Performance Evaluation of U-Tube Pulsating Heat Pipe with Water-Based Nanofluids

European Journal of Applied Sciences – Vol. 10, No. 1
Publication Date: February 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/aivp.101.11716.
Haque, S., Rashid, A. B., & Rhidoy, T. A. (2022). Performance Evaluation of U-Tube Pulsating Heat Pipe with Water-Based
Nanofluids. European Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(1). 417-427.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Performance Evaluation of U-Tube Pulsating Heat Pipe with
Water-Based Nanofluids
Md. Shahidul Haque
Mechanical Engineering Department
Military Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Adib Bin Rashid
Industrial & Production Engineering Department
Taokir Ahmed Rhidoy
Mechanical Engineering Department
ABSTRACT
The safety and efficiency of electronic equipment are becoming increasingly
critical as modern technologies progress significantly. The size of electronic
equipment is shrinking as it becomes more integrated. Hence, the heat load per
unit area increases, and the standard heat dissipation method may not fulfill their
requirements. Therefore, Pulsating Heat Pipe plays an essential role in efficiently
removing heat from congested surfaces to satisfy the requirement. To find
optimized parameters for a PHP, various investigations are conducted in this work
to help performance up-gradation of PHP. As the equipment gets smaller by size
and more heat has to be removed from smaller surfaces, nanoparticles can
significantly increase heat transfer performance. Furthermore, they can augment
the heat transfer ability of fluids inside the PHP by providing capillary wicking,
increased thermal effusivity, hydrodynamic instabilities, and structural disjoining
pressure. In this work, various experiment is carried out with water-based
Aluminum Oxide, Zinc Oxide, and Graphene Oxide Nanofluids. This work will help
upgrade PHP's performance and thus help enhance heat transfer performance
from smaller surfaces like Processor of Computers.
Keywords: Pulsating Heat Pipe, thermal effusivity, Nanofluids, Graphene Oxide, heat
transfer performance
INTRODUCTION
Thermal management is becoming an increasingly important consideration for electronic
design. Mechanical and thermal compliance, high heat transport capability, the low thermal
resistance from the chip to the heat sink, long-term dependability, small size, and low cost are
all requirements of modern technological development. To meet these needs, it is necessary to
simultaneously manage rising power levels and fluxes. The difficulties in the thermal
management of microelectronic parts will worsen as they get smaller. [1]

418
Vol. 10, Issue 1, February-2022
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS)
Creating an effective thermal management plan is vital for dissipating these high heat fluxes
and keeping the device operating at the right temperature. The size of heat pipes had to be
limited because of the high power density and limited space in most recent electronic devices,
such as desktop computers and communications equipment, which use heat pipes.[2]
The Pulsating Heat Pipe (PHP), unlike conventional heat pipes, lacks a wick structure and so
has high manufacturability, making it a promising technology for cooling applications, heat
exchangers, cryogenics, and spacecraft thermal management systems, among other
applications [3]. The to-and-fro movement of the working fluid induced by the continual
change of phase transfers heat between the evaporator and condenser parts. Many novel
concepts such as the use of surfactants [4], Nano fluids [5], [6], and magnetic fields [7]–[9]
have been used to improve the performance of PHPs.
Several researchers have studied the consequence of nano-fluids on the heat transfer
performance of PHPs. Many studies on the impact of using different Nanofluids applying
copper, silver colloidal, hydroxylated MWNTs, Graphene, TiO2 (titania) nano-particles, and
water as base fluid on the PHP performance indicated augmentation in the heat transfer limit
by a significant amount.[10]–[12]
Wu et al. experimentally studied the thermal behavior of a flat plate closed-loop pulsating
heat pipe (FCLPHP) with C60 Nanofluid as working fluid for three different concentrations of
0.1, 0.2, and 0.3% by weight. They observed that an increase in Nanofluid concentration leads
to an increase in heat transfer rate. [13]
Hashemi et al. investigated the effect of ZrO2/SiO2 nanocomposites in a pulsating heat pipe
and found nanofluid concentration of 0.25 g L−1 exhibited the best performance when the
resistance of pulsating heat pipe at some fluxes was decreased up to 48%.[14]
B. Verma et al. investigated the performance of PHP with Al2O3 Nanofluid of different
concentrations and at different orientations. It is found that there was a considerable
decrease in thermal resistance as compared to that of the base fluid as the concentration
increased from 0.25% to 1.0% but the thermal performance deteriorated as the concentration
increased by 1.25% to 2.5%. [15]
This study investigates the heat transfer behavior of a thin-walled Copper U tube PHP. The
analysis has the objective of finding out the thermal performance of the PHP with different fill
ratios and alignments [16] with water and then using those parameters to study the
performance of different Nanofluids in PHP. Such outcomes help understand the thermo-fluid
transportation occurrences inside the PHP capillary tube and create a scope of using
Nanofluids for efficient heat transfer.
METHODOLOGY
Experimental Setup
Figure -1 depicts a schematic illustration of the experimental setup used in this project. Here,
copper tubing with a 6.254 mm of outside diameter, 5.554 mm of inside diameter, and 131
mm of length was used to create a pulsing heat pipe in the shape of a U tube. Table 1 shows
the various measurements of the U-tube pulsing heat pipe system. The heat pipe's evaporator

419
Haque, S., Rashid, A. B., & Rhidoy, T. A. (2022). Performance Evaluation of U-Tube Pulsating Heat Pipe with Water-Based Nanofluids. European
Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(1). 417-427.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.101.11716
section was encased in a grooved Aluminum block. Grooves were precisely the same size as
the heat pipe to guarantee no gap between the block and the pipe tubing, ensuring that heat
flowed smoothly to the PHP.
Figure 1: Experimental Setup
Table 1: Measurements of the PHP system
Below the Aluminum block was a heating coil that served as a heat source. Evaporator,
adiabatic, and condenser are the three sections of PHP (Figure-2). The evaporator portion is
around 35 mm long, the adiabatic is approximately 40 mm long, and the condenser is about
108 mm long. The equipment was mounted on a pedestal that could be spun in various
directions. The stand was made of stainless steel and included a rubber carrier with insulating
material to prevent heat conduction. The evaporator section was below the condenser section
in the experiments at 0° (vertical), 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°. For the horizontal orientation (90°)
tests, all parts were on the same plane. The evaporator and adiabatic portions were both
thermally insulated. The condenser was exposed to the outside air, and the natural flow of air
cools the condenser part.
Parameters Symbol
Dimensions
(mm)
Total length of tube LPHP 183
Length of tube in evaporator
section
Le 35
Length of tube in condenser
section
Lc 108
Length of tube in adiabatic
section
Lad 040
Tube’s outer diameter do 6.254
Tube’s inner diameter di 5.554
Heating block H 35x35x5
Insulation I 39x40x75
Variac
Temperature
Data Logger
U-Tube PHP
Heater

420
Figure 2: CPU Cooler (PHP)
Preparation of Nanofluid
250ml deionized water is mixed up with the appropriate concentration of nanoparticles on a
bicker. Then the suspension was stirred for 4 hours in a magnetic stirrer at 400 rpm to
prepare Nanofluid. The same procedure was followed to make the Nano fluids of all
concentrations of the nanoparticles. After 24 hours, dispersion of the Nano fluids has been
examined. 0.2% Al2O3, 0.3% Zinc Oxide (ZnO), and 0.1g Graphene (RGO) showed the best
dispersion among all concentrations. Before property analysis (Heat Transfer Coefficient and
Viscosity) and Nano fluid insertion into the PHP, the suspension must be kept on an Ultra-
sonication bath for an hour to minimize dispersion. Various steps of preparation of Nanofluid
is shown in the Figure-3, and the measured value of Heat Transfer Coefficient and Viscosity of
the Nanofluid is shown in table -2.
Figure 3: Preparation of Nanofluid
Fan
Evaporator
Section
Adiabatic
Section
Condenser
Section
Stirring Operation
(04 Hours)
Dispersibility Test
(After 24 Hours)
Ultra Sonication
(Before Experiment)

421
Table 2: Properties of Nanofluid
Nanofluids
Heat Transfer
Coefficient (W/m2K)
Viscosity
(Pascal-
second)
Nanoparticles Concentration
Aluminum Oxide
(Al2O3)
0.1 1556.238 0.0024
0.3 2440.827 0.0019
0.5 291.3278 0.0028
Zinc Oxide
(ZnO)
0.1 3231.657 0.001358
0.3 474.0405 0.002106
0.5 567.59 0.0017603
Reduced
Graphene Oxide
(RGO)
0.1 4693.299 0.00084
0.3 7881.81.4 0.00079
0.5 18286.58 0.00072
Experimental Procedure
The tests were carried out at room temperature in a range of 29-32 degrees Celsius. The
evaporator part was connected with an Aluminum plate heated by a nichrome wire wound
ceramic heater to produce the appropriate heat load. A Variac controlled the heat load
powered by an AC power supply. Five K-type thermocouples were installed during the
experiments at various points on the device to measure the temperature. At the evaporator
portion, one thermocouple was located. Every 60 seconds, the temperatures were recorded.
The electric energy input was maintained at 13 W. The measurements were performed at
various angles (0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°) and three fill ratios of 40%, 60%, and 80% for
water. Then for the determination of condition of maximum efficiency, Nanofluids of Al2O3,
Graphene Oxide, and ZnO of 0.1,0.3 and 0.5 percent solution was used.
Data Collection and Calculation
Thermocouples, a digital thermometer, and a selector switch are used to detect temperatures
in different segments (evaporator, adiabatic, and condenser). Every 60 seconds, the
temperature in different areas is checked and recorded until the steady-state is attained. The
system reaches a steady-state after around 20 minutes if the incline is less than 90 degrees.
The temperature rise was observed and recorded in all testing sessions until the system
stabilized. Then, the values of heat transfer coefficient and thermal resistance at various
orientations and fill ratios were determined using the recorded temperature. The Aluminum
block, tube wall, and working fluid all share the total electrical heat input to the PHP (i.e. the
PHP). So, the PHP's heat transmission rate is computed using the heat balance equation
described by Shahid et al.[17].
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The PHP was used in an experimental run for three fill ratios of distilled water, the results of
which are summarized in Table 3. The inclination was set at five different angles between 0°
and 90° for each fill ratio. Temperatures were taken at several points throughout the PHP. The
heat transfer rate by working fluid, Qphp(Watt), the overall heat transfer coefficient, U (W/m2
°C), and the overall thermal resistance, R(°C/W), are all calculated using measured data of
temperature.

422
Table 3: An overview of the test runs
Fill
Ratio
V/Vmax
Inclination
Angle (θ)
Qphp(Watt)
Overall Heat
Transfer
Coefficient
Uphp (W/m² °C)
Thermal
Resistance R
(°C/W)
0.4
0° 4.551 808.36 2.68
30° 5.98 1335.85 1.62
45° 3.95 668.37 3.24
60° 1.43 195.57 1.08
90° 5.11 1439.07 1.51
0.6
0° 4.8 1022.96 2.12
30° 4.44 907.97 2.39
45° 3.70 724.22 2.99
60° 6.06 2054.35 1.05
90° 5.49 2207.13 0.98
0.8
0° 4.86 1043.71 2.08
30° 5.26 1151.21 1.88
45° 3.39 593.45 3.65
60° 4.29 862.02 2.51
90° 5.17 1230.69 1.76
Effect of Inclination angle and Fill-ratio:
The heating block received a constant heat input of 13 W, and temperature escalation in
various areas was measured until a steady state was reached. This is done for three different
fill ratios, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8, as well as inclinations of 0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°. Figures 4 to 6
depict the variation of temperature rising with time for various portions of the PHP.
It is evident from these graphs that for a similar amount of heat input, the temperature of
different parts rises in a similar way for fill ratios of 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8. For various inclinations,
the temperature increase rate is quite near each other in all regions.
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800
Evaporator
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
0 degree 30 degree 45 degree
60 degree 90 degree
30
35
40
45
0 200 400 600 800
Condenser
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
60 degree 90 degree
Figure 4: Temperature rises with time at fill ratio = 0.4 for different inclinations

423
Figure 7: Change of temperature at evaporator with different fill ratios at the PHP for different
inclination angles
It is seen from the above figures that the rise in temperature at evaporator is less at 30°,45ᵒ
and 30ᵒ inclinations for 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 fill ratios, respectively. That means high heat transfer
from the evaporator to condenser. On the contrary, the temperature rise is high at 60°, 30ᵒ
and 60ᵒ for 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 fill ratios, respectively. That means less heat transfer from the
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800
Evaporator
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
60 degree 90 degree
30
35
40
45
0 200 400 600 800
Condenser
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
60 degree 90 degree
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800
Evaporator
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
60 degree 90 degree
30
35
40
45
0 200 400 600 800
Condenser
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
60 degree 90 degree
99
102
105
108
111
114
117
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Fill Ratio
0 degree
30 degree
45 degree
60 degree
90 degree

424
evaporator to condenser. The rise in temperature at condenser is less at 30°, 45ᵒ and 30ᵒ
inclination for 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 fill ratios, respectively. That means high heat dissipation from
the condenser to the atmosphere. On the contrary, the rise in temperature at condenser is
high at 90° inclination for 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 fill ratios. That means less heat dissipation from the
condenser to atmosphere.
Again, from the figure-7 it is clear that for 60% fill ratio and 45-degree angle, evaporator
temperature is lowest; hence heat transfer rate is higher. Heat transfer rate, Variation of
overall Heat transfer coefficient, and change in thermal resistance to heat flow through the
PHP at various fill ratios and inclinations are shown in figure 8. The figure show that Qphp, U,
and R are higher for 60% fills ratio and 60ᵒ inclination.
Figure 8: Comparison of the increase rates of Qphp, U, and R for different Fill Ratios
Effect of Nano-fluid:
The graphs show that PHP gives maximum heat transfer efficiency at 60% fill ratio and 60ᵒ
inclination. Hence using these conditions, water-based Al2O3, GO and ZnO Nanofluids are used
to observe their output. Figure 9 to 11. shows rise in temperature in evaporator and
condenser section. 0.1%, 0.3% and 0.5% Al2O3 and GO and 0.1%, 0.2%,0.3% ZnO is used for
this purpose and then results are compared with water.
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800
Evaporator
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
water 0.1% Al2O3
0.3% Al2O3 0.5% Al2O3
30
35
40
45
50
0 200 400 600 800
Condenser
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
Water 0.1% Al2O3
0.3% Al2O3 0.5% Al2O3
Figure 9: Temperature rises with time for Al2O3-Water Nanofluid

425
It is seen from the above figures that the rise in temperature at the evaporator is less for 0.3%
Al2O3, 0.5% GO, and 0.1% ZnO than Water, that means high heat transfer from the evaporator
to the condenser. On the other hand, at condenser for 0.5% Al2O3 and 0.5% GO temperature
rise is high, which means high heat transfer from the evaporator to condenser. While using
ZnO nanofluids, the temperature rise is high for water. That means, in this case water is better
than ZnO-Water nanofluid.
Figure 12: Comparison of the rates of R, Qphp, and U for different nanofluids
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800
Evaporator
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
Water 0.1% GO
0.3% GO 0.5% GO
30
35
40
45
50
0 200 400 600 800
Condenser
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
Water 0.1% GO
0.3% GO 0.5% GO
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800
Evaporator
Temperature(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
water 0.1% ZnO
0.3% ZnO 0.5% ZnO
30
35
40
45
0 200 400 600 800
Condenser
Temperature
(ᵒc)
Time (Sec)
Water 0.1% ZnO
0.3% ZnO 0.5% ZnO
Figure 10: Temperature rises with time for GO-Water Nanofluid
Figure 11: Temperature rises with time for ZnO-Water Nanofluid

426
The figure-12 shows that Qphp is higher for 0.5% GO, which is 25.33% higher than water. For
0.3% Al2O3 it is 17.08% and for 0.1% ZnO, it is 8.6% higher. Again, it is seen that U is higher
for 0.5% GO which is 1214.28% higher than water. For 0.3% Al2O3 it is 27.68% and for 0.1%
ZnO, it is 7.38% higher. R is reduced by 41.71% for 0.5% GO from Water. For 0.3% Al2O3 it is
15.64% less and for 0.1% ZnO, it is 14.7% higher than water.
CONCLUSION
The current research exhibits an experimental evaluation of a U Tube Pulsating Heat Pipe's
thermal analysis. Water as a working fluid is tested in natural cooling modes at varying
inclinations of 0, 30, 45, 60, and 90 degrees. Evaporation, condensation, and adiabatic section
temperatures are all measured. Heat transfer rate, overall heat transfer coefficient, and
thermal resistance are determined using these data to compare the heat pipe's performance
under various conditions. Three different Nano fluids are also utilized to monitor heat
transmission at PHP for the maximum heat transfer rate condition. The following are some of
the findings that could be drawn from this investigation:
(a) The pulsing liquid and vapor inside the tube transfers heat from the evaporator to the
condenser.When the heat flux is modest, the working medium produces tiny bubbles
that are adequate to transfer heat from the evaporator to the condenser. However, the
fill ratio 0.8 could not produce enough big bubbles to transport heat to the condenser
portion because of the limited space. This reduces heat transfer at fill ratio 0.8
compared to 0.4 and 0.6 fill ratios.
(b) 60° and 90˚ inclination gives better overall heat transfer coefficient than other setup
orientations. After 60˚ and 90˚ with the decrease of inclination, the overall heat
transfer coefficient decreases and at 0° inclinations, the value is lower because the
bubble does not get enough bouncy force to move up and transfer the heat to the
condenser section. For all inclinations, fill ratio 0.4 and 0.6 gives better performance
than fill ratio 0.8 because fill ratio 0.4 and 0.6 get more space than fill ratio 0.8 to
produce enough bubble to transfer the heat to the condenser section.
(c) PHP's thermal resistance is stronger for fill ratios of 0.8 than for fill ratios of 0.4 and
0.6. Input thermal resistance of PHP with fill ratio 0.8 decreases more slowly than fill
ratios 0.4 and 0.6 as heat increases. The rate of decline of thermal resistance is lower at
inclination than at any other inclination, and the thermal resistance of PHP increases
rather than decreases with increasing heat input at inclination 0 and fill ratio 0.8.
(d) GO, Al2O3 and ZnO nanoparticles gives higher overall heat transfer coefficient because
of their high heat transfer capability, thermal effusivity and capillary wicking. For GO, it
is much higher and also for Al2O3. But with increase of Al2O3 beyond 0.3%, it decreases.
For ZnO, the overall heat transfer coefficient decreases with the increase of
nanoparticles.
(e) Thermal resistance gets lowered with the increase of GO. with increase of Al2O3 beyond
0.3% it gets higher. On the other hand, ZnO raises thermal resistance as its percentage
increases.

427
References
[1] D. Bastakoti, H. Zhang, D. Li, W. Cai, and F. Li, “An overview on the developing trend of pulsating heat pipe and
its performance,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 141, pp. 305–332, Aug. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.05.121.
[2] J. Liu, F. Shang, K. Yang, C. Liu, and Y. Wu, “Study on application technology of pulsating heat pipe,” E3S Web
Conf., vol. 248, p. 01051, 2021, doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202124801051.
[3] C. Dave, P. Dandale, K. Shr Vastava, D. Dhaygude, K. Rahangdale, and N. More, “A REVIEW ON PULSATING
HEAT PIPES: LATEST RESEARCH, APPLICATIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE,” Journal of Thermal Engineering, pp.
387–408, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.18186/thermal.878983.
[4] X. H. Wang, H. C. Zheng, M. Q. Si, X. H. Han, and G. M. Chen, “Experimental investigation of the influence of
surfactant on the heat transfer performance of pulsating heat pipe,” International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, vol. 83, pp. 586–590, Apr. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2014.12.010.
[5] A. Akbari and M. H. Saidi, “Experimental investigation of nanofluid stability on thermal performance and flow
regimes in pulsating heat pipe,” J Therm Anal Calorim, vol. 135, no. 3, pp. 1835–1847, Feb. 2019, doi:
10.1007/s10973-018-7388-3.
[6] S. M. Hashemi, A. Maleki, and M. H. Ahmadi, “The effect of some metal oxide nanocomposites on the pulsating
heat pipe performance,” Energy Reports, vol. 7, pp. 8825–8833, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.10.065.
[7] R. Eluru and D. K. Mohanty, “Significance of Magnetic Nano Fluids in Pulsating Heat Pipes – A Review,” Energy
Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, pp. 1–30, Aug. 2021, doi:
10.1080/15567036.2021.1968075.
[8] M. Mohammadi et al., “Open-Loop Pulsating Heat Pipes Charged With Magnetic Nanofluids: Powerful
Candidates for Future Electronic Coolers,” Nanoscale and Microscale Thermophysical Engineering, vol. 18, no. 1,
pp. 18–38, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1080/15567265.2013.787570.
[9] M. Taslimifar, M. Mohammadi, H. Afshin, M. H. Saidi, and M. B. Shafii, “Overall thermal performance of
ferrofluidic open loop pulsating heat pipes: An experimental approach,” International Journal of Thermal
Sciences, vol. Complete, no. 65, pp. 234–241, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2012.10.016.
[10] V. K. Karthikeyan, K. Ramachandran, B. C. Pillai, and A. Brusly Solomon, “Effect of nanofluids on thermal
performance of closed loop pulsating heat pipe,” Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, vol. 54, pp. 171–178,
Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2014.02.007.
[11] M. Xing, J. Yu, and R. Wang, “Performance of a vertical closed pulsating heat pipe with hydroxylated MWNTs
nanofluid,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 112, pp. 81–88, Sep. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.04.112.
[12] M. A. Nazari, R. Ghasempour, M. H. Ahmadi, G. Heydarian, and M. B. Shafii, “Experimental investigation of
graphene oxide nanofluid on heat transfer enhancement of pulsating heat pipe,” International Communications in
Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 91, pp. 90–94, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2017.12.006.
[13] K. Wu, J. Yu, and X. Jiang, “Multi-walled carbon nanotubes modified by polyaniline for the removal of alizarin
yellow R from aqueous solutions,” Adsorption Science & Technology, vol. 36, no. 1–2, pp. 198–214, 2018.
[14] S. M. Hashemi, A. Maleki, and M. H. Ahmadi, “The impact of ZrO2/SiO2 and ZrO2/SiO2@PANI nanofluid on
the performance of pulsating heat pipe, an experimental study,” J Nanostruct Chem, Oct. 2021, doi:
10.1007/s40097-021-00451-4.
[15] B. Verma, V. L. Yadav, and K. K. Srivastava, “EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON THERMAL PERFORMANCE OF
PULSATING HEAT PIPE WITH Al2O3-DEIONIZEDWATER NANOFLUID AT DIFFERENT ORIENTATIONS,” J Enh
Heat Transf, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 153–163, 2013, doi: 10.1615/JEnhHeatTransf.2013006540.
[16] S. Haque, A. B. Rashid, and M. Razzaq, “PARAMETRIC OPTIMIZATION OF PULSATING HEAT PIPE BY
TAGUCHI METHOD,” p. 11.
[17] M. S. Haque, A. Majumdar, Md. F. Kader, and Md. M. Razzaq, “Thermal characteristics of an ammonia-charged
closed-loop pulsating heat pipe,” J Mech Sci Technol, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1907–1914, Apr. 2019, doi:
10.1007/s12206-018-0545-6.

Performance Evaluation of U-Tube Pulsating Heat Pipe with Water-Based Nanofluids

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Performance Evaluation of U-Tube Pulsating Heat Pipe with Water-Based Nanofluids

Similar to Performance Evaluation of U-Tube Pulsating Heat Pipe with Water-Based Nanofluids (20)

More from Adib Bin Rashid

More from Adib Bin Rashid (19)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Performance Evaluation of U-Tube Pulsating Heat Pipe with Water-Based Nanofluids