Proceedings of the ASME-JSME-KSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference 2015

AJK2015-FED
July 26-31, 2015, SEOUL, KOREA

AJK2015-25816
HEAT TRANSFER AND PRESSURE DROP TEST OF ALUMINA NANOFLUID IN
NANO ROD BUNDLE FOR FUSION-FISSION HYBRID SYSTEM
Jubair A. Shamim
Department of Nuclear Engineering
Seoul National University
Seoul 151-744, Republic of Korea.

Palash K. Bhowmik
Department of Nuclear Engineering
Seoul National University
Seoul 151-744, Republic of Korea.

ABSTRACT
Experiments were performed in the so-called NANO
(Numerics Applied Nanofluid Operation) rod bundle using
pure water and different volume concentrations of alumina
nanofluid as coolant to investigate rate of convective heat
transfer and the effects of grid spacer on flow restriction under
fully developed single phase turbulent flow condition. The
pressurized water reactor (PWR) conditions were considered
while designing the NANO test loop using a total of nine
cartridge type heater rods installed in a 33 square array
fashion. The Nusselt numbers and convective heat transfer coefficient for a wide range of flow inlet velocity and input power
were obtained and compared against the well-known
correlations available in the literature. By experimentation it
was revealed that inclusion of very tiny amount (e.g. 0.01
vol.% and 0.025 vol.%) of alumina nanoparticles is capable to
boost the convective heat transfer coefficient over 25%
compared to pure water without significant compensation of
pumping power required. The experimental pressure drop
while pure water was used as coolant fall within 5-18% of
theoretical predictions depending on the inlet Reynolds
number. Finally, constant coefficients of well-known DittusBoelter correlation were modified for this NANO specific rod
bundle to approximate the heat transfer performance more
precisely.
INTRODUCTION
In the recent era, nanofluid has gained much attention as a
promising coolant for PWR rod bundle due to its enhanced
thermal capabilities with insignificant rise in pressure drop.
While most conventional designs to elevate heat transfer
performance are limited to only variation of mechanical
structures, such as addition of heat surface area (fins),
vibration of heated surface, injection or suction of fluids,
applying electrical or magnetic fields etc., application of these

Kune Y. Suh*
Department of Nuclear Engineering
Seoul National University
Seoul 151-744, Republic of Korea.

techniques in a nuclear fuel rod assembly will require not only

designing complex core geometries but also elevate the
manufacturing cost as well as may jeopardize essential safety
features accompanied by reduced lifetime of reactor pressure
vessel. Hence, nanofluid coolant with its tiny particle size,
relatively large surface area and small volume fraction can be
an outstanding alternatives for PWR coolants.
Several mechanisms have been proposed until now to
elucidate the thermal conductivity enhancement of nanofluids
where it has been shown that thermal conductivity of nanofluid
is affected by multifarious parameters like temperature,
particle size, PH value etc. Most of these models can be
categorized either as static or dynamic model [1]. While static
models presume that nanoparticles are stationary in the base
fluid and thus forms a composite material, dynamic models
portray that nanoparticles are in constant random motion in
the base fluid (termed as Brownian motion) which is the key
reason of elevated thermal properties of nanofluid. The
interpretation of this Brownian motion is shown in Fig.1.

FIGURE 1.

INTERPRETATION OF BROWNIAN MOTION [2].

Keblinski et al. [3] proposed four possible ways of heat

transfer enhancement mechanism by nanofluids one of which
was Brownian motion. Nevertheless, they concluded that since
a particle may travel across a larger distance over many
different paths to reach a final destination that may be very
short from the starting point, Brownian motion can not be the
pivotal factor to ameliorate heat transfer, no matter how
agitated or energetic they may be.
Later Jang and Choi [4] developed a model that takes into
account convective heat transfer induced by Brownian motion
of nanoparticles. The four modes of energy transport in
nanofluid introduced by them are as follows:
a) Collision between base fluid molecules
b) Thermal diffusion in nanoparticles in base fluid
c) Collision between nanoparticles due to Brownian
motion
d) Thermal interaction of dynamic nanoparticles with
base fluid molecules.
The thermal conductivity of their model is given by Eq.
(1) as follows:

k eff k bf 1 k nano 3C 1

d bf
d na no

k bf R e 2d na no Pr (1)

where, keff is the effective thermal conductivity of

nanofluid, kbf is the base fluid conductivity, is the volume
fraction, knano is the thermal conductivity of nanoparticles, C1
is an empirical constant, dbf is the diameter of the base fluid
molecule and dnano is the diameter of nanoparticle [5]. Rednano
is the Reynolds number defined by Eq. (2):

C R . M . d nano
(2)

where, is the dynamic viscosity of the base fluid, and

CR.M. is the random motion velocity of nanoparticles defined by
Eq. (3):
D
(3)
C R .M . 0
I Bf
R e d nan o

where, IBf is the mean-free path of a base fluid molecule.

D0 is the nanoparticle diffusion coefficient given by Eq. (4):

D0

kbT
3 d n ano

(4)

where, is the viscosity of the base fluid, T is the

temperature of the base fluid, and kb is the Boltzmann
constant.
Pak and Cho [6] carried out experimentation to observe
the turbulent friction and heat transfer behaviors of dispersed
fluids in a circular pipe using two different metallic oxide
particles, -alumina (Al2O3) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) with
mean diameters of 13 and 27 nm, respectively. The results
revealed that the Nusselt number for the dispersed fluids
increased with increasing volume concentration as well as

Reynolds number. But at constant average velocity, the

convective heat transfer coefficient of the dispersed fluid was
12% smaller than that of pure water. They proposed a new
correlation for the Nusselt number under their experimental
ranges of volume concentration (0-3%), the Reynolds number
(104 - 105), and the Prandtl number (6.54 - 12.33) for the
dispersed fluids -alumina (Al2O3) and titanium dioxide (TiO2)
particles as given by Eq. (5):
0.8
0.5
(5)

Nunf 0.021Re nf Prnf

Maiga et al. [7] numerically studied the hydrodynamic and

thermal characteristics of turbulent flow in a tube using
different concentrations of Al2O3 nanoparticle suspension
under the constant heat flux boundary condition and proposed
the following correlation as shown by Eq. (6) to estimate the
heat transfer coefficient in terms of the Reynolds and the
Prandtl numbers, valid for 104 Re 5x105, 6.6 Pr 13.9
and 0 10%:
0.35
Nunf 0.085 Re0.71
(6)
nf Prnf
Xuan and Li [8] investigated experimentally for 35 nm
Cu/deionized water nanofluid flowing in a tube with constant
wall heat flux. They showed that at fixed velocities if the
volume fraction of nanofluid increases from 0.5% to 2.0%, the
heat transfer coefficient of Cu nanoparticles is enhanced as
much as 40% compared to that of pure water. Finally, they
have proposed a correlation in the form of Eq. (7) according to
which Nusselt number, Nu for the turbulent flow of nanofluids
inside a tube can be approximated as follows:

Nunf 0.0059 1.0 7.6286 0.6886 Ped0.001 Re0.9238

Prnf0.4 (7)
nf
Despite numerous studies available in literatures, the
authors felt that no appropriate correlations have been
presented yet that is entirely satisfactory to calculate heat
transfer to, and pressure drop across, the coolant flowing
through rod-bundle assemblies like NANO. Therefore, the
current experimentation has been conducted with a view to
investigate the forced convection heat transfer and pressure
drop characteristics of alumina nanofluid for up flow in
presence of grid spacers valid for 10082.71 Re 20904.95,
and 0 0.025% and finally, based on experimental data
the coefficients of Dittus-Boelter correlation [9] have been
modified for this NANO specific rod bundle assembly.
THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF NANOFLUID
In order to utilize nanofluid as PWR coolant, it is first
necessary to understand mechanisms involved in enhancement
of thermal conductivity of nanofluid such as Brownian motion,
clustering or liquid layering around nanoparticles and also to
evaluate other properties like density, viscosity, specific heat
precisely. The physical properties of alumina nanoparticles
(<50 nm particle size (TEM)) that have been used during
experimentation are tabulated in Tab.1.

TABLE 1.

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF ALUMINA

NANOPARTICLES AND WATER

Properties

Alumina
Nanoparticles
880
3970
40

Specific Heat, Cp (J/kg. K)

Density, (kg/m3)
Thermal conductivity, k (W/m.
K)

Pure
Water
4182
998.2
0.6

Density, specific heat, viscosity and thermal conductivity

of alumina nanofluid are estimated using Eq. (8) through Eq.
(11) respectively as reported in [7, 10].

n f 1 -

C
p

nf

bf

1 - C p

bf

(8)

C
p

nf 123 2 7.3 1 bf
k nf k bf

k
k

bf

2 k p - 2 k b f - k p

bf

2k p

bf

-kp

(9)
(10)

FIGURE 2.

NANO SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM.

(11)

NANO TEST FACILITY

The NANO apparatus has been constructed to measure heat
transfer to and pressure drop across a 33 square array rod
assembly featuring a pitch-to-diameter (P/D) ratio 1.286 and
hydraulic diameter (Dh) 0.010288 m. While Fig.2 illustrates the
schematic of NANO loop, Fig.3 depicts the form loss locations
in test geometry respectively. The same thermo-hydraulic test
loop was previously used by Son & Suh to carry out a different
experimentation for designing a liquid metal natural circulation
small reactor [as reported in 11].
The system consists of a test section, a plate type heat
exchanger (OLAER PWO K Series), a water reservoir, a
centrifugal pump (Wilo MHi403EM), flow control valves &
stainless steel piping (pipe mat: A269 TP 316L). A total of 9
cartridge type heaters are installed in a 33 square array
fashion which resembles a PWR fuel rod bundle. From the
pump the coolant enters to the plenum connected to the lower
part of the vertical test section. The plenum is an empty space
upstream of the heated rod bundle which houses a specially
designed inlet flow distributor to suppress non-uniformity of
the flow generated by pipe fittings. The flow rate is measured
by an electromagnetic flow meter (Toshiba LF400, 0.5%
Accuracy) downstream of the pump. Pressure drop along the
test section is measured by two identical pressure transducers
(Allsensor P601, 0.25% FSO Accuracy) at inlet and outlet. Ktype thermocouples are used to measure coolant bulk
temperature and central heater rod surface temperature
distribution. A collecting tank is installed at the upper end of
the test section to abate the flow fluctuations. The overall

FIGURE 3.

FORM LOSS LOCATIONS IN NANO TEST

FACILITY [11].

temperature of the fluid can be controlled by changing heater

current input. Tab.2 summarizes the specification of the heater
assembly regionwhere projected frontal areas of the inlet flow
distributor and grid spacers have been computed using CAD
program. The bundle hydraulic diameter (Dh) is evaluated
using Eq. (12) as follows:
2
2
4 x 9 D
4
Dh
(12)
4 x 9 D

where, x is the side of square duct (42.8 mm) and D is the

heater rod diameter (9.8 mm).

TABLE 2.

SPECIFICATION OF HEATER ROD ASSEMBLY

Description
Number of Heater Rods
Configuration
Heater Rods Diameter
Heater Rods Length
Heated Length
Rod Pitch
Pitch to Diameter Ratio
Grid Spacer Frontal Area
Inlet Distributor Frontal Area

Unit
Nos.
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm2
mm2

Value
9
Square Array (33)
9.8
2150
2000
12.86
1.286
234.019
1241.887

NANOFLUID PREPARATION
The Al2O3 nanoparticles [<50 nm particle size (TEM)]
that have been used in this experiment were manufactured by
Sigma-Aldrich. Three different samples (0.001 vol.%, 0.01
vol.% and 0.1 vol.%) of alumina nanoparticles/water
nanofluids are prepared by following the steps described below
to ensure proper quality of the solution:
(a) Weighing the required mass of nanoparticles using a
precise digital electronic balance (Ohaus Adventurer
Analytical balance, model: ARA520).
(b) Immersing the nanoparticles into required volume of
water and make the nanoparticles/water mixture.
(c) Sonicating the mixture continuously for 1 hour to
facilitate uniform dispersion of nanoparticles in the
water.
Stability of Nanofluid Solution
One key yardstick to measure the colloidal stability and
prevention of flocculation of nanoparticles in the base fluid is
the zeta potential of the solution which is an indicator of
repulsive force. In general, the higher is the magnitude of the
zeta potential (either negative or positive), the system is more
electrically stabilized. A zero zeta potential or isoelectric point
(IEP), is where particles tend to agglomerate. In this
experiment, zeta potential of sample solutions were monitored
by using a Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) device called
ZETASIZER (Nano-ZS) up to 60 hours. A sample test result of
zeta potential distribution of 0.1 vol. % alumina nanofluid
after 60 hours is shown in Fig.4 and values of zeta potential for
all three samples measured at different time interval are
plotted in Fig.5 and summarized in Tab.3. The results revealed
that all samples show moderate stability up to 60 hour since
the absolute values of the zeta potential are close to 30mV.
Note that despite the sample with higher concentration (0.1
vol.%) shows good stability until 60 hour but zeta potential of
samples with 0.01 vol.% and 0.001 vol.% is much lower
compared to 0.1 vol.% after 60 hours. It is assumed that there
may be some inherent problem while preparing these two
samples (0.01 vol.% and 0.001 vol.%) due to which zeta

potential became lower after 60 hours but the tests could not be
repeated due to higher costs associated with it.
Another important parameter to check the stability of
nanofluid is pH value of solution which must be far from the
isoelectric point (IEP) that is the pH at which a particle surface
does not have a net electrical charge (zero zeta potential).
Hence, in a colloidal dispersion, the IEP brings about the
precipitation and agglomeration of particles due to absence of
adequate repulsive forces between particles. As the pH changes
from the IEP, the absolute value of the zeta potential of the
particle surface also starts to increase and the interaction
between particles due to existence of the electrical double layer
(EDL) becomes sufficient to hinder attraction and collision
between particles caused by the Brownian motion. In the
experiment, pH values of different samples after 60 hours are
measured (as documented in Tab.3) by a pH meter (Mettler
Toledo, model: S220 SevenCompactTM pH/Ion) and it was
observed that pH value of all three samples are far below the
IEP of Al2O3 (pH of IEP for Al2O3 is 9.1). Finally, based on
above data and considering amount of nanoparticles required,
two different concentrations (0.01 vol.% and 0.025 vol.%) of
alumina nanofluid have been selected to carry out NANO
experiment.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 5.

ZETA POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF 0.01 VOL.%

ALUMINA NANOFLUID AFTER 60 HOURS.

ZETA POTENTIAL OF DIFFERENT ALUMINA

NANOFLUID SAMPLES WITH TIME.

TABLE 3.

Conc. Of
Al2O3 (%)
0.1
0.01
0.001

ZETA POTENTIAL TEST RESULT

Zeta Potential (+mV)

0.5 hr
29.0
30.6
26.2

Time Interval
14 hr
40 hr
30.2
30.3
29.8
29.8
28.3
28.7

pH
60 hr
29.9
9.21
3.10

8.06
7.61
6.88

HEAT TRANSFER EXPERIMENTATION

One important parameter required to quantify heat
transfer characteristics in single phase forced-convection
turbulent flow regime is heat flux q (W/m2), which can be
defined in terms of total heat input Q (W) into flow channel,
dia D (m) and heated length l (m) of heater rods as shown by
Eq. (13) since there are nine heater rods heated
circumferentially:
Q
q
9 Dl
(13)
The total heat input Q is assumed as uniform axially and
azimuthally since the thickness of heater rods is constant
throughout the heated length and it can be obtained either with
the product Q1 of input current I (Ampere) and voltage V
(Volt) applied to heater rods or with the product Q2 of coolant
flow rate
(kg/s), coolant temperature increase Tb (K) over
the flow channel and specific heat of coolant Cp (J/kg.K) and
can be expressed as follows:

Q1 V I
Q2 =

Cp Tb

(14)
(15)

To validate the estimation of Q, values of Q1 and Q2

obtained using above equations are plotted in Fig.6. Since they
are in fairly good agreement, any of these two values can
provide precise estimation of Q. In this study, values obtained
by Eq. (15) is used to accomplish further calculations.

Nusselt Number Evaluation

In order to compute Nusselt number, Nu for pure water
under single phase forced-convection turbulent flow regime
numerous correlations available in literature can be
implemented subject to geometry of fluid flow walls and fluid
mean velocity (Reynolds number). Among those, the most
frequently applied correlations are Dittus-Boelter, Sieder-Tate
& Silberberg-Huber as expressed through Eq. (16) to Eq. (18)
respectively.

Nu 0.023Re0.8 Pr 0.4
0.8

Nu 0.027 Re Pr

0.333

Nu 0.016 Re0.85 Pr 0.3

(16)
0.14

(17)

(18)

Implementation of above correlations to estimate Nu is

justified when the fluid flow sections does not vary
significantly from circular. Such channels may include square,
rectangular (not too far from square), and probably equilateral
or nearly equilateral triangles.
In case of fully turbulent flow along rod bundles, values of
Nu may remarkably deviate from the circular geometry due to
geometric non-uniformity of the subchannels that creates
substantial variation of Nu azimuthally. Apart from that for a
given subchannel in a finite rod bundle, the effect of turbulence
may affect adjacent subchannels differently depending on the
location of subchannels with respect to the duct boundaries.
Thus, the value of Nu is a function of position within the
bundle [12]. Therefore, for rod bundles, the Nusselt numbers
for fully developed conditions (Nu) is expressed as a product
of (Nu)c.t. for a circular tube multiplied by a correction factor
as stated in Eq. (19):
(19)

Nu Nu c .t .

where, (Nu)c.t. is usually given by Dittus-Boelter equation

unless otherwise stated. For a square array and specifically for
water with 1.1 P/D 1.3, Weisman [13] has defined as
follows:
(20)
Nu 0.023Re 0.8 Pr 0.333
c .t .

1.826 P D 1.0430

FIGURE 6.

COMPARISON OF HEAT INPUT BY ELECTRIC

POWER (Q1) AND BY ENTHALPY INCREASE (Q2).

(21)

Since the applicability of above mentioned correlations are

limited to only pure water, the Nusselt number, Nu of alumina
nanofluid (0.01 vol.% and 0.025 vol.%) can be estimated by
Eq. (5) through Eq. (7) as discussed in the earlier section of
this study. All of the above correlations to evaluate Nusselt
number can be re-presented in a simplified form as shown in
Eq. (22):
Nu a Re Pr b
(22)

Since Prandtl number, Pr does not vary significantly

during experiment, it can be assumed as constant for
simplification and the following equation can be substituted in
place of Eq. (22):
(23)
Nu Re
where,

a Pr b

(24)

By using a logarithmic function, Eq. (23) can be written as

follows:

ln Nu ln ln Re

(25)

The above equation is equivalent to a first degree

polynomial (i.e. y=ax+b). Now, if we re-evaluate Nu and Re
according to our experimental condition and plot Eq. (25), by
fitting a first degree polynomial we can obtain the modified
values of coefficient and for NANO rod-bundle assembly.
The experimental values of Nu can be obtained using
following equation based on hydraulic diameter, Dh (m) of the
flow channel and thermal conductivity, k (W/m.K) at coolant
bulk temperature:
h Dh
(26)
Nu

where, h is the convective heat transfer coefficient for fully

developed turbulent flow and it can be estimated using
following equation:

q
TW Tb

(27)

where, TW and Tb are central heater rod wall surface

temperature and mean bulk fluid temperature respectively.
Heat Transfer with Pure Water
In our present study, the experimental Nusselt number, Nu
for pure water as well as alumina nanofluid is computed using
Eq. (26) and Eq. (27) for a wide range of Re spanning from
10,082.71 to 20,904.95. The values thus obtained for pure
water is compared with the Nu obtained by most renowned
correlations as discussed in earlier sections and tabulated in
Tab.4. Variations of Nu with inlet Re for NANO experiment
and different correlations are plotted in Fig.7. Finally, using
logarithmic function as depicted in Eq. (25), Nu obtained by
experiment is plotted against inlet Re (Fig.8) and by fitting a
curve featuring first degree polynomial the values of coefficient
and in Eq. (25) are modified for NANO test apparatus. A
similar study was carried out by Makhmalbaf [14] for a
vertical hexagonal rod bundle with 7 vertical rods in a
hexagonal tube featuring 1.4 cm tube hydraulic diameter and
the results of NANO experiment have been compared with that
of Makhmalbaf in Tab.5.
The analogy shows that Nu obtained by NANO
experiment significantly varies from those obtained by
different correlations for same inlet Re. The correlations used
in this study predicts Nu based on only two dimensionless
parameters namely inlet Reynolds number and Prandtl

number. But in reality, more complex phenomenon such as

geometry of coolant flow channel, velocity & temperature
gradient of coolant, contact time between heater rod and
coolant, heated length of heater rod, heater capacity, heat loss
through insulation, precision of sensing device e.g.
thermocouples, pressure transducers, flow meters etc. may
directly affects the value of Nusselt number and convective
heat transfer coefficient.
One pivotal reason behind low Nu obtained by NANO
experiment may be slow sensing capacity of thermocouples to
rapid temperature change used in NANO apparatus. Moreover,
due to high flow velocity inside the flow channel, the contact
time between coolant and heater rod was short and hence
experimental T between inlet and outlet temperature of
coolant was not so high. Therefore, the total heat input as well
as experimental Nu as computed by Eq. (15) and Eq. (26)
respectively, also became small compared to predictions made
by different correlations.
Apart from that, although spacer grids are originally
designed to maintain proper geometrical configurations of the
rod bundle, it also plays a significant role on heat transfer
enhancement by disrupting and re-establishing the thermal
boundary layers. Spacer grids may have various special
geometrical features to promote turbulence such as mixing
vanes of different configurations. For example, while the split
vanes may deflect the upward flow to mix between neighboring
subchannels, the swirl vanes are designed to generate a
pronounced swirling flow within subchannel. Another
innovative design is twisted vanes having two mixing vanes at
the upper ends of the interconnections between straps which
are bent in opposite directions at the top slope of the triangular
base to generate a cross flow between subchannels as well as
swirling flow in the subchannel by regulating flow
simultaneously to the fuel rod and to the gap region. Due to
high cost and complexity of manufacturing, grid spacers used
in NANO rod bundle are very simple in design having no
mixing vanes, which in turn failed to promote turbulence as
well as heat transfer rate from heater rod to coolant and hence,
it is assumed as another key reason behind low Nu obtained by
experiment.
Heat Transfer with Alumina Nanofluid
A similar study as described in the last section is carried
out to evaluate the effects of alumina nanoparticles inclusion
into pure water on heat transfer performance using two
different concentrations (0.01 vol.% and 0.025 vol.%) of
alumina/water nanofluid as coolant. Comparison of
experimental Nusselt number, Nu with that of predictions
made by different correlations is summarized in Tab.6 & Tab.7
and plotted in Fig.9 and Fig.10. Another comparison showing
the increment of Nusselt number, Nu as well as convective heat
transfer coefficient, h by amalgamation of different
concentrations of alumina nanofluid into pure water has been
tabulated in Tab.8 and Tab.9 and plotted in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12
respectively.

The result reveals that both Nusselt number and

convective heat transfer coefficient is increased over 20% and
25% respectively compared to pure water with the inclusion of
only 0.01 vol.% of alumina nanoparticles into pure water.
More interestingly, it can be seen that Nusselt number
approximated by Pak & Cho and Maiga et al. is decreased
while the concentration of alumina nanoparticles is increase
from 0.01 vol.% to 0.025 vol.%. This is due to the fact that
with the increase of vol.% of alumina nanoparticles, the
density of the nanofluid has also been increased which in turn
has lowered the specific heat capacity as well as Prandtl
number of the solution with higher concentration.
Finally, like pure water using logarithmic function as
presented in Eq. (25), Nu obtained by experiment with
different concentrations of alumina nanofluid is plotted against
inlet Re (Fig.8) and by curve fitting, the values of constant
coefficient and are modified for different coolants as
reported in Tab.10.
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
Uncertainty of measurement is the doubt that may exist
about the experimental data arises from measuring errors of
various parameters such as heat flux, temperatures, flow rate
etc. It can be defined as follows [8]:
Nu

Nu

q 2 T 2 v 2

q T v

(28)

In order to reduce the uncertainty of results, the

experiments have been repeated four times with each different
coolants and an uncertainty analysis has been carried out using
statistics and it is observed that measuring error is less than
1.0%.
TABLE 4.
Reynolds
Number
(Re)
1104
1.3104
1.7104
2104

COMPARISON OF Nu OBTAINED BY EXPERIMENT

AND VARIOUS CORRELATIONS FOR PURE WATER
Nusselt Number, Nu
NANO
Exp.
15.14
20.45
22.69
25.64

TABLE 5.
Correlation Name

Experiment
Dittus-Boelter
Sieder-Tate
Silberburg-Huber

DittusBoelter
63.90
79.14
97.57
114.51

SiederTate
70.89
87.79
108.23
127.03

SilberbergHuber
57.52
72.20
90.18
106.91

Weisman
76.01
94.13
116.05
136.20

COMPARISON OF MODIFIED CONSTANT

COEFFICIENTS
NANO Experiment
(Square Array)

0.026617
0.040055
0.044431
0.022740

0.69
0.80
0.80
0.85

Makhmalbafs
Experiment
(Hexagonal Array)

0.03337
0.8112
0.0309
0.80
0.0345
0.80
0.0187
0.875

TABLE 6.

COMPARISON OF Nu OBTAINED BY EXPERIMENT

AND VARIOUS CORRELATIONS FOR ALUMINA
NANOFLUID (0.01 VOL.%)

Reynolds
Number
(Re)

Nusselt Number, Nu
NANO
Experiment

Xuan &
Li

Pak &
Cho

Maiga et
al.

20.34
26.34
30.74
33.28

71.74
89.45
110.12
127.31

72.04
86.32
102.01
113.91

101.09
119.43
139.61
155.41

1104
1.3104
1.7104
2104
TABLE 7.

COMPARISON OF Nu OBTAINED BY EXPERIMENT

AND VARIOUS CORRELATIONS FOR ALUMINA
NANOFLUID (0.025 VOL.%)

Reynolds
Number
(Re)

Nusselt Number, Nu
NANO
Experiment

Xuan &
Li

Pak &
Cho

Maiga et
al.

20.59
27.03
30.40
31.82

85.37
106.45
131.05
151.51

70.30
84.23
99.55
111.16

99.38
117.40
137.24
152.78

1104
1.3104
1.7104
2104
TABLE 8.

COMPARISON OF Nu INCREMENT BY ALUMINA

NANOFLUID COPMARED TO PURE WATER

Reynolds
Number
(Re)

1104
1.3104
1.7104
2104
TABLE 9.

Nusselt Number, Nu

% increasing by
0.01 Vol.%

% increasing by
0.025 Vol.%

25.57
22.38
26.21
22.97

26.49
24.36
25.39
19.43

COMPARISON OF h INCREMENT BY ALUMINA

NANOFLUID COPMARED TO PURE WATER

Reynolds
Number
(Re)

1104
1.3104
1.7104
2104

Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient ,

h (W/m2.K)
% increasing by
0.01 Vol.%

% increasing by
0.025 Vol.%

27.66
24.56
28.28
25.13

31.51
29.53
30.49
24.93

TABLE 10.

COMPARISON OF MODIFIED CONSTANT

COEFFICIENTS FOR DIFFERENT COOLANTS

Coolant
Pure Water
0.01% Alumina Nanofluid
0.025% Alumina
Nanofluid

NANO Experiment

0.026617
0.042429
0.093574

0.69
0.67
0.59

FIGURE 10.
COMPARISON OF Nu OBTAINED BY
EXPERIMENT & CORRELATIONS FOR 0.025%
ALUMINA NANOFLUID.

FIGURE 7.

COMPARISON OF Nu OBTAINED BY
EXPERIMENT & CORRELATIONS
FOR PURE WATER.

FIGURE 11.

COMPARISON OF Nu OBTAINED BY
DIFFERENT COOLANTS.

FIGURE 12.

COMPARISON OF h OBTAINED BY
DIFFERENT COOLANTS.

FIGURE 8.
PLOT OF Nu AGAINST INLET Re USING
LOGARITHMIC FUNCTION FOR DIFFERENT COOLANTS.

FIGURE 9.

COMPARISON OF Nu OBTAINED BY
EXPERIMENT & CORRELATIONS FOR 0.01%
ALUMINA NANOFLUID.

PRESSURE DROP EXPERIMENTATION

The pressure drop across the NANO rod bundle assembly
is experimentally measured by means of two digital differential
pressure transducers (one at inlet of test section & another at
outlet of test section as shown in Fig. 2) for single phase
turbulent flow. The pressure loss in the complex configuration
of commercial spacers arises from several hydrodynamic
effects included in the flow. The spacer is used to fix the rods
in the bundle. The velocity and temperature distributions
redeveloped due to the blockage of the flow cross section
downstream of the spacer.
The total pressure drop for the test section of this study is
mainly aroused from the presence of inlet flow distributor, grid
spacers, frictional loss along the piping of the test section, due
to presence of various pipe fittings such as 900elbows, 1800
flow dividers etc., presence of sudden enlargement and
contraction in the path of coolant flow & due to the effect of
gravity. Hence, the theoretical pressure drop (P=Pin Pout)
can be expressed as follows:

PEstimated PSpacerGrid PFriction PGravity PForm

(29)

In the above equation, pressure drop due to spacer grids &

inlet flow divider has been calculated using the following
correlation of Rehme [15]:

PSpacerGrid

VV2 AS
CV

2 AV

(30)

where, Cv is modified drag coefficient, Vv is average

bundle fluid velocity, Av is unrestricted flow area away from
the grid or spacer and As is projected frontal area of the spacer.
The drag coefficient (Cv) is a function of average bundle,
unrestricted area Reynolds number. In this study value of Cv is
taken as 9.5 (at Re =104) as indicated by Rehmes data for
square arrays [12]. The frictional pressure drop has been

calculated by using the following equation:

L V 2

Dh 2

PFriction f

(31)

where, f is the average friction factor depends on the

channel geometry and flow velocity.
In case of turbulent flow, Rehme [15] proposed a method
to obtain the friction factor for subchannels in actual geometry.
Cheng and Todreas fitted results of this method with
polynomial of Eq. (32) as presented below [16]:

C /fiT a b1 P

1 b2 P

(32)

for turbulent flow:

/

fiT

C fiT

Re
/
iT

0.18

(33)

The above correlation can be used to obtain friction factor

in square array subchannel if the coefficients a, b1 and b2 are

evaluated using Table 9-3 as documented by Todreas & Kazimi

[16].
To obtain friction factor for circular piping of the NANO
apparatus, Mc Adams and Blasius correlations have been used
as presented in Eq. (34) and Eq. (35) respectively:
Mc Adams (for 30,000 Re 106):

f 0.184 Re 0.2

(34)

Blasius (for Re 30,000):

0.316
Re0.25

(35)

Pressure drop due to gravity and form loss due to

presence of abrupt change in flow directions and sudden
expansion/contraction have been estimated by using Eq. (36)
and Eq. (37) respectively [12]:

PGravity g Z cos

(36)

V 2

(37)

PForm k form

Comparison of experimental pressure drop with that of

theoretical estimation for different inlet Re and percentage of
estimated pressure drop caused by different components
present in NANO apparatus is shown in Fig.13 and Fig.14
respectively while pure water is used as coolant. Tab.11
documents the comparison of experimental pressure drop for
pure water and different concentrations of alumina nanofluid.
The results demonstrates that for pure water estimated
pressure drop falls within 5% to 18% of the experimental
pressure drop depending on inlet velocity. Note that as the flow
velocity is decreased, effect of grid spacers on pressure drop is
also lessened and effect of gravity starts to prevail (Fig.14)
which is logical as the test section is vertical. In case of the
lowest inlet Re, pressure drop due to the effect of gravity is
almost 69% of the total pressure drop. More interestingly, it is
observed that there is no change in pressure drop during
experiment with the inclusion of higher volume concentration
of nanoparticles. One logical explanation behind this
phenomena may be since the change in pressure drop when
concentration of nanofluid is increased from 0.0 vol% to 0.01
vol.% or 0.025 vol.% is too small that it could not be sensed by
the digital pressure transmitter with only two digit precision as
used in NANO apparatus. It is extremely difficult to establish a
pressure loss coefficient correlation of general validity for grid
spacers because of variation and complexity of the grid spacer
geometry.

APPLICATION TO FUSION-FISSION HYBRID SYSTEM

A fusion-fission hybrid is defined as a subcritical nuclear
reactor consisting of a fusion core surrounded by a fission
blanket. The fusion core provides an independent source of
neutrons, which allows the fission blanket to operate
subcritically.
The main applications of hybrids are: (1) nuclear waste
management by means of burning long-lived radioactive waste
products, (2) the simultaneous production of energy and
management of nuclear waste by deep-burn fuel cycles, and (3)
the breeding of new fissile fuel by substantially increasing the
utilization efficiency of U-238, or alternatively, converting to a
Th-232 fuel cycle.
One of the promising concepts of such fusion-fission
hybrid system is Fusion-driven subcritical reactor for energy
multiplier (FDS-EM), proposed by Y. Wu et al. [17]. The
basic concept of FDS-EM blanket is shown in Fig.15 featuring
a banana type module of 7.5 degree section angle, closed by
steel wall and internally supported by stiffening plate. It is
divided into the thick first wall (FW) containing coolant tube
bundles, fission fuel zone, thick stiffening plate (SP)
containing coolant tube bundles and tritium breeding zone in
radial direction. The circle tubes lead coolant water flowing
down. The coolant water is collected at bottom, and then feeds
into fission fuel zone cooling fuel assemblies. The entire
structure design with FW, side wall (SW), and stiffening plate
may sustain 15.5 MPa water coolant pressure.
The LiPb serves as tritium breeder and coolant which selfcools the breeding zone in six channels parallelly at the rear of
blanket. The LiPb is fed into blanket from the top of the
blanket and flow out at the bottom.
The present thermo-hydraulic study of square array rod
bundle using nanofluid coolant can be readily applied in
designing fission fuel zone of such a fusion-fission hybrid
system to enhance heat transfer and reduce pressure drop.
CONCLUSION
Despite analysis of reviewed literature as well as results of
NANO experiment delineates that nanofluid is capable of
augmenting the heat transfer capability remarkably, there is
still no satisfactory explanation proposed yet regarding the
prevention of clustering in nanoparticle suspensions.
Therefore, while attempting to implement nanofluid coolant in
PWR for long term use, clustering phenomenon of
nanoparticles may eventually decrease the thermal conductivity
and initiate problems like corrosion and wear inside piping
and pumps. Hence, the clustering of nanoparticles to be solved
first in order to utilize nanofluid as a promising coolant in
PWR to achieve both extended life time of associated
equipment and higher thermal efficiency.
The present study has been carried out in 33 square array
vertical rod bundle housed in a square shell with single phase
turbulent flow covering a range of Re from 7,463 to 20,904.
During analysis of convective heat transfer, the applicability of

well-known correlations from literature has been verified and

finally the constant coefficients of Dittus-Boelter correlation
have been modified for this NANO specific rod bundle using
pure water as well as two different concentrations of alumina
nanofluid. It has been experimentally observed that inclusion
of only 0.01 vol.% of alumina nanoparticles in pure water can
boost the convective heat transfer coefficient above 25%
subject to inlet Re.
In case of pressure drop, it is observed that deviation
between experimental and estimated pressure drop lies within
acceptable range which indicates that NANO apparatus is
capable of measuring pressure drop as well as pumping power
requirement satisfactorily. Finally, it may be concluded that
despite the difference in elevation plays a vital role in pressure
drop when velocity is low enough, the innovative design of
grid spacer is also of utmost importance to minimize the
overall pressure drop as well as pumping power.
TABLE 11.

Reynolds
Number

COMPARISON OF PRESSURE DROP FOR

DIFFERENT COOLANTS

Experimental Pressure Drop (Bar)

Pure
Water

Alumina Nanofluid
0.01%

20904.95
17111.90
13173.32
10082.71
7463.18

0.90
0.80
0.60
0.50
0.40

FIGURE 13.

0.90
0.80
0.60
0.50
0.40

0.025%
0.90
0.80
0.60
0.50
0.40

Estimated
Pr. Drop
with Pure
Water (Bar)
0.76
0.66
0.54
0.44
0.34

COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND

ESTIMATED PRESSURE DROP
FOR PURE WATER.

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]
FIGURE 14.

PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED PRESSURE

DROP CAUSED BY DIFFERENT
COMPONENTS OF NANO APPARATUS.

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]
FIGURE 15.

SCHEMATIC VIEW OF ENERGY MULTIPLIER

OUTBOARD BLANKET [18].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean
Government (MSIP) (No. 2008-0061900) and partly
supported by the Brain Korea 21 Plus Project (No.
21A20130012821).

[13]
[14]

[15]
[16]

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

Pirahmadian M.H., and Ebrahimi A., 2012. Theoretical

Investigation Heat Transfer Mechanism in Nanofluids
and the Effects of Clustering on Thermal Conductivity.
Int. J. Bioscience, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics, 2, 2,
March, pp. 90-94.
https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/m_src/m_src.html

[17]

Keblinski P., Eastman J.A., and Cahill D.G., 2005.

Nanofluids for thermal transport. Materials Today, 8,
6, June, pp. 36-44.
Jang S.P., and Choi S.U.S., 2004. Role of Brownian
Motion in the Enhanced Thermal Conductivity of
Nanofluids. Applied Phys. Lett, 177, May, pp. 43164318.
Das S.K., Choi S.U.S., Yu W., and Pradeep T., 2008.
Nanofluids: Science and Technology. John Wiley and
Sons, NJ.
Pak B.C., and Cho Y.I., 1998. Hydrodynamic and Heat
Transfer Study of Dispersed Fluids with Submicron
Metallic Oxide Particles. Exp. Heat Transfer, 11, pp.
151-170.
Maiga S.E.B., Palm S.J., Nguyen C.T., Roy G., and
Galanis N., 2005. Heat Transfer Enhancement by
Using Nanofluids in Forced Convection Flows. Int. J.
Heat Fluid Flow, 26, August, pp.530 - 546.
Xuan Y., and Li Q., 2003. Investigation on Convective
Heat Transfer and Flow Features of Nanofluids. J.
Heat Transfer, 125, pp. 151-155.
Dittus F.W., and Boelter L.M.K., 1930. Heat Transfer
in Automobile Radiators of the Tubular Type.
Publications in Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, 2, pp. 443.
Bianco V., Chiacchio F., Manca O., and Nardini S.,
2009. Numerical Investigation of Nanouids Forced
Convection in Circular Tubes. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 29, December, pp.36323642.
Son H.M., and Suh K.Y., 2014. Automated Scoping
Methodology for Liquid Metal Natural Circulation
Small Reactor. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 274,
pp.129-145.
Todreas N.E., and Kazimi M.S., 1990. Nuclear Systems
I: Thermal Hydraulic Fundamentals. Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, USA, pp.442-451.
Weisman J., 1959. Heat Transfer to Water Flowing
Parallel to Tube Bundles. Nucl. Sci. Eng., 6 (79).
Makhmalbaf M.H.M., 2012. Experimental Study on
Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient around a Vertical
Hexagonal Rod Bundle. Heat Mass Transfer, 48, pp.
1023-1029.
Rehme K., 1973. Pressure Drop Correlations for Fuel
Elements Spacers. Nucl. Technol., 17:15.
Todreas N.E., and Kazimi M.S., 1990. Nuclear Systems
I: Thermal Hydraulic Fundamentals, Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, USA, 384-386.
Wu Y., Chen H., Jiang J., Liu S., Bai Y., Chen Y., Jin
M., Liu Y., Wang M., and Hu Y., The Fusion-Fission
Hybrid Reactor for Energy Production: A Practical Path
to Fusion Application. Institute of Plasma Physics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui, 230031,
China (FT/P3-21).