +
235 3
96
β + β )ϕ
5 4
48
4
p
⎤
+( )ϕ
3003 1125 1465 2 95 3 1 4 5
+ β + β + β + β p + ⋯⎥⎦ μbf
256 64 192 96 48
75 Chen et. al. [191] ⎡ ⎛ −[ η] ϕp, max ⎤ – Spherical
aa 1.2⎞
μeff = ⎢ ⎜ 1 − ⎥μ
ϕa
⎢ ⎝
⎣
ϕp, max ( )
a
⎟
⎠ ⎥ bf
⎦
⎡ –
76. Brouwers [192]
⎢ ⎛ 1 − ϕp ⎞bϕp, max / ( 1−ϕp, max)⎤⎥ 0.64
μeff =⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ μbf
⎢⎣ ⎝ 1 − ϕp / ϕp, max ⎠
⎥⎦
Table 9
Theoretical viscosity models.
Eq. No. Author Empirical models for viscosity Nanofluid dp ϕp T
77. Tseng and Lin [193] μeff = ⎡⎣ 13.47 exp ( 35.98) ϕp⎤⎦ μbf TiO2–W 7–20 0–0.12 20–30
1 1 1
78. Maiga et al. [194] 1
μeff = ⎡⎣ 1 + 7.3 ϕp + 123 ϕp2 ⎤⎦ μbf Al2O3–W 13, 28 0–5 25
2 2
2
μeff = ⎡⎣ 1 − 0.19 ϕp + 306 ϕp2 ⎤⎦ μbf Al2O3–EG 28
1 1
79. Buongiorno [195] 1
μeff = ⎡⎣ 1 + 39.11 ϕp + 533.9 ϕp2 ⎤⎦ μbf Al2O3–W, 13, 227 0–10 25
2
TiO2–W
2
μeff = ⎡⎣ 1 + 5.45 ϕp + 108.2 ϕp2 ⎤⎦ μbf
80. Prasher et al. [162] Al2O3–PEG 27, 40, 50 0–3 30–60
(
μeff = 1 + 10 ϕp μbf )
81. Chen et al. [191] μeff = ⎡⎣ 1 + 10.6 ϕp + 10.6 ϕp2 ⎤⎦ μbf TiO2–EG 25 0–3 20–50
1,3 1
82. Nguyen et al. [153] 1
μeff = ⎡⎣ 1 + 0.025 ϕp + 0.015 ϕp2 ⎤⎦ μbf Al2O3–W 36,347, 2
1–9.4 20–75
29
2
μeff = ⎡⎣ 1.475 − 0.319 ϕp + 0.051 ϕp2 + 0.009 ϕp3 ⎤⎦ μbf
3
3
μeff = ⎡⎣ 0.904 exp ( 0.148) ϕp ⎤⎦ μbf CuO–W
1 1
83. Williams et al. [86] 1
⎡ 4.91 ϕp ⎤ Al2O3–W, 46, 260 1
0–3.6 20–80
μeff = exp⎢ ⎥μ 2
ZrO2–W 2
0–9
⎣ 0.2092 − ϕp ⎦ bf
2
⎡ 11.19 ϕp ⎤
μnf = exp⎢ ⎥μ
⎣ 0.1960 − ϕp ⎦ bf
1 1,2 1
84. Rea et al. [196] ⎡ ⎤ Al2O3–W, 50 0–6 20–80
1
(
μeff = ⎣ exp 4.91 ϕp /0.2092 − φp ⎦ μbf )
2 2
2
μeff = ⎡⎣ 1 + 46.80 ϕp + 550.82 ϕp2 ⎤⎦ μbf ZrO2–W 0–3
1
85. Duangthongsuk and 1
μeff = 1.0226 + 0.0477ϕp − 0.0112 ϕp2 TiO2–W 21 0.2–2 15, 225,
3
Wongwises [67] 35
2
μeff = 1.0113 + 0.0920 ϕp − 0.015 ϕp2
3
μeff = 1.0180 + 0.0112 ϕp − 0.0177 ϕp2
86. Godson et al. [148] μeff = ⎡⎣ 1.005 + 0.497 ϕp − 0.1149 ϕp2 ⎤⎦ μbf Ag–W 60 0.3–0.9 50–90
87. Ho et al. [45] Al2O3–W 33 0–4 15–40

(
μeff = 1 + 4.93 ϕp + 222.4 ϕp2 μbf )
88. Vakili-Nezhaad and μeff = ⎡⎣ 1 + 1.59 ϕp − 16.36 ϕp2 + 50.4 ϕp3 ⎤⎦ μbf SWCNT–Oil 2 0–0.2 25–100
Dorany [ 197]
1 1 1
89. Khanafer and Vafai Al2O3–W 13 0–4 25
[38]
1
(
μeff = 1 + 23.09 ϕp + 1525.3 ϕp2 μbf )
2 2 2
2
μeff = ( 1 + 3.544 ϕ + 169.46 ϕ ) μ 2 TiO2–W 27 0–10
p p bf
1
90. Bobbo et al. [198] 1
μeff = ⎡⎣ 1 + 0.36838 ϕp + 0.25271 ϕp2 ⎤⎦ μbf TiO2–W 25, 60 0–1 10–80
2
2
μeff = ⎡⎣ 1 − 0.50437 ϕp + 1.7440 ϕp2 ⎤⎦ μbf SMWCNT–W
91. Syam Sundar et al. ⎡ 1.205⎤ Fe3O4–EG/W 11.4 0–1 0–50

[199]
2
μeff = ⎢
⎣ (1 + ϕ ) p ⎥ μbf
⎦
1
⎡ 0.68⎤ (20:80),
1
μeff = ⎣ (1 + ϕ ) p ⎦ μbf 1
(40:60),
2
(60:40)
1 3,1 a
92. Vajjha and Das Al2O3/ 20, 0–0.1 20–90
[200]
μeff = A⋅ exp B ϕp ( ) 3,2
30,
a 2 b
CuO/ 3,3 0–0.06
( A = 0.9830, B = 12.959)
1 1 100
b
( A = 0.9197, B = 22.8539)
2 2
c 3 c,d,e
SiO2/ 0–0.1
( A = 1.0920, B = 5.9540)
3,1 3,1
d –EG/W
( A = 0.9693, B = 7.0740)
3,2 3,2
e
( A = 1.0050, B = 4.6690)
3,3 3,3
93. Hemmat Esfe et al. μ = ( 1 + 11.61 ϕ + 109 ϕ ) μ 2 MgO–W 40 0–1.0 25–60

eff p p bf
[201]
1
94 Palm et al [141] 1
μeff = 3.4 × 10−2 − 2.0 × 10−4 + 2.9 × 10−7 T 2 Al2O3–W 131 1, 24 20–50
2
μeff = 3.9 × 10−2 − 2.3 × 10−4 + 3.4 × 10−7 T 2
1 1
95. Nguyen [153] 1
μeff = 1.1250 − 0.007 T Al2O3– 36,1 47 1
1 20–75
2 2 2
2
μeff = 2.1275 − 0.0215 T + 0.0002 T 2 CuO–W 29 4
96. Yu et al. [202] SiC–W 170 0–3.7 25–70

μeff = 0.00496 ⋅exp ( 1736.6
T ) 1
97 Kole and Rey [203] Al2O3–PPG/W – 0–0.001 10–50
( )
log μeff = A⋅ exp ( −B T )
(50:50) 2
1
A = 1.83442, 1
B = 0.01345 0–0.004
2 2
A = 1.88642, B = 0.01244
3
3
A = 1.98529, 3
B = 0.01226 0–0.007
4 4
A = 1.98752, B = 0.01128
4
5
A = 2.13350, 5
B = 0.00999 0–0.01
5
0–0.015
98. Kole and Rey [204] B CuO–Gear oil 40 0–2.5 10–80
( )
log μeff = A + 1000
( T + C)
1 1 1
A = − 0.70784, B = 0.70912 C = − 171.049
2 2 2
A = − 1.11379, B = 1.23013 C = − 104.976
3 3 3
A = − 4.94087, B = 3.37827 C = − 26.2139
4 4 4
A = − 1.10774, B = 1.43086 C = − 87.08024
99. Kulkarni et al. [205] CuO–W 29 5–15 5–50
( )
ln μeff = A⋅ ( )−B
1
T
A = 1078.3 + 15857 ϕp + 20587 ϕp2 B = 2.8715 + 53.548 ϕp − 107.12 ϕp2

100. Kulkarni et al. [206] CuO–PEG /W 29 0–6 35 to
μeff = A⋅ exp Bϕp( ) (60:40) 50
ln( A) = 736.9exp ( − 0.0199 T )B = 44.794 − 0.0765 T
101. Namburu et al. CuO–EG /W 29 0–6 35 to
[207]
( )
(60:40) 50
A = 165.56 − 29.643 ϕp + 1.8375 ϕp2
B = 0.0186 − 0.001 ϕp − 4 × 10−6ϕp2

102. Namburu et al. SiO2–EG/W 20, 50, 0–10 35 to
[159]
( )
(60:40) 100 50
A = 167.17 − 2.245 ϕp − 1.9289 ϕp2 + 0.1193 ϕp3
B = 0.0192 − 0.0004 ϕp − 7 × 10−6ϕp2

103 Namburu et al [208] Al2O3–EG/W 53 1–10 35 to
( )
(60:40) 50
A = 236.11 − 55.444 ϕp − 0.29956 ϕp2
B = 20341 × 10−6 − 1478.5 × 10−6 ϕp + 140.03 × 10−6ϕp2⋯ − 6.4745 × 10−6 ϕp3

104. Sahoo et al. [21] Al2O3–EG/W 53 1–10 35 to
μnf = A⋅ exp ( ( B/T ) + 0.1448 ϕ ), A = 1.2200 × 10
p
−6
, B = 4285
(60:40) 90
μnf = A⋅ exp ( ( B /T ) + 0.1265 ϕ ), A = 2.3920 × 10p
−4
, B = 2903
105. Abu-Nada [209] ⎡ 19.582 2094.47 Al2O3–W – – –
μeff = ⎢ −0.155 − + 0.794 ϕp + − 0.192 ϕp2⋯
⎣ T˜ T˜
2
ϕp ϕp2 ϕp ⎤
−8.11 −
27463.863
+ 0.0127 ϕp3 + 1.6044 + 2.175 ⎥
T˜ T˜ ⎥
3 T˜ 2
T˜ ⎦
⎡ Al2O3–W
106. Masoud Hoseini
et al. [210]
⎛ T⎞
μeff = exp⎢ m + α ⎜ ⎟ + β ϕh + γ
⎣ ⎝ T0 ⎠ ( ) ( )⎤⎥⎦ μ
d
1+r bf
36, 47 1.0, 4.0 20–65
⎛ dp + 2s ⎞3
ϕh = ϕp ⎜ ⎟ , m = 0.72, α = − 0.485, β = 14.94, r = 1, s = 2.5,
⎝ dp ⎠
o
To = 20 C
107. Khanafer and Vafai ⎡ ϕp TiO2–W 27 0.9, 2.0, 3.1 20–70
μeff = ⎢ 0.6002 − 0.5690 ϕp + 0.0823 ϕp2 + 28.8763 ⋯
[38] ⎣ T
ϕp2 ϕp2 ⎤
− 204.2202 + 561.3175 ⎥μ
T2 ⎥
bf
T2 ⎦
108. Khanafer and Vafai ⎡ 8.4312 524.7147 ϕp CuO–W 29 1–9.4 20–75
μeff = ⎢ −0.4262 + + 0.898 ϕp + − 0.2217 ϕp2−4.7329
[38] ⎣ T T2 T
ϕp2 ϕp ⎤
+70.3105 + 0.0176 ϕp3 − 5559.4641 ⎥ μbf
T2 T3 ⎥
⎦
109. Khanafer and Vafai ϕp ϕp2 Al2O3–W 13 1.34, 2.78 20–70
[38] μeff = 0.4444 − 0.254 ϕp + 0.0368 ϕp2 + 26.333 − 59.311
T T2
110. Khanafer and Vafai ⎡ 18.0162 164.0837 ϕp Al2O3–W 36 1–9.1 20–70
μeff = ⎢ −0.1011 − + 0.3619 ϕp + − 0.0966 ϕp2+0.1609
[38] ⎣ T T2 T
ϕp2 ϕp ⎤
+ 22.4901 + 0.0078089 ϕp3 − 2316.3754 ⎥ μbf
T2 T3 ⎥
⎦
111. Khanafer and Vafai ⎡ ϕp ϕp2 Al2O3–W 47 1–9.4 20–70
26.9036 24.114
[38] μeff = ⎢ −0.4892 − + 0.6837 ϕp + − 0.1785 ϕp2+0.1818 + 27.015
⎣ T T2 T T2
ϕp ⎤
+ 0.0132 ϕp3 − 2940.1775 ⎥ μbf
T2 ⎥
⎦
112. Khanafer and Vafai μeff = ⎡⎣ 1.0538 + 0.1448 ϕp − 3.363 × 10−3T − 0.0147 ϕp⋯ Al2O3–W 21 0.2–2 15–35
[38]
ϕp ⎤
+ 6.735 × 10−5T 2−1.337 ⎥μ
T ⎦ bf
113. Rohini Priya et al. ⎡ ⎤ CuO–W – 0–1.6 28–55

[211]
μeff = ⎢⎣ 1 + 120.62 ϕp + 7576 ϕp2 ⋅exp 0.28 ϕp + 332.86 ϕp2 T ⎥⎦ μbf ( )
⎡
114. Hemmat Esfe and
Saedodin [212]
(
μeff = ⎢⎣ 0.9118 ⋅exp 5.49ϕp − 1.359 T 2 ) + 0.03 ln ( T ) ⎤⎦⎥ μ bf
ZnO–EG 18 0–5.0 25–50
115. Heyhat et al. [46] ⎡ ⎛ 5.989 ϕp ⎞ ⎤ Al2O3–W 40 0–2 20–60

μeff = ⎢ exp ⎜ ⎟T ⎥μ
⎢⎣ ⎝ 0.278 − ϕp ⎠ ⎦⎥ bf
116. Mojarrad et al. [142] ⎡ ⎤ Al2O3–EG/W 25 0–0.7 20–50
(
μeff = ⎢⎣ −9.56 × 10−3 + exp 2.84 × 10−3T + 4.58 × 10−1ϕ ⎦⎥ μbf ) (50:50)
117. Koo and Klein- μeff = μstatic + μBrownian , CuO/–W, EG 20 – –
streuer [213]
1 1 2 1 1
118. Masoumi et al. [214] ⎛ ρp VBdp2 ⎞ ⎛ π ⎞1/3 Al2O3–W, 28, 36, 0–5 22–65
18kbT
μeff = ⎜⎜ 1 + ⎟ μ , VB = 1 2 3
⎟ bf , δ=⎜ ⎟ dp , Al2O3–W, 25,4,529 2,4
0–4.5 2,3,4,
22–
⎝
72 C1δ μbf
⎠
dp πρp dp ⎝ 6 ϕp ⎠
60
⎡ ⎤ 3
TiO2–EG, 3
0–2.3 5
30–50
( ) (
C1 = ⎢⎣ 1.133 × 10−6dp − 2.771 × 10−6 ϕp− 9 × 10−8dp − 3.93 × 10−7 ⎥⎦ μbf−1 ) 4
CuO–W, 5
0–6
5
CuO–EG/W
(60:40)
119. Sharma et al. [26] ⎡ 11.3 ⎛ Tnf ⎞
−0.038
⎛ dp ⎞
−0.061⎤ Al2O3, CuO, SiO2 20–170 0–4 20–70
μeff = ⎢ (1 + φ ) ⎜1 + ⎟ ⎜1 + ⎟ ⎥ μbf TiO2 –W
⎢⎣ p ⎝ 70 ⎠ ⎝ 170 ⎠ ⎥⎦
μw = 0.00169 − 4.25263exp( −5) × Tnf + 4.9255exp( − 7)
2 3
( )
× Tnf − 2.09935exp( −9) × Tnf ( )
120. Corcione [27] ⎡ ⎤ Al2O3, Cu, CuO, 25–200 0–7.1 20–50
⎢ ⎥ ⎡ ⎤0.33
1 6M TiO2 –W, EG
μeff = ⎢ ⎥ μbf , dbf = 0.1 ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣
−0.3 1.03
⎥⎦ ⎣ Nπρbf ⎦
(
1 − 34.87 dp / dbf )ϕp
121. Khanafer and Vafai ⎡ ϕp2 Al2O3–W 13–131 1–9 20–70

= ⎢ −0.4491 +
28.837
[38] μeff + 0.574 ϕp − 0.1634ϕp2 + 23.053 +0.0132 ϕp3
⎢⎣ T T2
ϕp ϕp2 ϕp3 ⎤
− 2354.7358 + 23.498 − 3.0185 ⎥μ
T3 2 2 ⎥ bf
dp dp ⎦
Fig. 10. Comparison of single material CuO nanofluid viscosity with Eqs. (119) and
Fig. 11. Comparison of single material SiO2 nanofluid viscosity with Eqs. (119) and
(120) at different temperatures.
(120) at different particle volume concentrations.
properties reflected by the thermal diffusivity term (αp/αbf ) given

in Eq. (50). (AgþSiO2, CuO þ SiO2, and Al2O3 þSiO2) have been selected to
The equations predict the experimental data of SmNf dispersed show a relative comparison of nanofluid density for two mixture
with metal and metal oxide nano particles satisfactorily. The ratios of 60:40 and 40:60% by weight. A mixture ratio of 60:40
equations have the flexibility to determine the properties of na- indicates 60% weight of Ag added to 40% weight of SiO2 dispersed
nofluids for a wide range of experimental parameters. Hence, the in base liquid water. The nanofluid density of 60:40% wt. ratio is
thermal conductivity and viscosity equations used for the predic- greater than 40:60% wt. ratio when compared to base liquid water.
tion of nanofluid composite properties as the sum of the fractional The nanofluid values at higher ratios (60% wt.) of Ag, CuO and
values of the constituents. Al2O3 predict greater values of density, compared to values esti-
mated with 40% wt. ratio. This is because SiO2 present in all the
4. Discussion of results of CNf three nanofluids is of lower density compared to its component
materials. However, the decreasing trend of nanofluid density of
The variation of CNf density with concentration of composite the CNf is similar to that of SmNf.
nanofluid is shown in Fig. 12. Three composite materials Fig. 13 shows the variation of CmNf specific heat with
Table 10
Summary of viscosity validation for single material nanofluid.
S. No. Nanofluid Reference ϕ Temperature (°C) dp μnf (Exp.) μnf (Sharma)[119] μnf (Corcione)[120]
1 CuO þW Nguyen et al.[153] 1.0 21 29 1.096 1.053 1.047

1.0 22 29 1.020 1.028 1.022
1.0 24 29 0.963 0.976 0.972
1.0 27 29 0.906 0.928 0.925
1.0 29 29 0.849 0.882 0.879
1.0 30 29 0.811 0.853 0.851
1.0 33 29 0.773 0.812 0.811
1.0 36 29 0.717 0.765 0.765
1.0 39 29 0.660 0.722 0.723
1.0 42 29 0.622 0.685 0.686
1.0 44 29 0.621 0.658 0.659
1.0 47 29 0.584 0.620 0.623
1.0 51 29 0.546 0.578 0.581
1.0 55 29 0.489 0.542 0.545
1.0 57 29 0.489 0.525 0.529
1.0 60 29 0.470 0.504 0.508
4.5 21 29 2.006 1.541 1.570
4.5 22 29 1.911 1.508 1.538
4.5 25 29 1.759 1.432 1.462
4.5 26 29 1.664 1.372 1.401
4.5 30 29 1.513 1.282 1.311
4.5 33 29 1.418 1.193 1.221
4.5 35 29 1.323 1.130 1.158
4.5 38 29 1.248 1.077 1.105
4.5 41 29 1.17 1.021 1.049
4.5 43 29 1.134 0.987 1.014
4.5 47 29 1.020 0.911 0.938
4.5 50 29 0.944 0.864 0.890
4.5 52 29 0.925 0.835 0.861
4.5 54 29 0.906 0.815 0.841
4.5 57 29 0.887 0.774 0.799
4.5 60 29 0.868 0.741 0.766
2 SiO2 þ W Kang et al. [72] 0.78 25 17 0.924 0.955 0.963
1.5 25 17 0.981 1.042 1.053
3.12 25 17 1.051 1.238 1.300
Azmi et al. [155] 0.5 30 22 0.832 0.825 0.833
1.0 30 22 0.849 0.872 0.875
1.5 30 22 0.911 0.923 0.923
2.0 30 22 0.954 0.976 0.977
2.5 30 22 1.006 1.032 1.038
3.0 30 22 1.067 1.090 1.107
3.5 30 22 1.137 1.151 1.186
4.0 30 22 1.189 1.216 1.278
Fig. 12. Prediction of composite nanofluid density with Eq. (122) for different Fig. 13. Prediction of composite nanofluid specific heat with Eq. (123) for different
particle volume concentrations. particle volume concentrations.
Fig. 16. Prediction of composite nanofluid effective thermal conductivity ratio with
Fig. 14. Comparison of composite nanofluid effective thermal conductivity ratio
Eqs. (49) and (50) at different mixing proportions and temperatures.
with Eqs. (49) and (50) at different particle volume concentrations.
Fig. 17. Prediction of composite nanofluid effective thermal conductivity ratio with
Eqs. (49) and (50) at different ratios, different particle sizes and temperatures.
Fig. 15. Comparison of composite nanofluid effective thermal conductivity with
Eqs. (49) and (50) at different particle sizes and volume concentrations.
1.0–5.0% vol. concentration compared to values of 40:60 evaluated
concentration. The specific heat decreases with concentration for at a temperature of 25 °C. It is observed that an increase in the
all composite nanofluids. The values of specific heat with 60% SiO2 proportion of the SiO2 mixture ratio from 40% to 60% by weight
weight ratio is greater than with 40% weight ratio for any com- does not influence significant variation in the overall thermal
posite material. It can be observed that the specific heat of Ag, CuO conductivity of CNf especially in predicting values using Eq. (49)
and Al2O3 is lower for SiO2 material. Hence higher ratio of SiO2 than with Eq. (50). This is due to lower values of thermal con-
(60%) predict greater values of nanofluid specific heat compared to ductivity of SiO2 in comparison to Ag and Al2O3. The result shows
values with 40% for any CNf. that greater thermal conductivity of a material has a dominant
The variation of thermal conductivity with concentration for influence on composite nanofluid value than with materials hav-
two CNfs is shown through Figs. 14 and 15. The experimental data ing lower values of kp. Eq. (49) predicts higher values of nanofluid
of Suresh et al. [219] and Madhesh et al. [17] displayed in Fig. 14 thermal conductivity compared with large sized particles. The
departed from the values estimated with Eqs. (49) and (50) of thermal conductivity with particles of equal size viz., 20:20 nm
Corcione [27] and Sharma et al. [26] by maximum deviation of predict higher thermal conductivity in comparison with particles
18.3% and 7.0% respectively. A satisfactory agreement of the ex- of size 60:20 nm by an average value of 3.0%.
perimental data of Hemmat Esfe et al. [220] with the predicted The effect of temperature on thermal conductivity of CNf hav-
values estimated using Eqs. (49) and (50) can be observed from ing 60:40 mixture ratio for two particle sizes and composite ma-
Fig. 15. The deviation of the experimental data with the predicted terials is shown in Fig. 17. It can be observed that the thermal
values is within þ8% and 8% respectively. conductivity of CNf increases with temperature and decreases
The predicted value of thermal conductivity with 60:40 mix- with particle size. The predicted values with smaller size particle
ture ratio shown in Fig. 16 is greater in the concentration range of of Ag (20 nm) is greater when compared to Al2O3 (60 nm) for a
Fig. 20. Prediction of composite nanofluid effective viscosity ratio with Eqs. (119)
Fig. 18. Comparison of composite nanofluid effective viscosity with Eqs. (119) and
and (120) at different particle volume concentrations and temperatures.
(120) at different particle volume concentrations.
two concentrations in Fig. 20. Evidently, the viscosity of 4% vol.

concentration is greater compared to 1% concentration. The values
estimated with Eqs. (119) and (120) are in good agreement at
lower concentration. At higher concentration, the values predicted
by Eq. (120) are greater than the values estimated by Eq. (119) with
an average deviation of 8%.
5. Conclusions
The investigations with single material nanofluid (SmNf) show

that classical equations developed for density and specific heat of
could be used to predict the behavior of composite nanofluids. The
generalized equations of thermal conductivity and viscosity de-
veloped for SmNf given by Eqs. (49), (50) and (119), (120) re-
spectively can be used to predict the values of composite nano-
fluids. The equations are validated with limited experimental data
available in the literature. On the other hand, properties of CNf are
to be determined from experiments in order to establish more
specific equations.
Fig. 19. Prediction of composite nanofluid effective viscosity ratio with Eqs. (119)
and (120) at different particle volume concentrations and sizes.
Acknowledgment
constant particle size of SiO2 (20 nm). The deviation in the values
estimated with Eqs. (49) and (50) is about 1.1%.
A comparison of experimental values of CNf viscosity with The authors would like to extend their appreciation to MOE
computed values using Eqs. (119) and (120) of Sharma et al. [26] Malaysia for financial support (Grant No.: FRGS/1/2014/TK01/UTP/
and Corcione [27] respectively is shown in Fig. 18. A satisfactory 01/1) and Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP) for proving facil-
agreement of the experimental data of Hemmat Esfe et al. [220] ities for the conduct of research.
with the values estimated with the equations can be observed.
However, the deviation of the experimental data of Suresh et al.
[219] could not be explained. References
The predicted values of CNf viscosity with concentration as
shown in Fig. 19. Since the viscosity is independent of the material [1] Batchelor G. The effect of Brownian motion on the bulk stress in a suspension
of spherical particles. J Fluid Mech 1977;83:97–117.
property, the observation is valid for all CNfs. The effect of particle [2] Ahuja AS. Thermal design of a heat exchanger employing laminar flow of
size on viscosity is shown in comparison with the values estimated particle suspensions. Int J Heat Mass Transf 1982;25:725–8.
with Eqs. (119) and (120). The predicted values with 20 nm par- [3] Shon C, Chen M. Microconvective Thermal conductivity in disperse two-
phase mixture as observed in a laminar flow. ASME Trans J Heat Transf
ticle size are greater by 14.5% estimated with Eq. (120) of Corcione
1984;104:47–51.
[27] compared to values with Eq. (119) of Sharma et al. [26]. An [4] Michaelides EE. Heat transfer in particulate flows. Int J Heat Mass Transf
opposite trend is observed for larger particle size of 60 nm esti- 1986;29:265–73.
mated with Eqs. (119) and (120) with a maximum deviation of [5] Choi, SUS, Eastman, JA. Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with na-
noparticles; 1995.
8.5%. [6] Li Y, Zhou J e, Tung S, Schneider E, Xi S. A review on development of na-
The variation in viscosity of CNfs with temperature is shown for nofluid preparation and characterization. Powder Technol 2009;196:89–101.
[7] Ghadimi A, Saidur R, Metselaar H. A review of nanofluid stability properties properties of nanofluids. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 2011;5.
and characterization in stationary conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf [41] Rashmi W, Khalid M, Ong S, Saidur R. Preparation, thermo-physical prop-
2011;54:4051–68. erties and heat transfer enhancement of nanofluids. Mater Res Express
[8] Yu W, Xie H. A review on nanofluids: preparation, stability mechanisms, and 2014;1:032001.
applications. J Nanomater 2012;2012:17. [42] Solangi KH, Kazi SN, Luhur MR, Badarudin A, Amiri A, Sadri R, et al. A
[9] Haddad Z, Abid C, Oztop HF, Mataoui A. A review on how the researchers comprehensive review of thermo-physical properties and convective heat
prepare their nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci 2014;76:168–89. transfer to nanofluids. Energy 2015;89:1065–86.
[10] Özerinç S, Kakaç S, Yazıcıoğlu AG. Enhanced thermal conductivity of nano- [43] Vatani A, Woodfield PL, Dao DV. A survey of practical equations for predic-
fluids: a state-of-the-art review. Microfluid Nanofluid 2010;8:145–70. tion of effective thermal conductivity of spherical-particle nanofluids. J Mol
[11] Murshed SMS, Leong KC, Yang C. Thermophysical and electrokinetic prop- Liq 2015;211:712–33.
erties of nanofluids – a critical review. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28:2109–25. [44] Azmi WH, Sharma KV, Mamat R, Najafi G, Mohamad MS. The enhancement
[12] Chandrasekar M, Suresh S, Senthilkumar T. Mechanisms proposed through of effective thermal conductivity and effective dynamic viscosity of nano-
experimental investigations on thermophysical properties and forced con- fluids – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1046–58.
vective heat transfer characteristics of various nanofluids – a review. Renew [45] Ho C, Liu W, Chang Y, Lin C. Natural convection heat transfer of alumina-
Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:3917–38. water nanofluid in vertical square enclosures: an experimental study. Int J
[13] Philip J, Shima PD. Thermal properties of nanofluids. Adv Colloid Interface Sci Therm Sci 2010;49:1345–53.
2012;183–184:30–45. [46] Heyhat MM, Kowsary F, Rashidi AM, Alem Varzane Esfehani S, Amrollahi A.
[14] Suresh S, Venkitaraj K, Selvakumar P, Chandrasekar M. Effect of Al2O3–Cu/ Experimental investigation of turbulent flow and convective heat transfer
water hybrid nanofluid in heat transfer. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2012;38:54–60. characteristics of alumina water nanofluids in fully developed flow regime.
[15] Halelfadl S, Maré T, Estellé P. Efficiency of carbon nanotubes water based Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2012;39:1272–8.
nanofluids as coolants. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2014;53:104–10. [47] Teng TP, Hung YH. Estimation and experimental study of the density and
[16] Mehrali M, Sadeghinezhad E, Latibari ST, Kazi SN, Mehrali M, Zubir MNBM, specific heat for alumina nanofluid. J Exp Nanosci 2014;9:707–18.
et al. Investigation of thermal conductivity and rheological properties of [48] Pak BC, Cho YI. Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed fluids
nanofluids containing graphene nanoplatelets. Nanoscale Res Lett 2014;9:1– with submicron metallic oxide particles. Exp Heat Transf Int J 1998;11:151–
12. 70.
[17] Madhesh D, Parameshwaran R, Kalaiselvam S. Experimental investigation on [49] Xuan Y, Roetzel W. Conceptions for heat transfer correlation of nanofluids.
convective heat transfer and rheological characteristics of Cu–TiO2 hybrid Int J Heat Mass Transf 2000;43:3701–7.
nanofluids. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2014;52:104–15. [50] Sekhar YR, Sharma K. Study of viscosity and specific heat capacity char-
[18] Trisaksri V, Wongwises S. Critical review of heat transfer characteristics of acteristics of water-based Al2O3 nanofluids at low particle concentrations. J
nanofluids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:512–23. Exp Nanosci 2015;10:86–102.
[19] Kakaç S, Pramuanjaroenkij A. Review of convective heat transfer enhance- [51] Yiamsawasd T, Dalkilic AS, Wongwises S. Measurement of specific heat of
ment with nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2009;52:3187–96. nanofluids. Curr Nanosci 2012;8:939–44.
[20] Sahoo BC, Vajjha RS, Ganguli R, Chukwu GA, Das DK. Determination of [52] Vajjha RS, Das DK. Specific heat measurement of three nanofluids and de-
rheological behavior of aluminum oxide nanofluid and development of new velopment of new correlations. J Heat Transf 2009;131:071601–7.
viscosity correlations. Pet Sci Technol 2009;27:1757–70. [53] Zhou SQ, Ni R. Measurement of the specific heat capacity of water–based
[21] Sahoo BC, Das DK, Vajjha RS, Satti JR. Measurement of the thermal con- Al2O3 nanofluid. Appl Phys Lett 2008;92:093123.
ductivity of silicon dioxide nanofluid and development of correlations. J [54] Barbés B, Páramo R, Blanco E, Pastoriza-Gallego MJ, Piñeiro MM, Legido JL,
Nanotechnol Eng Med 2012;3:041006. et al. Thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity measurements of
[22] Wen D, Lin G, Vafaei S, Zhang K. Review of nanofluids for heat transfer ap- Al2O3 nanofluids. J. Therm Anal Calorim 2013;111:1615–25.
plications. Particuology 2009;7:141–50. [55] O′Hanley, H, Buongiorno, J, McKrell, T, Hu, L-w. Measurement and model
[23] Saidur R, Leong K, Mohammad H. A review on applications and challenges of correlation of specific heat capacity of water-based nanofluids with silica,
nanofluids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1646–68. alumina and copper oxide nanoparticles. In: ASME 2011 international me-
[24] Huminic G, Huminic A. Application of nanofluids in heat exchangers: a re- chanical engineering congress and exposition; 2011, p. 1209–14.
view. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:5625–38. [56] Gangacharyulu, D. Preparationg and characterization of nanofluids and some
[25] Taylor R, Coulombe S, Otanicar T, Phelan P, Gunawan A, LV W, et al. Small investigation in biological applications. In: Mechanical engineering. South-
particles, big impacts: a review of the diverse applications of nanofluids. J. ern Illinois University, Carbondale, vol. 104; 2010.
Appl. Phys. 2013;113:011301. [57] He Q, Wang S, Tong M, Liu Y. Experimental study on thermophysical prop-
[26] Sharma K, Sarma P, Azmi W, Mamat R, Kadirgama K. Correlations to predict erties of nanofluids as phase-change material (PCM) in low temperature cool
friction and forced convection heat transfer coefficients of water based na- storage. Energy Convers Manag 2012;64:199–205.
nofluids for turbulent flow in a tube. Int J Microsc Nanoscale Therm Fluid [58] Sattler KD. Handbook of nanophysics: nanoparticles and quantum dots.
Transp Phenom 2010;3:283–308. Florida, Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press; 2010.
[27] Corcione M. Empirical correlating equations for predicting the effective [59] Kamyar A, Saidur R, Hasanuzzaman M. Application of computational fluid
thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity of nanofluids. Energy Convers dynamics (CFD) for nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2012;55:4104–15.
Manag 2011;52:789–93. [60] Masuda H, Ebata A, Teramae K, Hishinuma N. Alteration of thermal con-
[28] Yu W, France DM, Routbort JL, Choi SUS. Review and comparison of nano- ductivity and viscosity of liquid by dispersing ultra-fine particles. Netsu
fluid thermal conductivity and heat transfer enhancements. Heat Transf Eng Bussei 1993;7:227–33.
2008;29:432–60. [61] Lee S, Choi S, Li S, Eastman J. Measuring thermal conductivity of fluids
[29] Kleinstreuer C, Feng Y. Experimental and theoretical studies of nanofluid containing oxide nanoparticles. J Heat Transf 1999;121:280–9.
thermal conductivity enhancement: a review. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011;6:1– [62] Wang X, Xu X, Choi SUS. Thermal conductivity of nanoparticle-fluid mixture.
13. J Thermophys Heat Transf 1999;13:474–80.
[30] Mahbubul I, Saidur R, Amalina M. Latest developments on the viscosity of [63] Zhang X, Gu H, Fujii M. Experimental study on the effective thermal con-
nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2012;55:874–85. ductivity and thermal diffusivity of nanofluids. Int J Thermophys
[31] Sundar LS, Sharma K, Naik M, Singh MK. Empirical and theoretical correla- 2006;27:569–80.
tions on viscosity of nanofluids: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev [64] Chandrasekar M, Suresh S, Chandra Bose A. Experimental investigations and
2013;25:670–86. theoretical determination of thermal conductivity and viscosity of Al2O3/
[32] Rudyak VY. Viscosity of nanofluids. Why it is not described by the classical water nanofluid. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2010;34:210–6.
theories. Adv Nanopart 2013;2:266. [65] Kim SH, Choi SR, Kim D. Thermal conductivity of metal-oxide nanofluids:
[33] Aybar HŞ, Sharifpur M, Azizian MR, Mehrabi M, Meyer JP. A review of particle size dependence and effect of laser irradiation. J Heat Transf
thermal conductivity models for nanofluids. Heat Transf Eng 2015;36:1085– 2007;129:298–307.
110. [66] Patel HE, Sundararajan T, Das SK. An experimental investigation into the
[34] Shahrul IM, Mahbubul IM, Khaleduzzaman SS, Saidur R, Sabri MFM. A thermal conductivity enhancement in oxide and metallic nanofluids. J Na-
comparative review on the specific heat of nanofluids for energy perspective. nopart Res 2010;12:1015–31.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:88–98. [67] Duangthongsuk W, Wongwises S. Measurement of temperature-dependent
[35] Mishra PC, Mukherjee S, Nayak SK, Panda A. A brief review on viscosity of thermal conductivity and viscosity of TiO2 water nanofluids. Exp Therm Fluid
nanofluids. Int Nano Lett 2014;4:109–20. Sci 2009;33:706–14.
[36] Fan J, Wang L. Review of heat conduction in nanofluids. J Heat Transf [68] Li CH, Peterson G. Experimental investigation of temperature and volume
2011;133:040801. fraction variations on the effective thermal conductivity of nanoparticle
[37] Yu W, France DM, Choi SUS, Routbort JL. Review and assessment of nanofluid suspensions (nanofluids). J Appl Phys 2006;99:084314.
technology for transportation and other applications. Illinoi, Chicago, USA: [69] Jahanshahi M, Hosseinizadeh S, Alipanah M, Dehghani A, Vakilinejad G.
Argonne National Laboratory; 2007. Numerical simulation of free convection based on experimental measured
[38] Khanafer K, Vafai K. A critical synthesis of thermophysical characteristics of conductivity in a square cavity using Water/SiO2 nanofluid. Int Commun
nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2011;54:4410–28. Heat Mass Transf 2010;37:687–94.
[39] Ramesh G, Prabhu NK. Review of thermo-physical properties, wetting and [70] Yiamsawasd T, Dalkilic AS, Wongwises S. Measurement of the thermal
heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids and their applicability in industrial conductivity of titania and alumina nanofluids. Thermochim Acta
quench heat treatment. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011;6:1–15. 2012;545:48–56.
[40] Hosseini SS, Shahrjerdi A, Vazifeshenas Y. A review of relations for physical [71] Tavman I, Turgut A, Chirtoc M, Schuchmann H, Tavman S. Experimental
investigation of viscosity and thermal conductivity of suspensions containing [105] Hwang Y, Park HS, Lee JK, Jung WH. Thermal conductivity and lubrication
nanosized ceramic particles. Arch Mater Sci 2008;100. characteristics of nanofluids. Curr Appl Phys 2006;6(Supplement 1):e67–71.
[72] Kang HU, Kim SH, Oh JM. Estimation of thermal conductivity of nanofluid [106] Eastman, JA, Choi, US, Li, S, Thompson, LJ, Lee, S. Enhanced thermal con-
using experimental effective particle volume. Exp Heat Transf 2006;19:181– ductivity through the development of nanofluids. In: Proceedings of the
91. symposium on nanophase and nanocomposite materials II, USA; 1997, p. 3–
[73] Hussein AM, Bakar R, Kadirgama K, Sharma K. Experimental measurement of 11.
nanofluids thermal properties. Diamond 2013;7:850–63. [107] Zhu H, Zhang C, Liu S, Tang Y, Yin Y. Effects of nanoparticle clustering and
[74] Ferrouillat S, Bontemps A, Ribeiro JP, Gruss JA, Soriano O. Hydraulic and heat alignment on thermal conductivities of Fe3O4 aqueous nanofluids. Appl Phys
transfer study of SiO2/water nanofluids in horizontal tubes with imposed Lett 2006;89:3123.
wall temperature boundary conditions. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2011;32:424–39. [108] Shima PD, Philip J. Role of thermal conductivity of dispersed nanoparticles on
[75] Hwang Y, Park H, Lee J, Jung W. Thermal conductivity and lubrication heat transfer properties of nanofluid. Ind Eng Chem Res 2014;53:980–8.
characteristics of nanofluids. Curr Appl Phys 2006;6:67–71. [109] Yoo DH, Hong K, Hong T, Eastman J, Yang HS. Thermal conductivity of Al2O3/
[76] Sundar LS, Sharma K. Experimental determination of thermal conductivity of water nanofluids. J Korean Phys Soc 2007;51:S84–7.
fluid containing oxide nanoparticles. Int J Dyn Fluids 2008;4. [110] Hays, A, Marsh, CP, Alvarado, J, Franks, R. The effect of nanoparticle ag-
[77] Khedkar RS, Sonawane SS, Wasewar KL. Influence of CuO nanoparticles in glomeration on enhanced nanofluidic thermal conductivity. Presented at the
enhancing the thermal conductivity of water and monoethylene glycol based international refrigeration and air conditioning conference; 2006.
nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2012;39:665–9. [111] Li X, Zhu D, Wang X, Wang N, Gao J, Li H. Thermal conductivity enhancement
[78] Minakov AV, Rudyak VY, Guzei DV, Lobasov AS. Measurement of the heat dependent pH and chemical surfactant for Cu-H2O nanofluids. Thermochim
transfer coefficient of a nanofluid based on water and copper oxide particles Acta 2008;469:98–103.
in a cylindrical channel. High Temp 2015;53:246–53. [112] Xie H, Yu W, Li Y, Chen L. Discussion on the thermal conductivity enhance-
[79] Saleh R, Putra N, Wibowo RE, Septiadi WN, Prakoso SP. Titanium dioxide ment of nanofluids. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011;6:124.
nanofluids for heat transfer applications. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2014;52:19–29. [113] Wang XJ, Fang LX. Influence of pH on nanofluids' viscosity and thermal
[80] Xie H, Wang J, Xi T, Liu Y, Ai F, Wu Q. Thermal conductivity enhancement of conductivity. Chin Phys Lett 2009;26:056601.
suspensions containing nanosized alumina particles. J Appl Phys [114] Leong KC, Yang C, Murshed SMS. A model for the thermal conductivity of
2002;91:4568–72. nanofluids – the effect of interfacial layer. J Nanopart Res 2006;8:245–54.
[81] Chon CH, Kihm KD, Lee SP, Choi SU. Empirical correlation finding the role of [115] Eapen J, Rusconi R, Piazza R, Yip S. The classical nature of thermal conduction
temperature and particle size for nanofluid (Al2O3) thermal conductivity in nanofluids. J Heat Transf 2010;132:102402.
enhancement. Appl Phys Lett 2005;87,153107:1–3. [116] Evans W, Prasher R, Fish J, Meakin P, Phelan P, Keblinski P. Effect of ag-
[82] Murshed SMS, Leong KC, Yang C. Enhanced thermal conductivity of TiO2— gregation and interfacial thermal resistance on thermal conductivity of na-
water based nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci 2005;44:367–73. nocomposites and colloidal nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2008;51:1431–
[83] Das SK, Choi SU, Patel HE. Heat transfer in nanofluids—a review. Heat Transf 8.
Eng 2006;27:3–19. [117] Lee JH, Lee SH, Choi CJ, Jang SP, Choi SU. A review of thermal conductivity
[84] Yoo DH, Hong K, Yang HS. Study of thermal conductivity of nanofluids for the data, mechanisms and models for nanofluids. Int J Micro-Nano Scale Transp
application of heat transfer fluids. Thermochim Acta 2007;455:66–9. 2010;1:269–322.
[85] Ju YS, Kim J, Hung MT. Experimental study of heat conduction in aqueous [118] Keblinski P, Phillpot SR, Choi SUS, Eastman JA. Mechanisms of heat flow in
suspensions of aluminum oxide nanoparticles. J Heat Transf suspensions of nano-sized particles (nanofluids). Int J Heat Mass Transf
2008;130:092403–6. 2002;45:855–63.
[86] Williams W, Buongiorno J, Hu LW. Experimental investigation of turbulent [119] Michaelides, ES. Heat transfer with nanofluids. In: Heat and mass transfer in
convective heat transfer and pressure loss of alumina/water and zirconia/ particulate suspensions, ed: Springer, New York; 2013. p. 121–64.
water nanoparticle colloids (nanofluids) in horizontal tubes. J Heat Transf [120] Maxwell JC. Treatise on electricity and magnetism. second edition. Oxford,
2008;130:042412. UK: Clarendon Press; 1881.
[87] Timofeeva EV, Routbort JL, Singh D. Particle shape effects on thermophysical [121] Bruggeman DAG. Berechnung verschiedener physikalischer konstanten von
properties of alumina nanofluids. J Appl Phys 2009;106:014304. heterogenen substanzen. I. Dielektrizitätskonstanten und Leitfähigkeiten der
[88] Beck MP, Yuan Y, Warrier P, Teja AS. The effect of particle size on the thermal mischkörper aus isotropen substanzen. Ann Phys 1935;24:636–79.
conductivity of alumina nanofluids. J Nanopart Res 2009;11:1129–36. [122] Hamilton RL, Crosser OK. Thermal conductivity of heterogeneous two-com-
[89] Gowda R, Sun H, Wang P, Charmchi M, Gao F, Gu Z, et al. Effects of particle ponent systems. Ind Eng Chem Fundam 1962;1:182–91.
surface charge, species, concentration, and dispersion method on the ther- [123] Jeffrey DJ. Conduction through a random suspension of spheres. Proc R Soc
mal conductivity of nanofluids. Adv Mech Eng 2010;2:807610. Lond A: Math Phys Sci 1973;335:355–67.
[90] Paul G, Chopkar M, Manna I, Das PK. Techniques for measuring the thermal [124] Wasp FJ. Solid-liquid slurry pipeline transportation. Berlin: Trans. Tech; 1977.
conductivity of nanofluids: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev [125] Davis RH. The effective thermal conductivity of a composite material with
2010;14:1913–24. spherical inclusions. Int J Thermophys 1986;7:609–20.
[91] Shalkevich N, Shalkevich A, Bü rgi T. Thermal conductivity of concentrated [126] Hasselman DPH, Johnson LF. Effective thermal conductivity of composites
colloids in different states. J. Phys. Chem. C. 2010;vol. 114:9568–72. with interfacial thermal barrier resistance. J Compos Mater 1987;21:508–15.
[92] Hong J, Kim D. Effects of aggregation on the thermal conductivity of alumina/ [127] Lu SY, Lin HC. Effective conductivity of composites containing aligned
water nanofluids. Thermochim Acta 2012;542:28–32. spheroidal inclusions of finite conductivity. J Appl Phys 1996;79:6761–9.
[93] Murshed S, Leong K, Yang C. Investigations of thermal conductivity and [128] Yu W, Choi S. The role of interfacial layers in the enhanced thermal con-
viscosity of nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci 2008;47:560–8. ductivity of nanofluids: a renovated Maxwell model. J Nanopart Res
[94] Mintsa HA, Roy G, Nguyen CT, Doucet D. New temperature dependent 2003;5:167–71.
thermal conductivity data for water-based nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci [129] Xue QZ. Model for effective thermal conductivity of nanofluids. Phys Lett A
2009;48:363–71. 2003;307:313–7.
[95] Wang XQ, Mujumdar AS. A review on nanofluids – part II: experiments and [130] Sen S, Govindarajan V, Pelliccione CJ, Wang J, Miller DJ, Timofeeva EV. Surface
applications. Braz J Chem Eng 2008;25:631–48. modification approach to TiO2 nanofluids with high particle concentration,
[96] Teng TP, Hung YH, Teng TC, Mo HE, Hsu HG. The effect of alumina/water low viscosity, and electrochemical activity. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces
nanofluid particle size on thermal conductivity. Appl Therm Eng 2015;7:20538–47.
2010;30:2213–8. [131] Xuan Y, Li Q, Hu W. Aggregation structure and thermal conductivity of na-
[97] He Y, Jin Y, Chen H, Ding Y, Cang D, Lu H. Heat transfer and flow behaviour of nofluids. AIChE J 2003;49:1038–43.
aqueous suspensions of TiO2 nanoparticles (nanofluids) flowing upward [132] Yu W, Choi S. The role of interfacial layers in the enhanced thermal con-
through a vertical pipe. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2007;50:2272–81. ductivity of nanofluids: a renovated Hamilton–Crosser model. J Nanopart Res
[98] Kazemi-Beydokhti A, Heris SZ, Moghadam N, Shariati-Niasar M, Hamidi AA. 2004;6:355–61.
Experimental investigation of parameters affecting nanofluid effective [133] Kumar DH, Patel HE, Kumar VR, Sundararajan T, Pradeep T, Das SK. Model for
thermal conductivity. Chem Eng Commun 2014;201:593–611. heat conduction in nanofluids. Phys Rev Lett 2004;93:144301.
[99] Fang KC, Weng CI, Ju SP. An investigation into the structural features and [134] Xie H, Fujii M, Zhang X. Effect of interfacial nanolayer on the effective ther-
thermal conductivity of silicon nanoparticles using molecular dynamics si- mal conductivity of nanoparticle-fluid mixture. Int J Heat Mass Transf
mulations. Nanotechnology 2006;17:3909. 2005;48:2926–32.
[100] Feng Y, Yu B, Feng K, Xu P, Zou M. Thermal conductivity of nanofluids and [135] Koo J, Kleinstreuer C. Impact analysis of nanoparticle motion mechanisms on
size distribution of nanoparticles by Monte Carlo simulations. J Nanopart Res the thermal conductivity of nanofluids. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf
2008;10:1319–28. 2005;32:1111–8.
[101] Jang SP, Choi SU. Role of Brownian motion in the enhanced thermal con- [136] Prasher R, Bhattacharya P, Phelan PE. Thermal conductivity of nanoscale
ductivity of nanofluids. Appl Phys Lett 2004;84:4316–8. colloidal solutions (nanofluids). Phys Rev Lett 2005;94:025901.
[102] Shima P, Philip J, Raj B. Role of microconvection induced by Brownian motion [137] Xue Q, Xu WM. A model of thermal conductivity of nanofluids with inter-
of nanoparticles in the enhanced thermal conductivity of stable nanofluids. facial shells. Mater Chem Phys 2005;90:298–301.
Appl Phys Lett 2009;94:223101. [138] Sabbaghzadeh J, Ebrahimi S. Effective thermal conductivity of nanofluids
[103] Murshed SMS. Simultaneous measurement of thermal conductivity, thermal containing cylindrical nanoparticles. Int J Nanosci 2007;06:45–9.
diffusivity, and specific heat of nanofluids. Heat Transf Eng 2011;33:722–31. [139] Yang B. Thermal conductivity equations based on Brownian motion in sus-
[104] Xie HQ, Wang JC, Xi TG, Liu Y. Thermal conductivity of suspensions con- pensions of nanoparticles (nanofluids). J Heat Transf 2008;130:042408.
taining nanosized SiC particles. Int J Thermophys 2002;23:571–80. [140] Pang C, Jung JY, Kang YT. Aggregation based model for heat conduction
mechanism in nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2014;72:392–9. 1948;52:277–99.

[141] Palm SJ, Roy G, Nguyen CT. Heat transfer enhancement with the use of na- [171] Saitô N. Concentration dependence of the viscosity of high polymer solutions.
nofluids in radial flow cooling systems considering temperature-dependent I. J Phys Soc Jpn 1950;5:4–18.
properties. Appl Therm Eng 2006;26:2209–18. [172] Mooney M. Secondary stresses in viscoelastic flow. J Colloid Sci 1951;6:96–
[142] Mojarrad MS, Keshavarz A, Ziabasharhagh M, Raznahan MM. Experimental 107.
investigation on heat transfer enhancement of alumina/water and alumina/ [173] Brinkman H. The viscosity of concentrated suspensions and solutions. J.
water–ethylene glycol nanofluids in thermally developing laminar flow. Exp Chem. Phys. 1952;20:571.
Therm Fluid Sci 2014;53:111–8. [174] Simha R. A treatment of the viscosity of concentrated suspensions. J Appl
[143] Vasu V, Krishna KR, Kumar A. Analytical prediction of forced convective heat Phys 1952;23:1020–4.
transfer of fluids embedded with nanostructured materials (nanofluids). [175] Roscoe R. The viscosity of suspensions of rigid spheres. Br J Appl Phys
Pramana 2007;69:411–21. 1952;3:267–9.
[144] Fakoor Pakdaman M, Akhavan-Behabadi MA, Razi P. An experimental in- [176] Krieger IM, Dougherty TJ. A mechanism for non-Newtonian flow in suspen-
vestigation on thermo-physical properties and overall performance of sions of rigid spheres. Trans Soc Rheol (1957–1977) 1959;3:137–52.
MWCNT/heat transfer oil nanofluid flow inside vertical helically coiled tubes. [177] Frankel NA, Acrivos A. On the viscosity of concentrated suspension of solid
Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2012;40:103–11. spheres. Chem Eng Sci 1967;22:847–53.
[145] Garg J, Poudel B, Chiesa M, Gordon J, Ma J, Wang J, et al. Enhanced thermal [178] Chong JS, Christiansen EB, Baer AD. Rheology of concentrated suspensions. J
conductivity and viscosity of copper nanoparticles in ethylene glycol nano- Appl Polym Sci 1971;1.
fluid. J Appl Phys 2008;103:074301. [179] Lundgren TS. Slow flow through stationary random beds and suspensions of
[146] Ghazvini M, Akhavan-Behabadi M, Rasouli E, Raisee M. Heat transfer prop- spheres. J Fluid Mech 1972;51:273–99.
erties of nanodiamond–engine oil nanofluid in laminar flow. Heat Transf Eng [180] Batchelor GK. The effect of Brownian motion on the bulk stress in a sus-
2012;33:525–32. pension of spherical particles. J Fluid Mech 1977;83:97–117.
[147] Branson BT, Beauchamp PS, Beam JC, Lukehart CM, Davidson JL. Nanodia- [181] Graham AL. On the viscosity of suspensions of solid spheres. Appl Sci Res
mond nanofluids for enhanced thermal conductivity. ACS Nano 2013;7:3183– 1981;37:275–86.
9. [182] Kitano T, Kataoka T, Shirota T. An empirical equation of the relative viscosity
[148] Godson L, Raja B, Lal DM, Wongwises S. Experimental investigation on the of polymer melts filled with various inorganic fillers. Rheol Acta
thermal conductivity and viscosity of silver-deionized water nanofluid. Exp 1981;20:207–9.
Heat Transf 2010;23:317–32. [183] Metzner AB. Rheology of suspensions in polymeric liquids. J Rheol
[149] Zhu H, Han D, Meng Z, Wu D, Zhang C. Preparation and thermal conductivity 1985;29:739–75.
of CuO nanofluid via a wet chemical method. Nanoscale Res Lett 2011;6:1–6. [184] Leighton D, Acrivos A. The shear-induced migration of particles in con-
[150] Sahooli M, Sabbaghi S, Shariaty Niassar M. Preparation of CuO/water nano- centrated suspensions. J. Fluid Mech 1987;vol. 181:415–39.
fluids using polyvinylpyrolidone and a survey on its stability and thermal [185] Barnes HA, Hutton JF, W. K. An introduction to rheology. Amsterdam, The
conductivity. Int J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2012;8:27–34. Netherlands: Elsevier; 1989.
[151] Timofeeva, EV. Nanofluids for heat transfer–potential and engineering stra- [186] Thomas CU, Muthukumar M. Three-body hydrodynamic effects on viscosity
tegies. In: Two phase flow, phase change and numerical modelling, InTech, of suspensions of spheres. J Chem Phys 1991;94:5180–9.
Croatia; 2011, p. 435–50. [187] De-Noni Jr A, Garcia DE, Hotza D. A modified model for the viscosity of
[152] Tsai TH, Kuo LS, Chen PH, Yang CT. Effect of viscosity of base fluid on thermal ceramic suspensions. Ceram. Int. 2002;vol. 28:731–5.
conductivity of nanofluids. Appl Phys Lett 2008;93:233121. [188] Rodrigues Neto, JB. Deffloculation mechanisms of colloidal clay suspensions.
[153] Nguyen C, Desgranges F, Roy G, Galanis N, Mare T, Boucher S, et al. Tem- (Ph.D thesis) Materials science and engineering (in Portuguese). UFSC, Flor-
perature and particle-size dependent viscosity data for water-based nano- ianopolis; 1999.
fluids–hysteresis phenomenon. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2007;28:1492–506. [189] Nielsen LE. Generalized equation for the elastic moduli of composite mate-
[154] Lee JH, Hwang KS, Jang SP, Lee BH, Kim JH, Choi SUS, et al. Effective visc- rials. J Appl Phys 2003;41:4626–7.
osities and thermal conductivities of aqueous nanofluids containing low [190] Cheng NS, Law AWK. Exponential formula for computing effective viscosity.
volume concentrations of Al2O3 nanoparticles. Int J Heat Mass Transf Powder Technol 2003;129:156–60.
2008;51:2651–6. [191] Chen H, Ding Y, He Y, Tan C. Rheological behaviour of ethylene glycol based
[155] Azmi W, Sharma K, Sarma P, Mamat R, Anuar S, Dharma Rao V. Experimental titania nanofluids. Chem Phys Lett 2007;444:333–7.
determination of turbulent forced convection heat transfer and friction factor [192] Brouwers HJH. Viscosity of concentrated suspension of rigid monosized
with SiO2 nanofluid. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2013;51:103–11. particles. Phys Rev 2010;81:041402-1–10.
[156] Nikkam N, Saleemi M, Toprak M, Li S, Muhammed M, Haghighi E, et al. Novel [193] Tseng WJ, Lin K-C. Rheology and colloidal structure of aqueous TiO2 nano-
nanofluids based on mesoporous silica for enhanced heat transfer. J Nanopart particle suspensions. Mater Sci Eng: A 2003;355:186–92.
Res 2011;13:6201–6. [194] Maı̈ga SEB, Nguyen CT, Galanis N, Roy G. Heat transfer behaviours of nano-
[157] Jalal M, Meisami H, Pouyagohar M. Investigation of titania/water nanofluid fluids in a uniformly heated tube. Superlattices Microstruct 2004;35:543–57.
viscousity, density and pressure drop in circular channel. World Appl Sci J [195] Buongiorno J. Convective transport in nanofluids. J Heat Transf
2013;27:1037–41. 2005;128:240–50.
[158] Anoop K, Kabelac S, Sundararajan T, Das SK. Rheological and flow char- [196] Rea U, McKrell T, Hu L-w, Buongiorno J. Laminar convective heat transfer and
acteristics of nanofluids: Influence of electroviscous effects and particle ag- viscous pressure loss of alumina–water and zirconia–water nanofluids. Int J
glomeration. J Appl Phys 2009;106:034909. Heat Mass Transf 2009;52:2042–8.
[159] Namburu P, Kulkarni D, Dandekar A, Das D. Experimental investigation of [197] Vakili-Nezhaad G, Dorany A. Effect of single-walled carbon nanotube on the
viscosity and specific heat of silicon dioxide nanofluids. Micro Nano Lett IET viscosity of lubricants. Energy Procedia 2012;14:512–7.
2007;2:67–71. [198] Bobbo S, Fedele L, Benetti A, Colla L, Fabrizio M, Pagura C, et al. Viscosity of
[160] Lu WQ, Fan QM. Study for the particle's scale effect on some thermophysical water based SWCNH and TiO2 nanofluids. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2012;36:65–
properties of nanofluids by a simplified molecular dynamics method. Eng 71.
Anal Bound Elem 2008;32:282–9. [199] Syam Sundar L, Venkata Ramana E, Singh MK, De Sousa ACM. Viscosity of low
[161] Pastoriza-Gallego M, Casanova C, Legido J, Piñeiro M. CuO in water nanofluid- volume concentrations of magnetic Fe3O4 nanoparticles dispersed in ethy-
influence of particle size and polydispersity on volumetric behaviour and lene glycol and water mixture. Chem Phys Lett 2012;554:236–42.
viscosity. Fluid Phase Equilibria 2011;300:188–96. [200] Vajjha RS, Das DK. A review and analysis on influence of temperature and
[162] Prasher R, Song D, Wang J, Phelan P. Measurements of nanofluid viscosity concentration of nanofluids on thermophysical properties, heat transfer and
and its implications for thermal applications. Appl Phys Lett 2006;89:133108. pumping power. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2012;55:4063–78.
[163] Jeong J, Li C, Kwon Y, Lee J, Kim SH, Yun R. Particle shape effect on the [201] Hemmat Esfe M, Saedodin S. An experimental investigation and new corre-
viscosity and thermal conductivity of ZnO nanofluids. Int J Refrig lation of viscosity of ZnO–EG nanofluid at various temperatures and different
2013;36:2233–41. solid volume fractions. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2014;55:1–5.
[164] Ferrouillat S, Bontemps A, Poncelet O, Soriano O, Gruss J-A. Influence of [202] Yu W, France DM, Smith DS, Singh D, Timofeeva EV, Routbort JL. Heat
nanoparticle shape factor on convective heat transfer and energetic perfor- transfer to a silicon carbide/water nanofluid. Int J Heat Mass Transf
mance of water-based SiO2 and ZnO nanofluids. Appl Therm Eng 2009;52:3606–12.
2013;51:839–51. [203] Kole M, Dey TK. Viscosity of alumina nanoparticles dispersed in car engine
[165] Zhao JF, Luo ZY, Ni MJ, Cen KF. Dependence of nanofluid viscosity on particle coolant. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2010;34:677–83.
size and pH value. Chin Phys Lett 2009;26:066202. [204] Kole M, Dey TK. Effect of aggregation on the viscosity of copper oxide–gear
[166] Wamkam CT, Opoku MK, Hong H, Smith P. Effects of pH on heat transfer oil nanofluids. Int J Therm Sci 2011;50:17411747.
nanofluids containing ZrO2 and TiO2 nanoparticles. J Appl Phys [205] Kulkarni DP, Das DK, Chukwu GA. Temperature dependent rheological
2011;109:024305. property of copper oxide nanoparticles suspension (nanofluid). J Nanosci
[167] Einstein A. Eine neue bestimmung der moleküldimensionen. Ann Phys Nanotechnol 2006;6:1150–4.
1906;324:289–306. [206] Kulkarni DP, Das DK, Patil SL. Effect of temperature on rheological properties
[168] Eilers H. Die Viskosität von Emulsionen hochviskoser Stoffe als Funktion der of copper oxide nanoparticles dispersed in propylene glycol and water
Konzentration. Kolloid-Z 1941;97:313–21. mixture. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2007;7:2318–22.
[169] de Bruijn H. The viscosity of suspensions of spherical particles. (The funda- [207] Namburu PK, Kulkarni DP, Misra D, Das DK. Viscosity of copper oxide na-
mental η-c and φ-c relations). Recl Trav Chim Pays-Bas 1942;61:863–74. noparticles dispersed in ethylene glycol and water mixture. Exp Therm Fluid
[170] Vand V. Viscosity of solutions and suspensions. I. Theory. J Phys Colloid Chem Sci 2007;32:397–402.
[208] Namburu PK, Das DK, Tanguturi KM, Vajjha RS. Numerical study of turbulent composite nanocatalysts: colloidal synthesis, properties, and catalytic ap-
flow and heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids considering variable plications. Nanoscale 2015;7:10559–83.
properties. Int J Therm Sci 2009;48:290–302. [216] Nogi K, Naito M, Yokoyama T. Nanoparticle technology handbook. Spain:
[209] Abu-Nada E. Effects of variable viscosity and thermal conductivity of Al2O3– Elsevier; 2012.
water nanofluid on heat transfer enhancement in natural convection. Int J [217] Sarkar J, Ghosh P, Adil A. A review on hybrid nanofluids: recent research,
Heat Fluid Flow 2009;30:679–90. development and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:164–77.
[210] Masoud Hosseini S, Moghadassi AR, Henneke D. A new dimensionless group [218] Schmidt G, Malwitz MM. Properties of polymer–nanoparticle composites.
model for determining the viscosity of nanofluids. J Therm Anal Calorim Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 2003;8:103–8.
2010;100:873–7. [219] Suresh S, Venkitaraj KP, Selvakumar P, Chandrasekar M. Synthesis of Al2O3–
[211] Rohini Priya K, Suganthi KS, Rajan KS. Transport properties of ultra-low Cu/water hybrid nanofluids using two step method and its thermo physical
concentration CuO–water nanofluids containing non-spherical nanoparticles. properties. Colloids Surf A: Physicochem Eng Asp 2011;388:41–8.
Int J Heat Mass Transf 2012;55:4734–43. [220] Hemmat Esfe M, Abbasian Arani AA, Rezaie M, Yan W-M, Karimipour A.
[212] Koo J, Kleinstreuer C. Laminar nanofluid flow in microheat-sinks. Int J Heat
Experimental determination of thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity
Mass Transf 2005;48:2652–61.
of Ag–MgO/water hybrid nanofluid. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf
[213] Masoumi N, Sohrabi N, Behzadmehr A. A new model for calculating the ef-
2015;66:189–95.
fective viscosity of nanofluids. J Phys D: Appl Phys 2009;42:055501.
[221] Takabi B, Salehi S. Augmentation of the heat transfer performance of a si-
[214] Hanemann T, Szabó DV. Polymer-nanoparticle composites: from synthesis to
modern applications. Materials 2010;3:3468–517. nusoidal corrugated enclosure by employing hybrid nanofluid. Adv Mech Eng
[215] Zhang Q, Xu Y, Wang X, Yao W-T. Recent advances in noble metal based 2014;2014.

P 8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 66 (2016) 654–678

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

A review of thermophysical properties of water based composite

2.4.7. Validation for the viscosity models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666

1. Introduction as a base ﬂuid in cold climatic conditions [20,21]. Studies on na-

Nomenclature TL low temperature of particle at equilibrium, (°C)

Eq. No. Author Empirical Model Nanoﬂuid dp ϕp T

for the estimation of speciﬁc heat of nanoﬂuid given by:

where, cp is the speciﬁc heat, ρp is the density, ϕp is the volume

Nanoparticle Thermal conductivity Density Speciﬁc heat Thermal diffusivity 10 6 Reference

Alumina 39 3970 775 11.9 Sattler [58]

Thermophysical Equipment type Dispersed nanopowder Reference

Density DA-505 ( KEM, Japan) Al2O3 [45],

Eq.No. Author Theoretical Model Validity (Maximum)

7. Maxwell [120] ⎡ k + 2k + 2 k − k ϕ ⎤ 1.0 Spherical

11. Jeffery [123] ⎡ ⎛ ϖ3 ϖ3 η + 2 ⎞

12. Davis [125] ⎡ 3 ( κ − 1) ⎤ – Spherical

⎣ k pe + 2k bf − ( kpe − kbf ) ( 1 + β)3φp ⎥⎦

18. Xie et al.[134] ⎛ 3Θ2ϕ 2 ⎞ – Spherical

23. Kumar et al. [133] ⎡ ϕp abf

24. Koo and Kleinstreuer [135] keff = kstatic + μBrownian – –

Eq.No. Author Theoretical Model Validity (Maximum)

Eq.No. Author Empirical Model Nanoﬂuid dp ϕp T

31. Pak and Cho [48] Al2O3–W 13 – 25

45. Chon et al. [81] ⎡ ⎤ Al2O3–W 11–150 1.0 20–70

B = 247.8, C = 140, Kb = 1.380 × 10−23, lbf = 0.17

Fig. 6. Comparison of thermal conductivity ratio of single material Al2O3 nanoﬂuid

3. Properties of composite nanoﬂuid

A composite nanoﬂuid (CNf) is referred to a base ﬂuid dis-

1 Al2O3 þW Patel et al. [66] 0.5 20 11 1.060 1.04 1.041

Eq. No. Author Theoretical models for Viscosity Validity (Max.)

ϕ (%) Particle Shape

51. Einstein [167] r 2.0 Spherical

73. Nielson [189] ⎡ ⎤ Z 2 Spherical

Eq. No. Author Empirical models for viscosity Nanoﬂuid dp ϕp T

87. Ho et al. [45] Al2O3–W 33 0–4 15–40

91. Syam Sundar et al. ⎡ 1.205⎤ Fe3O4–EG/W 11.4 0–1 0–50

93. Hemmat Esfe et al. μ = ( 1 + 11.61 ϕ + 109 ϕ ) μ 2 MgO–W 40 0–1.0 25–60

96. Yu et al. [202] SiC–W 170 0–3.7 25–70

Eq. No. Author Empirical models for viscosity Nanoﬂuid dp ϕp T

A = 1078.3 + 15857 ϕp + 20587 ϕp2 B = 2.8715 + 53.548 ϕp − 107.12 ϕp2

B = 0.0186 − 0.001 ϕp − 4 × 10−6ϕp2

B = 0.0192 − 0.0004 ϕp − 7 × 10−6ϕp2

B = 20341 × 10−6 − 1478.5 × 10−6 ϕp + 140.03 × 10−6ϕp2⋯ − 6.4745 × 10−6 ϕp3

113. Rohini Priya et al. ⎡ ⎤ CuO–W – 0–1.6 28–55

Eq. No. Author Empirical models for viscosity Nanoﬂuid dp ϕp T

115. Heyhat et al. [46] ⎡ ⎛ 5.989 ϕp ⎞ ⎤ Al2O3–W 40 0–2 20–60

121. Khanafer and Vafai ⎡ ϕp2 Al2O3–W 13–131 1–9 20–70

properties reﬂected by the thermal diffusivity term (αp/αbf ) given

1 CuO þW Nguyen et al.[153] 1.0 21 29 1.096 1.053 1.047

two concentrations in Fig. 20. Evidently, the viscosity of 4% vol.

The investigations with single material nanoﬂuid (SmNf) show

mechanism in nanoﬂuids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2014;72:392–9. 1948;52:277–99.

You might also like