International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 119 (2018) 408–417

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

Thermophysical performance of graphene based aqueous nanofluids

Yi Wang a, Hussein Alawai Ibrahim Al-Saaidi b,d, Minsuk Kong c, Jorge L. Alvarado d,⇑
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
b
Al-Nahrain University, Baghdad, Iraq
c
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Daejeon, Republic of Korea
d
Department of Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Study of thermophysical properties and forced convective heat transfer performance and flow character-
Received 21 December 2016 istics for single layer graphene (GNP) based nanofluids was undertaken. Experimental results reveal that
Received in revised form 12 August 2017 GNP mass fraction increases both the effective thermal conductivity and viscosity of the nanofluid.
Accepted 6 November 2017
Furthermore, the graphene nanofluid suspensions exhibit a shear thinning behavior, which follows the
Power Law viscosity model with a flow behavior index of about 0.938, suggesting particle–particle inter-
actions. Experimental results show that inclusion of GNP in the host fluid increases pressure drop by
Keywords:
112–161% at the same flow rates. A new friction factor correlation is proposed for 1 wt% GNP nanofluids
Graphene nanofluids
Non-Newtonian fluids
flowing through a circular pipe as non-Newtonian fluid. Furthermore, the Nusselt number (Nu) of GNP
Thermophysical properties nanofluids decreases with axial distance at a much slower rate than that of the base fluid (water) due
Friction factor to viscous effect and particle interactions within the nanofluids. In addition, Nu values of GNP nanofluids
Nusselt number are higher than for water under laminar flow conditions. Based on the classic Nu model for non-
Pseudoplastic behavior Newtonian flow in a uniformly heated circular pipe under laminar flow conditions, a new Nu correlation
Power Law fluids is proposed for 1 wt% GNP nanofluids, which fits the experimental data well.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.1. Thermal conductivity of graphene nanofluids

As thermal loads keep increasing in many energy transport
related engineering applications, greater amounts of heat transfer
fluids as well as larger heat transfer systems are needed to meet
the continuously growing cooling demands. Therefore, in order to
meet increasing thermal demands, researchers have to use either
enhanced heat transfer surfaces or better heat transfer fluids, to
improve the overall efficiency and lifetime of energy transport
systems.
One way to achieve improved heat transfer fluids is to mix base
fluids with nano-sized particles. Choi and Eastman [1] introduced
the concept of nanofluids for heat transfer applications, by proving
that adding nanoparticles could improve the thermophysical prop-
erties of the host heat transfer fluid including thermal conductivity
[1–6], and eventually heat transfer performance [7–11]. Nanofluids
consisting of graphene nanoparticles (GNP) is one of the most
promising heat transfer fluids due to the relatively high thermal
conductivity of GNP (5000 W/m-K). Accordingly, many studies
have investigated thermophysical properties and convective heat
transfer performance of GNP nanofluids, as reported briefly below.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jorge.alvarado@tamu.edu (J.L. Alvarado).
Yu et al. [12] found that ethylene glycol with 5 vol% of GNP
exhibits up to 86% thermal conductivity enhancement. Sadegh-
inezhad et al. [14] reported thermal conductivity data for GNP
nanofluids showing an enhancement of thermal conductivity in
the range of 8–25%. Kole and Dey [15] also claimed that the ther-
mal conductivity of nanofluids depends positively on both temper-
ature and mass fractions of nanoparticles. Gupta et al. [16] found
considerable thermal conductivity enhancements for nanofluids
with low particle concentrations. They claimed that the increase
of thermal conductivity strongly depends on temperature.
1.2. Viscosity of graphene nanofluids
Sadeghinezhad et al. [17] found out that the viscosity of GNP
nanofluids depends both on fluid temperature and the mass frac-
tion of nanoparticles, in which the viscosity increase is in the range
from 9% to 38%. Mehrali et al. [22] studied the viscosity of similar
GNP nanofluids [17], in which they found that GNP nanofluid vis-
cosity decreases with temperature and increases with GNP concen-
tration. In the study, the viscosity of 0.1 wt% GNP nanofluids was
44% greater than the base fluid. The GNP nanofluid also exhibited
shear thinning behavior. The study by Kole and Dey [15] shows a

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.11.019
0017-9310/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 119 (2018) 408–417 409

Nomenclature

cp specific heat, kJ/kg-°C Re Reynolds number

D tube diameter, m RPM revolutions per minute
DAQ data acquisition R2 coefficient of determination
DC direct current T temperature, °C
DI distilled TS test station
DPT differential pressure transducer u fluid velocity, m/s
EG ethylene glycol v ol:% volume fraction of nanofluids
f friction factor wt% weight percentage of the GNP nanofluid
FM flow meter x axial position along the tube, m
GNP graphene
Gz Graetz number Greek symbols
h heat transfer coefficient, kW/m2-°C q fluid density, kg/m3
HX heat exchanger l dynamic viscosity, mPa-s
K flow consistency index, Pa sn c shear rate, 1/s
k thermal conductivity of the fluid, W/m-°C s shear stress, Pa
L tube length, m
m_ mass flow rate, kg/s Subscripts
MF mass fraction of GNP nanofluid
b bulk
n flow behavior index H hydraulic
NIST National Institure of Standards and Technology i tube inlet
Nu Nusselt number L local values
p perimeter of the tube, m
o tube outlet
Pr Prandtl number s surface
DP pressure difference between inlet and outlet of the tube,
kPa
q00 heat flux, kW/m2

100% viscosity increase for GNP nanofluids with respect to the base
liquid, in which the nanofluids exhibited non-Newtonian behavior.
Moghaddam et al. [19] showed that the viscosity of GNP nanofluids
increases with increasing nanoparticle mass fractions and
decreases with temperature as seen in other studies. A shear thin-
ning behavior of GNP nanofluids was also observed. Table 1. sum-
marizes key observations about GNP nanofluids in terms of
thermal-physical properties from different studies.
1.3. Pressure drop of graphene nanofluids
Sadeghinezhad et al. [17] found that pressure drop of GNP
nanofluids increases linearly with nanoparticle concentration. In a
subsequent study [14], it was found that pumping power of the sys-
tem increased slightly even though pressure drop increased up to
14.6%. Akhavan-Zanjani et al.’s [20] work shows that pressure drop
and friction factor of GNP nanofluids do not change with nanopar-
ticle volume fraction considerably, but pressure drop increases and
friction factor decreases with Reynolds number. Mehrali et al. [22]
experimental results indicate that pressure drop of GNP nanofluids
increases up to 14.4% when compared to the base fluid.
1.4. Convective heat transfer of graphene nanofluids
Baby and Ramaprabhu [13] observed Nusselt number enhance-
ment for GNP nanofluids when compared to DI water even though
the thermal conductivity enhancement associated with exfoliated
GNP was relatively modest. Sadeghinezhad et al. [17] conducted
both experimental and numerical studies and revealed that the
Nusselt number of GNP nanofluids increased by approximately
3–83% as the flow rate and heat flux increased. Ghozatloo et al.
[23] reported that the convective heat transfer coefficient of 0.1
wt% GNP nanofluids at 38 °C was 35.6% greater than for pure water.
It was suggested that the effect of nanoparticle mass fraction is a
more dominant factor than fluid temperature on heat transfer per-
formance of nanofluids. Akhavan-Zanjani et al. [20] found that the
convective heat transfer coefficient of GNP nanofluids was
enhanced by just 6.0% while the maximum increase of thermal
conductivity and viscosity of GNP nanofluids was 10.3% and 5.0%,
respectively. Prasher et al. [24] experimentally and theoretically
evaluated the effect of viscosity and thermal conductivity enhance-
ment ratio on heat transfer performance of nanofluids. It was con-
cluded that viscosity increments should not increase by more than
4-fold when compared to thermal conductivity enhancements in
order to maintain the nanofluids’ convective heat transfer
enhancement greater than unity.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the key observations about pressure
drop and convective heat transfer of GNP nanofluids in the litera-
ture, respectively.
2. Description of graphene nanofluids and experimental
apparatuses
2.1. Description of graphene nanofluids
The GNP nanofluids used in this study were purchased from US
Research Nanomaterials, Inc. According to the manufacturer and
based on the fluid specifications, a special dispersant was used in
the solvent to ensure GNP stability over an extended period of
time. Furthermore, a high capacity ultrasonic machine was used
to form very uniform and very stable graphene-based nanofluids.
The detailed specifications of GNP nanofluids used in the study
are shown in Table 4, as provided by manufacturer. In addition,
TEM and SEM images of single layer GNP used in this study can
be seen in Figs.1 and 2.
2.2. Description of viscosity apparatus
In the study, the viscosity of the corresponding GNP nanofluids
was characterized by using a coaxial rotating drum viscometer
410
Table 1
Thermal-physical properties of GNP nanofluids from recent studies.
Authors and references
Yu et al. [12]
Baby and Ramaprabhu [13]
Sadeghinezhad et al. [14]
Kole and Dey [15]
Gupta et al. [16]
Kole and Dey [15]
Sadeghinezhad et al. [17]
Mehrali et al. [22]
Dhar et al. [18]
Moghaddam et al. [19]
Akhavan-Zanjani et al. [20]
Table 2
Pressure drop characteristics of GNP nanofluids from recent studies.
Authors and references
Sadeghinezhad et al. [17]
Sadeghinezhad et al. [14]
Akhavan-Zanjani et al. [20]
Mehrali et al. [22]
Table 3
Convective heat transfer characteristics of GNP nanofluids from recent studies.
Authors and references
Baby and Ramaprabhu [13]
Sadeghinezhad et al. [17]
Akhavan-Zanjani et al. [20]
Ghozatloo et al. [23]
Table 4
GNP nanofluids specifications.
GNP purity GNP thickness
>99.3 wt% 0.55–1.2 nm
Y. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 119 (2018) 408–417
Nanofluids
5 vol% GNP + ethylene glycol (EG)
0.05%/vol. hydrogen exfoliated graphene/water
GNP nanoplatelets/distilled water (DI water)
0.04–0.4%/vol. graphene nano-sheets/ethylene glycol
GNP nanosheets/water
GNP nanoparticle/EG + DI water
GNP nanoplatelets/distilled water
GNP nanoplatelets/distilled water
GNP nanosheets/water
GNP nanosheets/glycerol
Graphene nanosheets/water
Nanofluids
GNP nanoplatelets/distilled water
GNP nanoplatelets/distilled water
GNP nanosheets (<0.02 vol%)/water
Nitrogen doped GNP/water
Nanofluids
0.05%/vol. hydrogen exfoliated graphene/water
GNP nanoplatelets/distilled water
GNP nanosheets (<0.02 vol%)/water
0.1 wt% GNP/water
GNP diameter/characteristic length
1–12 lm
Results and findings
86% thermal conductivity enhancement
Thermal conductivity enhancement of 16% at 25 °C and 75% at 50 °C
Enhancement of thermal conductivity in the range of 8–25%
15% thermal conductivity enhancement for 0.4 vol% at room temperature
Considerable thermal conductivity enhancements even at low GNP
concentrations; the increase of thermal conductivity strongly depends on
temperature
100% viscosity increase for 0.4 vol% functionalized GNP in EG + DI water,
the nanofluids exhibits non-Newtonian behavior
The viscosity of GNP nanofluids depends both on fluid temperature and
mass fraction of nanoparticles, the fluid’s viscosity increase ranges from 9%
to 38%
44% viscosity increase for 0.1 wt% GNP concentration. The nanofluid
exhibits shear thinning behavior. The viscosity of nanofluids decreases with
temperature and increases with nanoparticle concentration
A theoretical model is proposed, which is capable of predicting the viscosity
of poly-dispersed GNP nanofluids by taking into account Brownian motion
within a percolation network
The viscosity of GNP nanofluids increases with increasing nanoparticle
mass fractions and decreases with temperature. A clear shear thinning
behavior was detected. A 401.5 % increase in viscosity at a temperature and
concentration of 20 °C and 2%, respectively
A maximum viscosity increase of 5% is found. The Einstein’s viscosity model
[21] is not able to predict the viscosity of their nanofluids
Results and findings
The pressure drop of GNP nanofluids increases linearly with nanoparticle
concentration. Low concentrations of GNP nanoparticles provide the best
combination of thermal properties including pressure drop
The pumping power for GNP nanofluids increases slightly even though pressure drop
increases up to 14.6%
The pressure drop and friction factor of GNP nanofluids do not change with
nanoparticle volume fraction considerably, but pressure drop increases and friction
factor decreases with Reynolds number
The pressure drop of 0.01 wt% to 0.06 wt% GNP nanofluids under laminar regime
increases up to 14.4%
Results and findings
GNP nanofluids exhibit enhanced heat transfer behavior even though thermal
conductivity enhancement associated with exfoliated GNP is relatively modest
Experimental and numerical studies on the turbulent heat transfer of GNP nanofluids
in a horizontal stainless steel tube under uniform surface heat flux show Nusselt
number enhancement in the range of 3–83% as the flow rate and heat flux increase
The convective heat transfer coefficient of GNP nanofluids is enhanced by just 6.0%
while the maximum increase of thermal conductivity and viscosity of GNP nanofluids
are 10.3% and 5.0%. respectively
The convective heat transfer coefficient of 0.1 wt% GNP nanofluids at 38 °C is 35.6%
greater than pure water
GNP specific surface area Color GNP concentration
500–1200 m2/g Black liquid 1 wt%
 Y. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 119 (2018) 408–417
Fig. 1. TEM of single layer GNP used in this study (from US Research Nanomaterials,
Inc.).
Fig. 2. SEM of single layer GNP used in this study (from US Research Nanomaterials,
Inc.).
from Brookfield Engineering Laboratories Inc., which was cali-
brated using a reference fluid. The viscometer has a maximum tor-
que rating of 0.067 m N-m and a specified accuracy of ±1%. In order
to get accurate low viscosity measurements [10,11], a UL Adapter
was used consisting of a cylindrical container and a spindle. Sev-
eral tests were conducted at different shear rates and tempera-
tures. The sample temperature during each test was maintained
constant using a water circulating chiller. The viscometer was also
used to determine if the nanofluids behaved as Newtonian or non-
Newtonian fluids by varying and measuring the spindle speed and
viscosity, respectively.
2.3. Description of thermal conductivity probe
Thermal conductivity data of GNP nanofluids were obtained
using a KD 2 Pro thermal properties analyzer (Decagon devices,
Inc., USA), which consists of a probe, 60 mm in length and 1.3
mm in diameter. The analyzer also includes a heating element, a
thermo-resistor and a microprocessor to characterize the heat con-
duction throughout the probe with a specified accuracy of ±5%. The
411
test setup was based on a transient hot wire method used in pre-
vious nanofluids studies [10,26].
2.4. Description of experimental heat transfer section
The experimental heat transfer section for evaluating the heat
transfer and flow characteristics of GNP nanofluids is shown in
Fig. 3. The main test section for convective heat transfer and hydro-
dynamic measurements consists of a 1-meter long copper tube
with an inner diameter of 6.223 mm (0.245 in.) and outside diam-
eter of 9.525 mm (3/8 inch). A total of 4 thermocouples were
inserted on the tubing surface at 0.3 m (TS1), 0.45 m (TS2), 0.6 m
(TS3), 0.75 m (TS4) of the test section, respectively, as shown in
Fig. 3. In addition, two thermocouples were used at the inlet and
outlet to measure bulk temperature of the flowing nanofluids.
The test section surface was then wrapped with two parallel
nichrome wires to provide uniform heat flux for the entire copper
tube surface. A constant heat flux of 35.8 kW/m2 was applied to the
test section during the experiments. Fiberglass thermal insulation
was used to prevent heat losses from the whole test section to
the environment. Several thermally insulated plastic pipes and
connectors were used to complete the closed loop as shown in
Fig. 3.
A LAMBDA GEN 600-2.6 programmable DC power supply (DC
power) was connected to the two parallel nichrome wires to heat
the entire test section. A compact tube heat exchanger (HX1)
was immersed in a thermal bath (ice bath) to maintain constant
inlet temperature of nanofluids during each test. Nanofluids were
circulated throughout the flow loop by using a 5–12 V DC mini
brushless magnetic self-priming water pump (P1). In order to mea-
sure GNP nanofluids flow rate, a Seametrics low flow magmeter PE
202 – 038 (FM1) was used between the test section and the heat
exchanger.
The pressure drop of GNP nanofluids flowing through the test
section was also characterized by using a wet/wet low differential
pressure transmitter Omega PX 154 – 005 DI (DPT1). Then all the
instruments were connected to an Agilent 34970A data logger
(DAQ), which was also connected to a computer for obtaining real
time experimental data. Before conducting the heat transfer exper-
iments, the thermocouples were calibrated under both isothermal
and constant heat flux operating conditions, which is similar to the
approach used in [10].
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Stability of graphene nanofluids
To validate the claims made by the GNP nanofluid manufac-
turer, the GNP nanofluids have been visually inspected after sitting
in the laboratory for more than two years. Figs. 4 and 5 show that
there has been no separation or precipitation of the GNP in solution
after two years. Also, viscosity experiments were conducted again
at 25 °C with 1 wt% GNP nanofluid as shown in Table 5. As the table
shows, there is no significant difference in the values of viscosity
over a two-year period.
As it can be seen in Table 4, the GNP specific surface area is rel-
atively high, which is desirable for GNP stability. In fact, a recent
study [27] has shown that dispersed GNPs with surface densities
greater than 500 m2/g are quite stable based on UV–vis data, which
were validated using zeta-potential measurements and visual
observations. Furthermore, aqueous-based nanofluids containing
GNP with surface area greater than 750 m2/g are stable based on
zeta potential values, as long as the pH level of the nanofluid is
greater than 6 [27]. In the present study, the pH level of the GNP
nanofluid was in the range of 6.8–7.5, which further confirms its
412 Y. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 119 (2018) 408–417

Fig. 3. Schematic of thermal and hydrodynamic test set-up.

Table 5
GNP nanofluids viscosity comparison.

Spindle rotational speed, RPM Viscosity of 1 wt% GNP nanofluid at 25 °C,

cP (mPa s)
April 20th, 2015 February 20th, 2017
50 2.14 2.14
60 2.10 2.08
100 2.00 2.00

observed stability, as described above. Nanofluids with GNP with

high surface density should result in enhanced thermal conductiv-
ity and heat transport performance of nanofluids containing GNP.
Furthermore, very few papers have reported on the use of nanoflu-
ids with GNP particles with high surface area at volume fractions
between 0.1% and 1%.

Fig. 4. 1 wt% GNP nanofluid in a vial after two years (side view).
3.2. Viscosity of graphene nanofluids

Fig. 5. 1 wt% GNP nanofluid in a vial after two years (partial top view).
In order to show that the GNP nanofluids used in this study are
acceptable as long-term heat transfer fluids, Table 5 shows the vis-
cosity values of the same GNP nanofluids measured two years
apart. It can be observed that there is no considerable difference
between the viscosity values from those two measurements, which
further confirms the stability of the GNP nanofluids used in the
study. Fig. 6 shows the apparent viscosity of GNP nanofluids for
various nanoparticle mass fractions at different temperatures. It
can be observed that the apparent viscosity of the nanofluids
depends both on nanoparticle concentration and the temperature
of nanofluids. Specifically, viscosity decreases with increasing tem-
perature and increases with nanoparticle concentration, which is
consistent with recent studies [14,17–19]. Fig. 6 also shows that
the viscosity of GNP nanofluid can be twice as high as the viscosity
of water when the GNP mass fraction is about 1%.
To understand the relationship between temperature and vis-
cosity of nanofluids, researchers have used the Andrade equation,
which is defined as follows:
 
B
l ¼ A  exp ð1Þ
T
 Y. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 119 (2018) 408–417 413

3.0 2.2

Experimental Apparent Viscosity

2.5 2.0

1.8
Viscosity (mPa-s)

2.0

(mPa-s)
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.0
1.2 1.0 wt% GNP @ 25 °C 0.9 wt% GNP @ 25 °C
Water 1.0 wt% GNP
0.5 0.8 wt% GNP 0.6 wt% GNP 0.7 wt% GNP @ 25 °C 0.5 wt% GNP @ 25 °C
0.4 wt% GNP 0.2 wt% GNP 1.0
0.0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Shear Rate (sec-1)
Temperature (°C)
Fig. 8. GNP nanofluids apparent viscosity as a function of shear rate for different
Fig. 6. Apparent viscosity of GNP nanofluids as a function of temperature at mass fractions (MF).
different mass fractions and at a rotational speed of 10.5 rad/s (100 RPM).

tic characteristics. Moreover, the flow behavior index decreases

where A and B are constants, and T is absolute temperature (K)
[28,29]. A multiple steps regression analysis has been used to pos-
tulate a correlation for estimating the apparent viscosity of GNP
nanofluids as a function of fluid temperature, T (K), and nanoparti-
cle mass fraction (MF), as follows:
 
1652
l ¼ 0:004  ð1  MFÞ77:5  exp
T Thermal conductivity data for GNP nanofluids are shown in
As shown in Fig. 7, the correlated viscosity values fit well the
experimental data.
To understand the effects of shear rate on nanofluid viscosity,
viscosity experiments at different shear rates were performed.
Fig. 8 shows apparent viscosity values of GNP nanofluids as a func-
tion of shear rate for various MFs at room temperature. The appar-
ent viscosity was measured at three different viscometer rotational
speeds, 5.2 rad/s (50 RPM), 6.3 rad/s (60 RPM), and 10.5 rad/s (100
RPM). As it can be seen from Fig. 8, at the same shear rate, the vis-
cosity of GNP nanofluids increases with MFs. Moreover, the viscos-
ity of GNP nanofluids decreases as the shear rate increases,
showing a slight shear thinning effect. Therefore, the GNP nanoflu-
ids used in this study can be considered as slightly non-Newtonian
fluids [14,15,19].
To further characterize the viscosity of the GNP nanofluids, the
flow behavior consistency index, K, and the flow behavior index, n,
for 1 wt% GNP nanofluid were determined by fitting the experi-
mental data using the viscosity power law model, as shown in
Table 6. As the table shows, the flow behavior (n) values are less
than one, therefore, GNP nanofluids used in the study can be con-
sidered as shear-thinning non-Newtonian fluids with pseudoplas-
2.8
Experimental Viscosity (mPa-s)
with increasing temperature which is consistent with other studies
about shear-thinning or pseudoplastic fluids [30–32], in which the
flow consistency index does not vary significantly with
temperature.
3.3. Thermal conductivity of graphene nanofluids
ðR2 ¼ 0:99Þ ð2Þ
Fig. 9 for different nanoparticle concentrations and temperatures.
The NIST thermal conductivity values for water were used for com-
parison purposes. As Fig. 9 shows, the thermal conductivity values
of GNP nanofluids increase linearly with fluid temperature. The
maximum thermal conductivity enhancement is 14.2% for 1 wt%
GNP nanofluid at 25 °C, while the minimum is 4.2% for 0.1 wt%
GNP nanofluid at 5 °C.
3.4. Pressure drop and friction factor data
In Fig. 10, pressure drop values of water and GNP nanofluids are
shown as a function of mass flow rate. It can be seen that the pres-
sure drop values of GNP nanofluids are higher than those of water
at the same flow rate. The friction factor values were derived from
experimental pressure drop data at different fluid velocities, using
Eq. (3):
2  D  Dp
f ¼ ð3Þ
q  L  u2
where D is the test section tube diameter, DP is the pressure drop
throughout the test section, q is the density of GNP nanofluids, L
is the length of the test section and u is GNP nanofluid velocity.
Water and GNP nanofluids friction factor values are shown in
Fig. 11 as a function of Reynolds number. To validate the pressure

2.6 drop data obtained using the test section, the experimental results
for water were compared with friction factor data obtained using
2.4
the Darcy friction factor for laminar flow, f ¼ 64  Re1 . It can be
2.2 + 5.3% seen that the experimental water friction factor data match the
2.0 theoretical values well, as shown in Fig. 11.
1.8 As discussed in the viscosity section, GNP nanofluids can be
characterized as shear-thinning non-Newtonian fluids, which fol-
1.6
- 5.3% low the Power Law model for viscosity purposes. However, as
1.4 Fig. 11 shows, 1 wt% GNP nanofluid does not follow either the
1.2 Darcy or Power Law friction factor model. Furthermore, at a Rey-
1.0 nolds number of 864 for 1 wt% GNP nanofluid, the fluid experi-
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 ences much greater shear rates (about 60 rad/s) than the values
Model-based Viscosity (mPa-s) observed in the rotating drum viscometer. Therefore, the nanofluid
does not behave completely as a Power-law fluid within the pipe
Fig. 7. Experimental and model-based viscosity values for GNP nanofluids. when the flow is no longer limited to pure shear flow conditions
414 Y. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 119 (2018) 408–417

Table 6
1 wt% GNP nanofluids viscosity power law model.

Temperature (°C) Viscosity model Flow consistency index, K (Pa  sn ) Flow behavior index, n (unitless) R2 (unitless)
15 s ¼ 0:0035  c 0:953 0.0035 0.953 0.99
20 s ¼ 0:0034  c0:911 0.0034 0.911 0.99
25 s ¼ 0:0031  c0:908 0.0031 0.908 0.99
30 s ¼ 0:0035  c0:870 0.0035 0.870 0.99
35 s ¼ 0:0035  c0:854 0.0035 0.854 0.99

0.70 as in the viscometer. Furthermore, the shape of the velocity distri-

bution or profile within the pipe should resemble the parabolic
Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)

0.68
velocity profile seen in laminar cases. However, the velocity profile
0.66
should also exhibit unique non-Newtonian characteristics near the
0.64 non-slip region, where the effect of shear rate on local velocity is
0.62 prevalent. To account for the distinct nature of GNP fluid flow
0.60 within the pipe, the friction factor model for power law fluids
0.58 [33] has been modified. A multiple regression analysis was con-
ducted to curve-fit the friction factor data of GNP nanofluids as a
0.56
NIST water 1.0 wt% GNP
function of Reynolds Number, as follows:
0.54
0.8 wt% GNP 0.6 wt% GNP
0.52 9:68
0.4 wt% GNP 0.2 wt% GNP f ¼ ðR2 ¼ 0:99Þ ð4Þ
0.50 ðReÞ0:69
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
It can be seen in Figs. 11 and 12 that the correlated friction fac-
Temperature (°C) tor model is in good agreement with the experimental friction fac-
tor data for 1 wt% GNP nanofluid. However, it is evident than the
Fig. 9. GNP nanofluids thermal conductivity as a function of temperature for
different nanoparticle concentrations. friction factor data for the 1 wt% GNP nanofluid do not follow the
conventional Power-law friction factor model, which is used for
homogeneous non-Newtonian fluids.
0.35 In general, it is known that a friction factor model in the form of
Water pressure drop
f ¼ A  Re1 can be used to characterize Newtonian fluids in laminar
0.30
GNP pressure drop flow. For turbulent flow in smooth pipes, the friction factor model
Pressure Drop (kPa)

0.25 takes the following form: f ¼ A  Re0:25 [34]. In the case of the 1 wt
% GNP nanofluid, a power index of 0.69 was found to fit the data
0.20
accurately as shown in Eq. (4) and Fig. 12. The magnitude of the
0.15 power index (i.e. 0.69) and Fig. 11 do reveal that the GNP nanofluid
does not behave as a conventional fluid or non-Newtonian fluid
0.10 under laminar flow conditions. Therefore, it can be inferred that
GNP particles have an effect on the flow structure, which may
0.05
not be represented or associated directly with laminar or turbulent
0.00 flow features particularly.
0.005 0.007 0.009 0.011 0.013
Flow Rate (kg/s)
3.5. Convective heat transfer of graphene nanofluid
Fig. 10. Pressure drop for 1% wt GNP nanofluids and water as a function of mass
flow rate. In this study, Nusselt number was used to characterize the con-
vective heat transfer of GNP nanofluids.

0.16
0.15
0.14 Experimental 1 % GNP
Experimental Friction Factor

Experimental Water 0.14

0.12 Darcy friction factor
0.13
Friction Factor

0.10 Proposed friction factor model, Eq. 4

+4%
Power Law friction factor model [33] 0.12
0.08 -4%
0.06 0.11

0.04 0.10

0.02 0.09
0.00 0.08
400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15
Re Model-based Friction Factor

Fig. 11. Friction factor comparison between experimental and model values for 1 Fig. 12. Friction factor comparison between experimental values and power law
wt% GNP nanofluid and water. friction factor model for 1 wt% GNP nanofluid.
 Y. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 119 (2018) 408–417 415

The convective heat transfer coefficient (h(x)) at an axial dis-
tance along the test section is defined as:
q00
hðxÞ ¼
T s ðxÞ  T b ðxÞ
where q00 , T s ðxÞ and T b ðxÞ are the constant heat flux applied to the
test section surface, wall temperature and fluid bulk temperature
at an axial distance ‘‘x” from the test section inlet. The fluid bulk
temperature at the axial distance ‘‘x” was found from the energy
balance equation, as follows:
q00  p
T b ðxÞ ¼ T b;i þ x
_  cp
m file of 1 wt% GNP nanofluid would be flatter than the parabolic pro-
_ and cp are fluid bulk temperature at the inlet of the
where T b;i , p, m
test section, perimeter of the copper tube cross section, mass flow
rate and specific heat of the fluid, respectively. The heat flux value
applied to the test section was calculated as follows:
_  cp  ðT b;o  T b;i Þ
m 3nþ1
q00 ¼
A 4n
where T b;o , A are fluid bulk temperature at the outlet of the test sec-
tion and surface area of the test section, respectively. The Nusselt
number is as follows:
hðxÞ  D
NuðxÞ ¼
k
where D and k are the inner diameter of the copper tube and the
thermal conductivity of the fluid, respectively.
Fig. 13 shows the local Nusselt number as a function of the
inverse of Graetz number for 1 wt% GNP nanofluid) and water.
The Graetz number is as follows:
DH
Gz ¼  Re  Pr
L where n is the flow behavior index, and Gz is the local Graetz
The experimental test scheme and apparatus were validated
before conducting any heat transfer experiments using GNP
nanofluids. Nusselt number results of water flowing through the
heat transfer test section under laminar regime with a constant
heat flux boundary condition were compared with the classic ana-
lytical solutions for Newtonian flow in a circular duct [42] under
similar conditions, as shown in Fig. 13. As it can be seen, the exper-
imental Nusselt number results for water match the analytical
Nusselt number solution quite well (within ±5%). From Fig. 13, it
can be seen that the water case has not reached thermally fully
developed conditions at the end of the circular test section (Gz1
< 0.01), where the Nusselt number value converges to 4.36 for lam-
inar flow cases. This is consistent with the well established theory
that states that Gz1 has to be larger than 0.05 for Newtonian fluids
under laminar conditions to achieve thermally fully developed
conditions [35]. More importantly, the Nusselt number values of
water match well with the analytical solution for Newtonian fluids
ð5Þ under laminar flow conditions as shown in Fig. 13.
However, in Fig. 13, it can be observed that the slope of Nusselt
number curve is much smaller for 1 wt% GNP nanofluid than for
water. Moreover, the average Nusselt number value of 1 wt%
GNP nanofluids is around 7 and seems not to decrease to 4.36,
which is associated with fully developed conditions.
As explained in the viscosity section, GNP nanofluids used in
this study can be treated as slightly non-Newtonian power-law
ð6Þ pseudoplastic fluids. In that case, the fully developed velocity pro-
file seen in laminar flow cases for Newtonian fluids [36,37].
Therefore, the Nusselt number values for the 1 wt% GNP nanofluid
should follow the Nusselt number correlation for pseudoplatic flu-
ids [37], as follows:
 1=3
ð7Þ NuL ¼ 1:75   ðGzÞ1=3 ð10Þ
However, as Fig. 13 shows, the 1 wt% GNP nanofluid does not
follow the established correlation Eq. (10) for pseudoplastic fluids.
This suggests that GNP particle interactions within the fluid struc-
ture have a direct effect on the thermal development of the fluid as
ð8Þ it flows through the tube under constant heat flux and laminar
flow conditions.
To capture the effects of thermal development of 1 wt% GNP
nanofluid under laminar flow conditions, a Nusselt number corre-
lation based on Eq. (10) has been postulated as follows:
 21:6
3nþ1
NuL ¼ 1:75   ðGzÞ0:15 ðR2 ¼ 0:92Þ ð11Þ
4n
ð9Þ
number.
Eq. (10) was developed by Bird [39] and Pigford [40] for non-
Newtonian fluid by solving the heat transfer equation within a
tube using the Leveque Approximation. By comparing Eqs. (10)
and (11), it can be observed that the exponents in Eq. (11) (i.e.
21.6 and 0.15) are different from the value of 1/3, which are nor-
mally seen in Nusselt number correlations under constant heat flux
and laminar flow conditions [25,37,38] including Eq. (10). The dif-
ference between exponent values (0.15 vs. 0.333) in Eqs. (11) and
(10) can be attributed to the Leveque Approximation [41]. In the
derivation of Eq. (10), it was assumed that the thermal boundary
layer is confined to a very thin film near the tube wall where the
velocity distribution is linear. Therefore, the Graetz number expo-

8
12.0 7
11.0
10.0 6
9.0
5
8.0
Nu

7.0 4
6.0
Nu

3 Experimental Nu vs 1/Gz
5.0 1% GNP Nusselt number
4.0 Pseudoplastic fluids Nusselt number model, Eq. 10 2
Model-based Nu vs 1/Gz, Eq. 11
3.0 Water Nusselt number 1
2.0
Newtonian Nu Analytical Solution
1.0 0
0.0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 1/Gz
1/Gz
Fig. 14. Experimental and model Eq. (11) Nu number for 1 wt% GNP nanofluid as a
Fig. 13. Nusselt number of water and 1 wt% GNP nanofluids as a function of 1/Gz. function of 1/Gz.
416 Y. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 119 (2018) 408–417
8.0
7.5
Experimental Nu
7.0
+5%
6.5
6.0
-5%
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5
Model-based Nu
Fig. 15. Comparison of experimental values with correlation of Nu number for
1 wt% GNP nanofluids Eq. (11).
nent in Eq. (11) is another indication that the 1 wt% GNP nanofluid
most likely has a unique velocity distribution near the tube wall (as
discussed in the pressure drop and friction factor section), which
does not follow the Leveque Approximation well. It is evident that
graphene nanoparticles interactions near the tube wall have a
direct effect on heat transfer and pressure drop as the results
indicate.
Figs. 14 and 15 show that the correlated Nusselt number model
(Eq. (11)) is in a good agreement with the experimental data for 1
wt% GNP nanofluid.
4. Conclusions
In present study, thermophysical properties of GNP nanofluids
including thermal conductivity and viscosity at various mass frac-
tions were measured at different temperatures. Furthermore, lam-
inar heat transfer performance and flow characteristics of GNP
nanofluids flowing through a horizontal circular pipe under a con-
stant heat flux were investigated. The main concluding remarks are
as follows:
 Thermal conductivity of GNP nanofluids increases with temper-
ature and nanoparticle mass fractions in which temperature is
the more dominant factor. The thermal conductivity of GNP
nanofluids is higher than that of water with enhancements from
4.2 % to 14.2 %.
 Viscosity of GNP nanofluids depends both on temperature and
nanoparticle mass fraction. It deceases with increasing temper-
ature and increases with increasing nanoparticle mass fraction.
Shear thinning effect and non-Newtonian behavior were
observed for GNP nanofluids, which follow the Power Law vis-
cosity model with a flow behavior index 0.9. The viscosity
increment ratio between GNP nanofluids and water ranges from
1.24 to 2.35. A new viscosity model for GNP nanofluids has also
been proposed.
 Pressure drop of GNP nanofluids is larger than that of water and
increases with flow rate. Accordingly, friction factor of GNP
nanofluids decreases with increasing Reynolds number and
cannot be described by neither the Darcy friction factor or Bla-
sius equations. A new friction factor correlation has been pro-
posed based on the form of the Blasius equation to account
for the 1 wt% GNP nanofluid experimental friction factor data.
 The correlated physical models for friction factor and Nusselt
number indicate that GNP nanoparticles within the host fluid
uniquely affects its flow structure. Furthermore, even though
the viscosity data of 1 wt% GNP nanofluid correlate well with
the non-Newtonian power-law pseudoplastic viscosity model,
the Nusselt number data cannot be accurately represented by
models used for non-Newtonian pseudoplastic fluids based on
the Leveque Approximation. Therefore, a Nusselt number corre-
lation has been postulated for 1 wt% GNP nanofluid based on
Bird [39] and Pigford [40] Nusselt number model for non-
Newtonian fluids.
In future studies, computer simulations of GNP interactions
within the host fluid should be conducted to understand the mech-
anisms that lead to GNP nanofluids’ unusual heat transfer perfor-
mance and flow characteristics.
8.0
Conflict of interest
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
associated with this publication.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by
Nahrain University and the Ministry of Higher Education and Sci-
entific Research of the Republic of Iraq.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.
2017.11.019.
References
[1] S.U.S. Choi, Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles, Am.
Soc. Mech. Eng. Fluids Eng. Div. (FED) 231 (1995).
[2] M.J. Assael, C.F. Chen, I. Metaxa, W.A. Wakeham, Thermal conductivity of
suspensions of carbon nanotubes in water, Int. J. Thermophys. 25 (4) (2004)
971–985.
[3] D. Wen, Y. Ding, Effective thermal conductivity of aqueous suspensions of
carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotube nanofluids), J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer
18 (4) (2004) 481–485.
[4] S.U.S. Choi, Z.G. Zhang, W. Yu, F.E. Lockwood, E.A. Grulke, Anomalous thermal
conductivity enhancement in nanotube suspensions, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79 (14)
(2001) 2252–2254.
[5] J.A. Eastman, S.U.S. Choi, S. Li, W. Yu, L.J. Thompson, Anomalously increased
effective thermal conductivities of ethylene glycol-based nanofluids
containing copper nanoparticles, Appl. Phys. Lett. 78 (6) (2001) 718–720.
[6] S. Lee, S.U.S. Choi, S. Li, J.A. Eastman, Measuring thermal conductivity of fluids
containing oxide nanoparticles, J. Heat Transfer 121 (2) (1999) 280–289.
[7] Y. Yang, Z.G. Zhang, E.A. Grulke, W.B. Anderson, G. Wu, Heat transfer properties
of nanoparticle-in-fluid dispersions (nanofluids) in laminar flow, Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer 48 (2005) 1107–1116.
[8] S.Z. Heris, S.Gh. Etemad, M.N. Esfahany, Experimental investigation of oxide
nanofluids laminar flow convective heat transfer, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transfer 33 (4) (2006) 529–535.
[9] Y. Ding, H. Alias, D. Wen, R.A. Williams, Heat transfer of aqueous suspensions
of carbon nanotubes (CNT nanofluids), Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 49 (1–2)
(2006) 240–250.
[10] P. Garg, J.L. Alvarado, C. Marsh, T.A. Carlson, D.A. Kessler, K. Annamalai, An
experimental study on the effect of ultrasonication on viscosity and heat
transfer performance of multi-wall carbon nanotube-based aqueous
nanofluids, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 52 (2009) 5090–5101.
[11] K. Tumuluri, J.L. Alvarado, H. Taherian, C. Marsh, Thermal performance of a
novel heat transfer fluid containing multiwalled carbon nanotubes and
microencapsulated phase change materials, Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer 54
(2011) 5554–5567.
[12] W. Yu, H. Xie, X. Wang, X. Wang, Significant thermal conductivity
enhancement for nanofluids containing graphene nanosheets, Phys. Lett. A
375 (10) (2011) 1323–1328.
[13] T.T. Baby, S. Ramaprabhu, Enhanced convective heat transfer using graphene
dispersed nanofluids, Nanoscale Res. Lett. 6 (2011) 289–297.
[14] E. Sadeghinezhad, H. Togun, M. Mehrali, P.S. Nejad, S.T. Latibari, T.
Abdulrazzaq, S.N. Kazi, H.S.C. Metselaar, An experimental and numerical
investigation of heat transfer enhancement for graphene nanoplatelets
nanofluids in turbulent flow conditions, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 81 (2015)
41–51.
 Y. Wang et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 119 (2018) 408–417
[15] M. Kole, T.K. Dey, Investigation of thermal conductivity, viscosity, and
electrical conductivity of graphene based nanofluids, J. Appl. Phys. 113 (8)
(2013) 084307.
[16] Soujit Sen Gupta, V. Manoj Siva, Sreenath Krishnan, T.S. Sreeprasad, Pawan K.
Singh, T. Pradeep, Sarit K. Das, Thermal conductivity enhancement of
nanofluids containing graphene nanosheets, J. Appl. Phys. 110 (8) (2011)
084302.
[17] E. Sadeghinezhad, M. Mehrali, S. Tahan Latibari, M. Mehrali, S.N. Kazi, S. Oon,
H.S.C. Metselaar, Experimental investigation of convective heat transfer using
graphene nanoplatelet based nanofluids under turbulent flow conditions, Ind.
Eng. Chem., Res. 53(31) (2014) 12455–12465.
[18] P. Dhar, M.H.D. Ansari, S.S. Gupta, V.M. Siva, T. Pradeep, A. Pattamatta, S.K. Das,
Percolation network dynamicity and sheet dynamics governed viscous
behavior of polydispersed graphene nanosheet suspensions, J. Nanopart. Res.
15 (12) (2013) 1–12.
[19] M.B. Moghaddam, E.K. Goharshadi, M.H. Entezari, P. Nancarrow, Preparation,
characterization, and rheological properties of graphene–glycerol nanofluids,
Chem. Eng. J. 231 (2013) 365–372.
[20] H. Akhavan-Zanjani, M. Saffar-Avval, M. Mansourkiaei, M. Ahadi, F. Sharif,
Turbulent convective heat transfer and pressure drop of graphene-water
nanofluid flowing inside a horizontal circular tube, J. Dispersion Sci. Technol.
35 (9) (2013) 1230–1240.
[21] D.A. Drew, S.L. Passman, Theory of Multicomponent Fluids, Springer, Berlin,
1999.
[22] M. Mehrali, E. Sadeghinezhad, M.A. Rosen, A.R. Akhiani, S.T. Latibari, M.
Mehrali, H.S.C. Metselaar, Experimental investigation of thermophysical
properties, entropy generation and convective heat transfer for a nitrogen-
doped graphene nanofluid in a laminar flow regime, Adv. Powder Technol. 27
(2) (2016) 717–727.
[23] A. Ghozatloo, A. Rashidi, M.S. Niassar, Convective heat transfer enhancement
of graphene nanofluids in shell and tube heat exchanger, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci.
53 (2014) 136–141.
[24] R. Prasher, D. Song, J.L. Wang, P. Phelan, Measurements of nanofluid viscosity
and its implications for thermal applications, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89 (2006)
133108.
[25] R. Mahalingam, L.O. Tilton, J.M. Coulson, Heat transfer in laminar flow of non-
Newtonian fluids, Chem. Eng. Sci. 30 (1975) 921–929.
[26] J. Buongiorno et al., A benchmark study on the thermal conductivity of
nanofluids, J. Appl. Phys. 106 (9) (2009) 094312.
417
[27] M. Mehrali, E. Sadeghinezhad, S.T. Latibari, S.N. Kazi, M. Mehrali, M.S.B.M.
Zubir, H.S.C. Metselaar, Investigation of thermal conductivity and rheological
properties of nanofluids containing graphene nanoplatelets, Nanoscale Res.
Lett. 9 (2014) 15.
[28] E.N.C. Andrade, Theory of viscosity of liquid, Phil. Mag. 17 (1934) 497–511.
[29] R. Lakshmi, S.K. Athithan, An empirical model for the viscosity buildup of
hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene based solid propellant slurry, Polym.
Compos. 20 (3) (1999) 346–356.
[30] A. Deswa, N.S. Deora, H.N. Mishra, Effect of concentration and temperature on
the rheological properties of oat milk, Food Bioprocess Technol. 7 (8) (Aug.
2014) 2451–2459.
[31] A. Rafe, H.S. Masood, The rheological modeling and effect of temperature on
steady shear flow behavior of cordia abyssinica Gum, J. Food Process. Technol.
5(3) (2014).
[32] D. Agrahar-Murugkar, N. Kotwaliwale, M. Kumar, C. Gupta, Effect of sprouting
on rheological properties of soy-butter, LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 54 (1) (Nov.
2013) 95–100.
[33] K. Madlener, B. Frey, H.K. Ciezki, Generalized Reynolds number for non-
newtonian fluids, Prog. Propul. Phys. 1 (2009) 237–250.
[34] Philip M. Gerhart, Richard J. Gross, John I. Hochstein, Fundamentals of Fluid
Mechanics, second ed., AddiWesley Pub, Co, 1992.
[35] Yunus A. Cengel, Afshin J. Ghajar, Heat and Mass Transfer: Fundamentals &
Applications, fourth ed., McGraw-Hill, 2011.
[36] A.B. Metzner, J.C. Reed, Flow of non-Newtonian fluids-correlation of the
laminar, transition, and turbulent-flow regions, A.1.Ch.E. J. December (1955)
434–440.
[37] A.B. Metzner, R.D. Vaughn, G.L. Houghton, Heat transfer to non-Newtonian
fluids, A.I.Ch.E. J. 3(1) (1957) 92–100.
[38] E.B. Christiansen, S.E. Craig JR., Heat transfer to pseudoplastic fluids in laminar
flow, A.I.Ch.E. J. 8(2) (1962) 154–160.
[39] R.B. Bird, S.P.E.J. 35 (1955).
[40] R.L. Pigford, Chem. Eng. Progr. Symposium Ser. No. 17,51,79, 1955.
[41] J. Leveque, Ann. Mines 13 (1928) 201.
[42] R.K. Shah, A.L. London, Laminar Flow Forced Convection Heat Transfer and
Flow Friction in Straight and Curved Ducts-A summary of analytical solutions,
Technical Report No. 75, Prepared Under Contract Nonr 225(91) for Office of
Naval Research.